LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 21/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Life in God's Service
Romans 12/01-21: "  So then, my friends, because of God's great mercy to us I appeal to you: Offer yourselves as a living sacrifice to God, dedicated to his service and pleasing to him. This is the true worship that you should offer. Do not conform yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God—what is good and is pleasing to him and is perfect.  And because of God's gracious gift to me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you should. Instead, be modest in your thinking, and judge yourself according to the amount of faith that God has given you. We have many parts in the one body, and all these parts have different functions. In the same way, though we are many, we are one body in union with Christ, and we are all joined to each other as different parts of one body. So we are to use our different gifts in accordance with the grace that God has given us. If our gift is to speak God's message, we should do it according to the faith that we have; if it is to serve, we should serve; if it is to teach, we should teach; if it is to encourage others, we should do so. Whoever shares with others should do it generously; whoever has authority should work hard; whoever shows kindness to others should do it cheerfully.  Love must be completely sincere. Hate what is evil, hold on to what is good. Love one another warmly as Christians, and be eager to show respect for one another. Work hard and do not be lazy. Serve the Lord with a heart full of devotion. Let your hope keep you joyful, be patient in your troubles, and pray at all times. Share your belongings with your needy fellow Christians, and open your homes to strangers.  Ask God to bless those who persecute you—yes, ask him to bless, not to curse. Be happy with those who are happy, weep with those who weep. Have the same concern for everyone. Do not be proud, but accept humble duties. Do not think of yourselves as wise.  If someone has done you wrong, do not repay him with a wrong. Try to do what everyone considers to be good. Do everything possible on your part to live in peace with everybody. Never take revenge, my friends, but instead let God's anger do it. For the scripture says, I will take revenge, I will pay back, says the Lord. Instead, as the scripture says: If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them a drink; for by doing this you will make them burn with shame. Do not let evil defeat you; instead, conquer evil with good

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
How the Media Whitewashes Muslim Persecution of Christians/by Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute/April 20/12
Nasrallah, Assange and injustice in Syria/By Michael Young/April 20/12
No revolution in Lebanon/By Diana Mukkaled/ASharq AlAwsa/April 20/12
The mullah and Iran’s American dilemma/By Amir Taheri/Asharq Ajawsat/April 20/12
A leaky agenda/Now Lebanon/April 20/12
Washington and the Lebanese Experience: Changing Tools and Differing Goals/by Rudy Sassine/April 20/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 20/12
Now Lebanon News Page/Click Here
Barak to S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta : What is your bottom line for Iran?
Barak: Talks bought Iran 5 weeks for nuke work
Amid nuclear talks, Iran warns of cutting oil to more EU states
Iran army ready for action on disputed Gulf island
Clinton calls for tougher UN steps against Syria
Syria Turmoil's Spread Risks Spilling Across Borders
Canadian RCMP says it's seized enough hashish to drug all of Canada, several times over
Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird Completes Ministerial Meeting on Syria
Strike on Iran can shatter calm in south
Lebanese Cabinet Wins No-Confidence Vote, Miqati Says Govt. Cohesive despite Differences
Geagea Calls for Eradication of Lebanon’s ‘Evil’
Jumblat Rejects Berri’s Proportionality Proposal, Calls for Radical Reform
Miqati Denies Calling on Head of Tripoli’s Municipal Council to Resign
Mikati Cabinet survives vote of confidence
Kataeb denies Gemayel's no-confidence move indicates
Disgust’ and ‘Negative Distinction’ Major Highlights of 3-Day Parliamentary Session
Syrian Ambassador Meets Aoun, Says Assad Fully Implementing Reforms
Report: Lebanese Lawyers File Lawsuit against Assad at ICC
Phalange bloc MP Sami Gemayel Withholds Confidence from Govt., Clashes with Fattoush
MP Mohammed Raad, head of Hizbullah’s Loyalty to Resistance blocDefends Govt., Accuses Opposition of Obstructing Its Plans
March 14 MPs Slam Cabinet on Last Day of Parliamentary Session
Saniora: Govt. Not Useful for Anything, Jeopardizing Country
Inmates at Baalbek Prison Riot in Protest against Delayed Trials
March 8 MPs Defend Govt., Call for Cooperation among its Members
Chamoun hopes Sleiman will not sign 8.9 trillion LL decree
Pietton Denies France Seeking to Deploy Troops along Northern Lebanese Border 
2 Women Injured in Beirut Southern Suburbs Shootout
Suleiman Awaits Probe to Determine if Attack on Geagea was Attempted Murder
Connelly Meets Miqati Day after Cabinet Survived Vote of Confidence
Geagea discusses his assassination attempt with UN envoy
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea Capable state to be achieved ‘when evil is eradicated’
Lebanese Forces bloc MP George Adwan says Hezbollah’s arms creating “political pressure”
Egypt's Brotherhood blasts mufti's Jerusalem visit
Israeli Jew stabbed in East Jerusalem
Israel inciting division between Hamas and Egypt– Al-Masri

Barak to S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta : What is your bottom line for Iran?
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 20, 2012/Notwithstanding the hugs and personal friendship, Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak arrived in Washington Thursday April 19 to tax his host, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, with tough questions about the administration’s dialogue with Iran. They followed the lines of, “What’s going on? Is there a deal? Don’t tell me what you have settled with the Iranians, just your minimal demands, your bottom line.”
The questions reflected Israel’s concern at being kept in the dark about US-Iranian back-track negotiations and American concessions, including President Barak Obama’s willingness to yield on full transparency and international nuclear watchdog inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites.
debkafile reports: The Israeli minister had come to ask for the truth from Panetta’s own lips on the urgent instructions of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who himself had just received worried phone calls from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron. They wanted to find out how far Washington had gone in concessions to Iran. You Israelis have more clout in Washington than us, they said. You have to try and stop the downhill decline. Concern was also registered from Berlin.
The two defense chiefs talked for more than an hour, joined for some of their conversation by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
According to our sources, they focused on the fresh intelligence reaching the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran had begun moving military nuclear facilities to secret locations not covered in the confidential deal evolving between the Obama administration and Tehran. Our military sources say that this Iranian action indicates on the one hand that a deal wit the US is within sight but, on the other, that Tehran is already taking advantage of the US concession on oversight and transparency - for concealment.
Shortly after their conversation, Panetta and Barak spoke in separate media interviews. The US Secretary said that plans for a military operation against Iran were in place and he is sure that in the event of a clash, the American military would prevail.
Barak stated that the Israeli and U.S. intelligence findings regarding the objectives of the Iranian nuclear program are aligned, the comment he makes routinely after talking to American officials. The inference is that the two governments are aligned on intelligence but not on how to translate it into action for Iran.
He added that Iran was “clearly heading towards the objective” of building a nuclear weapon.
The Pentagon bulletin reported the Panetta-Barak meeting “to discuss the close US-Israel defense relationship including Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, Iran, Syria and the Arab Awakening’s effect on the region. Secretary Panetta was honored to be joined by Minister Barak at the Department of Defense’s Commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day where they each lit a candle to commemorate the memories of the victims of the Holocaust.”
The meeting took place in the middle of a crisis hitting the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the president’s far-reaching concessions to Iran in another dispute, the one over three Persian Gulf islands close to the strategic Strait of Hormuz which the UAE accuses Iran of grabbing.
The UAE backed by the GCC is up in arms over the visit Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid to Revolutionary Guards bases on Abu Musa island on April 11 at the same time as Saudi Defense Minister Prince Salman was talking to the US president at the White House.
The UAE called the Ahmadinejad’s visit a violation of its sovereignty, while the Gulf bloc saw it as a cocky signal to the region that Tehran calls the shots these days – not America.
Yet, instead of backing its Gulf allies, the State Department on April 19, issued a mild statement urging Iran “to respond positively to the UAE’s initiative to resolve the issue through direct negotiations, the International Court of Justice or another appropriate international forum.”
The Gulf governments had expected Washington to respond to Iranian threats to use Abu Musa for attacks on the Strait of Hormuz and their oil terminals. They are deeply concerned by what they regard as the extreme lengths to which the Obama administration is willing to go to appease Iran, even to the point of giving ground on America’s own standing in the region

