LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 25/2011


Bible Quotation for today/
The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
Matthew 18/21-34: "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, Lord, if my brother keeps on sinning against me, how many times do I have to forgive him? Seven times? No, not seven times, answered Jesus, but seventy times seven, because the Kingdom of heaven is like this. Once there was a king who decided to check on his servants' accounts. He had just begun to do so when one of them was brought in who owed him millions of dollars. The servant did not have enough to pay his debt, so the king ordered him to be sold as a slave, with his wife and his children and all that he had, in order to pay the debt. The servant fell on his knees before the king. Be patient with me, he begged, and I will pay you everything! The king felt sorry for him, so he forgave him the debt and let him go. Then the man went out and met one of his fellow servants who owed him a few dollars. He grabbed him and started choking him. Pay back what you owe me! he said. His fellow servant fell down and begged him, Be patient with me, and I will pay you back! But he refused; instead, he had him thrown into jail until he should pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were very upset and went to the king and told him everything. So he called the servant in. You worthless slave! he said. I forgave you the whole amount you owed me, just because you asked me to. You should have had mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you. The king was very angry, and he sent the servant to jail to be punished until he should pay back the whole amount. And Jesus concluded, That is how my Father in heaven will treat every one of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Ask the experienced/
By Tariq Alhomayed/November 24/11
Amid Lebanese chaos, a chance for reform/By Michael Young/November 24/11
Al-Assad used foreign intervention first/By Tariq Alhomayed/November 24/11
The Brotherhood and Salafis ejected from Tahrir Square/By Ali Ibrahim/November 24/11 
The crisis threatens major states first/By Bilal Hassan/ November 24/11 
Russia draws red line around Syria/By: Tony Badran/November 24/11 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for November 24/11 
U.S. Blogger: Siddiqin Blast Caused by Booby-trapped Trojan Horse Drone
Lebanese Army: Siddiqin Blast Caused by Mine or Cluster Bomb
Report: Hizbullah Installs Telecom Network in Zahle after Tarshish Failure
Fletcher Meets Baragwanath: We’re Encouraged by Lebanese Officials’ Vows to Meet International Obligations

 
Yemen president of 33 years to quit amid uprising
Netanyahu: Arab world moving backward, not forward'
Netanyahu calls for stronger sanctions on Iran than those imposed by U.S.
Netanyahu: Israel, Egypt share vested interest in maintaining peace treaty
Iran says arrests 12 CIA agents amid reports of compromised U.S. ring

  Obama aide: End of Assad regime will serve severe blow to Iran
Two Egyptian soldiers killed on Israel-Egypt border

Egypt Military Apologizes for Protest Deaths

Canadian Statement on Yemen
Funding flurry as STL chief visits
World leaders congratulate Lebanon on Independence Day
Lebanese Army attributes south Lebanon blast to land mine
Beirut to host international military and security conference
Daouk denies U.S. envoy was summoned over alleged spies
Talk show hosts defend debate, call for restraint
Rights group slams removal of marital rape clause from law
World Bank urges financial sector to create jobs
Future bloc calls on Assad to end crackdown
Geagea calls for rule of law
 
ISF Arrests Thief of Church Donation Box as Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Vandals Confess
Mansour Says Arab Sanctions on Syria are Rejected

Hariri Meets Sarkozy, Discusses STL and Regional Developments
Miqati Urges Dialogue, Stresses Respect for Financial Obligations
Two French Citizens Kidnapped in Mali
Arab League set to slap sanctions on Syria


Lebanese Army attributes south Lebanon blast to land mine
November 24, 2011/By Patrick Galey, Mohammad Zaatari /The Daily Star
Siddiqin in the aftermath of the shadowy explosion.
BEIRUT/SIDDIQIN, Lebanon: The Lebanese Army Wednesday attributed a mysterious explosion in southern woodland to a mine or cluster bomb, after speculation the blast had occurred at a Hezbollah arms storage facility.A statement by the army said that an explosion close to the southern village of Siddiqin late Tuesday had been investigated and was the result of a combusting land mine or cluster bomb left over from Israel’s 2006 assault. “At 9:45 p.m. Tuesday an explosion was heard in a forested area on the outskirts of Siddiqin,” the statement said. “After the explosion a unit from the Lebanese Army visited the area and undertook a search operation all night long until Wednesday noon. “However, the army did not find any remnants and the explosion did not cause any visible damage. Probably, what happened was a result of a mine or cluster bomb possibly dropped by Israel [in 2006] exploding.”A security source told The Daily Star earlier Wednesday the explosion had occurred at an arms depot, when people were working inside. An eyewitness said a car had hurriedly left the blast site, possibly carrying injured individuals. The exact cause of the blast has proven difficult to independently verify, following the deployment by Hezbollah members in the village, who restricted some movement of local media.
The party, which enjoys widespread support throughout the area, denied any involvement in Tuesday’s explosion. “Whatever was mentioned within the media regarding an explosion on the outskirts of Siddiqin, and that it is related to an arms depot of Hezbollah is not true at all,” a statement from Hezbollah’s press office said. Calm returned Wednesday to the village, situated near the southern coastal city of Tyre, even as gossip on the blast was rife. Most residents testified that they hadn’t heard an explosion but a local man, Hajj Ali Fakih, said he had heard a “huge” blast come from a patch of woodland known locally as Al-Jabal al-Kabir, or Big Mountain. Hezbollah operatives carrying high-tech communications equipment spread throughout the village and accosted The Daily Star, asking why its reporter was making inquiries related to the blast. The army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon sent patrols to Siddiqin, although the peacekeeping organization said that it had received no official word on the explosion. “Following today’s media reports, we were in close contact with the Lebanese Army and until now we have not information to confirm that there was an explosion,” UNIFIL deputy spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star. “We have 350 patrols a day and this is part of our area of operations so we do have troops there on the ground. We have no investigation at the moment.”
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, quoting an American blogger who had contacted an Israeli official with “considerable military experience,” reported that the blast at Siddiqin had been caused by an Israeli sabotage on a Hezbollah arms facility. The blast was the latest in a series of suspect explosions to have occurred in south Lebanon during recent years. In September 2010, a suspected arms depot blew up in the town of Shehabiyyeh. Hezbollah denied there had been weapons at the blast site, but Israel released a video taken by a surveillance drone purporting to show men removing rockets from the area in the wake of the explosion. In 2009, twin blasts in Khirbet Silim and Tayr Filsay injured several people. Hezbollah claimed the former had been caused by Israeli shells that had been stored in the town in coordination with the Lebanese Army. Israel routinely alleges Hezbollah is guilty of maintaining a significant arsenal south of the Litani River, in contravention of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.

