Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for June 03/12
Turkey ditches Syrian rebels. Will Israel attack Hizballah's Scuds?
Chamoun slams Nasrallah’s national constituent assembly proposal
Rai calls on political leaders to hold national dialogue
Sleiman returns to Beirut following Kuwait visit
Siniora says Hezbollah’s support for Syrian regime a “mistake”
Aoun says cabinet “dissociating” itself from Lebanese events
Gemayel: Dialogue invitation acknowledges government ‘failure’
Moussawi slams March 14’s “sectarian incitement”
Sit-in calls for disarming Tripoli
Nasri Khoury: Abboudiyeh abductees handed over to Lebanese army
Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya political chief: Tripoli problems not solved with army
OIC chief concerned about Lebanon status quo
NNA: Three dead, 23 injured people admitted to Tripoli’s Islamic hospital
Jumblatt says Tripoli events “very dangerous”
LBC: ‘Thousands of Syrian workers’ leave Lebanon
Arrest warrants to be issued over Tripoli clashes, says Qortbawi
Press Photographers Association condemns attack against Al-Akhbar journalist
Egypt's Mubarak: From War Hero To Prisone

Report: Obama secretly ordered cyber attacks on Iran's nuclear program

Iran threatens to target U.S. bases if attacked
Iran official hints Dimona may be targeted
Iran builds new space center to launch satellites
Sinai peacekeeping force commander warns of weapons smuggling to Gaza
Fierce battles rage in north Lebanon, 12 killed 50 injured
Sleiman says Lebanon will ensure safety of Kuwaitis
Arabs urge U.N. action as Syria death toll soars
Annan frustrated over Syria, Russia gives no ground
U.S. publishes satellite images of Syria
Saudi princess tried to leave luxury hotel without paying
Iran: ‘Thunder’ will fall on Israel if it attacks
Assad says foreigners plotting to destroy Syria
HRW: Isolate Syrian arms suppliers
Saudi: Syria's Assad 'maneuvering' to gain time
UN chief calls for broad global talks on Syrian crisis
Turkish PM accuses Assad of “autocratic” behavior
Clinton presses Russia to back political change in Syria
Syrian activist assassinated in clinic, says rights watchdog
Russia and EU to tackle differences on Syria, Iran
Prosecutor to appeal Mubarak verdict

Saudi: Syria's Assad 'maneuvering' to gain time
June 3, 2012
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal accused Syria's President Bashar al-Assad of "maneuvering" to gain time, at a joint news conference Sunday with UN chief Ban Ki-moon.
"Every initiative has been accepted by the Syrian regime and was not implemented. This is a way used by the regime to gain time," Prince Saud told reporters in the Red Sea city of Jeddah.
"He is playing for time and maneuvering," he said referring to Assad. The Saudi minister's remarks came immediately after Assad said Sunday that his government is faced with a foreign plot to destroy Syria.
Arab leaders on Saturday called on the United Nations to act to stop bloodshed that has persisted for nearly 15 months despite a UN-backed peace plan that includes the deployment of nearly 300 observers. The plan was drawn up by UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan, who on Saturday singled out Assad and his regime as the key to resolving the conflict as he warned of the specter of all-out sectarian warfare. Annan "will present his report [on Syria] in a few weeks... It must be clear, straightforward, precise and transparent," Prince Saud said. "We hope the United Nations takes a firm stance."
Since the so-called ceasefire began on April 12, as many as 2,300 people have been killed out of the more than 13,400 to have died in Syria since the uprising against Assad's regime began in March 2011.
The Saudi foreign minister, who has repeatedly voiced his country's support for arming Syria' rebels said: "We support creating a buffer zone in Syria which the oppressed can take refuge in... but this is the responsibility of the UN Security Council as the Arab League can't do this.""The real solution belies in protecting the Syrian people from the harsh military," he said. "The people are unarmed whereas the regime receives weapons from several" countries. "The situation is very dangerous. We hope things don't deteriorate further," he added.
Because of the worsening violence and Assad's failure to meet commitments under the agreed peace plan, the United States has warned that it may not agree to renew the UN observer mission when its mandate expires on July 20.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Rai calls on political leaders to hold national dialogue
June 3, 2012/Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai called on political leaders to attend the national dialogue session which President Michel Sleiman called for earlier this week, the National News Agency reported on Sunday. “[I] call on political leaders…to [engage] in national dialogue, considering the political, security, economic and social situation [in the country],” Rai said.
Sleiman on Monday sent invitations to the members of the national dialogue committee calling on them to convene on June 11 at the Baabda Presidential Palace to discuss various issues.
-NOW Lebanon

Chamoun slams Nasrallah’s national constituent assembly proposal
June 3, 2012 /National Liberal Party leader MP Dori Chamoun said in remarks published on Sunday that Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s proposal to establish a national constituent assembly aims to keep arms in his party’s possession.“March 14 is not ready to discuss anything before the issue of [Hezbollah’s] arms is resolved and before [Hezbollah’s] weapons are handed over to the army within a specific time frame,” Chamoun told Kuwaiti newspaper As-Seyassah.He also said that Nasrallah’s proposal “violated the Taif Accord.”On Friday, the Hezbollah chief called on President Michel Sleiman to form a new, enlarged “national constituent assembly” composed of experts selected by the Lebanese people, in addition to hosting a national dialogue session. -NOW Lebanon

