LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
ِJUNE 19/2011

Bible Quotation for today
Peter's Second Letter 2/12-22: "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. 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in it and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 2:21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 2:22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb, “The dog turns to his own vomit again,”* and “the sow that has washed to wallowing in the mire.”

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources 
Khamenei and Hariri…and the beautiful gypsy!/By Tariq Alhomayed/June 18/11
Why Iran needs to drop Assad/By Amir Taher/June 18/11
The seventh minister/By: The seventh minister/Hune 18/11
The uneasy relationship between France and Syria. Analysis/By: Hichem Karoui/June 18/11
The Cable: Berman and friends unveil bill to cut foreign aid to Lebanon/ By: Josh Rogin/ June 18/11
Once Again, Beirut Falls into Syrian and Iranian Orbit/By Katherine Faley/June 18/11
The importance of being Nabih Berri/By: Ana Maria Luca/June 18/11
Echoes of Arkan in Syria/By: Michael Young/June 17/11
Neighbors/ From old dictatorship to new/By Zvi Bar'el /June 18/11

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 18/11
Cautious Calm in Tripoli: Suleiman, Miqati Give Order to Contain Situation as Soon as Possible/Naharnet
Lebanese Government Policy State Will Stress Justice, Won’t Mention STL/Naharnet
Lebanese Interior Minister Marwan Charbel: ISF Wants to Disarm People, Not Distribute Weapons/Naharnet
Tripoli and North Mufti to Launch Initiative to Put End to Clashes/Naharnet
Clinton Says 'No Going Back' in Syria/Naharnet
Syria shoots dead 18 as regime sacrifices reviled figure/Telegraph
Syria troops move on north towns/BBC
Syrian forces enter village near Turkish border, sources say/CC
Britain urges it citizens to leave Syria immediately/Washington Times
Syria's Nightmare/NYT
Syria Regime Sends Army Into Northern Town as Residents Flee Toward Turkey/Bloomberg
Syria, Saudi Arabia and Middle East unrest - live updates/The Guardian
National unity a red line: Mikati/The Daily Star
Just want to be home/Haaretz
Mustaqbal Slams Miqati’s ‘Hints’ that Opposition Involved in Tripoli Unrest/Naharnet
Hariri Turns to Paris, Security Threats Not Confirmed/Naharnet
UNIFIL Confirms Israeli Military Maneuvers along Border/Naharnet
16 civilians killed in Syria as Jolie visits refugees/The Daily Star
Where the Arab spring will end is anyone's guess/The Guardian
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - June 17, 2011/The Daily Star
Geagea says newly-formed cabinet is not in Christians' interest/Now Lebanon
Israel to conduct military drills on Lebanese border/The Daily Star
Geagea: How can Christians benefit from restoring Syria's hegemony/Ya Libnan
MSF mission chief talks expansion in Lebanon/The Daily Star
Abboud: Funds needed to boost tourism/The Daily Star
EU ambassador laments lack of women in new government/The Daily Star
Aswad files lawsuit against Al-Jumhuriya/Now Lebanon
Hezbollah says era of American influence over/The Daily Star
Nasrallah: New government a 'very important step'/The Daily Star
The importance of being Nabih Berri/Now Lebanon
Aoun: Hariri 'impoverished' Lebanon/Now Lebanon
Berri Rejects Labeling his Sacrifice for Faisal Karami as ‘Charity’/Naharnet
Safadi: Tripoli Clashes Response to Government Formation/Naharnet
North’s Lebanon First MPs: Accusing ISF of Tripoli Unrest Beginning of Spiteful Action against them/Naharnet

Mustaqbal Slams Miqati’s ‘Hints’ that Opposition Involved in Tripoli Unrest
Naharnet /Mustaqbal bloc MPs criticized Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s insinuations that the opposition is behind the deadly clashes that erupted in Tripoli on Friday, saying that the loss of one of his major security officials in the unrest made him issue his accusations. MP Samir al-Jisr told An Nahar daily that Miqati’s statement “on a peaceful and constructive opposition” include “hints” that the opposition is “indirectly involved” in Tripoli’s clashes.  “We never turned to arms and were the first to chant slogans to topple the illegitimate weapons,” al-Jisr said.
The newspaper quoted the MP as saying that the premier’s statements were a “slip of tongue.” Meanwhile, MP Ahmed Fatfat told Future News that Miqati’s statements were an unsuccessful start for his tenure as prime minister, stressing: “The Mustaqbal movement and the opposition were not behind the clashes in Tripoli, they started as a protest in support of the Syrian people linked to the situation in Syria.”“If Miqati does not review his statements, they would be interpreted as incitement against the opposition and the Lebanese people and a call to ignite strife,” he added.The MP said: “The Premier knows that Tripoli doesn’t accept being represented by this cabinet, but these are not the actions of the city’s residents.”
Meanwhile, al-Mustaqbal official Mustapha Alloush stated: “The residents and the Syrian people have no interest to shift the unrest in Syria to Tripoli.”
He told Asharq radio that he was “surprised by Miqati’s veiled accusation against the opposition.” Meanwhile, diplomatic Arab sources expected the “cabinet to fall under a lot of pressure… and no party has any interest in igniting the situation,” al-Jumhuriya reported on Saturday. The sources said that “what happened in Tripoli isn’t a positive sign, but all the parties plan on taking control of the situation.” On Friday, Miqati described as “suspicious” the timing of the deadly clashes that erupted between gunmen from Tripoli’s rival neighborhoods of Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh, adding: “We understand that the opposition is peaceful and constructive.”

Clinton Says 'No Going Back' in Syria
Naharnet/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Saturday urged a transition to democracy in Syria, saying in a commentary in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat that the regime crackdown would not quell the momentum for change. In an English translation provided by the State Department, Clinton wrote under the headline "There Is No Going Back in Syria" that it was "increasingly clear" the crackdown was an irreversible shift in the country's push towards reform. The Syrian regime's "continued brutality may allow (President Bashar Assad) to delay the change that is under way in Syria, it will not reverse it," Clinton wrote in daily that is published in London. "The most important question of all -- what does this mean for Syria’s future? -- is increasingly clear: There is no going back." The top U.S. diplomat rejected Syrian government claims that the protests were largely the work of foreign forces.
The Syrian people, she wrote, "are demanding their long-denied universal rights and rejecting a government that rules through fear, squanders their talents through corruption, and denies them the dignity of having a voice in their own future." More than 1,200 people have died and some 10,000 have been detained in Syria since the mid-March eruption of pro-democracy protests inspired by the uprisings that toppled long-standing rulers in Egypt and Tunisia. Assad's actions have "shattered his claims to be a reformer," Clinton wrote, criticizing the Syrian leader for following the example of repression set in Iran. A senior U.S. administration official said Friday that the United States was studying whether war crimes charges could be brought against Syria to pressure its regime to end a bloody crackdown on dissent. Two administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, outlined the campaign in a teleconference with reporters, stressing that efforts were being made at the United Nations and with partners in the region to condemn and isolate the regime.
The official said other measures, including sanctions targeting the country's oil and gas sector, were being considered as part of a broader diplomatic campaign to increase pressure on Assad. "Syria is headed toward a new political order -- and the Syrian people should be the ones to shape it," Clinton wrote, noting that Washington "chooses to stand with the Syrian people and their universal rights." President Barack Obama has previously called on Assad to either lead a transition to democratic rule or "get out of the way," though he has come under fire from some in Congress for not taking a tougher stance. Agence France Presse