U.S. Blogger: Siddiqin Blast Caused by Booby-trapped Trojan Horse Drone
Naharnet /American Jewish blogger Richard Silverstein has claimed that Israel was behind the explosion that rattled the Hizbullah stronghold of Siddiqin in southern Lebanon on Wednesday. Media reports have said that the explosion went off in a Hizbullah arms depot but the Lebanese army attributed the blast to a mine or cluster bomb. “IDF Military Intelligence (Aman) has out foxed Hizbullah by deliberately crash-landing a booby-trapped Trojan Horse drone in southern Lebanon,” Silverstein wrote, attributing the information to an Israeli official with considerable military experience. “For over a year, Hizbullah has been attempting to discover how to jam the ground signals commanding the drone so as to disable them in flight,” the writer said. “When it discovered the downed craft, its operatives must’ve crowed that they’d finally discovered the key to success,” Silverstein wrote. “This bit of hubris is how Aman drew Hizbullah into its net. Its soldiers dutifully collected the imagined intelligence trophy and brought it to a large weapons depot it controlled in the area. Once inside the arms cache, Aman detonated the drone causing a massive explosion,” he added. Israel’s Channel 10 News reported that Silverstein has described himself as the Israeli Julian Assange, after the Australian founder of WikiLeaks.

Mansour Says Arab Sanctions on Syria are Rejected

Naharnet /Lebanon will not endorse any potential Arab League sanctions against Syria, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour said, as the organization prepared to meet on Thursday to discuss measures against Damascus. "Lebanon will not endorse any sanctions by the Arab League against Syria," Mansour, who is loyal to Hizbullah, told Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) before heading to Cairo for the meeting.
"We will decide whether to vote against or abstain depending on the talks in Cairo," he said in response to a question.
Lebanon voted against suspending Damascus from the 22-member Arab League earlier this month, siding with Yemen and Syria, as pressure mounts on the regime of Bashar Assad to end its bloody crackdown on dissent. Tensions between rival Lebanese political camps are rising over the Syria crisis. The country's pro-Western opposition, led by former premier Saad Hariri, has thrown its weight behind anti-Assad protesters in Syria. Hizbullah, which is backed by Damascus and Tehran and which dominates the Lebanese government, has meanwhile said it will continue to stand by Assad against an "international conspiracy" aimed at ousting him from power. Washington for its part has urged Lebanese authorities to protect their financial sector against potential Syrian efforts to sidestep sanctions, sparking fears Beirut could be affected by possible future measures against the Assad regime.
*Source Agence France Presse

Hariri Meets Sarkozy, Discusses STL and Regional Developments

Naharnet/Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri held talks on Thursday with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace in Paris. The two officials discussed the latest developments, especially those related to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and regional affairs. Hariri had recently said on Sunday via Twitter that “Justice will prevail, (the) tribunal has begun its work and soon we will see the criminals behind bars.” Addressing the developments in Syria, he tweeted on November 16 that only Israel, Iran, and Hizbullah along with the current Lebanese government are defending the Syrian regime, reiterating his call on Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power.

Report: Hizbullah Installs Telecom Network in Zahle after Tarshish Failure

Naharnet /Hizbullah expanded its telecommunications network in several towns in the district of Zahle after its project failed in the Metn town of Tarshish, highly informed sources told al-Mustaqbal newspaper. The sources said Thursday that the installment was made in the towns of Riyaq, Hawsh Hala and Hay al-Sellom several days ago. The new move came after Hizbullah’s attempt to expand its “illegitimate telecom system failed in Tarshish,” they told the daily. Last month, Hizbullah’s efforts to install the private telecoms network in the town were thwarted by residents and representatives from the municipality. The dispute came to an end mid-November when the telecommunications ministry assured Tarshish residents that no private networks will be installed along with the ministry’s network.

