LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 02/2012

Bible Quotation for today/The Plot against Jesus
Luke 22/01-06: "The time was near for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover. The chief priests and the teachers of the Law were afraid of the people, and so they were trying to find a way of putting Jesus to death secretly. Then Satan entered into Judas, called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve disciples. So Judas went off and spoke with the chief priests and the officers of the Temple guard about how he could betray Jesus to them. They were pleased and offered to pay him money. Judas agreed to it and started looking for a good chance to hand Jesus over to them without the people knowing about it..

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Syria: The Dictator's Handbook!/By Adel Al Toraifi/March 01/12
Saudi-Syrian relations: It’s over/By Hussein Shobokshi/March 01/12
Syria: inside Al-Assad’s torture chamber/By Amr Ahmed/March 01/12
Let us compare al-Assad to Israel/By Tariq Alhomayed/March 01/12
For minorities, now is the time to report/By Michael Young/March 01/12
Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits 'Creative Lying/by Raymond Ibrahim/March 01/12
The 1,500 Year Old 'Bible' and Muslim Propaganda/AINA/March 01/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for March 01/12
US panel passes bill on Iran-Latin America links
Pentagon prepares “aerial refueling” for Israeli planes striking Iran
U.S. has military plan should Iran conflict erupt, says air force chief
Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah aiding al-Assad in Syria – FSA commander
Jerusalem, Washington, and the Iranian bomb
Peres, Barak add a few laughs to their U.S. trips
Clinton, Panetta defend administration on Israel
Iran pays India traders with rupees in bid to skirt Western sanctions
Letters reveal Malaysian premier's true thoughts on Rabin, Netanayhu, and Barak
Report: Turkey's Erdogan to visit Iran following nuclear summit
Istanbul bomb wounds 10 police officers near Turkey ruling party headquarters
Senior Israeli official: North Korea pact is no model for Iran nuclear talks
Hezbollah: Israeli attack on Iran would set Middle East ablaze
Israeli MK Herzog: Syrian rebels want peace with Israe
UN-Arab League envoy Annan to visit Syria soon in efforts to end violence
Egypt lifts travel ban on US pro-democracy workers
Arab League chief says fueling violence will not help Syria
Syrian forces seize Baba Amr as rebels withdraw
UN rights council condemns regime, calls for allowing aid access
Kuwait MPs press for arming Syrian opposition
Arab League chief says fueling violence will not help Syria
Syrian opposition forms military council
Elite Syrian troops advance on Baba Amr
Egypt lifts travel ban on American activists in NGO case
US envoy “raises concerns” regarding Ghosn’s Iran visit
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea warns of “widening political rift”
STL: Court would need expanded mandate to tackle false witnesses issue
United Nations appoints Norman Farrell as STL prosecutor
U.N. report warns Syrian turmoil may destabilize Lebanon
Snow and rain ravage Lebanon, disrupting transport, electricity  
Lebanon make history despite defeat in Gulf
Mikati calls for Lebanese unity as fresh rows engulf Cabinet
Mikati, ex-prime ministers circumnavigate Sunni Council dispute
Lebanon to ratify agreement with Cyprus once dispute with Israel ends
Snow and rain ravage Lebanon
Sleiman, Klaus discuss boosting economic, technological ties

US panel passes bill on Iran-Latin America links
March 1, 2012
A US House of Representatives subcommittee passed a bill Thursday requiring the State Department to report to Congress on Iran's activities in Latin America. The bill, which was approved by a voice vote in the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, was pushed by Republicans and some Democrats as a signal of concern over Iran's links in the region. The bill says Iran has doubled the number of embassies it has in Latin America, from five in 2005 to 11 currently, and recalls the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, allegedly backed by Iran, that killed 85 people. It also referred to an alleged plot by Iran to recruit Mexican drug cartel killers to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday there was insufficient evidence linking either Iran or the Shia militia group Hezbollah to drug cartels in the region. If the "Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act" is passed by the full Congress, the State Department would have 180 days to report to Congress on Iran's activities in Latin America.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Kuwait MPs press for arming Syrian opposition
March 1, 2012 /Kuwait's parliament adopted on Thursday a non-binding resolution calling on the government to arm the Syrian opposition and to sever diplomatic ties with Damascus. The vote came following an emergency session to debate developments in Syria, where thousands of people have been killed in a bloody crackdown by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad on pro-democracy protests. The resolution called on the oil-rich Gulf state to "support the Free [Syrian] Army with weapons."
The government did not object to the recommendations and said it will study them before taking a final decision. Parliament also urged the government to join international efforts to refer the Syrian president to the International Criminal Court as a war criminal. On Wednesday, MPs passed a resolution calling on the government to recognize the opposition Syrian National Council as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

UN rights council condemns regime, calls for allowing aid access
March 1, 2012 /The UN's Human Rights Council (UNHRC) called on Syria Thursday to end all rights abuses and allow aid agencies "free and unimpeded" access to those caught up in the bloodshed. A resolution adopted by the council condemned the "continued widespread and systematic violations of human rights" and urged the authorities to let humanitarian groups, including UN organization, in to deliver vital aid. Russia, Cuba and China voted against the resolution while India, the Philippines and Ecuador abstained. Civilians in Homs, Daraa and Zabadani are in particular need of urgent help, said the resolution tabled by Qatar and Turkey earlier this week. The Syrian representative to the UN boycotted an HRC debate on the human rights situation in the violence-wracked country on Tuesday. A crackdown by troops in response to 11 months of protests against President Bashar al-Assad's regime has left more than 7,500 people dead, according to the United Nations. The resolution calls on Assad's regime to "permit humanitarian agencies to deliver vital relief goods and services to all civilians affected by the violence, especially in Homs, Daraa, Zabadani and other areas under siege by the Syrian security forces." The eight-point resolution also expressed concern over "the lack of access to basic food, medicine and fuel, as well as threats to and acts of violence against medical staff, patients and facilities."-AFP/NOW Lebanon

Syrian forces seize Baba Amr as rebels withdraw
March 1, 2012 /Syrian troops took full control of the Homs neighborhood of Baba Amr on Thursday as rebels announced they were pulling out "tactically" after nearly two days of all-out assault by regime forces. "The Syrian army controls all of Baba Amr. The last pockets of resistance have fallen," a security official in Damascus told AFP on the 27th day of bombardment targeting the defiant neighborhood. The Free Syrian Army, made up mostly of deserters who defected after anti-regime protests erupted in March 2011, said the rebels had to withdraw to save the lives of civilians. Rebels "have pulled out tactically in order to protect the remaining civilians," FSA chief Colonel Riyadh al-Asaad told AFP. At least 17 civilians were killed in fighting that took place on the edges of the neighborhood, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
Activists had said on Thursday that rebels were still holding out in Baba Amr. "The Free Syrian Army has succeeded in stopping the attempt to attack Baba Amr, and it continues to resist," Homs-based activist Hadi Abdullah told AFP earlier. He said troops loyal to President Bashar al-Assad "have not entered the district," which has become a symbol of the Syrian uprising. The Observatory said earlier that at least 12 soldiers had been killed in the assault.
"Last night [Wednesday], the bodies of 12 soldiers killed in the fighting around Baba Amr were taken to the military hospital in Homs, along with more than 15 seriously wounded." A Damascus-based security source had also told AFP that the "army on Thursday controlled 90 percent of Baba Amr, while many of the rebels fled towards Lebanon," noting, however, that pockets of resistance remained. "There remain pockets of resistance, mainly at Sultaniyeh South of Baba Amr," the source said.
On Wednesday a security source said that regime forces had launched a ground assault on Baba Amr late on Tuesday and that the neighborhood was "under control."
State television aired footage it said was filmed in Baba Amr, including interviews with people it said were residents angry with the rebels.
The footage included shots of what the broadcaster said were fortifications abandoned by the rebels. People who spoke on television said they were in the neighborhood of Juret al-Arayess, which is, according to Abdel Rahman, outside Baba Amr. The rebel fighters who resisted in Baba Amr were only lightly armed, FSA leader said.
They were up against the heavy artillery of the elite Fourth Armored Division, which is under the command of Assad's younger brother, Maher.-AFP/NOW Lebanon

