LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
December 01/2012

Bible Quotation for today/Leave Every Thing & Follow Me
Saint Matthew 04/18-22: "As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him. He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
The Brotherhood’s lust for power/By Osman Mirghani/Asharq Alawsat/November 30/12
Obey the Prophet, Even if He Tells You to Kill!" --Top Islamic Leader, Yusuf Qaradawi/By: Raymond Ibrahim/November 30/12
Who is Brahimi trying to save/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat/ November 30/12
Palestine at the UN: Mixed Messages/By: David Pollock/Washington Institute/November 30/12
LF, MP, Antoine Zahra in Gaza/By: Hazem al-Amin/November 30/12

Tripartite meeting held at UNIFIL headquarters
November 30, 2012 /The Daily Star/BEIRUT: The United Nations held a “positive” tripartite meeting at the Ras al-Naqoura border crossing with Israeli and Lebanese military officials, U.N. officials reported Thursday. The group discussed recent rocket discoveries in south Lebanon and the implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Serra said he saw positive signs from both parties to maintain peace along the Blue Line that separates Israel and Lebanon.

Judge David Baragwanath, President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Says STL 'Has No Interest Whatsoever in Politics'
Naharnet /Judge David Baragwanath, President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, on Thursday stressed that the U.N.-backed court “has no interest whatsoever in people's politics,” noting that the work of STL's judges has nothing to do with how the world labels Hizbullah. In an interview on LBCI television, Baragwanath said the tribunal is required to work vigorously, adding that it must avoid any procrastination and emphasizing that justice must be fulfilled. He noted that delay is only acceptable when it serves the purpose of achieving justice. Asked about Lebanon's cooperation with the STL, Baragwanath said starting October 2011 Lebanon has been submitting a report to STL's prosecutor on a monthly basis, describing the reports as spectacular and confidential. The judge added that Lebanese authorities have been exerting real efforts to find the four accused – Hizbullah operatives Salim Ayyash, Hussein Oneissi, Mustafa Badreddine and Assad Sabra – who have been charged with involvement in the 2005 assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri. “The Lebanon tribunal has no interest whatsoever in people's politics ... We look at the facts, we look at the law,” Baragwanath underlined.
Asked whether slain Major General Wissam al-Hasan was one of the key witnesses who had testified in the Hariri case, the STL president said the prosecution has not yet informed him of the identities of the witnesses.

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea says Dialogue with Hezbollah futile
November 30, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said Friday engaging in National Dialogue with Hezbollah to resolve the issue of its arsenal would be futile, adding that the resistance group has never abided by decision arrived at in previous all-party talks. During a news conference at his Maarab residence, Geagea also slammed Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah’s threats against Israel, saying that the Lebanese had not authorized his group to set the country’s foreign policy. “Hezbollah is not willing to discuss its arms. Therefore, on what grounds should we participate once more in Dialogue sessions?”Geagea asked during the televised news conference. “We support Dialogue in principle but not one that has produced nothing but lies and cheating,” he added.
Geagea quoted several Hezbollah figures, including its leader, of voicing outright opposition to discussing the issue of its disarmament and that party members issued threats should there be any attempt to do so. The LF leader, who is one of the opposition’s leading figures, also slammed Hezbollah’s “violation” of decisions arrived during previous National Dialogue sessions, including agreeing on the formation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which was established in 2007 to try those behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
“In 2006, we agreed during a Dialogue session to form an international tribunal aimed at revealing the truth behind the assassination of Hariri ... but Hezbollah lawmakers withdrew from the government when the decision was referred to Parliament,” Geagea said.
He also noted that the 2008 Doha Accord, which ended street clashes in Beirut between supporters of Future Movement and Hezbollah, had stipulated the formation of a national unity government and banned any attempts to obstruct it. “And in 2010 with the excuse of the issue of false witnesses, the March 8 ministers resigned and forced the collapse of [former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s] Cabinet,” Geagea added. Tension between rival Lebanese political parties intensified following the Oct. 19 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, with the opposition declaring a boycott to government work. Most opposition groups also oppose a resumption of National Dialogue, which was relaunched earlier this year by President Michel Sleiman.
The March 14 coalition blames Syria for Hasan’s killing and also holds the Lebanese government responsible for providing “political cover” in the case. The opposition insists that there can be no dialogue before a neutral government capable of overseeing the 2013 polls is formed.
Sleiman resumed all-party talks in July to discuss a national defense strategy to benefit from Hezbollah’s arsenal.
Hezbollah insists that its weapons should remain under its authority in collaboration with the Army while its rivals in the March 14 say all arms should be under the jurisdiction of the state.
Geagea, whose party boycotted the resumption of Dialogue altogether earlier this year, said the talks were held even as several political figures were being assassinated.
“A primary look at the situation of Dialogue will show you that it was ongoing while several security incidents were taking place as well as assassinations, including the unfortunate events of May 2008,” he said. He added that the March 14’s participation in such Dialogue sessions would imply that “we are covering and supporting in one way or the other actions outside the Dialogue table.”
The LF leader voiced a loss of trust in Hezbollah for the multi-party to resume.
“We no longer have trust in them to engage in talks,” he said.
Geagea, a staunch critic of Hezbollah, also criticized Nasrallah for warning that the resistance party’s rockets could cover all of Israel in the event the latter decided to attack.
Addressing Nasrallah, he said: “You are not authorized to take such stances. The president and the government have such authority from the Lebanese people but you don’t.”
In his televised speech last week, Nasrallah said that his party’s missiles would rain down on Tel Aviv and other cities if the Jewish state attacked Lebanon.
“Israel, which was shaken by a handful of Fajr-5 rockets during eight days – how would it cope with thousands of rockets which would fall on Tel Aviv and other [cities] ... if it attacked Lebanon?” Nasrallah said

Geagea Urges Suleiman to Maintain Contacts with Political Powers as Substitute to Dialogue
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea renewed on Friday his rejection of the resumption of the national dialogue, hailing President Michel Suleiman's ongoing consultations with various political powers. He said during a press conference: “We urge Suleiman to maintain his bilateral consultations as a substitute for dialogue.”
“The current dialogue table is a waste of time and it is being used to cover up the developments on the ground in Lebanon,” he said.
He listed Hizbullah and the March 8 camp's repeated violations of national dialogue agreements since 2006, such as its violation of the 2008 Doha accord, refusal to tackle the Palestinian possession of arms that was agreed upon during 2006 dialogue sessions, and its violation of the Baabda Declaration that was reached in June.
“We value Suleiman's invitation to return to the national dialogue, but I would like to say that political life in Lebanon does not exist at the moment,” added Geagea.
“When we voice our rejection to dialogue we mean that we oppose dialogue with some of the current members. In principle, we do not reject dialogue,” he explained.
He then noted how the March 14 camp officials have been restricted to remaining in their houses due to the threat of assassination.
“What kind of political life is this?” wondered the LF leader.
“What kind of political life is this where MP Butros Harb is the victim of a failed assassination attempt aimed solely for gaining a seat in the 2013 parliamentary elections?” he asked.
In July, the opposition MP escaped an attempt on his life when it was discovered that the elevator of his office building was being booby-trapped with explosives.
Addressing Suleiman, Geagea said: “The killing machine in Lebanon must be stopped and you and various security apparatuses are responsible for making this happen.”
“I call on Suleiman to maintain his consultations with various political forces because contacts must continue in Lebanon as dialogue is one of the cornerstones of political life in Lebanon,” he explained.
Furthermore, he rejected proposals that the national dialogue be resumed in order to tackle the formation of a new government.
Geagea explained that there are constitutional mechanisms that dictate how a new cabinet should be established.
“We have never violated constitutional principles,” he stressed.
“The suggestion to hold dialogue to discuss a new government is a trap being set up by the other camp,” he continued.
“It is idiotic to continue the dialogue at a time when unrest and assassinations are taking place in Lebanon,” he noted.
“The resumption of the all-party talks would be tantamount to covering up the instability,” remarked Geagea.
The March 14-led opposition announced its boycott of government-related activity, including the national dialogue, in light of the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau head Brigadier General Wissam al-Hasan.
Hasan was killed in a massive car bomb in Beirut's Ashrafiyeh district on October 19.
The opposition accused Syria of being behind the murder and blamed the government, which is comprised of Syria's allies, of covering up for it.
Commenting on Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's denial on Sunday that the party was linked to political assassinations in Lebanon, Geagea said the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has accused members of the party of being linked to the 2005 assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri based on evidence.
“Evidence has also indicated that Hizbullah members were linked to the failed attempt on Harb's life,” he added.
Addressing Nasrallah, he asked: “Do you want us to believe that Israel and the United States want to eliminate the March 14 camp? You have the most powerful intelligence apparatus in Lebanon, so tell us who is behind the assassinations.”
The Hizbullah leader had slammed during a speech on Sunday the accusations against the party as “completely baseless.”
The STL accused four Hizbullah members of being involved in Hariri's assassination and it has urged the Lebanese authorities to apprehend them, which it has failed to do.
Nasrallah has said he doubted the four indictees will ever be found and has branded the tribunal a U.S.-Israeli conspiracy aimed at bringing down the party.

