LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 11/2012

Bible Quotation for today/A Tree and Its Fruit
Luke 06/43-45: "A healthy tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a poor tree bear good fruit. Every tree is known by the fruit it bears; you do not pick figs from thorn bushes or gather grapes from bramble bushes. A good person brings good out of the treasure of good things in his heart; a bad person brings bad out of his treasure of bad things. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
God will send them to us/By Tariq Alhomayed/January 10/12
The Syrian President Bachar AlAssad's Speech of Tueday/January 10/12 
The Brotherhood’s conflicting statements/By Ali Ibrahim/January 10/12
Unification, Pluralism and Foreign Intervention in the Syrian Revolution/By Radwan Elsayed/January 10/12 

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for January 10/12 
Iran plans one-kiloton underground nuclear test in 2012
Officials Coordinate Stances to Avoid Tarnishing Lebanon’s Image during Ban’s Visit
Assad speech an 'incitement to violence': Syria opposition
Geagea: Assad Depicted Status Quo that Has Nothing to Do with Reality
Hariri says Assad speech "ridiculous"
Syria's president says he won't leave power
Assad Vows to Declare Victory Soon, Slams Arab League for ‘Spreading Sectarian Divisions’
33 Dead as Opposition Says Assad Speech an 'Incitement to Violence'
Syria is headed into civil war warns Turkey
Germany demands “serious negotiations” on Syria resolution
Arabi Holds Syria Responsible for Protecting Monitors after 11 Hurt
Iran Says West Alarm over Nuclear Plant 'Politically Motivated'
Israel readies for fall of Syria's Assad
Turkey holds trucks taking suspect Iranian cargo to Syria
EU Brings Forwards Decision on Iran Sanctions
Israel: Army Chief Says Israel 'Preparing to Take in Syrian Refugees'
UAE Says Syria Not Facilitating Job of Arab Monitors
UK envoy meets with Rai, urges dialogue
Hariri on Twitter: Assad is in Denial
500 Syrian army defectors in north Lebanon, report says
Lebanon's Arabic Press Digest - Jan. 10, 2012
Al-Rahi: Serious Dialogue Has Been Launched with Hizbullah
Change and Reform: Completing State Budget Most Important Govt. Task
Sami Gemayel: Any Foreign Soldier Who Crosses into Lebanon Must Be Immediately Fired at
Watkins Meets Miqati, Mansour: Ban Keen on Visiting Lebanon to Show His Strong Commitment to Country
Israeli Fighter Jets Drop ‘Object’ in Southern Lebanon Valley
Israeli Tourists Flee as Gunmen Attack Egyptian Hotel

Bashar al-Assad
January 10, 2012/Now Lebanon
On January 10, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad made a rare public address, lasting nearly two hours. His speech came as the UN Security Council prepared to discuss the crisis amid opposition criticism of the failure of a hard-won Arab League observer mission to end the bloodshed:
“ The events in the country have so far cost us [a lot]. Foreign conspiracies are no longer a secret, what was being planned behind closed doors has become clear now. It was not easy at the beginning to explain what happened. There was an absence of dialogue between the different [Syrian] parties. Today, the mask of foreign parties [aiming to harm Syria] has been uncovered.
The media attack against Syria aimed to defeat us. There are more than 60 world channels, websites and newspapers dedicated to harming Syria’s image. They failed to do so, but they have not yet given up. There were aims to show that I am evading taking responsibilities. I am not a man who runs away from responsibility.
I said in the year 2000 that I am not after [high-ranking] positions. We are talking about responsibility. I am in this position [as president] upon the people’s [request] and support. There was a question about why we did not allow the [foreign] media to enter Syria. In the first two months, foreign and Arab media were allowed into Syria, but there were media fabrications by [some] outlets; so we decided to be selective on who enters Syria as there is a difference between forging events when they are in Syria and forging events when they are not in Syria.
We are concerned about the internal situation and are not letting it be affected by foreign schemes. However, we did not underestimate these foreign schemes. There were attempts to make [the people] reach a state of desperation.
The people rose to stand up for schemes [aiming to harm Syria]. When parties conspiring against Syria lost hope, used peaceful protests and harmed institutions.
After all attempts failed, there was no other choice [for them] but to allow foreign interference, which was a mixture of Arab and foreign interferences. Sometimes Arab interference is worse than foreign interference.
It is strange that some Arab officials say that they are with us, but they [also tell us] there are foreign pressures on them.
After they failed in the UN Security Council, an Arab cover was required. We were focused on one thing, which is Syria’s sovereignty. When we carried out reforms, it was confusing for them. If we had to listen to the advice of certain countries, we would have gone a century back. Their advice was like those of a doctor who smokes.
Our struggle is not with those [who did not stand by the Syrian regime], but with those who stand behind them. The question is why did the Arabs stand against Syria and not with it? We should not be surprised by the Arab League’s position. The Arab League reflects the Arabs countries’ miserable situation. It is taking the bad Arab situation toward a worse one.
Did the Arab League respect its charter? Did it prevent the division of Sudan? Did it feed one hungry person in Somalia? This is the age of Arab degradation. I am talking [now] because I noticed how depressed the people are about [the Arabs’ position].
The question is who loses? Does Syria or the Arab League lose? To us, there is no victory. We are working to decrease losses because we know there will be no victory. Who said Syria is the beating heart of the Arabs? Did Syria say this?
No, [former Egyptian President Jamal] Abdel Nasser said this. To me, many Arabs are convinced that Syria is as such. Who, more than Syria, helped the Palestinian cause? Who insisted on the Arab language as part of its educational curriculum?
The Arab League without Syria’s membership suspends the “Arabism” of the League. If they think that with money they can buy history, we tell them that money does not invent civilizations. Maybe we are more free now to practice our Arabism.
We have been working for years to establish an office boycotting Israel, and they always made excuses; but they made a decision against Syria within weeks.
Our Arab nation is based on two pillars, which are Arabism and Islam. Both are great, rich and important. We reject that mistakes of some officials in the country be generalized. We are also against generalization on the levels of Islam and Arabism.
We should not generalize the mistakes of those [claiming to be] Arabs. Arabism is an identity granted by history. Some might ask: “Are there only Arabs in Syria?” Arabism is not a race. It is everything in common between the different cultures in this arena. The power of Arabism is in its diversity. Arabism was not built by Arabs but by everyone who helped built it.
Current events, have undoubtedly, raised a lot of questions and suggestions on how to overcome the current situation. We cannot carry out internal reforms without dealing with the facts on the ground.
Some, under the pressure of the crisis, are calling for just any solution. “Any solution” may drive the country into the abyss. It may drag the country into a tunnel.
We filtered those who are calling for reform out of concern [for Syria] and those who are calling for reform in order to harm Syria. I want to tell you something. Many conversations going on outside Syria do not care about the number of victims or the process of reform.
The foreign part of the scheme is against reform because [reform] makes Syria stronger. We all know that a stronger Syria is something they are against because they are against Syria’s [policy].What is the component that concerns us? The Syrian people. Most of the Syrian people want reform.
Reform to us is the normal sequence. In 2005, we addressed reform. There were no pressures on Syria at the time. We cannot develop [as a country] without carrying out reform. The question whether we are late or not in carrying out reforms is something else.
We will not implement reforms based on our crisis. In June, I addressed a plan of [reform], and I set a timeframe. The first thing we did was lifted the emergency law. Some said this was giving up security. This is not true. When the emergency law was lifted, we had organizational steps [to take afterward].
We have to work to control sabotage. We cannot feel the real results of lifting the emergency law when there is a state of chaos. No one has a cover. Some say that officials who committed murders were not arrested. This is not true. [Security forces] were not allowed to shoot at citizens unless in certain cases, such as self-defense or if the person was armed.
Some parties are being granted permits to be established [legally]. There are no obstacles when it comes to that. We have also worked to address internal administrations and laws pertaining to the media. An electoral law was issued.
The important law is that of fighting corruption. Many people whom I meet with say: “We want the president to hold [some] people accountable.” I want to tell them that I, as president, cannot replace institutions. We have to work to strengthen the work of institutions.
A decree to establish a committee to draft [a new political] constitution has been issued. The constitution will focus on political diversity. We began working on both, the laws and constitution, at the same time. [You have to know that] laws take less time to be issued.
We do not have national divisions. Governments in Syria are always diverse. But now we have a new political map. Now there are new political parties. The more participation there is, the better. Expanding the government is welcomed. We welcome the participation of all political parties.
After the committee [working on the constitution] finishes, [I] want a popular referendum to be performed. When it comes to the issue of a national-unity cabinet, some say there is an opposition. Opposition should represent popular [support]. Whom do they represent?
We will count on “private” standards. We do not want an opposition that sits in embassies, that sits with us and blackmails us and that engages in dialogue with us in secret. Let them call it whatever they want. A national-unity cabinet or a cabinet of division.
There was a question about dialogue. We began dialogue in July. Not all opposition parties participated. Later there was an extended dialogue. About two months ago, it was suggested that we begin the third phase of dialogue. We said we are willing to do so. Some opposition parties refused because they either wanted to have dialogue with us in secret or because they wanted to see where the situation will lead to.
What I wanted to clarify is that delay in dialogue is not because of the Syrian [regime]. We said we do not have a problem with dialogue and that we are open to it. When we see everyone is ready to engage in talks, then we are ready to begin dialogue right away.
There is a question. Are we ahead of changes? It is clear that when we talk about a different cabinet, then we are ahead of change. The most important of these changes is that they focus on the generation of youth, which stood up and defended their country.
There will not be a new Syria. We are talking about a new phase in Syria. Awareness is the base of the success of this developmental process. Maybe after drafting a new constitution, we will find out what the mistakes are in certain laws.
There is a [foreign] dream to divide Syria. The defeat of Syria is something we will not allow. Defeat does not necessarily mean “militarily.” It would mean dividing the identity of our people. Defeat can only come if they destroy the society’s pillars, but they will not succeed in destroying our identity.
In order to maintain security, we have to confront the terrorists. A strong country is one that knows when and how to forgive and how to put its sons back on the right track.
We issued many amnesties, but to be strict is also important. Amnesties should be granted based on certain criteria.
Can a revolutionist be against citizens? If there are real revolutionists, I, you and the rest of the people would be marching with them.
The basic question is: “When and how will [the crisis] end?” The conspiracy ends when we give up and become submissive. It ends when we stop supporting the resistance [against Israel]. It ends when we give up on our stances on the Palestinian cause. It ends when we accept to be false witnesses.
The Syrian people will not give up and will not be submissive because the principles represented by some people who are submissive did not provide a good example. Dignity is something the Syrians will not give up. Our dignity is stronger than their armies and wealthier than their armies.
Anyone who participates in chaos is participating in terrorism and in bloodshed. Terrorism does not suddenly appear. There were phases for that. It took some parties a long time to understand there are terrorists [in Syria].
Now, no one can be a centrist. We have to stand together. Institutions do not make mistakes but individuals do. We have to resume carrying out reform and confronting terrorism.
Can someone say “I am against reform and support terrorism?” This is impossible.
The issue is that of a race between reform and terrorism. Some want us to reach the phase in which we would say: ‘Let us leave reform aside and handle terrorism.’
There are calls by [most] of the Syrian people to be decisive regarding the issue of terrorists. We do not want to fight terrorism at the expense of the innocent people in the country.
Now they began targeting civilians. We have to be united and be decisive. I want to mention one more point. The issue of national reconciliation. National reconciliation is what happens when crises end and all parties forgive each other. Revenge does not build countries only forgiveness does.
Who are the parties that will be engaged in national reconciliation? This is the question. We have to reach the phase of national reconciliation but at the right time. The Syrians will not sell their honor for money.
We fed many Arab countries in the past. Four countries, in addition to Syria, ate from Syrian wheat. Syria has been in harder circumstances, and we were victorious. Today, we can turn all this into benefits if we think in a scientific and practical way.
What is important is that people do not use the situation to monopolize [certain products]. We also have to work on providing job opportunities. On the economic level, the currency and stocks have been affected.
We have to focus on the level of production in Syria. The West is moving toward new forms of colonization. That is why we have to be open to the East.
When we cannot defend Syria and when we cannot beat the enemy, we do not deserve to be in Syria. People with high morals will not allow others who are misled and who sold themselves to harm them.
On the people’s behalf, I salute our armed forces as they are always ready to defend the country; the blood of our martyrs will be the lighthouse for future generations that will build Syria. I salute the Syrian people who are defending the principles that unite us.”