U.S. has military plan should Iran conflict erupt, says air force chief
By Haaretz /According to Bloomberg, Pentagon officials say U.S. prepared options to provide aerial refueling for IDF planes, as well as plans to attack Iranian military bases.U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said Wednesday that Washington has prepared military options to strike Iran's nuclear sites should conflict erupt, Bloomberg reported. Just four days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled meeting with President Barack Obama in Washington, Schwartz told reporters that military options are being prepared in the event of a conflict.“What we can do, you wouldn’t want to be in the area,” Bloomberg quoted Schwartz as telling reporters in Washington on Wednesday. According to Bloomberg, which quoted Pentagon officials, some of the preparations include providing aerial refueling for Israel Air Force planes and attacking the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iranian military bases, and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity since the plans are confidential. Meanwhile on Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. military is increasingly confident that its air force's "bunker-buster" bombs could take out Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Fordo, which is deeply buried underground. Haaretz reported on Wednesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to try to pressure U.S. President Barack Obama in their meeting next week to publicly support an attack on Iran should the latter cross certain "red lines."
Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.
According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.
Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

Pentagon prepares “aerial refueling” for Israeli planes striking Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report March 1, 2012/ In a dramatic U-turn to show Israel that Washington is serious about its military option against Iran’s nuclear program, Pentagon officials disclosed Thursday, March 1, that “military options being prepared start with providing refueling for Israeli planes and include attacking the pillars of the clerical regime. They include the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and its elite Qods Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security." The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in Washington’s first public reference to possible joint military action with Israel against Iran.Earlier, Israel asked the Obama administration to finally set red lines for Iran’s nuclear program and abandon its “shifting red lines” option, as well as spelling out US military contingencies instead of using the worn-out “all options are on the table” mantra. debkafile reported earlier Thursday on the deep discord marking the US-Israeli approach to the threat of a nuclear Iran:
Barring last-minute changes, US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will still be at profound cross purposes on Iran when they meet at the White House on March 5. Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak flew to Washington to try and work out with US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Wednesday, Feb. 29 a formula for bridging the widening gap. debkafile’s Washington sources report that notwithstanding their smiling embraces, Barak flew straight back home to inform the prime minister they had failed. While still airborne, Barak heard White House Spokesman Jay Carney further sharpen Obama’s current tone: “I think we have been clear about this – that any (Israeli) military action in that region threatens greater instability in the region, because Iran borders both Afghanistan and Iraq – we have civilian personnel in Iraq, we have military personnel as well as civilians in Afghanistan.”
Carney added “But our approach right now is to continue to pursue the diplomatic path that we’ve taken, combined with very aggressive sanctions.”
Senior American and Israeli officials said on Thursday, March 1 that this statement confirmed that the president had turned down two key Israeli requests:
1. To set final and absolute red lines for Iran’s nuclear program which, if crossed, would provide the grounds for the US and Israel to strike its nuclear sites. Israel maintains that Washington’s Iran policy can be summed up as “shifting red lines:” Whenever Iran moves ahead with another nuclear achievement, the US sets new “red lines” to avoid a confrontation. This enables Tehran to jump its nuclear program forward from one US “red line” to the next.
2. To stop reciting the mantra that “all options are on the table’ for stopping Iran gaining a nuclear weapon and moving on to more definite language for specifying American military contingencies. However, the attempt to formulate a new locution evaded the efforts of Panetta and Barak.
President Shimon Peres is due to meet President Obama Sunday, March 4 although the hour has not yet been set. Whether it takes place before or after the US President’s speech to the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) National Convention opening that day in Washington is significant.
If it takes place after, it would mean that the Americans are no longer amenable to Israeli persuasion to give up their objections to an Israeli attack and they expect Jerusalem to respect the Obama administration’s demand to give sanctions and diplomatic pressure more time to persuade Iran’s leaders to pack up their nuclear weapon program.
Obama is waiting anxiously to see if the Iranians turn up for nuclear talks with the five UN Security Council permanent members and Germany in Istanbul next month. To meet one of their conditions for coming to the table, the US stalled on leading the West and Arab powers into military intervention to overthrow Syria’s Bashar Assad.
But even if Peres gets to see Obama before the AIPAC speech, there is not much he can do to persuade the US president to accept a compromise formula that would save his talks with Netanyahu from digging the rift between them on Iran still deeper.
Thursday, March 1, senior American sources listed the US-Israeli schedule for the coming days:
Thursday: Former US presidential adviser Dennis B. Ross holds a background briefing on US policy for Iran with American journalists. Although he holds no official White House position, Ross is considered sufficiently influential and well-informed to outline the next stages of the presidential Iran strategy.
Sunday, March 4: President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu both address the opening of the national AIPAC Convention in Washington. The extremely sensitive order of appearance has not yet been settled.
Jerusalem would rather Obama go first to give Netanyahu the chance to answer his comments. For that very reason, the Americans would prefer their president to follow the prime minister and so, in a manner of speaking, carve his policy in stone. The White House is making every effort to make sure no public confrontation over Iran takes place between the American and Israeli leaders in their widely broadcast and televised appearances before an audience of some 14,000 Jewish delegates from across America.
Monday, March 5: The Obama-Netanyahu summit at the White House.

Clinton, Panetta defend administration on Israel
Associated Press
Officials dismiss claims that cut to US-Israeli defense program indicates declining support for Israel
Pushing back hard, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta are rejecting Republican criticism of President Barack Obama's policy toward Israel, arguing that the election-year attacks ignore the strong cooperative relationship and the record billions of dollars in US aid for the Mideast ally.
In separate appearances on Capitol Hill, Clinton and Panetta defended the administration against complaints from some House Republicans that a slight reduction in the budget request for a joint US-Israeli missile defense program is a sign of inadequate support for a longtime friend. In fact, Obama's budget for next year calls for $3.1 billion in military assistance for Israel, a slight increase over the current level and the most for any foreign country."I can assure you that not only does the Obama administration strongly support the defense and security of Israel, but we have put more money behind that pledge than has ever been put before," Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. "We've increased US security assistance to Israel every year since" the 2009 budget.
Clinton noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the bilateral security cooperation between the two countries unprecedented.
Republicans see a political opening in the uneasy relationship between Washington and Jerusalem over settlements in the West Bank and the state of Mideast peace talks, further complicated by the Obama administration's pressure on Israel to hold off on a possible military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear development program. The criticism comes ahead of Netanyahu's visit to Washington next week to meet with Obama and congressional leaders.
Fight for Jewish votes
The Iranian threat to Israel has stoked the bitter rhetoric both in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail, where Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have accused Obama of throwing Israel under a bus and emboldening the Palestinians. The fierce talk reflects that Jewish voters, who comprise only 2% of the electorate nationwide, are a critical part of Obama's base and could be the difference in close battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada.
Financial contributions from Jewish voters are critical for both parties.
In a harbinger of the criticism if Israel does hit Iran, Indiana Republican representative Dan Burton asked why the administration "doesn't give complete support to Israel and say, you know, if Iran continues with its program, we will do whatever is necessary to stop that program and give Israel the support that I think they need."
At a House Budget Committee hearing, Tom Price pressed Panetta on why the administration budget requests for the missile defense program had declined. Obama has asked for $99.8 million for a program designed to help protect Israel from short-range ballistic missiles and rockets that might be fired from Gaza or from Lebanese Hezbollah territory or for longer-range missiles from Iran or Syria. The request for 2013 is slightly less than what the administration sought in 2012, $106.1 million.
"What justification, given what we see out of the nation of Iran, can you give?" Price asked.
"We have significantly increased the amount of funds that we provide to Israel," Panetta said. "It's now $650 million, which more than doubles what was the level in the prior administration of about $320 million."
Panetta later told lawmakers that US support for Israel is "unshakable."

