LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 04/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Narrow Door
Luke 13/22-30: "Jesus went through towns and villages, teaching the people and making his way toward Jerusalem. Someone asked him,  Sir, will just a few people be saved? Jesus answered them, Do your best to go in through the narrow door; because many people will surely try to go in but will not be able. The master of the house will get up and close the door; then when you stand outside and begin to knock on the door and say, Open the door for us, sir! he will answer you, I don't know where you come from! Then you will answer, We ate and drank with you; you taught in our town! But he will say again, I don't know where you come from. Get away from me, all you wicked people! How you will cry and gnash your teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, while you are thrown out! People will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down at the feast in the Kingdom of God. Then those who are now last will be first, and those who are now first will be last.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Israel will not pull out of the next Middle East war until Hizbollah is annihilated/By Con Coughlin/February 03/12.
Iran: Forlorn quest for a purgatory/By Amir Taheri/February 03/12.
Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are impossible/By Bilal Hassan/February 03/12
Our shadow president/By: Michael Young/February 03/12.

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 03/12.
Panetta lets stand report that Israel may attack Iran by June
Barak: If Iran sanctions don't work, military action must be considered
Israel: Iran's nuclear arms program is complete, its missiles can reach US
Shin Bet chief: Iran trying to hit Israeli targets in response to attacks on nuclear scientists
'Certain countries' could take Iran nuclear matter into their own hands, U.K. official says
Report: Iran launches new satellite into orbit
Iran Supreme Leader: U.S., Israel will suffer for threats on nuclear program
Egypt protesters besiege Cairo ministry
UN members mull new draft resolution on Syria
Millions' urged to mark massacre in Syria's Hama
Iran warns of retaliation over oil sanctions
Security agencies informed Sami Gemayel about assassination attempt
Security Forces Play Down Sami Gemayel Murder Plot as Family Stresses Assassination Thwarted
Geagea: Circumstances Unsuitable for Opposition to Topple Govt.
STL assigns defense attorneys for Hezbollah men
Geagea reiterates prediction of Assad's fall
Jumblatt: Only political solution can end Syria crisis
Syria lists names of ‘smugglers’ on border
March 14: Mikati Cabinet paralyzed by feuds, corruption
Nassib Lahoud hailed as singular statesman
Kanaan blasts Mikati, urges him to respect Constitution
Sleiman, Fabius assess French aid to Lebanon
Mount Lebanon mufti slams Russia, says Assad wants sectarian war
Nasrallah to speak about developments on Prophet’s Birthday
Body of man in his 40s found in south Lebanon
Gunmen kidnap 2 Americans, Egyptian in Sinai
Street battle rages near Egypt's Interior Ministry
Some 400 wounded as Egypt police, protesters clash after soccer riot
Kuwait Opposition Wins Majority in Parliament

Geagea: Circumstances Unsuitable for Opposition to Topple Govt.
by Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea stated that the March 14-led opposition is capable of toppling the government through popular protests. He added however: “The current circumstances are not suitable for such an action.”.He made his statements in an interview with al-Akhbar newspaper, which will be published on Saturday. Addressing the government performance, Geagea said: “The cabinet may withstand the current criticism and pressures it has come under.”  He noted however that the government “does not even exist to begin with.” The LF leader renewed demands to form a technocrat government, which he said would be capable of properly addressing the people’s demands. Regarding the developments in Syria, he remarked that the fall of the regime is inevitable, noting that the Syrian army cannot quell the ongoing demonstrations that are demanding the overthrow of President Bashar Assad. In addition, Geagea said that a new political scene will be established in Lebanon once the regime is toppled, one where the March 14 camp enjoys greater powers and Hizbullah’s are reduced. Addressing security threats issued against various Lebanese officials, the LF said: “The Syrian regime is seeking to curb the activity of March 14 members and it is attempting to hinder some of its allies from adopting a more centrist position” on the developments in Syria. Plans to assassinate Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau chief Wissam al-Hassan and Phalange Party MP Sami Gemayel emerged in recent days. Speaker Nabih Berri and Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat have consequently been warned by security agencies to take precautions as they move to and from their residences in Ain al-Tineh and Clemenceau respectively. According to An Nahar daily on Monday, the homes of the two officials are under “surveillance,” as other officials are taking precautions and moving by taxis.

Kuwait Opposition Wins Majority in Parliament
by Naharnet/..Kuwait's Islamist-led opposition has won a landslide majority in Kuwait's snap polls by securing 34 seats in the 50-member parliament, with women and liberals the big losers, results showed Friday. Sunni Islamists, including Salafists, took 23 seats compared with just nine in the dissolved parliament, while liberals claimed only two places against five previously, according the official results.
And no women were elected, with the four female MPs of the previous parliament all losing their seats.
Voters punished pro-government MPs during Thursday's parliamentary election, reducing them to a small minority, the results showed.
Only two of 13 former MPs who the public prosecutor questioned over corruption charges were re-elected, and the rest either lost or did not contest the poll.
Following the announcement of the results, hundreds of opposition supporters gathered at the campaign tents of candidates they backed to celebrate the outcome.
Speaking after his victory, new opposition MP Obaid al-Wasmi warned all "corruption files will be opened," including claims that hundreds of millions of public funds were stolen.
"I tell the decision-makers that the Kuwait of tomorrow will not be the same as of the Kuwait of yesterday," said the outspoken independent opposition figure.
"The law will be applied to all, and those who do not want the law to be applied to them should leave Kuwait," the professor of law told cheering supporters.
The Sunni Islamists consist of Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of which won all four seats they contested compared with two and one, respectively, in the old parliament.
Independent Islamists who represent tribes garnered nine seats.
Overall, the opposition scored strongly in the two tribal-dominated constituencies, winning 18 of the 20 available seats. Kuwait is divided into five electoral districts, with each electing 10 lawmakers.
Minority Shiites who form about 30 percent of the native population saw their representation reduced to seven MPs from nine, with four of them from Islamist groups.
Under Kuwaiti law, the opposition, a loose formation of Islamists, nationalists and independents, will not be asked to form the new cabinet because the premier must be a member of the ruling family appointed by the ruler.
But it will have enough strength to vote the prime minister of any minister out of office. The new parliament must hold its first session within two weeks, according to the constitution.
Political parties are banned in Kuwait but several political groups operate freely.
The snap election was called after the ruler of the oil-rich Gulf state dissolved parliament following youth-led protests and bitter disputes between the opposition MPs and the government.
The protests also led to the resignation of the former Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser Mohammed al-Ahmed al-Sabah, who was later replaced by another senior member of the ruling family.
The vote followed a fierce campaign amid heightened sectarian and tribal tensions that impacted on the results, with hardliners making gains and moderates losing.
The nationalist Popular Action Bloc, headed by veteran opposition MP Ahmed al-Saadun, boosted its strength to five members from four with several supporters.
Saadun is expected to become speaker of the new parliament.
Opposition candidates contested the election on the platform of fighting corruption, calling for fundamental political reforms and implementing projects.
Ahead of the results, Islamist MP Waleed al-Tabtabai had said the opposition plans to submit a series of reformist bills, especially to fight corruption and reform the election law.
OPEC member Kuwait has been rocked by a series of political crises over the past six years, leading to the resignation of seven governments and dissolution of parliament on four occasions.
SourceAgence France Presse.