Siniora says Hezbollah’s support for Syrian regime a “mistake”
June 3, 2012 /Future bloc MP Fouad Siniora said in remarks published on Sunday that Hezbollah’s support for the Syrian regime was “wrong.”“We hoped Hezbollah would stand against injustice committed by the Syrian regime against its people and against the Lebanese people. We think Hezbollah’s position supporting the Syrian regime is wrong,” Siniora told Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper.The MP also voiced disappointment that “Syrian blood has become a material for bargaining among the members of the [UN] Security Council, which is concerned about world peace.”Siniora added that the Syrian regime was attempting to make North Lebanon look like it was harboring “terrorists,” adding that the reality of North Lebanon was not so. Syria has been engulfed in a 15-month crisis in which the United Nations says more than 10,000 people have been killed. Syrian activists put the death toll at more than 13,000. -NOW Lebanon

Aoun says cabinet “dissociating” itself from Lebanese events
June 3, 2012 /Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) leader MP Michel Aoun said on Saturday night that the cabinet was dissociating itself from events happening in its own land. “The cabinet wants to dissociate itself from Syrian events, but [today] it is dissociating itself from its land and society. I want to remind that Akkar and Tripoli are in Lebanon,” Aoun said during an FPM dinner held in Kesrouan.
“We have previously warned of what is happening in the North and we warned that there were [attempts] to establish a buffer zone with Syria in Tripoli and Akkar,” the FPM leader added.
He also said that what was happening in Tripoli can extend to other Lebanese areas and warned that what was happening in Syria had “begun to [affect] Lebanon.”
Clashes in Tripoli between two rival neighborhoods, Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh, have left at least 10 dead and more than 40 people injured. Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen have been gripped by frequent fighting, reflecting a split in Lebanon's political scene in which opposition parties back the revolt in Syria while the ruling coalition, led by Hezbollah, supports the Damascus regime.
-NOW Lebanon

NNA: Body of Lebanese man found in Al-Kabir River
The National News Agency (NNA) reported on Sunday that the body of Lebanese citizen Adnan Hussein Al-Mohammad was found in the Al-Kabir River along the northern border with Syria.
The family of the victim said that the Syrian forces kidnapped Mohammad around a month ago. The NNA said that the family was calling on security forces to pull out the body from the river.
Mohammad hails from the Akkar town of Anbi in North Lebanon. -NOW Lebanon

Gemayel: Dialogue invitation acknowledges government ‘failure’
June 3, 2012 Kataeb party leader Amin Gemayel said on Sunday that the president’s invitation to a national dialogue session reflected the current government’s “failure.” On Monday, President Michel Sleiman sent invitations to members of the national dialogue committee calling on them to convene on June 11 at 11 a.m. at the Baabda Presidential Palace to discuss various issues, including Hezbollah’s military arsenal. “The invitation for [attending a national dialogue session] is in itself an acknowledgement of the government’s [divisive nature] and failure,” Gemayel said in a press statement.  He added that Kataeb voiced it’s support for Sleiman’s invitation to the national dialogue “in order to create an ambiance that would allow the state to address people’s [concerns] independently from the great political conflicts.”“[Welcoming] dialogue implies, once again, [that we do not accept] the continuing presence of non-state arms and [the efforts seeking to dismiss the issue of] the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. This acceptance also means [that we reject] that Palestinian refugee camps remain [as] military camps.” “Accepting dialogue indicates that we are reiterating that we will not accept this government to last forever.” Gemayel also said that a national conference should be held after settling the issue of non-state arms “in order to agree on constitutional reforms.”
The Kataeb Party leader added said that it was time “to stop offering Lebanon up [including its northern area] as a [battlefield] for others.” Clashes in Tripoli have left at least 14 people dead and more than 40 injured since Friday. Tripoli’s Bab al-Tabbaneh and Jabal Mohsen have been gripped by frequent fighting, reflecting a split in Lebanon's political scene in which opposition parties back the revolt in Syria while the ruling coalition, led by Hezbollah, supports the Damascus regime.-NOW Lebanon

Moussawi slams March 14’s “sectarian incitement”
June 3, 2012 /Loyalty to the Resistance bloc MP Nawwaf Moussawi said on Sunday that worries of the possibility of domestic strife were a result of the policy of “sectarian incitement” by March 14, the National News Agency reported. “The [fears] of a fragile security situation and the possibility of domestic wars are caused by the policy of sectarian incitement that [March 14 adopts] through its officials, MPs and media,” Moussawi said. The MP also commented on recent events in Tripoli and said that clashes in the northern city occured because of “incitement, tension, suspicious security acts and foreign infiltrations of security.” Clashes in Tripoli between two rival neighborhoods – Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh – have left at least 14 people dead and more than 40 people injured since Friday.
Moussawi also slammed March 14 for criticizing Hezbollah’s weapons, saying: “Before calling to try the Resistance for [possessing] weapons, [let] the Lebanese people try you for your dereliction in protecting the country.” “[Let them try you] for your sectarian policy that places Lebanon on the edge of a civil war, and for your economic policy that starved people,” the Hezbollah MP added.
-NOW Lebanon

