LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 26/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Jesus Sends Out the Twelve Disciples
Luke 09/01-06: "Jesus called the twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases. Then he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick, after saying to them, Take nothing with you for the trip: no walking stick, no beggar's bag, no food, no money, not even an extra shirt. Wherever you are welcomed by, stay in the same house until you leave that town; wherever people don't welcome you, leave that town and shake the dust off your feet as a warning to them." The disciples left and traveled through all the villages, preaching the Good News and healing people everywhere.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The hollow echo of proportional voting//By Michael Young The Daily Star/April 26/12
Syria: A Christian-Salafi Jihadist/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/April 26/12
The Iranian President’s mistakes/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/April 26/12
The kidnapped diplomat/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Ashara Alawsat/April 26/12
Tolerated but not trusted,Saderat, the only Iranian bank in Lebanon/Ana Maria Luca/April 26/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for April 26/12
Ex-Iran negotiator: 'Historic' chance for nuclear talks
IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons
Anshel Pfeffer / Is the IDF Chief joining the anti-Netanyahu camp over Iran?
Obama: U.S. is steadfast in its commitment to Israel's security
Israel marks 64th Independence Day
Newly released documents shed light on fateful exchange in the wake of the Yom Kippur War
Ahead of June elections, Libya bans religious political parties
Annan tells U.N. Syria hasn't withdrawn heavy weapons
Berri warns vote scuffles can cause delays
Salameh: Lebanese banks well protected
Syrians arrested in Beirut with fake currency
Hezbollah voices displeasure over Ban's 1559 report
Lebanese Cabinet approves expat voting mechanism
Armenians mark genocide with march to Turkish Embassy
Life coaching, NLP gain ground in Lebanon
Israeli arrested in Lebanon returns home
Man, Two Infants Cross from Lebanon to Israel
Miqati in Belgium: Govt. Policy on Region Events Achieved Stability in Lebanon
March 14 to Meet in Maarab Again, Form 400-Strong National Council
Report: Damascus to Deal with Lebanon According to New Conditions
Allouch says Future Movement will ally with PSP for elections
Gemayel: ‘Neutral’ cabinet ‘necessary’ for electoral process

Hezbollah voices displeasure over Ban's 1559 report
April 25, 2012 / The Daily Star
BEIRUT: U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly met Wednesday with Hezbollah official Ammar Musawi, who voiced displeasure over U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's recent criticism of the resistance party’s arms. In a statement released by Hezbollah’s press office after the meeting, Musawi, Hezbollah's official for international relations, criticized Ban’s latest semiannual report on the execution of U.N Security Council resolution 1559, which has as its aim the strengthening of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
In his report, issued on April 20, Ban said Hezbollah’s “sizeable sophisticated military capabilities” outside the control of the state “create an atmosphere of intimidation and represent a key challenge to the safety of Lebanese civilians.”Renewing his calls for Hezbollah to disarm, Ban commented that, “In a democratic state, a political party cannot maintain its own militia.”Ban also said that during the past six months Hezbollah publically acknowledged for the first time that Iran has provided the party with “political, moral, financial and logistical support” and that it has upgraded its military capabilities. Iran, Ban added, should encourage Hezbollah to disarm.
Musawi and Plumbly also discussed security-related matters as well as the situation on the border with Israel.

Cabinet approves expat voting mechanism
April 25, 2012/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanon's Cabinet approved Wednesday a mechanism for members of the Lebanese diaspora to vote in next year’s parliamentary elections as proposed by Foreign Affairs Minister Adnan Mansour. The Cabinet, which began its session at 10 a.m. ahead of a planned trip by Prime Minister Najib Mikati to Belgium, also approved the reduction of the standard bundle of bread loaves by 100 grams, keeping the price of the pack at LL1,500 ($1).
Mansour has over the week stressed that the logistics involved in the voting process for Lebanese expatriates abroad have been finalized and that so far 4,900 Lebanese living outside the country have registered to vote in the 2013 polls. In 2008, Parliament passed into law a proposal allowing expatriates to vote in parliamentary elections.
Information Minister Walid Daouk, who spoke following the meeting at Baabda Palace, said the Cabinet also approved an increase to hospitalization fees, without specifying the amount of the increase. President Michel Sleiman, who headed the session, "stressed that the payment of wages to [public sector] employees would not cease, whatever the reason,” according to Daouk. Daouk also said that Sleiman praised the efforts of Interior Minister Marwan Charbel in drafting the proposal for the elections law and "stressed the need to hold next year’s elections on time no matter the price."
Mikati, for his part, emphasized the need to swiftly finalize the draft elections law, and said that the “government does not bear sole responsibility for the issue because the Parliament will have the final word.” Ministers also approved during the meeting the reduction of the standard bundle of bread loaves by 100 grams, keeping the price of the pack at LL1,500 ($1).
The standard bundle now weighs 900 grams.
Bakeries have been complaining of the increased costs needed to make bread.