Security Forces Play Down Sami Gemayel Murder Plot as Family Stresses Assassination Thwarted
إby Naharnet /Phalange party leader Amin Gemayel stressed on Friday that an assassination attempt against his son, MP Sami Gemayel, had been thwarted although security forces tried to minimize the impact of the new revelation, saying the lawmaker had only been advised to avoid attending a dinner. In remarks to al-Liwaa newspaper, the Phalange chief said: “We received information from the generate-directorate of the Internal Security Forces -the Intelligence Branch about a plan to assassinate MP Sami Gemayel whose preparations were made at the time and place where he would be.”
According to the daily, Gemayel was going to attend a dinner in the Metn town of Bhersaf. An Nahar newspaper said that Intelligence Branch chief Col. Wissam al-Hassan contacted the MP and asked him about his dinner plans. The lawmaker then wondered “where did you get that information?” Al-Hassan replied: “I will let you know and I urge you to take your precautions and not to attend the dinner.”
The two men met the next day and discussed the issue, An Nahar said. Gemayel family sources told the daily that an official report was referred by the security agencies to Premier Najib Miqati about the alleged plot. “Thank God that the plot was thwarted” in its early stages, Amin Gemayel said. But security sources stressed to An Nahar that they only advised the MP not to attend a dinner that he had been invited to on Wednesday. This means that “an assassination attempt hasn’t been thwarted as claimed by the media last night,” the sources said Friday. They added that only Gemayel had been advised to take the precautionary measure and “not any other personality.” In remarks to al-Balad daily, the MP said it was “unfortunate that security tension could return to the country.” He hoped that this stage would end peacefully and “no one would get hurt.” Lebanon was rocked by a wave of assassinations after ex-Premier Rafik Hariri’s Feb. 14, 2005 murder. Sami Gemayel’s brother, then Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel, was among a series of politicians who were targeted. He was killed on Nov. 21, 2006 by gunmen who approached his car and shot him in broad daylight in New Jdeideh.

Security agencies informed Sami Gemayel about assassination attempt
February 2, 2012 /The Kataeb party on Thursday said that Lebanese security agencies informed Kataeb bloc MP Sami Gemayel “about data [which had revealed] that preparations were being made for his assassination,” the National News Agency reported. The party added that it will leave it to the security agencies “to reveal additional information regarding this incident.” Gemayel told Voice of Lebanon (100.5) radio station that he received a phone call from a Lebanese security official who informed him about a possible assassination attempt “at a specific time and place and demanded [Gemayel] to avoid [his] immediate destination.”-NOW Lebanon