Russia draws red line around Syria
By: Tony Badran, November 24, 2011 /Now Lebanon
A curious news item has been circulating over the last week claiming that Russian warships have been sent to Syrian territorial waters. The Kremlin has so far refrained from either confirming or denying the story, leaving the door open for speculation. While the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad eagerly wishes to project the perception that it is under a Russian military umbrella, Moscow’s calculation is perhaps best understood in the broader context of its dispute with the US and NATO over what it views as an encroachment on its traditional zones of influence, well beyond Syria.
The report of the Russian flotilla supposedly entering Syrian waters was intended to give the impression that Russia was flexing its military muscle on Syria’s behalf. As one Syrian official boasted on Tuesday, “Russia is our political shield.”
The story first appeared last Friday in an obscure Lebanese rag belonging to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. The report delivered the regime’s intended message, spinning the alleged Russian move as a stern message from Moscow that Syria was “a red line,” and that Russia would not “remain a spectator” should that line be crossed.
Interestingly, however, the Russian media were tellingly unable to substantiate the claim, instead relaying the statement by Navy Press Secretary Igor Dygalo that the Defense Ministry “do[es] not comment on these reports.”
There is little reason to suspect that the story originated from anywhere other than the Syrian regime. A Syrian news site eventually reported that “unnamed Syrian sources” had told the German Press Agency that Moscow “leaked the story of dispatching six warships to the Syrian coast as a form of tangible solidarity,” in response to the Arab League’s recent call to send observers to Syria, which the latter found unacceptable. At one level, therefore, the story was intended as a rebuff to the notion that the league’s resolution was the launching pad for an international intervention in Syria.
Delivering this response to the Arab League was the main purpose behind Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem’s press conference on Sunday. When asked about the report, Mouallem did not confirm it, and referred only to the naval maintenance facility in the port of Tartous and the relevant 1980 treaty between Syria and the former Soviet Union governing its use.
The reference to the Tartous facility was not accidental, and was meant to exploit a primary Russian interest in Syria at a time when tensions between Russia and the US and NATO continue to heat up.
Moscow’s sensitivity when it comes to access to warm waters is well known. It is matched only by its chronic defensiveness against perceived encirclement by NATO and Western impingement on the spheres of influence of the former USSR.
All these insecurities came to the fore in the midst of the Syrian crisis in June, when the US sent a Navy cruiser equipped with a ballistic missile defense system to take part in naval exercises with Ukraine in the Black Sea—home of Russia’s only warm-water naval base.
Then, Turkey gradually began moving away from its previous non-aligned position and more in line with US interests vis-à-vis Syria and Iran, agreeing to host NATO’s early-warning radar system over Russian objections. Now that Ankara has effectively adopted Washington’s objective of regime change in Syria, Russia’s concerns have intensified.
Turkey already controls the Bosphorus Strait—Russia’s passageway to the Mediterranean. If there was to be regime change in Syria, Russia calculates that Turkey’s sway there is likely to be significant, potentially making its access to the Tartous facility subject to the influence of a NATO member state. Naturally, the Syrian regime’s interest lies in amplifying these fears.
Of course, Moscow will not go to war for Assad, and NATO is not shying away from intervention in Syria out of fear of Russian warships. However, for the Kremlin, Syria is another arena where it can voice its displeasure with the perception that the US and NATO can simply ignore Russia. In a sense, the process is comparable to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s threats yesterday to deploy “advanced offensive weapon systems” on the borders with Europe if missile defense talks with Washington result in failure.
In similar fashion, Moscow is looking to negotiate over Syria’s future and wants to ensure that its interests are acknowledged and secured. Russia’s attempts to position itself as a sponsor of a dialogue between Assad and his opponents, and its meetings with the Syrian opposition groups, could be read as part of this negotiation effort.
However, aside from its veto power at the Security Council, Russia’s hand is relatively weak. Even if the warships report were real, it’s unclear how much of an impact it would have on the dynamics on the ground. With a population determined to rid itself of the Assad family, such a move risks being meaningless, if not potentially counterproductive. Perhaps that is why Moscow declined to confirm the Syrians’ story.
For Assad, however, desperate times call for desperate measures. Assad is eager to exaggerate his significance to Russia and to try and leverage its disputes with NATO in his war against the Syrian uprising. The information operation involving the Russian warships is part of this war, which Assad is losing.
*Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.