HRW: Isolate Syrian arms suppliers
June 3, 2012/The international community should stop signing deals with firms that provide arms to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime amid an uprising that has left thousands dead, Human Rights Watch said Sunday.The New York-based rights group singled out Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-owned arms trading company, in an open letter to the firm and a statement published on Sunday.
"The bottom line is that no one should do new business with any company that may be an accomplice to crimes against humanity," Kenneth Roth, HRW's executive director, said in the statement.
He added: "Rosoboronexport's clients should distance themselves from the company until it stops selling arms to Syria."HRW said in the statement that under international law, "providing weapons to Syria while crimes against humanity are being committed may translate into assisting in the commission of those crimes."
"Any arms supplier could bear potential criminal liability as an accessory to those crimes and could face prosecution."More than 13,400 people have been killed across Syria since an anti-regime uprising erupted in March 2011, including nearly 2,300 since a ceasefire technically went into effect on April 12, according to figures compiled by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Iran: ‘Thunder’ will fall on Israel if it attacks
June 3, 2012 /Any attack by Israel on Iran will blow back on the Jewish state "like thunder," Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Sunday.
Khamenei also said that the international community's suspicion that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons is based on a "lie" and he insisted that sanctions imposed on his country were ineffective and only strengthened its resolve.His speech, broadcast on state television to mark the 1989 death of his predecessor and founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, contained no sign Iran was prepared to make any concessions on its disputed nuclear program.
Instead, it was infused with defiance and Khamenei's customary contempt for Iran's arch-foes Israel and the United States.
If the Israelis "make any misstep or wrong action, it will fall on their heads like thunder," Khamenei said.
The Jewish state, he added, was feeling "vulnerable" and "terrified" after losing deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak as an ally.
Allegations that Iran was trying to develop atomic bombs were false, Khamenei also said.
"International political circles and media talk about the danger of a nuclear Iran, that a nuclear Iran is dangerous. I say that they lie. They are deceiving," Khamenei said.
"What they are afraid of - and should be afraid of - is not a nuclear but an Islamic Iran."
He added: "They invoke the term 'nuclear weapons' based on a lie. They magnify and highlight the issue in their propaganda based on a lie. Their goal is to divert minds and public opinion from the [economic] events that are happening in the US and Europe."
Western economic sanctions imposed to pressure Iran to curb its nuclear program were having no effect, Khamenei insisted. Their only impact, he said, was "deepening hatred and animosity of the West in the hearts of the Iranian people."
Khamenei called the stance by the United States and its Western allies "crazy."
"The Iranian people have proved they can progress without the United States, and while being an enemy of the United States," he said.
Western nations, the United States at the fore, accuse Iran of wanting to develop the capability to make nuclear weapons, something Khamenei has repeatedly denied. The supreme leader has called atomic arms "a great sin."
Talks between the Islamic republic and the so-called P5+1 group of nations - the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, plus Germany - were revived this year and are to go to a crucial next round in Moscow on June 18-19.
But the United States and its ally Israel - the sole, if undeclared, nuclear weapons state in the Middle East - have threatened military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.
Khamenei's speech was being closely watched by P5+1 officials for signs of what positions the Iranian delegation might take into the Moscow negotiations. Iran's supreme leader has the final word on any decision on his country's nuclear activities.
At one point in his speech, Khamenei declared it "forbidden to stop on the path to progress, in the political sphere and in the sphere of science and technology."
That carried the implication that Iran had no intention on scaling back its nuclear development.
-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Turkey ditches Syrian rebels. Will Israel attack Hizballah's Scuds?
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 2, 2012/Two radical developments arising from the Syrian conflict are revealed by debkafile: In an astonishing about face, Turkey has just turned away from its 14-month support for the anti-Assad revolt alongside the West and made common cause with Russia, i.e. Bashar Assad. Further exacerbating fears of a “proxy war” involving Israel, Iran and Syria, the Lebanese Hizballah is getting ready to bring its Scud D missiles, which can reach any point in Israel, and other advanced weapons, including anti-air missiles, out of secret storage in Syria and transfer them across the border to Lebanon. Two years ago, Israel issued an ultimatum through Washington that the Scuds would be destroyed if they were moved over to Hizballah’s launching pads in Lebanon. The Lebanese Shiite group has since kept its most advanced hardware stashed at the Syrian Al Hame and Al Zabadani military bases near Damascus.
Now that Syrian rebel attacks are closing in on Syrian military targets, Tehran and Hizballah leaders are working on plans to get them across into Lebanon without exposing them to Israeli attack.
One plan is to enlist the Palestinian Jihad Islami in the Gaza Strip and exploit a clash over the Scuds’ transfer as a trigger for an all round military offensive against Israel. It would be timed for the moment the Western-Arab intervention in Syria against President Assad crosses the line between covert and overt military action and begins an operation to establish safe zones as bases for rebel operation.
Washington, London and Paris began rushing forward contingency plans for this eventuality upon discovering that Ankara had secretly notified leaders of the rebel Free Syrian Army Thursday, May 31 that it had withdrawn permission for them to launch operations against the Assad regime from Turkish soil.
It was then realized that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had stabbed Western-Arab Syrian policy in the back and moved over to help prop Assad up at the very moment his regime was on the point of buckling under international after-shocks from the systematic massacres of his own people.
That day, Erdogan’s betrayal was confirmed when Davutoglu announced over Turkish NTV: “We have never advised either the Syrian National Council or the Syrian administration to conduct an armed fight, and we will never do so.” He added: “The Syrian people will be the driving force that eventually topples the Syrian regime. Assad will leave as a result of the people’s will.”
This was precisely the view voiced this week by Russian President Vladimir Putin, when he spoke out against violent rebellion, military intervention and sanctions to topple the Syrian ruler.
For the time being, the pro-Assad Moscow-Tehran front, bolstered now by Ankara, has got the better of Western and Arab policies for Syria. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Bashar Assad and Hassan Nasrallah have drawn encouragement for advancing to their next step: to confront the United States and Israel with another accomplished fact, the deployment of Scuds aimed at Israel from Lebanon.
Failing to curtail their transfer across the Syrian-Lebanese border in compliance with its 2010 ultimatum will seriously shake Israel’s deterrent capabilities and undercut its military credibility against its enemies, including Iran.
If on the other hand, the Obama administration again holds Israel back from military action, this time to destroy the long-range Scuds, Bashar Assad, Hizballah and Tehran will be awarded a winning hand – and not only in Syria.