Government officials convinced the Union of Bakeries last week to avert a planned open-ended nationwide strike to protest the sharp increase in the prices of raw materials used in baking white bread. The government subsidizes wheat intended for regular Lebanese white bread, which is considered a vital staple consumed with almost every meal.
The government in the past capped the price of a standard bundle of bread loaves at LL1,500.

Armenians mark genocide with march to Turkish Embassy
April 25, 2012/By Van Meguerditchian The Daily Star
ANTELIAS/ RABIEH, Lebanon: Nearly 25,000 Lebanese-Armenians marched to the Turkish Embassy in Metn’s Rabieh Tuesday, calling on Ankara to recognize the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Army at the height of World War I.
The large turnout – which surprised even organizers – prompted the Turkish Embassy to request an increase in security outside the embassy, according to an Internal Security Forces source who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Interior Ministry officials estimated that 20,000 to 25,000 people took part in the march, which began at the Armenian Orthodox Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias.
More than a million Armenians were killed and tens of thousands were deported by the Ottoman Empire, beginning in 1915 during its final battle with Russia and its allies during WWI. April 24 marks the day in 1915 when hundreds of members of the Armenian intelligentsia were arrested and executed by the Ottoman Empire, and is commonly considered to be the genocide’s start date.
Armenian Patriarch Aram I denounced Turkey’s efforts to expand its influence in the region during a mass before the march at the Catholicosate.
Aram I said Turkey is working to strengthen its lobbying power in the Middle East and worldwide in an effort to silence Armenians who are demanding justice.
“Can a nation which fills its prisons with human rights advocates and journalists lecture others on democratic and human rights?” he asked.
“We hold the present Republic of Turkey, in its capacity as the legitimate successor of the Ottoman Empire, accountable for its crimes against our people,” the patriarch added.
Once they were meters away from the Turkish Embassy’s gates, protesters began to burn Turkish flags, and chant anti-Turkish slogans. “We fight for justice, and we demand it from the fascist Turkish regime,” read one of the banners raised at the barbed wire separating some 200 riot police from the crowd.
Despite documentation and widespread acceptance by historians on the killings and deportations, Ankara refuses to recognize the Armenian Genocide and argues that both Armenians and Turks were killed in battles during WWI.
Many protesters at Rabieh Tuesday told The Daily Star they believed the Turkish government refuses to recognize the genocide in order to avoid both apologizing and paying reparations to Armenians. The majority of young people at the march’s front said they believe Turkey will ultimately recognize the events of 1915 as genocide, despite 97 years of denial.
Walking past banners bearing the word “recognize,” Peter Sarkissian called it unfortunate that Turkey insists on denying what he called a crime by the country’s ancestral regime.
Sarkissian, a Lebanese-Armenian on a visit from New York, said that “the cruelty is continuing through the denial of the rights of an entire nation ... there is a strong pain because Turkey has still not accepted its responsibility for the genocide.”
“A crime which has many witnesses cannot be denied,” he added.
Separate demonstrations took place in Yerevan, Jerusalem, Bucharest, Paris, Istanbul and other cities.
For many, April 24 is an occasion to remember the victims and honor memories of their relatives. “Even if 100 years or 200 years pass, we should always remember the victims because this cause is about them and is about the suffering they went through,” said Kevork Georges.
Others questioned modern Turkey’s claims to respect human rights and freedom. “If Turkey is a nation that respects itself, respects human rights and is courageous as it claims to be, it has to recognize what it has done to minorities,” said protester George Arbajian.
After an hour in front of the embassy and efforts by MPs and officials to restrain angry crowds from entering, demonstrators headed back to Antelias.
Beirut MP Serge Torsarkissian of the March 14 coalition hailed the rally, which he participated in, calling it an opportunity to remind officials at the embassy and in the Turkish government that Armenians will not stop demanding justice.
“The embassy and the new Ottoman Empire should be aware that the rights of the Armenian people will not fade in time,” he said.
His rival in Parliament, Metn MP Hagop Pakradounian of March 8 also marched, saying “this day proves that we will continue to demand justice until Turkey recognizes its guilt and gives reparations to Armenians around the world.”
Politicians from across the political divide in the country expressed their solidarity with Lebanese-Armenians.
“I express my solidarity with Armenians in the country who have suffered in Armenia and have also suffered in Lebanon’s Civil War,” Beirut MP Nadim Gemayel said in a statement at Parliament. Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun criticized the Turkish government for refusing to recognize the massacres. “I had hoped that Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu would recognize the Armenian Genocide. But as long as he doesn’t apologize for it, he is responsible for it,” said Aoun. Not all of those commemorating Tuesday were able to walk all the way to Rabieh. Braving the heat with a walking stick in hand, an Armenian woman in her early 80s said she has taken part in dozens of similar rallies in her lifetime, but had to rest this time after the Antelias mass. “I’ve walked a lot, I’ve seen a lot in my life ... today is about sadness for the Armenian people, but also about faith in God and justice,” she said. “The memories of my family are what keep me alive.”