Zahra in Gaza
Hazem al-Amin, November 29, 2012
Now Lebanon/Lebanese rejectionist forces were amazed – stunned even – by news of the March 14 delegation visit to the Gaza Strip. Their newspapers and media outlets made fun of the visit, and social networks abounded in comments alluding to the extent of their frustration. For all its folklore and strangeness, the visit constitutes a key indicator. Gaza is no longer the exclusive playground of the “regional March 8 forces,” which explains some of the bitterness displayed by Lebanese rejectionists. Yet there is a subliminal element to be added to the political reasons underlying this bitterness. The “stunning” aspect of this visit was Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra’s participation in the March 14 delegation. The history of the Lebanese Forces is by no means laden with manifestations of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, not to mention the LF relationship with Israel and accusation of involvement in the Sabra and Chatila massacres.
In truth, all of this is true and the Lebanese Forces itself does not deny most of it. Yet it is not the true reason why rejectionists are stunned. Indeed, rejectionist ranks are full of forces that have more recently had bloodier dealings with the Palestinian cause and Palestinians in Lebanon. Others still had closer and more serious ties to Israel, but all of this failed to enlist bitterness such as the one triggered by MP Zahra’s visit to the Gaza Strip. For starters, March 8 forces welcomed among them former Lebanese Forces leader Elie Hobeika under whose leadership the Lebanese Forces’ name was linked to the Sabra and Chatila massacres back when Samir Geagea was still living as a hermit in the North.
The list goes on and would be too long to mention here but as a quick reminder, we will give an overview of the bloody stages linking March 8 forces to the Palestinian people and Palestinian camps in Lebanon. Second, the Amal movement waged the Camps War on Palestinian camps in Lebanon, causing more Palestinian victims than the number of those who perished in the Sabra and Charila massacres, knowing that the Amal Movement is led by Speaker Nabih Berri, the March 8 godfather and fox as rejectionist narcissists refer to him. Everyone remembers how an Amal movement official confiscated Beirut Municipality firefighting trucks and decided to fill them with gasoline and drive to the Burj al-Brajneh camp to burn it with its inhabitants still inside.
Third, a simple Google search would spare us the trouble of forcefully refreshing the memory of Lebanese rejectionists. All you have to do is write the words “Michel Aoun” and “[National] Museum”, and you will get an image of the March 8 general welcoming Israeli officials in the Mathaf (National Museum) area with a smile on his face, which the one he wears these days when meeting with Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah fails to match. The stunned and depressed rhetoric glosses over these facts; rather, the selective memory of March 8 rejectionists has lost the minimum of balance needed to sustain a balanced speech. Someone asked March 14 forces why they do not head to Lebanon’s [Palestinian] camps to express solidarity with their inhabitants who are more deprived that Gaza’s? In reality, those asking this question would have been entitled to do so if only they had addressed it to British MP George Galloway when he decided a few months ago to organize a fleet in support of Gaza. The fleet was supposed to head from the Syrian port of Latakia to the coast of Gaza, knowing that less than 500 meters separate the port of Latakia from the city’s Palestinian refugee camp, which was besieged by Syrian security services. However, the British rejectionist was thinking, at the time, about protecting the Syrian regime rather than the Palestinians.
This is the case of the Lebanese rejectionists who were stunned by the March 14 forces’ Gaza visit. *This article is a translation of the original which first appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Thursday November 29, 2012

March 14 slams attempts to convene house committees
November 30, 2012 / The Daily Star
BEIRUT: March 14 coalition lawmakers slammed as illegal Friday attempts to convene parliamentary committees in the absence of their chairmen and said they would hold talks with the Parliament speaker to find ways to resolve the deadlock.
“No one has the right to take away the prerogatives of the head of the committees even when he willingly decides not to convene the committee, which means that meetings convened under the rapporteurs are illegal,” MP Butros Harb said, reading a March 14 statement.
He added that the move by March 8 rapporteurs to convene the committee upon the Speaker’s request violated Article 27 of Parliament’s internal rules.
Harb quoted the regulation, which stipulates that a rapporteur can only convene a session when “the head of a committee cannot physically do so for reasons of illness or travel.”
The head of the committee should also approve the rapporteur’s call to convene a meeting of a parliamentary committee.
Last week, Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Nawar Sahli called and convened the Administration and Justice Committee to discuss a number of draft laws in the absence of the committee's head.
Sahili’s call came after Speaker Nabih Berri said legislative work needed to be reactivated amid an opposition boycott of Parliament activities involving members of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s Cabinet.
The March 14 coalition’s move to boycott legislative work comes as part of their efforts to pressure the government to resign over the recent assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan.
Most opposition parties have also rejected President Michel Sleiman’s call for National Dialogue to resolve the political crisis in the country that was aggravated following the October assassination of Hasan, who headed the police’s Information Branch.
During the news conference at his Hazmieh residence where a meeting of several March 14 MPs took place, Harb said that the opposition would delegate a committee to meet with Berri and discuss means to resolve the crisis.
“The attendees decided to delegate a committee from the March 14 coalition to meet with the speaker and consult means to resolve the crisis that the government has brought upon the country,” Harb said.
He also said that the opposition’s boycott “does not compare to the damage inflicted by this Cabinet on the country.”
Harb added that the decision was also aimed at putting an end to the practices of the government, which he described as being “subjugated to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.”

The parliamentary Future bloc renews demand for government resignation
November 30, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The parliamentary Future bloc renewed Thursday the March 14 demand for the government’s resignation and the formation of “a neutral salvation Cabinet” as a prerequisite for attending National Dialogue sessions. However, Prime Minister Najib Mikati rejected the March 14 parties’ conditions for attending talks with the Hezbollah-led March 8 bloc, saying the opposition’s boycott of National Dialogue would obstruct attempts to rescue Lebanon from the crisis in which it was thrust last month following the assassination of the country’s top security official.
Commenting on President Michel Sleiman’s decision Wednesday to put off the Dialogue until Jan. 7, the Future bloc of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri praised the president’s efforts and stance on “major national issues.” The bloc cited the government’s bad performance at various levels, including the “dangerous scandal” in which people allegedly loyal to government officials had forged documents to import illegal medications. “National horizons are still and will remain open toward boosting the chances of cooperation with respect for the rules of the democratic system and its peaceful means. Therefore, the March 14 parties’ call for the resignation of the current government and the formation of a neutral salvation Cabinet comes in the context of reducing tensions and entering the stage of parliamentary elections.”
It specifically said that Hezbollah had failed to comply with the previous Dialogue decisions, as well as with the provisions of the Baabda Declaration, which had called for “keeping Lebanon away from the policy of regional and international conflicts.”
The bloc said Hezbollah violated the Baabda Declaration by sending an Iranian-made reconnaissance drone over “occupied Palestine” [Israel] without the knowledge of the Lebanese government or the Lebanese Army, “in addition to the party’s involvement in military operations on the Syrian regime’s side.”
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said the Ayoub drone that had flown over Israel in October gathered intelligence and was part of the party’s deterrence strategy against the Jewish state. The bloc criticized Nasrallah’s recent speech, which it said indicated that Hezbollah was determined to proceed with “the policy of arrogance against Lebanese citizens and a disavowal of facts and renunciation of pledges.” In a televised speech during Ashoura last Sunday, Nasrallah warned Israel that thousands of rockets would rain down on Tel Aviv and other cities if the Jewish state attacked Lebanon.
He also said Hezbollah was ready to participate in National Dialogue but rejected the March 14’s conditions for participation.
The Future bloc called on March 14 supporters to turn out in large numbers at a rally in the northern city of Tripoli Sunday to commemorate the passing of 40 days since the killing of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who headed the Internal Security Force’s Information Branch, in a car bomb in the Beirut district of Ashrafieh on Oct. 19.
Meanwhile, Mikati reiterated his rejection of the March 14 conditions for attending National Dialogue and called on rival political leaders to brush aside their differences and “meet at the Dialogue table and work together to confront economic challenges, maintain growth and meet the citizens’ needs.”
The premier, speaking at the opening of the two-day Lebanon Economic Forum that began in Beirut, said: “Despite our belief that the boycott of the Dialogue Committee’s meeting was a political stance in the context of a democratic practice, we see that the declared reasons for this stance and the conditions set to accept the Dialogue invitation do not conform with the urgent national need for the leaders to meet and consult on divisive issues put on the National Dialogue agenda.”“Rather, [the March 14 conditions] deliberately or not deliberately help in disrupting all sincere attempts and salvation initiatives that are trying to pull the country out of the tunnel into which it was pushed,” he added.

