LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJUNE 04/2011

Biblical Event Of The Day
James 5/1-6: "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming on you. 5:2 Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. 5:3 Your gold and your silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be for a testimony against you, and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up your treasure in the last days. 5:4 Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of those who reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Armies. 5:5 You have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure. You have nourished your hearts as in a day of slaughter. 5:6 You have condemned, you have murdered the righteous one. He doesn’t resist you.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
For Arab despots, the skies are limited/By: Michael Young/June 03/11
Rational and dangerous/By Emily B. Landau/Haaretz/June 03/11
The Ayatollah will overwhelm Ahmadinejad/By Mehdi Khalaji/June 03/11
The void in Beirut. Who really gains?/By: Michael Young/June 03/11
The child who shook Syria/By: Tariq Alhomayed/June 03/11
Will Outrage at the Torture of a 13-Year-Old Help Syrians Overcome Their Fear of the Regime/TIME/June 03/11
No such thing as the better devil/By ZALMAN SHOVAL/June 03/11
The reform ploy/Tony Badran/June 03/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 03/11
Syria security forces kill 27 at Hama protests, rights group says/By Reuters /Haaretz
Huge demonstration rocks Syria’s Hama/Now Lebanon
Ex-Mossad Chief: Attack on Tehran Will Drag Hizbullah, Syria into War/Naharnet
Pope Meets Abbas Amid Mideast Tensions/Naharnet
LIVE: Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun speaks following his bloc's/Now Lebanon
Iran has secretly stocked enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs/DEBKAfile
Lebanese army bans protests near Israel border/Now Lebanon
Fate of Central Bank Governor Lies in Hand of Indecisive Stances/Naharnet
Report: Youssef Didn’t Hand Over Telecom Building Keys to Qahwaji/Naharnet
Pro and Anti Assad Rallies in Downtown Beirut/Naharnet
Jumblat Meets Gemayel Amid Efforts to Expand Centrist Forces/Naharnet
ISF Seizes Documents, PCs from ‘Muslims Without Borders’ in Bekaa/Naharnet

March 8 Forces are Highly Optimistic but Miqati Denies Deal/Naharnet

Rights group: Dozens killed in latest clashes in Syria/CNN
Syria: Human Right Watch warns "We've never seen such horror"/IBT
Evidence grows Iran aiding Syria's Assad/UPI
Syria Continues Attacks on Protesters While Calling for Dialogue/NYT
Clinton Faults International Unity on Syria Crackdown/VOA
Crowley Pressures Obama on Syria/US N&WR
Video: Human rights abuses in Syria?Global Post
U.N. advisers alarmed at "systematic" Syria violence/Reuters
Peres urges Russia to cease sale of advanced weapons to Syria/Haaretz
Syrian runaw
ays arrested in Lebanon/Now Lebanon
Lebanon seals off Israel border ahead of planned demonstrations/Haaretz
Syrians to March for Young Martyrs/NYT
Syrians Protest Alone as Army Loyalty, World's Inaction Leave Assad Free/Bloomberg
South Korean UNIFIL contingent announces Tyre road project/Daily Star
Optimism for Cabinet rekindled/Daily Star
Abandoned Nissan found to contain weapons, second car booby trapped/Daily Star
Land ownership and civil service posts top Maronite leaders' agenda/Daily Star
Beck: Hezbollah and Hamas/Fox News
Saudi rulers aid allies against Iran and popular uprisings/Daily Star

Huge demonstration rocks Syria’s Hama
June 3, 2011 ظMore than 50,000 anti-regime demonstrators rallied in the Syrian city of Hama on Friday, a rights group said, as activists called for protests over the dozens of children reportedly killed in anti-government demonstrations. Near the southern protest hub of Daraa, security forces opened fire to disperse a crowd in Jassem, a rights activist told AFP, as protestors also gathered in nearby Dael and in Kurdish towns of northern Syria. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said security forces shot in the air as more than 50,000 demonstrators flooded the streets of Hama, in central Syria. Overnight, in several cities including Aleppo in the north and Deir az-Zour in eastern Syria residents took to rooftops to chant "God is Greatest," said the group's head, Rami Abdel Rahman. A government crackdown which is now focused on the flashpoint Homs region has left at least 75 civilians and military personnel dead since Sunday, according to Abdel Rahman. Syrian state television on Friday broadcast the testimonies of three suspected members of an "an armed criminal group" who said they had "killed demonstrators and security agents" in Homs. Residents, meanwhile, said Internet lines were cut in Damascus and the coastal city of Latakia on Friday, in a repeat of a suspension of services at the start of April. Syrian activists called the latest protests over the dozens of children killed in anti-government protests such as 13-year-old Hamza al-Khatib whom activists say was tortured to death, a charge denied by the authorities. More than 1,100 civilians have been killed and at least 10,000 arrested in a brutal crackdown on almost daily anti-regime demonstrations in Syria since March 15, human rights organizations say.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Syria security forces kill 27 at Hama protests, rights group says

