Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for December 13/12
Does Hezbollah have chemical weapons?
US adds sanctions on Iran as IAEA nuke talks end
Victims of 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks drop lawsuit
International Committee of the Red Cross helps repatriate Lebanese family from Israel
Lebanese March 14 coalition rebuffs Mikati’s offer to step down
Three killed as car bursts into flames in Jbeil
Man killed in Tripoli shootout
Lebanese telecom spy suspect released on bail
Election law is top March 8 priority
Police in Lebanon thwart Roumieh prison escape attempt
Campaigning kicks off for Egypt referendum
March 14 rebuffs Mikati’s offer to step down
Lebanese Malls see brisk business as Christmas approaches
Syrian regime 'approaching collapse': NATO head
Spanish ex-air force officer trains Syria rebels
Russia says Syrian rebels might win; car bomb kills 16
Russia says Syrian rebels might win
Challenge of Syria awaits next Greek Orthodox patriarch  
Canada's FM, Addressing the Syrian Crisis
U.N. nuclear inspectors in Iran, no sign of Parchin visit
Egypt's opposition urges "no" vote in referendum

Assad fires Scuds to stop Al Qaeda arm seizing chemical arms at Al Safira
http://www.debka.com/article/22608/Assad-fires-Scuds-to-stop-Al-Qaeda-arm-seizing-chemical-arms-at-Al-Safira
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report December 13, 2012/By the blacklisting Tuesday, Dec. 11, of the Jabhat al-Nusra group fighting in Syrian rebel ranks as “a foreign terrorist organization” and affiliate of al Qaeda in Iraq, Washington faces four quandaries:
1. The 10,000 fighters of this al Qaeda affiliate are the best-trained and most professional component of the Syrian rebel front;.
2. Jabhat al-Nusra fields 3,000 fighters out of the mostly Free Syrian Army’s 14,000 rebels fighting in and around Aleppo. They also constitute the assault force’s spearhead.
3. The Islamists are at the sharp front edge of the rebel force battling for control of the Syrian army’s biggest chemical weapons store at Al Safira, near Aleppo. Thursday morning, Dec. 12, they were just a kilometer from the base’s northwestern perimeter fence and advancing fast. By week’s end, Jabhat al-Nusra jihadis may have smashed into the base and seized control of the chemical stocks and Scud D planes standing there armed with chemical warheads. The imminence of this peril forced Bashar Assad’s hand into sending Scud jets against rebel-held areas in an effort to stop their advance on the base.
4. This al Qaeda affiliate is also better armed and equipped than any other Syrian rebel force, thanks to the generous financial and logistical aid laid on by Persian Gulf sources, especially in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.
The difficulty here is that those three Gulf Arab stats are also American allies in the war against Assad and the most important contributors to the US-sponsored Friends of Syria, a forum which met in Marrakesh Wednesday and formally recognized the umbrella Syrian opposition coalition of exiled groups as the legitimate government of Syria. Reporters inside Syria reported that when the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters heard this news, they declared 700 of their number had died… laughing. But as the vicious civil war of nearly two years and more than 40,000 dead approached another dangerous peak, no one was laughing in Damascus or Washington.
debkafile’s military sources point to the next crisis looming ahead: If Assad fails to stop the al Qaeda fighters from reaching Al-Safira and its poison gas stores - and an al Qaeda affiliate succeeds for the first time in arming itself with chemical weapons - the United States will have to mount an air assault – not on Assad’s army but on the Syrian rebel forces fighting him, because if they do manage to seize control of the base, rebel fighters may decide to send the chemicals-tipped missiles against Assad regime centers in Damascus. The fall of al Safira would then transform the Syrian civil conflict into a chemical missile war.
Victims of 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks drop lawsuit
December 14, 2012/By Nate Raymond/Daily Star
NEW YORK: The estates of victims of the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut have dropped a lawsuit against Standard Chartered Plc that accused the bank of concealing Iranian transactions that could have satisfied a $2.67 billion judgment. The dismissal was disclosed in a court filing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan Wednesday. The plaintiffs, who include representatives of the estates of 241 U.S. servicemen killed in the attack, had obtained a $2.67 billion default judgment against Iran in 2007 and have sought to enforce it through various lawsuits. In the Standard Chartered case, the plaintiffs contended the British bank had interfered with collecting on the judgment. The case was filed in August as a scandal brewed over allegations that Standard Chartered was involved in concealing Iran transactions that New York State’s financial regulator said totaled $250 billion. The bank settled with that agency for $340 million. Earlier this week, the U.S. Justice Department and New York District Attorney’s office announced that Standard Chartered agreed to pay an additional $327 million to resolve allegations it violated U.S. sanctions against countries including Iran and Sudan. A pretrial hearing in the Beirut case had been scheduled for Friday. The lawsuit is being dismissed without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs can refile it at a later date.
Liviu Vogel, a lawyer for the bombing victims, declined to say why the lawsuit was dropped or if the plaintiffs would file new claims.
*Julie Gibson, a spokeswoman for Standard Chartered, said the case had not been settled.

US adds sanctions on Iran as IAEA nuke talks end
By REUTERS 12/14/2012/ Negotiations between UN nuclear watchdog, Tehran end with no sign inspectors will be given access to Parchin military complex; US imposes sanctions on 7 companies, 5 individuals supporting Iran's nuke program. DUBAI - Iran said progress was made in Thursday's talks in Tehran with senior UN nuclear inspectors but gave no details other than they would meet again in mid-January.
There was no immediate comment from the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about the one-day meeting over Iran's disputed nuclear program, and no sign its inspectors would gain access to the Parchin military complex as requested.Former IAF chief: Time is on Iran's sideEU reaches out to Iran for negotiationsThe agency believes Iran has conducted explosives tests with possible nuclear applications at Parchin, a sprawling facility southeast of Tehran, and has repeatedly asked for access.
The talks were the first between the UN agency and Iran since August and the outcome could give some indication whether Iran - which denies it wants to develop atom bombs - is any more willing to address international concerns over its nuclear work after US President Barack Obama's re-election last month.