Barak: Talks bought Iran 5 weeks for nuke work
By YONI DAYAN04/19/2012/J.Post
Prior to meeting with top US military officials, Barak says Tehran is focused on reaching nuclear capability
Iran bought five weeks for its nuclear program through talks with the P5+1 group of world powers, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an interview with CNN's Kristiana Amanpour on Thursday. The first round of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany took place last weekend in Istanbul, with a second round of talks scheduled for May 23 in Baghdad.
Barak spoke prior to a meeting with US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey in Washington. During that meeting, which lasted over an hour, the officials discussed a wide range of issues, including Iran, Syria, US aid to Israel, maintaining Israel's qualitative edge in the region, and the Iron Dome missile-defense system. "I am realistic enough to not be so optimistic about talks with Iran," he said. "The Iranians have a history of deceiving the world, sometime through steps like this. So we are a little bit skeptical."
Barak mentioned a Muslim notion called takkiya, which he said grants Muslims the right to lie in order to deceive non-Muslims, for the sake of the religion.
"It is clear that the Iranians are focused on reaching nuclear capability, and they are ready to defy and deceive the whole world," he said.
Asked if he believed the sanctions promoted by the international community will be enough to avert a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Barak stated that "the sanctions are quite effective, but are far away from working." He added that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomenei had probably not yet given the order to start actually building a nuclear bomb, but said that this was only because they feared this would lead to a military strike.
Barak said that if Iran were to stop enriching uranium past 20%, move their 20% enriched uranium to a friendly country, and decommission their installation in Qom, and agree to IAEA conditions, Israel would be satisfied. "This should be the threshold (for negotiations)," he said. "If this threshold is not set at the opening of negotiations, they will never be met."
Barak threatened that "all options are on the table" when asked whether or not there was a possibility that Israel could strike Iranian facilities before the start of the next round of talks, set to take place in Baghdad.
"It will be extremely more complicated, it will be extremely more dangerous... to deal with Iran once it goes nuclear," he said. "It happened already with North Korea, it happened with Pakistan."
Asked if Israel would inform the US if it decides to attack Iran, Barak said "we have very open, frank conversations with the US about these kinds of things... We do whatever is reasonable."
"I don't want to implicate the United States, I don't want to drag the United States into anything," he added, saying that there is no difference in Israeli and US intelligence assessments of Iran.
Turning to Syria, Barak had some harsh words for President Bashar Assad. "What is happening there is a tragedy, it's a crime. They are slaughtering their people there by the day," he said, adding that the international community should take action, including sanctions, to stop this. "Anything from providing them with weapons to creating safe areas along the borders" for citizens, Barak said.Barak singled out the Russians and the Chinese for the failure of the United Nations Security Council to take effective action against Assad.
"Assad's fall would be a major blow to Iran... it would weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. It would be very positive," Barak said.


Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea Capable state to be achieved ‘when evil is eradicated’
April 19, 2012/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said on Thursday that a capable and effective state will not be achieved “before evil is eradicated.”“If the democratic game was serious, we would not have witnessed the current cabinet,” Geagea said during a meeting with a delegation from Kesrouan. He also said that developmental projects related to education, agriculture, water, electricity and the environment will not be implemented “as long as evil controls the country and as long as people cannot express their opinion freely.”The LF leader also commented on the assassination attempt against him saying it was not only an assassination attempt but it showed “there was a party insisting to force its opinion onto the people.” “Let this party know that we are the last people to force an opinion onto.”He added that the assassination attempt planned against him “took months of preparations and a team that had high-tech equipment.”“It is a disaster if the Lebanese state was aware [of this plan], and even a bigger calamity if it was not aware of it,” Geagea added. On April 4, snipers targeted Geagea outside his Maarab residence in the district of Kesrouan, but failed to hit him. -NOW Lebanon

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea discusses his assassination attempt with UN envoy
April 19, 2012 /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Thursday met with United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly and reviewed the assassination attempt which targeted the LF chief on April 4, the National News Agency reported. The report added that the two men also discussed the latest developments. Earlier this month, snipers targeted Geagea outside his Maarab residence in the district of Kesrouan, but failed to hit him.-NOW Lebanon

Lebanese Forces bloc MP George Adwan says Hezbollah’s arms creating “political pressure”
April 19, 2012 /Lebanese Forces bloc MP George Adwan said on Thursday that the Resistance’s arms were obstructing the establishment of a state because they were creating “an atmosphere of political pressure.”“Everyone knows that no one can overthrow this cabinet democratically because of the presence of Hezbollah’s arms,” Adwan said during the parliamentary plenary session.
He added that Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s cabinet “harms Lebanon’s image.”“The cabinet is not capable of [finalizing administrative] appointments because of the disputes among its [ministers],” Adwan said, adding that the government did not have an excuse for not presenting a state budget. Meanwhile, Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad retorted to Adwan saying the latter “addressed Hezbollah’s arms in a manner showing that these arms were the source of real fear” among the Lebanese people.“This image is incorrect because the [Resistance’s] arms are a guarantee for most Lebanese people [when confronting the] Israeli threat,” Raad said.-NOW Lebanon

Chamoun hopes Sleiman will not sign 8.9 trillion LL decree
April 19, 2012 /National Liberal Party (NLP) leader MP Dori Chamoun on Thursday voiced his hope that President Michel Sleiman will not sign a decree for legalizing 8.9 trillion LL in extra-budgetary spending, according to the National News Agency. March 14 MPs wanted $11 billion dollars in extra-budgetary government spending from 2006 to 2011 to be legalized, while March 8 rejected this and wanted 8.9 trillion LL in extra-budgetary spending approved for the current cabinet. During an interview with Magazine periodical and Al-Ousbou al-Arabi magazine, Chamoun also called for Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun “to leave his residence in Rabieh and move to [live] in an apartment in Haret Hreik, [since he is] a poor man and a friend to Hezbollah, [as some Hezbollah MPs said during the parliament session].” Haret Hreik is located in Beirut’s southern suburbs—one of Hezbollah’s strongholds. -NOW Lebanon

Israeli Jew stabbed in East Jerusalem
April 19, 2012 /An Israeli Jew was stabbed and moderately wounded on Thursday in what police described as a "terror attack" in the east Jerusalem flashpoint Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, police said.
"A young ultra-Orthodox Jewish man was stabbed in the upper part of his body. He is moderately wounded," police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld told AFP. "Two Arabs were arrested by police nearby the site of the attack on suspicion of carrying out the stabbing, which we believe was a terror attack." Israel's supreme court recently threw out an appeal by a Palestinian family seeking to block construction of Jewish settler homes in Sheikh Jarrah. Although east Jerusalem is largely Palestinian, an increasing number of hardline Israeli settlers have moved into the area's neighborhoods, sparking fights with Arab residents. An estimated 2,000 Jewish settlers live in Palestinian neighborhoods of the Holy City, although the exact number of properties they own is unclear.The Palestinians regard east Jerusalem as the capital of their promised state and fiercely oppose any attempts to extend Israeli control over it.The Jewish state considers the whole of Jerusalem its "eternal and indivisible" capital.
-AFP/NOW Lebanon