Shiite Lebanese Pro Hezbollah Meqdad family protest over delay in trials
November 29, 2012 /The Daily Star/BEIRUT: Members of the Meqdad family blocked one of Beirut’s highways Thursday morning to protest against the delay in the start of the trials of their kin who are accused of involvement in several abductions in the country.
Those protesting blocked Hadi Nasrallah highway in the southern suburbs with waste containers, urging authorities to start the trial for nine of their relatives, including clan spokesperson Maher Meqdad.
The highway road was reopened at around 1:00 pm after Interior Minister Marwan Charbel headed to the protest and appealed to the Meqdads to reopen the road.
Charbel told reporters that he will make every effort to solve the issue “wisely.” He also said he would not exert any pressure on the judicial authorities to speed up the detainees’ trial.
“This is not my prerogative... the Lebanese citizens should have confidence in the judicial authorities,” Charbel said.
Local media reports quoted Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi as saying that a trial for the Meqdads has been set for Jan. 18. According to Qortbawi, judicial procedures cannot go on more swiftly than they already are. Meqdads also set up tents on the road, threatening to maintain the protest until the authorities respond to their demand.
“Our sons are not terrorists, they have been wronged,” read banners raised by the family members. The National News Agency said that the security forces immediately arrived and cordoned off the area. Negotiations to re-open the highway are ongoing, the NNA said. Military Tribunal Judge Imad al-Zein issued arrest warrants in September for several detained Meqdad family members accused of creating an armed organization with the aim of carrying out terrorist acts and kidnappings. The Meqdad clan’s “military wing” claimed the kidnap of over 20 Syrians and a Turkish businessman on Aug. 15 in retaliation for the abduction of kinsman Hassan Meqdad by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria. The clan subsequently freed a number of the Syrians, but claimed that those still in its custody were members of the FSA. Later in September, the army raided several locations in Beirut’s southern suburbs, freeing all the remaining captives. Clan members were then detained along with four Syrians, alleged to be accomplices. The Meqdads remain under arrest in Lebanon’s Roumieh prison awaiting trial.

Experts urge diversification in Lebanon
November 30, 2012/By Mohamad El Amin/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanon should seek a new economic model and move away from fields like real estate and services to enter productive sectors, panelists at the Lebanon Economic Forum said Thursday.
Suggesting that structural reform is needed, Economy Minister Nicolas Nahas said a major challenge to development was the poor fit between education and the labor market.
“We often avoid talking about this, but our human resources do not fit our labor market,” Nahas said. “How would you employ an atom scientist in formulating polices to boost tourism,”
He said thousands of highly educated graduates have skills that do not match the needs of the Lebanese economy and are obliged to emigrate or face unemployment. Over 50,000 enter the Lebanese job market every year while the economy is only creating 20,000 to 25,000 job opportunities, according to a study by economist Kamal Hamdan.
Lebanon cannot remain dependent on the services sector, said Industry Minister Vreij Sabounjian, who spoke on the same panel.
“Countries that are dependent on services, including Greece and Ireland, were the first to fall in the current economic crisis while those with balanced economies have remained stable and less affected by the slowdown,” he said. Lebanon has successfully moved away from from the post-Civil War period when industry played a marginal role, the minister added.
But he said much work was needed to develop the industrial sector, based on added-value products where it can compete, including agro-industries, wine, fashion and generators.
Sabounjian also called on industrialists to diversify from traditional markets in the Arab world, which he said had been affected heavily by a wave of uprisings. He said industrialists should tap markets in Central Asia and Africa. Hamdan, who spoke on the same panel, said Lebanon’s economic model, based on investment in real estate, is failing. “Over the past years 70 percent of investments have been made in the real estate sector. This does not contribute to job creation,” he said. He said a recent survey commissioned by the International Labor Organization and the World Bank show Lebanon’s unemployment exceeds 11 percent. “Contrary to what we think, the quality of Lebanese human resources is mediocre and has fallen behind many Arab countries,” he added. Another structural challenge to the Lebanese economy, Hamdan warned, is monopolies. Lebanon’s taxation system, which depends on consumption taxes for 70 percent of revenues, is also a major flaw, Hamdan highlighted.Other panels Thursday mulled ways to boost Lebanon’s small and medium enterprises, key to kickstart growth. Director of the Banking Department at the Central Bank Najib Choukeir said a law allowing SMEs to use movable assets as collateral will be issued soon. He said this would allow more access to capital, particularly in rural areas where land assets are not yet officially registered.
Samer Karam, founder of Seequence, a startup accelerator, talked about eight new promising IT firms his company has helped to secure funding. He said many of the startups will start making money soon, only a few months following their selection. “It all started from an idea. You need to create the opportunity and they will come,” he said confidently.

Anger mounts as Egypt constitution vote proceeds
November 30, 2012 /CAIRO: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has begun pushing through a new constitution that will transform the country, hoping it will end a crisis which erupted when Islamist president Mohammad Mursi gave himself sweeping new powers last week.
Mursi said his decree halting court challenges to his decisions, which provoked protests and violence from Egyptians fearing the emergence of a new dictator less than two years after they ousted Hosni Mubarak, was “for an exceptional stage.”
“It will end as soon as the people vote on a constitution,” he told state television Thursday night. “There is no place for dictatorship.”
The Islamist-dominated assembly is set to finish approving the draft constitution Friday, allowing a referendum to be held as soon as mid-December.
Mursi’s opponents have attacked it as an attempt to rush through a text they say has been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which backed Mursi for president in June elections, and its allies.
The Brotherhood and its Islamist allies have called for pro-Mursi rallies Saturday. But officials from the Brotherhood’s party changed the venue and said they would avoid Tahrir Square, where a sit-in by the president’s opponents entered a seventh day Thursday.
Seeking to calm protesters, Mursi said he welcomed opposition, but it should not divide Egyptians and there was no place for violence. “I am very happy that Egypt has real political opposition,” he said.
An alliance of Egyptian opposition groups pledged to keep up protests and said broader civil disobedience was possible to fight what it called an attempt to “kidnap Egypt from its people.”
“May God bless us on this day,” Hossam al-Gheriyani, the speaker of the constituent assembly, told members at the start of the session to vote on each of the 234 articles in the draft, which will go to Mursi for approval and then to the plebiscite. The legitimacy of the constitutional assembly has been called into question by a series of court cases demanding its dissolution. Its standing has also suffered from the withdrawal of members including church representatives of the Christian minority and liberals.The Brotherhood argues that approval of the constitution in a referendum would bury all arguments about both the legality of the assembly and the text it has written in the last six months.
Mursi is expected to approve the adopted draft at the weekend. He must then call the referendum within 15 days. If Egyptians approve the constitution, legislative powers will pass straight from Mursi to the upper house of parliament, in line with an article in the new constitution, assembly members said.
The draft injects new Islamic references into Egypt’s system of government but keeps in place an article defining “the principles of Shariah” as the main source of legislation – the same phrase found in the previous constitution. Among other historic changes to Egypt’s system of government, it caps the amount of time a president can serve at two terms, or eight years. Mubarak ruled for three decades. It also introduces a measure of civilian oversight – not nearly enough for the critics – over the military establishment.
The president can declare war with parliament’s approval, but only after consulting a national defense council with a heavy military and security membership, effectively giving the army a say. That element was not in the old constitution, used when Egypt was ruled by ex-military men.