In the latest sign of how Washington is ratcheting up the pressure on Iran, the United States imposed sanctions on Thursday on seven companies and five individuals that it said provided support to the Islamic state's nuclear program. The US Treasury Department said the action would bar those companies and individuals from doing business with US firms or citizens, and freeze any assets they have in the United States.
US ally Israel - believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal - has threatened military action if diplomacy and economic sanctions intended to halt Iran's uranium enrichment activities fail to resolve the long-standing dispute. After previous rounds of talks between the UN agency and Iran this year - which did not yield any breakthrough on a long-stalled IAEA investigation into suspected atom bomb research - the two sides often gave different versions of events. One Western diplomat in Vienna, commenting on the Iranian media reports, said on Thursday one of the IAEA's main goals in this week's talks had been to visit Parchin and this did not appear to have been achieved.
New Parchin layout?
Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh said progress had been made, official media reported, without giving any examples of concrete steps forward.
"Intensive negotiations were held ... There was good progress made. The two sides agreed to hold the next round of talks on January 16 in Tehran," IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.
The UN team was expected to return to Vienna on Friday. The IAEA wants an agreement that would enable its inspectors to visit Parchin and other sites that it suspects may be linked to what it has called the "possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program.
Iran says Parchin is a conventional military site and has dismissed allegations that it has tried to clean up the site before any visit.
Western diplomats say Iran has carried out extensive work at Parchin over the past year - including demolition of buildings and removal of soil - to cleanse it of any traces of illicit activity. But the IAEA said a visit would still be "useful".A U.S. think-tank said late on Wednesday that new satellite imagery showed "what appears to be the 'reconstruction' phase" of the site at Parchin that the IAEA wants to see, following "considerable alterations" there earlier in the year. "A new site layout is taking shape and the presence of dirt piles and a considerable number of earth-moving vehicles and cars suggest that construction is continuing at a steady pace," the Institute for Science and International Security said. The IAEA's meetings with Iran are separate from - but closely linked to - broader efforts by six world powers to resolve the decade-long nuclear dispute.
On Wednesday, senior European Union and Iranian diplomats discussed the timing of possible new talks between Iran and Britain, France, Germany, United States, Russia and China.
The powers want Iran to curb its uranium enrichment program - work which can have both military and civilian purposes - and cooperate fully with the IAEA. Iran wants the West to lift sanctions hurting its oil-dependent economy.

Does Hezbollah have chemical weapons?
December 14, 2012/By Nicholas Blanford/The Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Dec-14/198398-does-hezbollah-have-chemical-weapons.ashx#axzz2EyhR4e00
BEIRUT: The renewed speculation on the potential use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war has taken a twist toward Hezbollah with Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. warning that a “red line” will be crossed if the Lebanese resistance group receives such weapons from the regime of President Bashar Assad. Michael Oren said in a recent interview with Fox TV that he could not confirm that Hezbollah has acquired chemical weapons from the Assad regime, but added that it would be a “game changer.”“We have a very clear red line about these chemical weapons passing into the wrong hands,” he said. “Can you imagine if Hezbollah and its 70,000 rockets would get its hands on chemical weapons? That could kill thousands of people.”
This is not the first instance of accusations or speculation that Hezbollah may have received chemical weapons. As long ago as 2003, some of the more breathless Western media outlets were claiming that Hezbollah was a recipient of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction smuggled into Syria prior to the U.S.-led invasion in March that year. The U.S.-based World Tribune Internet newspaper claimed in August 2003 that Washington had detected a “stream of tractor-trailer trucks” moving from Iraq through Syria and into Lebanon two months before the invasion. In July 2004, a top Israeli military intelligence officer told the Israeli Knesset that Iran could give Hezbollah unconventional weaponry. In December 2004, Israel’s Maariv newspaper cited a classified intelligence report as saying that Hezbollah was working to reach unconventional military capabilities.
In 2008, Kuwait’s As-Siyassa newspaper – not the most reliable news provider on Hezbollah-related subjects, it must be said – reported that chemical weapons stored in a Hezbollah camp in the northern Bekaa had leaked and teams from the Syrian and Iranian militaries were called in to clean up the contaminated areas. As-Siyassa said that the chemicals had caused sickness among residents of Nabatieh, but left it unexplained how a leak in the northern Bekaa could affect people living in a south Lebanon town.
More recently, in September, Maj. Gen. Adnan Sillu, head of Syria’s WMD arsenal before he defected in June, told The Times of London that the Assad regime had “considered” in the past giving chemical weapons to Hezbollah for use against Israel. He said that fear of repercussions had prevented the transfer, but speculated that “if they have nothing to lose, why not share these weapons?”
Thus, the reporting to date remains spurious and unconvincing and based mainly on speculation. Furthermore, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, said in August that his party would never seek to acquire or use chemical weapons for “legitimate and humanitarian reasons.”
“We do not need chemical weapons or nuclear weapons. There are targets in Israel which if hit would lead to the same results,” he said, referring to industrial facilities in Israel which if attacked by rockets could spread poisonous chemicals. If one assumes for a moment that Hezbollah has acquired chemical weapons from Syria there are two possible reasons for doing so: either as a form of military deterrence vis-a-vis Israel or simply to store them on behalf of the Assad regime while Syria is engulfed in violence.
A WMD deterrence, such as rockets tipped with chemical-filled warheads, is only effective if your enemy has knowledge or strongly suspects that they are in your possession and that you would employ them if pushed.
Hezbollah would not have to explicitly confirm in public that it possesses WMD. But there would have to be detectable indications to simultaneously allow Hezbollah to claim plausible deniability while leaving Israel convinced that its Lebanese foe had acquired chemical weapons. However, nothing in Nasrallah’s comments nor any open source information suggests that Hezbollah has received chemical weapons to enhance its military posture.
If Israel genuinely believed Hezbollah had acquired chemical weapons, the news would have been leaked to the media by now, similar to Israel’s accusations in 2010 that Scud ballistic missiles had been transferred to the resistance. That leaves the second scenario – that the Assad regime has shipped some of its chemical weapons arsenal to Hezbollah’s safekeeping. The recent reports that chemical weapons are being moved around Syria suggest that the Assad regime is attempting to ensure that the stockpile remains under state control rather than fall into the hands of the armed opposition.