Has Syria become a failed state?
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
Between 1991 and 1995 over 300,000 people were killed in Bosnia in one of the bloodiest periods in modern history during which the US refrained from intervening under the pretext that this was a purely European problem which the Europeans should resolve themselves. However Europe was unable to intervene for a different set of reasons, most prominently Russia's objection to any military intervention in the crisis. For over three years, the UN sent peacekeeping forces to Bosnia; however these troops were lacking the powers and arms to confront the Serbian killing machine. This balance changed only after the Americans decided to intervene, whilst everybody turned a blind eye to the arming of the Muslims at a time when the Americans had entered into difficult negotiations with both the Russians and the Europeans, aiming to reach a solution to stop the crimes against humanity that were being committed by the Serbian forces against the Croatians and Muslims. Following a series of negotiations over a period of 14 weeks, the parties ultimately reached the Dayton Agreement in December 1995.
In his book "To End a War" (1999), Richard Holbrook, the then Special Assistant to Under Secretary of State, indicated that the State Department's delay in intervening in Bosnia led to catastrophic consequences, most prominently the collapse of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not to mention the difficulty in restoring trust between the different races and sects to the pre-war levels. On the one hand, the domestic conflicts and terrible massacres caused a state of deeply-rooted hostility and rage between the Serbs and the Muslims whereby coexistence seemed difficult to achieve as a result of the huge death toll. Holbrook adds that although he, together with his colleagues, were aware that they were conducting an impossible mission, they had no other choice but to try and convince the different parties that it was time to stop the bloodshed, and that the only way for peace to prevail was through forgiveness and thinking of the future generations.
Doesn't this history remind us of what is happening today in Syria where the sectarian Baathist regime has transgressed all bounds with regards to its brutal crimes against humanity committed under Russian – Iranian cover, not to mention logistical and propaganda support from Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, as well as the complicity of other regional parties? Today, the US and some European states seem reluctant to confront what is happening in Syria. In fact, even after the regime committed an inhumane massacre targeting women and children in Houla, the UN Security Council could barely condemn this, whilst international special envoy Kofi Annan travelled to Syria to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad without expressing his condolences to those who had lost family members in this terrible war crime.
In view of this agonizing scene, it is clear to us that the Syrian civil state we knew over the past decades - or at least what remains of this – is heading towards the abyss, and we may reach a stage where it will be extremely difficult to restore the infrastructure of the state, or even social peace in Syria. The gravest danger facing the Syrian state today is not in the al-Assad regime staying in power, for it has exhausted all options and attempts to cling to power; rather the gravest danger lies in the decay of the sovereignty of the Syrian state, whereby Syria becomes a “failed” state, and unfortunately this is the most likely scenario.
Anyone who looks at the reality of the Syrian opposition abroad and its reoccurring divisions will no doubt despair of the Syrian people's ability to conduct a political transition should the regime actually be toppled. What is even more dangerous is that, until now, we have not seen the emergence of any political figures qualified to fill the void at the presidential palace. In fact, the Syrian people's inability to bring in a convincing and effective political alternative from abroad, as well as the fragmented opposition at home and their weak association with opposition institutes abroad, all represent signs of the imminent disappearance of the Syrian state as we know it. Present-day Syria seems to be a combination of the Iraqi and Lebanese experiences, as the regional and sectarian situation is now increasingly difficult to resolve. Even if the existing regime is toppled today, there is no indication or evidence that the Syrian people are capable of establishing an alternative political regime that can provide confidence and reassurance to the Syrian general public, regardless of what community or sects they belong to, or what political views they hold.
I'm not raising this question in order to frustrate the Syrian people or play down their attempts to liberate themselves from an abusive and criminal regime; however this question must be asked in order to demonstrate the fragility and weakness of the current situation in Syria. The Bashar al-Assad regime was successful in suicidally provoking sectarian sedition and national division based on sectarian and ideological affiliations. More than this, the regime has also managed to internationalize the issue and involve some regional parties in the Syrian arena. What has happened in Lebanon over the past month is an indication of the deplorable situation in Syria, for the regime has managed to embroil neighbouring states such as Lebanon and Iraq in the Syrian crisis, and we have also seen an increasing influx of Syrian refugees crossing the borders into Lebanon and Turkey, whilst these countries are unable to deal with all of these refugees, and strong international efforts have yet to crystallize to relieve these victims. The scene depicted by Samir Atallah in his column a few days ago is very painful. He wrote, “in Lebanon, we are accustomed to seeing Syrian labourers everywhere, they have come here [to Lebanon] for many years in order to build and till the land. However we have never seen [Syrian] workers who are just 12-years old, coming here to mix cement and undertake labour. This is a war.”
Of course, some people may not like to acknowledge these realities, yet it is necessary for all parties to be aware of what is happening if they truly want to end the bloodshed in Syria and restore security and stability to this country. It is truly sad that Bashar al-Assad and his cronies can destroy the Syrian state – along the lines of the Samson Option – during this difficult time of change that is reverberating across the Syrian arena. We must remember that Syria, since its independence, experienced instability, represented by reoccurring coups, until late President Hafez al-Assad came to power. Despite all the evils and sins of his rule, this was the only period during which the Syrian state managed to achieve relative stability, and this was only due to the excessive violence practiced by the state against the public. However after Bashar al-Assad came to power, this illusionary stability was revealed and replaced by a state of civil war.
In the 1970s, late professor Edward Azar, an American professor of Lebanese descent who was a prominent expert in the history of Middle Eastern struggles, kept a watchful eye on the civil war in Lebanon. On the eve of the signing of the Taif Agreement, Azar was diagnosed with cancer and sadly passed away over a year later. In one of his most prominent books "Emergence of the New Lebanon: Fantasy or Reality?” (1984), Azar warned that the demographic imbalance - caused by the rise in the Shiite population– in Lebanon in the 1960 and 1970 undermined the country's chances of stability. He stressed that whether we liked it or not, political participation will change based on the childbirth rates of each sect, as well as with every migrant who leaves the country to escape discrimination and sectarian intimidation. Azar wrote that regardless of Lebanon’s future, its pluralism would never serve as a barrier to prevent the Shiites from playing a key role in determining the fate of the country; whether good or evil. Indeed, Azar was right and his prophecy was fulfilled. Hezbollah, a fundamentalist hard-line party, managed to occupy the country and impose the interests of its sponsors in Tehran and Damascus on Lebanon, which became an arena for foreign powers.
What Azar once dreaded for Lebanon is today reoccurring in the Syrian scene. The Baathist party's unilateral hegemony, and its exploitations of the fears of the minorities, has, in fact, incited a civil war between two parties in Syria: one party that is attempting to cling to power by carrying out the most barbaric crimes in order to intimidate the people, whilst the other party is largely without arms, with a small group of fighters attempting to resist the regime’s killing machine, which is claiming the lives of their own people.
It is no secret that with the ouster of that regime, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp leadership would perhaps lose an ally, or rather a subordinate, in Damascus. Perhaps, the Iranians now believe that it is better to help the Syrian regime completely destroy the country in order to prevent the Syrian people from liberating their country from that so-called axis of “resistance” [to Israel]. With every day that passes under this regime, Syria moves closer and closer to total collapse.