A leaky agenda
April 19, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange may have scooped a rare interview with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah recently (it was sometime in late February in fact) but he did Lebanon few favors. He focused on Nasrallah’s stances on Syria for the main part, ignoring the party’s awkward domination of Lebanese politics, its illegal weapons and its links to the murder of a former Lebanese prime minister. Assange was, as ever, blinded by his default agenda of going after those evil Americans and ended up painting a warped picture of Nasrallah as a modest and reasonable revolutionary, one who is unfairly vilified. Western liberals and America haters might applaud, but the interview will not have fooled those Lebanese whose aspirations to build a genuine sovereign and democratic nation have been suffocated by the party’s refusal to fully join the national consensus.
Naturally, it did not suit Assange to quiz Nasrallah on the fact that four Hezbollah members have been indicted by an international court for their involvement in the 2005 killing of former PM Rafik Hariri. Nor did he ask Nasrallah about the legitimacy of his party’s impressive arsenal, one that Hezbollah continues build in preparation for a final showdown with Israel few Lebanese want but one in which they would have little say should it come to pass. At the end of the day, Assange is all big picture. He and Nasrallah both enjoy sticking it to the US, so who cares about the uncomfortable details?
Assange referred to Nasrallah as a “leader in war” but forgot to remind viewers that Nasrallah is not a public official and certainly has no constitutional right to a say in Lebanese foreign affairs. There was no mention of the 2006 war with Israel, a conflict that Hezbollah started unilaterally and that cost Lebanon over 1,000 dead.
Most of the discussion surrounded Hezbollah’s more hagiographic achievements, its martial heroics in its battle with Israel in the Jewish State’s self-imposed security zone in South Lebanon in the 1980s and 90s. There were certainly no problematic questions about the party’s activities on the streets of West Beirut and elsewhere in the country at the end of the first week of May 2008, when, in its bid to topple a government with which it had finally lost patience, the weapons it said it was loathe to use on civilians were used to kill innocents.
Of the Resistance itself, we were treated to a description of local farmhands turned guerilla fighters to defend all that they held dear, bamboozling the Israelis with their humorous local jargon. It might not have been the French freedom fighters taking on the occupying Nazis, but then again that is the sort of narrative Nasrallah wants Western liberals to buy into.
Another sleight of hand was Nasrallah’s heartfelt claim that his party never got involved in the grubbiness of local politics until 2005, and only then to protect the integrity of the Resistance. What he failed to mention was that until then his party’s activities were underwritten by a Syrian presence in Lebanon that had lasted one year shy of three decades. Still, clearly there are occupiers, and then there are occupiers. And what of his views on Syria? Nasrallah, the reasonable chap that he is, demanded that both sides enter into dialogue, reminding us that President Bashar al-Assad has pledged “radical reform,” the inference being that the regime is ready to talk but it’s those dangerous rebels who just want to prolong the bloodshed.
For the Assange-ites, it was an answer that fitted neatly into a worldview of Nasrallah being a humble man from a poor, multi-confessional suburb of Beirut. It was a place, he said, where he first identified the injustice meted out to the Palestinians. What a guy!
For the record, Hezbollah is a militant theocracy with a supreme leader. It has bulldozed its way to the top of Lebanon’s political system by showing a complete disdain for the democratic process and total reliance on the very real threat to deliver violence to whoever stands in its way. It has created a compelling narrative for its rank and file, one built around purity, heroism, martyrdom, resistance and dignity, but the reality is that its military wing is an adjunct of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and a pawn in Tehran’s regional standoff with Israel.

Disgust’ and ‘Negative Distinction’ Major Highlights of 3-Day Parliamentary Session
Naharnet/  20 April 2012/A “disgust” expressed by Speaker Nabih Berri and the “negative distinction” caused by Phalange MP Sami Gemayel were the major highlights of the last day of a parliamentary session that led to the government’s survival of a vote of confidence. The three-day session that ended after midnight Thursday included 30 hours of statements by 62 MPs and responses by five members of the cabinet and Premier Najib Miqati. Among the 62 lawmakers, 34 were from the March 14-led opposition and 28 were members of the Hizbullah-led March 8 coalition. Eight disputes between members of parliament were recorded throughout the three-day session that was aimed at assessing the government’s performance. Berri expressed “disgust” before the vote of confidence over the sectarian tension and the MPs’ resort to the past as a weapon to confront the cabinet or rival lawmakers. A March 14 leader lamented the “negative distinction” between the March 14 forces and the Phalange party that was caused after Gemayel’s call for a vote of confidence. Sixty-three MPs granted the government a vote of confidence as Gemayel was joined by his two party members, MPs Samer Saadeh and Fadi al-Habr in voting no after March 14 lawmakers walked out of the legislature.“The government received a gift that it wasn’t expecting after MP Gemayel went out of the March 14 unanimity not to call for a confidence vote,” the opposition leader, who refused to be identified, told An Nahar daily published Friday.His call for the vote came after he asked Finance Minister Mohammed Safadi if he was planning to pay a $400 million compensation to Minister Nicolas Fattoush, owed to him and his brothers by the state for suspending the activity at their stone quarries.

Kataeb denies Gemayel's no-confidence move indicates
March 14 split April 20, 2012/By Rima S. Aboulmona/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Despite Kataeb Party MP Sami Gemayel’s unilateral move for a no-confidence vote against the government Thursday, 14th March MP Nidal Tohmeh told The Daily Star Friday that "the March 14 coalition remains cohesive."
Tohmeh said that March 14 “understands and respects” Gemayel’s move, which came despite a prior agreement by opposition MPs not to use such a tactic.
March 14 had taken a coordinated stance not to call for a no-confidence vote "because we do not have a majority [in Parliament] that enable us to win such a vote and because constitutionally we cannot bring down the government," Tohmeh said.
The government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati survived a vote of confidence late Thursday evening after a three-day parliamentary session marked by harsh criticism from March 14 MPs, who called for forming a neutral government to supervise next year’s general election.
March 14 and other lawmakers reportedly attempted to dissuade Gemayel from forcing the vote, but he was adamant. As a result, most March 14 MPs withdrew from the chamber.
When the final tally was counted, 63 MPs had granted the Cabinet a vote of confidence. Gemayel was joined by two of his colleagues in the Kataeb Party in voting no.
Tohmeh speculated that Gemayel’s decision was intended to oblige all those MPs who support the government to "bear the historical responsibility before the people for their actions."
Meanwhile, Kataeb MP Elie Marouni told the Kataeb-run Voice of Lebanon radio station that nobody should have been taken aback that Kataeb party MPs forced a no-confidence vote despite knowing that Mikati's government would win.
Marouni said that the government was formed and continued to exist by Syrian fiat, and expressed puzzlement at the criticism Gemayel has been subjected to for having forced the no-confidence vote, insisting that the move had proven to be wise.
"We were pleasantly surprised that the votes expressing confidence in the government turned out to be fewer than the last time this happened," pointing out that the government got 68 votes of confidence when it was formed as opposed to 63 Thursday.
Marouni also denied any fissure in the ranks of the March 14 coalition, saying that the Kataeb party "remains at the heart of March 14, which it created."
In his comments to The Daily Star, Tohmeh said that the March 14 alliance, including the Kataeb Party, is considering various tactics to pressure the government to meet its demands.
“March 14 plans to hold Maarab-2 to discuss taking to the streets peacefully to bring down the government,” Tohmeh said.
Politicians from March 14 held a wide-ranging meeting at the residence of Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea in Maarab, north Beirut, last week in the wake of the assassination attempt against Geagea. The follow-up meeting to which Tohmeh referred is slated to be held next week

Phalange bloc MP Sami Gemayel Withholds Confidence from Govt., Clashes with Fattoush
Naharnet/19 April 2012, 16:16 /Phalange bloc MP Sami Gemayel on Thursday announced that he withholds confidence from Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s government, during the third round of parliamentary debate over the government’s policies. “We withhold confidence from this government and this is our democratic duty and everyone must shoulder their responsibilities,” Gemayel said.
Addressing Hizbullah MPs who had addressed parliament before him, Gemayel said: “Your threats and rhetoric are unacceptable and they will not help build the state.”Turning to the situation on the Lebanese-Syrian border, the MP said: “The Lebanese state is being violated and the Lebanese people are being killed, while the army has not taken any action to defend them.”“What kind of state does not defend its borders?” Gemayel wondered, calling for abolishing the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council. Tackling the latest hike in oil prices, Gemayel noted that “the price of oil has dropped globally, while the cost here has risen 15 percent.” “The government is considering how to grant a minister $400 million to compensate the closure of his stone-crushing plant,” the lawmaker said, referring to State Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Nicolas Fattoush without naming him. Fattoush hit back after Gemayel’s speech, noting that his family was “seeking its right.” “I call on the family to back down from its lawsuit should (former) president (Amin) Gemayel, (Sami’s father), return the commission he was paid in the Puma helicopters deal,” Fattoush said. But Gemayel responded, clarifyig that “the Puma case was part of the campaign waged by the government in 1992 against all Christian leaders and (former) deputy speaker (Elie) Ferzli formed a commission of inquiry and said they did not find any evidence implicating president Gemayel in the case.” During his speech, Gemayel called for forming a parliamentary committee “that can probe the bank accounts of everyone that governed the country in the past 20 years.”“The problem does not lie in the current government or in the previous ones, but rather in the political system and a state that is built on corruption,” Gemayel said. “It is time to end the petty disputes because we live in a failed state. It is time to end the cycle of failure that we are living in,” he added, calling for a “neutral, pluralistic and decentralized state that distances itself from the policies of axes.”