Israel will not pull out of the next Middle East war until Hizbollah is annihilated
By Con Coughlin/The Telegraph/02 Feb 2012
The tension on the Lebanese border is palpable as sworn enemies flex their military muscle.
It is the front line of Israel’s deepening conflict with Iran, and beneath the snow-capped peaks of Mount Hermon the final preparations are taking shape for a conflict that promises to change the landscape of the modern Middle East.
On one side, amid the foothills of southern Lebanon, is Hizbollah, the Iranian-backed Shia militia that is busily stockpiling thousands of missiles in readiness for the next round of hostilities against its sworn enemy, Israel.
On the other side stand the men and women of Israel’s armed forces, the defenders of the Jewish state who are working on their own plans to defeat the Tehran-controlled militia that is committed to Israel’s destruction.
The last time these two combatants clashed was in the summer of 2006, when Israel launched a full-scale onslaught against Hizbollah after it kidnapped two Israeli soldiers while they were patrolling the south Lebanon border. The Second Lebanon War, as it is known in Israel, lasted for 33 days and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,200 people. But it ended inconclusively with Hizbollah largely intact and Ehud Olmert, the hawkish Israeli prime minister who ordered the offensive, hounded from office over his handling of the conflict.
Today, though, there is a steely determination within Israel’s high command to finish the job once and for all and eradicate the threat Hizbollah poses to Israel’s security – as I discovered this week when I visited the Israeli-Lebanese border.
At Bravo 30, the Israeli defensive position where Hizbollah staged its audacious ambush back in 2006, I found pieces of twisted metal marking the spot where a jeep was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by Hizbollah militants concealed on a nearby hill. Not far from where I stood, the black flag of Hizbollah was clearly visible on the roof of a house in a Shia village on the other side of the border. At points, the distance between these indomitable foes is so close that from an Israeli army position it is possible to hear Hizbollah fighters calling to each other.
For the moment, an uneasy truce is observed under the watchful presence of the 13,000-strong UN force that was deployed to southern Lebanon to keep the peace after the 2006 conflict. But the calm would immediately be shattered if, as seems increasingly likely, Israel becomes involved in a military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme.
All week, senior Israeli military and intelligence officials attending the annual Herziliya Conference on global security in Tel Aviv have been fending off questions from foreign journalists trying to discover whether Israel is about to launch unilateral air strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The most convincing answer I heard – from a senior officer serving with the Israeli Defence Force – was that, while all the preparations for an Israeli strike have been completed, the final decision on whether to attack has yet to be taken by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, the defence minister.
Their decision rests predominantly on how Iran responds to the latest round of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU. If Iran agrees to freeze its nuclear programme, military action may be averted. But no one in Israel is prepared to allow Iran to continue building an atom bomb. Unless Iran comes to its senses, the consensus at Herziliya is that Israel will attack before the year is out. At that point, all hell will break loose along the northern border, as Iran retaliates by ordering Hizbollah to bombard Israeli towns and cities.
During the 2006 conflict, Hizbollah had about 10,000 Iranian-made rockets, most of them short-range missiles that threatened only residential areas in northern Israel. But it is estimated that Hizbollah now has more than 40,000 missiles, many with a range of up to 200 miles – enough for an attack on Tel Aviv.
In addition, the Israelis have seen a marked change in Hizbollah’s tactics. “In the past, Hizbollah fighters always wore uniforms, so they were easy to identify,” an infantry officer told me. “But now they dress as civilians so it is far harder for us to tell them apart. The next war will be an urban war.”
While Hizbollah’s primary objective will be to inflict as much damage as possible on Israel’s main population centres, the Israelis make no secret of their desire to eradicate Hizbollah’s military infrastructure, something they failed to do in 2006. During the last conflict, Israel was forced to agree to a ceasefire because of the international outcry over its air raids against Lebanese targets, such as Beirut airport. Next time, though, the Israelis are determined not to end the conflict until Hizbollah is completely destroyed as a fighting force.
“This time, the war is going to last for as long as it takes to destroy Hizbollah,” said an Israeli officer. “We will not make the same mistake of allowing them to escape.”
The only problem with this uncompromising approach, however, is the impact it will have on the rest of the region. The new Islamic government in Egypt is unlikely to stay on the sidelines while Israel tries to pummel Muslims into submission. Nor will the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Hizbollah, stand idly by as it did in 2006. Going to war with Israel is certainly one way for Assad to end anti-government protests in that it would rally the country behind him.
Consequently, a conflict that began as a border skirmish between Israel and Hizbollah could become an all-out war between Tel Aviv and its Arab neighbours, with all the catastrophic implications that would have for both the region’s Jews and Arabs.








Gunmen kidnap 2 Americans, Egyptian in Sinai
Associated Press
Female American tourists, local tour guide snatched at gunpoint near St. Catherine's Monastery; search and rescue helicopter dispatched to area
Gunmen intercepted a tourist minivan and snatched two female American tourists at gunpoint, along with their Egyptian tour guide Friday near St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai, the region's security chief said. Maj. Gen. Mohammed Naguib, the head of south Sinai security, said the gunmen were driving a sedan and a pickup truck. Naguib said the abductors sped away into the mountains. A helicopter was leading a search and rescue mission, he said. The bus was carrying three other people who were left behind, Naguib said. Their nationalities were not immediately known. The tourists were returning from the monastery to the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, according to the state newspaper Al-Ahram. Egypt has faced deteriorating security and a surge in crime since the popular uprising that ousted Hosni Mubarak nearly a year ago. Protesters accuse the military council that has assumed power and the police force of negligence. The unrest led to a sharp drop in the country's vital tourism sector, with revenues plunging almost 30 percent last year. Tourism Minister Mounir Abdel-Nour said last month that the number of tourists who came to Egypt in 2011 dropped to 9.8 million from 14.7 million the previous year. Revenues for the year clocked in at $8.8 billion compared to $12.5 billion in 2010

Iran Supreme Leader: U.S., Israel will suffer for threats on nuclear program
In televised address, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says has no fear of saying that Iran would support any 'nation or group that wants to confront and fight against the Zionist regime.'
By Reuters/Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Friday the Islamic Republic would not yield to international pressure to abandon its nuclear course, threatening retaliation for sanctions aimed at Iran's oil exports.
"Threatening Iran and attacking Iran will harm America.... Sanctions will not have any impact on our determination to continue our nuclear course.... In response to threats of oil embargo and war, we have our own threats to impose at the right time," Khamenei told worshippers in a speech broadcast live on state television. The official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Iran's Supreme Leader as saying that war threats would "disfavor the US itself; the war would be ten times against interests of the US itself,” said the Supreme Leader. "I have no fear of saying that we will back and help any nation or group that wants to confront and fight against the Zionist regime [Israel]."
On Thursday, British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said in an interview that he was concerned that "certain" countries" would take the Iran nuclear issue into their own hands, refusing to say whether or not Britain would "participate" the military conflict that could ensure as a result from such a move.
Clegg was quoted as telling The House Magazine, a weekly British political journal, that he feared Israel could carry out a pre-emptive strike on Iran amid suspicion in the West that Tehran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. Tensions have been heightened over Iran’s intentions, leading UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday to warn Israel that the standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program must be resolved peacefully. Asked if he feared Israel could launch an attack against Iran, Clegg — leader of the Liberal Democrats, the junior member of Britain’s coalition government, acknowledged he had concerns. “Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands,” Clegg was quoted as saying. He said Britain had been attempting to demonstrate “that there are very tough things we can do which are not military steps in order to place pressure on Iran.”Last week, the European Union agreed to tougher sanctions, including an embargo on Iranian oil imports. However, Clegg said he would not speculate on whether “Britain would participate” if the standoff eventually led to a military response.