Egypt's Mubarak: From War Hero To Prisoner
CAIRO, (AP) — War hero. Savior of the nation. An anchor of stability in a turbulent region. And in the twilight of his life, a criminal convicted for his role in the deaths of those fighting to oust him.
Hosni Mubarak was sentenced Saturday to life in prison after a court convicted him on charges of complicity in the killing of protesters during the 2011 uprising that forced him from power. His two sons — Gamal and Alaa — were acquitted on corruption charges.
It was an inglorious end for a leader who rose to power after Islamic extremists assassinated his predecessor Anwar Sadat and then steered the nation through the turmoil that swept the Middle East buffeted by wars, terrorism and religious extremism.
The frail, 84-year-old Mubarak heard the verdict from a gurney in the defendants' cage, surrounded by his sons and former officials who stood in the dock to answer for the crimes of his nearly 30-year rule. The decision can be appealed.
That scene was in stark contrast to the image Mubarak had sought to portray as the rock-solid "father of the nation." In the early days of his rule, Mubarak's stern, colorless demeanor was a welcome change from the destructive charisma of Gamal Abdel-Nasser and the mercurial style of Sadat.
As Mubarak clung to power, the status quo that he personified became increasingly loathed. Like the Great Sphinx that sits immutable through the millennia, this ancient land once revered as the vibrant leader of the Arab world stagnated. Its masses struggled to feed and clothe themselves while countries of the Gulf — once little more than desert oases — seized the role that Egypt once enjoyed.
At home, Mubarak and his aging coterie of generals and business tycoons were unable to check boiling currents of popular fury, or harness the history unfolding in his nation of 80 million — the most populous in the Arab world.
A former pilot and air force commander with a combative, stubborn streak, Mubarak took tentative steps toward democratic reform early in his presidency but pulled back toward the dictatorial style that eventually propelled the protests against him that began on Jan. 25, 2011.
A 2009 cable from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, released by the secret-sharing WikiLeaks website, called him "a tried and true realist, innately cautious and conservative," and with "little time for idealistic goals."
It noted that Mubarak disapproved of the 2003 U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein of Iraq, which he believed was in need of a "'tough, strong military officer who is fair'" as leader.
"This telling observation, we believe, describes Mubarak's own view of himself as someone who is tough but fair, who ensures the basic needs of his people," the cable said. "In Mubarak's mind, it is far better to let a few individuals suffer than risk chaos for society as a whole."
Yet that very image of cautious stability was once welcomed in the West, which feared that Sadat's death in a hail of gunfire at a military parade would unleash a wave of unrest that would scuttle the fledgling peace with Israel at a time when America and its allies were panicked over the rise of militant Islam in Iran.
Instead, Mubarak maintained the peace with Israel and kept Egypt free of the grip of Islamic extremism. He struggled with the problems that have long bedeviled the Arab world: choking corruption, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and religious militancy. Economic reforms spurred growth, but the fruits trickled only to a few.
He engineered Egypt's return to the Arab fold after nearly a decade in the cold over its 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
Early on, Mubarak crushed an insurgency by Muslim extremists, whose ranks had produced Sadat's assassins and some future al-Qaida leaders. In the 1990s, he fought hard against another resurgence of Muslim militants whose attacks included the slaughter of dozens of foreign tourists at the temple city of Luxor.
Eli Shaked, who served as Israel's ambassador to Egypt from 2003-2005, described Mubarak as "a strong presence, not charismatic but with a heavy body like a fighter bomber, and very levelheaded."
Shaked said Mubarak met visiting Israeli officials with at least three top advisers by his side, often consulting with them and demonstrating a detailed knowledge of Israeli politics. The Israeli said Mubarak liked "political jokes and witticisms," but was short on creativity: "The man is completely status quo."
Mohammed Hosni Mubarak was born on May 4, 1928, in the village of Kafr el-Moseilha in the Nile delta province of Menoufia. His family, like Sadat's and Nasser's, was lower middle class.
After joining the air force in 1950, Mubarak moved up the ranks as a bomber pilot and instructor and rose to leadership positions. He earned nationwide accalim as commander of the air force during the 1973 Middle East war — a conflict which many Egyptians see as a victory — and was vice president when Sadat was assassinated. Mubarak, who was sitting beside Sadat in the reviewing stand, escaped with a minor hand injury.
In his early days, Mubarak made popular moves that held up promise of a more open society, including freeing 1,500 politicians, journalists and clerics jailed during Sadat's last months in office.
But hopes for broader reform dimmed. Mubarak was re-elected in staged, one-man referendums in which he routinely won more than 90 percent approval. He became more aloof, carefully choreographing his public appearances, and his authoritarian governance, buttressed by harsh emergency laws, fueled resentment.
Age took its toll on the president, who was once an avid squash player with a consistent style that matched his personality. He became hard of hearing, and was so devastated by the death of a 12-year-old grandson in 2009 that he canceled a trip to the United States.
Egypt's influence in the Middle East, meanwhile, waned as the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah and their patron, Iran, gained momentum and followers. The oil-rich countries of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates seized the mantle of leadership regional leadership. The growing profile of Turkey, a democracy led by an Islam-inspired government, also chipped away at Egypt's heavyweight stature in the region.
In 2005, Mubarak held the country's first contested presidential election, an event marred by charges of voter fraud and intimidation. He retrenched when opponents made gains in ensuing parliamentary elections, launching a harsh campaign of arrests against the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's biggest and best organized opposition group that now dominates the parliament elected after Mubarak's downfall.
Before the protests began, Mubarak had been silent on whether he intended to seek re-election in September. But the quick rise of his son, Gamal, through the ruling party caused immense anxiety.
The fear that Mubarak was grooming Gamal, a wealthy businessman, to succeed him left many Egyptians feeling trapped in the past, deprived of change and renewal. Then, the uprising in Tunisia delivered an electrifying message: an old order can be ousted.
Mubarak initially responded to protests by saying he would not seek another term, and his government said Gamal Mubarak would not run, either. But the president rejected demands that he step down immediately, telling ABC News that he'd like to leave but feared the country would sink deeper into chaos without him.
It was a persuasive argument for 29 years, but in 2011 it was overwhelmed by the cries of huge crowds in Cairo's Tahrir Square: "Leave! Leave!"