Jerusalem, Washington, and the Iranian bomb
By Ari Shavit/Haaretz
Next Monday, in the White House, the man from Washington and the man from Jerusalem will look into each other's eyes. Each will see the abyss in the other's pupils. The view from Washington: We went into an unnecessary, awful war in Iraq. We're in a complicated, depressing war in Afghanistan. Our economy is finally beginning to recover from the worst crisis it has known since World War II. In November we have elections. So we don't have the slightest intention of doing anything that could entangle us in a third war and a renewed economic recession. By no means will we attack Iran and we won't let Israel attack either. By no means will we impose a maritime blockade on Iran or collapse its central bank. We will not initiate a move that could break the rules and generate a global crisis. We will not allow the fanatics ruling Jerusalem to drag us into an insane, 21st-century-Masada war.
The view from Jerusalem: For 15 years we've been warning them about the Iranian bomb. For 10 years we've been giving them solid evidence. But they ignore us and refuse to budge. They tell us we're Masada-obsessed wackos who haven't recovered from the trauma of Auschwitz. They tell us they're loyal and intelligent and can be trusted. But the facts prove they cannot be trusted. They were wrong in Pakistan and wrong in North Korea and wrong in Osirak. They have betrayed every friend they had in the Middle East. When it transpires they were wrong about Iran as well, they will throw us into the garbage bin of history. But we're no suckers. We know the game and we will disrupt it - we'll preempt them. Instead of withering at their convenience, we'll strike at our convenience. And if the war raises oil prices and brings a Republican to the White House, tough luck. When someone rises to sacrifice you, sacrifice him first. The view from Washington: The name of the game is "alibi." We know the Shi'ites are resolved and we are weakening and won't stop them. We know we aren't made of the stuff that Harry Truman and John Kennedy were made of. But we have to go through the motions for the sake of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates. We have to go through the motions for Israel and the Jewish community. We've got to win in November. So we're putting on a show that Broadway can only dream of - make-believe warnings, make-believe sanctions, a make-believe military option. Make-believe unlimited support for the Jewish state and moderate Arab state. But after November we're getting rid of the props, dispersing the band and returning the costumes to the storeroom. We'll close some deal with the ayatollahs. We'll get a promise from Ali Khamenei not to set off the first nuclear explosion before 2016. This will ensure that during the second term both the American economy and Iranian centrifuges will be moving full steam ahead. And when the world finds out we were wrong and misled it, we'll say, oops, mistake. We tried, we really did. We have an alibi. Our hands did not enrich that uranium. Really, our heart aches for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and Israel. The thought of Israel, especially, floods our Democratic heart with compassion.
The view from Jerusalem: Those who claim we entangled the Americans in Iraq in 2003 are lying. The truth is, we warned them at the time that the problem wasn't Iraq but Iran. But today the situation is different. Only the United States is capable of preventing Iran's nuclearization completely. Only if the United States threatens to use force against Iran will it be possible to prevent the use of force. But America insists on acting as Britain and France did in the '30s. There is no doubt - ultimately the West will sober up. But the West could sober up after Czechoslovakia falls again. So unless the Americans prove to us right away that they have opened their eyes, we'll act before November. The risk is high, but the alternative risk is total. There isn't a state in the world that would take a total risk upon itself. Certainly not the last and only state of the Jewish people.
Next Monday, in the White House, the man from Washington and the man from Jerusalem will look into each other's eyes. Each will see the abyss in the other's pupils. If U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fail again to rise above themselves and don't start working together as allies, they will bring disaster on their nations.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah aiding al-Assad in Syria – FSA commander
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat – Free Syrian Army [FSA] commander Brigadier General Hussam Awak, who previously defected from the Syrian Air Force Intelligence Directorate, revealed that an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp [IRGC] armored brigade is fighting alongside al-Assad regime forces in Syria. He also claimed that Hezbollah armed brigades – that specialize in snipers, explosions, and guerilla warfare – are supporting the al-Assad regime in suppressing the Syrian revolution. General Awak stressed that these forces are counteracted by increasing numbers of defectors joining the FSA seeking to overthrow the al-Assad regime.
In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat conducted in Cairo, FSA Brigadier General Hussam Awak revealed that an increasing number of Syrian army forces are defecting from the regime and joining the FSA, in addition to Syrian civilians themselves taking up arms to fight al-Assad regime forces. He also stressed that the Syrian popular resistance forces that are supporting the FSA are undertaking dangerous operations and they have proved their worth on the battlefield.
As for the FSA’s sources of funding, General Awak said “we continue to rely on our own private relations with Syrian businessmen and charitable organizations, as well as arms dealers within Syria, and occasionally foreign arms dealers.” He also revealed that the FSA had received some support from Libya; however this ended recently due to the internal situation in Libya. Asked about whether the FSA receives financial support from Gulf states, the FSA commander told Asharq Al-Awsat that “I have visited a number of Gulf states…we were made promises but until now there has been nothing new, however some Gulf States have promised us support in the coming period, and we are waiting [for this].”Commenting on Cairo’s position on the Syrian revolution, he said “we continue to wait for real Egyptian support which will improve the situation in Syria…we consider ourselves a part of the Egyptian army since the era of Egyptian – Syrian unity during the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser” adding “we welcome any support from Egypt.”
Responding to reports that foreign Arab nationals have joined and are fighting with the FSA, Brigadier General Awak said “it is well known that Syria is a country for all Arab, and this incorporates the many Arab nationalities that are working and living in Syria, including Egyptians, Libyans and Tunisians. Therefore, these people who were in Syria have seen how the al-Assad regime forces are killing the Syrian people with their own eyes” adding “what is happening in Syria cannot be accepted by any Arab with a conscience.”
The FSA commander stressed that these foreign Arab nationals who are present in Syria “have revolted with their Syrian brothers”, whilst he strongly denied the presence of any Al Qaeda elements in the ranks of the Syrian opposition.
As for reports that the IRGC is fighting alongside the al-Assad regime force, FSA General Hossam Awak told Asharq Al-Awsat that “on more than one occasion, we have captured IRGC officers and Iranian experts” adding “there is a full armored IRGC brigade operating on Syrian soil and present in the Ahmed Jibril [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command] camps in the Deir al-Ashayar region along the Lebanese – Syrian border. He stressed that “this is information that we are revealing publicly for the first time, although they [the IRGC armored brigade] have been present there since 2007, following Hezbollah’s war with Israel.”
Brigadier General Awak also revealed that Hezbollah fighters are present on Syrian territory and are fighting alongside the al-Assad regime forces. He claimed that Hezbollah Brigade 101, Brigade 102, and Brigade 103, are present in the country. He claimed that Hezbollah Brigade 103 is a terrorist brigade that specializes in assassination and bombings. He added “Hezbollah Brigade 101 specializes in street battles and sniper attacks, and Bashar al-Assad is utilizing this brigade against the Syrian people.”
As for the FSA’s strategy to confront the al-Assad regime, General Awak said “we are following different tactics than those adopted by the al-Assad regime forces which focus on gaining control of specific areas…we are using different methods based on evasion and maneuver…so the battle might be taking place in a specific area and then we might open a new front in another area where we can achieve victory.”
General Awak also spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat about Baghdad’s position on the Syrian revolution, particularly as the next Arab summit is scheduled to take place in Iraq later this month, revealing that “the news coming out of Iraqi Kurdistan indicates that they [Iraqi Kurds] understand the Syrian revolution.”
He added “as for the Nouri al-Maliki government, we do not know its position, but this appears to be a government that is affiliated to Iran. However with regards to direct contact with us, the Iraqi government has not issued any position opposing the Syrian revolution, but we hope they understand our situation, particularly as they suffered under Saddam Hussein and Baathism.”
The FSA commander also stressed that “as for the Iraqi Shiite brigades that are trying to reach Syria [to aid the al-Assad regime], we are warning them for the hundredth time not to interfere in Syrian affairs.”
He also claimed that Syrian revolutionary sleeper cells are present in Damascus and that “they will carry out operations in the future”. He stressed that “operations will soon be carried out in Damascus, and we will soon be in control of Syria’s airports.”
As for his views of resolving the Syrian crisis, FSA Brigadier General Hussam Awak told Asharq Al-Awsat that “this can only be solved in two ways: politically or militarily” adding “we do not want to see a repeat of the Libyan scenario, in terms of death toll and injuries, and we are trying to avoid bloodshed, which is why we have partnered with politicians, however if the situation requires a military confrontation then we are ready for this.” He stressed “we have called on Bashar al-Assad to hand over power; however he has fought us and continues to kill our children.”