MP Mohammed Raad, head of Hizbullah’s Loyalty to Resistance blocDefends Govt., Accuses Opposition of Obstructing Its Plans
Naharnet/19 April 2012, /MP Mohammed Raad, head of Hizbullah’s Loyalty to Resistance bloc, on Thursday strongly defended Prime Minister Najib Miqati’s government against the opposition’s fierce criticism, during the third round of parliamentary debate over the government’s policies. Hitting back at lawmakers who criticized Hizbullah’s controversial arsenal of weapons in their speeches, Raad said: “We reiterate that questioning the Resistance's legitimacy is against national principles, as dialogue needs confidence and building confidence requires putting an end to lies and to scaring people with the Resistance and its arms.” Hizbullah argues that its arms are needed to defend the country against Israel, while rivals accuse the group of employing its weapons in the domestic political conflicts.
Defending the government’s so-called self-disassociation policy towards the Syrian crisis, Raad said: “We have committed ourselves to rejecting any foreign interference in Syria's internal affairs in order to protect Lebanon from the repercussions of the Syrian crisis.” “We respect and support the Syrian people's demands for reform and stress the importance of a political solution” in Syria, he added.
Raad noted that “the opposition's negative approach towards the government and the political alignments in the country have negatively affected the government's productivity.”
“Opposition forces waged a campaign to isolate government and employed all international relations in order to pressure it and block any support for its projects, but despite that this government has managed to prove itself amid the ongoing threats in the region,” the top Hizbullah lawmaker went on to say. He stressed that Miqati’s government “has managed to protect Lebanon from the repercussions of Syria's events, to lay out a comprehensive plan for the electricity sector, to reinforce public transport and the oil sector and to pass a law on the safety of buildings

Cabinet Wins No-Confidence Vote, Miqati Says Govt. Cohesive despite Differences
Naharnet/ 19 April 2012, 21:25
The government on Thursday survived a vote of no confidence in parliament, amid a walkout by March 14 MPs and the presence of the Phalange bloc.
The vote of no confidence was requested by Phalange bloc MP Sami Gemayel, who withheld confidence in the government along with only two other lawmakers.
Defending his government following three days of heated parliamentary debate over its policies, Prime Minister Najib Miqati said the government “will rise above all the non-constructive remarks, especially personal insults.”“I stress that the choice of self-disassociation is our own choice and that it is Lebanese par excellence. It was imposed by the relations with Syria and the conflicting stances of the Lebanese in Lebanon,” Miqati said of his government’s so-called self-disassociation policy towards the Syrian crisis.
“The self-disassociation policy prevented further divides. Has anyone wondered how Lebanon's situation would have been, had the government sided with a certain camp? About the repercussions of such a stance on economy and security?” Miqati added. He noted that the international community “understands Lebanon's special situation.”
Miqati said the international community had lauded Lebanon’s policy on Syria “as some domestic parties were still questioning this stance.”
Playing down the extent of disputes among the government’s components, the premier stressed that “despite the differences between the government's members, we will not reach the extent of doubting or accusing one another.” “I have said that I place all my confidence in the ministers and I have not doubted any of them,” he said.
Turning to the issue of Syrian refugees sheltered in Lebanon, Miqati said: “We will continue to perform our duty towards the Syrian refugees, and this is not a favor but rather a duty, until the situations settle down in Syria.”“The responsibility to protect the border with Syria falls on Lebanon, and Lebanon will not be a path to harm any country and its people and it will be keen on safeguarding its sovereignty,” he said, responding to harsh criticism from the opposition, which accuses the government of turning a blind eye to the deadly Syrian incursions and shootings into Lebanon.
Miqati said “the Taef Agreement is not an agreement for examination, but rather for implementation, and we believe that it is the cornerstone that ensures that the country will remain the country of all its citizens.”He stressed that “nothing can protect the domestic arena from threats except cooperation between the majority and the opposition.”
“We must highlight the common denominators. Harming security is a ‘red line’ that we are trying to prevent anyone from crossing,” Miqati went on to say.
“The bet is not only on the readiness of the security forces, but also on the awareness of the Lebanese,” he added.

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, JohnBaird Completes Ministerial Meeting on Syria
April 19, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement at the conclusion of the ministerial meeting on Syria in Paris:
“The Syrian people have faced countless months of repression and violence inflicted by the Assad regime.
“While we are pleased that the Annan plan resulted in some decrease in violence, we are concerned by recent reports of government forces firing upon peaceful protestors, causing UN military observers to evacuate to safety. “This is completely unacceptable. “The Syrian authorities must respect the ceasefire. They must respect the rights of the Syrian people to peaceful protest, and they must allow immediate access to humanitarian aid for the more than 1 million Syrians in need.
Today's preliminary agreement between Syria and the UN on the deployment of the observer mission is a positive step, but it must be followed by full cooperation with the UN observers and full implementation of the Annan Plan.
“The Paris meeting was an opportunity to reiterate our support for the Syrian people. Canada has already committed up to $7.5 million in humanitarian aid.
“The Syrian people will see a brighter future—one where their fundamental freedoms are respected and their families can live in peace and security.”
 

Canadian RCMP says it's seized enough hashish to drug all of Canada, several times over
By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Wed, 18 Apr, 2012.MONTREAL - The RCMP says it was involved in a monster international drug bust that nabbed more than 43 tonnes of hashish worth an estimated $860 million. That's the equivalent of 43 million grams — enough hashish to drug every single person in Canada, more than once.
The drugs were seized in several countries including Pakistan, Belgium, Italy and Canada. They were destined for Montreal and Halifax.
Police say the amount seized is equivalent to more than half of all the hashish sent to Canada, or confiscated here, for the entire year 2009.
Project Celsius began in 2009 and 2010 when authorities discovered drugs at the ports of Montreal and Halifax.
Eight Montreal-area residents have been arrested and will face charges of conspiracy, importing and possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking.
The RCMP investigation revealed that most of the hashish came from Pakistan.
 