Hariri says Assad speech "ridiculous"
January 10, 2012 /BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri labeled as “ridiculous” Syrian President Bashar Assad’s Tuesday speech, while Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea said the leader was out of touch with reality.A fan on the popular social media website, Twitter, asked Hariri if he was listening to Assad’s speech, prompting Hariri to respond in the affirmative, adding: “it's actually ridiculous” and saying Assad "is in self-denial.”Hariri, the head of the Future Movement opposition party, said that Assad’s speech resembled his previous speeches since unrest gripped Syria in mid-March. “[It’s the] same thing, it’s all a conspiracy,” Hariri tweeted. During his speech Tuesday, Assad said his country was facing a foreign conspiracy and vowed to crush terrorists in a bid to restore order.
He also slammed some members of the Arab League as serving foreign interests and defended his conduct in dealing with unrest in his country, now in its tenth month.
The Arab League has been working with Assad's government in a bid to end crisis in the country, however, its attempts and the plan designed to stop violence on the streets have not led to tangible results. Geagea said Assad is out of touch with reality and urged him to carry out a national referendum that would show his true levels of popularity. “Assad addressed all matters except the reality of the crisis ... Assad drew a reality that has nothing to do with the one [we're] living in,” Geagea, a staunch critic of Assad, told reporters in his Meerab office. He said the national referendum on whether people support Assad would save the president “the trouble of an hour and 15 minute speech.” “My call for [Assad] to have a referendum under the supervision of the United Nations is because I do not believe what this regime is saying after 35 years of experience, particularly what we have [recently] witnessed,” Geagea added.

Assad speech an 'incitement to violence': Syria opposition
January 10, 2012/Daily Star/ISTANBUL: The Syrian National Council (SNC) branded Tuesday's speech by President Bashar al-Assad an "incitement to violence," indicating "more criminal behaviour" by the regime. "There is incitement to violence, incitement to civil strife, some talks about sectarian divisions which the regime itself has fomented and encouraged," said Basma Qadmani, a member of the SNC, the largest opposition umbrella group. In a speech lasting almost two hours, Assad blamed foreign plotters for 10 months of protests against his regime and said his government would tackle terrorism with an "iron fist". "Our concern today is that such a speech is quite indicative of the total dismissal by the regime of the international community," Qadmani said at a press conference in Istanbul.
"And that is an indication that we are going in the direction of more irresponsible and more criminal behaviour by the regime in the coming days and weeks."Qadmani also said Assad's speech indicated that the regime "is breaking up with the Arab League," which has sent observers to Syria in a bid to try to halt the bloodshed that the UN says has killed over 5,000 people. "This is a turning point, a rupture with its Arab environment," she added in remarks in English.