Cautious Calm in Tripoli: Suleiman, Miqati Give Order to Contain Situation as Soon as Possible
Naharnet /A cautious calm has fallen over Tripoli following Friday’s unrest between gunmen in the rival neighborhoods of Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen, as media reports said that intermittent gunfire was heard near the area on Saturday morning. The unrest broke out when Bab al-Tabbaneh residents staged a demonstration in support of the Syrian people, while the other neighborhood staged a demonstration in support for the Syrian regime. The tensions between the two sides resulted in a gunfight during which various weapons were used, including sniping which killed two passersby. Six people were killed while some 30 were injured in the unrest, reported Agence France Presse. The army quickly deployed to contain the situation, which spread to the area of al-Rifa in al-Qebbeh neighborhood in Tripoli. Informed security sources told al-Jumhuriya newspaper in remarks published on Saturday that President Michel Suleiman ordered all security forces to “contain the situation as soon as possible,” calling for sparing no expense to provide all security reinforcements for this end.
As Safir newspaper reported on Saturday that Prime Minister Najib Miqati headed a security meeting on Friday ahead of the army’s storming of the areas that witnessed fighting. He also held talks with officials from Bab al-Tabbaneh informing them that the army planned to storm the area at 12:30 am Saturday. Members of the Arab Democratic Party were informed to respect this deadline to hold a ceasefire, but it soon was violated and the clashes continued, reported As Safir. The deadline to halt the fighting was extended to 1:00 am and all sides respected it and the army proceeded to deploy in the areas that witnessed the most fighting. The newspaper reported that Miqati told Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn and Army Commander Jean Qahwaji that Lebanon’s security is a “red line.” “We will not allow the civil war and the times of militias and thugs to return to Tripoli or any other city or village in Lebanon,” he stressed. “Whoever tampers with security will be harmed,” he warned. For his part, Qahwaji order the army to arrest any gunman regardless of which side he is affiliated with.
Meanwhile, security sources told al-Liwaa newspaper in remarks published on Saturday that all signs indicate that the clash was planned. Other sources voiced fears that situation would escalate if the concerned sides did not comply with Miqati and the army’s orders, given the connection between the situation in Tripoli and the demonstrations in Syria. The National News Agency reported on Saturday the army deployed in Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen’s main streets at Miqati’s orders. They set up fixed and mobile checkpoints and raided several houses in search of gunmen, while traffic returned to normal on the main Tripoli highway leading to the Akkar region.The highway had witnessed sniper activity during Friday’s unrest.

Government Policy State Will Stress Justice, Won’t Mention STL
Naharnet /Government policy statement discussions over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon may force the committee drafting it to phrase the statement in general terms regarding Lebanon’s commitment to justice and the tribunal itself, an informed source told al-Liwaa newspaper in remarks published on Saturday. It said that the final statement may serve to appease the majority and opposition. Two parties of the majority are insisting on dropping any reference to the STL or commitment to U.N. Security Council resolution 1757 on the tribunal, demanding that they be replaced with the adoption of the equation of the army, people, and resistance. The government of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri had adopted resolution 1757.
The source expected the policy statement to include generalities over justice and not mention the STL by name, and therefore when its indictment is released, the government would not recognize it and “temporarily avoid its fiery repercussions.” Member of the committee drafting the policy statement, Minister of State Ali Qanso told the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat in remarks published on Saturday: “The government won’t address the tribunal because the issue does not enjoy Lebanese consensus.” “We don’t want the statement to mention any issues of contention,” he added. “It will only stress the need to abide by justice and uncover crimes,” he continued. “Hasn’t the STL demonstrated that it is politicized?” Qanso asked.
“The tribunal is incapable of achieving justice because it has been transformed into a weapon to harm the Resistance,” he said. He meanwhile stated that the government will emphasize Lebanon’s commitment to other international resolutions “because all sides support U.N. Security Council resolution 1701.” “The international community should pressure Israel to commit to it and halt its daily violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty,” he added.  On the cabinet’s position on Hizbullah, Qanso hoped that the Resistance would enjoy unanimous consensus among the Lebanese “given Israel’s constant threat against the country.” “The policy statement will reiterate support for the equation of the people, army, and Resistance,” he revealed.
The committee drafting the statement is scheduled to hold its second meeting on Tuesday.

Lebanese Interior Minister Marwan Charbel: ISF Wants to Disarm People, Not Distribute Weapons
Naharnet /Interior Minister Marwan Charbel denied that the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau is randomly distributing arms among the people, An Nahar newspaper reported on Saturday. “This will never happen under my tenure,” he stressed. The newspaper quoted him as saying that the statements of Arab Democratic Party political relations official Rifaat Ali Eid are “only political stances and untrue.” The minister was responding to statements Eid made to al-Manar television. “The ISF aims to disarm people, not distribute weapons among them,” Charbel stated. He told Voice of Lebanon radio that “harsh measures” will be taken to prevent the recurrence of what happened in Tripoli.  The minister added that the timing of the clashes soon after the formation of Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s government is alarming. He said: “The Lebanese will witness an end to the situation in Tripoli. The army and security forces were directed to hit with an iron fist those targeting the peace.”The minister emphasized that “civil peace is a red line.”Charbel told al-Liwaa newspaper “Hopefully, we will reach desired results with the cooperation of ISF chief Ashraf Rifi who expressed readiness to collaborate with us, along with all other Interior Ministry employees, in order to ensure the rise of the state.”

The importance of being Nabih Berri
Ana Maria Luca, June 18, 2011
Now Lebanon
After 140 days of March 8 parties bickering over who should get what in the Lebanese cabinet – while Prime Minister-designate Najib Mikati shuttled back and forth between discussions with President Michel Sleiman, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Lebanese party leaders, their aides, as well as foreign envoys – on Monday Speaker Berri offered a way out of what seemed would be an endless political crisis. The government formation was stuck over one last point: whether or not to name former PM Omar Karami’s son, Faisal, as a minister. PM Mikati’s ally, MP Ahmad Karami, was against the appointment of Faisal Karami (his cousin) because of political rivalries in Tripoli, while both Hezbollah and Berri’s Amal party insisted on him being part of the cabinet. The long-awaited government formation came after a consultation meeting at the Presidential Palace in Baabda between PM Mikati, President Sleiman and Speaker Berri. It was the latter who had the ace up his sleeve. According to As-Safir daily, which published on its front page the leaked conversation between the three highest-ranked men in the state, the idea of giving up a ministerial seat reserved for the Shia in favor of the Sunni Faisal Karami and “save the government” occurred to Berri while he was stuck in traffic in Hazmieh on his way to Baabda. The newspaper also reported that the head of the parliament told PM Mikati and President Sleiman that “both Karamis have to have portfolios,” because “[Hezbollah chief] Nasrallah, [Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel] Aoun and I have agreed that Faisal Karami should have a ministry.”
According to As-Safir, Berri also pointed out that he was risking his popularity in order to save the government. “I bore what was heavier and harder when I agreed with the civil marriage bill. I also want to test my leadership, and I will personally deal with the consequences of this test,” he reportedly told the prime minister and president.
But while the parliament speaker and his aides insist that Berri made a sacrifice to give Lebanon a government, analysts say he was acting in accordance with the requirements of the political alliance he is part of and with his own ambitions to be seen as “the wise man” in a chaotic political scene, as well as to keep himself and his party in the spotlight.
Due to Berri’s move, Lebanon has, since Monday, a 30-seat government, with five Shia ministers and seven Sunnis, the first such distribution since the Taif Accord of 1989. Berri’s chief political aide, Ali Hassan Khalil, said that Berri’s move aimed to break traditions that are “handcuffing” Lebanese politics. “This move is approved by the Shia sect, and on the national level it is appreciated,” he said.
But Ibrahim Bayram, political analyst who closely follows Hezbollah and Amal for Lebanese daily An-Nahar, says that Nabih Berri is the political face of Hezbollah. “He is part of a political axis whose interest right now is to have a government,” he told NOW Lebanon. “The reasons are obvious: They want to support the Syrian regime against the uprising, they want to keep the Hariri family away from political power and keep under control the repercussions of the indictment made by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon,” he added, referring to the court looking into the 2005 murder of former PM Rafik Hariri. Berri’s decision to give up a seat in favor of Faisal Karami was meant to reward a family that supported March 8. “It is important for Hezbollah to support the Sunni families that do not support the Hariris, such as Omar Karami’s [in Tripoli], Osama Saad’s [in Saida] or Abdul Rahman Mrad’s [in the Bekaa]. Tripoli is a Sunni stronghold, and they need to keep their support there,” Bayram explained. Bayram said that there is also a personal aspect to Berri’s sacrifice: It benefits his image as a seasoned politician and as a Shia leader. “He always tried to play a bigger role. Before the government was formed he was trying to hold a parliament meeting to reappoint [Riad] Salameh [as governor of the Central Bank] so that he can save the Lebanese Lira from crashing. Now he’s a bigger hero: He saved the formation of the government,” Bayram said.
But the analyst also points out that Nabih Berri has a large portion of the Shia community behind him and, “unlike Hezbollah, which has its own institutions to care for its supporters, Berri needs the government to provide care for his people.” adine Elali contributed reporting to this article