Clinton calls for tougher U.N. steps against Syria
By Elise Labott and Joe Vaccarello, bloomberg.net
April 19, 2012
(CNN) -- The international sense of urgency over the Syrian crisis grew on Thursday, with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for an arms embargo and other tough U.N. Security Council steps against the Bashar al-Assad regime.
Clinton suggested moving "very vigorously" toward a Chapter VII sanctions resolution, including travel and financial sanctions as well as the arms embargo, pressure that would coax the regime to comply with U.N. and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan's six-point peace plan. A Chapter VII resolution would provide for the use of force if needed.
Clinton, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe and other top diplomats met Thursday in Paris about what to do if a week-old cease-fire in Syria fails.
"I think we are all here out of a sense of great frustration and outrage over what we see occurring in Syria," Clinton said. "We also are hopeful that despite the evidence thus far, the mission of Kofi Annan can begin to take root, starting with monitors being sent, but remembering that it's a six-point plan and that it is not a menu of options. It has to be a complete acceptance by the Syrian government of all six points."Syrian refugees too scared to return Also Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said violence has persisted and the Syrian government hasn't lived up to its own promise to withdraw troops from cities, a key element of Annan's peace plan.
Rice on Syria: Reason to be skeptical An advance team of U.N. observers is in Syria to check compliance with the cease-fire, with 30 unarmed monitors expected in the coming days. Ban called for an initial three-month observer mission to be expanded to 300 monitors in 10 locations and is asking the U.N. Security Council to authorize the expanded number.
Juppe said the failure of Annan's peace plan for Syria "would lead to civil war,"
"We cannot wait," Juppe told reporters. "Time is against us. We need to act quickly. Otherwise we'll have to see what other options are available to the Security Council and to the international community."
Russia and China, which have blocked the Security Council from taking action against the Syrian government, declined an invitation to the Paris meeting, the French foreign ministry said.
In the meeting, French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged nations to persuade Moscow and Beijing to drop their support for Syria's regime.
Ban said it appears violence "dropped markedly" after the truce began April 12, but government shelling of civilian areas, actions by armed groups, and other hostilities jumped again in recent days.
Thirty people, including two women and a child, were killed in Syria on Thursday, the opposition Local Coordination Committees of Syria said. Dozens more have been killed in the past few days.
The LCC featured a video posted online Thursday that it said showed a rocket hitting a high-rise in Homs, the scene of some of the worst violence since the Syrian uprising began more than a year ago. The resulting fireball was followed by thick black smoke.
he group also reported strong explosions in Homs from military artillery and a raid and arrest campaign in another part of the city, during which several people were arrested on charges of failure to appear for mandatory military service.
In the town of Hama, the group said, regime forces launched raids and destroyed homes, shops and the town's only hospital.
Annan's plan calls on both sides to end the violence, allow access to humanitarian groups, release detainees and begin a political dialogue.
Ban said in a letter to U.N. Security Council President Susan Rice, who is also the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that armed violence continues even though both the government and opposition say they're committed to ending it.
Annan's plan also says demonstrators should be able to protest peacefully, and while there was a restrained regime response to demonstrations a week ago, Ban said "there were nevertheless attempts to intimidate protesters, including reports of incidents of rifle fire by government troops."
There has also been no significant release of detainees, another point of Annan's plan, Ban said.
There also has been no substantive progress on providing humanitarian assistance, Ban said. The United Nations says 230,000 people have been displaced by the violence.
The lack of progress, Ban said, is unacceptable.
The United Nations and Syria on Thursday agreed on the function of the advance team of observers in Syria and the government's role while they are there.
Rice said the advance mission is an important test of whether Syria will permit the effective operation of a larger monitoring system.
She noted that the Security Council, in its Syria resolution Saturday, called on the Syrian government to make sure a larger monitoring mission could work unimpeded.
So far, she said, the monitors' movements have been restricted. Ban noted that in one instance, the government turned down the team's initial request to go to Homs, citing "security concerns."
Observers were in the Daraa province town of Harak on Thursday. After they left, regime gunfire killed two people and wounded dozens, the Local Coordination Committees said.
CNN cannot independently verify reports of violence and deaths as the government has severely restricted access by international media.
Syria has been engulfed in violence for 13 months as a national uprising has spread and the government has cracked down on peaceful protests. The United Nations estimates that at least 9,000 people have died since the protests began, while activist groups put the death toll at more than 11,000.

Syria Turmoil’s Spread Risks Spilling Across Borders
By Viola Gienger on April 19, 2012
The spread of Syria’s turmoil and uncertainties over its chemical and biological weapons pose escalating risks, President Barack Obama’s top military adviser said even as he cautioned against immediate U.S. involvement.
“Spillover into neighboring countries is an increasing concern,” Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee in Washington today. He cited the flow of refugees and the chance extremists may try to capitalize on the chaos.
The U.S. has “solid military relationships with every country on Syria’s border,” Dempsey said. The U.S. must be “especially alert to the fate of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons. They need to stay exactly where they are.”
Dempsey’s appraisal highlighted the dangers as the U.S. and allies in Europe and the Middle East look for solutions through diplomacy and sanctions while demanding that President Bashar al-Assad step down. The United Nations estimates more than 9,000 people have been killed in more than a year of fighting as Assad’s forces cracked down on opposition demonstrations and rebels formed military units to fight back.
A cease-fire that went into effect on April 12 hasn’t ended the bloodshed. Syria and the UN today reached agreement on how cease-fire monitors would carry out their duties, the UN said. Security forces killed at least 46 people yesterday, the opposition Local Coordination Committees said in an e-mail.
Syria’s Economy
Syria’s economy has been hit hard by three U.S. executive orders targeting senior leaders, commerce and the central bank of Syria, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, testifying alongside Dempsey. The executive orders have contributed to 30 percent of the decline in the regime’s revenue, and the oil embargo by the U.S. and European Union has created further losses, he said.
“The exchange rate has depreciated by more than 50 percent,” Panetta told the committee. “And their GDP has been in a serious decline, approaching almost minus 8 percent in 2011 and more now.”
Panetta and Dempsey faced little pressure from the committee to take military action, unlike a Senate hearing last month, when Arizona Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services panel, advocated more U.S. involvement.
While humanitarian concerns loom and the temptation is great to unseat Assad forcibly in a potential blow to his ally Iran, the risks are too great, House committee Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon said today.
‘Robust Air Defenses’
“There is much we do not know about the opposition,” said McKeon, a California Republican. “Syria also maintains robust air defenses that limit military options. Therefore, I’m not recommending U.S. military intervention, particularly in light of our grave budget situation, unless the national security threat was clear and present.”
Dempsey and Panetta reiterated the caution against U.S. military involvement that they voiced last month before the Senate committee.
The U.S. would need “a clear legal basis” and broad regional and international support to act militarily in the conflict, Panetta said today in written remarks. He cited the UN resolution that authorized action in Libya last year.
“From every angle, the situation in Syria is enormously complex,” Panetta said. “Recent days are testing whether the Assad regime will live up to all of its responsibilities to the Syrian people and to the international community.”
Conditions for Action
Panetta said he and Dempsey are “unified with regards to not proceeding with any military action unless there’s clear objective, unless we know what it’s going to take to achieve that objective, how long is it going to take, and ultimately do we have the legal authority to accomplish what we’re being asked to accomplish.”
On Syria’s chemical and biological weapons, the U.S. is sharing information with allies in the region, Dempsey said.
“We feel like we have a good understanding of the current disposition of Syria’s chemical and biological weapons,” he said.
The defense officials said the U.S. is making contingency plans, including for a humanitarian corridor, in the event Obama opts for American military involvement. They said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s operation in Libya last year would serve as a template.
Keeping Syria Intact 
“The bottom line is that anything that takes the Assad regime down is a step in the right direction,” Panetta said. “What the international community has to assure is that, if that happens, it happens in the context of legitimate reforms that keep that country together and that serve the Syrian people.”
Dempsey said people in the region are increasingly restive for greater economic and political rights, especially as they see successful revolts around them. Ultimately, that will provide more stability as authoritarian regimes yield to more open systems, he said.
“Getting from here to there is going to be a wild ride,” Dempsey said. “So I think we’re in for 10 or 15 years of instability in a region that has already been characterized by instability.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net. To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

No revolution in Lebanon
19/04/2012/By Diana Mukkaled/ASharq AlAwsat
The community of bloggers and cyber-activists in Lebanon recently hailed the courage of internet hackers who crashed websites belonging to ministerial and state bodies, temporarily suspending their activities. Their celebration of this hacking attempt was akin to a visceral reaction stemming from a strong desire to do something, or at least engage in some action – even negative action – in order to shake off the stagnation and lethargy that has plagued life in Lebanon for years. Perhaps this hacking operation has tapped into the daring and dynamic “revolutionary” ambition of the Facebook page “We are all Khaled Said”, and its role in mobilizing the Egyptian masses and igniting their revolution. The Lebanese hackers posted a message on the websites that they hacked, which seemed to resemble a general statement, entitled “raise your voice”. The message expressed general frustration at living conditions in Lebanon, and called for action and an end to the state of submission. The Lebanese online community subsequently seized upon this signal and began to repeat the question that they have continued to ask for more than a year: Is it time for a revolution in Lebanon? Will the mass hacking of Lebanese state websites lead to people descending onto the street to take part in demonstrations, the emergence of a revolution and the overthrow of the regime?
These activists previously asked this same question with demonstrations that called for the abolition of sectarianism, positive that this would lead to the mobilization of the Lebanese street; however their hopes in this regard quickly faded. Female Lebanese activists also hoped that Lebanese women’s rights issues would serve as the catalyst to ignite the masses, prompting demonstrations and a revolution, but they were also left disappointed.  Why is the counter-revolutionary force stronger than the revolutionary force which is calling for a revolution in Lebanon similar to what we have seen elsewhere in the Arab Spring?  It seems that the celebrations surrounding the recent online hacking operations are merely an expression of compensation, particularly as Lebanese online activists feel unable to properly engage in the movement of change that is spanning the length and breadth of the Arab world. Yes, Lebanon is outside the wider movement of change, but ever since the outbreak of Arab revolutions, key figures in Lebanese public life have always attempted to exploit this change for their own interests. Initially Hezbollah tried to invest in the Egyptian revolution, believing that the overthrow of a “non-resistance” regime would serve its interests, but after the Egyptian revolution spread to Syria we find that Hezbollah is today questioning the Arab revolutions as a whole.
The March 14 Alliance has also not escaped this conundrum, particularly as the Syrian revolution, in theory, was supposed to serve its interests. However today, we find one of the March 14 Alliance leaders, former Lebanese President Amine Gemayel, expressing his reservations about change in Syria, exploiting the minorities fears of the rise of the Islamists.
This internal confusion is one of many unique factors that account for the failure of the Lebanese revolution project.
Weapons, sectarianism, corruption, and the fears of minorities are all helping to divide Lebanon. These divisions will not allow online activists to do anything more than celebrate their sporadic hacking operations, and thus Lebanon will remain outside the revolutionary flock.