Officials Coordinate Stances to Avoid Tarnishing Lebanon’s Image during Ban’s Visit
by Naharnet/Lebanese officials are seeking to coordinate their stances ahead of U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon’s visit to Beirut on Friday to avoid tarnishing Lebanon’s image, informed sources said.
The sources told An Nahar daily on Tuesday that consultations are underway between major political forces led by Hizbullah to agree on the broad Lebanese stance on several controversial issues that could be discussed by Ban and the Lebanese officials. Such a move is aimed at uniting the Lebanese stance to avoid any repercussions that could weaken Lebanon’s image, they said.
Speaker Nabih Berri’s hints that he would stir the issue of oil exploration with the U.N. chief, in addition to the renewal of the protocol signed between the Lebanese government and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, the situation in southern Lebanon and the repercussions of the Syrian crisis are among the topics under discussion by the Lebanese officials, the sources added.
But al-Liwaa daily quoted sources as saying that Ban will not discuss the renewal of the protocol with the Lebanese officials.
On several occasions, Hizbullah said that the U.N. secretary-general is not welcome in Lebanon.
But his spokesman, Martin Nesirky, told reporters at the U.N. headquarters in New York on Monday that Ban “is of the view, as are many people around the world, that the Lebanese are amongst the most hospitable people you will find anywhere, and he sees no reason for that to be any different on this particular trip.”
Ban arrives in Lebanon on a three-day visit on Friday to meet with President Michel Suleiman, Berri, Premier Najib Miqati and the commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force deployed in the South.
His third visit comes amid concern over the safety of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, which has been the target of several attacks in recent months.

Geagea: Assad Depicted Status Quo that Has Nothing to Do with Reality
by Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea criticized on Tuesday Syrian President Bashar Assad’s speech earlier in the day, saying that he addressed everything but the country’s crisis.
He said before reporters in Maarab: “Assad depicted a status quo that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground.” He stated that Assad spoke of a conspiracy against his country, “but I don’t understand how a conspiracy can mobilize hundreds of thousands of protesters since the beginning of the revolt.” “How can over 10,000 Syrians be killed just because they are alleged foreign agents?” he wondered. “If the developments in Syria truly are a conspiracy, then it could have been resolved simply by holding a poll, under the United Nations’ supervision, to determine whether the people support Assad or not,” Geagea remarked. “Only then can Assad’s claims of a conspiracy be verified,” he stressed. “Should the regime be overthrown, then Hizbullah’s position in Lebanon would change … and I hope the party would act in a manner that best suits that current regional situation,” he noted. Addressing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s upcoming visit to Lebanon on Friday and some sides’ statements that he is not welcome in the country, he said: “Only the official authorities have the right to state who is welcome in the country or not.” “Such statements completely disregard and undermine the government, president, people, and official institutions,” noted the LF leader. “Can Lebanon only support Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem?” he asked. “The sides behind the statements are presenting the ugliest image of Lebanon after their allies presented another bad image by claiming that the al-Qaida terrorist group had infiltrated the country,” Geagea said. “Speaker Nabih Berri statements that Ban can help Lebanon in several issues are comments by a true man of state because he is seeking to achieve the country’s interests,” he added. Hizbullah had stated over the weekend that Ban is not welcome in Lebanon. Senior party official Mohammed Yazbek slammed the visit, saying: “Ban, (U.N. Special Envoy) Terri Rod Larson, and the messenger of evil and conspiracy’s (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs) Jeffrey Feltman are unwelcomed in Lebanon.”

33 Dead as Opposition Says Assad Speech an 'Incitement to Violence'
by Naharnet
The Syrian National Council (SNC) branded Tuesday's speech by President Bashar al-Assad an "incitement to violence," indicating "more criminal behavior" by the regime.
"There is incitement to violence, incitement to civil strife, some talks about sectarian divisions which the regime itself has fomented and encouraged," Basma Qadmani, a member of the SNC, the largest opposition umbrella group, said at a press conference in Istanbul.
Assad blamed foreign plotters Tuesday for unprecedented 10-month-old protests against his regime and vowed to crush their "terrorism" with an iron fist. In a rare televised address just hours before the U.N. Security Council was due to discuss the bloodshed, Assad denied the security forces had orders to open fire on civilian demonstrators even as activists said 33 more had been shot dead.
The Local Coordination Committees, the main activist group spurring protests on the ground, said security forces shot dead 16 people in the eastern oil hub of Deir al-Zour, 11 in the flashpoint central province of Homs, one in the central province of Hama, three in the northern region of al-Qameshli and two in the northwestern province of Idlib.
For its part, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said security forces shot dead 10 civilians and wounded 40 others as they took part in a peaceful protest in Deir al-Zour.
"An Observatory activist in Deir al-Zour said what he witnessed today was a real massacre," the Observatory said in a statement sent to Agence France Presse. "Most of the martyrs were youths who were demonstrating peacefully and in a civilized manner," the Britain-based group added.
The Observatory said another two civilians were killed by security forces' gunfire in the central city of Homs, a bastion of the uprising against the Assad regime. In the northwestern province of Idlib, a soldier who tried to desert the regular army was "killed by his officer in the middle of al-Wahda square in the town of Iblin," said the rights group.
In Douma, on the northern outskirts of Damascus, more than 10,000 people attended the funeral of a dissident soldier who was killed on Monday, before all but about 100 of them were dispersed by the security forces, it added.
"Our concern today is that such a speech is quite indicative of the total dismissal by the regime of the international community," Qadmani said at a press conference in Istanbul. "And that is an indication that we are going in the direction of more irresponsible and more criminal behavior by the regime in the coming days and weeks."
Qadmani also said Assad's speech indicated that the regime "is breaking up with the Arab League," which has sent observers to Syria in a bid to try to halt the bloodshed that the U.N. says has killed over 5,000 people. "This is a turning point, a rupture with its Arab environment," she added in remarks in English. "The word democracy has hardly appeared in this discourse, we have seen much speech about reforms but we haven't heard of any progress at any level since 11 months and the beginning of the revolution."
Assad's speech came hours before the U.N. Security Council was due to discuss the bloodshed in the country.
Qadmani called on the U.N. to take action to stop killings. "Our next step therefore is to go in a speedy way to the Security Council with the support of the Arab countries which are now convinced that this regime has not cooperated during the (Arab League) mission and is quite unlikely to cooperate in any manner," she said.
"This is a message that members of the Security Council should carefully read and understand that by preventing decisive action by the council ... the regime is encouraged to continue its crimes," she said. The SNC hit out at the Arab League over their report which said the "killing has been reduced" and had recommended that a team of Arab monitors continue their mission.
Assad said that the unrest would only come to an end "when the flow of funds and weapons coming from abroad stops." "Regional and international parties who are trying to destabilize Syria can no longer falsify the facts and events," the embattled leader said in a speech lasting nearly two hours.
He hit out at émigré opponents of his rule, accusing them of being tools of foreign powers.
"We don't want an opposition that takes signals from abroad ... We want a national opposition," he said. Assad said that restoring security was the "absolute priority" for Syria and pledged his government would tackle terrorism with an "iron fist," after a Damascus suicide bombing killed 26 people on Friday.
"There can be no let-up for terrorism -- it must be hit with an iron fist," he said.
"The battle with terrorism is a battle for everyone, a national battle, not only the government's battle," said Assad. "We must deal with terrorism through all legal methods. They have struck innocents ... they are killing the Syrian people."
Source/Agence France PresseNaharnet.