Credit goes to Netanyahu
Op-ed: PM's spin doctors will say Israel must accept PA's upgraded UN status to ensure US support vis-à-vis Iran
Shimon Shiffer Published: 11.29.12, 18:17 / Israel Opinion /Ynetnews
Only Netanyahu can assure the Palestinians two states: Hamastan in Gaza and a UN member state in the West Bank. No, this is not an attack by the Left or the "Jewish" home. This is the reality on the ground after the recognition Netanyahu granted the Hamas government with the conclusion of Operation Pillar of Defense. In light of this recognition, a procession of heads of state is due to file into Gaza in the coming days for a photo op with Ismail Haniyeh.
Following Operation Cast Lead, despite the death of more than 1,000 Palestinians, European heads of state visited Israel as a show of support. And to think that just three weeks ago Lieberman suggested toppling the Palestinian Authority regime due to Abbas' "diplomatic terror."
UN Resolution
Vote in favor of PA bid / Sever Plocker
Op-ed: Adoption of Palestinian non-member state status is something Israel can live with, and even gain from
Now things appear different. The Americans warned Netanyahu and Lieberman not to undermine Abbas' legitimacy ahead of his request for upgraded status in the UN. The Israeli leaders took their foot off the pedal, and even Yisrael Katz is no longer threatening to stop the supply of electricity to Gaza.
But despite this, on the day of the UN vote on the recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state, Israel finds itself isolated in its opposition, along with the US, Canada and Micronesia.
Only spin remains. PM with bomb diagram at UNGA (Archive photo: Reuters)
The prime minister's spokespeople are already preparing the spins to justify the bleak reality we have been placed in. They will explain that Israel should accept the Palestinians' upgraded UN status in order to ensure America's continued assistance with regards to the Iranian issue. But this is just a spin: Based on the preparations and headlines of the past few months, we were supposed to be after an attack on Iran's nuclear installations by now.
The preparations for a strike cost more than NIS 10 billion, but it hasn’t come. Meanwhile, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency report, the ayatollahs' regime has completed a plan to hide the equipment that is needed to build a nuclear bomb. While this was going on we were busy intercepting rockets from Gaza and debating whether we should launch a ground offensive in the coastal enclave.
And so, the Iranian nuclear program has reached what Ehud Barak referred to as the "zone of immunity" stage – meaning Iran's nuclear facilities are immune from any potential Israeli military strike. Now, all that is left of the threatening bomb diagram Netanyahu displayed during his UN General Assembly speech is the spin.
Today, on the same stage, the Palestinians will mark a historic achievement with the overwhelming support of European countries, including some countries we never imagined would support the recognition of Palestine as an observer state. True, on the day after the UN vote Abbas will still be prohibited from leaving Ramallah without Israel's authorization – but we must not revel in this. If anything, it only serves as yet another indication that Netanyahu's lack of diplomatic initiative over the past four years will destroy any chance for an agreement with Abbas.

US gives Iran until March to cooperate with IAEA
Ynetnews/Reuters Published: 11.29.12, 21:27 / Israel News
Washington warns Tehran it will refer nuclear program issue to Security Council if it fails to cooperate with UN atomic watchdog
The United States set a March deadline on Thursday for Iran to start cooperating in substance with a UN nuclear agency investigation, warning Tehran the issue may otherwise be referred to the UN Security Council. Iran - which was first reported to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program by the IAEA's 35-nation board in 2006 and then was hit by UN sanctions - rejects suspicions it is on a covert quest for atomic bomb capability.
But its refusal to curb nuclear work with both civilian and military applications, and its lack of openness with the IAEA, have drawn tough Western punitive measures and a threat of pre-emptive military strikes by Israel.
A year ago, the IAEA published a report with a trove of intelligence indicating past, and some possibly continuing, research in Iran that could be relevant for nuclear weapons.
The IAEA has since tried to gain access to Iranian sites, officials and documents it says it needs for the inquiry, but so far without any concrete results in a series of meetings with Iran since January. The two sides will meet again in December.
In his statement, Wood requested IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano to say in his next quarterly report on Iran, likely due in late February, whether Tehran has taken "any substantive steps" to address the agency's concerns.
"If by March Iran has not begun substantive cooperation with the IAEA, the United States will work with other board members to pursue appropriate board action, and would urge the board to consider reporting this lack of progress to the UN Security Council," Wood said, according to a copy of his statement.
"Iran cannot be allowed to indefinitely ignore its obligations ... Iran must act now, in substance," Wood said.
Amano earlier told the board that there had been no progress in his agency's year-long push to clarify concerns about suspected atom bomb research in Iran, but said he would continue his efforts.
EU sees Iranian 'procrastination'
A simple majority in the IAEA board would be required to refer an issue to the UN Security Council, which has imposed four sanctions resolutions on Iran since 2006.
It is unclear whether Russia and China - which have criticized unilateral Western sanctions on Iran - would back any US initiative to report Iran again to the Security Council.
Wood later told reporters he hoped the December talks between the IAEA and Iran would be fruitful. But, he added, "I have my doubts about the sincerity of Iran."
The 27-nation European Union told the board that Iran's "procrastination" was unacceptable. "Iran must act now, in a substantive way, to address the serious and continuing international concerns on its nuclear program," it said.
Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, criticised what he called "political noise" and "pressure" from the United States and the EU.
Diplomacy between Iran and the powers - the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany, and Britain - has been deadlocked since a June meeting that ended without success.
Both sides now say they want to resume talks soon, after the re-election of US President Barack Obama, and diplomats expect a new meeting in Istanbul in December or January.
Iran is ready for a "face-saving" negotiated solution to the nuclear dispute, but the West must accept the reality that Tehran would never suspend uranium enrichment, Soltanieh said.
Refined uranium can be used to fuel nuclear energy plants, Iran's stated aim, and also provide bomb material if processed further, which the West suspects is Iran's ultimate aim.
The West wants Iran to suspend enrichment, but Iran is showing no sign of backing down.
Iran "has provocatively snubbed the international community by expanding its enrichment capacity in defiance of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions," Wood said.
The comments by US diplomat Robert Wood to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency signaled Washington's growing frustration at a lack of progress in the IAEA's inquiry into possible military dimensions to Tehran's nuclear program.

Analysis: Non-member state observer status is born
By HERB KEINON /J.Post
11/30/2012 01:20 Israel's birth didn't come at the UN, neither will Palestine's. Photo: 'Palestine Post' On May 16, 1948, the day after David Ben-Gurion declared independence in Tel Aviv, The Palestine Post ran an iconic headline that read “State of Israel is born.”Pointedly, that headline was not run on November 30, 1947, the day after the UN adopted the Partition Plan. Because the Partition Plan, rejected by the Arabs and now – seemingly – accepted a mere 65 years later, did not give birth to the Jewish state. Jewish blood, sweat and tears during the War of Independence did that.The Palestinian Authority, flush with satisfaction following its victory Thursday at the UN General Assembly in New York, would do well to keep that in mind. Not the blood, sweat and tears part, but rather that resolutions, declarations and proclamations are one thing, and statehood – a living, kicking, breathing state – is something else.To actually gain statehood, real statehood, the GA’s declaration won’t do. By hook or by crook, the Palestinians are going to have to get Israel’s recognition, and for that they will have to sit down with Israel and agree to the parameters of that state.Indeed, were one to accurately revisit the Post’s headline from 64 years ago in the context of what happened at the UN on Thursday, it would read: “Non-member state observer status for Palestine at the UN is born.” Far less dramatic, but accurate, because one should not confuse “nonmember state observer status” with statehood.
Yet what happened at the UNGA on Thursday, though no surprise, is a significant diplomatic defeat for Israel. It is significant because Jerusalem itself tried to stave off the move, and some senior officials talked in realistic terms of being able to get a bloc of 40 or 50 states, the so-called quality democratic states, to either abstain or actually vote against the move.
Had Jerusalem taken the line three months ago that it took three days ago when senior officials dismissed this whole maneuver as sound and fury signifying nothing, the defeat would have been less stinging. But the hurt at the loss corresponds to the height of the expectations, and there were expectations that the EU as a bloc might actually abstain, as would other key democracies like Japan, and that more nations – perhaps Australia – might even be convinced to vote against.
Not only was this Israel’s hope and expectation, but both Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Foreign Ministry lobbied hard in this direction in recent months: Netanyahu placing numerous calls to colleagues over the last few weeks appealing to them not to support the bid, and the Foreign Ministry expending time and effort in key capitals around the world to build what Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon once described as a “moral minority.”
That these efforts failed forces one question: Why?
There are two main reasons: The first has to do with the recent battle with Gaza, and the second with the settlements and the overall stagnation in the diplomatic process.
Regarding Gaza, Operation Pillar of Defense – and the fact that PA President Mahmoud Abbas emerged as one of the main losers of the crisis – helped sway the world’s democracies in his direction.
The EU, which has bet on Abbas and the PA to the tune of billions of euros, cannot sit by and just watch him and the PA tumble. European leaders have said for years that more must be done to prop him up, and those calls became deafening following the Gaza conflagration.
Emerging from the Gaza operation looking completely irrelevant, Abbas desperately needed something to raise his stature, and the EU believes a diplomatic victory at the UN is just the thing. Had Abbas been rebuffed at the UN by the traditional democracies, he would really have nothing to show his people. Hamas claimed a military victory, and now – after the UN – he can claim a diplomatic one. Though both victories are Pyrrhic and illusionary, what is important is perception.
The only problem is that a perceived state, a virtual state, is not a real state. A real state has to be tangibly felt, not only seen. It has to have real borders, real authority, real sovereignty.
Israel also faced a diplomatic defeat because it cannot snub its nose at the requests of the EU time after time, and then expect that when push comes to shove, the “quality democracies” will be there to give it diplomatic cover.
The EU took a strategic decision not too long ago to actively and vociferously oppose every instance of construction in the settlements, including in post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem like Ramot, Gilo and Pisgat Ze’ev. Israel took a strategic counter-decision to ignore those protests and complaints. That policy works fine, up to a point – the point where you actually need the EU.
One can argue whether Israel should or should not ignore EU pleas on the settlements, or not pay attention when European leaders demand that Israel take a diplomatic initiative, but one should not be surprised that when this is done time after time, then when Israel looks around hoping to see the EU behind it, it simply won’t be there. Continued construction in the settlements and the lack of a diplomatic initiative have eroded Israel’s diplomatic support in Europe to a degree many may only now realize.
This doesn’t mean that had there been no settlement construction, or had Netanyahu placed a daring initiative on the table, the EU would have been there. Israel would be foolish to count on countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Austria and Sweden in any diplomatic battles in international forums.
But if Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Bulgaria cannot vote for Israel, that illustrates a larger problem.
One final point about Thursday’s vote. The defeat was not only a defeat for Israel’s diplomacy; it was also a defeat for US diplomacy. US President Barack Obama explicitly asked Abbas not to go through with the move now, to give him some time to get his new Middle East policy in shape following the election. He even pledged to aggressively engage the issue again in the spring, if just given the chance.
Abbas flatly said no. With the US wanting a perception of increased influence in the region at a time of tumultuous change, that bald rebuke has to hurt.
All those who in recent weeks questioned whether Obama would “take revenge” on Netanyahu for the perception that he backed Mitt Romney in the recent US election should now ask a similar question of the Palestinians. Will Obama take revenge on Abbas for poking his finger in the eyes of the US president, and – if so – is the diminished support of a sympathetic Obama worth a UNGA statement on statehood?