Panetta lets stand report that Israel may attack Iran by June
Washington Post opinion columnist says U.S. Defense Secretary believes there is 'strong likelihood' that Israel will attack Iran in coming months; Panetta refuses to dispute report.
By The Associated Press and Haaretz
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta won't dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back the Islamic republic's nuclear program. Panetta was asked by reporters to comment on a Washington Post opinion column by David Ignatius that said Panetta believes there is a "strong likelihood" that Israel will attack in April, May or June. Ignatius did not say who told him this. Asked whether he disputes the report, Panetta said, "No, I'm just not commenting."
He added, "What I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else." He noted that Israel has stated publicly that it is considering military action against Iran. He said the U.S. has "indicated our concerns." In the Washington Post piece, Ignatius writes, "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet." "Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb," Ignatius writes. Meanwhile on Thursday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that a military operation against Iran must be considered should sanctions on the Islamic Republic do not prove fruitful. "Today, unlike in the past, there is widespread international belief that it is vital to prevent Iran from becoming 'nuclear' and that no option should be taken off the table," Barak said at the closing day of the Herzliya Conference.


Report: Iran launches new satellite into orbit
Navid is the third small satellite Iran has launched over the past years. Earlier ones lasted about a month each.
By The Associated Press
Iran successfully launched a new small satellite into orbit early Friday, state media reported, the latest in the country's ambitious space program that has raised concerns because if its possible military applications. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called in to the launch site, saying he was hopeful this act will send a signal of more friendship among all human beings," the state IRNA news agency reported.IRNA said the home-made satellite, Navid, or Gospel, was designed to collect data on weather conditions and monitor for natural disasters. It said the satellite weighs about 50 kilograms and would orbit the earth at an altitude of up to 375 kilometers, circling the planet 15 times a day. It's of a type known as miniaturized or microsatellites, which are cheaper to produce and allow for less costly launch vehicles.
Navid, produced at an Iranian engineering university, is the third small satellite that Iran launched over the past years. The earlier ones - Omid, launched in 2009, and Rasad, sent into orbit in June 2011 - lasted more than a month each. IRNA said Navid has advanced control technology, a higher resolution camera and photocells to generate power.
Iran's decade-old space program has raised alarms in the West, because the same technology that allows missiles to launch satellites can be used to fire warheads.
Israel, the U.S.¬and others charge that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies, insisting its nuclear enrichment program is geared only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production. Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and the country's minister of science and technology, Kamran Daneshjoo, were present at the launch, IRNA said. There was no independent confirmation or details about where the launch took place.
Iran has made a series of claims in recent years about advances in its space program, which have not been verified by others. In 2010, Tehran announced it had successfully launched a rocket carrying a mouse, turtle and worms into space.
Also, Iran has set a goal of putting a man in orbit within 10 years, despite the expense and technological challenges involved.
The authorities are intent on showcasing the nation's technological successes as signs Iran can advance despite the West's sanctions over its controversial nuclear program. Iran is also pressing ahead with its military missile program, frequently testing missiles capable of reaching Israel, U.S.¬ bases in the Gulf and parts of southeast Europe.