Opposition gains in the north of the country have reportedly placed rebel units on the edge of the Al-Safira base, one of several sites where chemical weapons are believed to be manufactured and stored.
Some reports have suggested that chemical weapons have been transported to Syria’s coastal mountains where the regime could redeploy in the event that Damascus is seized by the opposition. In such a case, chemical weapons could be used as a deterrence against attacks by rebel forces on the Alawite coastal stronghold or used as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
It is not entirely clear, therefore, why Hezbollah would be asked to look after some of the chemical arsenal nor whether it has the technical expertise and facilities to handle such hazardous material safely and undetected.
Little is known about the composition of Syria’s chemical warfare stockpile. Experts say it is considered one of the largest in the world and probably includes Sarin, and possibly VX, nerve agents and mustard gas blistering agent. Charles Blair, senior fellow for State and Non-State Threats at the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists, assesses that Syria has “thousands of tons” of chemical agents with an emphasis on the mustard-based variants rather than nerve agents like Sarin and VX.
Usually, chemical agents are stored either in bulk, which makes it harder to transport, or loaded into munitions which could be more vulnerable to leakage if poorly manufactured and incorrectly stored.
“Likely the Syrians store their chemical weapons both ways,” said Blair. “The former seems obvious and ... respected commentators on chemical warfare have stated that Syria possesses between 100 and 200 Scud missiles carrying warheads loaded with Sarin nerve agent.” Either way, chemical agents should be maintained in conditions that exclude oxygen and moisture to enhance safety and the lifespan of the agent.
It is not inconceivable that Hezbollah would agree to stockpile some of Syria’s chemical arsenal if asked. But assuming responsibility for such a consignment would be a high-risk undertaking for Hezbollah, bringing plenty of headaches and few benefits.

International Committee of the Red Cross helps repatriate Lebanese family from Israel
December 14, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A family returned from Israel to Lebanon Thursday, in a transfer facilitated by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The mother, father and three children crossed the border at the Naqoura crossing, according to a statement from the ICRC. Thousands of Lebanese fled across the border in 2000 when the Israeli Army withdrew from Lebanon. Many were members, families or neighbors of the South Lebanon Army, a militia allied with Israel that operated in south Lebanon during the Civil War. Since then, some 2,000 have returned to Lebanon. The head of the ICRC’s delegation to Lebanon, Jurg Montani, said in the statement that the ICRC’s role in the repatriation “is strictly for humanitarian purposes, and it’s a part of our continuous work to retrieve and keep/restore contact between prisoners or between separated family members, especially when armed conflict is the reason behind this separation or imprisonment.” He added that the ICRC “works as a neutral mediator upon the request of the families and Lebanese and Israeli authorities, and with full approval of all parties involved.”

March 14 rebuffs Mikati’s offer to step down
December 14, 2012/ By Hussein Dakroub/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Prime Minister Najib Mikati offered Thursday to resign if the rival factions agreed at the National Dialogue table on a new election law, but the opposition March 14 coalition quickly dismissed the offer, saying it would further deepen the political crisis. “There is nothing new at all in Mikati’s offer, which will further complicate the crisis,” former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, head of the parliamentary Future bloc, told The Daily Star Thursday night. “In practice, Mikati is setting terms conditions and presenting Hezbollah’s ideas for Dialogue,” he said. Siniora reiterated the March 14 coalition’s demand for the government’s resignation before attending any new National Dialogue session. His brushoff came shortly after Mikati made his conditional offer to step down.
“I support the convening of the Dialogue table with the participation of all the concerned parties in order to agree on a parliamentary election law after which the government will resign,” Mikati said on Twitter.
“When we agree on an election law, the government will resign and a new Cabinet, whose task it will be to supervise the parliamentary elections, will be formed,” he said.
He stressed that members of the new Cabinet should not run in the parliamentary elections scheduled to be held in early June next year.
Mikati has repeatedly declared that he would run in next year’s polls to retain his parliamentary seat in his hometown of Tripoli. With this stance, he might be signaling his readiness to bow out of the new Cabinet.
Mikati said that the elections, deemed crucial by the rival political factions because the vote outcome would determine who controls the majority in the next Parliament, should be held on time.“Whoever the prime minister is during the election period, he must work to ensure the parliamentary elections are held on time because this is a constitutional deadline,” he said.
Despite his readiness to step down, Mikati vowed not to let the country slide into a power vacuum. “Yes, I’m for the formation of a new Cabinet. But I will not let the country fall into a vacuum. This is out of the question,” he said. The March 14 coalition has called for the government’s resignation and the formation of “a neutral salvation Cabinet” before attending any dialogue session with March 8 parties. It has also boycotted the government and all Cabinet-related meetings in Parliament as part of its tactics to force a government resignation.
In his remarks on Twitter, Mikati said his government was in office to ensure stability amid security threats and rising tensions stoked by the reverberations of the 21-month-old conflict in Syria. “Had the government not been there, we would have witnessed chaos and it would have been difficult to deal with security incidents in Tripoli, Sidon and [Beirut’s] southern suburbs,” he said, referring to last week’s fighting between supporters and opponents of Syrian President Bashar Assad in Tripoli that left 17 people dead and 76 wounded. The Lebanese Army deployed in Tripoli Monday to restore law and order.
Also, three people were killed in the southern city of Sidon last month in clashes between supporters of Hezbollah and those of Salafist preacher Sheikh Ahmad Assir.
The Army also intervened and restored calm in the city where Assir, a vocal opponent of Hezbollah, had staged sit-ins and demonstrations to protest against the party’s weapons.In September, the Lebanese Army launched a massive manhunt in Beirut’s southern suburbs to secure the release of a Turkish businessman and a number of Syrians kidnapped by members of the Meqdad clan.
The Army later arrested a number of Meqdad family members who were accused by a military judge of creating an armed organization with the aim of carrying out kidnappings and acts of terror. Mikati said that the latest round of clashes in Tripoli had been in large part “a reflection of what is happening in Syria, in addition to long-simmering differences that still exist.”
“We are doing what we can to deal with the [security] incidents, through either political contacts or security measures by the Army,” he said. Earlier Thursday, Mikati stressed that dialogue was the only way to reach a solution to the political crisis. “We have no choice other than dialogue. Without it, a clash will happen ... It is not possible to eliminate one of the Lebanese parties,” the prime minister said in a speech at a ceremony at the Grand Serail that saw the launch of a forestation project to plant 40 million trees.