Palestine at the UN: Mixed Messages
Washington Institute./David Pollock
November 28, 2012
On November 29, the anniversary of the 1947 UN General Assembly vote to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into "an Arab state and Jewish state," the assembly will vote on a new draft resolution recognizing Palestine as a nonmember observer state. A majority vote in favor is all but guaranteed given the near-automatic support from the nonaligned and Islamic blocs and some other delegations.
But in presenting the draft, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are defying U.S. and Israeli objections to this unilateral move. It fails the test of resolving all issues only by mutual agreement with Israel and could further complicate future negotiations. In addition, enhanced UN status could open the door to attempts at pressing Palestinian demands through such bodies as the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice rather than through peace talks with Israel.
At the same time, the draft resolution once again puts the PA, along with the entire UN General Assembly, on record as endorsing "the vision of two states, an independent, sovereign, contiguous, and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security with Israel." This is significant -- especially now, when the rival Hamas movement in Gaza, despite its new ceasefire with Israel, continues to reject the very idea of peace. Both the Israeli and U.S. governments, by contrast, have previously declared their acceptance of the two-state solution.
Some important UN members, such as Britain, have reportedly suggested certain reasonable improvements to the existing draft. One key suggestion is to insert an explicit commitment to resume negotiations with Israel promptly and unconditionally. Another useful improvement would be a Palestinian commitment to refrain from new applications for membership in certain UN subsidiaries -- or at least to refrain from exploiting their new status to practice "lawfare," or legalistic assaults, against Israel in lieu of peace negotiations.
Unfortunately, the latest unofficial accounts indicate that the Palestinians are still refusing these friendly amendments. An alternative might be more general language committing to resolve all issues only through peaceful negotiations. Another possibility would be a side letter or similar understanding to that effect, even if not included in the text of the resolution.
A different but equally helpful set of improvements would be to remove language inconsistent with other, more constructive clauses. For example, one clause toward the end of the preamble affirms "the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two states." This implicitly recognizes, for the first time in such a formal document, at least part of the city as Israel's capital. It also accepts the requirement of negotiating this issue rather than simply demanding Jerusalem, or even just East Jerusalem, as the Palestinian capital.
More broadly, draft paragraph 5 recognizes the possibility of territorial adjustments "on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, with delineation of borders to be determined in final status negotiations." And paragraph 6 expresses "the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process." These are relatively positive formulations.
Other clauses, however, contradict all of the above by prejudging the issues of borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements, as well as the overall outcome of negotiations. Amending or deleting such language would be a step forward. Otherwise the entire resolution, as it stands, is literally illogical, not to mention potentially harmful.
Conversely, some conceivable last-minute changes to the draft would only make matters worse. In that category falls any mention of Hamas, "resistance," or potential penalties for noncompliance. Such late additions would only push the prospect of productive negotiations, and of meeting legitimate Palestinian and Israeli aspirations for peace and security, even further away.
Regardless of how the exact wording and the vote turn out, much will depend on the follow-up. If the Palestinians fulfill their announced intention to return to peace talks with Israel in good faith, with no artificial preconditions or deadlines attached, that would certainly be welcome. If, however, their next step is to file international lawsuits against Israel, or to maintain their insistence on concessions from Israel even before they sit down at the negotiating table, it would simply confirm the worst judgments about their current UN gambit. The United States should make abundantly clear that its continued engagement -- including any aid or political support -- will depend upon which of those two courses the PA chooses to pursue.
*David Pollock is the Kaufman fellow at The Washington Institute.

The Brotherhood’s lust for power
By Osman Mirghani/Asharq Alawsat
After Mursi’s recent decree to grant himself absolute power, and to render his decisions infallible and immune, without anyone being able to appeal or hold them to account, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are showing signs of the same disease that inflicted their counterparts in Sudan, namely a lust for authority and domination, and an inability to coexist with democracy, embrace pluralism and distribute power. The Islamists in Sudan established an autocratic regime with their coup against legitimacy and democracy 23 years ago, and they continue to maneuver and make desperate efforts to keep the regime under their complete control for years to come. Here we see the Brotherhood in Egypt trying to overthrow democracy early, and to expropriate all powers for their president and impose their vision on the imminent draft constitution, so that the next phase is tailored to their own measurements.
The on-going battle in Egypt today is being conducted on a number of fronts, but with the same goal, namely to enable the Brotherhood to take over power and hold all the keys. It seems that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood want to take shortcuts and monopolize power early before the equation changes on the scene or in the wider region. They want to seize the opportunity – as they see it – to impose their views and power through successive shocks. Ever since they jumped upon the revolutionary bandwagon, for they were latecomers, not instigators, the Brotherhood have been maneuvering to impose their control over the scene. Sometimes, they worked together with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and held negotiations behind the backs of other political forces. They opposed any voice that called for the constitution to be drafted before elections were held, and then they urged for elections to be held as soon as possible because they were the most organized and best funded entity in the country. When the Brotherhood achieved victory in the parliamentary elections, they began to impose their agenda and pass laws that served their goals. When the presidential elections were conducted they took to the squares and threatened violence if the results did not declare victory for their candidate. When Mursi won the presidency, the battle to seize power truly began. The supplementary constitutional declaration was abolished, and the SCAF leadership, along with other senior military figures, were forced into retirement. Following this, we saw the first round of the judicial battle, with the Brotherhood’s attempt to revoke the constitutional court’s decision and reinstate parliament last July. This was followed by round two, with the decision to dismiss Egypt’s public prosecutor from his office and re-appoint him as an ambassador; a decision that was rejected by the judiciary who described it as an assault upon the judicial institution, forcing Mursi to retreat and postpone the battle.
Today Mursi and the Brotherhood are completing their battle against the judiciary with a third attempt, namely a constitutional declaration that fortifies the president’s decisions retroactively. Mursi has also dismissed the public prosecutor once again, without granting him an ambassadorial position this time, as revenge for his previous refusal to resign or leave office gracefully. If the Brotherhood is able to pass this constitutional declaration, or even part of it, then inevitably they will next direct their arrows towards the Supreme Constitutional Court.
The manner in which the constitutional declaration was announced indicates that the decrees were always ready and the Brotherhood were simply waiting for the right opportunity to announce them. The decrees were issued directly after the Gaza truce in which Mursi played the role of a mediator with the Hamas “brotherhood”, for which he received compliments from the West and America, including President Obama. Mursi wasted no time in rushing to cash in his new credit, and so he issued his constitutional declaration that provides him with powers Mubarak never dreamed of. It was noticeable that while the presidential spokesman read out the provisions of the constitutional declaration, the new public prosecutor was also being sworn in in front of Mursi. This shows that the timing was intended, and that the man was always ready to take the oath in front of the president. Likewise it was noticeable that as soon as the presidential spokesman finished reading the declaration, Brotherhood affiliates began marching in demonstrations that seemed to be pre-arranged in support of the president’s decisions.
If the decrees really were cooked up in the Brotherhood’s kitchen, then their talk now about dialogue, or about the decrees only being temporary, is nothing but an attempt to distract the opposition while the president continues to try and divide the ranks of the judiciary and gain time until the constituent assembly completes the draft constitution. In the same manner the Shura Council is also fighting a battle with the media in order to tame or control it, and I think that more great battles are still to come, such as a future struggle for control of Egypt’s trade unions. When the Brotherhood supporters demonstrated in favor of Mursi’s constitutional declaration, some of them carried banners calling for the media to be cleansed. This is not the first time that such slogans have been raised, for the leaders of the Brotherhood have always been critical of the media and have accused it of bias against them. Now, through the Shura Council, the Brotherhood has been able to appoint some of its affiliates at the head of some newspapers, in a series of appointments that were conducted a short while ago. It is also noteworthy that the constituent assembly rejected journalists’ demands for the draft constitution to explicitly prohibit newspapers being shut down or confiscated, and to prohibit sanctions that infringe upon the freedom of publishing. This is something that had led the journalists union to join those who have withdrawn from the Constituent Assembly.
Those trying to defend Mursi’s decisions by saying that they were taken to protect the revolution and to accelerate the implementation of its goals, and those who call for the opposition to engage in dialogue instead of demonstrations, are trying to block the sun with a sieve. This is not the first time that Mursi has taken a surprising decision in an attempt to grab additional powers, or to change the rules of the game. Likewise, this is not the first time that he has taken a controversial decision without consulting other political and civil forces, and therefore when his aides talk about the importance of dialogue now, this is effectively meaningless. If Mursi and the Brotherhood were serious about dialogue then they would have engaged in this before issuing the decrees, not afterwards, and the same goes for if they were keen on the principle of consultation, which they claim is at the heart of their ideology and their approach to work. These decrees mark Egypt’s return to the era of individualist rule; they do not strengthen democracy or pluralism, nor do they support the principle of the distribution of power and authority. When the Egyptians elected Mursi they wanted to turn the page on authoritarianism, not replace it with a regime where the president can seize absolute power and complete immunity by virtue of an individual decision, giving him the right to do what he wants without anyone holding him to account.
If Mursi and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood are behaving in such a manner now, then how will they act when they are fortified by the new constitution, and when they complete their project to hold all keys to power? This is the question that frightens many, and this is the essence of the current battle.