Nasrallah, Assange and injustice in Syria
 April 19, 2012 /By Michael Young The Daily Star
Which devotee of the anti-globalization left, enlivened by anti-Americanism, could resist a frisson of pleasure when watching Julian Assange interview Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general? And on the Kremlin-backed Russia Today channel, no less.
Getting Nasrallah to chat earlier this week was a coup for the founder of WikiLeaks, but not an unexpected one. The Hezbollah leader, when he grants interviews to Westerners at all, generally does so with those who share his passion for sticking it to Washington.
Syria was a major topic of discussion in the Assange interview, and Nasrallah transformed an apparent revelation into a weapon against the adversaries of President Bashar Assad. He observed that Hezbollah had contacted the Syrian opposition in a bid at mediation, but that it had rejected a dialogue with the regime. “From the beginning we have had a regime that is willing to enact reforms and is prepared for dialogue,” Nasrallah declared. “On the other side you have an opposition which is not prepared for dialogue and is not prepared to accept reforms. All it wants is to bring down the regime. This is a problem.”
It certainly is a problem, though mainly for Hezbollah. What Assad’s enemies know is that Syria’s ruling family – no less than Hezbollah and its patrons in Iran, or for that matter the decision-makers in Moscow and Beijing – regards “dialogue” principally as an instrument to neutralize the uprising. That is why Russia, in endorsing the plan of the United Nations-Arab League envoy, Kofi Annan, followed it up with insistent demands that the Free Syrian Army be compelled to terminate its armed resistance. Within the pro-Assad alignment that objective is essential, and its pursuit continues.
What dialogue is Nasrallah talking about? He has long argued that there can be no dialogue between victim and oppressor. Recall what the Hezbollah leader said in a 2002 speech on the anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s death. It was usefully translated in “Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,” edited by Nicholas Noe. Describing the so-called 15th of Khordad massacre by the army of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1963, Nasrallah saw this as an occasion when a massacre provided “a tool of mobilization, a strong incentive, and a spiritual moral, and humane impetus to generate victory, hope, and trust, and strike fear into the enemy’s heart.” And in a phrase he would do well to remember today, Nasrallah noted that “[a]n army that shoots on unarmed and helpless people is in the final analysis a weak one, on the verge of collapse.”
In the unlikely event someone engages in a dialogue with Bashar Assad, let us imagine the dynamics. Which opposition figures will the regime sit with? It will exploit the divisions among its foes to select its interlocutor, possibly members of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, which has been open to negotiating with the regime. Many in Syria will reject such an initiative; but outside, Assad’s foreign allies will maneuver to silence potential displeasure by insisting that this represents implementation of the Annan plan. Moreover, the reputation of the Syrian National Council is so wretched that it might be difficult to interrupt the momentum of a dialogue, no matter how bogus, after it begins.
Once everyone is around a table, what happens? Not much. The security edifice of the Assads will remain intact, while the opposition will have to end all military operations, or risk being accused of torpedoing the Annan plan. The regime will go around in circles, perhaps eventually offering the opposition the ragged bone of limited representation in a new government. This will be hailed as a victory for peace, but no Syrian government of the past 42 years has ever held power. By the time Assad’s pliant interlocutors realize this, the game will be up and the Syrian president will have dodged a bullet.
That’s what Nasrallah is hoping. But most Syrians are no dupes, nor do they particularly appreciate the double standards the Hezbollah leader displayed in the Assange interview. When asked why he had supported several Arab uprisings, but not the one in Syria, Nasrallah replied: “Everybody knows that the [Assad] regime ... has supported the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine and it has not backed down in the face of Israeli and American pressure, so it is a regime which has served the Palestinian cause very well.”
That may have prompted a nod of assent from Assange, but it also leads to an unflattering conclusion. By Nasrallah’s logic, domestic repression is tolerable if an Arab state upholds the proper kinds of struggles regionally – against Israel and the United States. For the Hezbollah leader, injustice, therefore, is a relative term, one tied to his party’s interests. This disqualifies Nasrallah from passing moral judgment on a variety of developments in the Middle East.
In which case why do so many otherwise intelligent people cede to Nasrallah the high ground when it comes to political principle? When the secretary-general remarked that “the passage of time does not negate justice” for the Palestinians, Assange should have inquired as to how a man so dodgy about injustice in Syria could blithely lecture viewers about justice in Palestine.
If there is justice in Syria one day, it will sweep away those such as Nasrallah wagering heavily on Assad’s victory. But the Hezbollah leader is a perceptive man. He can toss out chaff, but because he once marshaled the energies of his own community in its resistance against Israel, he cannot fail to grasp that most Syrians today view their battle in a similar light. Nasrallah is correct about one thing: The passage of time does not negate justice.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