The hollow echo of proportional voting
April 26, 2012/By Michael Young The Daily Star
Has there ever been a greater red herring than the debate over proportional representation in Lebanon’s elections? The latest news is that President Michel Sleiman intends to consult with prominent politicians and others over a law that guarantees “the best representation for all segments of the Lebanese people.”
Sleiman has been a prominent defender of proportionality. He believes that the 1960 election law, under which voting takes place at the level of the qada, or the small electoral district, and which serves as the basis of the current law, produces “only sectarian fragmentation.” Perhaps, but proportionality hardly reduces fragmentation, which doesn’t mean that it is undesirable.
The president is playing populist politics – portraying himself as the defender of unrepresented voters, of cross-sectarian unity, of national concord, and what have you. But the fact is that there is no momentum in parliament to approve a proportional law, despite statements to the contrary, and Sleiman is well aware of this.
The reason is simple. The major parliamentary blocs would lose seats if proportional representation were introduced, and they’re the ones who have to sign off on any new election law. That’s assuming that the government can agree to a draft law in the first place, which is doubtful, since Walid Jumblatt would first withdraw his ministers from the Cabinet, decisively weakening it, before siding with those opposed to a proportional law if it came to a vote before parliament. Given that March 14 has refused to discuss an election law based on proportionality “in the shadow of Hezbollah’s weapons,” we can assume that the project would be cut down by the combined rejection of Jumblatti and March 14 parliamentarians.
Hezbollah, the Future Movement, Walid Jumblatt and Michel Aoun, all have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. They are delighted with a law that awards them all or most seats in electoral districts, simply because the system today benefits candidates on the stronger lists. Whereas a proportional system might measure the percentages earned by each list, and distribute seats accordingly, the present law counts the top vote-getters. In most areas, those on the list backed by the major political representatives of a district in question are virtually guaranteed of winning the most votes. And where several politicians or political organizations are present, the preference has been to divvy up the pie through electoral alliances.
This system has long permitted Hezbollah to sweep numerous Shiite-majority districts in the south and the Bekaa, the Future Movement to do well in predominantly Sunni districts, Aoun to rake in the major share of Christian seats in Mount Lebanon – in collaboration with Hezbollah in Baabda, Jbeil and Metn – and Jumblatt to have a headlock on the Chouf and Aley. Not one of these politicians or blocs is remotely sympathetic to proportional representation.
Even Samir Geagea, who seeks to challenge Aoun as the leading Christian figure in Parliament, prefers the current law, since it allows several of his candidates to ride Hariri’s coattails, and perhaps even Jumblatt’s, in districts where the two men dominate. The reality is that Lebanon’s political class, for all its disagreements, will rally around proposals perpetuating its rule – which generally means, because the system engenders equilibrium, collective rule.
What is the president’s objective in advocating proportionality? To curry favor, certainly, but perhaps also to toss out a line that may reel in a larger fish. Almost by default, Lebanese presidents maneuver to extend their mandates. Sleiman has recently advanced on parallel tracks, pushing for a proportional mechanism while also defending the right of Lebanese expatriates to vote. This has allowed him to position himself as a champion of those seeking a third way, free of the stifling March 14 versus Hezbollah and Aoun dichotomy. Moreover, the expatriate vote idea is popular among Christians, who view it as a means of counterbalancing their numerical decline.
If Sleiman succeeds in getting this message across, he may create new opportunities for himself in the future. For instance, if there are no elections next year, let’s say due to ongoing conflict in Syria, this could facilitate an extension of the president’s mandate a year later. Pushing for the expatriate vote is a good idea in itself. If Sleiman is doing a bait and switch, where he is pushing proportionality in order to impose a compromise that would implement expatriate voting, then all the better. But he is not doing this gratuitously. To have any chance of winning an extended mandate, the president wants to be perceived as an election reformer, not least by his own coreligionists.
It’s a thin reed for the president, but he doesn’t have much room to act. And talk of delaying the election is almost certainly just talk. There will be no consensus over such a decision, making it infinitely more difficult for the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati to put into practice. Nor does Mikati have an incentive to discredit himself by endorsing a departure from constitutional deadlines.
The pattern of dysfunctional politics in Lebanon is well established. When major decisions are to be reached, everyone throws in a caveat to gain from the process. In the end a compromise is reached, so that much remains the same. The elections next year will most probably resemble those of 2009, even if the stakes are higher. Almost everything you’re hearing today is the hollow echo of manipulation.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Palestinian, 2 infants cross Lebanese border into Israel
Witnesses say Israeli troops detained man, his two children after crossing the border near Metula
AFP Published: 04.25.12, 23:47 / Israel News A man and his two children crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel on Wednesday and were immediately detained by Israeli troops, witnesses and the Lebanese state news agency reported. The incident took place at the Fatima Gate in southern Lebanon, facing the Israeli town of Metula, the agency said.
Witnesses interviewed by an AFP correspondent identified the man as a Palestinian in his 30s. They said he threw two small infants over the fence separating both countries before scaling the barrier himself. The three were immediately picked up by Israeli troops, witnesses said. One of the children got caught up in the barbed wire and was injured, one witness said. Members of the UN peacekeeping force stationed in southern Lebanon and army troops immediately rushed to the site. A UNIFIL spokesperson had no immediate comment.