Once Again, Beirut Falls into Syrian and Iranian Orbit
By Katherine Faley/June 17, 2011
http://blog.american.com/2011/06/once-again-beirut-falls-into-syrian-and-iranian-orbit/
On Wednesday Lebanese President Michel Suleiman denied accusations that the country’s new government—formed five months after Hezbollah and its allies forced the collapse of the previous government—is a client of Syria and Iran. “This government is 100 percent Lebanese, with a 100 percent Lebanese agenda,” Suleiman stated at the cabinet’s first meeting. Yet the 30-member cabinet is dominated by the pro-Syrian March 8 bloc led by Iran’s proxy Hezbollah, which gained an unprecedented majority of 18 seats. Prime Minister Najib Miqati claimed that this outcome “does not mean that the country will join the radical camp in terms of its relations with the international community.” This battle, however, was already lost.
Hezbollah’s dominance of the new government is hardly unexpected. In the months preceding its withdrawal from the Lebanese government in January, the organization launched a fierce rhetorical campaign to de-legitimize the UN-backed tribunal charged with investigating the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The tribunal’s indictments would likely implicate Hezbollah operatives, damage the group’s reputation, and lead to the arrest and public trial of those involved. Consequently, Hezbollah staged the takedown of the former pro-Western government led by Saad Hariri with the help of its opportunistic March 8 allies. Now that Hezbollah benefits from a majority stake in the government, the tribunal stands even less of a chance of effectively carrying out its mission; in the event the tribunal issues indictments at all—an unlikely scenario by all accounts—Hezbollah would readily use its power to block the arrest of its members and, in doing so, violate Lebanon’s international obligation. Removing this threat has allowed the organization to focus its efforts on further consolidating its power base in Lebanon and lending support to Tehran and Damascus.
Hezbollah and Iran have publicly supported Syrian President Bashar al Assad in the face of mounting international and internal pressure regarding his brutal repression of pro-reform protests. In May, for instance, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad separately expressed their commitment to Assad’s stability and shared the opinion that neither of their respective countries should interfere in Syrian internal affairs. As Ahmadinejad put it, “the [Syrian] government and the people of Syria have reached a level of maturity to solve their own problem by themselves.” On Monday, Assad congratulated his Lebanese counterpart with suspicious alacrity following the cabinet’s formation. Hezbollah’s political rise is a huge boon not only for Assad but also for the organization’s main financial supporter, Iran.
The Obama administration has reacted cautiously to this most recent blow to American influence in the region. Department of State Deputy Spokesman Mark Toner explained that the current assessment is “to wait and see what the final government looks like.” Arguably, this “wait and see” approach to critical developments in the Middle East has not worked extraordinarily well for the United States thus far.
*Katherine Faley is a research analyst for AEI’s Critical Threats Project.

Hezbollah says era of American influence over
June 17, 2011 The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah said Thursday that the new government will turn the page on March 14 policies, repositioning Lebanon as a state defiant to the will of the United States.
The remarks made by Hezbollah officials follow charges by March 14 politicians that Prime Minister Najib Mikati is acting like the “façade of a Hezbollah-controlled and Syrian-made” government. Hezbollah’s Executive Council deputy head, Sheikh Nabil Qaouk, said that the new government was a political victory for national groups and a defeat for Washington.
Speaking before local officials in Beirut, Qaouk said that the Cabinet’s ministerial policy statement would stress the importance of Lebanon’s role as a resistant state, putting an end to the era of U.S. intervention in Lebanese affairs.
“There will be a ministerial policy statement that stresses the role and identity of Lebanon as a sovereign and resistant state that blocks U.S. dictates, rescuing Lebanese institutions from corruption and a series of misguided and disingenuous [policies] that started five years ago,” Qaouk said. Handover ceremonies were held at the Interior, Foreign, Health, Economy and Environment ministries Thursday. March 14 parties have said that the new government would seek a confrontation with the international community, in line with the Syrian regime’s decision to violently crackdown on domestic opposition groups.
Qaouk added that March 14’s opposition to the new government would fail to change the current political equation. “They scream today to express their political bankruptcy and this screaming will not change the equation or lay the foundations for a new one,” he added. Officials of the March 14 alliance have vowed to confront the agenda of the new government, which they expect to end cooperation with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon despite Mikati’s assurances that it will uphold Lebanon’s commitment to international resolutions.
Tyre MP Nawaf Musawi, from Hezbollah’s Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc, said that the new government would seek to turn the page on the March 14 era and put a decisive end to the policies that marked the past period.
“This government is confronting major challenges, most important of which is the need to turn the page of the past and open a new one that cannot be turned back,” Musawi said.
Musawi said that the new government would bring to an end the interference of foreign ambassadors in determining Lebanon’s policies and restore order to administrative and security state institutions. Musawi dismissed March 14 warnings that the new government would enact vengeful policies toward civil servants close to the March 14 alliance, saying such statements were masked attempts to intimidate the new government in its efforts to fight corruption in the state bureaucracy.
Musawi added that such statements would fail to prevent the Cabinet from holding corrupt state officials accountable for their actions. Suspicions rose recently over the new government’s intention to replace key judicial and security officials, who are considered outside Hezbollah and Syria’s influence, with figures loyal to Damascus and its allies, particularly in the Information Branch of the Internal Security Forces. The Information Branch has been aiding the STL with its investigations, and replacing key security posts is believed to be aimed at ending cooperation between Lebanese security apparatus and the tribunal. Warning against “vengeful steps,” the Future Movement has stressed it will fiercely confront such actions.
For his part, Akkar lawmaker Mouin Merhebi described Mikati’s government as the Syrian regime’s Cabinet in Lebanon, voicing hope that it would be the “last government of this regime.”
Merhebi added that the government was seeking to take hold of state administrative positions to put them in service of the March 8 coalition’s goal of winning a majority in the 2013 parliamentary elections. Separately, former Prime Minister Omar Karami’s brother, Maan, criticized the nomination of Omar’s son, Faisal, as minister at the expense of a Shiite minister.
Faisal was the seventh Sunni minister named, breaking an unwritten convention, which dates from the country’s independence, that Shiite and Sunni ministers have the same number of ministers, equal also to the number of Christian ministers. “Faisal is the sixth Shiite minister in Mikati’s Cabinet and does not represent Tripoli or his religious community,” Maan Karami said.
Speaker Nabih Berri ceded a Shiite Cabinet seat at the last minute to help break the deadlock over the representation of the former Sunni opposition.

Berman and friends unveil bill to cut foreign aid to Lebanon
By Josh Rogin
Friday, June 17, 2011
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/17/berman_and_friends_unveil_bill_to_cut_foreign_aid_to_lebanon
The fight over foreign aid to Lebanon may be reaching a tipping point due to the formation of a new Lebanese government that is dominated by the terrorist organization Hezbollah and its allies. Congress has gone back and forth over whether to keep sending cash and equipment to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), particularly following a clash between the Israeli army and the LAF along the Israel-Lebanon border in August 2010 that left five people dead. Now Howard Berman (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is pushing a bill to end almost all U.S. assistance to Lebanon. He's joined by the top Lebanese-Americans in Congress, including Darrell Issa (R-CA), Charles Boustany (R-LA), and Nick Rahall (D-WV). His bill, the Hezbollah Anti-Terrorism Act (HATA), is modeled on Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act (PATA) that Congress passed after Hamas won the 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council. "When there is essentially a government in Lebanon where a militia organization that has a political front and that is on our terrorist list is determining the nature of that government, the fundamental nature of Lebanon changes very much, from an election-based democracy into a different kind of country," Berman said in a Friday afternoon interview with The Cable. "Under those situations, with limited exceptions, I don't think American taxpayers should be providing military or economic assistance to help Hezbollah maintain its grip on the government of Lebanon," he added.
Berman had put a hold on assistance to Lebanon last summer, but later allowed the money to go through because he wanted to strengthen the LAF in its internal struggle against Hezbollah. But now the situation is totally different and he won't back off, he said. "The notion that the LAF will remain an island of independence under a government that is dominated and welded together by Hezbollah is a very different proposition," he said. Berman's bill would still allow support for rule of law and democracy programs, educational funding, and even training of Lebanese forces in America under the IMET program. The president would also be able to waive restrictions in the law in cases that were deemed to be in the national security interests of the U.S. His GOP counterpart, HFAC chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) is generally supportive of the idea and is considering supporting the bill, Berman said.
But what about the notion that Iran will be more than happy to make up any deficit caused by the withdrawal of U.S. aid?
"Iran has been supplying Hezbollah for years. This is not a fear, this is a reality. We have to respond to this reality and I think this is the way to do it," Berman said.
He released a summary of the legislation, which could come up as a free-standing bill or as an amendment to a larger piece of legislation.