Egypt is on the right track
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
As expected the results of Egypt’s first genuine presidential election has triggered an avalanche of comments. Having set the stage for a duel between the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood and his rival who enjoys the implicit support of the military, the first round of the election is seen by some as a catastrophe and by others as a relief.
However, derogatory or approbatory adjectives aside, the results could best be described with another word: expected.
The results were expected because they reflect the reality of Egyptian political life at present. Since Egypt gained its independence in the 1920s its politics has been dominated by two elements. The first has been the army, around which the modern Egyptian state was structured even under the monarchy, and the Muslim Brotherhood that ideologised the hopes and fears of segments of the urban middle and lower middle classes.
But, what about the Tahrir Square protestors, many ask?
The question is wrongly formulated. So far, there has been no revolution in Egypt. As noted in this column many months ago, Egyptians are experiencing change within the regime rather than regime change. In any case, the principal slogan of the Tahrir crowd was “Go!” addressed to President Hosni Mubarak. Tahrir did not propose a programme for revolutionary changes in the nation’s social, economic and political structures.
Because the word “revolution” still evokes romantic images, some Egyptians like to speak of “our revolution”. Nevertheless, a revolution is designated as such only after it has happened not before or while it is happening.
Egypt is lucky to have escaped revolution, at least so far.
Revolution, its romantic aura notwithstanding, is not a garden party. It is about mass killings and destruction. They always start as uprisings against dictatorship but end up creating a new despotism that is far worse. The French revolution produced Robespierre and his Terror. The Russian Revolution reached its peak with Stalin, and the Chinese one with Lin Biao and the Gang of Four. The Khomeinist revolution in Iran produced Walayat al-Faqih or the dictatorship of a mullah.
Even the mild revolutions of 1848 in Europe produced dictators, including Louis Bonaparte and Bismarck.
In every case, with revolution, people end up less free than before. Overcoming the negative effects of a revolution could take decades, if not centuries.
There is no doubt that some Egyptians find it hard to vote for either Muhammad Mursi or Ahmad Shafiq. Mursi is rejected as a zealot plotting despotism in the name of Shariah. Shafiq, on the other hand, is attacked as the jackboot designated by the military to save the old order.
Though understandable, that attitude is both wrong and unfair.
An election is about a choice at a given time and in a given space. Thus candidates should be judged for what they offer at that precise moment rather than what they might have been or might do in hypothetical circumstances. Today, Mursi is a candidate for the presidency of Egypt and, if elected, would no longer represent the Muslim Brotherhood.
As for Shafiq, it is futile to continue branding him as a general. To start with, he is a retired general. And, having had a military career is no reason to disqualify a man for political office.
At least a third of American presidents so far have been retired military officers.
As candidates for the presidency no one attacked Eisenhower in the US or De Gaulle in France because they had once been generals. Nor was Attlee branded “Major” when he was a candidate for Prime Minister in Great Britain.
A candidate’s past is certainly relevant to the judgment that voters make. But to transform that past into a derogatory cliché is hardly acceptable. Opponents of Ronald Reagan jeered at him as “the cowboy” because he had once played in a Western film. They ignored the fact that his political career was twice as long as his stint as Hollywood actor.
Even worse is turning one’s concerns into a witch-hunt of intentions for a candidate. The candidacy of both Mursi and Shafiq raises serious concerns and it is understandable that many Egyptians should think the worst of them. However, if such concerns lead to boycotting the election and rejecting the electoral process, the remedy would be worse than the real or imagined illness.
What is important is that this election, being the first of its kind for Egypt, not be the last. The real issue is to develop a national consensus axed on two crucial principles. The first of these is that governments should be made and un-made through elections. The second is it that all Egyptians be allowed to contest elections; in other words no party or group should be banned on ideological grounds.
While it is important to remain vigilant, the prospect for imposing a new dictatorship on Egypt in the name of religion or “law and order” should not be exaggerated. Mursi and Shafiq lack the massive popular support needed for derailing Egypt’s slow march to democracy. In the first round, the two men won the support of around one-fifth of the total electorate.
These days, being pessimistic about Egypt’s prospects is fashionable. The truth, however, is that Egypt is on the right track with evolutionary change that avoids the death and desolation of revolutions while preventing the emergence of a new dictatorship.