Syria: A Christian-Salafi Jihadist!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The al-Assad regime’s disregard for reality has reached the extent that it has accused a Syrian Christian opposition member of being a Salafi Jihadist; can anything be more absurd? Is it still possible to believe this regime that has abused lies and falsified the facts in such a blunt manner? This is utterly absurd.
Two days ago, the al-Assad regime accused the young Christian Syrian Yara Michel Chammas – dubbed “Yasmina of Syria”, of belonging to the Salafi Jihadist trend. Yara, aged 21, is one of the Syrian youths who have supported the Syrian revolution since its outbreak, mobilizing more areas to rebel against al-Assad. The story of “Yasmina of Syria” shows it is now very difficult to believe this regime under any circumstances. This regime claims, falsely, to be a protector of minorities, and this is what some Lebanese Christians affiliated to al-Assad are propagating in Washington, but then it arrests a young Christian woman on charges of belonging to the Salifi Jihadist current! This regime, i.e. that of the tyrant al-Assad, said that it had accepted Kofi Annan’s mission, yet it then opened fire on a delegation of international observers, branding them “fear-stricken” [for fleeing as a result]. After all that Mr. Kofi Annan comes out to say that al-Assad must avoid instigating a critical moment, and not use heavy weaponry against civilians, who are being killed every day at the hands of al-Assad’s forces. This is both amazing and puzzling, but who is really telling lies here?
If the international community and Mr. Annan want to buy time then they should say so publicly, and justify their reasons, but if they actually believe al-Assad’s promises, then this is a scandal like no other. Al-Assad’s forces are playing a game of cat and mouse with the “fear stricken” international observers; wherever the observers are deployed al-Assad’s forces target another Syrian city, and the series of killings continues unabated at its usual pace. The scandal does not stop here, but there are those in the region, the majority of them Sunnis, who now feel that their blood is being cheapened, and that the international community is carrying out a conspiracy against them. Yet many Arab politicians do not say this publicly in front of their Western counterparts, namely that this is what is being felt by politicians, intellectuals and most importantly the Arab public, behind closed doors, and that this feeling has deepened significantly after the famous statements of the Russian Foreign Minister, who said that some countries in the region want to install Sunni rule in Syria after the fall of al-Assad.
It does not stop here either, as some in our region are also citing the names of certain Western writers, specifically Americans, who were notorious for their coverage of the region’s issues after the September 11th terrorist attacks in America, and at the time wrote a lot about Sunni regimes in the region, and Sunni ideology in general. Yet these same journalists now remain completely silent about the horrific crimes that are taking place in Syria, despite the deaths of over 11,000 Syrians.
How can the international community and Mr. Annan still believe the tyrant al-Assad, even as today he accuses a young Christian woman of belonging to the Salafi Jihadist current? How can they believe that he will abide by any agreement or truce? This is puzzling and truly amazing.

The Iranian President’s mistakes
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
The Iranian regime continues to send demagogic political messages to the outside world, although anyone who is aware of its inner dealings must know that "an Iranian carpet merchant is the best at buying and selling behind closed doors and in secret channels."
The reason why I’m bringing this issue up relates to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s recent statements in commemoration of Iranian Army Day.
In his zealous speech, the Iranian President focused on a set of issues, which he presented to the public as indisputable axioms, whilst in fact they all are based on fundamental mistakes.
The Iranian President’s first mistake was when he described his country's army as "an army that has never been defeated."
The truth, as we know from military history, is that there has never been an undefeated army. Even the military forces of the Security Council’s five great superpowers have all suffered past and present defeats in battles and wars, despite joining the nuclear club following World War II.
Ahmadinejad’s second mistake came when he said his country's army is the most popular in the world. In fact, I do not know how the Iranian President came up with such a result with no research, statistical reports or scientific theories to support it.
As we know, the Iranian army gained no popularity when it entered into a fierce war with Iraq, or when it fuelled a sectarian war in Iraq following the overthrow of Saddam, and now it is certainly wining no popularity by supporting the regime in Syria.
We have never seen the Iranian navy approaching the Israeli coast, but we have seen it deployed near the Strait of Hormuz. We have never seen Iranian weaponry in the hands of the Palestinian resistance, but we have seen it in the hands of Afghani fighting factions.
The third mistake in the Iranian President’s speech can be summarized in his style of address, which invoked a sense of superiority, arrogance and intimidation, when he spoke of Iran’s military force and threatened to cut off the hands of whoever dares to target his country.
Ahmadinejad did not mention any possibility of reconciliation with the UAE, with regards to the legal status of the disputable islands. He even added fuel to the fire when he visited said islands on the 11th April 2012, in a most provocative step to the sentiments of the Emirati people, and the Arabs in general.
I do not know whether this is the new Iranian style when it comes to negotiations, a style based on the principle of "terror and intimidation before reaching a settlement", or whether we are simply facing the traditional theory of persistence, “to demolish the temple on everyone’s head”.