Syria’s Nightmare
Published: June 17, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/opinion/18sat2.html
Times Topics: Syria — Protests (2011) | Bashar Al-Assad Foreign journalists are barred from Syria, but reports of Mr. Assad’s savagery are mounting. In the last two weeks, he has sent tanks and troops into the north and east, forcing about 10,000 Syrians to seek refuge in Turkey. Over three months of protests, more than 1,400 people have been killed and 10,000 detained. Still, thousands of Syrians poured into the streets of Damascus and other cities on Friday in another courageous show of defiance.
In his Arab Spring speech, President Obama said Mr. Assad should lead a pro-democracy transition “or get out of the way.” The Syrian leader has done neither and Mr. Obama has done too little to rally international pressure to force him to make that choice. Mr. Obama should make clear that the Syrian strongman has lost all legitimacy. And he should say that while there will be no military action — Syria is a far more complex case than Libya — Washington is determined to work with the European Union, Turkey and the Arab League to force Mr. Assad and his cronies to pay a high price for their abuses. Washington needs to mount an all-out campaign to pass a tough United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Syria and imposing sanctions. Russia and China have inexcusably blocked a vote for weeks. American and European sanctions should be expanded to cover more Syrian officials as well as businesses allied with the regime. There is talk in Washington about pushing the top consumers of Syrian oil — Germany, Italy, France and the Netherlands — to stop buying it. Experts say the exports are small enough that a suspension would have little effect on world oil prices but a big impact on Damascus. One promising development is the Turkish government’s recent turn against Mr. Assad. Turkey had been one of Syria’s closest allies (along with Iran) and main trading partners. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with President Obama’s encouragement, is now condemning the crackdown and has given Syrian refugees safe haven and allowed Syrian opposition forces to meet in Turkey. We applaud Mr. Erdogan for doing the right thing and urge him and the entire international community to keep ratcheting up the pressure. The only way to end Syria’s nightmare is for Bashar al-Assad to go.

Syrian forces enter village near Turkish border, sources say
By the CNN Wire Staff
June 18, 2011 -/CNN) -- Syrian security forces determined to quell a three-month uprising stormed the northern village of Badama, near the Turkish border, a witness and an activist said Saturday. Units entered the village equipped with at least six tanks, 21 armed personnel carriers, 10 security buses and randomly fired at houses, the Syrian activist said, adding that security forces also closed the road to the village of Khirbet Aljooz. Jameel Saib, an eyewitness near the Turkish border, told CNN people that displaced Syrians trying to enter Badama to get bread and supplies saw the Syrian forces close roads leading to the border. If Badama is taken, Syrian refugees who want to escape the violence in their country will have no medicine or clean water, Saib said. "This is a starvation war they're waging," he said.U.S. exploring possible war crimes charges against Syria
Turkish helicopters were flying in the area, Saib said. CNN could not verify on which side of the border the helicopters were operating. Meanwhile, the British government Saturday advised its citizens to leave Syria immediately and not travel there. "Those who choose to remain in Syria, or to visit against our advice should be aware that it is highly unlikely that the British Embassy in Damascus would be able to provide a normal consular service in the event of a further breakdown in law and order and increased violent civil disorder," the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said. Violence in Syria and an offensive in and around the town of Jisr al-Shugur has spurred thousands of people to make their way to the border region, and Turkish officials are worried that the crisis could deteriorate and destabilize the area. About 3,000 more were on the border near Badama, Saib said.
More than 1,100 people may have died since the unrest across Syria began in mid-March after teens were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in Daraa, according to Amnesty International. The Syrian government has consistently blamed the protest casualties on "armed gangs." International pressure on the regime continues to grow.
The United States is collecting information on possible war crimes by Syrian security forces amid the crackdown, a senior Obama administration official said Friday.
The White House faces pressure from critics who say the administration has been slow to respond to crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators.
The administration is lobbying members of the U.N. Security Council to support a resolution on Syria that, as another administration official put it, "would send a strong message to President (Bashar) al-Assad." Actress Angelina Jolie met with Syrian refugees in Turkey on Friday and drew attention to the anguish faced by families -- and families torn apart -- by the violence in Syria. Angelina Jolie visits Syrian refugees in Turkey More than 9,600 refugees are living in four camps managed by Turkey and the Turkish Red Crescent, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "The people in this camp have fled in fear for their lives, and many told me they were distraught about the safety of loved ones still in Syria," Jolie said, according to the refugee agency.

Syrian troops backed by tanks sweep into village near Turkish border
By Associated Press,/June 18,/11
BOYNUYOGUN REFUGEE CAMP, Turkey — Syrian troops backed by tanks and firing heavy machine guns swept into a village near the Turkish border Saturday, the latest in a series of intensified army operations in the northwest where there have been heavy clashes between loyalist troops and defectors. The Local Coordination Committees, a group that documents anti-government protests, said troops backed by six tanks and several armored personnel carriers, entered Bdama in the morning. The village is about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the Turkish border. Associated Press ) - Refugee children look out from a fence, from inside a Syrian refugee camp just at the border in Turkey near Turkish village of Boynuyogun in Hatay province, Turkey, Friday, June 18, 2011, during a press tour organized by the Turkish authorities. The British Foreign office urged Britons in Syria to leave the country “immediately.” In a statement posted on the website of the British Embassy in Syria, the Foreign Office said Britons should leave “now by commercial means while these are still operating.”
It said those who chose to remain in Syria should know the British Embassy in Damascus would be able to provide a normal consular service in the event of a “further breakdown in law and order.” Britain, France, Germany and Portugal are also sponsoring a draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council to condemn Syria.
The attack on Bdama came a day after Syrian forces swept into Maaret al-Numan, a town on the highway linking Damascus, the capital, with Syria’s largest city, Aleppo. Saturday’s assault on Bdama was about 25 miles (40 kilometers) to the west. Also Saturday, the committees raised the death toll in Friday’s anti-govnerment protests to 19.
The three-month uprising has proved stunningly resilient despite a relentless crackdown by the military, pervasive security forces and pro-regime gunmen. Human rights activists say more than 1,400 Syrians have been killed and 10,000 detained as President Bashar Assad tries to maintain his grip on power.
Bdama is adjacent to Jisr al-Shughour, a town that was spinning out of government control before the military recaptured it last Sunday. Activists had reported fighting in Jisr al-Shughour between loyalist troops and defectors who refused to take part in a continuing crackdown on protesters seeking Assad’s ouster. The fighting in the area, that started nearly two weeks ago, displaced thousands of people including some 10,100 who are sheltered in Turkish refugee camps. On Friday, U.N. envoy Angelina Jolie traveled to Turkey’s border with Syria to meet some of the thousands of Syrian refugees. Rami Abdul-Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told The Associated Press that the takeover of Bdama will affect about 2,000 Syrian refugees who are staying not far from there on the Syrian side of the border with Turkey.
He said those refugees were relying on a bakery in Bdama forto feed themselves. Abdul-Rahman said now the refugees will not be able to go to Bdama to get bread.
The uprising has proven to be the boldest challenge to the Assad family’s 40-year dynasty in Syria. Assad, now 45, inherited power in 2000, raising hopes that the lanky, soft-spoken young leader might transform his late father’s stagnant and brutal dictatorship into a modern state. But over the past 11 years, hopes dimmed that Assad was a reformist, but rather a hardliner determined to keep power at all costs. On Friday, 12 people were killed in the central city of Homs, two in the eastern town of Deir el-Zour and two in the Damascus suburb of Harasta, one in the northern city of Aleppo. A boy believed to be 16 years old, who was in the streets protesting, and another person died in the southern village of Dael, the Local Coordination Committees said.