The Brotherhood’s conflicting statements
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Alawsat
To quote an old Egyptian song, “what beautiful and rational words”. This fully describes the interview published by the New York Times yesterday, with a leading figure in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, a group that clearly will become the largest bloc in the Egyptian parliament after the January 25th revolution.
The interview is interesting and gives a different picture from the typical stereotype derived from the Brotherhood. [Essam] El-Erian spoke as a statesman in this interview, and confirmed that the Brotherhood would respect the Camp David Accords with Israel, because “this is a commitment of the state, not a group or a party, and this we respect”. He hopes that the United States continues to provide its aid to Egypt, under the condition that it doesn’t practice political pressure, reminding his American suitors that they are not the only ones who “come calling”; there are also the Chinese and the Russians. In the interview he also gave an analysis worthy of consideration about the surprisingly strong performance of the Salafis, whom he acknowledged have become a political force, suggesting that the Brotherhood has appealed to the Egyptian middle class whilst the Salafis have turned to the poor. He hopes that Brotherhood can pull the Salafis towards them, rather than the Brotherhood themselves sliding towards greater fanaticism, and if the next government addresses the problem of poverty, it could help to diminish the Salafis’ appeal.
El-Erian’s most significant answer was his response to the always awkward Western question about imposing restrictions on personal freedoms or practices, or about the Salafis demanding the ban of bikinis on beaches and prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The response to the question was: “Are you sure that is very important? We are keen to discuss the major issues”, such as the new constitution.
This is a political response and the words are reassuring, holding a particular message for the outside world, especially Washington, suggesting that the new government will not turn the tables or make knee-jerk decisions that are harmful to Egyptian interests, so where is the problem with the Muslim Brotherhood?
The problem lies in the conflicting statements of Brotherhood leaders, whereby the level of controversy depends on the quality of the statement or who is giving it. In order to prevent its discourse being duplicated, the Muslim Brotherhood issues statements in English, directed towards the Western world primarily, and others in Arabic directed towards the local recipients.
An example of this was the recent statement made by the Supreme Guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Badi, which brought about controversy that has yet to cease. He suggested that the Arab revolutions have brought the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood - established by its founder, Hassan al-Banna – nearer to a reality, namely to create a worldwide righteous caliphate. This immediately brought to mind the heated rhetoric that was often espoused by the former Supreme Guide, causing controversy on one occasion when he said he would not care if Egypt was ruled by a person from Malaysia, for example.
Following their current leader’s remarks about the caliphate, a team of Brotherhood politicians rushed to calm fears and explain that this would not mean a return to the previous form of caliphate, whereby national identity and sovereignty are nullified, but rather something like the European Union (EU) among the Muslim countries. This is something that also needs to be explained, because geography is what unites the EU, while geography does not unite, for example, Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to the statements of el-Erian and the Supreme Guide, the distance between them – if we analyze their content – is like the distance between Egypt and Indonesia. El-Erian represents the party or the political arm that will have to deal with the political and geographical realities of society and the world, while the Supreme Guide represents an idea, and perhaps an old generation influenced by ideologies. We hope that what el-Erian represents within the Muslim Brotherhood will carry the most weight in the Egyptian political process, if society is to advance and the experience is to succeed.

God will send them to us!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
What a paradox! For whilst the Iranians are preoccupying the region and the world by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, the US Navy announced that it had secured the freedom of 13 Iranian sailors captured by Somali pirates. Therefore, despite all of Iran’s naval capabilities – which Tehran has been playing up these days – the Iranian authorities were unable to secure the freedom of their sailors, but rather it was the Americans who were able to do this!
Since the worst misfortune is the one that makes you laugh, last week Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Army, General Ataollah Salehi, warned the US Navy, particularly Aircraft Carrier USS John C. Stennis, against returning to the Gulf, however it was this same Aircraft Carrier that was responsible for rescuing the Iranian sailors from the Somali pirates. Commenting on this, official Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman [Ramin Mehmanparast] describes the US Aircraft Carrier’s actions as being a “positive humanitarian gesture.” So after all the threats and intimidation, this US Aircraft Carrier – which could break the back of the Iranian regime whenever it feels like it – has now carried out a “positive humanitarian gesture”!
It does not stop here, for one of the Iranian sailors rescued by the Americans, 28-year-old Fazel Ur Rehman, greeted the US Aircraft Carrier by saying “it is like you were sent by God. Every night we prayed to God to rescue us. And now you are here.” So now the US presence in the region is an answer to one’s prayers, and a divine mercy. Iran constantly describes the US as the Great Satan, but the US Navy has now carried out a “positive humanitarian gesture”, and so dealing with the US is no longer treasonous or disloyal!
Therefore, based on this same Iranian logic, we must also look at the presence of US forces in the region, and particularly the Arab Gulf – whether we are talking about navy or air forces or others – as a kind of positive humanitarian gesture, particularly as these forces are protecting the region, its stability, and even its oil, which is the catalyst of the global economy, from Iranian aggression. How can this be viewed otherwise when Tehran is constantly threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, whilst over the last week Iran carried out naval maneuvers in the Gulf, and even test-fired missiles? This is not to mention the provocative statements and announcements issued by Tehran, whilst prior to all this, Iran planted its cells and spies across the region.
Therefore, utilizing the logic of Iran, God will respond to the prayers of the region’s people, and send the US to protect them from the ongoing Iranian actions which are akin to piracy and which are in full swing in our region – on land and sea – and which has even reached the point of Iran utilizing abhorrent sectarianism to incite division. These [US] forces will restrain the Iranian pirates, in the same manner as they dealt with the Somali pirates. Should this happen, we must look at this situation as being a positive humanitarian gesture from the Americans - and this would not be treason - for the US presence in the region is the result of God Almighty responding to the prayers of the people, in the same manner that He responded to the prayers of the Iranian sailors.