I do not know what cards exactly the Iranian regime is gambling with. Is it gambling on the economic sanctions imposed on it, its international reputation, the deplorable condition of its major ally in Damascus, its poor domestic economic performance, or on the deep disagreements between the Supreme Guide and the President?

Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel: ‘Neutral’ cabinet ‘necessary’ for electoral process
April 25, 2012 /Kataeb Party leader Amin Gemayel said on Wednesday that an “unbiased government” was a necessity for managing the electoral process during the 2013 parliamentary elections, the National News Agency reported.
“[We] are coordinating with our allies to reach a formula for a united electoral law,” Gemayel said following his meeting with Future bloc leader MP Fouad Siniora.
Meanwhile, Siniora said there was a “need” for an electoral law that allowed citizens to “practice their rights [without] any pressures of restraints.”
Siniora also denied that he suggested forming a neutral cabinet headed by Prime Minister Najib Mikati.
“The [current] cabinet made some progress, but a lot of mistakes were committed by several of its members who are malicious,” the Future bloc leader added.
He also said that Mikati’s cabinet cannot be trusted with running the upcoming elections and addressing the country’s affairs.
Lebanese parties are debating the electoral law for the upcoming 2013 parliamentary elections.
After the parliament agreed on drafting a law based on proportional representation, some parties rejected the proposed law and called for adopting the 2009 electoral law, which is based on simple majority representation. -NOW Lebanon

The kidnapped diplomat
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
Ashara Alawsat
Until Mishale Ashadouki - a Saudi national affiliated to al-Qaeda and wanted by the Saudi security apparatus - made his telephone call, no one could identify the kidnapper of the Deputy Consul of Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni city of Aden. Deputy Consul Abdullah al-Khaledi was kidnapped three weeks ago amidst the most dangerous circumstances Yemen has experienced in the past half century. Yemen is being torn apart because of the civil disobedience undertaken by the relatives and adherers of former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Houthis' desire to expand their areas of influence, and the Southern secessionists’ attempts to establish their own state by exploiting the difficult birth of the new regime in Sana’a. What is even more dangerous is the war being waged by al-Qaeda, whose affiliates seized the city of Lawdar before being driven away by force, only to later on seek refuge in other villages in Abyan and elsewhere.
Although the war on al-Qaeda is not being televised, it continues unabated almost on a daily basis. Nearly 200 al-Qaeda affiliates were killed last week, and prior to this three suspected terrorists were killed by a drone attack, a strike very likely launched by the US. Al-Qaeda reacted by murdering four Yemeni soldiers the next day. The terrorist organization has moved hundreds of its fighters from Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia, having suffered consecutive defeats in these countries recently, in addition to its defeat in Saudi Arabia, and deployed them in Yemen.
This information only serves to remind us that we are facing a growing danger. Yet some Yemeni observers are underestimating the problem, believing that al-Qaeda is a mere façade or just a pretext invented by the affiliates of the ousted president to spread chaos across Yemen. I agree with them that the former President, or his inner circle, is acting to create chaos in the country, although this is utter stupidity because in the end everything will be lost. As for al-Qaeda, it is not a scarecrow but a reality that is prevalent today in Yemen, exploiting the fragility of the central government, as evidenced by the kidnapping of the Saudi diplomat. This act sent an explicit message around the world under the new title of 'Yemen', not Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Yemeni people will not be able to eradicate such a cancer unless they acknowledge its danger and fight it as a genuine organization, capable of rapidly proliferating due to its extreme religious ideology, and its recruitment and fund-raising support offered by foreign parties including Iran. In fact, Iran has extended its activities as part of its policy to tighten the grip on its opponents such as Saudi Arabia, and as part of its endeavor to dominate Yemen.
Although we know from past experience that al-Qaeda will never succeed in establishing a state of its own, no matter how much it infiltrates and gains footholds on the ground, it can succeed in widespread sabotage and destruction, as seen with the burning of Afghanistan and decline of Pakistan, which continues to suffer complete chaos. Al-Qaeda has ignited a war involving Iran, the US and dozens of other states, a war that continues to blaze until today. This is what we dread in Yemen; we fear that this country could transform into a scene of endless wars. Considering the weak central authority, the tribal structure in Yemen could play a key role in stabilizing the country. A tribe may function as a domestic policeman to deter and expel al-Qaeda, at a time when the Yemeni armed forces are exhausted as a result of their previous exertions. Everyone must be aware of the need to urgently consolidate and support the central government, in order to prevent Yemen from being torn apart.

Tolerated but not trusted
Saderat, the only Iranian bank in Lebanon
Ana Maria Luca, April 25, 2012
The United Nations warned it was a tool for the Iranian regime to do business and fund its outlawed nuclear program, the European Union froze all its assets, and the United States Department of Treasury blacklisted it for allegedly being used by Tehran to fund terrorist organizations in the Middle East. However, Bank Saderat of Iran, the country’s second-largest financial institution, maintains five branches in Lebanon, with little apparent activity.