“Dialogue, rather than arms, boycotts, [protest] tents, the street or political rhetoric, is the only way for understanding,” Mikati added. He urged the opposition to be constructive, rationalize its political practice and accept dialogue. “Taking dialogue from the street to the table can save the Lebanese from adventurism and political inexperience,” Mikati said.
Meanwhile, March 14 lawmakers failed during a meeting with Speaker Nabih Berri to make progress toward convening a parliamentary subcommittee tasked with debating a new electoral law for the 2013 polls.
“The aim of today’s [Thursday’s] meeting with Speaker Berri was to revive the role of the parliamentary subcommittee on a new election law,” Batroun MP Antoine Zahra told The Daily Star. “We delved into procedural details, like the nature of the subcommittee’s work, and whether it will meet in one place or just visit MPs to sound out their views [on a new electoral law],” he said. Zahra, a Lebanese Forces official, acknowledged that the rift over the subcommittee’s meeting venue has yet to be solved. “We are still studying this issue with Speaker Berri,” he said.
Zahra was one of four March 14 MPs who met Berri at his residence in Ain al-Tineh to follow up on last week’s talks on the possibility of convening the subcommittee despite the March 14 coalition’s boycott of the government and all Cabinet-related meetings in Parliament.
The other three March 14 lawmakers were MP Marwan Hamade, Future bloc MP Samir Jisr and Kataeb MP Elie Marouni.
Formed in early October, the subcommittee, which includes lawmakers from both the March 8 and March 14 parties, was tasked with studying the type of the electoral system and the electoral districting in the absence of Cabinet members or representatives. These two contentious issues are holding up an agreement between the rival factions on new legislation on whose basis the 2013 elections would be held.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Hamade said further talks were needed to discuss details relating to the subcommittee’s work.
“Convening and reviving this subcommittee require looking into one or two details,” Hamade said. Without giving details on the sticking issues, he said March 14 MPs were consulting on these issues. Describing the meeting with Berri as “deep, serious and frank,” Hamade said the speaker still needed to look into a couple of details before the subcommittee could resume its meetings. Hamade said the meeting with Berri had been part of renewed contacts to prepare a modern election that could satisfy the Lebanese. “The contacts will continue,” he added. Earlier this week, some 17 March 14 lawmakers said they were ready to resume talks with their March 8 rivals on a new law in the absence of Cabinet representatives, while reiterating their boycott of the government and their call for the formation of a new government to supervise the 2013 elections.

Three killed as car bursts into flames in Jbeil
December 13, 2012 /The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Three people were killed early Thursday when their car flipped over on Jbeil-Tripoli highway, north of Beirut, and burst into flames. Police said the bodies of the passengers in the Mercedes-Benz were so badly burnt they could not be identified. The bodies were taken to a local hospital. In a separate road accident in Zahle, east Lebanon, a truck rammed into a pick-up truck, killing 11-year-old Hamzeh al-Hasan who was sitting beside his father.The truck driver, identified as Tony Btighrini, was apprehended.

Man killed in Tripoli shootout
December 13, 2012/The Daily Star
TRIPOLI, Lebanon: A man was killed in an overnight shootout over a personal dispute in Tripoli, north Lebanon, security sources said Thursday. The sources said Nasser al-Jamous shot Abdallah Abboushi during a scuffle in Minyeh near Tripoli after midnight, but the reason for the fight was not clear. Tripoli was the scene of fierce fighting last week that broke out following news that the Syrian army killed several Lebanese fighters in a border ambush as they headed to Syria to fight alongside rebels struggling to topple President Bashar Assad. The latest bout of violence in Tripoli left at least 17 people killed and 76 wounded.

Lebanese telecom spy suspect released on bail
December 13, 2012/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A Lebanese telecommunication sector employee who was arrested in July 2010 over suspected involvement in an alleged network of Israeli spies was released Thursday on bail, judicial sources told The Daily Star.
Charbel Azzi, who worked as a technical engineer for Alfa, one of Lebanon's two cell service providers, was released on a bail of LL10million, the sources said.
The suspect, who is still on trial, is charged with entering enemy territory, collaborating with Israel and providing it with information.
Azzi was the third person to be arrested in a probe into a suspected network of Israeli spies employed in the country's telecom sector.

Spanish ex-air force officer trains Syria rebels
December 13, 2012/By Antonio Pampliega
BAB AL-HAWA, Syria: "I am not a mercenary," said a Spanish former air force officer who left family and a spiralling economic crisis behind at home to travel to Syria and train insurgents fighting troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad. "I could see on television what was happening in Syria... I've never been able to handle watching children get killed without reacting," said Luis Munar, who entered Syria via the Bab al-Hawa border crossing on the Turkish frontier. Although Munar was not paid on his first trip to Syria, an international network of expatriate dissidents from the strife-torn country agreed to finance his second mission there.
The network put him in touch with the Al-Faruq Brigade, which groups some 12,000 fighters countrywide, as well as with the mainstream rebel Free Syrian Army's military councils.
"I can proudly say that that all those who have attended my classes are still alive," Munar told AFP. "Only two fighters were slightly wounded in battle against a special forces unit" in November at Base 46, a sprawling military compound in northern Syria.
On his first trip, Munar said he trained young rebels in hand-to-hand combat and to use AK-47 assault rifles, adding that "many of them had never held a gun in their life."
Since then, the nature of the Syrian conflict has since changed. The rebels have become bolder and regularly report shooting down army helicopter gunships and warplanes.
"This time I've been asked to train fighters in anti-tank and anti-aircraft warfare," said Munar.
"We focus our anti-aircraft training on the tools the rebels have at their disposal, such as Dushka missiles and heavy machineguns mounted on pick-up trucks."
Munar has also instructed rebels in urban warfare tactics, and his students learn new tricks in simulated combat lessons.
"We prepare them for all possible scenarios and get them to rehearse repeatedly, so when they're actually fighting they respond automatically," he said.
"I also teach them how to turn military disadvantages round into their favour," he said, adding that his students also learn how to make their own weapons.