Yemen president of 33 years to quit amid uprising
24/11/2011/SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemen's autocratic leader agreed Wednesday to step down after months of demonstrations against his 33-year rule, pleasing the U.S. and its Gulf allies who feared that collapsing security in the impoverished nation was allowing an active al-Qaeda franchise to step up operations.
President Ali Abdullah Saleh is the fourth leader to lose power in the wave of Arab Spring uprisings this year, following longtime dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
But the deal ushering Saleh from power grants him immunity from prosecution and doesn't explicitly ban him from the country's political life — raising doubts that it will address Yemen's many problems.
The deal opens the way to what will likely be a messy power struggle. Among those possibly vying for power are Saleh's son and nephew, who command the country's best-equipped military units; powerful tribal leaders; and the commander of a renegade battalion.
Saleh had stubbornly clung to power despite nearly 10 months of huge street protests in which hundreds of people were killed by his security forces. At one point, Saleh's palace mosque was bombed and he was treated in Saudi Arabia for severe burns. When he finally signed the agreement to step down, he did so in the Saudi capital of Riyadh after most of his allies had abandoned him and joined the opposition.
Seated beside Saudi King Abdullah and dressed smartly in a dark business suit with a matching striped tie and handkerchief, Saleh smiled as he signed the U.S.-backed deal hammered out by his powerful Gulf Arab neighbors to transfer power within 30 days to his vice president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. He then clapped his hands a few times.
"The signature is not what is important," Saleh said after signing the agreement. "What is important is good intentions and dedication to serious, loyal work at true participation to rebuild what has been destroyed by the crisis during the last 10 months."
Saleh had agreed to sign the deal three times before, only to back away at the last minute.
The power transfer will be followed by presidential elections within 90 days. A national unity government will them oversee a two-year transitional period.
The deal falls far short of the demands of the tens of thousands of protesters who have doggedly called for democratic reforms in public squares across Yemen since January, sometimes facing lethal crackdowns by Saleh's forces.
Protesters camped out in the capital of Sanaa immediately rejected the deal, chanting, "No immunity for the killer!" They vowed to continue their protests.
President Barack Obama welcomed the decision, saying the U.S. would stand by the Yemeni people "as they embark on this historic transition."
King Abdullah also praised Saleh, telling Yemenis the plan would "open a new page in your history" and lead to greater freedom and prosperity.
Saleh, believed to be in his late 60s, addressed members of the Saudi royal family and international diplomats at the signing ceremony, portraying himself as a victim who sought to preserve security and democracy but was forced out by power-hungry forces serving a "foreign agenda."
After the bombing in June, Saleh spent more than three months in Saudi Arabia for treatment, returning to Yemen unannounced and resuming his rule.
As Saleh funneled more resources to cracking down on protesters, security collapsed across the country. Armed tribesmen regularly battle security forces in areas north and south of the capital, and al-Qaeda-linked militants took over entire towns in southern Yemen.
Saleh often used the fear of terrorism to shore up support for his rule, even striking deals with militants and using their fighters to suppress his enemies while raking in millions of dollars from the United States to combat the branch of al-Qaeda that he let take root in his country.
The U.S. saw little choice but to partner with him, and Washington stepped up aid to Saleh to fight Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That group, believed to be the terrorist group's most active branch, has been linked to plots inside the U.S.
The would-be bomber who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas 2009 was in Yemen earlier that year. The Pakistani-American man who pleaded guilty to the May 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt was inspired by Internet postings by Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric who sought refuge in Yemen and was killed in a U.S. drone strike on Sept. 30. U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged with killing 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009, rampage at Fort Hood, also exchanged e-mails with al-Awlaki.
Even before the uprising began, Yemen was the poorest country in the Middle East, fractured and unstable with a government that had weak authority at best outside the capital.
For months, the U.S. and other world powers pressured Saleh to agree to the power transfer proposal by the Gulf Cooperation Council. He agreed, but then backed down before signing the deal.
The deal alone is unlikely to end the uprising or address Yemen's deeply rooted problems.
"He did sign, but I don't think this is the end of the crisis in Yemen," said Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University.
The deal doesn't address powerful members of Saleh's immediate family, including his son who heads the elite Republican Guard. His relatives could continue to act as proxies for Saleh inside the government.
Nor does the deal include Yemen's most powerful opposition figures and their armed followers, including an army general who defected to the opposition and the country's most powerful tribal leader.
A real democratic transition could create a government to challenge al-Qaeda in restive southern Yemen, Johnsen said, "but at this point we are still along ways from that."
It is unclear when Saleh will return to Yemen.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Saleh told him in a phone call that he would travel to New York for medical treatment after signing the agreement. He didn't say when Saleh planned to arrive in New York, nor what treatment he would seek.
Saleh signed the deal just over a month after videos showed a bloody Moammar Gadhafi being heckled by armed rebels in Libya shortly before his death.
In some ways, the deal gave Saleh a way out. He can return to Yemen, so he won't be exiled like ousted Tunisian strongman Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. And it protects him from prosecution, so he won't be put on trial like Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.
Saleh implied he could play a role in Yemen's future. "I'll be among the most cooperative with the next coalition government," he said.
He said it would take decades to rebuild Yemen and struck out at those who strove to topple him, calling the protests a "coup" and the bombing of his palace mosque "a conspiracy" and "a scandal." As he spoke, dark scars on his hands from his burns were visible.
Protest leaders have rejected the Gulf proposal from the beginning, saying it ignores their principal demands of wide-ranging democratic reforms and putting Saleh on trial. They say the opposition political parties that signed the deal are compromised by their long association with Saleh's government.
Sanaa protest organizer Walid al-Ammari said the deal does not serve the interests of Yemen."
"We will continue to protest in the streets and public squares until we achieve all the goals that we set to achieve," he said.