Shin Bet chief: Iran trying to hit Israeli targets in response to attacks on nuclear scientists
Yoram Cohen tells audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv that Iran's Revolutionary Guards are working tirelessly to attack Israeli targets abroad in order to deter Israel.
By Barak Ravid
Iran is trying to strike Israeli targets around the world in a bid to stop the assassinations of its nuclear scientists, the head of the Shin Bet security service, Yoram Cohen, said Thursday.
Lecturing at a closed forum in Tel Aviv, Cohen said that Iran believes Israel is behind the attacks on its nuclear experts, which have killed four scientists since November 2010. "It doesn't matter if it's true or not that Israel took out the nuclear scientists," Cohen said. "A major, serious country like Iran cannot let this go on. They want to deter Israel and extract a price so that decision makers in Israel think twice before they order an attack on an Iranian scientist."
Cohen said Iran was working very hard abroad through the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to hit Israeli targets.
"Over the past year three serious attacks were thwarted that were on the verge of being carried out," the Shin Bet head said. "In Turkey against the general consul in Istanbul; in Baku, Azerbaijan; and two weeks ago in Thailand."
Israel's main dilemma in the coming year, Cohen added, was how to stop Palestinian terror groups in Gaza from obtaining rockets that could reach the metropolitan Tel Aviv area, but without becoming embroiled in a large-scale military action in Gaza.
Cohen said the terror groups' main goal was to increase the range of their missiles to the greater Tel Aviv area, as well as their precision and the size of their warheads.
Cohen said missile experts from abroad were now in Gaza helping Hamas and Islamic Jihad increase the range of the missiles, but conceded that this put Israeli security experts in a difficult place.
Cohen also said that over the past 18 months, Iran has distanced itself from Hamas and invested more in Islamic Jihad in Gaza, because the Iranians "realized that Hamas has political considerations."
The situation in the south has grown worse due to conditions in Sinai, said Cohen. "It's no problem to shoot from Sinai at Israeli planes or ships," he said. "At the moment, Egypt can't take control of the situation because of internal difficulties."
Israel is "in a dilemma over what to do if squads are spotted that are about to attack us from the area of a country with which we have a peace treaty, but has been having difficulty implementing their sovereignty," Cohen said.
During the hour-long lecture, Cohen also discussed the attitude of the security establishment toward Israel's Arab community.
"They are not a fifth column and we don't consider them as such," Cohen noted. "We relate to them as a Palestinian public that identifies with their brethren in Judea and Samaria."
Cohen presented statistics showing that over the past year, there had been only three terror attacks in which Israeli Arabs had been involved, and that Israeli-Arab involvement in terror has declined.
"Their involvement in terror is not great," Cohen said. "We arrested 20 to 30 Arab Israelis last year, as opposed to 2,000 Palestinians from Judea and Samaria. The problems with Arab Israelis are complex, but they are not security problems. They are alienation, integration, employment, poor municipal management, crime and drugs.
"The ideological leadership of the Arab public in Israel," Cohen continued, "is much more extreme than the public, and sometimes pulls in directions with which the public does not identify."
Cohen said another group that feels growing alienation from the state is the faction in the religious public that has lost confidence in its leadership. Cohen said these were a few dozen extremists, mainly from Yitzhar (referring to a West Bank settlement ).
have decided to take the road of terror," Cohen said, adding that "because they can't harm the government and the Israel Defense Forces, they lash out at Arabs and [their] sacred symbols. To their mind, the worse it gets, the more the government will have to think before it destroys a shack in a settlement. We treat this as terror."
Cohen said the Shin Bet was trying to deal with Jewish terror "in the best way possible," and noted that the past two months had seen a significant decline in violence by the group.
With regard to the Palestinians, Cohen said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not want to negotiate with Israel, because Abbas believes the current government will offer no more than what he had received from previous regimes.
"They see what the boundaries of the prime minister's flexibility are and who makes up the coalition, and they know the maximum this government will offer will not reach their minimum," Cohen said. Therefore, he added, the international community was focusing its efforts on preventing escalation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Israel: Iran's nuclear arms program is complete, its missiles can reach US
DEBKAfile Special Report February 2, 2012/Iran has completed the development of a nuclear weapon and awaits nothing more than a sign from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to start assembling its first nuclear bomb, said Israeli Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aviv Kochavi on Thursday, February 2. Assembling a bomb would take up to a year, Kochavi estimated. With 100 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent grade and another 4 tons of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent already in stock, Iran would need another two years to make four nuclear bombs.
Therefore, by the end of 2012 or early 2013 Iran may have a single nuclear bomb, but by 2015 the figure would jump to four or five.
The officer was essentially amplifying the words of his predecessor, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, who said on Jan. 26 that as long ago as 2007 or 2008, Iran had already passed the point of no return in developing nuclear weapons. Kochavi agreed with him that none of the sanctions imposed thus far had persuaded Iran to slow down, least of all shut down, its drive for a nuclear weapon.
His comments coincided with the findings published Thursday by the Enterprise Institute, an American think tank, that Iran would be able to manufacture a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb as soon as August of this year, just seven months from now.
Also Thursday, Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon disclosed that the big blast at the Iranian missile base near Tehran last November blew up a new missile system with a range of 10,000 kilometers, capable of targeting the United States.
Commenting on Iran's underground bunkers for nuclear facilities, the minister stressed that any facility built by man can be destroyed by man. "Speaking as a former chief of staff, I say none of Iran's installations are immune to attack," he said.
Major General Kochavi went on to say that if Iran had attained a nuclear capability, this meant that the US and Israel had failed to pre-empt this outcome.
Turning to another threat, the military intelligence chief painted a grim picture of 200,000 rockets and missiles of assorted types pointing at Israel.
Wednesday, February 1, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz stressed that there is no longer any point on the Israeli map that is outside the range of enemy missiles.
According to Gen. Kochavi, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas are dispersing their missiles and rockets to sites deep inland and integrated in urban environments to minimize their vulnerability to IDF attack. He warned "the enemy" had prepared increasing numbers of its missiles for "depth strikes against Israeli population centers, their warheads more lethal than ever."
"Every tenth residential house in Lebanon," he said, "harbors a missile arsenal or launching position. Their sheer volume has reached a strategic dimension with which Israel will have to deal."
Tuesday, Jan. 31, the IDF practiced mobilizing an armored division under war conditions, debkafile's military sources report. The drill simulated moving the troops to conscription bases, arming them with equipment and weapons and getting them to battle lines – all under the heavy missile bombardment of military facilities, national highways and railway lines.
The various assessments of Iran's nuclear capabilities have faced serious credibility problems over the years, debkafile's intelligence sources note.
Today, thanks to Kochavi and Yadlin, we know that the US National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 accepted by the Bush administration was wrong. Its main finding was that Iran had discontinued its military nuclear program in 2003. For five years, Western intelligence officials have given out misleading estimates to save their governments having to pursue direct action for preempting a nuclear Iran.
One school of thought claimed that Iran would not build a bomb until it had the resources to create an arsenal; another, that Tehran lacked the technology for weaponizing enriched uranium. Does the latest evaluation that the manufacture of a bomb awaits the decision of one man, the Iranian Supreme Ruler, fall into the same category as the others? Or is it another gambit to fend off a military strike against Iran for five more years?
How do the US and Israel know for sure that Khamenei has not given the order and that Iranian teams are not already busy assembling a bomb in some bunker?
US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has maintained more than once that America has the resources for finding out about a decision by the Supreme Leader, but no American or Israeli intelligence officer can endorse this certainty.
It should be remembered, debkafile's military and intelligence sources note, that when Western intelligence announced the discovery of the Fordo underground facility near Qom in mid-2009, construction had begun undiscovered at least eighteen months earlier.