The uneasy relationship between France and Syria. Analysis
By: Hichem Karoui/Saturday, 18 June 2011
In March 2011, the public anger witnessed in other Arab countries surfaced in Syria, putting the regime of President Bashar Al Assad on the defensive for the first time. (File photo)
By HICHEM KAROUI
Al Arabiya Paris
In March 2011, the public anger witnessed in other Arab countries surfaced in Syria, putting the regime of President Bashar Al Assad on the defensive for the first time in his 11-year presidency. As the Syrian security forces continue to fire on unarmed civilians, while the United Nations now talks of more than 1200 dead, recalls countless cases of torture and violations of human rights and as thousands of refugees fleeing Syria, a statement of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Quai d’Orsay) on June 14, 2011, noted that “this is an abysmal record.
France hopes that the UN Security Council takes a decision on the intolerable situation prevailing in Syria and the headlong rush of the Damascus regime. Each member of the Security Council must take responsibility. We regret the lack of consensus within the Council.”
The same day, answering a question before the National Assembly, Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain Juppé of France, said:
“What can we do? France cannot and will not act but within the framework of international legality. At the Security Council, despite all our efforts, especially with the British and the Americans, we have not yet reached our goal. Indeed, China and Russia threat to use the veto. We will not take the risk of a vote on a draft resolution condemning the Syrian regime if we cannot reach a sufficient majority. Today, we have probably nine votes in the Security Council. We still have to convince South Africa, India and Brazil. I think if things evolve so that we could have eleven votes, we would put the draft resolution to the vote and everyone would then face his responsibility: we will see whether China and Russia would veto.”
France’s relationship with Syria has never been easy and was even further complicated by the ongoing revolt as it was by the unresolved assassination case of former prime minister of Lebanon Rafik Al Hariri.
Received at Brookings Institute in Washington DC on June 6, 2011, Mr. Juppé explained to his audience the position of his country regarding the “Arab Spring.” He asserted that either for Libya or Syria, the rejection of the reforms and the vicious circle of violence are just intolerable. “We don’t have two different policies in these two different countries,” he said and clearly denounced the current repression linking it to the previous massacre of Hama population in 1982.
At least 20,000 people were killed in Hama (February 2008). However, President François Mitterrand—the newly elected—did not condemn this brutal repression. On the one hand, France felt it was better to ignore the massacre rather than support the Muslim Brotherhood. On the other, France’s Syrian policy has always been commanded by its interests in Lebanon.
On the morning of October 23, 1983, in Beirut, 58 French peacekeepers died in an explosion at their headquarters: “Drakkar.” A few minutes earlier, another bomb destroyed the US headquarters, killing 239 soldiers.
The period of the eighties was particularly stressing for the French-Syrian relations. Terrorist actions assumedly orchestrated by Syria killed French soldiers in Lebanon. There is a resulting legacy of distrust of Syria among many French officials.
One of the principal reasons for improvement in French-Israeli relations has been the Jospin government’s strong criticism of Syria. In February 2000, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin told the Knesset that Hezbollah militants operating in southern Lebanon were guilty of “terrorist actions,” and condemned Syria for supporting them. France praised Israel’s decision to remove its forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000 and expressed a willingness to send a force of 1,600 peacekeepers if UNIFIL is reinforced to number 4,500 men.
Members of the Jospin government were reportedly critical of President Chirac for attending the funeral of Syrian President Hafez Al Assad in June 2000; he was the only western head of state to do so. Foreign Minister Védrine, according to media reports, told the French cabinet that Assad’s son and successor, Bashar, might not be able to exercise power in Syria in the long run, and was unlikely to liberalize the country.
These remarks were interpreted as critical of Chirac’s decision to go to the funeral and thereby implicitly endorse Bashar’s succession. The French President had received at the Elysée Palace (November 7, 1999) the young man who will take over as President of Syria.
During the first mandate of the Bush presidency, France has been critical of the US Administration’s desire to promote democracy in the Middle East, but that did not hinder them from coordinating some policies.
Thus, following the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Jacques Chirac launched with George W. Bush, a diplomatic initiative leading to the 1559 UN resolution directed against Syria. Adopted September 2, 2004, the text demands the withdrawal of 15,000 Syrian troops from Lebanon and an end to the interference of Damascus in the country—a turning point in the French diplomacy.
When Rafik Al Hariri was murdered in Beirut (February 2005), some people in France, saw it as the “Syrian answer” to the US-French humiliating initiative.
Being a close friend of Mr. Hariri, President Chirac did everything until the end of his second term, to isolate Syria diplomatically. Even today the former president is housed in an apartment owned by the Hariri family, on the banks of the Seine in Paris.
The period 2005 to 2008 saw the isolation of Syria as a result of its association with Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. This was the policy of the Bush administration and France, which likely instigated the same stance in the EU.
But once elected, President Sarkozy made a clear change in favor of a diplomatic rehabilitation of Syria. He proposed Syria to join the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), claiming that engaging Syria would be more productive than the apparently failed policy of ostracism. Most EU members acted in agreement.
Twenty-five years after the operation that killed 58 French soldiers in Beirut, the Syrian head of state was present at the summit of July 13, 2008, and the next day, despite the controversy, he attended the July 14 parade among the “guests of honour.”
As the victims’ families felt offended by the presence of Bashar Al Assad in Paris, an article appeared in Le Monde penned by one of the staff of the Elysée, saying: “This is a historic mistake! The Drakkar was Iran’s operation! Syria was only behind the murder of ambassador Delamare.” (The representative of France in Lebanon was murdered, September 4, 1981 in Beirut.)
In 2009, France was even well disposed toward the Syrian regime and probably had instigated the proposal of an association agreement offered by the EU to Mr. Bashar, who, oddly enough turned it down.
On February 2010, at a press conference in Damascus, Prime Minister Mr. François Fillon of France wished to move up a gear and step up an economic partnership “currently well below its potential.” But as he warned shortly before, “the condition of a continued economic development in Syria is peace and security.” In his view, “Syria has a key role in establishing peace in the Middle East.” He then asked for Syria’s help on the Iranian nuclear issue.
But his Syrian counterpart Mohammed Naji Otri, refused categorically and definitively. “We have always supported the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” said Mr. Otri, who then called for a “denuclearization of the region” because “the threat comes from Israel.”
Mr. Fillon also reiterated that France was “disposed to help resuming the dialogue between Syria and Israel with the participation of Turkey.” “There is no time to lose,” he said, adding that France would begin discussions with the three parties “without delay” for a resumption of peace negotiations also interrupted during the war on Gaza.
The visit resulted in the signature of a 27 million Euro contract for the sale of two regional jets and a protocol for the sale of 14 Airbus to the Syrian Arab Airlines Company blocked by an extended U.S. embargo. Mr. Fillon referred to the project of a new metro in Damascus and a new airport terminal, which “could be emblematic of a fruitful cooperation between our two countries.” However, all these efforts came to a naught, when Mr. Bashar refused the calls pressing serious reforms, preferring the policy of confrontation with his people.
Since last Wednesday, the Security Council is examining the draft of a UN resolution submitted by France and the United Kingdom with the aim of condemning the repression in Syria. To obtain the necessary majority, the text must reach eleven votes of the fifteen in the Security Council. The most reluctant are: Brazil, South Africa and especially India, whose position is very close to that of Russia. Lebanon would also be unfavourable to vote against its powerful neighbour and former occupier.
The French still hope to convince Brazil and South Africa.
**(Hichem Karoui is an expert in US-Middle East relations. His political column has been published by varied Arabic and English speaking media. He holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Sorbonne University. He can be reached by email at: info@hichemkaroui.com) His homepage: http://www.hichemkaroui.com)

The seventh minister
Hazem al-Amin, June 17, 2011
Now Lebanon/There is a good-natured dimension to Najib Mikati’s personality that does not quite go with his wealth. A good-natured dimension may be a sign of mysticism, but this is not the case with the prime minister. The man is not known for his disinterestedness, especially since his appetite was not able to resist the appeal of the poisoned meal on his table today, i.e. the miracle cabinet that reeks of mistakes no matter under what light you look at it in terms of regional, sectarian, family or political considerations. It is a cabinet of mistakes that came at the wrong time, one that is headed by a prime minister who made a potentially fatal political mistake.
On the first day on which he announced his cabinet, the prime minister became blatantly exposed. Emir Talal Arslan, his supposedly-polite ally, referred to him using the language “emirs” of his sort have recourse to when they voice despise for commoners. Everyone said this was understandable, and not a single former MP rose to defend the prime minister against Arslan’s ire. All that Mikati could do was to summon good-natured words to admonish “the man of noble political descent” for the language he used to address him.
The blow came on the second day from the other pillar of the new governmental coalition. It had been said that Mikati “won the Sunni community an extra cabinet seat” despite the sectarian masquerade this move stands for. However, this image was soon torn to pieces when former PM Omar Karami sent his son Faisal to thank Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem for his ministerial appointment. Sources with expert knowledge of the Karami family said that the former prime minister wanted to hit Mikati with a poisoned arrow by sending his son to express his thanks to Hezbollah.
Mikati’s trip to Saudi Arabia for the Umrah (the lesser Muslim pilgrimage) on the day following the formation of his cabinet denotes his good-natured, albeit not disinterested, nature. This trip was aimed as a “neighbor’s call,” but it seems to have been fruitless.
Mikati now heads a cabinet, one-third of which is controlled by Michel Aoun, and he believes that an extra Sunni seat will make up for the damage this one-third share can inflict on the Sunni community to which Aoun has been hostile for the past five years. Another one-third of his cabinet is controlled by Hezbollah, which is also counting on this extra seat to bridge a huge gap, one that starts in Pakistan and extends way beyond Syria.
As for the remaining one-third of cabinet seats, it cannot be taken into consideration, especially since MP Walid Jumblatt may sell it off to Hezbollah at the first opportunity. President Michel Sleiman may also wake up one day to find that Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, whom he shares with Michel Aoun, has acted exactly the same as Minister Adnan as-Sayyed Hussein, whom he shared with Hezbollah. Mikati lives today in an unenviable state of political exposure. His cabinet is regionally blocked, internationally threatened and deprived of any domestic protection. The tasks allotted to this cabinet would better be done by somebody else, since events in Syria will require functions that cannot be undertaken by a “not-so-disinterested, good-natured man.” A man like former Minister Abdel Rahim Mrad would be better suited for the job. His position could even be consolidated by the appointment of an eighth Sunni minister.