By Reuters /HaaretzظSyrian security forces killed 27 protesters in the city of Hama where tens of thousands had been demonstrating against President Bashar Assad on Friday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said."There are also scores of wounded and the death toll may rise," the Observatory's Rami Abdulrahman told Reuters.
Three residents said that security forces, including snipers, fired from automatic rifles at thousands of demonstrators in the old quarter and in the nearby Assi Square in some of the biggest protests the city has seen since the uprising against President Bashar Assad erupted in March.
Syrian anti-regime protesters carry national flags and banners during a rally in Talbiseh, in the central province of Homs, Syria, May 27, 2011.
Scores of casualties were taken to the Horani hospital in the city, they added.
Hama, 300 km (186 miles) north of Damascus, was attacked in the 1980s by troops to crush an Islamist-led uprising.
Syrian forces opened fire on to disperse demonstrators in several parts of the country on Friday, residents said, and protesters defied a widespread military crackdown to demand that Assad must go. In a pattern seen every Friday since mid-March, protesters have marched out of mosques after noon prayers, to be met by security forces intent on crushing a revolt against Assad, in power in Syria for the last 11 years. Activists and residents said thousands of people marched in the northwestern province of Idlib, the Kurdish northeast, several Damascus suburbs, the cities of Homs and Hama and the town of Madaya and Zabadani, in the west. Residents said security forces opened fire in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor and in Damascus' Barzeh district. "Some of the biggest demonstrations today are in Idlib and Hama. There is also intense gunfire in Hama," said Rami Abdulrahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. In the southern city of Daraa, where protests first broke out 11 weeks ago, hundreds defied a military curfew and held protests, chanting "No dialogue with killers", two residents in the city told Reuters. The protest later broke up. Analysts say protests continue to spread despite the military crackdown, but show no sign of reaching the scale needed to topple Assad's rule. Rights groups say Syrian security forces have killed more than 1,000 civilians in the unrest, provoking international outrage at Assad's ruthless handling of the demonstrators and leading U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to say Assad's legitimacy "had nearly run out". Syrian authorities blame the violence on armed groups, backed by Islamists and foreign powers, and say the groups have fired on civilians and security forces alike. Authorities have prevented most international media from operating, making it impossible to verify accounts of the violence.
Assad has responded to what is the most sustained and challenging rebellion against his rule by sending in tanks to crush demonstrations in certain flashpoints and by making some reformist gestures, such as issuing a general amnesty to political prisoners and launching national dialogue.
World outrage grows
But protesters and opposition figures have largely dismissed these measures. The cities of Daraa, Tel Kelakh, Banias and the town of Rastan have all witnessed intense crackdowns by the military. The international community has escalated its condemnation of Assad as the unrest shows no signs of abating and the death toll grows.
The United States, the European Union and Australia have all imposed sanctions on Syria, but perhaps because of reluctance to get entangled in another confrontation, such as Libya, and wary of provoking more instability in a region still in the midst of an "Arab Spring", their responses have been less vehement.
But outrage has grown over the death of a 13-year-old boy, Hamza al-Khatib, whom activists say was tortured and mutilated, before being given back to his family. Syria denies he was tortured. Khatib has emerged as a potent symbol for protesters and in Dael, a town near Daraa, about 5,000 protesters raised pictures of him as they called for freedom and the downfall of the regime. Two UN special advisers said they were alarmed about the Syrian authorities' "systematic and deliberate attacks" against civilians, adding they appear to have been targeting residential neighborhoods in their operations. Opposition figures meeting in Turkey called on Assad to resign immediately and hand power to the vice president until a council is formed to transform the country to democracy

Nasrallah threatens Saudi Arabia

03/06/2011ظBy Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
How ironic! Hezbollah's leader threatened the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and defended Syria's oppressive regime in commemoration of Khomeini's death. Nasrallah sang the praises of what he called the advantages the Wilayat Al Faqih concept has done for Iran and the Iranians.
In his speech, Nasrallah said that if Syria gets divided, Saudi Arabia will be next in line. This is an explicit threat to Riyadh from Hezbollah's leader who is gradually revealing his sectarian face, political ignorance and selective memory. As we have said earlier, the more Nasrallah speaks, the more he implicates himself and his party. Nasrallah who today talks of a regional US-sponsored division project targeting Syria pretends to have forgotten what he himself said after Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal announced that the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques had withdrawn from the Lebanese mediation issue. Back then, Faisal warned about the dangers of dividing Lebanon.
Afterwards, Nasrallah came out sarcastically commenting on Faisal's statement. In a televised speech, Nasrallah stated that "They say there is a danger of Lebanon getting divided." Then he added: "What kind of talk is this? Lebanon in its entirety is this small," while pointing to the palm of his hand and smiling in scorn. Today Nasrallah steps forth and warns against the dangers of dividing Lebanon. I have never seen anything more naïve. Let us contemplate the situation in more detail. Nasrallah supports Bahrain's Shiaa who demand the establishment of an Islamic Bahraini republic and does not fear the consequences of a division over there or the US scheme. But in Syria's case, Nasrallah fears any act of division because the people who have lived for decades under the rule of a minority - which has governed like monarchs - have finally risen to demand their rights and dignity. How hypocritical of him! Could there be uglier example of sectarianism? Nasrallah's threat to Saudi Arabia is clear and so are his targets. Hezbollah's leader is like the "Analysts" of the Syrian regime on Arab satellite TV stations. However, Nasrallah is considered Iran's "Analyst" on the ground and their weapon of choice when it comes to abducting Lebanon. But he is not a useful weapon especially when taking into consideration something important in his latest speech in which he threatened Saudi Arabia. Nasrallah disclosed a deep sense of fear within him when he advocated the necessity of developing the State concept in Lebanon. It was a plain attempt on Nasrallah's part to forestall the anticipated repercussions of the Syrian regime's toppling.
Even though Nasrallah projected confidence and jested with his audience by saying that the Wilayat Al Faqih State has no "Star Academy" youth in it, he must have definitely heard the Syrian youth shouting out: "No Iran, no Hezbollah…We want a Muslim who fears God." Nasrallah knows very well this is not the "Star Academy" youth's chant in Syria, but the chant of those who say it out loud: "We prefer death to humiliation!"
Nasrallah's threats to Saudi Arabia are evident and so is his support for Syria's suppressive regime. This attitude unmasks his sectarian face and unveils the fix Hezbollah is in today. Hezbollah knows that overthrowing the Damascus regime would mean the collapse of Iran's foreign policy and the end of Hezbollah itself. This is the story and today we are watching the most exciting chapter of it. As for Saudi Arabia, Nasrallah and Iran know very well that those who have "Crossed the bridge" have nothing to fear.