Syria: inside Al-Assad’s torture chamber
By Amr Ahmed
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- A Syrian activist told Asharq Al-Awsat the story of his detention in Damascus prisons, saying that the headquarters of President Bashar al-Assad’s state security apparatus have become akin to “graves of fire where the rebels are tortured”.
Having finally fled to Egypt, activist Tariq Sharabi recalled the horrors he went through after entering the state security headquarters in Syria’s capital, Damascus. The building consists of eight floors, with its external walls and huge iron gates heavily guarded by machine guns. Each floor has a dimly-lit corridor lined with around forty iron-door prison cells.
Tariq Sharabi, a 26 year old Damascus native, revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat what he saw and heard behind the bars of the state security headquarters in the capital. He began: “I was arrested for participating in a demonstration that began at the al-Dakak Mosque in Damascus, and soon incorporated 5 thousand people. We took the demonstration to “Freedom Square”, we raised the flag of independence there, and we wrote on the walls of the streets calling for Bashar al-Assad to leave. But a few minutes later we were surprised by hundreds of Syrian security forces, fully armed, shooting at us with machine gun fire. After I hid in a house for an hour and a half, and then fled to al-Hasan Mosque, I was arrested”.
Sharabi was taken, along with others, to the headquarters of the state security apparatus in Damascus: “There were 200 of us in a large room with no ventilation. The walls were engraved and intimidating, like a tomb”. As Sharabi recalled his experience, his facial features were marked with sorrow. He went on to say: “After two hours of beatings and insults, we were taken to the ‘investigations office’. When I emerged from the cell on my way to the office, there was a corridor more than 20 meters long in front of me with iron doors on either side (about 40 doors in total per floor). We heard the screams of those being tortured and those being shocked with electricity”.
Sharabi continued: “Our bodies convulsed when we heard the screams… At one point I was standing in front of one cell when I caught a glimpse of a naked man suspended by his feet with blood coming from his body. His flesh had been mutilated by a large number of flogging wounds, and they [the security officers] continued to beat him up and torture him with sticks and whips”. Sharabi went on to say: “As we were being marched to the investigations room on the third floor, we heard raised voices from behind one of the cell doors chanting for Bashar al-Assad, to further increase our fears about what we were heading towards. When we got to the third floor, I had the feeling that we would be killed for what we saw and heard”.
Sharabi explained that: “They did not cover our eyes…they wanted to scare us until we told them everything. Then a man entered [the investigations office] wearing civilian clothes, who told us that he was the director of operations…he told us that we were in the state security building, and revealed that we were charged with being present in a well-known demonstrations area, and that we had been arrested whilst trying to organize a march. Of course I denied all of this, telling an officer that I had been praying in al-Dakak Mosque and was then on my way to my grandfather’s house. The director then looked to the officer and ordered him to put me in a room by myself, where I was held for almost an hour”.
Sharabi revealed that he was released after being subjected to a torture session, and after being forced to sign a declaration not to participate in the demonstrations again, adding that “if the state security apparatus had confirmed the information they had about me, I would still be locked inside a state security prison”. He added that only 4 people out of around the 200 who were arrested along with him were released; remarking that “Bashar al-Assad’s state security headquarters are like graves of fire where the revolutionaries are tortured”.
Regarding how he managed to flee to Cairo, Sharabi said: “After my participation in several demonstrations in Damascus, one of the activists told me that my name was included on a state security list, and this information stemmed from security sources who are secretly in support of the revolution. The activists asked me to flee Syria and follow the situation from the outside. Thus my family fled first so they would come to no harm, and afterwards I escaped through Jordan towards Egypt”.

Let us compare al-Assad to Israel
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
When considering much of what is being repeated in our region, on all levels about Syria, one is struck by confusion, for one party justifies what is happening, whilst another casts doubt, and a third attempts to be clever. Therefore you feel as if you are looking at a situation that is impossible to understand, namely an Arab case par excellence, which is a problem with no solutions, or in the desperate manner of Nabih Berri, a case where there is ‘no winners and no losers”, which is what I term a case of political fluidity.This was something that we saw on the day that Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait, as well as in Lebanon on the day that the most senior Hezbollah agents intentionally incited an unjustifiable war, in addition to the day that Hezbollah occupied Beirut and when they invented the concept of the one-third [parliamentary] blocking minority. This is also something that we saw in the actions of the Arab affiliates [of Hezbollah] who consider themselves to be elites. The same thing applies to Hamas, which carried out a coup d’état by force of arms, whilst people justified this and defended them, in the knowledge that we are facing a unique situation, namely an armed coup taking place under occupation! This is certainly an Arab case par excellence, a case devoid of logic and settlement. In Iraq, al-Maliki lost the elections but remain in power, whilst in Lebanon, the member of a [political] trend slanders his own movement in order to gain power, and we are told that we are facing a case of “musical chairs.” This indeed represents a flaccid and defeated Arab case, led by the elites; therefore we are moving from bad to worse, from Jamal Abdel Nasser to Saddam Hussein, from Hassan Nasrallah to Bin Laden. This is not all, for our democracy is deformed, as are our republics, for they are neither true republics nor monarchies, and this is something that applies to the al-Assad regime, both the regime of the father and the son.
Let us pause here in front of this state of mad dictatorship, and compare it with what Israel has committed against us in recent times, and I say recent times as we are talking about the last 5 years, particularly the Lebanon and Gaza wars. The entire world rushes to stop Israel’s aggressions against Lebanon in 2006, and this war ended after approximately two months, claiming the lives of 1,200 Lebanese. The same thing applies to the Gaza war, which had approximately the same death toll. In both wars, the public opinion in the Arab world rushed to take action, whilst counterfeit “friends of Israel” lists were issued, masterminded by the al-Assad regime; indeed a number of Arab politicians attempted to exploit this tragedy, most prominently the al-Assad regime. However we did not hear anybody ask – even now – why did these wars happen? Whose interests did these wars, and more, serve? Who was responsible for this?
Today, in the case of al-Assad, we have seen the Syrian forces brutally killing their own people on our television screens over the past year – not two months – whilst the death toll stands at more than 8,000 and the tyrant of Damascus’s troops have destroyed mosques, tortured and assassinated children, as well as women and the elderly, simply in order to allow al-Assad to cling to power. Despite all this, we find some countries, politicians, media organizations and figures, who are procrastinating; it is as if we – as Arabs – are saying that if the killer is also an Arab, then this is something that we can accept, however if he is an Israeli, then we must all move as one to put an end to this! This is a saddening and shameful state of affairs, particularly when somebody like Hassan Nasrallah shamelessly comes out to defend al-Assad!
Therefore, if we compare al-Assad to Israel we will discover the extent of the growing hypocrisy in our region, and one of the most important sources of this is the al-Assad regime, both the regime of the father and the son, which have survived based on the lie of the resistance, and others. Therefore, one of the advantages of the departure of this tyrant will serve to root out hypocrisy in our region, as its most prominent symbol is the al-Assad regime.