Question: "What does the Bible say about Christian fathers?"
"GotQuestions.org
Answer: The greatest commandment in Scripture is this: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5). Going back to verse 2, we read, “So that you, your children and their children after them may fear the LORD your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.” Following Deuteronomy 6:5, we read, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (vv. 6-7).
Israelite history reveals that the father was to be diligent in instructing his children in the ways and words of the Lord for their own spiritual development and well-being. The father who was obedient to the commands of Scripture did just that. This brings us to Proverbs 22:6, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” To “train” indicates the first instruction that a father and mother give to a child, i.e., his early education. The training is designed to make clear to children the manner of life they are intended for. To commence a child's early education in this way is of great importance.
Ephesians 6:4 is a summary of instructions to the father, stated in both a negative and positive way. “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” The negative part of this verse indicates that a father is not to foster negativity in his children by severity, injustice, partiality, or unreasonable exercise of authority. Harsh, unreasonable conduct towards a child will only serve to nurture evil in the heart. The word “provoke” means “to irritate, exasperate, rub the wrong way, or incite.” This is done by a wrong spirit and wrong methods—severity, unreasonableness, sternness, harshness, cruel demands, needless restrictions, and selfish insistence upon dictatorial authority. Such provocation will produce adverse reactions, deadening children’s affection, reducing their desire for holiness, and making them feel that they cannot possibly please their parents. A wise parent seeks to make obedience desirable and attainable by love and gentleness.
The positive part of Ephesians 6:4 is expressed in a comprehensive direction—educate them, bring them up, develop their conduct in all of life by the instruction and admonition of the Lord. This is the whole process of educating and discipline. The word “admonition” carries the idea of reminding the child of faults (constructively) and duties (responsibilities).
The Christian father is really an instrument in God's hand. The whole process of instruction and discipline must be that which God commands and which He administers, so that His authority should be brought into constant and immediate contact with the mind, heart, and conscience of children. The human father should never present himself as the ultimate authority to determine truth and duty. It is only by making God the teacher and ruler on whose authority everything is done that the goals of education can best be attained.
Martin Luther said, “Keep an apple beside the rod to give the child when he does well.” Discipline must be exercised with watchful care and constant training with much prayer. Chastening, discipline, and counsel by the Word of God, giving both reproof and encouragement, is at the core of “admonition.” The instruction proceeds from the Lord, is learned in the school of Christian experience, and is administered by the parents—primarily the father, but also, under his direction, the mother. Christian discipline is needed to enable children to grow up with reverence for God, respect for parental authority, knowledge of Christian standards, and habits of self-control.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). A father’s first responsibility is to acquaint his children with Scripture. The means and methods that fathers may use to teach God's truth will vary. As the father is faithful in role modeling, what children learn about God will put them in good standing throughout their earthly lives, no matter what they do or where they go.


There Is No Going Back in Syria
18/06/2011
By Hillary Clinton/AsharqAlAwsat
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the US Secretary of State.
As the violent crackdown in Syria continues, President Assad has shown that he is more interested in his own power than his people.

The world has joined Syrians in mourning the deaths of many innocent people, including a 13-year old boy who was brutally tortured and mutilated. Approximately thirteen hundred Syrians have been killed since protests began. Many thousands more have been jailed and abused. Syrian security forces have surrounded communities and cut off electricity, communications and the Internet. Economic activity has slowed, the country is increasingly isolated and its citizens are growing more frustrated every day.
In his May 19 speech, President Obama echoed demonstrators’ basic and legitimate demands: the Assad government must stop shooting demonstrators, allow peaceful protest, release political prisoners, stop unjust arrests, give access to human rights monitors, and start an inclusive dialogue to advance a democratic transition. President Assad, he said, could either lead that transition or get out of the way.
It is increasingly clear that President Assad has made his choice. But while continued brutality may allow him to delay the change that is underway in Syria, it will not reverse it.
As Syria’s neighbors and the international community respond to this crisis, we should be guided by the answers to several key questions: Why has it erupted? What does the crackdown reveal about President Assad and his regime? And where does Syria go from here?
First, there should be no doubt about the nature of the protests in Syria.
Like Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and others across the Middle East and North Africa, the Syrian people are demanding their long-denied universal rights and rejecting a government that rules through fear, squanders their talents through corruption, and denies them the dignity of having a voice in their own future. They are organizing themselves, including the local coordinating committees, and they are refusing to back down even in the face of revolting violence.
If President Assad believes that the protests are the work of foreign instigators – as his government has claimed – he is wrong. It is true that some Syrian soldiers have been killed, and we regret the loss of those lives too. But the vast majority of casualties have been unarmed civilians. By continuing to ban foreign journalists and observers, the regime seeks to hide these facts.
Second, President Assad is showing his true colors by embracing the repressive tactics of his ally Iran and putting Syria onto the path of a pariah state.
By following Iran’s lead, President Assad is placing himself and his regime on the wrong side of history. He will learn that legitimacy flows from the consent of the people and cannot be forged through bullets and billyclubs.
President Assad’s violent crackdown has shattered his claims to be a reformer. For years, he has offered pledges and promises, but all that matters are his actions. A speech, no matter how dutifully applauded by regime apologists, will not change the reality that the Syrian people, despite being told they live in a republic, have never had the opportunity to freely elect their leaders. These citizens want to see a real transition to democracy and a government that honors their universal rights and aspirations.
If President Assad believes he can act with impunity because the international community hopes for his cooperation on other issues, he is wrong about this as well. He and his regime are certainly not indispensable.
A Syria that is unified, pluralistic, and democratic could play a positive and leading role in the region, but under President Assad the country is increasingly becoming a source of instability. The refugees streaming into Turkey and Lebanon, and the tensions being stoked on the Golan, should dispel the notion that the regime is a bulwark of regional stability that must be protected.
Finally, the answer to the most important question of all – what does this mean for Syria’s future? – is increasingly clear: There is no going back.
Syrians have recognized the violence as a sign of weakness from a regime that rules by coercion, not consent. They have overcome their fears and have shaken the foundations of this authoritarian system.
Syria is headed toward a new political order -- and the Syrian people should be the ones to shape it. They should insist on accountability, but resist any temptation to exact revenge or reprisals that might split the country, and instead join together to build a democratic, peaceful and tolerant Syria.
Considering the answers to all these questions, the United States chooses to stand with the Syrian people and their universal rights. We condemn the Assad regime’s disregard for the will of its citizens and Iran’s insidious interference.
The United States has already imposed sanctions on senior Syrian officials, including President Assad. We are carefully targeting leaders of the crackdown, not the Syrian people. We welcomed the decisions by the European Union to impose its own sanctions and by the UN Human Rights Council to launch an investigation into abuses. The United States will continue coordinating closely with our partners in the region and around world to increase pressure on and further isolate the Assad regime.
The Syrian people will not cease their demands for dignity and a future free from intimidation and fear. They deserve a government that respects its people, works to build a more stable and prosperous country, and doesn’t have to rely on repression at home and antagonism abroad to maintain its grip on power. They deserve a nation that is unified, democratic and a force for stability and progress. That would be good for Syria, good for the region and good for the world.