Egypt protesters besiege Cairo ministry
CAIRO, (Reuters) - Protesters laid siege to Egypt's Interior Ministry on Friday, pushing their protest against the military-led government into a second day in a show of anger triggered by the deaths of 74 people in the country's worst soccer disaster.
One person died in Cairo from a shotgun pellet wound and two were killed in the city of Suez as police used live rounds to hold back crowds trying to break into a police station, witnesses and the ambulance authority said.
The demonstrations erupted following the deaths at a football stadium in Port Said. Most of those killed were crushed to death in a stampede but protesters hold the military-led authorities responsible.
Several thousand protesters threw rocks towards the ministry building in central Cairo through the night. Security forces fired tear gas but the protesters continually regrouped.
Of the few vehicles in the usually congested downtown area, most were ambulances that ferried casualties from the clashes.
By Friday morning, a hard core of demonstrators had heaved aside a concrete barrier blocking a main road near the ministry to take closer aim at the building. A Reuters witness heard firing and found gun pellets on the ground.
"We will stay until we get our rights. Did you see what happened in Port Said?" said 22-year-old Abu Hanafy, who arrived from work on Thursday evening and decided to join the protest.
Revolutionary youth groups were calling for a mass weekend protest named the "Friday of Anger." By late morning, a few hundred people had joined protesters who slept overnight in Cairo's central Tahrir Square.
Ambulances had to intervene overnight to extract riot police whose truck took a wrong turn into a street full of protesters.
Protesters surrounded the vehicle for at least 45 minutes, rocking it while the police were inside. Some of the demonstrators then formed a human corridor to help them escape.
Close to 400 people have been hurt in the confrontations that erupted late on Thursday, the health ministry said, many of them suffering from inhaling tear gas fired by riot police who the Interior Ministry said were protecting the building.
Rocks thrown by protesters were strewn across streets that two months ago witnessed violent clashes between police and activists who see the Interior Ministry as an unreformed vestige of former president Hosni Mubarak's rule.
"The crimes committed against the revolutionary forces will not stop the revolution or scare the revolutionaries," said a pamphlet printed in the name of the Ultras.
In Suez, witnesses said fighting broke out at a local police station in the early hours of Friday. "We received two corpses of protesters shot dead by live ammunition," said a doctor at a morgue where the bodies were kept.
A witness said: "Protesters are trying to break into the Suez police station and police are now firing live ammunition."
The soccer stadium deaths have heaped new criticism on the military council, which has governed Egypt since Mubarak stepped down a year ago in the face of mass protests. Critics regard them as part of his administration and an obstacle to change.
The army leadership, in turn, has presented itself as the guardian of the "January 25 revolution." It has promised to hand power to an elected president by the end of June.
INTERIOR MINISTER BLAMES FANS
At least 1,000 people were injured in the soccer violence when fans invaded the pitch after local team al-Masry beat Cairo-based Al Ahli, the most successful club in Africa.
Hundreds of al-Masry supporters surged across the pitch to the visitors' end and panicked Ahli fans dashed for the exit. But the steel doors were bolted shut and dozens were crushed to death in the stampede, witnesses said.
The cause of the violence has been the focus of intense speculation. Some believe it was triggered by unknown provocateurs working for remnants of the Mubarak administration who are seeking to sabotage the transition to democracy.
Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim said the fans started it.
"The events started with provocations between the Ahli and Masry crowds, then insults, until it ended up with those sorrowful events," he told the Egyptian TV station CBC during a telephone interview.
Ibrahim was widely blamed for the deaths during an emergency parliamentary session on Thursday. MPs including the Islamists who control some 70 percent of the chamber called for him to be held to account and accused him of negligence.
Safwat Zayat, an analyst, said the incident had done further damage to the image of the ruling military council. "The current events push in the direction of speeding up the transfer of power to civilians," Zayat told Reuters.
Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the head of the military council, expressed sorrow at the deaths and vowed that Egypt would remain stable. "We have a roadmap to transfer power to elected civilians," he said in broadcast remarks.

Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are impossible
By Bilal Hassan/Asharq Alawsat
At present, there are no Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, as the conditions laid down by Israel would render them doomed to failure before they even start. Yet the Palestinian side has no alternative plan to the negotiation theme, which means that the issue will remain pending and frozen unless some change happens on the ground and alters the balance of power.
The logical principle of negotiation necessitates that Israel must withdraw [from the Palestinian territories] in return for its security demands being met. This means that Israel must agree to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967 in return for certain measures it deems necessary for its security. However, Israel has now leapt from the issue of withdrawal to that of changing the border lines, which would mean the continual occupation of new territories in the West Bank.
In the last Israeli offer made to the Palestinian delegation during the Amman meeting, Yitzhak Molko proposed that a Palestinian state be established under three conditions: Firstly, that Jerusalem remains under Israeli control, secondly that Israel's control extends to the settlements it has built in the West Bank, and thirdly, that the Israeli security presence in the Jordan Valley is preserved.
Practically speaking, according to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee Member Yasser Abd Raboh, such conditions mean annexing large areas of the West Bank and Jerusalem, and transforming the West Bank into a series of isolated cantons, the objective of these principles being to establish an Apartheid system.
Haartez newspaper offered an explanation of the Israeli stance saying that in the framework of permanent settlement, the vast majority of Jewish settlers will want to remain in the West Bank and Jerusalem, under Israeli sovereignty, meaning that the land where settlements have been built should be annexed to Israel. On the other side, the Palestinian stance upholds the necessity of an Israeli withdrawal to the 4th June 1967 border line.
The crux of these two contradictory stances is that the Palestinian side maintains the principle of Israeli withdrawal, whereas the Israeli stance emphasizes the necessity of changing the border line, a demand which Israel insists is a prerequisite for its security.
In all previous rounds, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations relied on the principle of withdrawal, and then a land swap. Now, however, Israel is looking at expansions and annexations in a manner that ensures its domination of the West Bank. This is to say that when Israel puts forward a demand to maintain its control over the Jordan Valley, this would necessarily entail the construction of roads between Israel and the Jordan Valley, passing through the West Bank, a route which would be under Israeli control. Such Israeli conditions, of course rejected by the Palestinian side, would mean that its occupation of the West Bank would continue, and that discussions over a withdrawal would be fruitless. Hence, negotiations will be doomed to fail, particularly after President Mahmoud Abbas announced following the recent negotiations in Amman that the 1967 border will be the base for any future negotiations.
The question to be raised here is: What happens now, after these negotiations have stopped?
The political logic says that it is a necessity for the Palestinians to mount pressure on Israel so as to prompt it to change its attitude, and that the only way for this pressure to happen is through armed resistance towards the Israel occupation. And yet, the Palestinian leadership has announced officially that there will be no return to arms. Hence no one knows how progress can then be made.
Israel made a dramatic change in its political stance by bypassing the withdrawal issue and focusing instead on annexation, whereas the Palestinians continue to call for negotiations and officially declare their rejection of armed resistance against the occupation. This, however, means that issues will remain stagnant until the Israeli side is compelled to return to negotiations. Unless this happens, the Israeli side will remain at ease and the occupation will continue, with deadlocked negotiations and no further pressure being mounted.
This situation requires both the Palestinian Authority (if it still exists) and the PLO to search for logical alternatives, most notably resisting occupation whether in a popular fashion, politically or militarily. In a certain stage in the future, a focus on armed and military resistance will be necessary and pressing, particularly when Israel covers its ears to anything else.
The history of conflict with Israel is not absent from the mind, and Israel is not ready to present any concessions unless it is forced to do so. If the Palestinians adopt this endeavor and consider armed resistance, they will find themselves in a position where they need to discuss this in the wider Arab sphere. This is because an armed Palestinian act against the occupation will need to be fostered by neighboring states, and perhaps will also require more comprehensive protection from the Arab League. Essentially, this means that we cannot be content with Palestine acting alone; Palestinian-Arab cooperation must be considered. Yet the Palestinians seem intent on doing things by themselves, and this cannot continue.
In fact, confining the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the Palestinians alone grants superiority to Israel from the very first moment, and no change is likely to take place in the balance of power unless the conflict returns to the original point from where it started; an Arab-Israeli conflict. This requires both the Palestinian Authority and the PLO to emphasize such an approach once again, otherwise their endeavors will reduce day by day.
The negotiation only approach has not been met with an acceptable response from Israel. Rather, this theory has encouraged the Israelis to feel comfortable, and so it must be reconsidered in order to develop a new political climate in the region.
We must not forget the reality of the American sponsorship for the Israeli stance, a reality which the Palestinians cannot confront without Arab support and an Arab diplomatic movement. Yet, such an Arab stance is not possible unless the Palestinians move towards a new political position and then demand others to act likewise.

Iran: Forlorn quest for a purgatory
03/02/2012
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
With the names of “authorized candidates” published by the Guardians’ Council, Iran’s parliamentary election campaign gets under way in earnest.
However, some of the mullahs and politicians known as “reformists” are calling for a boycott of the exercise.
I think they are wrong and that their manoeuvres would not be in the interest of the people.
However, before I say why, let me clarify a few points.
To start with, I have never voted in any elections organized by the Khomeinist regime and would not vote this time either. The reason is that this regime would allow none of the people for whom I might vote to stand in elections. Moreover, I believe that in a system in which a single mullah could overrule decisions of all organs of the state, the “Islamic Majlis” could not be but an ersatz parliament.
Anyone familiar with the situation in Iran would know that Iranians are divided over what to do about a regime that many regard as toxic.
Some, and I am among them, are for regime change, that is to say the dissolution of the Khomeinist system and its replacement by a new one chosen by the people.
Of course, advocates of “regime change” may be barking up the wrong tree. A majority of Iranians might not be prepared for yet another root-and-branch change in the way their country is governed. Also, regime change may not be feasible in the short term. It may take years, even decades, to get rid of the Khomeinist disease that struck Iran in 1979.
As an intellectual, I deem it my duty to tell it as I see it while admitting the possibility that I might be wrong. I don’t believe that this regime is capable of reform just as the Saddamite regime in Iraq and the Gaddafite tyranny in Libya were not.
However, there is another current that is persuaded of the opposite. Let’s call this current “the reformist camp”, although it has not suggested a single proposal for reforming any important aspect of the Khomeinist regime.
Many prominent “reformist” figures are people who were in office for decades. Their main beef against the system is that they risk losing their privileges and influence in shaping policy. Then there are those who have lost their jobs and, in a growing number of cases, have chosen exile in the West.
That such personages should be critical of those who have replaced them in office is understandable. Even in democracies those who lose office often become critical of their successors.
It is natural for former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to feel sore about “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. For decades, Rafsanjani claimed that he had “invented” Khamenei by propelling him to the top of the pyramid. Now that the dummy has assumed a life of its own, the ventriloquist’s bitterness should surprise no one.
Nor should one be surprised that former President Muhammad Khatami is resentful of his successor. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stopped public money for an outfit set up and run by Khatami. (There are unconfirmed reports that “the authorities” have seized Khatami’s passport.)
So, why are “reformists” wrong in boycotting the elections?
One reason is that by doing so they cause confusion. Iranians who want regime change are united as never before in boycotting the elections. Trying to have one foot in and one foot out our “reformists” could garble the message of the expected mass boycott. The “regime change” camp wants the boycott to be seen as a rejection of Khomeinism as a whole, not just a show of anger against the group now in power.
In any system, those who claim to reform it accept the rules of the game it sets. Iranian “reformists” cannot speak with forked tongues. They cannot claim that elections in the Islamic Republic were free and fair only as long as they themselves got elected and exercised power.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election as president in 2009 was as good or as bad as all previous presidential elections in the Islamic Republic. The same is true of next March’s parliamentary elections.
In Khomeinist elections people are not given a free choice because only pre-approved candidates are allowed to stand. Nevertheless, the exercise provides an opportunity for voters to choose from various factions within the Khomeinist establishment. That, in turn, allows the factions to fight over power in a peaceful and pseudo-political way rather than by violence.
In the early stages of Khomeinism some factions tried to win power by recourse to arms, claiming tens of thousands of lives.
After 1983, a consensus emerged that the balance of power among factions be worked out through elections with pre-approved candidates. That helped end murderous factional feuds and, in time, devalued violence as a means of achieving power within the system. One no longer needed to have one’s rivals within the regime assassinated or hanged.
Today, few rivals within the establishment are executed or assassinated. They are either in prison or under house arrest. Some have been allowed to settle in the West.
Those who claim they could “reform” this un-reformable system should accept its rules and participate in all aspects of its life, even if they are not always happy with how things are done. One cannot reform a system that one wishes to overthrow. Nor is a system reformed through boycotts, sulking and/or taqiyah.
Without realizing it perhaps, our “reformists” dream of a purgatory. Against all reason, they hope to cool some of the blazing flames of the hell created by Khomeini and his terrorist companions. However, just as in the trinity of afterlife, few people would knowingly choose the purgatory. Like Stalinism and other totalitarian ideologies, Khomeinism cannot be reformed. The Khomeinist seizure of power in 1979 was not meant to lead Iran to democracy and prosperity. Its chief aim was to stop Iran’s historic evolution towards those goals.
Rather than practicing taqiyah, our “reformists” should ponder the only questions that matter in Iran’s politics today: Is the Khomeinist system capable of reform and, if not, shouldn’t they switch to the “regime change” camp?