Who is Brahimi trying to save?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
We do not know what UN Special Envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, is cooking up in order to end the war in Syria. He is the man who represents the last hope of putting an end to the killings and destruction, having been tasked to solve the most serious issue that has preoccupied the Middle East, an issue whose impact will go far beyond our own region.
In view of his silence and a lack of information regarding what he is doing, it is only natural that we should be concerned about the statements being attributed to him, although he always later comes out to deny these. This time, however, it is rumoured that he is touring regional capital cities in order to promote a new project which would see Bashar al-Assad step down in more than a year, being replaced following forthcoming elections that will take place under international supervision.
Due to Brahimi's on-going silence, we have no option but to consider this as one of the potential solutions, particularly as his fingerprints are all over this. We have all come to know Brahimi’s reconciliatory style that seeks a compromise that is acceptable to all parties. However at this point, we must ask: is the idea of al-Assad's resignation followed by elections a good way out of the crisis? Or is this a potential crisis that will only further complicate the issue, rather than resolve it?
In my opinion, such a proposal is futile and doomed to failure. Firstly, this is because a proposal such as this is inapplicable, more importantly this is something that will steer Syria towards a larger full-scale civil war. Syria is not Lebanon or Afghanistan; two states where Brahimi accomplished joint peace projects. In Syria, the revolution is between the palace and the street; this is not a struggle between local powers, as was the case with in Lebanon and Afghanistan. Therefore, Brahimi must not be a horse for al-Assad or the Iranians to ride upon and leap over the rebels' heads, steering the Syrian revolution towards a multi-party conflict which would give al-Assad the opportunity to be a part of the solution when he was the cause of the problem in the first place. In reality, this is an overwhelming popular revolution against the regime. The regime has waged a war against this revolution, but is now losing the battle on the ground. Today, the rebels have managed to defeat the regime's troops in Rif Dimashq, and so it is completely unreasonably and unacceptable that they should allow al-Assad to remain in power until 2014. Indeed, this extra year in power would only mean more bloodshed, more destruction and more sabotage to the country. If Brahimi thinks that he is capable of protecting the regime until the end of next year, he is dreaming! The al-Assad regime is now on the ropes and it is impossible for it to return to political life. If Brahimi wants to save Syria, then he must convince al-Assad, or at least the Russians, that this president, who is drowning in blood, must pack his bags and step down from power as soon as possible. The price of stopping the bloodshed is for al-Assad to step down and hand over power to the opposition. This is a provisional solution that may not be obtainable when the rebels begin their siege of the presidential palaces in Damascus. Bashar al-Assad can hand over power to a real opposition now, not the fake opposition the regime sent to Iran a few days ago. The solution is for al-Assad to step down and transfer power to the Syrian opposition, perhaps under international auspices until free elections can be held to allow the Syrian people to choose their president.
We know that Brahimi will respond sarcastically: If the situation is that easy, then why do you need me? We would answer that the Syrian people do not want him to put forward a political solution that would prolong the crisis and grant legitimacy to what remains of al-Assad’s presidency, and then see this criminal leave office with full honours! History will not judge Brahimi mercifully if this solution comes to pass, regardless of the difficulties he is facing in putting out this disastrous fire. If the UN special envoy is unable to reach a resolution that is satisfactory to the Syrian people, and if he is unable to see the crimes that are being committed by the al-Assad regime on a daily basis, and if he is unable to push the UN Security Council members to end the genocide being committed by the regime in broad daylight; then he must go home and completely reject being a partner in covering up what is happening in Syria. We accept and appreciate what he is doing and are conscious of his repetitive warnings that the impact of the Syrian crisis will reach the rest of the regional countries unless they cooperate with him to reach some solution. However we would say to him that: the regional countries are not behind the Syrian revolution, nor do they have the power to end this. Indeed, no one has the authority to dictate to the rebels and urge them to accept something that they do not want, particularly as they are now closer to victory than ever before.

Palestinians win upgrade to 'state ' at UN. What does that change?
The UN General Assembly's 138-to-9 vote officially put 'Palestine' together with 'state' for the first time. But it appeared to offer little practical change. Even Palestinians called it part of a 'process.'
By Howard LaFranchi | Christian Science Monitor – 3
The Palestinian mission at the United Nations won an upgrade from an “entity” to a “state” – albeit one with nonvoting observer status – in a lopsided vote in the General Assembly Thursday.
The 138-to-9 vote, with 41 abstentions, put Palestinians front and center on the international stage for the second time in two weeks, following the recent fighting between Israel and the Palestinians of Hamas-ruled Gaza. The vote also, for the first time, officially puts “Palestine” together with the word “state,” giving Palestinians the same status at the UN held by the Vatican.
In a speech to the General Assembly in New York before the vote, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the status upgrade the “birth certificate of Palestine” and said it represented “the last chance to save the two-state solution” for the Palestinians and Israel.
Think you know the Middle East? Take our geography quiz.
The timing of the vote was suffused with historical significance, since it fell on the 65th anniversary of the General Assembly’s vote on Nov. 29, 1947, to partition British-ruled Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.
But the UN decision, opposed by Israel and the United States appeared to offer little immediate or practical change, with even Palestinian leaders emphasizing the promise of the status change.
“Now that we have state status, it’s not a miraculous transformation,” said Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee, “but it begins a process.”
The strong backing for enhanced Palestinian status, including from a large number of European countries, reflected a widespread desire to boost the fortunes of Mr. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority at a moment when the militant Hamas is enjoying newfound support, particularly among Arab countries. Supporters of the initiative said it would enhance chances for peace in the region.
But Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Ron Proser, told the Assembly before the vote that the bid “doesn’t advance peace – it pushes it backwards” by circumventing negotiations between the parties.
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the vote “changes nothing.”
“Peace can only be achieved one way,” he said, “through direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions, and not through one-sided decisions at the UN that totally ignore Israel’s vital security needs.” But other Israeli officials suggested Israel would not sit by and would take action in response to what they said was a violation of the Palestinians’ international obligations.
In Washington, some members of Congress were already gearing up to push for funding cuts to both the Palestinians and the UN.
In the Senate, one proposed amendment to the defense authorization bill currently under debate would deny the Palestinian Authority any US assistance if the PA decided to use its enhanced status to take claims against Israel to the International Criminal Court – an institution it would have access to as a UN observer state. Another proposed amendment, authored by Republican senators, would cut Palestinian and UN funding in the event of enhanced UN status – and would also cut aid to any countries that voted for the change.
Opponents of any cuts in US funding to the Palestinian Authority say such action would ultimately benefit Hamas by punishing those Palestinians – such as West Bank Palestinian security forces – who cooperate with Israel and as a result enhance its security.
“These plainly non-germane amendments gravely threaten Israeli security and essential US interests by hobbling the viability of the Palestinian Authority to the benefit of Hamas and other extremists,” the J Street “pro-Israel, pro-peace” advocacy group said in a statement.
Congressional supporters of retaliation for the new “state” status view the Palestinian initiative as an attempt to unilaterally bypass negotiations with Israel to achieve statehood. But Palestinian leaders like Dr. Ashrawi, who spoke from Ramallah on a conference call with reporters arranged by Washington’s Institute for Middle East Understanding, say Palestinians acted because they gained nothing from over 20 years of negotiations.
“This does not contradict or conflict with negotiations,” she said, describing the new status as “a stand against nonproductive and counterproductive negotiations.”
Abbas suggested before Thursday’s vote that enhanced status could open the way to direct talks with Israel. That was taken by some Middle East analysts as a hint that Abbas might drop his “preconditions” for direct talks, which have included a freeze on Israeli settlement construction on occupied Palestinian lands.
But in her comments Thursday, Ashrawi indicated the ball would still be in Israel’s court to pave the way for a return to negotiations – which she said would have to have set parameters and a fixed timeline.
Ashrawi also said that the first priority for Palestinians after Thursday’s vote would be reconciliation between Hamas and the West Bank-ruling Fatah. She lauded as a “very heartening” sign of “unity” the support Hamas leaders threw behind the UN status initiative.
As for threats to Palestinian financing over Thursday’s vote, Ashrawi said Palestinian leaders did not welcome any cuts, but had nevertheless put out feelers to sympathetic Arab countries about a possible “safety net” of emergency funding in the event of monetary reprisals.Think you know the Middle East? Take our geography quiz.