The US Treasury’s Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen inquired about the bank’s activity during his recent visit to Beirut. The governor of the Lebanese Central Bank, Riad Salameh, explained in an interview after Cohen’s visit that “Bank Saderat of Iran has $137 million in funds and $16 million in deposits, while the Syrian Lebanese Commercial Bank [another bank Cohen had asked about] is worth $16 million. The numbers are enough to [clarify the amount of transactions].”
Bank Saderat is partly owned by the Iranian government. It was nationalized in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution and was relisted on the Iranian Stock Exchange in 2009, but the government still holds the largest stake. Its website counts 13 countries that host its branches, including France, Britain, Germany and Greece, the Gulf countries, as well as Belarus and Turkmenistan.
Saderat has been in Lebanon since 1963, when it was a private bank, and is part of the Lebanese Bank Association. It currently has branches in Beirut, Dahiyeh, Bourj al-Barajneh, Baalbek and Saida. But unlike any other banks in Lebanon, Saderat doesn’t advertise any housing or car loans, or any credit cards, and has no information on its website about corporate banking either. Its operations in Lebanon remain a mystery.
NOW attempted repeatedly to contact the bank about its products, but the phone lines were almost always busy. When an employee of the main branch finally answered the phone, she acted surprised and dismissed questions about the conditions of getting a loan. “Umm, I would like to apologize to you, but we currently stopped this,” she told NOW.
Sources in the banking sector who insisted on remaining anonymous say that there is no normal banking activity in Saderat’s Lebanese branches. “In Baalbek, for example, we don’t know why it’s still there. Lately I think they have been trying to boost their activity a little. But if you apply for a loan at Saderat, they only ask you for your name and profession, and maybe your employment certificate, no other guarantees. Banks ask for a lot of papers in order to give you a loan,” another banking source said.
In addition, a manager in a Lebanese bank told NOW, also on condition of anonymity, that banks in Lebanon do not accept transactions involving Saderat. “There is a circular from the Central Bank forbidding it,” the source said.
Even though they are still listed on its website, all of Saderat’s European branches closed two years ago after European Council regulation 961/2010 and UN Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1803 imposed economic sanctions on all Iranian institutions dealing with individuals, companies or other entities involved in the Iranian nuclear program. Saderat handled the accounts of several such entities, including the Defense Industries Organization, which functions under the Iranian Ministry of Defense and develops weapons for the army.
Saderat is not only associated with the nuclear program, but also with financing terrorism. The United States banned dealings with the bank in 2006 for allegedly being an instrument of the Iranian government to transfer money to organizations the US deems terrorist, namely Hezbollah, Hamas and the Al-Quds Brigade. According to a press release, the bank had been used between 2001 and 2006 to transfer around $50 million to organizations linked to Hezbollah.
However, Lebanese analyst and commentator Ali al-Amine told NOW that “the funds coming from Iran to Lebanon usually arrive in cash, not bank transactions.” “There has been no new information about this since 2006, but it is known that the money reaches Lebanon in cash,” he said.
Economist Sami Nader argues that the case of Saderat Bank might damage the reputation of Lebanon’s banking system and stressed that it would be wise of the Lebanese authorities to follow the international protocols and agreements Lebanon has signed over time. “When you have a record like Lebanon’s with the Lebanese Canadian Bank [incident] happening last year, you have a question of trust threatening the banking system and the economy,” he said, adding that the argument that the bank’s activities are too negligible to raise questions doesn’t stand. “If the contribution of this bank to the Lebanese economy is almost nothing, there is no point in keeping it. A shell like this is not a good sign for the market. Its high risk [in terms of trust] and low return,” he concluded.
Luna Safwan contributed reporting to this article.

Lebanon and freedom
Hazem Saghiyeh, April 23, 2012
While in Paris, I had the opportunity to visit an exhibition sponsored by the Arab World Institute on the baked body in Arab art. It seemed amazing to me that the contributions of Lebanese artists to the exhibition exceeded those of their colleagues from other countries, such as Egypt and Morocco, especially given the huge difference in terms of the number of inhabitants between Lebanon and each of the aforementioned countries.
This paradox draws our attention to something to which we do not usually pay attention, namely that the old Lebanon – i.e. the one before the 1975 War – had more to give to its citizens than any other Arab country. Even now, after many successive wars, the Lebanese are still scooping the bounties of the old Lebanon.
Lebanon nowadays is indeed crowded with a high ratio of competences to the number of its inhabitants, and this is manifested in all places where Lebanese nationals emigrated.
This is naturally not due to near-racist village folk stories of the Lebanese genius and excellence. In fact, we all know that the Lebanese people are guilty of enough stupidities and vices, including wars, so as to deny any indication of genius or excellence.
Still, freedom remains the deep reason underlying the phenomenon, which we are about. It is in pursuit of freedom that the Lebanese took up the initiative and started their adventures without relying on the state to tell them what they should do or plan their lives beforehand instead of them.