Iran has secretly stocked enriched uranium for four nuclear bombs

DEBKAfile Special Report June 3, 2011,
The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, American's scientific watchdog on world nuclear weapons production, estimates that by Dec. 2008, Iran had accumulated enough U-235 to fuel one nuclear bomb; by 2009, enough for a second, by August 2010 material for a third bomb and by April 2011, enough enriched uranium for a fourth bomb.
These estimates presuppose an Iranian decision to further process low-enriched material to weapons grade - a process taking no more than a couple of months.
Iran, says the Wisconsin Project, is consolidating its status as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state – meaning it can set about building a bomb whenever its rulers so decide.
In its twice-annual report published Thursday, June 2, Wisconsin revealed three further developments in Iran's nuclear drive:
1. Since November 2010, when Iran stopped enriching uranium in all cascades at the Natanz plant for about a week (the report does not give the reason for the stoppage – possibly a Stuxnet virus invasion of its computer control system), the enrichment rate has increased. The 5,000 centrifuges spinning in February 2011 increased to nearly 6,000 in May 2011.
debkafile's Iranian sources add: Prof. Ferei-doon Abbasi Davani has taken over as director of the enrichment complex at Natanz. He was formerly in charge of combating the Stuxflex worm. Last November, Prof. Abbasi Dayani escaped with light injuries from an attack by a pair of motorcyclists who attached a sticky bomb to his car. It occurred near the Imam Hossein University in Tehran where most of Iran's secret nuclear labs are located.
2. Wisconsin quotes the International Atomic Energy Agency's May 2011 report that one of its seals was broken in the "feed and withdrawal area" of the Natanz enrichment plant.
This means that Iran took action to conceal the real amount of is enriched uranium stockpile from the nuclear watchdog and the fact, as Wisconsin reports, that it has accumulated enough material for building four nuclear bombs. Its steady progress will go undetected until the next IAEA inventory in October or November.
debkafile's intelligence sources point out that Tehran has won a period of six to seven months for keeping its nuclear activities hidden from oversight with no one in the West or in Israel able to find out what is going on at the Natanz enrichment plant.
3. Wisconsin goes on to state: "Uncertainties about the number of centrifuges operated by Iran make it difficult to draw a conclusion about the performance of individual machines." More machines may be switched on when IAEA inspectors are not present while less, more advanced centrifuges, may take over after the inspection is over.
Our sources stress that these revelations are highly pertinent to the controversy taking place in Israel over the surprising comments by ex-Mossad Director Meir Dagan.
Dubbed "Mister Stop the Bomb" for reputedly directing covert operations that held off Iran's nuclear threat for five or six years – though this may an exaggeration - Dagan suddenly began speaking out strongly against any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program. Wednesday, June 1, he implicitly warned that such an attack would precipitate a regional war in which Israel would fare badly.
Israel's political and defense establishments have always had their doves but Dagan is sounding one like for the first time.
The controversy around his comments reflects a similar argument afoot in US political and defense circles over whether the time has come to smash Iran's nuclear capability or stand by and let the Islamic Republic becomes a "virtual nuclear weapon state."
In the last three years, the two schools of thought for and against military action against Iran have been joined by a third, which affirms that the US and Israel can live with an Iran armed with one or two nuclear bombs because this number would be dwarfed even by Israel's reputed stock let alone the American arsenal. Therefore, until Iran stockpiles a serous arsenal of weapons, it does not constitute an existential threat to Israel.
The Wisconsin Project's latest report explodes this argument because it exposes the steady accumulation of materials for four bombs in two-and-a-half years and Iran's dogged advance toward a serious arsenal unless it is stopped. That is the reason why the military option is back on the table in Jerusalem

Rational and dangerous

By Emily B. Landau/Haaretz
The real danger of Iran lies in its cold rationality; it will no doubt pose severe challenges to the region and the world, but will be very careful that no one action, by itself, will be blatant or outrageous enough to elicit a military response.
While popular uprisings in the Middle East have captured the lion's share of media attention in recent months, Iran's march to a military nuclear capability continues, as reflected in the latest IAEA report on Iran, released last week. As strange as this may sound, the foremost danger of Iran ultimately crossing the threshold and becoming a nuclear state is not the prospect that it will act irrationally in this new status. Irrationality would imply that Iran could at some point break the rules of mutual deterrence by launching a nuclear strike without regard for the anticipated reaction. In fact, the probability of this happening is quite low. Rather, the more immediate danger of a nuclear Iran lies in the extreme rationality that it is most likely to display in its actions vis-a-vis the region.
While there is a tendency in common usage to equate "rationality" with "reasonableness," the two are not necessarily the same. What rationality implies is simply the pursuit of one's goal in line with a logical cost-benefit analysis. Rationality in and of itself remains agnostic about the nature of the goal being pursued, and that goal can be quite sinister. The real danger of a nuclear Iran is that this state will continue to act as rationally as it has since the current nuclear crisis began - in this case, using its image as a nuclear state as a cover to enhance its regional hegemonic goals, and advance its revisionist approach to the Middle East.
Consider how Iran has played the game of moving toward a nuclear bomb over the past decade. If there's one lesson that can be gleaned from observing Iran's behavior on the nuclear front in this period, it is that it has proceeded very carefully. While many may perceive Tehran as a rash and reckless regime rushing toward its goal of a military nuclear capability, closer scrutiny reveals a different picture. One can easily identify a pattern whereby Iran tests the international waters after almost every step it takes. Indeed, it has until now employed a simple cost-benefit analysis as its guide: moving forward on its nuclear program at maximum speed, but with minimal cost to itself - in economic, and certainly military, terms. This is what led the Islamic regime at times to swallow the pill of assuming a more cooperative approach, as a tactic to ward off the harshest pressure.
As a non-nuclear state member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has had to carry out its work toward military capability clandestinely. It had to be constantly vigilant - getting caught red-handed would have exacted a high price. While Tehran concluded that it could endure a measure of economic hardship as a result of the suspicions that its activities aroused, it has been much more cautious about the prospect of being attacked militarily. Iran, however, has gradually been reassured that the risk of such action is minimal. In good part due to statements by high-level U.S. officials openly rejecting the military option for fear of the dire consequences of opening an additional front, Iran has come to discount the threat, even as both the United States and Israel repeat the familiar refrain that all options remain on the table.
There is little reason to believe that once it has achieved nuclear status, the current regime in Iran will be any less rational in its cost-benefit analysis, or any less averse to the prospect of being a target of military force than it was while en route to the bomb.
And as a nuclear state, Iran will most likely conclude that the deterrent threats by the United States and Israel will be much more credible than past warnings, due to the immediate and devastating effects of an actual nuclear attack by Iran. Therefore, it will most likely be deterred from carrying out such action.
But the point is that Iran doesn't need to attack with nuclear weapons in order to enhance and entrench its regional prominence and hegemony. In fact, such an attack would be counterproductive. For achieving this goal, there is a much more rational route to take: namely, steady and controlled action under the nuclear threshold. What this means is that while the Islamic regime will no doubt try to push the envelope in its pursuit of greater power and influence in the Middle East - such as by continuing to arm its proxies and perhaps being less vigilant about hiding these efforts - it will nevertheless make sure that any such moves remain well below the threshold that could elicit a nuclear or other military response.
The real danger of Iran thus lies in its cold rationality. It will no doubt pose severe challenges to the region and the world, but will be very careful that no one action, by itself, will be blatant or outrageous enough to elicit a military response. Moreover, assuming it does not act in a truly extreme manner, it will most likely enjoy enhanced immunity to counterattack for most of the actions it takes, exploiting the fact that all states will be even more wary than before of attacking Iran - once it is a nuclear state.
**Emily B. Landau is director of the Arms Control and Regional Security program at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University.