Canada to Review Relations with Palestinian Authority Following UN General Assembly Vote
November 30, 2012 – Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird today issued the following statement:
“Canada is deeply disappointed but not surprised by yesterday’s result at the United Nations General Assembly.
“Our government’s position is clear: the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace is through negotiations, not unilateral actions.
“To that end, Canada is bringing its heads of missions in Israel and Ramallah and its permanent representatives to the UN in New York and Geneva back to Ottawa temporarily to assess the implications of yesterday’s UN General Assembly vote and inform Canada’s response to it.
“Canada will now review the full range of its bilateral relationship with the Palestinian Authority.
“Canada is proud of the support it has provided to improve the stability and security of the Palestinian society. Yesterday’s unilateral action does nothing to further the Middle East peace process. It will not change the reality on the streets of the West Bank or Gaza. This unilateral step is an impediment to peace.
“We again call on the Palestinian Authority and Israel to return to negotiations without preconditions, for the good of their people.”

Address by Canada's FM, Minister Baird to United Nations General Assembly in Opposition to Palestinian Bid for Non-Member Observer State Status
November 29, 2012 - New York City, New York
Mr. President,
Canada opposes this resolution in the strongest terms because it undermines the core foundations of a decades-long commitment by the international community and the parties themselves to a two-state solution, arrived at through direct negotiations.
While we understand a final resolution remains elusive, Canada has long opposed unilateral actions by either side as these are unhelpful. The outstanding issues are too intricate and too complex to be resolved by symbolic, unilateral measures.
We do not believe that unilateral measures taken by one side can be justified by accusations of unilateralism directed at the other. That approach can only result in the steady erosion and collapse of the very foundations of a process which—while incomplete—holds the only realistic chance to bring about two peaceful, prosperous states living side-by-side as neighbours.
Canada’s support for a negotiated settlement, like our opposition to the initiative before us today, is rooted in the very history of this venerable organization and in the sustained international effort to resolve this matter.
Canada was proud to be one of the countries preparing the blueprint for peace as part of the 1947 UN Special Committee on Palestine. That committee came up with a proposal for a two-state solution—one predominantly Jewish and the other predominantly Arab living side by side—which ultimately resulted, in November 1947, in the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 setting out the Partition Plan. However, not all of those who should have supported this vision were prepared to do so, and the people of the region have suffered for seven decades as a result.
Even in those early, difficult days, however, the principle of collaboration between the two parties was seen as an inherent necessity, as reflected in the elaboration of a plan for economic union between the two sides. While Resolution 181 has never been fully implemented, this principle—the idea that the two parties need to work together to achieve their mutual and intertwined destinies and potential—has survived as an essential ingredient in successive efforts to find an elusive peace.
In 1948, UN Resolution 194 set up a Conciliation Commission aimed at finding solutions to the full range of problems facing the two sides. It established an important principle in calling for the parties involved to seek agreement, through negotiations, “with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them.”
In 1967, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242. The Council requested the dispatch of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the region to “promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement,” entrenching further the principle that solutions required the acceptance and collective action of both sides.
This idea was reaffirmed in 1973 in UN Security Council Resolution 338, which decided that “immediately and concurrently with the ceasefire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace.”
These two resolutions—242 and 338—form the explicitly recognized cornerstone of all the subsequent peace commitments, accords and understandings that followed between the two parties, enshrining the need for negotiations as a core principle.
Both the Israelis and the Palestinians reaffirmed their acceptance of the principles and obligations laid out in both resolutions in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords. Article I made the point explicitly in highlighting that the “interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.”
In 1995, Oslo II built on those important foundations. In the preamble, both sides reaffirmed “their desire to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.” Article 31, under Final Clauses (section 7), stipulated that “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and Gaza pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”
These principles were, again, reaffirmed in 2002. UN Security Council Resolution 1397 called on “the Israeli and Palestinian sides and their leaders to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and Mitchell Report recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.” It also offered support to the Secretary-General and others in their efforts to “resume the peace process.”
The following year, 2003, the Middle East Quartet was established. It developed the Roadmap, which was a performance-based, goal-driven plan covering peace, security and humanitarian areas. Its approach and directions were based explicitly on the principles contained in UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. A key element of the Quartet Principles contained in the Roadmap was the requirement that “a clear, unambiguous acceptance by both parties of the goal of a negotiated settlement” was needed to reach the destination. It goes on to underscore that “a settlement, negotiated between the parties, will result in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors.” The Quartet Roadmap requires, by its very nature, a collaborative effort explicitly requiring “reciprocal steps” by the two sides.
Later that year, UN Security Council Resolution 1515 formally “endorse[d] the Quartet Roadmap, while calling on the parties to “fulfil their obligations under the Roadmap in cooperation with the Quartet and to achieve the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security.”
Resolution 1850, passed in 2008, underscored the Council’s explicit support for the negotiations undertaken in Annapolis in 2007, including “its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations.” The Resolution reaffirmed international support for the Quartet Principles and the determination of both parties to “reach their goal of concluding a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, without exception.” It also called on both sides to “refrain from any steps that could undermine confidence or prejudice the outcome of negotiations.”
Mr. President, successive UN Security Council resolutions and various international commitments and understandings over nearly seven decades have formed the building blocks of a collaborative peace process that remains unfinished. The path to peace has historically rested in direct negotiations between the two parties to resolve all outstanding issues and it remains the same today. Solutions can only come through the two sides working together.
This resolution will not advance the cause of peace or spur a return to negotiations. Will the Palestinian people be better off as a result? No. On the contrary, this unilateral step will harden positions and raise unrealistic expectations while doing nothing to improve the lives of the Palestinian people.
Canada is committed to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East whereby two states live side-by-side in peace and security.
Any two-state solution must be negotiated and mutually agreed upon by both sides.
Any unilateral action, from either side, outside of the bilateral framework outlined above is ultimately unhelpful.
Canada has long supported efforts to bring the two sides to the bargaining table to resolve all outstanding issues, and we remain committed to that objective.
But we cannot support an initiative that we are firmly convinced will undermine the objective of reaching a comprehensive, lasting and just settlement for both sides.
It is for these reasons that Canada is voting against this resolution. As a result of this body’s utterly regrettable decision to abandon policy and principle, we will be considering all available next steps.
We call on both sides to return to the negotiating table without preconditions. Canada will be there to offer its good offices and support.
Thank you.