Munar described the fighters he has trained as "youths with broken dreams," many of them as young as 15.
"Many have not even finished school, while most were working at jobs just to help their families survive," he said.
"Very few of them have university degrees, but they all have one thing in common: they're very brave, and now they are war veterans.
"I have felt their pain... They are young, vulnerable people ravaged" by a bloody war that a rights watchdog estimates has killed more than 42,000 people since mid-March 2011.
In conversations with their instructor, rebel trainees have expressed anger against the world, "especially the United States and Europe... They feel alone and abandoned."
In the first months of the anti-Assad uprising, calls were repeatedly made by Syrian dissidents for international intervention to stop the army's brutal repression.
"'Why doesn't anybody help? Why did Libya get help, and not us?' they ask me," said Munar. "Most of the time, I don't know what to say."
While the number of foreign volunteers travelling to Syria from Arab or Muslim countries to join the war against Assad has increased, the rebels Munar has trained are all Sunni Muslim locals, he said.
"I have lived with them, slept, suffered and fought alongside them," said Munar, who unashamedly admitted he has taken part in battles against the Syrian army.
"I am proud to say I have taken part in acts of war," he said.
Munar's month-long stints in Syria have taken him to several rebel-held towns in the northwestern province of Idlib, as well as to key hub Aleppo in the north.
The rebels, he said, lack sophisticated weaponry. "If they had as many weapons as they say they do, the war would have been over already," he added.
"Their weapons may be obsolete, but they have courage and faith," Munar said.
"I hope to see them again soon, but I'd prefer our next meeting to be without Kalashnikovs in our hands."
For Obama, it’s not too late on Syria December 13, 2012 12:47 AM By Michael Young The Daily Star
President Barack Obama has promised to recognize the Syrian opposition. Not a moment too soon, after 21 months of carnage in Syria and American dallying while the killing took place. Some insist that recognition is too little, too late. The opposition owes nothing to outsiders, having faced butchery without outside assistance.
There was a time when it wouldn’t have taken nearly two years for an American president to side with an initially unarmed population rising up against a tyrant, especially one hostile to the United States and responsible for the death of Americans. Other leaders than Obama might have seen the obvious advantages in bringing down a Syrian regime that has been instrumental in sustaining the influence of America’s prime regional rival, Iran, in the Levant. A less diffident administration would have played a more active role in organizing the Syrian opposition, just as the Iranians and Russians have been at the heart of efforts to keep Syrian President Bashar Assad afloat.
The thing is that Obama tends to focus on the problem before venturing to find solutions to it. The president has little strategic foresight. His administration first thought that the revolt against Assad might be used to bring his regime back to the negotiating table with Israel. Then it claimed to want to avoid exacerbating the fighting in Syria. It later came to see the uprising through a faulty prism from the past, namely Afghanistan, and worried that foreign jihadists would transform the country into a rallying point for their agendas.
How foolish that was. As if the prolonged void in Syria would not attract jihadists anyway; as if standing and watching the slaughter and failing to do anything about it would not encourage the jihadists to profit from American indifference and turn this against the Americans. Had Washington made an effort to openly bolster the fractured opposition forces and impose unity on them, they would have been far better able to curb the extremists while handing a decisive advantage to the vast majority of Syrians who have no yearning whatsoever to see Muslim emirates in their midst.
The Obama administration has designated Jabhat al-Nusra, which is allegedly close to Al-Qaeda, as a foreign terrorist organization. That is understandable, but once again it confuses the American message with a Syrian people that now has a minute reservoir of consideration for the U.S. government. To them it seems that whenever Obama gives something to Syria, he also takes something away. Jabhat al-Nusra may worry those in Washington, as it does many in Syria. But it has also been successful in combating the ferocity of the Syrian regime, which the U.S. has done nothing to neutralize in practical terms.
Obama’s continued ambiguity over Syria is disconcerting. He favors a negotiated settlement, but feels that Assad must leave office as a precondition for this. The Syrian opposition agrees with the second objective, but does not trust the implications of the first. Negotiations, by their very definition, invite compromise, and today Assad’s foes have no incentive to compromise with members of his regime responsible for the abominable crimes of the past year. But Obama is correct in one regard. A negotiated settlement is far more preferable than war until the bitter end, which would alarm Syria’s minorities and possibly carry Syria into a prolonged and debilitating vacuum. Whether the opposition likes it or not, it has no alternative but to find common ground with the Alawites to pave the way for a consensus in postwar Syria. This will involve swallowing a bitter pill in some cases, though the worst criminals need not escape punishment. Communal reconciliation alone can save Syria from the worst consequences of its ongoing civil war.
The problem is that the U.S. has not pushed hard enough for a desirable endgame in Syria. It has not done much to prevent certain Arab countries from arming groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, nor has it outlined what it views as an ideal political solution, around which it can build international concord. In effect, Obama has not played the role of superpower, even as the U.S. has failed to harmonize the contradictory interests of its regional allies. No wonder the Syrians are angry. They see no clear plan from Obama, and the Americans today enjoy too little credibility among Syrians for the administration to impose on them conditions that they find unpleasant.
And yet the U.S. must rebuild its relationship with Syrians. This will be important for many reasons: to isolate the jihadists; to have a say in likely future talks between a post-Assad Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights; and to block Iran out of the country, and in that way contain it regionally. With some attention, this is achievable.
Many years ago, Patrick Seale wrote an excellent book titled “The Struggle for Syria,” in which he outlined how the country had become a valued prize in the regional rivalry between Iraq and Egypt. Things have changed since that time, but not Syria’s centrality in the Middle East. If Barack Obama plans to have a policy toward the region, then he must define a cohesive policy toward Syria. The president is not there yet. Such a lack of enthusiasm is incomprehensible at a time of great opportunity in the Arab world.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling

Analyzing Egypt
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi/The American Spectator
December 13, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3401/analyzing-egypt
With the upcoming referendum to begin on Saturday in Egypt (already taking place in embassies abroad) for the draft constitution that is primarily the work of Islamists from both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist factions, it is worth bearing the following issues in mind:
The Military: For all intents and purposes, the Egyptian military is interested in keeping its distance from politics, safeguarding its interests in the country's economy and maintaining a degree of autonomy from civilian government control. The recent call for dialogue between President Mohammed Morsi and the opposition by the head of Egypt's armed forces -- Abdul Fatah al-Sissi -- which was welcomed by opposition leader Amr Moussa but has led to nothing practical yet, amounts to no more than an urge for calm in the face of rival rallies for and against the upcoming referendum. It does not signal a renewed desire for Egyptian military involvement in politics.