For Arab despots, the skies are limited

Michael Young, June 3, 2011
Imagine, for a thrilling moment, that you are an Arab autocrat. Your regime has just crumbled all around you and there you are, standing alone on the tarmac of the airport with slabs of bullion being loaded onto your private jet. Where on earth, literally, do you fly to?
It’s some relief to know that the expansion of international justice and accountability during the past decade makes an answer increasingly difficult to come by. At one moment there was speculation that the Libyan leader, Moammar al-Qaddafi, would bolt to Venezuela. But honestly, Venezuela?! Tunisia’s Zine al-Abedine bin Ali made his way to Saudi Arabia. Yet who readily wants to end his days in Wahhabi austerity? And while Hosni Mubarak announced that he would die in Egypt, then flew to Sharm al-Sheikh to prove it, this only guaranteed that he would become a pawn in a post-revolution power struggle between the armed forces and youths who overthrew his regime.
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, perhaps one or two other outposts in the Gulf, even in Central Asia – the choices are thinning fast for the dictator on the run. Qaddafi and bin Ali were once received with full honors in European capitals, rather like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, but it’s very unlikely that any of the three will be able to shop in Paris, London and Rome again, at least without facing arrest or legal action.
This is a useful message to ponder days after the discovery of the Bosnian Serb general, Ratko Mladic, 16 years after he masterminded the butchery of some 8,000 Muslims caught in the vise of Srebrenica. Mladic was among the first to learn that in this era of televised and videotaped atrocities, you’re only as good as your last movie. It takes a bold leader to order his soldiers and security forces to massacre unarmed opponents; but also one who has trouble understanding that the world is changing, so that you can suddenly find yourself crushed by the terrible power of international embarrassment.
Take Bashar al-Assad. He was feted for so long, his wife admired so fawningly, that it is understandably difficult for the Syrian leader to grasp that he may soon conceivably become an international fugitive.
In retrospect, what a foul crew of rulers the Middle East has thrown forth in recent decades. Omar al-Bachir of Sudan, along with Qaddafi, are wrestling with indictments issued by the International Criminal Court. Mubarak may yet stand trial at home. Saddam Hussein faced an Iraqi court and was executed in a parody of justice, but no one would seriously argue that he didn’t deserve what he got. Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh is close to starting a civil war in order to stay in power. Bin Ali, his wife and her family sucked Tunisia dry, arresting even modest dissenters at will. And Assad and his brother and cousin have been personally sanctioned by the United States and the European Union, even as they continue to command the slaughter of civilians.
Mladic’s fate is a good illustration of the advantages and occasional pitfalls of broadening the implementation of justice and human rights norms worldwide. Serbian nationalists have defended the general, but in the end his arrest will prove even less troublesome than that of the former Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, who was indicted while in office by the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Serbia can now look forward to entering the European Union, and with time Mladic will become a forgotten, if uncomfortable, interlude.
But there are downsides. Bosnia is not near true reconciliation more than a decade and a half after the end of its war. The Dayton Accords created a federation including a Bosnian Serb entity and a Muslim-Croat federation, and much of the discord that Mladic embodied in the most brutal of ways has yet to be resolved. Advancing justice and human rights is laudable, even necessary, in post-conflict societies, or in those moving away from authoritarianism. Yet it hardly resolves all the outstanding issues that spawned conflict in the first place. In fact, pushing for justice frequently widens the fractures in societies.
It’s a good thing, indeed a historic transformation, that Arab societies are finally feeling, and expressing, the outrage that they were obliged to suppress for so long. And it’s a good thing, too, that this outrage is based primarily on a heightened sense of the need to implement the rule of law. That reality is why Arab despots are realizing, to their horror, that the future may hold little different for them than what it held for Ratko Mladic. Will this alter the behavior of leaders in the Middle East? It should, but the road to justice can be a rocky one.
**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, which the Wall Street Journal listed as one of its 10 standout books for 2010. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Lebanese army bans protests near Israel border
June 3, 2011 ظLebanon has banned all demonstrations near the Israeli border as the Palestinians gear up to mark 44 years since the seizure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the Six Day War, a security official told AFP on Friday."The army has taken the decision to ban any demonstration south of the Litani and particularly at the border," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The army will not allow anyone to approach the border."
Palestinians in Lebanon and other Arab states neighboring Israel had said that they planned to march on the Jewish state's borders on Sunday to mark the anniversary, known in Arabic as the "Naqsa" or "setback." Ahead of Sunday's anniversary, the Israeli army deployed extra troops along the Lebanese border as well as along the ceasefire lines in the occupied Golan Heights. On Thursday, an AFP correspondent in south Lebanon saw Israeli troops putting up new barbed wire along the border, although the Israeli military refused to comment on the reports. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had ordered the army to act firmly but to avoid any bloodshed during any border protests.
"My instructions are clear: to act with restraint but with the determination necessary to protect our borders... and our citizens," he said.
Thousands of protesters in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza protested at the borders of Israel on May 15 of this year to mark the anniversary of the Jewish State's 1948 creation, known in Arabic as the "nakba" or "catastrophe.” Israeli troops opened fire, killing four along the Syrian lines, and another 10 along the border with Lebanon. In northern Gaza, more than 120 people were injured during a similar protest -AFP/NOW Lebanon