Saudi-Syrian relations: It’s over
By Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat
I had an extremely lengthy conversation with a friend of mine on the theme of [Saudi] diplomacy relinquishing its customary calm tone and adopting an unprecedentedly escalatory stance and position [on Syria]. Saudi diplomacy had always adopted the option of calmly and quietly working within the corridors of power and behind closed doors to achieve its objectives. So what has happened now? What is the reason for Saudi Arabia’s new position in this regard?
Last Ramadan, Saudi Arabia, via the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, recalled its ambassador in Damascus for consultation following the criminal acts the al-Assad regime is committing against its own people. This measure was taken following several public and covert attempts to prompt the Syrian regime to change its behaviour, and after many direct and indirect messages were sent to the regime which was given one chance after another in the hope that the Damascene ruler would understand the gravity of his actions and the end he is facing. This measure was taken in response to public, international, Islamic and Arab pressure on Saudi Arabia, in light of its unique political position and weight in the region, particularly as everyone was waiting for Riyadh to take a decisive and leading position on this crucial issue.
Bashar al-Assad failed to learn a lesson from the Saudi position, which has opened it to unprecedented and mounting pressure. Indeed, Syria during the al-Assad era – both al-Assad the father and al-Assad the son – has always served as a source of provocation to Saudi Arabia, either publicly or privately. However despite this, Saudi Arabia has always been able to exercise self-restraint in order to contain the al-Assad regime’s foolishness and malice, as was evidence on several occasions.
Due to its position in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia was badly affected by Hafez al-Assad's extermination of the city of Hama in the 1980s. Saudi Arabia welcomed hundreds of innocent Syrian citizens into the country following this, after many Syrians sought to save what remained of their dignity and flee Syria and al-Assad’s Baathist party of hell. Of course, Saudi Arabia always feigned understanding of Hafez al-Assad's confused and illogical position on the Iraq – Iran war during which he supported Tehran against Baghdad. This position was later exposed when the Hafez al-Assad regime, as well as the regime of his son, entirely threw in their lot with Iran.
Whilst during the Lebanese civil war, the Syrians attacked and targeted many Lebanese figures from different sects and districts who were friends and allies of Saudi Arabia, with the objective of gaining full control of the country. This resulted in the great divorce between Saudi Arabia and Syria following the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, a crime that carries the fingerprints of Syria and its allies. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia later restored relations with Damascus and requested that Saad Hariri swallow a bitter pill and travel to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, something that surprised everybody. However, bad faith and a string of broken promises characterized Bashar al-Assad’s rule as he sought to topple the Hariri government in Lebanon, something that he eventually succeeded in doing. As a result of this, there is no room for fostering trust and understanding with Damascus, particularly as they are completely absorbed with another “regional project” which has nothing to do with nurturing unity amongst the Arabs and Muslims, quite the opposite!
Many people have suffered greatly thanks to Bashar al-Assad and his endeavours and tactics. He divided the ranks of the Palestinians, jeopardizing Iraq's borders and security by allowing armed groups to cross into the country from Syria in order to carry out terrorist operations, and transformed Lebanon into a theatre for the operations of his own security apparatus. In fact, we would need to write an entire book to sum up all the harm that al-Assad has wrought. The Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan have, in varying degrees, suffered greatly as a result of provocation from Damascus, and Bashar al-Assad apparatus intervening and circumventing their state sovereignty.
Everybody has finally had enough and run out of diplomatic patience with al-Assad and his regime. Indeed the statement made by Saudi Foreign Minister was sufficient to explain Riyadh’s new position: namely that the al-Assad regime must go, whether voluntarily or by force, whilst the idea of arming the Free Syrian Army [FSA] is an “excellent” one. With such words, Saudi Arabia is making its policy perfectly clear to Syria, and hence is choosing to champion and support the helpless Syrian people, not the regime that is headed by a butcher who only speaks in the language of bloodshed and murder.
Saudi Arabia has clearly told Bashar al-Assad, in language that requires no interpretation, that “it’s over”.

Syria: The Dictator's Handbook!
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
In an apparent display of stability and control, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently came out - accompanied by his wife - to cast his vote in a special referendum to amend the inactive constitution of 1973. In what appeared to be an attempt to reassure those loyal to him, al-Assad stressed that his forces control the ground, whilst they lack control over “space”, in reference to the Arab and foreign media that al-Assad accuses of inciting against him. Al-Assad said: “They may be stronger in space, but we are stronger on the ground. Still, we want to win on the ground and in space”.
As of next month, the Syrian protests will have completed their first year without being able to bring down the regime, although the price of human and material losses on both sides - the opposition and the loyalists - is very large. So far more than 9 thousand have been killed and 15 thousand have been wounded, while the number of refugees has now exceeded 100 thousand; 80 thousand in Jordan alone, 19 thousand in Turkey and 6 thousand in Lebanon. Meanwhile, government institutions and living conditions (not to mention the economic collapse) have been completely disrupted by a total breakdown.
According to some estimates, tourism in Syria has ceased since last April, leading to a loss of nearly 15 percent of the country’s GDP, whilst the cessation of oil exports has caused a loss of nearly 30 percent of the GDP. As for the central bank’s foreign exchange reserves, these have declined from $22 billion to $10 billion.
Following the “Friends of Syria” conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the CBS news network: “It's not just one man, it is a regime, and we think that we're putting a lot of pressure on that regime and that there will be a breaking point. And we think that the regime itself is dishonoring who they are and what they stand for. They don't represent the Syrian people anymore. They represent a family, maybe the Baathist party, a small group of insiders”. (26 February, 2012)
But if al-Assad is just one man relying on his family and a small group of Baathist party insiders, how can we explain his (relative) resilience for more than a year?
In their book “The Dictator's Handbook” (published by Public Affairs 2011), Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith (of New York University) ask: “Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics”. An explanation of this may help us to understand the reasons why bad rulers (or dictators if you will) remain in government for decades despite their corrupt policies. According to Mesquita and Smith, the general culture surrounding power and governance remains vague, and limited to classic works such as “The Prince” (1532) by Niccolò Machiavelli or “Leviathan” (1651) by Thomas Hobbes. Despite the importance of these books in terms of political philosophy, dictators in Africa for example do not need to read the works of Machiavelli in order to control the army and the government. Mobutu Sese Seko – dictator of Zaire from 1965 to 1997 – once said: “What is important here is cash. An African leader needs money, gold and diamonds to run his hundred castles, feed his thousand women, buy cars for the millions of boot-lickers under his heels, reinforce the loyal military forces and still have enough change left to deposit into his numbered Swiss accounts”.
Mesquita and Smith argue that what a leader needs in order to survive is not necessarily good policies, or even the African dictator’s palaces and ivory crowns, but rather a “winning coalition”. In other words, the survival of a dictatorial (or democratic) regime is based on the material and human elements that enable it to earn (or buy) the loyalty of a small but influential group, along with a package of policies and institutions that ensure its dominance over its rivals.
Mesquita and Smith summarize the five necessary rules (or what they call “The Dictator’s Handbook”): Firstly, keep the winning coalition as small as possible, as multiple and wide ranging participation in the decision-making process weakens the control of the regime. Secondly, keep the selectorate - the pool of potential supporters from which your winning coalition is drawn - as large as possible, so that the ruling system does not turn into a minority or elitist regime. Thirdly, control the flow of revenue in the country and the distribution of wealth so that the majority remains poor. However, grant them their necessities (through partly-free government support for bread and fuel) so that they don’t revolt, whilst also ensuring opportunities for those who are looking to progress by serving the regime. Fourth, pay key supporters just enough to keep them loyal, even those you sense are tempted to replace you, or are competing for what you have. Fifth, never take money out of your supporter's pockets to make the people's lives better. Then you would lose those loyal to you and at the same time you would not win over the people.
These are certainly bad rules for any form of leadership, but as the authors explain some “bad policies” are essential to maintain the rule of the dictator and ensure loyalty towards him. Much has been written about dictatorships and military rule in the Arab world from an ethical perspective, in order to explain that every tyrant falls as a result of bad, oppressive policies, but what Mesquita and Smith are telling us is that although there is no doubt that tyranny ends in demise, bad policies do not necessarily lead to its inevitable downfall. Rather, dictatorships will continue whenever the “winning coalition” is in place, and until this is destroyed by illness or old age, or a struggle for succession.
In Syria, we can say that the Hafez al-Assad regime had the “winning coalition”, although it faced a challenge in 1982 in Hama with its rival, the Muslim Brotherhood, and also in 1983 and 1984 when Hafez al-Assad became ill, and the struggle for succession intensified between his brother Rifaat and Abdel-Halim Khaddam, Zuhair Masharqa and Mustafa Tlass. Perhaps Hafez al-Assad’s ability to maintain the “winning coalition” equation provided him with the opportunity to bequeath power in 2000, whereas if we consider the radical policies of his son Bashar over the past decade, it is clear that the old balance has now been breached. Thus it is interesting to observe that the Syrian (Alawite) rural areas that once contributed to the survival of Hafez al-Assad in power are now rising up against the regime.
But what is the difference between Hafez al-Assad’s “winning coalition” of the 1980s and 1990s, and the failure of such an equation today?
In “The al-Assads’ game: Equations of power in the history of Syria”, a cover story for the Majalla magazine, Patrick Seale estimated that there were 20-30 people within the pyramid of power who represented the first line of authority and influence in Hafez al-Assad’s Syria. The President consulted with them and delegated tasks evenly, so as to maintain the balance of power. According to Seale, Hafez al-Assad clung tightly to the tools through which he controlled Syria: He appointed the leaders of the military establishment by himself, since he was the Minister of Defense, in addition to the Defense Brigades (a private militia), the four branches of which were supervised by his brother Rifaat. It was the Defense Brigades’ duty to protect the regime against a military coup. Then Hafez al-Assad had the Republican Guard, led by his brother-in-law General Adnan Makhlouf, entrusted with protecting the President against his brother and everyone else. Therefore, when conflict escalated regarding the succession of power, Hafez al-Assad was able to expel his brother and eradicate the aspiring generals - especially the Alawites - between 1983 and 1984. (The Majalla issue no. 215, March 30, 1984)
As for Bashar al-Assad, the “winning coalition” equation has been subjected to poor management. He gave his brother Maher free reign over security affairs, and presented his relatives from the Makhlouf family with a monopoly over business opportunities, before adopting a radical foreign policy line. He carried out liberal economic reforms that damaged the budgets of what was primarily a rentier state, particularly with the reliance of rural areas and the poorer classes on government support. According to a study conducted by the Alexander Hamilton Institute of New York University in 2007, the Bashar al-Assad regime relies on 3,600 people to ensure its influence and control. The study also indicates that the Alawites, who represent 12 percent of the population, hold about 70 percent of officer positions at leadership levels, whilst also constituting the majority in the Republican Guard and Maher al-Assad’s Fourth Armored Division. This means that those who owe allegiance to the Syrian regime constitute less than one percent of a total population of 22 million.
The regime still enjoys its international allies, like Russia and China, and receives support from countries such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, but this may not continue for too long. The rules that allowed the Syrian regime to stay in power over the past decades are now starting to disintegrate, as the regime runs out of money. The first to flee the regime’s sinking ship will be those whom it depends upon for survival today.