Germany demands “serious negotiations” on Syria resolution
January 10, 2012 /Germany on Tuesday led European calls for "serious negotiations" on a UN Security Council resolution on Syria as a top UN official gave a briefing on efforts to end the deadly crackdown on protests. Germany's UN envoy Peter Wittig said Russia's reluctance to discuss a resolution condemning President Bashar al-Assad over the crackdown was "unsatisfactory.”
UN assistant secretary general B. Lynn Pascoe gave the 15-member council the latest details of the deadly attacks in which the UN has said more than 5,000 civilians have been killed.
Russia and China vetoed a European-drafted resolution on Syria in October. Russia has since proposed its own resolution, which condemns the government and opposition violence, but a European diplomat said talks were in "deep freeze" with Moscow even refusing to negotiate proposed changes. "We want serious negotiations to start on a resolution. We are ready to bridge the gap that exists, but serious negotiations have to start," Wittig told reporters before Tuesday's meeting. Western envoys have been pressing Russia to speed up talks since December. "We just had two expert meetings of the 15 before the end of the year, nothing since then, not even a compilation of the amendments we suggested," Wittig said. "That is unsatisfactory." "We repeat our call for a swift and unified message of the council to the Syrian authorities to lend weight to the decisions and the action plans of the Arab League in its entirety." Russia blocked the earlier resolution because it said the text was a first move toward "regime change" in Syria.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Israel readies for fall of Syria's Assad
January 10, 2012 /By Douglas Hamilton/Daily Star
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israel is making preparations for the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad and a flood of refugees from his minority Alawite sect into the Golan Heights, Israel's military chief told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday. "Assad cannot continue to hold onto power," a committee spokesman quoted Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz as saying.
"On the day that the regime falls, it is expected to result in a blow to the Alawite sect. We are preparing to take in Alawite refugees on the Golan Heights."
Israel should also prepare for the possibility that cornered authorities in Damascus could "as a lifesaver ... act against us", the general said.
Assad has faced 10 months of popular revolt in which more than 5,000 people have been killed, according to U.N. figures.
Israeli officials have said they do not expect his government to last more than a few months but Gantz's remarks were the first indication that Israel is already making contingency plans for the end of the rule.
In a speech on Tuesday, Assad again blamed the unrest on a foreign conspiracy against Syria. His opponents fear Syria could slip into a sectarian civil war between the majority Sunni Muslims and the Alawites and other minorities which support Assad.
Syria's neighbours Turkey and Jordan have called on Assad to step down.
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said last week that Assad "is weakening" and predicted he would fall this year.
"In my opinion ... he won't see the end of the year. I don't think he will even see the middle of this year. It doesn't matter if it will take six weeks or 12 weeks, he will be toppled and disappear," Barak said.
Gantz told the parliamentary committee that "in the short term it is true that the current events will make it difficult for Assad and the Syrian leadership to act against us".
But Israel must be concerned about its heavily armed neighbor lashing out against it, he said.
"You must take into account that their firing systems remain intact and maintained. Among other things this includes the Russian arming of the advanced Yakhont (cruise) missile and the SA17 (anti-aircraft system)," he told the committee.
"I am not sure that as the events continue the Golan Heights will remain quiet. It could be, under certain circumstances, as a lifesaver, he could act against us."
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. Despite the fact that the two countries have never made peace, the Golan frontier largely been quiet.
Israel rarely censured the Assad government for its domestic crackdowns and has said little about the crisis that erupted last March. Successive Israeli governments have sought peace with Assad, seeing his government as a possible anchor for wider Israeli-Arab accommodation.
But in May last year, Israel accused Syria of orchestrating deadly confrontations on the ceasefire line between the two countries as a distraction from Assad's bloody crackdown.
At least 23 people were killed and scores were wounded when Israeli troops fired on Palestinian protesters who surged against the fortified boundary fence.
The United States, Russia and the United Nations voiced deep concern about the flareup, but it proved to be brief and was not repeated. Israeli sources note that Assad has not tried since then to turn the Golan into a "second front" to try to externalize his crisis.
Although Israel and Syria are technically at war, and Syria is home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war of Israel's foundation and their descendants, the Golan Heights had long been quiet.
A U.N. force patrols the demarcation line between the Golan Heights and Syria.
Barak said Israel was also concerned that Syrian weapons could be transferred to the militant Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, "something we view with great gravity".
Syria is widely believed to possess chemical weapons, which Damascus denies, and has long-range Scud missiles capable of striking Israeli territory.
The defense minister said that "when central authority weakens (in Damascus) all kinds of factors can create friction to try and act in the Golan Heights, and there are enough bad people in the region".

Iran plans one-kiloton underground nuclear test in 2012
DEBKAfile Special Report/January 10, 2012/ tAccording to debkafile's Iranian sources, Tehran is preparing an underground test of a one-kiloton nuclear device during 2012, much like the test carried out by North Korea in 2006. Underground facilities are under construction in great secrecy behind the noise and fury raised by the start of advanced uranium enrichment at Iran's fortified, subterranean Fordo site near Qom.
All the sanctions imposed so far for halting Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon have had the reverse effect, stimulating rather than cooling its eagerness to acquire a bomb.
Yet, according to a scenario prepared by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University for the day after an Iranian nuclear weapons test, Israel was resigned to a nuclear Iran and the US would offer Israel a defense pact while urging Israel not to retaliate.
As quoted by the London Times Monday, Jan. 1, INSS experts, headed by Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland, a former head of Israel's National Security Council, deduced from a simulation study they staged last week that. Their conclusion is that neither the US nor Israel will use force to stop Iran's first nuclear test which they predicted would take place in January 2013.
Our Iranian sources stress, however, that Tehran does not intend to wait for the next swearing-in of a US president in January 2013, whether Barack Obama is returned for a second term or replaced by a Republican figure, before moving on to a nuclear test.
Iran's Islamist rulers have come to the conclusion from the Bush and Obama presidencies that America is a paper tiger and sure to shrink from attacking their nuclear program – especially while the West is sunk in profound economic distress.
debkafile's sources stress that both Tehran and the INSS are wrong: The Tel Aviv scenario is the work of a faction of retired Israeli security and intelligence bigwigs who, anxious to pull the Netanyahu government back from direct action against the Islamic Republic, have been lobbying for the proposition that Israel can live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Our Washington sources confirm, however, that President Obama considers the risk of permitting a nuclear-armed Iran to be greater than the risks of military action.
Monday, Jan. 9, top administration officials said that developing a nuclear weapon would cross a red line and precipitate a US strike. US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: "If Iran takes the step to develop a nuclear weapon or blocking the Strait of Hormuz, they're going to be stopped." He was repeating the warnings of the past month made by himself and Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Martin Dempsey.
As for Israel, Dennis Ross, until recently senior adviser to President Obama, reiterated in a Bloomberg interview on Jan. 10: "No one should doubt that President Barack Obama is prepared to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if sanctions and diplomacy fail."
As for Israel, Ross said: "I wouldn't discount the possibility that the Israelis would act if they came to the conclusion that basically the world was prepared to live with Iran with nuclear weapons," he said. "They certainly have the capability by themselves to set back the Iranian nuclear program."
Israel's media screens and front pages are dominated these days by short-lived, parochial political sensations and devote few words to serious discourse on such weighty issues as Iran's nuclear threat.
This is a luxury that the US president cannot afford in an election year. Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb and conduct of a nuclear test would hurt his chances of a second term. The race is therefore on for an American strike to beat Iran's nuclear end game before the November 2012 presidential vote.
The INSS have also wrongly assessed Russia's response to an Iranian nuclear test as "to seek an alliance with the US to prevent nuclear proliferation in the region."
This fails to take into account that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, running himself for a third term as president in March, has already committed Moscow to a new Middle East policy which hinges on support for a nuclear Iran and any other Middle East nation seeking a nuclear program. This is part of Russia's