The Ayatollah will overwhelm Ahmadinejad

Editor's Note: Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute. For more from Khalaji, visit Project Syndicate and check it out on Facebook and Twitter.
By Mehdi Khalaji
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now made the mistake that all Iranian presidents make: he has challenged the authority of the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He is doomed to fail.
The challenge posed by Ahmadinejad is such a predictable part of Iranian politics that it has come to be known as “the president’s symptom.” It emerges from a president’s confidence that, as a popularly elected leader, he should not be constrained by the Supreme Leader’s oversight. But the Islamic Republic’s history is littered with its presidents’ failed attempts to consolidate an independent power center. Ultimately, divine authority trumps political authority.
This dual authority is embedded in the Islamic Republic’s constitution, and inevitably tilts toward the divine, particularly in a president’s second term. Ahmadinejad is not an exception to this rule. In fact, because he has pushed harder than his predecessors, his star is falling faster. Moreover, the controversial presidential election of June 2009, and the political crisis that ensued, irreparably damaged Ahmadinejad’s democratic legitimacy.
Khamenei was forced to use his authority to support the president, and has since repeatedly condemned the “Green Movement” that opposed Ahmadinejad’s re-election. As a result, Ahmadinejad has been the most costly president for Khamenei to date, because he forced the Supreme Leader to deplete his power in the face of a common enemy – a move that called into question his own judgment and tarnished his reputation.
Ahmadinejad himself, however, has generally ignored the post-election crisis in his public statements, and evidently believed that Khamenei’s post-election support meant that the Supreme Leader would remain passive in the face of encroachments on his traditional powers and prerogatives. Indeed, for the last two years, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly undermined parliament, and abruptly dismissed ministers tied to Khamenei, like Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi.
Since becoming Supreme Leader 22 years ago, Khamenei has been relatively weak, but has adapted by seeking to encourage weakness in the Islamic Republic’s other high offices. He has supported factionalization in the government, and, when necessary, has weakened factions that he previously supported. Most importantly, he has ensured that Iran’s presidents remain weak, regardless of their agenda or popularity.
So, now that the threat posed by the Green Movement has diminished – at least in Khamenei’s eyes – the time has come to call Ahmadinejad to account. Both men are hard at work preparing for the March 2012 parliamentary election, as well as the 2013 presidential election, and Khamenei has taken off the gloves. He has given official propagandists the green light to attack Ahmadinejad and his cronies explicitly, portraying them as people who do not believe in the principle of the guardianship of the Shia jurist, the key concept bequeathed by the Islamic Republic’s founder, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
In the official view, Ahmadinejad and his circle lack rationality and wisdom; indeed, they are said to be in the grip of superstition. There are even rumors that some of them have resorted to witchcraft to summon spirits from beyond the grave, and that Ahmadinejad has had direct contact with the hidden Imam (the Shia messiah).
Likewise, the judiciary, under Khamenei’s control, has accused the vice president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, of leading an economic mafia, and many of Ahmadinejad’s allies have been arrested or are under investigation.
It is likely that the Guardian Council, which can veto legislation and bar candidates from standing in elections, will use its power to shift the balance in favor of Ahmadinejad’s conservative critics. The anti-Ahmadinejad camp’s leaders, the brothers Ali and Sadeq Larijani, who head the parliament and judiciary, respectively, will help Khamenei to push the president from the center of power.
But, since Khamenei cannot accept a single, united political faction, it is extremely unlikely that he will let the Larijani camp (which includes Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati) become powerful enough to win the next presidential election.
Khamenei will likely create a new faction to compete with traditional conservatives after Ahmadinejad’s decline. This might force him to pick a new face for the next presidential election, someone with little domestic-policy experience and little influence on ordinary people’s lives. One possible candidate is Said Jalili, Iran’s current nuclear negotiator, or someone like him. Only those with a strong background in intelligence or the Revolutionary Guards, and a low profile in domestic politics, need apply.
Having full control over the judiciary, the intelligence apparatus, and the military makes Khamenei seem invincible against all political factions or elected officials. This will lead the regime down an increasingly autocratic path, applying more aggression at home and defying the West with greater self-confidence.
But the concentration of power in the Supreme Leader’s hands poses risks for the Islamic Republic. When Khamenei dies, there is no strong and obvious successor. And, since he has systematically weakened Iran’s political institutions so that the Islamic Republic itself has come to be identified with his person, his absence will create a vacuum. His strength today foreshadows greater uncertainty in Iran’s future.
**The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mehdi Khalaji. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011. For more from Khalaji, visit Project Syndicate.