Much like all other distortions resulting from the chaotic nature of freedom, freedom was why Lebanon had, up until 1975, the largest middle class per number of inhabitants in the Middle East. Freedom now acquires an increased importance against a backdrop of the globalized economy, which is increasingly counting on initiative, innovation and knowledge of foreign languages, especially English, all of which would shrink under despotic regimes.
Despite many other shameful things, this is one of the few elements that cause [us] to be proud and stress, time and again, that the absence of freedom negates the meaning of Lebanon in the first place. If this country is melted in a single mold under the leadership of one party and the guidance of an official ideology defining right and wrong, it would turn into one massive grave. And nothing else – not even the Resistance – would make up for that.
*This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday April 23, 2012

Is the IDF Chief joining the anti-Netanyahu camp over Iran?
By Anshel Pfeffer/Haaretz
Not that Benny Gantz is suddenly becoming a pacifist, but his assessment of the Iranian leadership lacks the urgency you often hear from Netanyahu and Ehud Barak.
As Amos Harel notes today in his interview of the IDF Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz has been careful in all of his public appearances when referring to the Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of an Israeli military strike. That being said, it is hard to ignore the fact that some of the things Gantz said in the interview are almost clashing with recent statements of his ultimate boss, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Most significantly Gantz said that: “The pressure is starting to bear fruit. Both on the diplomatic level and on the level of the general sanctions.”
Which is hard to reconcile with Netanyahu’s recent criticism of the P5+1 talks with the Iraniansin which according to him they were given a five-week “freebie.” Unlike Netanyahu who devoted his Holocaust Remembrance Day speech last week to comparing the Iranian threat with the German mass-murder of six million Jews, Gantz is trying hard to ratchet down the rhetoric.
Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily 'go, no-go.' The problem doesn't necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We're in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle."
“If they have a bomb, we are the only country in the world that someone calls for its destruction and also builds devices with which to bomb us. But despair not. We are a temperate state. The State of Israel is the strongest in the region and will remain so. Decisions can and must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria."
Not that the general is suddenly becoming a pacifist. He is serious about preparing the IDF for a possible strike making it clear that “the military option is the last chronologically but the first in terms of its credibility. If it's not credible it has no meaning. We are preparing for it in a credible manner. That's my job, as a military man." But his assessment of the Iranian leadership lacks the urgency you often hear from Netanyahu and Ehud Barak.
"The program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."
So why is the cautious general seemingly opening up a front with the prime minister?
I can think of four possible explanations, all, or a combination of them, equally plausible.
1. Gantz has not given on-record interviews for fifteen months, from before he was suddenly selected as the next IDF chief of staff, after Yoav Galant’s real-estate dealings came to light. One imagines that in such a high-pressure job, one accumulates a major pile of resentment and frustration that would cause even the most prudent officer, when he finally allows himself to speak, to say a few things he may regret later.
2. Gantz is an Israeli patriot and conscientious officer. He feels that he has to supply the Israeli public with the most accurate assessment of the Iranian situation he can, and if that clashes with the prime minister’s version, then so be it.
3. Gantz is not acting on his own. He has the backing of senior past and present figures in the defence establishment and political leadership who are concerned that Netanyahu and Barak are about to go overboard with Iran and jeopardize Israel’s national interest. President Shimon Peres certainly seems to think so if the contrast between his and Netanyahu’s speeches I highlighted here on Holocaust Day is anything to go by. Their backing has emboldened Gantz to put forwards his narrative.
4. There is no real difference between Netanyahu and Gantz on Iran – Netanyahu is simply sticking to his “bad cop” role, keeping up the pressure on Barack Obama before the next round of talks, by ramping up the rhetoric. Gantz’s Independence Day interviews are targeted for the local Israeli audience and therefore can be allowed to be less drastic.

Israeli IDF chief to Haaretz: I do not believe Iran will decide to develop nuclear weapons
By Amos Harel/Haaretz
Gantz says the international pressure on Iran, in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions, is beginning to bear fruit.
"If Iran goes nuclear it will have negative dimensions for the world, for the region, for the freedom of action Iran will permit itself," Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview.
That freedom of action might be expressed "against us, via the force Iran will project toward its clients: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza. And there's also the potential for an existential threat. If they have a bomb, we are the only country in the world that someone calls for its destruction and also builds devices with which to bomb us. But despair not. We are a temperate state. The State of Israel is the strongest in the region and will remain so. Decisions can and must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria," Gantz said.
Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz at the Memorial Day opening ceremony held at Jerusalem's Western Wall, April 25, 2012.
Photo by: Michal Fattal
Both 2012 and 2013 are seen as critical with regard to Iran's nuclear program. At his rare public appearances Gantz has taken a cautious approach to the issue - mentioning the military option, whose development and preparation he oversees, while leaving the door open to international negotiations with Iran. His language is far from the dramatic rhetoric of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and is usually free of the Holocaust comparisons of which Israeli politicians are so fond.
Asked whether 2012 is also decisive for Iran, Gantz shies from the term. "Clearly, the more the Iranians progress the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily 'go, no-go.' The problem doesn't necessarily stop on December 31, 2012. We're in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear program to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we too, will have to do something. We're closer to the end of the discussions than the middle."