Enough with the threats against Iran
By Yoel Marcus | Jun.01, 2012/Haaretz
If we attack Iran, not only will we get into trouble with the United States, not only will our home front be attacked, but no Jewish target in the world will be safe for generations.
Every time Defense Minister Ehud Barak talks about watches, I'm terrified. Not because I don't respect his prodigious knowledge about taking apart and reassembling watches, but because the amateur watchmaker and occasional pianist is the defense minister during one of the most dangerous and sensitive periods in the life of this country.
At this week's annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies on the security challenges of the 21st century, Barak said that although there are differences between us and the United States about the ticking of the clock, it is clear that Israel will decide on its own if and when to attack Iran. "The Iranians are working to create a situation in which even the United States will not be able to stop the nuclear project," warned Barak, asking his listeners in the auditorium and all over the country "to get rid of the fear of making tough decisions." One of the reports from the conference described the tone of Barak's speech as "messianic."
Finally, a watchmaker remains a watchmaker. As someone who is a frequent visitor to the administration in Washington, takes credit for a billion dollars earmarked for special defense establishment operations, and is engaged in secret talks with the Americans, he did not give the impression that he would accept an understanding between the great powers and Iran to let it keep part of its nuclear capability under restricted conditions. Iran is working to create a situation where neither Israel nor the United States will be able to prevent the manufacture of the bomb. This moment is singled out by the chatterboxes among the leadership as the moment when Israel is likely to act.
Contrary to what is implied by Barak's words - that only Israel will decide who, what and how - President Barack Obama is still in control of the situation. He is not a pacifist as he is portrayed and is not afraid to use force. But he expects the circumstances to justify the use of force, not only because he is facing elections but also as a part of the overall considerations required of the leader of the world's greatest power.
To be sure, the Israeli defense minister, who may be at the end of his political life and has nothing to lose, cannot be allowed to get us into trouble with the entire world, and primarily with the United States.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Barak are operating like Siamese twins. About a week ago the prime minister said in private that although he prefers to let the Americans do the job, if it turns out that the international effort being led by Obama doesn't produce results, there will be no choice but for us ourselves to do what has to be done. "I am obligated to protect the Jewish people and the residents of Israel." Thus spake Bibi.
It makes no difference at present who is the leader and who is being led in this country, nor what truth there is to the insane and frightening threat that we will act on our own against Iran - shouldn't we listen to the warnings of Meir Dagan, Yuval Diskin and others about the consequences of such a military operation by Israel?
Some people are convinced a unilateral operation is not only possible but actually in the preparation stages. Important journalists are constantly being told by Barak and Bibi that it will be a terrible disaster if we don't act immediately, even on our own, even if we are roasted in no time by an atomic mushroom on our home front. In addition, the vice prime minister, none other than Shaul Mofaz, a former chief of staff and defense minister, implicitly justifies his hasty entry into the government by the Iranian nuclear threat.
But against the chorus of voices eager for a preventive war stand prominent former defense officials who say Israel would do well to show more patience for the sanctions being led by the United States and Europe against Iran, and not turn itself into a laughingstock by threatening to neutralize Iran's nuclear facilities entirely on its own.
The frightening of the public on the one hand, together with the official chatter on the other, have gone altogether too far. How will we make any progress if we are incapable of even conducting a clandestine war - say, involving cyberattacks? - without hinting that we are behind it. In any case, we shouldn't even dream of attacking Iran directly, something the world isn't yet daring to do without first exhausting every other option.
We should recall how we breathed a sigh of relief when neither the Americans nor the rest of the world claimed that it was because of Israel that the Twin Towers in New York were destroyed. If we attack Iran, not only will we get into trouble with the United States, not only will our home front be attacked, but we will create a situation in which no Jewish target in the world will be safe for generations. An Iran that's going nuclear is a regional and international danger. Let the rational world handle it in its own way.
We must not push our way in front. This is not the hour to be tinkering with time bombs.