While the military, under former Supreme Council (SCAF) head Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, did wish to contain the Brotherhood, the fact is that the balance of power decisively shifted with Morsi's election and his dismissal of Tantawi in August, with Sissi being promoted in Tantawi's place.
It is a mistake to see the military as a bastion of Egyptian secularism at this point. What matters for the military now is that Morsi is not going to interfere with its economic holdings in industry and agriculture; further, as Eric Trager and Robert Satloff note, the draft constitution placates the military with a number of clauses that grant the military oversight over its budget, war policy, the appointment of the Defense Minister, and its own independent judiciary. Islamist Vigilantes: Besides the desire to keep aloof of politics, the military is also aware -- along with the police -- of the implications of being associated with the deaths or injuries of rival protesters in the current wave of rallies and counter-rallies. In the context of this security-force vacuum, Islamist vigilantes are simply filling the gap, with some 140 people being "arrested" by them in clashes last week. Indeed, the Der Spiegel article's summary point that "eyewitness reports suggest that the police tolerated the attacks" makes perfect sense in light of this development.
Various non-Islamist political figures have also accused street thugs from the Muslim Brotherhood in Alexandria and Cairo. In the case of Alexandria, one should note the belligerent Salafist rhetoric, which may point to Salafist responsibility in particular for violent attacks on political opponents. This is not to say that there has been no violence from the opposition, but the opposition is not setting up its own vigilantes.
The Rescinding of the November 22 Decree: Many commentators have interpreted Morsi's rescinding of the November 22 constitutional decree that granted him de facto dictatorial powers as a sign of genuine compromise owing to the pressure of opposition protests and violent unrest. Morsi's move is no such thing.
The decree was designed in the first place to hasten the process of finishing the draft constitution and putting it to referendum, sidelining the judiciary and the non-Islamist opposition in the process, with all actions in the interim between the passing and rescinding of the decree remaining beyond judicial review, together with the new prosecutor general appointed by Morsi keeping his position.
The rescinding of the decree comes in such a way that there is nothing to stop the referendum from going ahead on Saturday -- something that is also indicated by an announcement on the part of the State Council's Administrative Court that it cannot overrule Morsi's decision and insistence on holding the referendum this Saturday because doing so would infringe on the president's sovereignty.
The Draft Constitution: The best overview of its Islamist nature is given by this Associated Press report, which notes that "the charter not only makes Muslim clerics the arbiters for many civil rights, it also could give a constitutional basis for citizens to set up Saudi-style 'religious police' to monitor morals and enforce segregation of the sexes, imposition of Islamic dress codes and even harsh punishments for adultery and theft -- regardless of what laws on the books say."
Indeed, one Salafist member of the Constituent Assembly, Yasser Borhami, boasted of how the secularists and Christians who had quit the panel over the drafting of the constitution had been persuaded to "allow a number of crucial clauses that solidified Shariah, either because of bargaining or because they didn't realize the articles' significance."
Morsi and Economics: Writing in the Atlantic, Soner Cagaptay aims to portray a contrast between Turkey and emerging Islamist-led governments in the Arab world. In Turkey, Soner claims, "Islamization is taking place within the constraints of pre-existing and institutionalized Westernization," and one supposed aspect of this phenomenon is "Turkey's embrace of liberal economics."
On the contrary, Soner's view is off-base. Islamist ideology outside a secular and Westernized framework and embracing neo-liberal economic policies are by no means mutually exclusive. Morsi's proposed tax hikes, which he postponed at the start of this week, as part of a plan to secure an IMF loan fit in very well to a neo-liberal approach in the efforts to rescue Egypt from its economic crisis.
While one can interpret the postponement of the increases in taxation as a sign of government indecision on how to deal with the economic crisis, it is more likely that Morsi will simply reinstate the tax hikes soon after the constitutional referendum is approved, since he has realized that introducing them, which he knows will be unpopular, at this moment would give a means for the opposition to attract significant further support.
Indeed, it is clear that Morsi's economic plans, which have included a decree (passed while the November 22 constitutional decree was in force, hence it is beyond legal challenge now) to increase government control over trade unions, are of grave concern to independent labor unions, many of which are concentrated in the industrial city of Mahalla.
Mahalla was the site of the protests that sparked the 2008 general strike in Egypt and has now seen workers throw out the head of the local city council and declare autonomy from the "Ikhwani state," under the guise of the "Independent Republic of Greater Mahalla" (hat-tip: Ben Jefferies in Cairo for first drawing this development to my attention).
Of course, opposition in Mahalla to Morsi's 22 November decree and the Brotherhood's Islamist ideology played a role in this autonomy declaration too, but in this context, one should also note the clear tensions between Tunisia's labor unions and the Islamist-led government that has plans for a neo-liberal economic approach. In Tunisia, Islamist vigilantes have attacked the headquarters of the country's main trade union: the UGTT.
Voting in the Constitutional Referendum and the Future: To conclude, while both the Islamist factions and their rivals have rallied significant numbers of people in support of and in opposition to the draft respectively, it should not be inferred that the vote will be split 50-50 in the referendum on Saturday. Rather, it is more likely that the referendum will see a majority vote in favor of the constitution.
The fact that the voting in the presidential race was almost split 50-50 does not indicate that the country is equally divided between Islamists and non-Islamists. In the circumstances immediately leading up to the run-off between Morsi and Ahmed Shafik, it is clear that many Islamists would have believed the election would ultimately be rigged in the latter's favor, and so would not have turned up to vote.
Despite the call by the main opposition organizations to vote "No" in the referendum (in turn, despite the announcement by the Judges Club that most judges will boycott the referendum, advisers to Morsi claim they have enough judicial officials to oversee the voting), it is clear that this decision has finally come in the circumstances of deep division and indecision within opposition forces as to whether to boycott the referendum or take part in the voting.