US envoy “raises concerns” regarding Ghosn’s Iran visit
March 1, 2012 /US Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly “raised concerns” regarding Lebanese Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn’s recent trip to Iran during her meeting with Marada Movement leader MP Sleiman Franjieh. “Connelly raised concerns regarding Ghosn’s recent trip to Iran and his statements from Tehran that suggest the minister’s discussions could potentially lead to violations by Lebanon of UN Security Council Resolutions 1747 and 1929,” a statement issued by the US embassy said.
UN Resolutions 1747 tightened the sanctions imposed on Iran in connection to its nuclear program, while Resolution 1929 adopted a fourth round of sanctions against Iran.
Iran and Lebanon talked up their defense ties and warned Israel against any aggression, during a visit to Tehran on Sunday by Ghosn. The statement added that Connelly discussed Lebanon’s political and security situation as well as Syria’s situation with Franjieh. Connelly voiced the US concern that the Syrian regime “continues its violent oppression of the Syrian people, including the ongoing assault on Homs.” She also called for the “immediate cessation of attacks against civilians and safe conduct of humanitarian assistance to the beleaguered Syrian people.”The UN says more than 7,500 people have been killed in the crackdown on Syrian protesters who have been demonstrating against the Baath regime since March 2011.-NOW Lebanon

Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea warns of “widening political rift”
March 1, 2012 /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea warned on Thursday that “widening the political rift would lead to strife.”During an interview with Al-Markaziya news agency, Geagea also addressed the issues of the $11 billion and $6 billion spent by cabinets since 2005, and called for addressing both issues in the same manner. “There are present accounts [on how] the $11 billion were spent by cabinets [before 2011] while the $6 billion [spent last year] were mostly spent without prior monitoring,” he said. The LF leader also addressed those who claim that the $11 billion “were stolen,” and asked why they did not provide documents “proving that the money was stolen.”
Geagea added that such accusations aim to achieve certain “political [goals] and [harm] others’ reputations.”On February 23, most March 14 MPs walked out of the parliamentary session, which was expected to look into adopting a draft law on allocating $6 billion to the cabinet for extraordinary expenses in 2011.
The MPs walked out from the session, requesting that the issue of the $11 billion spent by past cabinets be linked and dealt with in the same manner to that of the $6 billion spent by the cabinet in 2011. -NOW Lebanon

Yes to resistance
March 1, 2012/Now Lebanon
The decree from the Ministry of Education that all government schools and universities dedicate one hour to discuss the idea of resistance has incurred the displeasure of many who see it as yet another way for Hezbollah to use its influence to indoctrinate our youth into a military ideology that is predicated on religion and conflict and which in reality has nothing to do with Lebanon at all.
But while this reaction is understandable, and while we should never aspire to be like Iran or North Korea, the ministry should in fact be applauded for taking such a bold step and should encourage more of the same. For if the notion of resistance is essentially the fight for national dignity and independence from oppression and occupation, then, in a Lebanon that has been continuously plagued by conflict both from within and without, a serious debate about how to channel the notion of genuine resistance can only help shape the direction of national dialogue away from the parochial confines of sectarianism.
We have seen, for example, that armed resistance as advocated by Hezbollah has ultimately been a failure. The party, with which the word “resistance” has so often been associated, has been unable to shed its martial posture after it drove Israel out of its 1,200 square kilometer “security zone” in 2000 and only succeeded in alienating those segments of Lebanese society who initially backed its struggle but who soon felt quite jumpy about having an armed party running amok without a cause. The Shebaa Farms argument was a red herring that only highlighted the party’s cynicism, while the 2006 war, started as a result of Hezbollah’s adventurism, merely confirmed the party’s complete disregard for Lebanon’s best interests.
The final smear on Hezbollah’s apparent unimpeachable reputation was its attempt to protect its so-called security interests in 2008 by taking its guns onto the streets and using them to kill fellow Lebanese. For Hezbollah, the Resistance Project became a spectacular failure.
The struggle against Syria’s three decade “presence,” however, showed that resorting to violence need not be the only way to boot out an unwelcome guest. In 2005, for example, we saw another type of resistance, when, in the wake of the February 14 assassination of Rafik Hariri and 21 others in a massive car bomb on the Beirut seafront, 1 million Lebanese took to the streets in peaceful protest against Syria’s presence in Lebanon and the culture of repression, violence, intimidation and murder that it represented. As far as we know, not one person died in what became known variously as the Independence Intifada and the Cedar Revolution. And while Lebanon has struggled to realize its democratic aspirations since those heady days seven years ago this month, the fact remains that March 14, 2005 was a landmark moment in modern Arab history. So much so, that it more than likely inspired what became known in 2011 as the Arab Spring or Arab Awakening, the spontaneous movement across the Middle East and North Africa that saw dictators toppled and old orders crumble. Surely this was the greatest resistance of all? It remains a work in progress, but if ever there were proof that the Arab Spring was a long overdue manifestation of resistance, one only has to look to the streets of Homs and other towns and cities across Syria where dozens are dying every day for freedom and dignity and the right to live without fear of oppression. For so long the notion of resistance has been connected to Hezbollah’s private battle with Israel. We need to move beyond this hysterical definition and recognize that Israel is but one thorn (and not necessarily the prickliest) in our side. There are other ways to “resist,” just as they are other forms of occupation to resist against. All Lebanese, indeed all Arabs, who want freedom in all its forms, self-respect, opportunities, peace and prosperity should resist all those that stand their way. This is the modern resistance, and it should be shouted from the rooftops.
Then again maybe that’s not what the Education Ministry had in mind.

U.N. Chief Names Canadian Norman Farrell New STL Prosecutor
By Naharnet/U.N. leader Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday named Norman Farrell of Canada as the new prosecutor of the U.N.-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is probing the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri.
Farrell takes over as chief STL prosecutor from another Canadian, Daniel Bellemare, whose three year mandate ended Wednesday. The court has charged four Hizbullah members over the assassination.
Farrell, 53, had been deputy prosecutor at the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He has also worked for the International Committee for the Red Cross in the Balkans and Ethiopia.
"The secretary general once again reiterates the commitment of the United Nations to the efforts of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon to uncover the truth regarding the terrorist attack" that killed Hariri and 22 others, said U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky.
Ban wants to "send a message that impunity will not be tolerated."
The U.N. last week extended the mandate of the tribunal for another three years.
The tribunal, set up by the U.N. Security Council at the request of the Saniora government, announced in February that it will put four Hizbullah members on trial even though they have not yet been detained.
Warrants have been issued for Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Anaissi and Assad Sabra. The Lebanese authorities have failed to arrest the four.
Ban also appointed Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko of Uganda as an international judge of the Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal.