Amid Lebanese chaos, a chance for reform
November 24, 2011/0 By Michael Young
The Daily Star
There are several accounts of Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s life, most made available by the Hezbollah leader himself over the years to various publications. Taken together, they serve as a terse official biography. In one of these, we learn that even as a boy, Nasrallah was religious and devoted to Imam Musa Sadr. When other boys went to the beach, Nasrallah rode to the old downtown area of Beirut, from his home in Karantina, to buy religious books.
How instructive it is to picture the young Hasan joining the teeming crowds around Martyrs Square, a movable surrender to the senses and to raucous pluralism, under the blistering Mediterranean sun grilling his carefree comrades not so very far away, to pick up his Koranic texts. But it would be a mistake merely to view this as a tale of youthful earnestness, or humorlessness. Rather, it tells us much, if the story is true – and more so if it isn’t – about Nasrallah’s detachment from the essential features making Lebanon what it is.
With this as a backdrop, we can ask whether Lebanon today is at the threshold of an opportunity to redefine its social contract and engage in political reform. Do events in Syria, and the probability that President Bashar Assad’s regime will fall, create an opening for more balanced negotiations between Lebanese religious communities, particularly Sunnis and Shiites, on reapportioning political power?
Much, of course, will depend on how Assad goes. If Syria dissolves into civil war, then the impact on Lebanon could be dire. Polarization would increase, with the distinct possibility of violence. However, the nightmare scenario is also relatively doubtful today, given the consensus in the Arab world and Turkey to contain the Syrian situation, precisely to avoid harming neighboring countries.
Let’s imagine, for a moment, an ideal outcome. Assad departs in such a way that Syrians can navigate a fairly smooth transition. Whatever this transition, in Lebanon the dynamics are likely to be the following: Hezbollah, which remains militarily powerful, will have nonetheless lost a major ally, and more importantly the strategic depth the party enjoyed in the event of a war against Israel. Faced with the reality that it can no longer combat Israel against the will of a majority of its countrymen, Hezbollah’s fears will increase along with those of the Shiite community. Perhaps this will make Shiites more amenable to accepting Hezbollah’s disarmament in exchange for greater Shiite political representation in a restructured political system.
As Hezbollah’s expectations drop, the end of the Assad regime will push Sunni expectations up to stratospheric heights. A successor leadership in Syria is bound to be sympathetic to Lebanon’s Sunnis and hostile to Hezbollah. The sectarian repercussions of this newfound confidence will certainly mean, among other things, that Lebanese Sunnis will no longer accept intimidation by Hezbollah. A rational Hezbollah, grasping these new circumstances, will have no choice but to adapt accordingly by searching for a compromise, otherwise it may have to prepare its followers for civil war.
That’s one theory, at least. Yet so much in this outline is also an ingredient for conflict, that it may seem illusory to describe what is happening as a window of opportunity. Hezbollah and Shiite anxiety, coupled with the community’s military superiority, is hardly liable to prompt Hezbollah to roll over and sue for peace. Sunni self-assurance might easily transform itself into ruinous hubris, allowing extremists to take the lead in “the battle against the Shiites.” Impulses on both sides will have to be carefully tempered, even if a Shiite sense of loss and a Sunni sense of gain, if properly exploited, is exactly what is required to get a dialogue on reform started.
But is Nasrallah someone inherently open to such a jump? The Hezbollah leader has often affirmed his antagonism toward the Lebanese sectarian system, even as he has presided over the most sectarian of parties. In truth, Nasrallah has manipulated Shiite resentment of a political and social order that was not good to Shiites in the past, in order to reinforce Hezbollah’s influence and discredit any talk of political reform. The party knows that such reform, if reached consensually, would lead to its demise as a military force.
Yet Nasrallah is not alone. Unless a moderate leadership can reassert its authority over the Sunni community, and soon, there remains a possibility that Sunnis may succumb to those least willing to come to terms with the Shiites. In this context the absence of Saad Hariri and the uncertainty surrounding the Future Movement has left the field open for less pragmatic figures, even as Hariri himself seems in no mood these days to concede much to Hezbollah. This situation in the Sunni community may mean that the initiative slips to those who, like Nasrallah, would have bought only religious books had they waded into the miscellany of Martyrs Square; or it may bolster secular populists; or both.
Left unmentioned here are the Christians, particularly the Maronites, who would have to relinquish the most in an overhaul of the political system – above all the 50-50 ratio of Christians to Muslims in parliament. Ultimately, Christians too will have to avert the pitfall of excessive fear by embracing reform under the rubric of Taif, or else they may one day see political change imposed on them by their Muslim partners. However, given the despondency today among Christians and their more influential political and religious leaders, such prescience does not seem to be in the cards.
The imbalance in Lebanon’s political system, the presence of an armed, semi-autonomous party and community prevailing over all others, has discouraged discussion of reform. The reality is that Sunnis won’t bargain over their future with a Hezbollah holding the guns. That won’t hold if Bashar Assad is ousted. What Lebanon would then need is leaders who can control the wild ambitions or apprehensions ensuing from so enviable a moment. *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.” He tweets @BeirutCalling.