Unification, Pluralism and Foreign Intervention in the Syrian Revolution
By Radwan Elsayed/Asharq Alawsat
Pessimism has prevailed over those monitoring Syria's revolution from the outside over the past few days, for two reasons: Firstly, the failure of the Arab observers who entered Syria to persuade the Syrian authorities to stop the ongoing bloodbath. Secondly, the difficulty in reaching an agreement between the Syrian National Council (SNC) (a broad spectrum alliance of Syrian opposition blocs formed more than 3 months ago) on the one hand, and the National Coordination Committee (NCC) (a small dissident party existing both inside Syria and abroad) on the other. It is worth mentioning that article 3 of the Arab Initiative stipulated that opposition blocs should come together and collectively lay out a program for democratic political transition, pressure the regime by producing a clear replacement for its security solution, and form a cohesive political party to cooperate in leading the peaceful transition process, should the the Arab Initiative succeed.
A representative of the NCC said that the document, agreement or program initialled by both the chairman of the SNC and the NCC leadership - amidst the presence of members from both sides and after difficult negotiations lasting a period of 35 days - did not win the approval of certain parties in the SNC, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood. There were three reasons for this lack of approval, according to what was said by some on television: Firstly, the agreement rejected the principle of foreign military intervention without clarifying how else to protect the civilian protesters, a demand that is already several months old. Secondly, the agreement did not outline the overthrow of the regime as a primary target. Thirdly, the agreement neglected to praise the actions of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and only highlighted the honourable soldiers who refused to open fire on the protesters.
In truth, all the above sticking points – which are miniscule in comparison to the horrific atrocities that have been committed in Syria over the past ten months – suggest a lack of sincerity on the part of the parties involved. They also evoke the presence of a desperate culture that existed in the bygone era, with the radical, ideological Islamic, pan-Arab and leftist movements.
During the first three months of the revolution, all Syrian opposition parties - under the pressure of the foreign conspiracy theory imposed by the four-decade old ruling regime - used to commence their televised addresses by rejecting the idea of foreign intervention, with regards to the Libyan case and the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi. However, this rejection is now of little significance, because of two conflicting occurrences: Firstly, the increase of suppression, bloodshed and intimidation on the part of the regime to unimaginable proportions, to the extent that foreign military intervention has become a much cherished hope, and secondly the desire to create safe havens and zones free from aircraft or heavy weaponry, as the minimum requirement for the protection of civilian protesters. Thus, those who objected to the aforementioned agreement [between the SNC and the NCC] argue that the rejection of foreign military intervention, without another option for the protection of civilians, goes against the wishes of the Syrian population.
However, arguing for or against foreign intervention is irrelevant at this point, because the Americans, the Europeans and the Turks say that military intervention in Syria (even for the protection of civilians) is not something that they are considering. This is not only because of what happened in Libya, but also because of Syria's location adjacent to Israel's borders, and the presence of parties in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon which could intervene in a more overt and bold way if the Turks or NATO stepped in. Hence, [during the negotiations between the Syrian opposition groups] there was no need for the NCC to raise patriotic sentiments, and there was no need for the Muslim Brotherhood and others to try and please the revolutionaries. What was required was to think clearly and rationally about how to protect civilians in coordination with the Arabs, who have signed a protocol that has not been honoured. Foreign intervention should never have been a sticking point, as most probably, the Arabs would try other means to pressure the Syrian regime into complying with the protocol.
As for the other two points of dispute, namely declaring the overthrow of the regime as a target, and secondly acknowledging the FSA to be a revolutionary force, I doubt that sincerity and reason were used by either camp. The NCC can no longer insist on negotiating with the regime, having tried and failed. Moreover, there is no point in insisting that defectors from the army should be considered the legitimate force in Syria, whilst the rest (around three-thirds) of the army are deemed illegitimate. Nevertheless, we appreciate the nobility and courage of those who have rebelled against the regime, and we remain baffled by the dormant majority in the military and security services who have witnessed the extraordinary bravery of the young protesters and the handful of armed revolutionaries that are defending themselves, their families, their mosques and their villages.
These major national and strategic issues should not be hampered by petty disputes and media score-settling while a revolution is going on. We could expect such behaviour in a country with conditions such as Lebanon, but not in the circumstances of countries such as Syria, Iraq and Palestine. Furthermore, the view from outside is also important, because it shows the extent of appreciation towards this historic circumstance. The Muslim Brotherhood were highly appreciative during the early months of the revolution, but now, after the successes they have achieved in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, the Brotherhood have been exposed once again to the lustre of power and popularity. The General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt says he is now preoccupied with something even more important than the Egyptian presidency, namely his responsibility for the Umma and the Muslim faith. This suggests he is mounting the pulpit of the Prophet (PBUH), and therefore we say: "Admonish, therefore, for thou art but an admonisher; Thou hast no authority to compel them."
What Burhan Ghalioun did [by forming the SNC] was and still is necessary. This is not because of Haythem Manna and Hassan Abdul Azim’s positions, nor their calls, because they are now redundant. Both have been exposed by the protesters within, before being unmasked by the secularists and leftists abroad. Nevertheless, it is imperative to maintain cautious, accurate, and committed to the very end for two reasons: Firstly, there are worried people in Syria who have not yet taken part in the revolution, but are not against it. Secondly, there is increasing support among the Arab people and the international community, both of which are increasing their roles to support the Syrians and give them the upper hand over their murderous regime. There are large groups within Syria, and even larger ones across the region and the outside world, which have begun to carefully observe what is happening in Yemen and Syria, particularly following Egypt's parliamentary elections and the behaviour of Libya's armed militias.
The Syrian revolution has and will cost around 10,000 deaths, along with extensive damage at the hands of the regime, and not Israeli invaders! In order for it to succeed, it is now incumbent upon the revolution's political leadership to reach a consensus over its platform. This will require arduous work and could even be exploited by veteran strugglers who have become power seekers, like some of the newly transformed revolutionaries. But these facts do not make the reaching of a consensus any less necessary or less urgent. The revolutionaries do not form one cohesive category, and neither do the regime’s supporters. Contributors vary in their degrees of contribution, yet this does not undermine their rights to participation and citizenship.
Some views are treated with deference because they belong to veteran protestors, and some are treated with the same deference because they are the views of the new revolutionaries. And there is a third category whose views should be taken into consideration simply because they are Syrian citizens. We, as Arabs, should have our views and interests treated with respect. We will no longer accept bargaining over the rights of any Syrian citizen. Or else why did the Syrians rise against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad, who has only protected the rights of his closest relatives? Divine wisdom prevails over the affairs and matters of mankind.

The State Department Wishful Thinking
Evelyn Gordon - Commentary
What do the State Department and the Arab League have in common? Both believe in wishful thinking. But while the Arab League version is farce, the State Department version could well end in tragedy.
Last week, the Arab League asked Hamas leader Khaled Meshal to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to stop slaughtering Syrian protesters. After all, an organization that kneecapped opponents and threw them off rooftops during its 2007 takeover of Gaza is the obvious choice to convince Assad to treat his own opponents more gently. Were it not already amply clear that League efforts to stop the violence in Syria are mere lip service, this might be tragic; as it is, one can only laugh.
But the State Department’s wishful thinking is far more troubling. Last Thursday, department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that the Muslim Brotherhood, which won Egypt’s recent elections, positively won’t abandon the peace treaty with Israel. How does she know? Because the group has given Washington private assurances to that effect – and private assurances in English are obviously far more reliable than Brotherhood leaders’ numerous public pledges in Arabic to scrap the treaty.
Earlier last week, for instance, the party’s deputy leader, Rashad Bayoumi, told the Arabic daily Al-Hayat that for a Muslim Brotherhood government to recognize Israel “is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all. It’s an occupying criminal enemy.” A Brotherhood government would therefore “take legal action against the peace treaty” by putting it to a referendum –where polls show a majority would favor scrapping it. “We must return this agreement to the people and let them have their say about whether this agreement hurts Egyptian interests and sovereignty,” he explained.Last month, party Secretary-General Mahmoud Hussein made similar remarks to Asharq al-Awsat. Denying the Brotherhood had reached any understanding with Washington on preserving the treaty, he said the organization in fact intends to ask the new parliament – where the Brotherhood and another Islamist party, Al-Nour, will together have a roughly two-thirds majority – to reconsider it.
Experience has repeatedly proven that what Arab leaders say in Arabic to their own people is a far better guide to their intentions than what they say in English to Westerners. Yasser Arafat, for instance, repeatedly told Westerners he wanted peace with Israel even as he promised in Arabic to continue pursuing terror; only after the second intifada erupted in 2000 did Western leaders finally realize the Arabic statements were the truth. Similarly, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait just days after promising the U.S. government that despite his repeated threats to do exactly that and the 30,000 troops he had massed on the border, he had no such intention. But Washington has learned nothing from its past mistakes: It would still rather believe what the Brotherhood says privately in English.
The tragedy is that Washington does have leverage with Egypt, thanks to the $1.3 billion in annual aid it provides. But you can’t use leverage to try to head off a problem unless you acknowledge the problem exists.The Obama administration evidently prefers to pretend the peace treaty is in no danger. And by the time it wakes up to the truth, it may well be too late.