Why Iran needs to drop Assad
17/06/2011
By Amir Taheri/Ashara AlAwsat
Is Iran beginning to abandon the Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad?
Officially, the Baathist regime in Damascus and the Khomeinist regime in Tehran remain strategic allies. Under a treaty, signed in 2004, they are committed to helping one another against "external threats". They also hold annual meetings of senior military commanders, ostensibly to "coordinate efforts to strengthen regional stability." Iran supplies arms to Syria and has been training Syrian security personnel since the mid-1990s. Iran's annual aid package to Syria amounts to more than $500 million.
Specialists believe that, after the disintegration of the Communist bloc, the Islamic Republic has replaced the Soviet Union as Syria's
protector.
Syria has been useful to Iran in several ways.
It has prevented the emergence of a united Arab bloc against the Khomeinist regime and acted as a channel for Iranian influence in Lebanon.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made no secret of his ambition to see Iran secure a presence in the Mediterranean for the first time since the 7th century. That, he hopes, would be achieved by dominating Iraq and using Syria and Lebanon as client states. Tehran media depicted the recent appearance of an Iranian war flotilla in Syrian ports as a dramatic occasion to "show the flag".
Over the past year, a new factor has increased Syria's value as an Iranian asset in the geostrategic competition in the Middle East.
That factor is Turkey.
Convinced that joining the European Union is more of a mirage than a possibility, Turkish leaders have switched to a "neo-Ottoman" foreign policy aimed at creating a zone of influence from the Caspian Basin to North Africa.
Turkey's new ambitions clash with Iran's hegemonic plans.
Their rivalry is not limited to geopolitics. There is also a subtext of ideological competition. Turkey's current leadership is a moderate branch of the Muslim Brotherhood using the label of the Justice and Development Party (AKP).
"Today, Turkey is offering a model to the Muslim world," Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan told an election victory rally in Istanbul last Sunday. "Turkey wants to become a voice for Muslims throughout the world."
For Khomeinists in Tehran, Erdogan's claim is as provocative as waving a red cloth at a Spanish bull. (The Khomeinist Constitution claims that Ali Khamenei is "Leader of all Muslims throughout the world.")
For some three years, Turkey has been assiduously courting Syria. The two have signed business deals amounting to $1 billion, a large sum for Syria's small economy. Turkey has also served as "facilitator" in talks between Syria and Israel. That, in turn, has reinforced Israel's traditional policy of supporting the Assad clan against an "unknown future."
Since the mullahs seized power in 1979, Tehran has harbored the hope of emerging as "regional superpower". With the United States apparently bent on strategic retreat under President Obama, Tehran's hubris reached its peak under Ahmadinejad. Turkey's unexpected entry in the competition threatened Tehran's ambitions.
Suddenly, Syria looked like a key pawn.
It is no surprise that the media in Iran have chosen to ignore the uprising against the Syrian regime. Until this week, whenever the uprising was mentioned it was branded "an American-Zionist plot". And, yet, there are signs, still faint, that Tehran might be reconsidering the situation in Syria.
For the first time since the uprising started, the official news agency IRNA has ran an item about "the need to respond to the legitimate demands of the Syrian people." The daily Kayhan, controlled by the office of the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei, advises Syrian leaders to carry out "necessary reforms" to defeat "American-Zionist conspiracies." Hard-line members of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's fake parliament, claim that Syria is in trouble because it "dabbled in secularism."
More importantly, perhaps, Tehran has decided to stop the flow of pilgrims to a "holy shrine" near Damascus. The excuse given by the Khomeinist Cultural Attaché in Syria is that the pilgrims also travel to Lebanon where they visit "Christian majority areas" and become exposed to "wrong ideas."
It is, of course, too early to tell whether Tehran will jettison the Assad clan. However, such an eventuality could not be ruled out. Khomeinists have never hesitated to drop a protégé when he looked like a loser. (Recently, Tehran dropped the al-Hakim clan in Iraq, having supported it for three decades. Tehran diverted its support to the group led by Muqtada al-Sadr.)
If Tehran's attitude changes, the key, once again, would be Turkey. Having initially backed the Assad clan, Turkey has now switched to supporting the uprising. By doing so it is banking on the future as the Assad clan increasingly looks like the past. Iran, however, is still wedded to the past in Syria, and could thus emerge as a loser.
If there is regime change in Damascus, Iran would be shut out as a power that supported the Assad clan while it was killing the people in the streets. If the Assad clan manages to hang on to a semblance of power through mass carnage, Tehran would end up saddled with an isolated and bankrupt regime In Damascus.
Turkey's prospects are different. A new regime in Damascus would regard Turkey as a true friend that supported the Syrian people against a regime they rejected. If the Assad clan remains in power, Turkey would emerge as the leader of a new wave of reform and change across the Greater Middle East.
Under all conceivable configurations, the only way for Iran to avoid becoming a loser is to jettison Assad and reach out to the Syrian people.
Whatever one might think about them, Tehran's geo-strategists would not be as out of touch with reality not to know all that.

Khamenei and Hariri…and the beautiful gypsy!
18/06/2011
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The pressing question that must be asked today is: will the new Lebanese government be capable of fulfilling the admittedly specific demands of protecting Lebanon, and ensuring that the country does not find itself subject to complete Iranian and Syrian control, and this is not to mention Hezbollah? In order to find out the answer to this question, let us look at the following story.
A well-informed Iranian source informed me of an incident that took place between Supreme Leader of Iran Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and then Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, during his most recent visit to Iran. According to the source, Hariri informed his advisers at his residence in Tehran about his desire to speak frankly with the Iranian Supreme Leader about the danger that Hezbollah's arms represent to Lebanon. The Iranian source told me that "Hariri forgot that in Iran, walls have ears."
So, when Saad Hariri met with the Supreme Leader, along with 8 Lebanese ministers – including a Hezbollah affiliated minister – as well as dozens of Iranian official, Khamenei began by telling Hariri "let me tell you about my viewpoint on Lebanon." He said "in my youth I read the novel 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' by French author Victor Hugo, in this novel there is a beautiful girl named Esmeralda who dances in Paris's clubs…everybody was enamoured by her and wanted her, even by force, and so she carried a small razorblade in her pocket to defend herself."
The Supreme Leader of Iran then said "Lebanon is like Esmeralda, Lebanon is the temptress of the East, and many are captivated by her and want to take her, even by force, and the Islamic resistance is Lebanon's razorblade!" This is what Khamenei told the then Lebanese Prime Minister whilst smiling calmly.
Hariri directly responded to this, saying "Your Eminence, the resistance is nothing new to Lebanon, and it has had many faces, first it was an Arab resistance, then a Palestinian resistance, then it became leftist, and now it has the face of Hezbollah and is being called the Islamic resistance." Exhibiting clear signs of nerves, Hariri added that "we in Lebanon, your Eminence, are afraid that Esmeralda will cut herself with this razorblade." He then concluded by saying – and this is the crux of the matter – that "it is true that Lebanon is the temptress of the East, indeed we believe that Lebanon is more beautiful than Esmeralda, because this beautiful gypsy Esmeralda is fictional, whilst Lebanon is real."
My source, whose story was confirmed by another source that attended this meeting, said that when the interpreter began to translate what Hariri said from Arabic into Persian, the Supreme Leader of Iran raised his hand to indicate to the interpreter that he need not translate this. Following this, Khamenei gestured to Hariri [that the meeting was finished], and then the then Lebanese prime minister thanked him, and that was the end of the meeting. After they had left the meeting hall, and the door had been closed, one of the [Lebanese] ministers accompanying Hariri said in an audible voice "Oh Sheikh, I want to kiss you…!"
Therefore, so long as Khamenei is acting as the protector of Hezbollah, and the only ally of the al-Assad regime, how can a [Lebanese] government that was formed by Syria with Iranian aid guarantee the security of Lebanon, and ensure that the country is not transformed into a province affiliated to the Wali al-Faqih [Guardian of the Jurists]? The Supreme Leader of Iran seemed to resent Hariri's review of the history of Lebanese resistance, so what would have happened if Hariri – after he told the Supreme Leader of Iran that Esmeralda is a fictional character – had added that the beautiful Gypsy temptress is nothing more than a literary trope invented by a French poet and that according to the Holy Quran, "the Poets – it is those straying in Evil, who follow them" [Surat Ash-Shoura, Verse 224]. Paris today is a center for law and freedoms; when one thinks of France one thinks of perfume, such as Coco Chanel, rather than the French military machine!