Land ownership and civil service posts top Maronite leaders’ agenda
 June 03, 2011 02:21 AM By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Rival Maronite leaders and lawmakers wound up their one-day talks in Bkirki Thursday with a call to safeguard Lebanese land, preserve Lebanon’s special identity and its diversified society, and achieve an equal division of civil service posts between Christians and Muslims.
Thursday’s meeting was the second to be sponsored by Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai in less than two months in an attempt to end political divisions within the Maronite community.
On April 19, Rai sponsored a high-profile and ice-breaking meeting at the seat of the Maronite patriarchate in Bkirki, north of Beirut, of the country’s top Maronite leaders: Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea and Marada Movement chief Suleiman Franjieh.
The four Christian leaders were among the 37 Maronite lawmakers and figures who attended the meeting chaired by Rai.
Lebanon’s leading Maronite parties are divided between the March 14 coalition led by caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri and the Hezbollah-led March 8 alliance. Rai described Thursday’s meeting as “excellent.” Speaking to reporters at the end of the meeting, Rai said, “How beautiful they are when they meet. There are no longer divisive issues.”
Opening the meeting, Rai stressed the need for the Christians to strengthen their links of partnership and unity and their commitment to the Bible’s teachings.
A statement issued at the end of the meeting said the participants examined three major topics: 1) Commitment to the principle of partnership among the Maronites as a first step toward reviving this partnership with all Lebanese spiritual sects and cooperation to build the state and develop the Lebanese society. 2) Preservation of the Lebanese land as a means to consolidate existence and identity and preserve Lebanon’s special plurality and its diversified society within unity. 3) Restoration of balance to public administrations through an effective participation of Christians in serving the state and citizens on the basis of the respect of the principles of competence and an equal division [of civil service posts].
During the meeting, the Maronite Documentation and Research Center presented a summary of its survey on the issue of land sales and foreign ownership of land, according to the statement.
The participants reviewed a study by a private company on the imbalance in Christian participation in the public sector. Everyone joined in the discussions and proposed practical solutions for this problem.
“The participants agreed on the need to follow up the discussion of all issues that concern the Lebanese homeland and the Christians’ effective role in preserving it and its special identity as a message and a model of plurality, democracy and freedom through their commitment to exercising their right and duty as good citizens,” the statement said. It added that the participants formed a coordinating committee to follow up the issues that have been discussed.
Bishop Samir Mazloum, who read the statement to reporters, described the atmosphere at the meeting as “very good and calm,” saying it was dominated by mutual respect and love among all the participants. He said more meetings of Maronite leaders and MPs will be held later and the committee will set dates for those meetings.
Issues of mutual concern among Lebanon’s Christian factions include high emigration rates among Christians, the inclusion of Christians in state administrative positions, as well as large-scale property and land sales to non-Christians.
Property sales and high emigration rates have raised fears over organized efforts to alter the country’s demographic balance, as Lebanon’s Christian community has fallen to almost 40 percent, threatening the continued viability of a power-sharing system based on equality between Muslims and Christians.
In his opening speech, Rai called on the participants to seek unity through commitment to the Bible’s teachings and adopt recommendations to improve the conditions of Christians in Lebanon regardless of their different political options.
“We, as Christians and Maronites, are committed to the Bible’s principles and the Church’s ideological and moral teachings when we exercise our spiritual and pastoral activities. Partnership and unity among Christians regardless of their various positions, responsibilities and activities, cannot be attained without this commitment,” Rai said.
He stressed that the Christians’ effective presence can be attained through their participation in state administrative posts. “The Lebanese common coexistence formula is based on an equal [division of civil service posts] between Christians and Muslims and on competence in technical jobs and the distribution of public responsibilities equally among all the sects with the aim of ensuring the country’s stability, achieving democracy and prosperity of the economy,” he said.
Rai called on the Christians to preserve the land, to the point of “martyrdom.”
“The land is the pillar of the cultural, social and political identity. Preserving it, protecting its environment, benefiting from its crops and not selling it to foreigners are a sacred duty,” he said.
He called for the separation of religion from the state and politics, on the condition of upholding “moral principles and national constants,” and work for the good of the citizens and the state.
A number of participants praised the meeting, voicing optimism about the work of the coordinating committee. Former President Amin Gemayel sounded optimistic about the coordinating committee which, he said, will address a number of issues that were not discussed at Thursday’s meeting.
Geagea praised the meeting as “positive and useful,” saying two important proposals were presented on the issues of land sales, public administrations and state institutions. He said a committee was formed to follow up the discussion of matters that were debated during the meeting.
Geagea scoffed at the theory that Christians in Lebanon were in danger. “No doubt, there are matters that need to be addressed. But I don’t agree for a minute that the Christians are in danger,” he said. “The Christians in Lebanon have been through 30 difficult years. They have all the components of presence and interaction in Lebanon and the Middle East as a whole.”
Caretaker Labor Minister Butros Harb from the March 14 coalition said “the aim of this meeting was to adjust the path in Lebanon in favor of preserving its unity. It can help defuse tension in Lebanon so that we can draw up a joint concept [to cope with] challenges facing Lebanon in the future.”
Metn MP Ibrahim Kenaan from Aoun’s parliamentary Change and Reform bloc said what matters is cooperation between Christian ministers and MPs in the Cabinet and Parliament.