How the Media Whitewashes Muslim Persecution of Christians
by Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute
April 13, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3217/media-muslim-persecution-christians
When it comes to Muslim persecution of Christians, the mainstream media (MSM) has a long paper trail of obfuscating; while they eventually do state the bare-bone facts—if they ever report on the story in the first place, which is rare—they do so after creating and sustaining an aura of moral relativism that minimizes the Muslim role.
False Moral Equivalency
As previously discussed, one of the most obvious ways is to evoke "sectarian strife" between Muslims and Christians, a phrase that conjures images of two equally matched—equally abused, and abusive—adversaries fighting. This hardly suffices to describe reality: Muslim majorities persecuting largely passive Christian minorities.
Most recently, for instance, in the context of the well-documented suffering of Christians in Egypt, an NPR report declared "In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims and Christians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame the interreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak security forces. Others believe it's because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and the minority Christian community [ how did the "mistrust" originate?]." Though the report does highlight cases where Christians are victimized, the tone throughout suggests that examples of Muslims victimized by Christians could just as easily have been found (not true). Even the title of the report is "In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise"; the accompanying photo is of a group of angry Christians, one militantly holding a cross aloft—not Muslims destroying crosses, which is what prompts the former to such displays of religious solidarity.
Two more strategies that fall under the MSM's umbrella of obfuscating and minimizing Islam's role—strategies that the reader should become acquainted with—appeared in recent reports dealing with the jihadi group Boko Haram and its ongoing genocide of Nigeria's Christians.
First, some context: Boko Haram, whose full name in Arabic is "Sunnis for Da'wa [Islamization] and Jihad," is a terrorist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the secular government and establishment of Sharia law (sound familiar?). It has been slaughtering Christians for years, with an uptick since last December's Christmas day church bombing, which left 40 Christians dead, followed by its New Year ultimatum that all Christians must evacuate northern regions or die—an ultimatum Boko Haram has been living up to, as hardly a day goes by without a terrorist attack on Christians or churches, most recently, last Sunday's Easter day church attack that killed nearly 50.
Blurring the Line between Persecutor and Victim
Now consider some MSM strategies. The first one is to frame the conflict between Muslims and Christians in a way that blurs the line between persecutor and victim, for example, this recent BBC report on one of Boko Haram's many church attacks that left three Christians dead, including a toddler. After stating the bare-bone facts, the report goes on to describe how "the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…" The report goes on and on, with a special section about "very angry" Christians, till one all but confuses victims with persecutors, forgetting what the Christians are "very angry" about in the first place: unprovoked and nonstop terror attacks on their churches, and the murder of their women and children.
This is reminiscent of the Egyptian New Year's Eve church bombing that left over 20 Christians dead: the MSM reported it, but under headlines like "Christians clash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21"(Washington Post) and "Clashes grow as Egyptians remain angry after attack"(New York Times)—again, as if frustrated Christians lashing out against wholesale slaughter is as newsworthy as the slaughter itself; as if their angry reaction "evens" everything up.
Dissembling the Perpetrators' Motivation
The second MSM strategy involves dissembling over the jihadis' motivation. An AFP report describing a different Boko Haram church attack—which also killed three Christians during Sunday service—does a fair job reporting the facts. But then it concludes with the following sentence: "Violence blamed on Boko Haram, whose goals remain largely unclear, has since 2009 claimed more than 1,000 lives, including more than 300 this year, according to figures tallied by AFP and rights groups."
Although Boko Haram has been howling its straightforward goals for a decade—enforcing Sharia law and, in conjunction, subjugating if not eliminating Nigeria's Christians—here is the MSM claiming ignorance about these goals (earlier the New York Times described Boko Haram's goals as "senseless"—even as the group continues justifying them on doctrinal grounds). One would have thought that a decade after the jihadi attacks of 9/11—in light of all the subsequent images of Muslims in militant attire shouting distinctly Islamic slogans such as "Allahu Akbar!" and calling for Sharia law and the subjugation of "infidels"—reporters would by now know what their motivation and goals are.
Of course, the media's obfuscation serves a purpose: it leaves the way open for the politically correct, MSM-approved motivations for Muslim violence: "political oppression," "poverty," "frustration," and so forth. From here, one can see why politicians like former U.S. president Bill Clinton cite "poverty" as "what's fueling all this stuff" (a reference to Boko Haram's slaughter of Christians), or the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs insistence that "religion is not driving extremist violence" in Nigeria, which he said in response to last Sunday's Easter day church bombing.
In short, while the MSM may report the most frugal facts concerning Christian persecution, they utilize their entire arsenal of semantic games, key phrases, and convenient omissions that uphold the traditional narrative—that Muslim violence is anything but a byproduct of the Islamic indoctrination of intolerance.
**Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Washington and the Lebanese Experience: Changing Tools and Differing Goals
by Rudy Sassine
A Recent History of U.S.-Lebanon Relations
U.S.-Lebanon relations have encountered a series of setbacks over the years due to Washington’s direct involvement in the Lebanese crisis in the early eighties, with military intervention in the multinational forces until the nineties, and then the regression of the Lebanese case to a very low level priority in the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations. However, the Cedar Revolution of 2005 and the subsequent U.S. support for the March 14 Alliance reversed the momentum of bilateral relations and opened the door to great challenges and opportunities.
Following a number of developments on both the Syrian and Lebanese fronts—starting with the handover of power to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad through the withdrawal of the Israeli military from southern Lebanon in 2000 to the growing power of Hizballah and their refusal to hand over weapons under the oversight of the Syrian regime—Washington had to adjust how it handled each of these issues to a great extent.
However, after the events of September 11, 2001, the rise of terrorism became a major factor affecting U.S. policy towards the Middle East. No longer could decision makers in Washington ignore the repressive practices in Arab countries and overlook the aspirations of the people for freedom. On the contrary, support for democracy and freedom in countries that could form successful models, such as Lebanon, became an integral part of the new strategy adopted during the term of President George W. Bush. New parliamentary election slogans addressed the fight against extremism and the protection of fundamental freedoms and the rights of minorities.
Despite Lebanon’s low supply of oil and the loss of its historic role as a trade intermediary between the West and the countries of the Persian Gulf, the Cedar Country has become a priority to Washington and has regained its importance in the international arena, especially after the Cedar Revolution accomplished the mission of the Syrian army’s withdrawal in 2005. Thus, Lebanon became regarded as one of the models of a successful democracy in an Arab country, which can be followed to improve and build new systems.
The approach taken by the administration of President George W. Bush towards Lebanon was different from previous administrations. Instead of using a military solution and getting involved in a costly dispute, Washington chose to work through the UN and other powers such as France and the European Union to help Lebanon restore its sovereignty through the Security Council’s series of international resolutions.
Nevertheless, the success of independent forces to achieve the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon and the achievement of the parliamentary election to form a government in 2005 did not deter Hizballah from luring its political opponents to tug ropes internally. In various stages, Hizballah has also used its military power to turn the political equation in their favor, as occurred in 2008 when they overtook Beirut and imposed upon the government to withdraw their decisions in regards to the removal of the Hizballah network. This happened before the Doha Conference in which they successfully sought to secure their participation in the government on the basis of having a blocked third of the votes. Hizballah also succeeded in the downfall of Prime Minister Hariri’s government in the last term and in the formation of a majority government with the March 8 Alliance chaired by MP Najib Mikati.
Lebanon and the Arab Uprisings
Moreover, the outbreak of popular revolts in Arab countries and the loss of Iranian support of the Arab street led to the re-arrangement of the situation in favor of independent forces in Lebanon, involving all parties in the Lebanese arena which were not formerly included. There is no doubt that today the calculations of Hizballah are more accurate and complex. Their use of excessive force to reach their goals could backfire against them due to the draining effect of the Syrian regime and the influence on the internal balance of power in Lebanon.
On the other hand, the Syrian crisis has formed a basic turning point in favor of the March 14 Alliance, which has eloquently expressed their views of the open-door policy pursued by Washington towards the Syrian regime and the invitation of President Assad to the Annapolis Peace Conference in late 2007. This put the U.S. commitment to Lebanon in doubt and memories returned of the limitations of Washington’s role in the Lebanese arena.
However, the inability of the Assad regime to curb the rebels and attain the consensus of the international community, except for Russia and China, urged the March 14 Alliance to raise their expectations and bet on the success of the Syrian revolution, though security in Lebanon is deteriorating and the international community has failed to adopt a more stringent policy toward Assad.
The first reflection of the Syrian crisis in Lebanon emerged in the city of Tripoli between the Alawite and Sunni communities when protests in support of the Syrian rebels turned into clashes between the two factions. This was followed by a series of violations of Syrian troops on the Lebanese border, killing a number of citizens, the last of whom was a photographer, Ali Shaaban, for Al Jadid Channel.
While observers believe that Lebanon might pay a price if the crisis in Syria turns into an internal sectarian war, Mikati's government depends on the so-called policy of "self-distancing" in order to protect the country against the repercussions of the crisis in Syria and the preservation of internal peace and stability. While the aim of this policy is to avoid taking any political stance on the overall developments in Syria, it is clear from practice that Hizballah will likely succeed in driving the government to depart from the Arab consensus and to non-commitment with the Arab League resolutions in regards to developments in Syria, especially since the Lebanese Foreign Minister from the March 8 Alliance publicly supports the Syrian regime.
U.S. Policy Reactions
Despite doubts about Washington's capability to override the effects of the dominance of March 8 forces on resolutions in Lebanon, the experience of the past year reveals the tools possessed by Washington to exert pressure on the government and force it to meet Lebanon’s financial and political commitments toward the international community. Washington is still unable to direct the Lebanese government to distribute their armed forces on the Syrian border to deter the Syrian regime and its allies from the abduction of Syrian opposition in Lebanon and to stop violations of the Syrian military on the borders with Lebanon. Thus, Washington must reveal its efforts in monitoring the financial channels of Hizballah and in controlling the banking system, pressuring the Lebanese government to hinder Hizballah’s influence on political decisions.
The U.S. Treasury’s detection that the Lebanese-Canadian Bank is conducting money laundering operations for Hizballah increased the pressure on Lebanese Banks—obliging them to address this issue immediately and to finance the International Tribunal—was received as a message of goodwill from the international community. Also, the visit of Deputy Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, to Lebanon in the last period was received similarly, sending messages to those concerned about their international obligations to adjust the banking system accordingly to prevent Iran and Syria from escaping the financial sanctions imposed on them.
The United States remains steadfast in its position toward Lebanon and has recently expressed its concern over the failure of the Lebanese government to respect the rights of Syrian refugees in Lebanese territories, and the failure to protect dissidents. However, there are fears that the noticeably deteriorating security situation reflects the two teams’ inability to reconcile conflicting interests. Therefore, it will be difficult to ask the government to fulfill the requirements and demands of the international community without bearing the consequences of the use of weapons by the March 8 Alliance.
**Rudy Sassine is an independent journalist and researcher at Lebanese for Economy and Development.