Sinai peacekeeping force commander warns of weapons smuggling to Gaza
By Gili Cohen | May.31, 2012/Haaretz
Commander of the Multinational Force and Observers says SA-24 surface-to-air missiles have made their way from Libya to Sinai, and may potentially be used against Israeli air operations. The commander of the Multinational Force and Observers in Sinai said this week that advanced Russian-made missiles were being smuggled from Libya, through Egypt, into the Gaza Strip.
Speaking on Monday at a conference of the Evans Program for Conflict Resolution of Tel Aviv University, Maj. Gen. Warren James Whiting said that weapons smuggling is one of the biggest challenges facing his troops. He said that Russian-made SA-24 shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, which were sold to Libya in 2004, are being smuggled into the Gaza Strip through Egypt.
The SA-24, considered an upgraded version of the SA-18, is both highly accurate and deadly, with the ability to bring down aircrafts flying at an altitude of 11,000 feet.
Such weapons could endanger flight in the Sinai area and could potentially be used by militants in Gaza against the Israel Air Force.
Whiting related that in October 2011 an Iranian-made Fajr-5 missile landed 26 kilometers southwest of the MFO's northern base, in Al-Jura. He said it may have been fired by militants to test the limit of its range. Israeli defense officials believe that advanced weapons, in particular anti-tank missiles and long-range rockets, have made their way to the Gaza Strip. They have also noted in the past that SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles were brought into the territory during the civil war in Libya, and in its aftermath.
Citing statements by Israeli officials, Reuters reported in August on the smuggling from Eastern Libya of SA-7 missiles and rocket-propelled grenades overland, into Gaza.
A missile was fired at an Israel Defense Forces helicopter hovering at relatively low altitude in the course of the coordinated attack near Israel's border with Egypt, at Ein Netafim, also in August 2011. The pilots evaded the missile attack by changing their course.
A senior IDF officer recently sketched out a few of the supply routes for weapons, including from Iran to Lebanon and Syria, via Iraq; from Libya to Sinai, and from Sudan to Sinai. He described the Egyptian peninsula as "a constant challenge in the next several years."
The head of the Shin Bet security service, Yoram Cohen, addressing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Wednesday, said that Libya was "a new gate to hell," in part because of the large number of missiles and RPGs being smuggled out of that country and into the Gaza Strip, flooding the territory with advanced weapons.
The MFO is deployed in three separate areas across the Sinai peninsula: 350 soldiers from Fiji patrol the northern region, along the border with Israel, while a similar number of Colombian troops are posted farther south. An additional contingent of U.S. soldiers is deployed in the southern tip of the peninsula, along the Suez Canal.
Whiting, who commands a force of around 2,300 soldiers and unarmed civilian monitors, said attacks on the MFO have escalated over the past year. He said so far this year there have been 187 incidents of live fire and 37 incidents of stone-throwing directed at his troops. In 2011 a total of 344 live-fire incidents were recorded, while in 2010 there were only 38 such incidents.

Iran builds new space center to launch satellites
By The Associated Press | Jun.02, 2012/Haaretz
Iran's defense minister says that his country will soon be able to launch domestically made satellites into orbit.Iran is finishing construction of a new space center that will allow it to soon launch more domestically made satellites into orbit, the country's defense minister said Saturday.
The remarks by Gen. Ahmad Vahidi's were the first confirmation that Iran is building a new space facility amid the standoff with the West over Iran's controversial nuclear program. The West is concerned the program masks efforts to make atomic weapons, a charge Iran denies, insisting it's only for peaceful purposes.
Iran's ambitious space plans have also raised concerns in the West because of their possible military applications - the same rocket technology used to send satellites into orbit can also be retooled to make intercontinental warheads.
For the latest updates visit Haaretz.com on Facebook and Tumblr.
Vahidi, in comments carried by the official IRNA news agency, said the first satellite to be launched from the new center will be the Tolo. It will be carried into orbit by the Iranian-made Simorgh light booster rocket, he said.
Vahidi didn't say where the new facility, which has been named after Iran's founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, is located.
Iran already has a major satellite launch complex near Semnan, 125 miles (200 kilometers) east of Tehran, and another space center - a satellite monitoring facility - outside Mahdasht, about 40 miles (70 kilometers) west of the Iranian capital.
"Some 80 percent of the actual construction of the new space center has been completed," Vahidi said, adding that the new facility will send "satellites from Iran, the regional countries and the world of Islam into orbit in the near future."
Iran's decades-old space program is a key aspect of its efforts to achieve technological prowess similar to that of world powers. In Feb. 2010, Iran announced it had successfully launched a menagerie of animals - including a mouse, two turtles and worms - into space on a research rocket.
Iran launched its first commercial satellite in 2005 on a Russian rocket in a joint project with Moscow, which is said to be a partner in transferring space technology to Iran. That same year, the government said it had allocated $500 million for space projects for the next five years.
Register now for Haaretz's new iPad app
Iran's lofty space plans also include putting a man in orbit within less than a decade, despite the expense and technological challenges involved.
Iran says it wants to put its own satellites into orbit to monitor natural disasters in the earthquake-prone nation and improve its telecommunications.
Iranian officials also point to America's use of satellites to monitor conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and say they need similar capabilities for their security.