Saudi rulers aid allies against Iran and popular uprisings
June 03, 2011 02:18 AM
By Ulf Laessing, Jason Benham Reuters
KUWAIT CITY/RIYADH: Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia is using its political clout and financial power to draw regional allies into a united front against perceived threats from Iran and popular discontent with Arab autocrats.
Saudi rulers, alarmed by shifts in U.S. policy in response to the toppling of long-time ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and protests roiling Bahrain, Oman and Yemen in the kingdom’s own backyard, are vigorously pushing back.
“Saudi Arabia is using its excess budget wealth to silence the revolutions or shape their outcomes,” said London-based Saudi researcher and author Madawi al-Rasheed.
Riyadh has pledged $4 billion in aid to Egypt, throwing a lifeline to new rulers struggling with the economic impact of the anti-Mubarak unrest. It was also instrumental in a $20 billion handout to Bahrain and Oman for job-creating projects.
Saudi Arabia shares U.S. fears that Iran wants nuclear arms and has struggled to adjust to rising Iranian regional influence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq produced a Shiite-led government in Baghdad. It also worries about popular unrest.
“The kingdom is very concerned about the revolutionary wave. They don’t want the waves to reach the shores of the Gulf,” said Saudi political analyst Khalid al-Dakhil.
The Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council, grouping six Sunni-ruled oil producers, is considering letting Jordan and Morocco join, adding two more monarchies to a bloc that includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The invitation to the two non-oil countries was motivated by defense needs, not economic logic, analysts say.
The GCC, which sent troops to Bahrain in March to help quell protests by majority Shiites there, wants extra muscle to counter perceived military and security threats from Iran.
“It doesn’t make any sense from an economic perspective. Morocco has nothing to do with the Gulf and is far away. The Saudis want to support two allies,” said an analyst in Riyadh.
Despite their often tense ties with Syria, a friend of Iran, Saudi rulers are worried about the fallout of demonstrations against President Bashar Assad, which they fear could destabilize neighbors such as Jordan, also the scene of some protests.
“They want to support Jordan. I think they could use Jordan as a buffer against Syria which is unstable,” said Rasheed.
Riyadh has tried to wean Syria from Iran, offering economic cooperation after King Abdullah visited Damascus in 2009.
But no Saudi firm made big investments in Syria, which kept its alliance with Iran. U.S. officials have even accused Iran of helping Syria quash protests, a charge both countries deny.
Saudi financial aid to Egypt aimed to prevent instability in the Arab world’s most populous nation, and to discourage Cairo’s new rulers from mending fences with Tehran. “Their biggest worry is that Egypt restores ties with Iran,” said Rasheed.
The kingdom, home to the holiest Muslim sites, sees itself as bastion of Sunni Islam and had relied on Mubarak to contain Shiite Iran. King Abdullah initially backed Mubarak when Egyptians rose up against their leader. Saudi Arabia also gave refuge to ousted Tunisian leader Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.
Days after the Saudi aid package, Egypt briefly detained and questioned an Iranian diplomat for spying.
“It’s interesting how immediately after Saudi Arabia announced the financial package, Egypt arrested the diplomat,” said Mohammed al-Qahtani, a prominent pro-democracy activist.
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged Egypt Wednesday to rebuild diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, saying that the resulting emergence of a new “great power” would force “Zionists” to leave the region. Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, is also looking inward. After returning from a prolonged medical absence in February, King Abdullah pledged $130 billion in handouts to create jobs and provide housing for a rapidly-growing population. Dakhil said the quest for security in the kingdom, which enforces strict Islamic rules, would be advanced by allowing more freedom and pursuing reform at home, rather than by seeking friends abroad.

Hizb ut-Tahrir to show support for Syrian
Wassim Mroueh/ The Daily Star BEIRUT: A pan-Islamist party will hold a sit-in in support of the uprising in Syria in a mosque in Downtown Beirut Friday. Hizb ut-Tahrir, which considers all rulers of Arab states “illegitimate” because they are “pro-Western,” will hold the sit-in in the courtyard of the Omari Mosque following Friday prayers. Last month, the party staged a demonstration in the northern city of Tripoli in support of Syrian protesters. Ahmad Qasas, media official for Hizb ut-Tahrir, told The Daily Star that protesters would stay inside the mosque in order to prevent security problems. Asked whether participants would come from Tripoli, where the party usually holds demonstrations, Qasas said that all of the people of Lebanon were invited. As for expected attendance, Qasas said the turnout would depend on measures taken by security personnel. He said the police and security personnel took very strict measures when the party staged its recent demonstration in Tripoli, which prevented many people from joining the protests.

The child who shook Syria

02/06/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
In fact, Hamza al-Khatib not only shook Syria, but also the conscience of the entire world. After several days of denial campaigns in the official Syrian media, the Syrian regime broke its silence and declared that an investigation would be conducted with regards to the brutal torture suffered by the child.
Hamza's story was then investigated, and according to the Syrian regime and its statements, the child had not been tortured, but forensic evidence instead proved that he had received three bullet wounds which led to his death! This excuse is worse than the crime, because how is it [any more justifiable] to kill a child with three bullets? In fact, what about the 30 children altogether who have been killed by gunfire in the uprising, according to UNICEF? The whole story from beginning to end is depressing and disgusting, and its details justify the condemnation that the Syrian regime and its media are receiving. The latter has become something of a joke in Syria: Rather than Syrians telling their children that those who lie go to hell, they now say those who lie go to the Syrian media. We are witnessing the emergence of a new provocative media, which is strangely tolerated by the wider Arab media. This is the phenomenon of Syrian "analysts" who defend the regime. I doubt whether they even believe themselves, and they are what I call the "new al-Sahafis", with reference to the former Iraqi Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
Interestingly, these "analysts" talked about the Salafis and armed groups, only for the President to come out and acknowledge the legitimate demands of the protestors, hence undermining what the analysts said. Then they said the Lebanese were responsible for supporting the Syrian demonstrations, and referred to cheques paid to fund the uprising in an attempt to prove this, which then turned out to be fake. Then one analyst came out and described the Syrian protestors as "scum", whilst the Syrian President came out and announced an amnesty! Respected Arab news outlets in our region should not accept the emergence of this phenomenon, and if the Syrian regime wants to defend itself, it should do so through an allocated official spokesperson, or through the regime's Minister of Information. It could even do so through a security spokesman, as long as the security forces hold the upper hand in Damascus today. Yet it must not use these "analysts" who the media stations know, more than anyone else, are not credible. As an aside, there is a video on "YouTube" showing a demonstration in a Syrian town, where the demonstrators are chanting the names of these "analysts" affiliated with the Syrian regime, and after each one loudly shouting: Liar!
Therefore, at a time when the Syrian President has offered his condolences to the family of the child victim, we should remember that Hamza has become a symbol for the shaken Syrians, just like Bouazizi was for the Tunisians, even after former Tunisian President Ben Ali visited him in hospital before he died, and then stepped down from power. Hamza is also a symbol like the Egyptian Khaled Saeed.
The whole world heard the cry of injustice coming from the child's family, and it struck their conscience. Even the U.S. station "CNN" displayed selected images of Hamza's body, which were first broadcast by "al-Jazeera", where the news anchor Anderson Cooper said: "we have found it necessary to display these images so the world can see the brutality of the Syrian regime". Indeed, everyone saw the brutal image, except the Arab League it seems!