U.N. report warns Syrian turmoil may destabilize Lebanon
March 01, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The latest report by the U.N. secretary-general on the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, describes Lebanon’s security situation as “generally stable,” but warns of several threats to this stability including political polarization and instability arising from the crisis in Syria
.According to an advance copy of the report obtained by The Daily Star Wednesday, United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon says the Syrian situation is a serious concern for stability, noting that security forces have continued to carry out operations along the recently mined border and that cross-border fire has led to casualties.
The report also mentions the February clashes in Tripoli, which killed three and wounded 20, that took place in the context of the Syria crisis.
“The deepening crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic has continued to affect Lebanon, increasing political polarization and concern that the unrest in Syria could have negative ramifications for Lebanon’s stability,” reads the report.
The latest report on the implementation of Resolution 1701 also gives updates on a number of the recent security incidents that have impacted the south.
Investigations are still ongoing into the December bombing that wounded five French peacekeepers and two civilians near Tyre; no arrests have been made.
“The latest attack demonstrated that the terrorist threat against UNIFIL is not limited to areas along the main supply route outside of the area of operations, but extends also into the mission’s area of operations, including areas in close proximity to population centers,” reads the report.
The report notes that investigations are still ongoing into the two incidents where rockets were fired toward Israel on Nov. 29 and Dec. 11. The rocket fired on Dec. 11 fell in Lebanon in the town of Houla, injuring one woman.
Investigators were unable to determine whether the rockets used were stored in the area or were brought in for use in the attacks.
Israeli jets and drones have made near daily incursions into Lebanese airspace, violating the Security Council resolution and Lebanese sovereignty, according to the report.
UNIFIL peacekeepers have “generally enjoyed freedom of movement to carry out over 10,000 patrols every month.” But there were also two incidents in December when peacekeepers were unable to carry out their duties as groups of civilians stopped UNIFIL patrols, accusing them of taking photographs. The civilians confiscated cameras from the soldiers.
One UNIFIL vehicle was damaged during the incidents when civilians rammed the peacekeepers car.
Apart from the rocket attacks, border violations have mostly come in the form of ground violations by shepherds and farmers in the Shebaa and Kafr Shuba areas, as well as one occasion when individuals crossed the Blue Line and photographed the surrounding area.
The report says there were some incidents of civilians throwing stones at the Israeli technical fence. But there have been no recent incidents of weapons aimed between Israeli and Lebanese soldiers.
Despite continued Israeli allegations, the report says there have been no arms caches or military infrastructure found in UNIFIL’s area of operations.
The process of visibly marking the Blue Line between the two countries is ongoing. As of Feb. 14, 253 out of 470 points have been determined.
The report acknowledged the work of Maj. Gen. Alberto Asarta Cuevas who finished his work as force commander at the end of February. Italian Maj. Gen. Paolo Serra has taken over from Cuevas.Serra has held a number of meetings with Israeli and Lebanese officials to increase compliance with the U.N. resolution. The report said there has been no progress in establishing a UNIFIL office in Tel Aviv.
UNIFIL’s strategic review of its operations has been completed and briefed to the Security Council. The public version is due out in the next few weeks, the report said. The review is expected to detail ways the Lebanese Armed Forces can take over more responsibility along the Blue Line.
Ban also weighed in on the general security situation in Lebanon.
He said Hezbollah’s arms in the country “pose a serious challenge to the state’s ability to exercise full sovereignty and authority over its territory.”
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and Fatah al-Intifada camps along the Lebanese Syrian border are hurting Lebanese authority, he added.
The secretary-general made a call for resumption of the National Dialogue, noting the meetings had not been convened since November 2010.
“I continue to believe that only a domestic political process in Lebanon can yield the disarmament of armed groups in such a way that the unity, political stability, institutional capacity and authority of the Lebanese state is enhanced.”
But he added: “The regional environment in which the effort to implement Resolution 1701 unfolds is of critical importance to its success.”

Israeli MK Herzog: Syrian rebels want peace with Israel
Associated Press/Ynetnews
Labor party's Isaac Herzog says Syrian opposition leaders told him they want peace with Israel after Assad falls; Syrian rebels wish to 'be friends' with Jewish state, he says . Labor Party Knesset Member Isaac Herzog says Syrian opposition leaders have told him they want peace with Israel after Syrian President Bashar Assad falls. Herzog said Wednesday that the Syrian opposition wants to "be friends" with Israel. He refused to name his sources because he said they fear retribution by Assad. He said they are aligned with the main rebel factions in Syria. There was no confirmation from the Syrian opposition figures to Herzog's remarks. MK Herzog, who currently serves on the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said Israel should supply medical and humanitarian assistance to the rebels. However, he ruled out military aid to rebels fighting President Assad's Alawite regime.Knesset Member Herzog, who met with Syrian exiles in Washington last year, already said previously that Israelis should listen to Syria's rebels and not rule out a future relationship.
“We in Israel often complain that they don’t know us and don’t understand us. We should know that we too do not possess sufficient understanding of our neighbors, and when it comes to Syria we see total ignorance," he said at the time. "Following these and other meetings, I can say that what’s happening there does not resemble any other change taking place in our region. The Syrians are a secular nation comprising a fascinating coalition of ethnicities.”
“In my view, following the Assad era there is a chance for positive processes vis-à-vis Israel as well, and they will require us to meet the challenge,” Herzog said.
**Orly Azoulay contributed to the report