The Brotherhood and Salafis ejected from Tahrir Square
23/11/2011/By Ali Ibrahim
Most of the traditional Egyptian political forces lost out in the bloody battle to recover Tahrir Square, which has become the source of legitimacy in Egypt ever since the 25th January. However, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis may in fact be the biggest losers, after their million man march which they called for last Friday, in a foolish display of power that seems to have provoked the very forces that carried the flame of the January 25th revolution.
The political incompetence evident in the Egyptian transitional period encompasses all traditional political powers, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis who appear to be exploiting the erosion of confidence between the masses and the military council, the organization presently governing the interim period. The same goes for the ruling authority which has handled the situation with utter idiocy, having used force to break up several hundred protesters following the end of the Brotherhood and Salafi million (or half-a-million) man march last Friday. This led to the tragic situation with dozens of casualties falling, plus numerous attacks in Tahrir Square and the surrounding streets, not to mention the intensified demands for an immediate power transfer.
Amidst this highly uncertain scene, and when viewed from afar, Tahrir Square and the protests in the rest of the Egyptian governorates seem to involve spontaneous and unorganized powers mostly consisting of young people from among those who launched the January 25th Revolution. These youths feel frustrated with the political powers, the parties, presidential candidates, the performance of the government and the military council, and the vague details of the upcoming power transfer and its timeframe. These youths are also frustrated by the revolution being hijacked through rival currents vying for power; currents sensing that their right moment has come, especially the Muslim Brotherhood.
Amidst this bloody scene, we come to a YouTube video clip displaying what has been described as the expulsion of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis from Tahrir Square. This act reflects the mass weariness and frustration towards their slogans and maneuvers with regards to the shape of the new regime and the secular state which, according to Egyptian press reports, they want to change. Here we can also notice foreign press reports, especially those highlighting the return of the true spirit to Tahrir Square. Copts have been seen standing up to protect Muslims while performing their prayers, after months of unjustifiable sectarian violence which flared up for unknown reasons and according to multiple different accounts, none of which were wholly convincing.
What cause the situation to explode in such a bloody manner, with grave consequences? Unless political wisdom is applied and leaderships with strategic and political visions are placed at the forefront, matters could get worse. I am talking about leaderships with the courage to direct country toward a national consensus, instead of the current state of political entrenchment.
What sparked off current crisis? Could it be [Deputy Prime Minister] Ali al-Selmi’s document [outlining constitutional “guidelines”], which has been the subject of several maneuvers over the past few weeks, resulting in the Brotherhood and Salafi million-man march, even though both currents had earlier approved of it? Or has the present crisis been ignited by the state of frustration resulting from the confusion dominating the political arena?
In my opinion, the present crisis has been caused by the state of frustration and extreme political entrenchment of all parties, due to their inability to reach an agreement on a framework of general principles. Al-Selmi’s document, or the constitutional governing principles, was proposed to all the revolutionary powers from the start, when everyone was in a state of weakness and uncertainty. However, as some parties began to feel gradually empowered, such as the Muslim Brotherhood which has temporarily allied with the Salafis, they began to believe such governing principles would not be in their best interests, if they won a majority in the next parliament. Meanwhile, the liberal parties, which were the first to call for the drafting of such a document, objected to the clauses requested by the military establishment, which aimed to secure its position in the new state. A compromise formula could have been reached had negotiations been held, instead of the current absence of confidence.
The scene we are currently witnessing reflects the fact that no one has understood the reality of what the crisis-stricken Egyptian masses want. This is because the real driving force behind the revolution has not been able to crystallize itself into a political entity with representatives and a voice. The Muslim Brotherhood's slogans are not convincing to the Egyptian street, and outdated methods of running the country have become futile. In other words, there is a need to turn over a new leaf and start again. Even the results of the upcoming parliamentary elections might not accurately reflect what the street really wants, and so clashes may erupt again.
What is the solution then? The idea suggested by some political entities, to form a national salvation government in order to administer the transitional period, could be the way out of the current impasse. However, this would require a strong personality with exclusive competence, who could work within a fixed timeframe for the transfer of power. A figure like Mohammed ElBaradei – if this were agreed upon nationally – would be suitable for this role. The same applies to any other strong personality with the power to make decisions, provided they are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Assad used foreign intervention first

23/11/2011/By Tariq Alhomayed
Arab ministers are supposed to meet next Thursday in order to discuss the situation in Syria, and the al-Assad regime’s refusal to adopt the Arab League’s resolutions. This meeting comes amidst the false propaganda spread by the al-Assad regime itself, about foreign intervention in Syria and the threat of a civil war.
Therefore the Arab officials, all of them without exception, must be aware of the facts, rather than the al-Assad regime’s propaganda. The facts say that while the Syrian rebels have been peacefully maintaining their revolution for nearly eight months, the al-Assad regime is the one that has used weapons against them, with all its brutality. Of course the al-Assad killing machine has not stopped to this day, so how can the rebels be blamed after this for now starting to defend themselves, when faced with a regime that wants to rule with an iron fist?
The other thing that the Arab ministers must remember, as facts and not propaganda, is that while the Syrian revolutionaries have said, throughout the duration of the revolution, that they object to foreign intervention on their territory, the al-Assad regime has in fact used foreign assistance to succeed against its citizens. The al-Assad regime has used Iran in several areas, including receiving special equipment for espionage and the knowledge of its experts, apart from weapons and more of course. Likewise, the al-Assad regime is also using the capacities of Hezbollah, whether inside Syria or even in Lebanon, in the pursuit of Syrian opposition members, and hindering the activities of young Syrian refugees in Lebanon. The al-Assad regime is also using the support of the Iraqi government, and the Sadrist fighters who are flocking to Syria. There is evidence to confirm this, including what I have heard from several Arab apparatuses, which have supplied their foreign ministers with such information.
This is not all of course, there are also Russian ships anchored off Syria, and they are certainly not there to transport Russian tourists. In fact the Russian story here is greater goes beyond all this; for Moscow itself has begun to resemble the al-Assad regime’s foreign ministry, where it has begun to lecture the Syrians on what they should and should not do. Aside from all of the above foreign support for the al-Assad regime, there is the blatant support of the Lebanese government, and there is also media support coming from each of Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah and others in Lebanon. After all of the above, how can the al-Assad regime promote its propaganda and deceive anyone, when the al-Assad regime itself has inaugurated foreign intervention inside Syria in order to succeed against the unarmed Syrians, which in itself is an act of treason?
Therefore, the Arab League is now required to bring the Syrian file to the UN Security Council, and demand it to immediately intervene to protect the civilians who are being killed every day at the hands of the al-Assad regime. Anything less means that the Arabs have failed the unarmed Syrians. It means that they have not earnestly and decisively tried to stop the al-Assad killing machine, even though the regime did not cease its daily killings of Syrians throughout the period of its negotiations with the Arab League. The League must stand up to protect the innocent. If Tehran is only interested in al-Assad, then is it not appropriate that the Arabs should be interested in all Syrians?