The notion of boycotting -- now declared by the National Salvation Front to be conditional -- illustrates the severe doubts within the opposition as to whether the draft constitution can be turned down.
Since the referendum will likely approve the constitution, there should be new parliamentary elections within two months, which will probably be dominated by Islamist factions as well. Even so, instability with street clashes, rival rallies, and outbreaks of violence will remain a staple of Egypt's political landscape.
Further, this unrest will not be limited to discontent with Islamist majoritarianism, but will also entail issues such as the tax hikes and Egypt's potential shift to net importer of natural gas. The superior position of the Islamist factions is unlikely to be overthrown in the near future, but one should not discount a descent into anarchy over the course of ten years or so.
**Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Canada's FM, Addressing the Syrian Crisis
December 12, 2012 - Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and the Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of International Cooperation, today issued the following statement:
“Canada is doing more to deal with the ongoing crisis in Syria and help prepare the country for ‘day one’ of the post-Assad era.
“Canada is providing $5 million in material support to Jordan to assist in handling the large influx of Syrian refugees. This is in addition to the $6.5 million Canada committed this summer for assistance to Jordan. [Download Video Quote 1]
“Canada, through CIDA, is committing an additional $10 million in humanitarian assistance to address the needs of those affected by the crisis in Syria and those fleeing to neighbouring countries. This brings our total humanitarian assistance for Syria to $22 million. [Download Video Quote 2] We call on all parties to allow free access to those providing humanitarian assistance to vulnerable areas.
“We remain deeply concerned about the potential loss of control over chemical weapons stockpiles. We will work with the United States to provide the Jordanian Armed Forces with $1.5 million worth of personal protective equipment to guard them against a potential chemical weapons or biological incident arising from Syria. [Download Video Quote 3]
“Today I urged the new opposition coalition to continue to reach out to all sectors of the Syrian opposition, especially those members of the opposition within Syria itself, and to all of Syria’s diverse communities. All Syrians will have a role to play in any successful post-Assad political transition.
“Canada continues to call for an immediate end to the violence in Syria and for Assad to step down so that a Syrian-led political transition can begin.” [Download Video Quote 4]
Baird made these announcements during his address to today’s Friends of the Syrian People conference in Marrakesh, Morocco.

PETITION: The Million Signatures Petition for Lebanon
December 10 · Started by El Feel · Invite Friends
To: The People of Lebanon
Unacceptable! This outcry summarizes what has become our country-Lebanon. Although the majority of The People of Lebanon (residing in Lebanon or living abroad) is dreaming of living or relating to a NORMAL country where democracy, freedom, rule of law, human rights,...
SIGN THE PETITION
ACTION PLAN subject of this PETITION
1. Take immediate legal action against Hezbollah, its leadership and whoever has been and is still covering them, for serious breaches of the constitution and for criminal activities: (a) usurping 'resistance' as a concept and using it to hold and use illegal arms (b) taking over unconstitutionally the decision of engaging thecountry in a war (c) protecting indicted suspects and fugitives (d) organized crime and illicit funding and arming.
2. Challenge at the Constitutional and State courts all previous and present governments' endorsements of the exclusive right to hold arms granted to a fraction of the Lebanese people under the false concept of "Resistance"; and demand retroactive annulment of such decisions, endorsements and ministerial declarations on the grounds of severely breaching the constitution.
3. Take immediate legal actions against all armed groups who are harming and threatening the economy, investments, jobs and image of our country – Lebanon.
4. Initiate immediate peaceful "resistance" by boycotting Hezbollah and its proxies at all levels, until Hezbollah fully complies with law and order.
5. Plan and strive to implement security measures to deter and preempt terrorism in coordination with LAF and ISF and in full compliance with the prevailing laws.
6. Enforce all UNSCRs and international treaties, agreements and covenants.
7. Call for support from the President of the Republic in his capacity as custodian of the constitution.
8. Immediate lobbying for international and UN protection against Hezbollah and its proxies.
9. Immediate expulsion of Syrian and Iranian ambassadors, on grounds of Samaha and Ayoub cases respectively.
10. Lobby for prompt planning and commissioning of secured alternative ports for air and sea travel.
11. Prepare a contingency strategy to defend against any kind of further hostilities that can be potentially initiated by Hezbollah or any other illegally armed organization

The Brotherhood's maneuvers
By Osman Mirghani/Asharq Al-Awsat's Senior Editor-at-Large.
The insistence to go ahead with the constitutional referendum in Egypt, despite the fundamental objections and huge demonstrations, is certainly adding more fuel to the fire of discord. This is happening at a time when the country is in dire need of stability in order to overcome the serious dangers threatening it. In such circumstances, Egypt requires genuine calming steps rather than maneuvers to carry out partisan projects or plots. The problem is that all the steps and decrees taken since the initial constitutional declaration on the 21st November 2012, which sparked the gravest crisis Egypt has faced since the outbreak of the revolution, suggest that the Brotherhood and their allies from other Islamist groups are only interested in passing the draft constitution regardless of the subsequent harm and risks involved, in light of the widespread opposition to the steps taken so far. It seems as if they are only interested in partisan gains, rather than the entire country with all its components and different social categories.
Many hoped that the new constitutional declaration issued by President Mursi last Saturday would serve as a real step towards defusing the crisis, rather than igniting it. However, a reading of its contents caused these hopes to be dashed, for the constitutional declaration failed to bring in anything new and seemed like another manuever to circumvent the protests, distract the opposition and buy more time until the referendum becomes a reality next Saturday. Although the new constitutional declaration's very first article stipulates the retraction of the previous decree, issued on November 21st, practically speaking it changes very little because it has preserved the subsequent impact. What does it mean when a declaration is cancelled and yet its subsequent impact remains valid?
Furthermore, Article IV of the new decree renders all constitutional declarations, including the most recent one, immune from any attempt to cancel them and makes them incontestable before any judicial authority. Likewise it stipulates that all previous claims lodged against these decrees must be dismissed. This article, with slight amendments, is basically quoting Article II of the previous constitutional declaration, and it has produced the same results.