The SNC Unpopularity is Growing, New Leadership on the Horizon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzTk3nSj9C4
A video that starts with an interview of Birhan Ghalioun refuting any military intervention followed by a collage of videos (Some bloody) of Syrians demonstrating for NATO intervention, Syrians injured calling for NATO from their hospital beds, bereaved next of kin, emotionally strung, cursing Ghalioun for refusing NATO, and ordinary filmmakers taking videos of destruction while commenting against the SNC and Ghalioun particularly. The SNC has lost all credibility in the Syrian street because its aims reflect those of the Arab League, and indirectly the Assad regime itself, for refusing any military intervention while providing no solution to the killing on the street. If the Arab League wanted to discredit the SNC while claiming to support a Syrian opposition, it could not have done a better job.
Further, there is information coming from Tunisia that the SNC meeting is not going well for Ghalioun for refusing any military intervention and there may be a challenge to his leadership. The SNC may choose Louay Safi (http://louaysafi.com/) who lives in the US and teaches at George Washington University.
As long as the SNC walks the Arab League line, it will fail miserably and Safi may just become another victim. The Syrian street has spoken clearly.
Also, it seems that Birhan Ghalioun may have visited Tehran secretly on a mission in December of 2011, the same month he visited with Sheikh Yussef al-Qardawi of Egypt. This information has not been independently verified but comes from the inner circle of the SNC.

500 Syrian army defectors in north Lebanon, report says
January 09, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A poorly armed group of some 500 Syrian army defectors have fled into Lebanon using old smuggling routes, the Washington Post reported Monday.
The prominent newspaper quoted one Syrian army defector in the border area of Akkar saying that there "were about 500 defected soldiers in north Lebanon, working with about 200 on the other side of the border." The defected soldiers also noted that if there was a safe zone in which they could find refuge, large numbers of the army would desert their posts. In early December, Free Syrian Army chief Riyadh al-Asaad called on the international community to establish a no-fly zone, a buffer zone and conduct strikes on regime targets in an interview with AFP. Syrian soldiers in Lebanon are receiving commands from Asaad, who currently leads the FSA from southern Turkey, via a commanding officer, according to the paper. The U.S.-based daily said that all of the Syrian defectors are Sunni Muslims who have limited access to weapons.
“The arms we have are what we defected with, or things that we steal from the other side,” one defector told the paper.
"All of the soldiers who had gathered in the Lebanese mountains said they were from the town of Tal Kalakh. They had been deployed across the country, but all fled to their home town when they defected," the paper said. The town of Tal Kalakh is located 5 kilometers away from the border with Lebanon.
However, reports have indicated that due to the security measures on the border by both the Syrian and Lebanese armies, the flow of people crossing over from Syria to Lebanon has declined. The soldiers expressed frustration with the work of the Arab League observers in Syria, whose mission began two weeks ago to monitor President Bashar Assad’s implementation of an Arab plan aimed at ending the crisis, which the U.N. says has resulted in the killing of over 5,000 Syrians, mostly civilians.
However, Damascus says “armed gangs” are responsible for the death of civilians, saying activities of these groups aim to bring down the government of Assad as part of foreign-backed conspiracy.

U.K. envoy meets with Rai, urges dialogue
January 10, 2012 /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai met with British Ambassador Tom Fletcher Tuesday in Bkirki where the latter urged politicians to play a role in launching an effective national dialogue.Fletcher called on community leaders in Lebanon to play an important role in creating effective dialogue. He called on leaders to renew their support for the state and its institutions. The ambassador also reaffirmed the U.K.'s support for Christians in Lebanon and the Middle East and emphasized the importance of the Christian presence for the future of the Middle East.

CLDH summoned for investigation on Wednesday 11 January 2012 - Call to action
TO: 1 More1 recipientCC: recipientsYou More
BCC: recipientsYou Show Details FROM:Marie daunay TO:liste1@cldh-lebanon.org Message flagged Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:08:05 AMMessage bodyCLDH representatives are summoned tomorrow (January 11, 2012) before the investigating judge at Baabda Court, in the framework of the continuation of an investigation opened on the basis of a complaint filed by Amal Movement against CLDH, following the publication on February 10, 2011 of a report entitled Arbitrary Detention and Torture : the bitter reality of Lebanon. We call upon our colleagues in Lebanon to accompany us to the summons in Baabda tomorrow morning, and upon international organizations to support us by calling on the Lebanese authorities to fulfill their obligation to protect human rights defenders against any pressure aiming at preventing them from carrying out their activities. The above-mentioned report contains more than 60 pages outlining patterns of arbitrary detention and torture in Lebanon, based on statistical data, testimonies and interviews, and tackling the alleged practices of most of the Lebanese security services dealing with arrests. The Amal Movement seems to have initiated its lawsuit against CLDH on the basis of 4 lines of the report, where CLDH states that it gathered testimonies of arrests by Amal Movement in which, in some cases, serious allegations of torture during investigation were revealed (page 25), while explaining in its conclusions that it was not possible to evaluate the frequency of these torture allegations specifically (page 29).
Background information:
Marie Daunay and Wadih Al-Asmar already appeared in front of the same judge on October11, 2011. At that hearing, the judge requested the lawyer of the two CLDH representatives to formulate his remarks on the substance of the case by two weeks. He also requested the lawyer of the plaintiff to reply to these remarks by two additional weeks. A previous hearing of CLDH representatives had taken place on July 6, 2011 before the same judge, and had been postponed to give CLDH sufficient time to appoint a lawyer. On March 14, 2011, CLDH representatives were notified that they were requested to present themselves to the criminal investigation service at the Ministry of Justice in Beirut on March 17, 2011 at 10 a.m. The summons was then postponed to March 22, 2011. During the interrogation, the two CLDH representatives were not allowed to be assisted by a lawyer, and used their right to remain silent, guaranteed notably by Article 47 of the Lebanese Criminal Procedure Code.
Late August 2011, unidentified individuals broke into CLDH premises and stole, inter alia, money, computer equipment and an official stamp of CLDH. The investigation on the burglary is ongoing