Ask the experienced
By Tariq Alhomayed
Asharq Al-Awsat
Whatever the current situation with Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh; the man must be considered extremely shrewd and a master at dancing with snakes. This is not a compliment, but it stems from comparing the facts, and the reality that sometimes things are defined by their opposites. A mere comparison, for example, between Ali Abdullah Saleh and Bashar al-Assad, shows a big difference in the game of politics and the art of maneuvering. The snake dancer, i.e. Saleh, has excelled in tormenting his opponents and procrastinating with his negotiators, whether Saudis, the Gulf, or the West. He also excelled in preventing a Yemeni mass consensus against him, for he played all his cards, legitimately or otherwise, but without allowing Yemen to slip into a genuine civil war. However, Yemen is still a candidate for this fate, even today and tomorrow. Saleh’s cunning, as I have already said, is not a compliment, but rather it is a reading of the facts, such as how he has been able to survive ruling Yemen for several decades, something that no one has done before in a country of great complexity, multiple crises, and potentially volatile hotspots. Above all this, Saleh is also a man who has recently come back from the dead. Following this, it appeared that he had genuinely understood the reality in Yemen, and that he was able to curb his personal feelings. In fact, he is a politician without feelings, a man fluent in living under pressure. Al-Saleh attended Riyadh by himself; he did not send his deputy as he has done in the past, for he wanted to show that he was a man who makes sacrifices for his country. This is a political game, but there is also another significant matter here. The Saudi negotiators knew Yemen well, and they knew Saleh’s key territories and likely maneuvers. This is not to mention that the Saudi negotiating team was also calm and patient, a feature of the people of the desert, and therefore yesterday we saw the completion of the Gulf initiative agreement with Yemen. The question here of course is: Is this the end of the crisis in Yemen? The answer is no, but at least the fuse leading to the biggest explosion has been disarmed, regardless of where the next fire comes from. The Yemenis are facing a very long road, and the most important thing is for Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave the scene as soon as possible, because he is capable of making this a very rocky road.
As noted above, Saleh is very shrewd, from his arrival to power, his survival at the helm, and ultimately his departure. This characterization is not impressive, but for those who doubt Saleh’s shrewdness, they should compare the end of his reign to the end of three of his Arab predecessors, who left power earlier this year. Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali fled his country, or was forced to flee, Hosni Mubarak ended up on a bed in a prison hospital whilst his two sons were incarcerated, while in Libya we saw the horrific end to Muammar Gaddafi, not to mention what happened to his family and children! Finally, compare Saleh’s initiative to the terms offered to al-Assad, and compare the tricks used by both leaders. Ali Abdullah Saleh signed the initiative and will leave the Gulf for New York, in order to receive treatment, without any international reservations. His plane will leave for America safely without any obstacles. Meanwhile, the moment the Gulf initiative was signed, France yesterday called for the need to provide safe humanitarian corridors in Syria, in order to protect the Syrians from Doctor al-Assad!
Therefore, as the proverb says: “Ask the experienced rather than the learned”.

Canadian Statement on Yemen

(No. 352 – November 23, 2011 – 5:50 p.m. ET) Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“Canada welcomes the agreement signed by President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen.
“His agreement to step down from power in 30 days prepares the way for Yemen’s transition to a more open society—one that respects freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
“We commend all involved, particularly the Gulf Cooperation Council, in negotiating this agreement.
“We are looking to the President and the interim leadership to respect this agreement, which calls for free, fair and transparent elections to be held in the next 90 days.
“Canada stands with the people of Yemen in their quest for a brighter future.”
- 30 -
For further information, media representatives may contact:
Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
613-995-1874
Follow us on Twitter: @DFAIT_MAECI