Echoes of Arkan in Syria
Michael Young, June 17, 2011
Now Lebanon
What is Syria’s leadership up to as it mounts a nation-wide armed onslaught against its own people? The simple answer, and it would be an accurate one, is that it is engaged in mass repression. However, we may be missing something more subtle, and more specific. The angry condemnation of the Assad regime’s brutality last week by senior Turkish officials could provide us with a clue as to what this is.
In recent weeks, the brunt of the onslaught has been conducted by predominantly Alawite units under the orders of Maher al-Assad, the brother of President Bashar al-Assad and commander of the regime’s praetorian guard. Action has taken place along two lines. After earlier concentrating its attacks on Tal Kalakh and Arida, located along the northern Lebanese border, the military shifted its attention to Jisr al-Shughur, near the Turkish border. At the same time, the Syrian army and security forces have pursued operations in a parallel corridor along the Homs-Aleppo road. The latest assaults have been directed against Maaret al-Naaman, between Hama and Aleppo.
According to eyewitnesses, the pattern of aggression lately has been similar. The army surrounds and bombards a town or village, or shoots at protesters, accusing the inhabitants of being members of “armed groups.” In a number of localities, the population, mainly Sunnis, has chosen to flee or has been forced out, before soldiers and security agents enter, accompanied by Alawite gangs unleashed primarily to sow terror. In Jisr al-Shughur, for example, refugees have reported rape, theft and the burning of crops.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, then perhaps you have a good memory for the tactics used during the wars of the former Yugoslavia. At the time the Serb-dominated Yugoslav army and the regime of Slobodan Milosevic sponsored a number of paramilitary groups, most notoriously the Serb Volunteer Guard under Zeljko Raznatovic, better known as Arkan. Working in conjunction with the army, these groups were responsible for ethnically cleansing swathes of Croatia and Bosnia in order to create a contiguous Serb-majority territory.
Might we be witnessing something similar in select parts of Syria? It’s very difficult to say. However, look at a map of northwestern Syria where the Alawites are concentrated, particularly the mountain range known as Jabal al-Nusayriyya, or Jabal al-Alawiyeen, that runs in a north-south direction from the Turkish border to the foothills above Lebanon’s Akkar plain. If you draw a meridian from Tal Kalakh to Jisr al-Shughur, it runs along the eastern edge of that range, where the plain begins and stretches further east toward Homs and Hama. To consolidate the Alawite heartland, the Assad regime needs to hold that meridian, particularly its northern and southern hinges at Tal Kalakh to Jisr al-Shughur, as well as a third hinge at Arida.
At the same time, over the decades Alawites have migrated into the plain, moving to areas around the mainly Sunni agglomerations of Homs and Hama, as well as to other places in Syria. It makes sense for the regime, in order to maintain its power, to regain control of the Homs-to-Aleppo passage. However, it is also true that if the Assads are thinking in sectarian geographical terms, this passage would be the first line of Alawite defense along an Alawite-Sunni fault line.
A good argument could be made that the policy of the Syrian regime has little to do with any scheme to establish an Alawite mini-state, the presumed outcome of any ethnic cleansing campaign. After all, dominating Arida and Tal Kalakh, like Jisr al-Shughur, may just be efforts to seal off potentially dangerous border transmission points to and from Sunni districts in neighboring Lebanon and Turkey.
But that only begs three other questions: Why has the Assad regime so heightened sectarian animosities by playing on alleged Sunni-Alawite differences, when anti-regime demonstrations have sought to avoid sectarianism altogether? Why has the behavior of the Syrian army, security agencies and irregular forces in some areas been plainly designed to cause panic specifically among Sunnis, thereby displacing populations and ensuring they would not soon return? And why has the regime, by most accounts, been arming Alawite villages?
In the statements of Turkish politicians last week, as well as those of American officials, there was palpable alarm with the potential sectarian consequences of the Assad regime’s measures to eradicate dissent. The Turks are understandably worried that if Syria were to break up into ethnic mini-states, Turkey would face not only the prospect of an Alawite entity across from the province of Hatay – which the Syrians call Alexandretta, where an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 Alawites live – they would also have to deal with the real possibility that Syria’s Kurds would go their own way, with dangerous repercussions for Turkey’s management of its own Kurdish minority.
While the Assad regime may not be pursuing a broad ethnic cleansing strategy, in and around Jisr al-Shughur and Tal Kalakh specifically it is doing something suspiciously similar. The plan beyond that, especially in the plains of Homs, Hama and Aleppo, may conceivably involve a two-stage process: first, to try to neutralize the situation on the ground through offensive action in areas with a large Sunni urban presence; and if that fails and the regime’s survival is threatened, to lay the groundwork for a defensive strategy leading to the eventual consolidation of a territory in which Alawites can protect themselves.
There are plenty of problems with this theory. Alawites are spread throughout Syria, and there are very substantial Sunni populations in Syria’s coastal cities that would, presumably, be integrated into any Alawite statelet. For now nothing suggests that the Assads have given up on re-imposing their writ over all of Syria. However, quite a few incidents in the northeast also suggest that the regime is calculating in sectarian terms and pursuing a sectarian strategy. Only time, and the continuation of the uprising, will elucidate the Assads’ endgame.
**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.

Neighbors/ From old dictatorship to new
By Zvi Bar'el /Haaretz
"We're going from a dictatorship of the National Party [the ruling party under Mubarak], which didn't prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from entering the political sphere, to a dictatorship of the revolution, bent on denying Egyptian citizens their rights under the pretext that they're members of the National Party. They forget that a majority of Egyptians were members of that party, willingly or otherwise."
By "they," Abu Douaa, an anonymous blogger on the Al-Masry Al-Youm site, means participants at the National Consensus Conference - a conference of representatives of various movements and groups, intellectuals and politicians, who, since late May, have been conducting a dialogue with Egypt's Higher Military Council about the country's political future.
The conference has various committees, each devoted to a specific subject. Abu Douaa's was infuriated, of all things, by the decision taken by the Election Committee to prohibit politicians, leaders, and key figures in the dismantled National Party from playing an active role in politics for five years. The sweeping resolution also prevents the leaders of other "straw parties" created by the government from participating in political life and calls on ousting from parliament any members whose election was deemed fraudulent by the courts.
Dr. Hashem Rabia, chairman of the Election Committee, reported that a list of 2,970 activists who will be barred from politics has already been compiled and that it will be distributed among protest movements and registered parties to make sure that these individuals are prevented from running in the election and to take action against them if they do.
"It is easier for us to decide what should not be done than what should be done," said an activist from the April 6 Youth Movement, which was behind the mass demonstrations held in Tahrir Square in January. Its members have declined to participate in the conference, as has the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Have we already agreed on the nature of the constitution? Will the country continue to be defined as a state whose legislation draws its authority from Islamic law? Is our goal a settling of accounts, or the establishment of a new state?" he wonders, and adds: "In the meantime we are placing the authority to decide Egypt's future in the hands of the army, which is liable to steal the revolution from us."
These views - voiced by the activist, a 42-year-old software engineer, who also referred to the internal dispute raging in the April 6 Movement over participation in the conference - are shared by many. Last week, Dr. El-Sayyid el-Badawi, chairman of the New Wafd Party which served as a symbolic, ineffectual opposition during Mubarak's rule, warned that "the revolution has yet to achieve its goals, beyond deposing the former president and placing his ministers, along with others responsible for Egypt's plight, on trial. We should leave the desire to take revenge on the former regime to the courts." El-Badawi called on the army to continue to manage Egypt's affairs for at least another two years, so that deserving presidential candidates might gain an opportunity to present themselves to the public and earn its trust. The presidential election has been set for December - barring a postponement - but no leading candidates have yet emerged.
El-Badawi acknowledges that the army refuses to comply with his call, since the military leadership wants to relieve itself as soon as possible of the burden of directly governing the country. He is particularly worried by the "revolutionary spirit" still rampant on the Egyptian streets, which allows criminal offenders and thugs to act with impunity.
In a horrifying incident last week, Marianna Abdou, a reporter with the Coptic television station CTV, was violently attacked by a group of thugs while interviewing demonstrators at Tahrir Square. The attackers shouted at her "Israeli, Israeli," tore her clothes, and, according to eyewitnesses, even tried to rape her. A courageous policeman eventually braved the crowd and fired his gun in the air to disperse them.
This act, publicly acknowledged by Prime Minister Essam Sharaf, was exceptional, in view of the general reluctance of Egyptian police to confront demonstrators or lawbreakers. Witnesses reported that the policeman's colleagues tried to disperse the attackers but were forced to flee themselves when the thugs turned on them.
At a distance of a few blocks from Tahrir Square, in the huge convention hall at the historic Shepheard Hotel where author and Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz used to meet his friends and admirers, another political dispute was playing out. The representatives of four newly established political parties, none of which has yet obtained a legal license, held a European/American-style public debate, attended by a large audience. Each representative was required to present, in five minutes, his party's platform, then to address arguments by his rivals and questions from the audience. The participants were well-known and influential personalities, belonging mostly to Cairo's elites, such as businessman Naguib Sawiris, intellectual Osama Al-Ghazali Harb and Dr. Mustafa al-Najjar, who coordinated Mohamed ElBaradei's election campaign.
All agreed, of course, that Egypt's prosperity, democracy, and the rooting out of corruption must take precedence. But when pressed for details, they were far from reaching a consensus. Some were apprehensive about the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself has founded two political parties, and some were in favor of postponing the presidential election and even the parliamentary election. Profound differences also emerged regarding the nature of the Egyptian state itself, particularly in view of the Coptic population's fear of a major victory by the Muslim Brotherhood. Three months ahead of the parliamentary election, Egypt is still stuck in Tahrir Square.