MP Mashnouq: AmendingTaif a call for civil war
June 03, 2011 ظThe Daily Star BEIRUT: Beirut MP Mohammad Mashnouq said Thursday that proposals to amend the Taif Accord weren’t an attempt to solve the country’s problems, but instead represented a call for civil war. “Amending the Taif agreement, before implementing it fully … is a call for a new civil war and not a solution,” said Mashnouq during a conference organized by the Future Movements’ legal experts. Mashnouq also blamed the Doha agreement of 2008, which ended several weeks of civil strife in May of that year, for Lebanon’s current problems.

The void in Beirut. Who really gains?

 June By Michael Young/The Daily Star
What did Walid Jumblatt mean when he told the daily Al-Akhbar this week that Hezbollah did not want to form a government?
And when the Druze leader went on to say that a government was necessary for the party and Syria as well, was that a discreet way of saying that it was Damascus that was holding up the government-formation process – a thought that Jumblatt, of course, immediately perished by refusing to link the Syrian tension to the Lebanese government crisis?
There can be no serious doubt that the situation in Syria weighs heavily on the stalemate in Beirut. The explanations are many for why Najib Mikati has been unable to form a government, and quite a few happen to be true; but perhaps the most significant is that Syria has been lukewarm in pushing for a new team. The prime minister-designate is not about to embark on fashioning a Cabinet without strong Syrian backing, especially a partisan Cabinet in which he would have to stand his ground against Hezbollah and Michel Aoun.
Which returns us to the implications of Jumblatt’s remarks. The regime of President Bashar Assad evidently has no real interest in a Mikati government, because it has no interest in filling a Lebanese political vacuum that it seeks to exploit in order to survive at home. Through Lebanon, Damascus can send, and has sent, warning shots regionally and internationally, to the effect that it must either be the Assads and their Makhlouf cousins in power, or else chaos will ensue. That was the essence of what Rami Makhlouf, the financial pillar of the Syrian regime, told The New York Times in a recent interview.
Since that interview was published, two things have happened in Lebanon to bring home Makhlouf’s message. Hezbollah, with perceptible Syrian approval, and in a move coordinated with similar measures on the Golan Heights, helped mobilize demonstrators along the Lebanese-Israeli border to commemorate Nakba Day. This was a pinprick, destined to echo Makhlouf’s comments that “If there is no stability [in Syria], there’s no way there will be stability in Israel.”
And last Friday, an Italian UNIFIL unit was the target of a bomb attack in Rmeileh. It’s unclear who planted the device, but the attack came at the very moment when foreign embassies were indicating that Makhlouf had pointedly mentioned, in an off-the-record aside during his New York Times interview, that United Nations forces in Lebanon might be assaulted. If there were any doubts, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem had earlier dispelled them when declaring, after the European Union imposed sanctions on Bashar Assad, “I say this measure, just as it will harm Syria’s interests, it will harm Europe’s interest. And Syria won’t remain silent about this measure.”
Although Hezbollah is siding with the Syrian regime against Syrian protesters, as its secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, made clear last week, you have to wonder whether the party and Syria share the desire to maintain a void in Lebanon. In strict terms Jumblatt may again be right that Hezbollah doesn’t want a government, but is this a matter of choice, or is the party obligated to follow the Syrian lead?
Only a few months ago Hezbollah was willing to take the hazardous step of barring Saad Hariri’s return to office, in the hope that it could follow this up by swiftly forming a favorable government that would face supposedly imminent indictments issued by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Today, we must believe that Hezbollah’s sense of urgency has evaporated and that the party is no longer concerned with the likelihood that the tribunal will formally accuse party members of involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri. There is a disconnect here, one suggesting that Syria’s objectives and Hezbollah’s may not be as closely aligned as some assume over delaying a Cabinet.
It is a matter of anxiety in Beirut how Hezbollah might react if the situation in Syria were to deteriorate further and the Assad regime’s hold on power were loosened further. In that event the existence of a Lebanese government would help Hezbollah, because if the party has to watch one of its principal allies collapsing, it would prefer to do so after having anchored itself in the legitimacy of Lebanese state institutions. In other words the party needs a government in place that it can dominate, both to bless its weapons and help it absorb the aftershocks of a tribunal indictment and radical change in Syria.
The assessment of some foreign observers is that if the Assads are ousted, Hezbollah will respond by striking a harsh blow domestically to reaffirm its authority. Perhaps, but this, more reasonably, would be an act of desperation. In the Lebanese context it might lead to civil conflict, particularly if the party were to take such a step minus its valuable Syrian partner, in the presence of a new order in Damascus bound to be hostile to Hezbollah. Another May 2008 would fail, even more so when we recall that Hezbollah was hard-pressed to end its military operations quickly at the time, after the triumph in western Beirut. Seizing territory is easier than controlling it. Hezbollah would be reckless in assuming that it can successfully overcome all of Lebanon.
The deadlock will persist in Beirut, with Najib Mikati remaining unable to form a government. However, it’s still an open question whether Hezbollah truly gains from this state of affairs, even if Syria does. Assad wants an open Lebanese playing field to manipulate. Yet at some stage Nasrallah needs the state to be credible, as it may become the last bastion between Hezbollah and regional and international demands that the party surrender its arms.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR and author of “The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle” (Simon & Schuster), listed as one of the 10 notable books of 2010 by The Wall Street Journal. He tweets @BeirutCalling