Gantz says the international pressure on Iran, in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions, is beginning to bear fruit. "I also expect that someone is building operational tools of some sort, just in case. The military option is the last chronologically but the first in terms of its credibility. If it's not credible it has no meaning. We are preparing for it in a credible manner. That's my job, as a military man."
For the latest updates visit Haaretz.com on Facebook and Tumblr
Iran, Gantz says, "is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn't yet decided whether to go the extra mile."
As long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, "the program is too vulnerable, in Iran's view. If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken. It will happen if Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous."
Register now for Haaretz's new iPad app
About three months ago Gantz's U.S. counterpart, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, visited Israel as his guest. "We speak a great deal with the Americans. It's not on the level of a discussion, where I want something concrete and he forbids it. We are partners. We and the United States have a large common alignment of interests and relations, but America looks at America and Israel [looks at] Israel. We aren't two oceans away from the problem - we live here with our civilians, our women and our children, so we interpret the extent of the urgency differently. America says its piece openly, and what it says in the media is also said behind closed doors. It cannot be translated into lights, red or green, because no one is asking them anything in that regard."
Critical decisions
Gantz knows that in the event of another war he will face time pressures as a result of enemy operations against the home front. The IDF will have to bring massive force to bear from the outset, employing most of the means at its disposal quickly and without hesitation or delay.
Ground operations, long-distance fire and in-depth operations as well?
"I don't pretend to determine that now. I am preparing for full deployment of our capabilities. The political leadership will have to take courageous, painful decisions. There are a certain number of critical decisions in a war. The chief of staff makes about 10 of these in his sphere of responsibility in wartime, and the political leadership makes about half this number."
These decisions, Gantz knows, will be made under a barrage of rockets and missiles against civilian areas.
In light of the Arab Spring, Israel's military preparedness must now include a much greater and more varied range of arenas and possibilities.
"I don't know what will happen in Syria, but presumably the Golan Heights won't be as quiet as before. I cannot remove Syria from the military equation, nor Lebanon. I assume that if there are terror threats from the Golan or Lebanon I'll have to take action. I cannot do everything by 'stand-off' [remote]. The enemy's fire capabilities have developed at every distance, four or five times what they were in the Second Lebanon War and four or five times compared to the Gaza Strip before Operation Cast Lead, not to mention the new ground-to-air missile in Syria. I go to sleep with the understanding that what we did in the recent long and comprehensive exercises could happen in reality."
More on Haaretz.com:
Newly released documents shed light on fateful exchange in the wake of the Yom Kippur War
Ultra-Orthodox and the IDF: A crisis with no solution?
Navigating Hebrew news will now be a little harder for novices
The IDF is also being used as a battlefield for the cultural and political wars of outside forces. The latest skirmish followed Gantz's dismissal of Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner, deputy commander of the IDF's Jordan Valley brigade, for hitting a left-wing activist from Denmark in the face with a rifle. Gantz terms the political interference in the affair a disaster.
"I don't see anyone benefiting from this story. I made my decision, and it's behind me. I don't understand what the right is defending, what the left is attacking. Who turned it into a political matter? Do you have to be a religious right-winger with a kippah in order to be resolute? Do you have to be a leftist in order to be principled? Where did that idiocy come from? Eisner made a professional error and a specific ethical mistake."
The interview with Gantz took place right after additional videos of the incident were made public, showing Eisner hitting additional left-wing activists.
"I didn't like even the first blow I saw. I will not cover for people so that others will say I backed them up. The lieutenant colonel erred and failed, and it's done and dusted. We are an army that uses force, not violence."
Measured, thoughtful and practical
With regard to another delicate issue, Gantz says he believes the IDF could draft more ultra-Orthodox men if an alternative to the Tal Law, recently overturned by the High Court of Justice, can be found.
"It's for the politicians to decide. What I'm looking for is equality in service," he says.
The end of his predecessor's assignment was tarnished by the so-called Harpaz affair, in which Lt. Col. Boaz Harpaz allegedly forged a document in a bid to keep Yoav Galant from being appointed chief of staff. Gantz received the draft report of the State Comptroller's Office on the affair last month. When the final version is issued Gantz will face career decisions about several figures connected to the affair, including Col. Erez Weiner, aide to former Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.
Gantz believes it is important that the final version be issued before State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss ends his term, at the beginning of July.
"At every opportunity I say to the comptroller, please, go to it."
As in our previous conversations, now too Gantz comes across as a measured, thoughtful and practical person. Only a few dozen steps separate him from his previous office, that of the deputy chief of staff, but the distance between them is unfathomable.
"I enjoy being here but also feel the gravity of the responsibility. I always said my favorite position was company commander in the Paratroop Brigade. As a company commander you have absolute definitions: the mission, the people. The rest we can manage. Here, I can't pass on the responsibility to anyone else. The buck really does stop here. That's why I say that occasionally I doze off but I never really sleep."