The mullah and Iran’s American dilemma
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Ajawsat
In a village near Tehran, a young man is voting as TV cameras record the event for the evening news. Suddenly, the reporter shouts: Cut!
The reason? The voter, presented by the TV reporter as a feda’i of the “Imam”, is wearing a T-shirt emblasoned with the US flag and the message: God Bless America.
The footage did not make it to the evening news. But someone with a sense of humour posted it on the Internet for all to see.
Foreign visitors to Iran are struck by the presence of signs and symbols related to the “Great Satan.” Caps bearing logos of US basketball clubs, key rings inscribed with names of American cities, mugs painted in American colours, and posters of American pop stars are everywhere.
For years, opinion polls, some conducted by the Pew Group, have shown that the US is the most popular foreign nation in Iran. There are fewer anti-Americans in Iran than in France.
A strong American presence has been a feature of the Khomeinist regime from the start. Khomeini’s first Cabinet, headed by the late Mehdi Bazargan, included five dual Iranian-American nationals.
In a recent debate in the Islamic Majlis in Tehran, a member claimed to have a list of 400 officials who had US citizenship or “Green Cards”. It was, perhaps, for that reason that a motion to ban dual nationals from public office was buried in the Majlis. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s PR strategist, a dual national, is a former university teacher from Washington.
Inside the US, the Islamic Republic runs lobby groups under different names.
Today, Iranian-Americans number around 1.8 million. There are also thousands of students who may or may not return to Iran. Some Khomeinist officials send their children to study in the US. And exile dissidents of the regime prefer the US than any other country. More than 200 former Khomeinist officials, including Cabinet ministers, ambassadors, members of the Islamic Majlis, and officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard including at least one general, live in the US as asylum seekers.
And, yet, at least once a year, Iran witnesses a feast of anti-American gesticulations with the burning of US flags and effigies of the US president. Khomeini’s slogan “Death to America!” is exhibited in many government buildings. Official discourse is peppered with bellicose themes against the United States, the only country apart from Israel, to be labeled “enemy” (doshman) rather than adversary.
In Iran, America is a national obsession.
Preparing for this article, I went through Tehran newspapers controlled by the office of the “Supreme Guide”. There contained a dozen articles and even more news items concerning US domestic and foreign policies. Of course, some of the items could be classified as anti-American. However, even those were borrowed from US citizens who have made commerce of anti-Americanism. In other words, the Islamic Republic imports much of its anti-American propaganda from the US.
So, why is there no thaw in Irano-American relations, frozen since 1979?
The answer lies in Iran’s political schizophrenia.
As a nation Iran has been profoundly Americanophile since the 1940s when US support helped push Stalin’s troops out of northwestern Iranian provinces. Khomeini’s revolution, however, had to adopt an anti-American profile. The ayatollah had portrayed the Shah as “an American lackey”. He also wanted to deprive the Left of one of its principal themes: hatred for American in the name of anti-Imperialism. A hotchpotch of xenophobia, misogyny, and misunderstood religious concepts, Khomeinism lacked an ideological backbone. It found it in anti-Americanism which, for decades, had filled the intellectual vacuum in other revolutionary movements, from Kim Il-sungism in North Korea to Fidelism in Cuba and, more recently, Chavism in Venezuela.
Deprived of its ideological backbone, Khomeinism would fade into nothingness.
As a nation and country, Iran badly needs to re-establish normal ties with the US and end a futile dispute that has kept it out of the international mainstream for a generation. As a vehicle for Khomeinism, however, Iran must remain anti-American if it is to retain its self-worth.
Ali Khamenei, the mullah cast as the “Imam” in Tehran, faces a dilemma: continuing the anti-American course could ruin the country. Ending anti-Americanism could administer the coup de grace to his moribund revolution.
Khamenei has a choice because, for the first time since the mullahs seized power, the “leader” is in a position to change course. All Khomeinist governments, from Bazargan to Ahmadinejad tried to normalise ties with the US and failed because rival factions sabotaged their efforts. Each faction feared that if its rival settled the “American problem” it would come on top in the power struggle.
With the defeat of the Ahmadinejad faction, Khamenei enjoys a rare moment of supremacy within the regime. Nevertheless, his position remains unstable and his temporary supremacy may not last long.
He could opt for normalisation with the US, hoping to enlarge his support base. In Barack Obama, he faces an American president who, like Jimmy Carter, is willing to acknowledge the Islamic Republic as a regional power.
However, normalisation with US could change the socio-political landscape in the Iran. Queues of Iranians seeking visas at the US embassy in Tehran, a direct American “cultural invasion”, repeatedly denounced by Khamenei, and visits, both as tourists and investors, by millions of Iranians living abroad could create an atmosphere in which Khomeinsim would look out of place.
Khamenei might consider normalisation too risky for the regime. Having obtained Obama’s tacit acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium, Khamenei could declare victory over the nuclear issue and further radicalise his regime by intensifying moves against the US on other fronts, notably Iraq and the Gulf. That is the North Korean method of cheat-and-retreat in which a step backwards is followed with two steps forward against “the enemy.”
Which course would Khamenei choose? Though the jury is out my feeling is that he lacks the courage to opt for normalisation.
 

Question: "What does it mean for salvation to be a gift from God?"
GotQuestions.org
Answer: The word gift is an important one in the Bible, and it is good that we understand its definition and implications.
In the New Testament, there are several Greek words translated “gift.” Some of these words are used in contexts other than God’s gift of salvation, such as the reciprocal gift-giving of celebrants (Revelation 11:10), the things received from fathers (Matthew 7:11), offerings to a ministry (Philippians 4:17), and the gifts of the magi (Matthew 2:11).
However, when it comes to the matter of our salvation, the New Testament writers use different Greek words—words that emphasize the gracious and absolutely free quality of the gift. Here are the two words most commonly used for the gift of salvation:
1) Dorea, meaning “a free gift.” This word lays particular stress on the gratuitous nature of the gift—it is something given above and beyond what is expected or deserved. Every New Testament occurrence of this word is related to a spiritual gift from God. It is what Jesus offers to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:10). It is called the “free gift” in Romans 5:15. It is the “unspeakable [or indescribable] gift” in 2 Corinthians 9:15. This gracious gift is identified as the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38; 8:30; and 11:17.
The adverb form of this word is dorean, translated “freely” in Matthew 10:8; 2 Corinthians 11:7; Revelation 21:6; 22:17. In Romans 3:24, immediately following God’s pronouncement of our guilt, we have this use of dorean: “Being justified FREELY by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The gift of salvation is free, and the motive for the gift is nothing more than the grace of the Giver.
2) Charisma, meaning “a gift of grace.” This word is used to define salvation in Romans 5:15-16. Also, in Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT [charisma] of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” This same word is used in conjunction with the gifts of the Spirit received after salvation (Romans 12:6; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Peter 4:10).
Obviously, if something is a “gift of grace,” it cannot be earned. To work for something is to deserve it, and that would produce an obligation—a gift of debt, as it were. That is why works destroy grace (Romans 4:1-5; 11:5-6).
When presenting salvation, the New Testament writers carefully chose words that emphasize grace and freedom. As a result, the Bible could not be more clear—salvation is absolutely free, the true gift of God in Christ, and our only responsibility is to receive the gift by faith (John 1:12; 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9).