Obey the Prophet, Even if He Tells You to Kill!" --Top Islamic Leader, Yusuf Qaradawi
November 29, 2012 | Raymond Ibrahim
Originally published on Gatestone Institute
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi—one of the most influential Islamic clerics in the world, author of over 100 books on Muslim doctrine, head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood—maintains that Muslims must obey the commands of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, even unto murder. This would be the same Dr. Qaradawi that American academics like Georgetown professor John Esposito praise for engaging in a “reformist interpretation of Islam and its relationship to democracy, pluralism, and human rights.”
Dr. Qaradawi calls for blind obedience to Muhammad — unto murder.
Missed in the West, Qaradawi made this declaration two years ago on his popular Arabic program, Al-Sharia wa Al-Haya (“Sharia and Life”), broadcast by al-Jazeera to an estimated audience of 60 million worldwide.
Towards the end of the show, the host asked Qaradawi what he thought about the fact that Sheikh Ahmad Hassoun, the grand mufti of Syria, had earlier said to an American delegation: “If [Muslim prophet] Muhammad asked me to reject Christianity or Judaism, I would have rejected him.” Visibly agitated, Qaradawi erupted as follows:
No scholar of Islam or even average Muslim would ever say such words. If you believe that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, then you must obey him—for he does not command except that which is good. So, even if he tells you to kill, you must— … The story about our prophet Musa [Moses], when al-Khidr killed the boy and Musa said “you killed and you did!” But then he [Khidr] revealed why he killed the boy, and why he punctured the boat. So we cannot distort the facts in order to please the people. Let the people be satisfied with the Truth [Sharia teachings], not the false.
Syria’s grand mufti said many other things concerning goodwill for Christians that roused Qaradawi’s ire. For instance, before a large Christian gathering in Syria, where he was a guest speaker, he insisted that there were no differences between Christians and Muslims:
If Christianity is about believing in one God, so I believe in one God; if Christianity is about believing in Jesus, so I believe in Jesus; if Christianity is about believing in the New Testament, so I believe in the New Testament; if Christianity is about believing in the Old Testament, so I believe in the Old Testament; if Christianity is about believing that Mary was a pure virgin, so I believe she was a pure virgin, untouched by man; and if Christianity is about believing in the resurrection, so I believe in the resurrection—so what is the difference between me and Christians?
Qaradawi offered correct Muslim doctrine in response to this otherwise egalitarian talk, confirming that, yes, Islam believes all these things—but according to its own narratives, not the ones recorded in the Bible, which, as the Quran teaches, have been distorted. Hence, if Muslims believe all those things that the Syrian grand mufti mentioned, they do not believe in the fundamentals of Christianity—including the Trinity, Christ’s divinity or resurrection, and atonement of sins—hence they reject Christianity, as understood and practiced by over a billion Christians.
As for believing in the Old and New Testaments, the Quran claims that, once upon a time there were “true” versions, but that the current texts which we possess—and which are many centuries older than the Quran itself—were “corrupted” (to include, for instance, the aforementioned fundamentals of Christianity). Thus the only “authentic” remnants of Christianity and Judaism are the ones Muhammad narrated in the Quran—where we meet many doppelgangers, like Isa, a very different “Jesus” who was never crucified and will return to break all Christian crucifixes and kill all pigs.
Indeed, it is this Muslim proclivity to create “parallel” characters based on biblical figures that explains Qaradawi’s justification to murder people in blind obedience to the prophet. His reference to “Musa,” based on the Hebrew Moses, is a reference to a story—possibly rooted in the 3rd century Alexander Romance and popularized by the 1970s martial arts movie, Circle of Iron—which, nonetheless, occurs in Quran, and so must be accepted literally.
A classic rendition of al-Khidr, the Quran’s Green Man crossing a river over a fish.
According to the Quran’s narrative (18:65-82), Musa seeks out al-Khidr—“the Green Man,” who possesses powers of sight—and asks if he may follow and learn from him. Al-Khidr reluctantly agrees, on condition that Musa not question anything he, the Green Man, does, until such time as the latter chooses to reveal the significance of his actions.
However, the Green Man does strange things—randomly killing a young boy and destroying the boat of people who helped give them passage—to which Musa demands immediate answers. The Green Man eventually explains that he killed the boy because his parents were good Muslims, while the boy was an infidel who would have burdened them with his transgressions; and he destroyed the boat of the good people because a king was about to seize it anyway.
Such is the alternate worldview and value system of Islam. Just as Islam introduced parallel characters based on Christian and Jewish figures, so did it introduce a parallel system of ethics and morality—one not to be questioned, for, as the Quran’s Green Man shows, who are we mortals to know what good these ostensibly bizarre or murderous actions will lead to? Only the prophet of Allah knows—hence why he must be blindly obeyed, even if he commands you to murder.
Which leads to another parallel, one lethal in its implications: Just as a Western general’s orders—including to kill—are not open to question by his soldiers, in Islam, the orders of “general” Muhammad are not open to question by the world’s 1 billion plus Muslims, all of whom become, according to top Islamic scholar Qaradawi, Islam’s “soldiers,” ever ready to kill for their prophet-general.

Palestinians win de facto U.N. recognition of sovereign state
By Louis Charbonneau and Michelle Nichols
(Reuters) - The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called on the world body to issue its long overdue "birth certificate."
The U.N. victory for the Palestinians was a diplomatic setback for the United States and Israel, which were joined by only a handful of countries in voting against the move to upgrade the Palestinian Authority's observer status at the United Nations to "non-member state" from "entity," like the Vatican.
Britain called on the United States to use its influence to help break the long impasse in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Washington also called for a revival of direct negotiations.
There were 138 votes in favor, nine against and 41 abstentions. Three countries did not take part in the vote, held on the 65th anniversary of the adoption of U.N. resolution 181 that partitioned Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
Thousands of flag-waving Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip set off fireworks and danced in the streets to celebrate the vote.
The assembly approved the upgrade despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinians by withholding funds for the West Bank government. U.N. envoys said Israel might not retaliate harshly against the Palestinians over the vote as long as they do not seek to join the International Criminal Court.
If the Palestinians were to join the ICC, they could file complaints with the court accusing Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious crimes.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the vote "unfortunate and counterproductive," while the Vatican praised the move and called for an internationally guaranteed special status for Jerusalem, something bound to irritate Israel.
The much-anticipated vote came after Abbas denounced Israel from the U.N. podium for its "aggressive policies and the perpetration of war crimes," remarks that elicited a furious response from the Jewish state.
"Sixty-five years ago on this day, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181, which partitioned the land of historic Palestine into two states and became the birth certificate for Israel," Abbas told the assembly after receiving a standing ovation.
"The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine," he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded quickly, condemning Abbas' critique of Israel as "hostile and poisonous," and full of "false propaganda.
"These are not the words of a man who wants peace," Netanyahu said in a statement released by his office. He reiterated Israeli calls for direct talks with the Palestinians, dismissing Thursday's resolution as "meaningless."
ICC THREAT
A number of Western delegations noted that Thursday's vote should not be interpreted as formal legal recognition of a Palestinian state. Formal recognition of statehood is something that is done bilaterally, not by the United Nations.
Granting Palestinians the title of "non-member observer state" falls short of full U.N. membership - something the Palestinians failed to achieve last year. But it does have important legal implications - it would allow them access to the ICC and other international bodies, should they choose to join.
Abbas did not mention the ICC in his speech. But Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki told reporters after the vote that if Israel continued to build illegal settlements, the Palestinians might pursue the ICC route.
"As long as the Israelis are not committing atrocities, are not building settlements, are not violating international law, then we don't see any reason to go anywhere," he said.
"If the Israelis continue with such policy - aggression, settlements, assassinations, attacks, confiscations, building walls - violating international law, then we have no other remedy but really to knock those to other places," Maliki said.
In Washington, a group of four Republican and Democratic senators announced legislation that would close the Palestinian office in Washington unless the Palestinians enter "meaningful negotiations" with Israel, and eliminate all U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority if it turns to the ICC.
"I fear the Palestinian Authority will now be able to use the United Nations as a political club against Israel," said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the sponsors.
Abbas led the campaign to win support for the resolution, which followed an eight-day conflict this month between Israel and Islamists in the Gaza Strip, who are pledged to Israel's destruction and oppose a negotiated peace.
The vote highlighted how deeply divided Europe is on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
At least 17 European nations voted in favor of the Palestinian resolution, including Austria, France, Italy, Norway and Spain. Abbas had focused his lobbying efforts on Europe, which supplies much of the aid the Palestinian Authority relies on. Britain, Germany and many others chose to abstain.
The traditionally pro-Israel Czech Republic was unique in Europe, joining the United States, Israel, Canada, Panama and the tiny Pacific Island states Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia in voting against the move.
'HOPE SOME REASON WILL PREVAIL'
Peace talks have been stalled for two years, mainly over Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which have expanded despite being deemed illegal by most of the world. There are 4.3 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
After the vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice called for the immediate resumption of peace talks.
"The Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about their lives has changed save that the prospects of a durable peace have only receded," she said.
She added that both parties should "avoid any further provocative actions in the region, in New York or elsewhere."
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he hoped all sides would use the vote to push for new breakthroughs in the peace process.
"I hope there will be no punitive measures," Fayyad told Reuters in Washington, where he was attending a conference.
"I hope that some reason will prevail and the opportunity will be taken to take advantage of what happened today in favor of getting a political process moving," he said.
Britain's U.N. ambassador, Mark Lyall Grant, told reporters it was time for recently re-elected U.S. President Barack Obama to make a new push for peace.
"We believe the window for the two-state solution is closing," he said. "That is why we are encouraging the United States and other key international actors to grasp this opportunity and use the next 12 months as a way to really break through this impasse."
(Additional reporting by Andrew Quinn in Washington, Noah Browning in Ramallah, Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem, Robert Mueller in Prague, Gabriela Baczynska and Reuters bureaux in Europe and elsewhere; Editing by Eric Beech and Peter Cooney)