Our shadow president
Michael Young, February 3, 2012
Now Lebanon/If one thing could be said of Nassib Lahoud, it’s that the fact that he was time and again viewed as a natural choice to become Lebanon’s president virtually guaranteed his never being elected to the office. Lahoud’s death this week had a poignant feel about it. His health had deteriorated in recent years, during which period he was largely absent from politics. His last real plunge into the electoral pit came in 2005, when he lost in the Metn thanks in no small part to a slanderous campaign by the Aounists. They sought to portray Lahoud as a Syrian pawn during the period when Michel Aoun still headed a military government fighting Syria. That was before Aoun himself became a Syrian pawn fighting heartily on Syria’s behalf. In the last two decades, Lahoud’s fate mirrored that of the presidency, and of the Maronites in general. With the president’s power substantially reduced by Taif, and Maronites in numerical and moral decline, the non-Maronite political class came to have a greater say over who was elected head of state. And even after the Syrian military withdrawal in 2005, the final nod on that front came from Damascus.
Both dynamics ensured that towering mediocrities would ascend to Baabda. Leading politicians, frustrated Maronites among them, even when they disagreed over much else, could agree that they did not want a president with a strong personality, and above all credibility, to hinder their agendas and bite into their interests. The Syrians, similarly, had no intention of promoting someone who might give them headaches, from a community traditionally hostile to Syria.
That was Nassib Lahoud’s quandary, and it was one reason why March 14, when the coalition decided to name a candidate to succeed Emile Lahoud in 2007, in fact named two: Nassib, but also Boutros Harb. In so doing, the former majority effectively undermined both candidacies, paving the way for the eventual endorsement of the army commander, Michel Sleiman, someone far more in step with the substandard exigencies of the political leadership.
Lahoud’s integrity notwithstanding, he was no naïf. In 1992, he re-entered parliament on a list headed by Michel al-Murr, even though a majority of Christian voters boycotted the elections. His calculation was that Christians, realizing their error, would come around. He may not have liked Murr, but he reckoned that both had helped legitimize President Elias Hrawi’s authority against that of Michel Aoun, so it made no sense to be overly delicate about the partnership.
He was right on both counts. Lahoud could play the electoral patronage game as well as anyone, albeit within morally acceptable boundaries. He made no bones about wanting to be president, and that necessitated dealing with the Syrians—even the requisite visit to Damascus on occasion. Lahoud was careful, shrewd, cool-headed and single-minded in the pursuit of his objectives. This could impose occasional compromises. But the man also remained by and large true to his principles, so that when you look back upon his career, there remains a solid core there, unseen in most of Lahoud’s foes.
It was often held against Nassib Lahoud that he was a favorite of the intelligentsia, but not of most other Lebanese. This had a vulgar, populist ring to it and was terribly condescending about what the Lebanese merit when it comes to their leaders. It also happened to be wrong. Lahoud was no demagogue, that’s true, but many in Lebanon would have embraced him as a worthy embodiment of their state and as a symbol of the nation’s unity. Class matters in a president, and Lahoud had plenty of it, to go with the brains.
The last time I saw Nassib was in December 2008, at a conference organized in Washington, DC. I was to moderate a panel with Lebanese politicians from both sides of the political divide, and he took me aside to warn that I had better keep tight control over the proceedings, otherwise they might prove embarrassing. In the end, he was right again. The politicians, paying no heed to me, went at each other, showing their profound divisions to an American audience in search of something rather more uplifting to take with them.
On that same trip I met an American diplomat, who told me something else about Nassib. At the State Department there are multiple levels of employees working on Lebanese and Middle Eastern issues. Whereas Lebanese politicians always sought out senior officials, the diplomat explained, Nassib had also readily met with lower-ranking staff members. They were not the ones who made the big choices, but they generated the paper and wrote the background reports upon which senior staff relied to take their decisions. Nassib understood the value of these individuals, in that way showing that he grasped how American policy is made.
The 2005 election was a bitter experience for Lahoud, and it was a discouraging symptom of what had happened to the Maronites. The Aounists’ defamation of him was built on a foundation of envy and spite, and sinister glee in cutting down one so reputable. Yet the community’s future, if it is to be successful, cannot rest on such base sentiments. This makes us regret Nassib Lahoud all the more.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut and author of The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon’s Life Struggle. He tweets @BeirutCalling.