Mursi and the Brotherhood are trying to convince the people that they have offered considerable concessions to the protestors by cancelling the initial constitutional declaration. However, the truth of the matter is that they are only using this as a cover; for they have formally cancelled the degree yet maintained its content. This was clearly expressed by Prime Minister Hisham Qandil, even before the new declaration was issued, when he told the press last Saturday that those who have met with Mursi have agreed to form a committee to amend the constitutional declaration but in a manner that maintains its content. So we are talking about an amendment, not a cancellation, of the previous constitutional declaration. The Brotherhood do not want to offer concessions to end the crisis, rather they are maneuvering to put their project into action by any means possible regardless of the price. They acted likewise when they used the previous constitutional declaration to grant immunity to the constituent assembly, in an attempt to outdo the Supreme Constitutional Court. Now the Brotherhood are using the new decree to grant immunity to the forthcoming referendum, in the face of opposition and protests, in a bid to impose it as a reality.
The widespread rhetoric that the referendum date cannot be changed is hard to believe. Likewise, it is worth pointing out that when Mursi issued his first constitutional declaration on 21st November, granting himself and his decrees immunity beyond his powers, he seemed to ignore the constitutional oath he swore to maintain and respect.
The Brotherhood shouldn't ignite a serious crisis in order to rapidly pass a constitution regardless of the opposition on the street. Yet they have persisted in imposing it, and now they are circumventing and maneuvering to have it approved by a referendum. They seem indifferent to the crisis that threatens the country and the tense climate in which no free referendum could be held. The Brotherhood are also resorting to a policy of intimidation and the use of force, as was made apparent by the military parades staged by the group and other allied Islamist groups following their assault on protestors staging a demonstration in front of the presidential palace. Finally, the Brotherhood are also proceeding with their campaign against the judiciary and are besieging the Supreme Constitutional Court, whilst simultaneously escalating their war on the media in an attempt to control it. They are seeking to “purify” the media of those who oppose them, and thus they are targeting the Egyptian Media Production City.
To justify all that they are doing, Mohammed Badie, the Brotherhood's General Guide, and his deputy Khairat el-Shatar came out to promote the theory of a foreign conspiracy, and to tell the people that there are those attempting to rise up against legitimacy and seize power. El-Shater even went beyond this and said that the Brotherhood will not allow the revolution to be seized again, accusing Mursi's opponents of seeking to create chaos although they do not exceed 30,000 demonstrators! This rhetoric is fuelling emotions and adding to the tension on the street. In the same manner it is prolonging the crisis, particularly in view of the Brotherhood’s insistence to pass the constitution regardless of consequences in the current climate.
The state constitution is not a political party document, nor is it an interpretation of a certain group's views at the expense of other components of society. Rather, a constitution is the structure of governance as well as its mechanisms, and it is the guarantor of rights and freedoms and the umbrella under which all social components operate. In order for this to happen, priority must be given to the concept of citizenship with the constitution functioning as a unifying element, rather than a cause for separation. Yet the Brotherhood and their allies from other Islamic groups have failed to show that they are dealing with the constitution in this manner. If they were doing so then they would have given priority to the country's interests over those of their own group, and would have agreed to postpone the referendum.
These disagreements are tearing Egypt apart, along with the insistence that the referendum must be conducted on time and the failure to heed the strong objections being expressed by sizeable categories of the Egyptian people. If this continues the situation will become even more complicated and Egypt will be pushed towards further confrontations and an eventual abyss.

The Egyptian opposition: A smart move
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The Egyptian opposition agreeing to participate in the constitutional referendum, in accordance with five conditions put forward by the National Salvation Front, is a smart move and a politically wise act, rather than a sign of retreat or defeat. It is true that the battle in Egypt is a battle to preserve the state, but the battle is unfortunately being conducted through legal loopholes and religious and media deception, and in this climate rationalism is important. The Egyptian opposition’s confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood, in the latter’s attempt to hijack Egypt as a whole, will not be a single battle. Instead it will be multiple rounds, from the constitution to the media, and even the economy, education and of course the political system as a whole. The Brotherhood have succeeded in misleading Egyptian public opinion in crucial moments, just as they succeeded in fooling the West and many in our region about their democratic intentions, the transfer of power and so on. The conditions accompanying the Egyptian opposition’s decision to participate in the referendum include full judicial supervision – a matter that has not yet been resolved by the judges, and for the referendum to be held on one day only and not in two phases as the Brotherhood proposed, which would disperse the electorate and make it easier to rig the vote. This is a smart move and it means that the opposition is playing politics correctly, responding to the Brotherhood’s tricks in the same manner.
The Egyptian opposition must realize that as long as they are able to mobilize millions of Egyptians to reject President Mursi’s constitutional declaration, which granted him full powers, and his attempt to pass the Brotherhood’s constitution, or the “midnight” constitution as it has been described in Egyptian newspapers, then they are also able to mobilize crowds to vote "no" in the constitutional referendum and preserve the state. This is the opposition’s battle now, and it is the most effective way to curb the Brotherhood’s greed. A boycott did not work for Iraq’s Sunnis after the fall of Saddam Hussein, nor did it work for Egyptian political forces the day they were deceived by the Brotherhood’s tricks and pushed into a clash with the military council after the fall of Mubarak. Those forces were ultimately distracted in futile battles and on that day we wrote warning Egypt’s liberals not to be like the Sunnis of Iraq.
From here the decision to participate, and to mobilize the ranks to vote no against the “midnight” constitution is a smart and rational move. It is proper political conduct on the part of the Egyptian opposition, and in doing so it takes away a number of important cards from the Brotherhood, most importantly its deception of the street and the way in which it has fooled the West into thinking that the Brotherhood believes in institutional democratic work. Likewise this step proves that the Egyptian opposition is not only a street opposition, but it also has weight at the ballot box and knows how to play politics rather than misleading tricks. It is true that the task is a difficult one, but it has long been said that nations are not built on hopes, slogans or through the pulpits, rather they are built on long, hard work that requires mobilizing the ranks and winning over others. The most important thing is to deprive the competition of their deceptive tricks, especially if the competition, in this case the Muslim Brotherhood, is playing the religion card, exploiting legal loopholes and inciting the emotions of the masses.
So now the hard work begins for Egypt, or at least a third of its electorate, to vote "no" on the “midnight” constitution.