The crisis threatens major states first
24/11/2011
By Bilal Hassan/Asharq Alawsat
The US and Western newspapers have recently been filled with articles and information about a grave economic crisis initially threatening the US, then Europe and the entire world, including our Arab states. Amidst the talk about this crisis, everyone is recalling the economic depression that shook the world in 1929, and are suggesting that a similar disaster is looming.
Whilst some speak of the crisis in particular, others talk about the state of the capitalist economy as a whole, which they say has become fragile and crippled. Such opinions are held by senior economists like Pier Carlo Padoan, Deputy Secretary-General and Chief Economist of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, who says that "the current economic crisis is severe, dangerous and extremely serious, and its centre of gravity has moved from the US to Europe."
Padoan’s assessment focuses on the entire European economic system, and he says that "We are dealing with a European system that has proved fragile in the face of crises", calling for a re-evaluation of the whole system.
Amidst this, talk about the so-called Euro debt crisis is also prominent. Alan Krueger, a senior economic consultant to the US President, has stated that the banking and debt crisis in Europe is still the main threat to the recovery of the US economy, particularly as 20 percent of total US exports go to Europe. Therefore, Krueger urges Europe to take immediate measures to enforce the debt crisis rescue plan, as the current situation is threatening the US economy with a severe recession, which in turn would reflect badly on Barack Obama's chances of winning a second presidential term.
As financial difficulties spread from America to Europe, Greece began to suffer a major reduction in its economy, which in turn signalled a renewed financial crisis. This has since extended to Italy and Spain; two countries suffering the consequences of considerable debts with huge interest rates.
Commenting on this, inside sources said that the European Banking Authority believes European banks require US$ 144 billion to restore confidence in their financial system.
Analysts unanimously agree that the main reason for the economic crisis suffered by the US, which in turn affects the rest of the world, lies in the exorbitant cost borne by America because of its occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has spent US$ 700 billion as a result of the occupation of Iraq alone.
To cut its huge spending, the US rushed to increase oil prices, and the price of one barrel soon rose to over US$ 150. This reflected directly upon another economic sector, the real-estate market in 2009, where low-income households could not afford to pay off their mortgage instalments. Then banks and large companies embarked on large-scale redundancies, and a series of recessions occurred in different sectors of the economy.
The crisis extended from the US to Europe, where it engulfed Britain, and then Eastern Europe, most prominently Russia which was quick to support its economy with a US$ 300 billion injection.
It is impossible to talk about the global economic crisis without touching upon the Arab situation and Arab wealth, and without placing part of the blame here for what is happening to the international economy. In 2008, an American report was issued on Arab investment funds, such as future generations’ funds and sovereign wealth funds. The report was prepared by Richard Haass, former Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State, who focused on the sources of Gulf States' sovereign wealth and expressed his deep concern that their influence will increase to grant them greater control over the US financial sector. Another report prepared by Daniel W. Drezner, published in 2008 under the title "White Whale or Red Herring? Assessing Sovereign Wealth Funds", also emphasized that an era of domination on the part of Arab sovereign funds is coming, as a result of the growing financial influence of such funds (owned by their governments). Drezner’s analysis highlights the danger [to the West] of these funds becoming more powerful in one way or another, and highlights the need to frustrate their ability to influence global markets.
Henry Kissinger was proactive in such an endeavour when he published an article in the International Herald Tribune newspaper on the 19th September 2009, where he warned against the accumulation of billions of dollars of oil revenue in Gulf sovereign wealth funds, calling upon the West to act to curb OPEC's abilities, in order to prevent its economic influence transforming into political influence. Here Kissinger was explicitly calling for a US political strategy to confront Arab oil finance.
As can be seen from the above, Western policies always seek to gain control of Arab strategic wealth. However, the West is not content with this alone, for at a later stage it will also seek to dominate the profits accumulated by Arab states. In fact, Arab states should invest these profits in developing their own economies, something which politicians like Kissinger are never comfortable to see. Indeed, Kissinger’s ideas now represent a school of thought that is prominent in the decision-making circles of more than one European capital.
As a result of all this, and in view of the major Western concerns towards the Arab states’ sovereign funds, the Arab world must pay more attention to the finance it has, and search for ideal means to exploit this domestically, in a manner that helps towards development and an increased economic standing. An example of this can be found in the railway expansion project currently underway in Saudi Arabia.
This, however, necessitates ambitious plans to be drawn up, in order to develop Arab economic infrastructures. This is especially pertinent when development plans require cooperation between more than one Arab country, such as the construction of transport networks between Arab states, whether by land, railway or sea.
Here there is no harm to recall that in 1980, and in view of the rise of peace theories along the lines of the Camp David Agreement, several American and European studies were conducted, focussing on the promotion of transport networks in the Arab region. Yet what was remarkable about these studies was the fact that the West was looking to create a complex transport network beginning from each Arab state and then extending, not towards neighbouring Arab capital cities, but towards the state of Israel, hence positioning Israel as the centre of all Arab transport networks. Although this plan did not succeed, it shows that Western projects are not concerned about the development of our region, but rather they are basically keen on strengthening Israel's position, by linking it with Arab capital cities.
The issue of transport between Arab states is worthy of special attention as it is an issue of strategic importance. If considered within a specific framework that serves everyone’s interests, inter-Arab transport networks could strengthen the development of the region in the face of opponents and greedy onlookers. To do so, inter-Arab relations must be the fundamental basis of thinking and planning, instead of the Arab-Israeli idea that preoccupies the West, which aims to only serve its own interests.