Lebanon's Arabic Press Digest - Jan. 10, 2012
The Daily Star /Ad-Diyar
Sleiman: For an electoral law that allows renewal, 1960 [law] does not guarantee accurate representation
The local scene is crowded with outstanding issues such as the new electoral law, salaries, appointments and the issue of Al-Qaeda's presence in the country. However, no solutions have been forthcoming to these issues while the region goes through exceptional times and big changes are expected that demand the local scene be safeguarded.
The Cabinet is expected to discuss various domestic issues today. In a notable position, President Michel Sleiman urged for the implementation of a new electoral law that allows Lebanon and Lebanese to move forward with their consensus-based democracy, which differentiates the country’s political system from others.
He said the current law dates back to 1960 and does not complement coexistence and the spirit of the national covenant.
He also said that any attempt to implement a new electoral law should abide by certain principles such as equal participation of sects, fairness and co-existence.
As-Safir
Transportation allowance ... stalls [agreement] on salaries [hike]
On the eve of the strongest storm to hit [Lebanon] this year, domestic issues piled up beginning with the issue of the presence of Al-Qaeda [in the country] that has been moved to Parliament and the wage hike that hasn't seen any developments for two months now and which holds little hope of a solution in the near future.
The issue of salaries will not be discussed in Cabinet Tuesday, awaiting the end of consultations based on the idea of "no winner: no loser."
The first sign of these consultations were seen with the meeting that took place Monday between representatives of the private sector and the General Labor Confederation with the head of the Change and Reform bloc MP Michel Aoun. The meeting left a positive feeling among political figures and it was followed by a meeting with Prime Minister Najib Mikati. Labor Minister Charbel Nahhas is also expected to hold a similar meeting with the delegations.
An-Nahar
Consultations between officials to unite stances during Ban Ki-moon's visit
Despite the fact that governmental, business, and parliamentary figures were busy dealing with the issue of salaries and the security on the border with Syria, another issue surfaced involving preparations to meet with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon during his visit to Beirut at the end of this week.
Sources told An-Nahar that efforts and consultations are under way between a number of officials and political parties, primarily within Hezbollah, which have repeatedly expressed their negative stance toward Ban's visit to Beirut, in order to agree on Lebanon's position regarding main issues that might be discussed between Lebanese officials and Ban. This, consequently, can contain any differences among politicians that might weaken Lebanon's position.
The sources also said that what Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said about bringing up the issue of oil exploration with Ban represented the main point that will be under discussion between officials. The discussion will also touch upon extending the protocol governing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon that Ban has to consult with the Lebanese government about. There is also the issue of Lebanon's border with Israel and possible repercussions on Lebanon as a result of events in Syria.
Al-Mustaqbal
Ghosn denies his remarks on Al-Qaeda in front of the Defense Committee
The issue of salaries has become blurry again in light of MP Michel Aoun's bellicose rhetoric and his tireless attempts to politicize a subject dealing people’s livelihoods despite the fact that there was a preliminary agreement based on the consensus reached at Baabda Palace.
Meanwhile, the Parliamentary defense committee was questioning Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn over his remarks about Al-Qaeda. What was noticeable was Ghosn's attempts to distance himself from what he said, speaking on smuggling operations rather than a real presence of members of Al-Qaeda in the country. [Ghosn's] position prompted one MP to ask: "Is it reasonable for smuggling to become terrorism? And, why were some areas accused of terrorism knowing that smuggling involves various areas? So what is the point of targeting Arsal specifically?
Sources told Al-Mustaqbal about the meeting between representatives from the private sector and labor unions with MP Michel Aoun, saying that the latter's stance did not reflect the positive atmosphere which dominated the meeting in which all parties reaffirmed the agreement between the private sector and labor unions and the need to preserve the understanding between both sectors.

With Different Agendas Comes Confusion
Farid Ghadry Blog/Reform Party of Syria
Where does the US administration stand in terms of regime change in Syria after calling for Assad to step down in August 2011?
Where does the French government stand considering French President Sarkozy is riding high with the Muslim vote in France after assisting Libya with regime change but he has shown no such inclination for Syria?
Where does the British government of Cameron stand in terms of regime change with so much investments and influence by Assad supporters and Syrian-Saudi businessmen living in the UK?
Where does Israel stand in terms of regime change when it faces several threats at the same time from Islamists and unfriendly western governments?
Where does Saudi Arabia stand in terms of regime change considering it fears a NATO precedence in its own backyard as well as real fears from Iranian aggressiveness?
Where does Qatar stand in terms of regime change flexing its little biceps in an arena of giants who have yet to pay attention as long as it plays by their rules?
Where does Turkey stand in terms of regime change when its own economy makes it impossible to venture outside defending, first and foremost, its own interests from the PKK terror?
Where does the Syrian opposition stand when it comes to regime change when the main figures today are looking for opportunistic chances to share power with a murderous regime and the honest opposition watches from far or is taking-up arms to force a certain outcome?
How far will friends of the Assad regime, like Iran and Russia, go before they realize it's futile to continue supporting Assad? Is the Russian fleet docking in Tartous a sign of decisiveness or a negotiated position?
Finally, where does Assad think he stands in terms of surviving a regime change? Does his speech today declaring total war on his people an indication of his mindset?
In 1975, the death of King Faisal of Saudi Arabia led to a Lebanese civil war that lasted for 17 years.
Will the death of Hariri in Lebanon spark such outcome for Syria today?
If so, does the confusion add to the mystery for a clear outcome? Is this why we are all confused?

Of course Gaza is still occupied
Hussein Ibish, January 10, 2012
It never ceases to amaze how much leaders of Hamas and the Israeli far-right agree about. But the latest iteration of this bizarre de facto alliance is a real doozy: alone in the world, they both say the Gaza Strip is not occupied by Israel.
Part of the Israeli right has been trying to claim that the occupation of Gaza has been over since Ariel Sharon pulled Israeli forces out of the interior of Gaza in 2005. The then-prime minister accurately described this as a “unilateral redeployment,” not a “withdrawal.”
Moreover, Israel continues to regard Gaza as part of the territories subject to final-status negotiations. It has been such a source of political tension in Israel that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has suggested a real withdrawal from Gaza, to the deep chagrin of his colleagues. If Israel had, in fact, already done so, there wouldn’t be any argument about his extremely controversial suggestions.
Of course, the same Israeli rightists also say that none of the territories are occupied, merely “disputed.” But if there is any “dispute” about the legal status of the territories occupied in 1967, it’s not between Israel and the Palestinians; it’s between Israel and the international community, including the UN Security Council, which has been unanimous on the issue since the occupation began.
Now Gaza-based Hamas hardliner Mahmoud Zahhar has made the same claim: Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel. He’s saying this in order to try to promote the idea that it is Hamas’ “resistance,” which is now almost entirely rhetorical, as opposed to the negotiations carried out by the Palestine Liberation Organization, that has actually produced gains for Palestinian independence.
I can’t imagine that these ludicrous comments won’t harm him even further in the eyes of other Palestinians, including members of Hamas. I’m sure there isn’t a single person in Gaza who doesn’t know full well the extent to which they are still legally and politically occupied by Israel. And that is true even if Israeli forces are not permanently stationed in the territory’s population centers and even if settlements have been evacuated.
On some matters there are arbiters authorized to distinguish between opinions and established legal and political facts. When it comes the matter of belligerent occupation, there are three key international arbiters that determine the legal reality in such matters: the UN Security Council, the United Nations more broadly, and the consensus of the international community, all in that order of relevance.
Israel continues to control Gaza’s airspace, territorial waters, the entry and exit of people and goods (with the exception of the Egypt crossing), its electromagnetic spectrum, a “buffer zone” in which unarmed Palestinians are routinely killed, and deploys into all parts of the territory and withdraws at will. As a consequence, no impartial observer can or does doubt that occupation continues.
Clearly the Security Council continues to consider Gaza under Israeli occupation. The UN Secretariat made its position clear in 2008, stating that “the UN defines Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory.”
As for the international community, no country other than Israel has ever suggested that Gaza is not still under Israeli occupation. Even the websites of the United States government continue to list Gaza as part of the territories occupied by Israel. So does every edition of the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, including the 2010 edition released on April 8, 2011.
Perhaps the weirdest argument made by some supporters of Israel is that Gaza is no longer occupied because the territory has been blockaded, and that these two things are somehow mutually exclusive. Obviously a territory may be blockaded without being occupied. But an occupied area may also be blockaded.
Some also complain that since UNESCO has admitted Palestine, implicitly including the Gaza Strip, as a full member, this somehow means the territories can no longer be considered occupied. But territories of member states of UN agencies or other multilateral institutions can indeed be occupied by other member states.
Some right-wing Israelis want to say that Gaza is no longer occupied because they don’t want any responsibility for the people who live there, while maintaining all the prerogatives of an occupying force. Some Hamas leaders, meanwhile, want to pretend that they have “liberated” an area that remains not only occupied but besieged.
However, their opinions are irrelevant. The Security Council, UN Secretariat, and the international community, including the United States, is absolutely unanimous: Gaza is still occupied by Israel. This judgment is based on the fundamental realities of the situation in the territory. It has the status of a legal and political fact, whatever dishonest politicians want to claim for their own purposes.
Hussein Ibish is a senior research fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and blogs at www.Ibishblog.com