For minorities, now is the time to report
March 01, 2012/By Michael Young/The Daily Star
It is unfortunate that among those most anxiously observing the uprising in Syria (and not only Syria) have been members of the Middle East’s religious and ethnic minorities. Indeed, Syria’s Alawite leadership is perpetrating a butchery partly because it expects its community to be marginalized if Bashar Assad falls.
Minority solidarity is a dangerous impulse. It has led many of Syria’s Kurds and Druze to watch from the sidelines as their countrymen have been slaughtered – when they have not actively participated in the repression. In Lebanon, it has pushed leading figures in the Christian community, among them Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rai, to defend the Assad regime. And the vile Sister Agnes Mariam of the Cross, of the Catholic Media Center, has been a useful idiot on behalf of Syria’s intelligence services, echoing regime propaganda.
The foolishness and inhumanity of these reactions does not mean minority questions will be any less important once the current consignment of autocrats disappears. Minorities will gain in significance, because in many countries the breakdown of authoritarian rule also represents a breakdown of the ideological and intimidatory underpinnings that once kept minorities in line.
The edifice began collapsing in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq, removing the minority Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein. The Americans, for a moment, naively aspired to sponsor an equitable Iraqi social contract, with federalism at its core. In reality, they ushered in a Shiite-dominated regime, while federalism permitted the Kurds to consolidate their autonomy in the north. The Sunni Arabs, despite combating Al-Qaeda, have since then grown alienated from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government, generating worries that Iraq’s centrifugal forces may become unmanageable.
Fear of what might happen in Syria if the majority Sunnis regain power has colored the behavior of the country’s minorities. Their fixation has been deformed by the expectation that if the Sunnis return, they will do so as resentful Islamists.
So much in that expectation is left unsaid. First, that minority apprehensions, including those of the Alawites, are based on an impression that the brutality and absoluteness of Alawite conduct will necessarily bring an equally brutal and absolute reckoning from Sunnis; that, just as the Alawites favored those from their community, at least those integrated into the political and military elite, and calculated on the basis of communal interests, so too will their foes; and that at the heart of the Arab world’s political arrangements there must be antagonism between minorities and majorities, because that was always the nature of things, even before independence.
Arab nationalism has played a critical role in shaping so stark an outlook. In Syria and Iraq, ruling minorities drew on Baathism to detract from their status by positing a larger Arab identity to which all had to bend. The uniformity this tenet enforced was as much designed to stifle alternative identities as to justify crushing dissent. Where majorities have governed, they have been no gentler with minorities, while non-Arab states such as Turkey and Iran have similarly deployed a muscular nationalism against their minorities.
In Lebanon, where minorities coexist, the story is somewhat different. Christians by and large rejected Arab nationalism during the first three decades after independence, extending this to include wariness with the Palestinian cause when Beirut hosted the Palestine Liberation Organization starting in 1970. Shiites, too, remained mistrustful of Arab nationalism, which they regarded as a surrogate for Sunni pre-eminence. And yet ironically, Hezbollah, created and sustained by Iran, later sought to hijack the symbols of Arab nationalism and the Palestinian struggle to legitimize itself among Sunnis while drawing attention away from its Shiite personality.
As the old political structures disintegrate in Syria, many are panicking. Turkey’s leaders, for instance, worry about what might happen to their own Kurdish population, or to Arab Alawites in the province of Iskenderun, were Syria to break up. If Syria’s Alawites decide they can no longer hold on in Damascus, they may seriously contemplate falling back on an Alawite mini-state in the northwest. For much of my youth I was told how Israel and Henry Kissinger intended to fragment the Middle East into weak sectarian entities. Now that purported scheme threatens to be carried out by Syria’s Alawites, with a sympathetic partner in Lebanon’s Shiites under Hezbollah’s authority. Iran must be confused. A Syria in pieces would compel Tehran to guarantee that Alawites and Shiites cooperate. But if one of those pieces is a self-ruling Kurdish entity in Syria’s northeast, alongside Iraqi Kurdistan, then the Iranians, like the Turks, could face a major headache with their own Kurds.
Some Lebanese minority leaders are looking afar for new friendships. Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea visited Iraqi Kurdistan in recent months. Both men are astute enough to sense that the Kurds will be big players during the coming decade, and are unlikely to fall under the thumb of Islamists. Jumblatt and Geagea support the Syrian uprising, but are also aware that the policies pursued by the Assad regime, as well as the aid Syria’s opposition is receiving from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, may cede the initiative to Islamists and Salafists, who are as hostile toward the Druze as toward the Maronites. In such circumstances, novel minority alignments may prove useful in the event communal self-preservation becomes the name of the game.
Christians have used the fate of their coreligionists in Iraq as a cautionary tale for what awaits minorities in the Middle East. That’s a shallow way of looking at things. Minorities – Kurds, Shiites, Druze, Alawites and Christians in general – will be vital in defining what occurs next in the region. Be that good or bad, to assume that an iron curtain of Sunni Islamism will necessarily descend on us all is to underestimate the influence of those, secular Sunnis and Islamist Shiites included, who reject such an outcome.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Islamists Solidify Control over Egypt's Parliament
Christians Fear Enactment of Sharia Law
Washington, D.C. (February 29, 2012) – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that an Islamist was elected speaker of Egypt’s upper house of parliament on Tuesday, consolidating the Muslim Brotherhood's control of the country's legislature and raising fears among Christians and secularists that new laws heavily influenced by Sharia may soon be enacted.
Ahmed Fahmy, of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), was appointed speaker of the Shura Council during the chamber’s inaugural session on February 28. The appointment follows the selection of FJP Secretary General Mohamed Saad al-Katatni as the speaker of the lower house of parliament, or the People’s Assembly, on January 23, solidifying the Muslim Brotherhood’s control over both legislative bodies.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s most powerful Islamic organization, holds 47 percent of the 508-seat People’s Assembly and 59 percent of the Shura Council’s 180 elected seats. The Salafist al-Nour Party, which follows the strict Wahhabi doctrine of Islam, also made strong showings in elections for both chambers, holding 23 percent of the seats in the People’s Assembly and 25 percent of the elected seats in the Shura Council. An additional 90 lawmakers are expected to be appointed to the Shura Council by either the ruling generals or the next president.
Many Coptic Christians and liberals accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of participating in fraudulent elections and using social programs and religion to secure votes. “The Brotherhood had booths in front of polling stations telling people, many who are illiterate, how to vote and who to vote for,” said activist Mary Ibrahim Daniel, whose brother Mina Daniel was killed by the military during protests on October 9. “They are also very well funded and have lots of money to help the poor. If someone is hungry and you give them a loaf of bread, they could care less about politics. What they care about is feeding their children. I don’t think the elections [adequately] represented the voice of the Egyptian people.”
“The political debate focused largely on religion and not on the issues of social justice that we wanted to get across to the electorate,” Khaled El-Sayed, of the Socialist Popular Alliance, told Ahram Online. “And neither the liberals nor the Islamists will be concerned with social justice when sitting in parliament or when drawing up a new constitution.”
The two houses are due to hold a joint session later this week to select a 100-member panel to draft a new constitution that will be put to a referendum before the presidential election scheduled for June. Many Christians and secularists fear that an Islamist majority parliament will use its power to base the constitution on Sharia law, which will greatly restrict the rights of non-Muslims.
Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “There is grave concern that Egypt’s Islamist-led chambers of parliament will center the new constitution on Islamic law that will prove detrimental to the country’s minorities and liberals. Since Egypt’s uprising a year ago, Salafis – who hold about one-fourth of the seats in each house of parliament – called the appointment of a Christian governor in Upper Egypt ‘anti-Islamic’, protested the killing of Osama bin Laden, and attacked churches, Sufi shrines and mosques, liquor stores, and other institutions or businesses they deem contrary to Islam. Will the Muslim Brotherhood, who has the largest voice in parliament, continue to appear moderate or join Salafis by voting in favor of Sharia? Egypt’s Christians hope and pray for freedom and equality, but fear the worst is yet to come.”

Tawriya: New Islamic Doctrine Permits 'Creative Lying'
by Raymond Ibrahim
http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2898/tawriya-creative-lying-islam
Stonegate Institute
February 28, 2012
Perhaps you have heard of taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, primarily when Muslim minorities live under infidel authority. Now meet tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. (Though tawriya is technically not "new"—as shall be seen, it has been part of Islamic law and tradition for centuries—it is certainly new to most non-Muslims, hence the need for this exposition and the word "new" in the title.)
The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, "hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion." Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).
As a doctrine, "double-entendre" best describes tawriya's function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker says something that means one thing to the listener, though the speaker means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.
For example, if someone declares "I don't have a penny in my pocket," most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies. Likewise, say a friend asks you, "Do you know where Mike is?" You do, but prefer not to divulge. So you say "No, I don't know"—but you keep in mind another Mike, whose whereabouts you really do not know.
All these are legitimate according to Sharia law and do not constitute "lying," which is otherwise forbidden in Islam, except in three cases: lying in war, lying to one's spouse, and lying in order to reconcile people. For these, Sharia permits Muslims to lie freely, without the strictures of tawriya, that is, without the need for creativity.
As for all other instances, in the words of Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid (based on scholarly consensus): "Tawriya is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice" ("injustice" as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards). Otherwise, it is permissible even for a Muslim to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf); when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by saying "by roof, I meant the open sky." This is legitimate. "After all," Munajid adds, "Quran 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf]."
Here is a recent example of tawriya in action: Because it is a "great sin" for Muslims to acknowledge Christmas, this sheikh counsels Muslims to tell Christians, "I wish you the best," whereby the latter might "understand it to mean you're wishing them best in terms of their [Christmas] celebration." But—here the wily sheikh giggles as he explains—"by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim."
As with most Muslim practices, tawriya is traced to Islam's prophet. After insisting Muslims "need" tawriya because it "saves them from lying," and thus sinning, Sheikh Uthman al-Khamis adds that Muhammad often used it. Indeed, Muhammad is recorded saying "Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr" (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu'assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).
More specifically, in a canonical hadith, Muhammad said: "If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave" (Sunan Abu Dawud): Holding one's nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.
Following their prophet's example, many leading Muslim figures have used tawriya, such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, founder of one of Islam's four schools of law, practiced in Saudi Arabia. Once when he was conducting class, someone came knocking, asking for one of his students. Imam Ahmed answered, "He's not here, what would he be doing here?"—all the time pointing at his hand, as if to say "he's not in my hand." The caller, who could not see Ahmed, assumed the student was simply not there.
Also, Sufyan al-Thawri, another important Muslim thinker, was once brought to Caliph Mahdi who refused to let him leave, until Thawri swore to return. As he was going out, Thawri left his sandals by the door. After a while, he returned, took his sandals and left for good. When the caliph asked about him, he was told that, yes, Thawri had sworn to come back—and, indeed, he had come back: only to take his sandals and leave.
Lest it seem tawriya is limited to a few colorful anecdotes more befitting the Arabian Nights than the religious law (Sharia) of a billion people, here are some more modern Muslim authorities—Sheikh Muhammad Hassan, the famous cleric who says Islam forbids Muslims from smiling to infidels, except when advantageous, and Dr. Abdullah Shakir—justifying it. They both give the example of someone knocking on your door, you do not wish to see them, so a relative answers the door saying, "He's not here," and by "here" they mean the immediate room, which is true, since you will be hiding in another room. Likewise, on the popular Islam Web, where Muslims submit questions and Islamic authorities respond with a fatwa, a girl poses her moral dilemma: her father has explicitly told her that, whenever the phone rings, she is to answer saying "he's not here." The fatwa solves her problem: she is free to lie, but when she says "he's not here," she must mean he is not in the same room, or not directly in front of her.
Of course, while all the sheikhs give examples that are innocuous and amount to "white" lies, tawriya can clearly be used to commit terrible, "black" lies, especially where the adversarial non-Muslim infidel is concerned. As Sheikh al-Munajid puts it: "Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a Sharia interest." Consider the countless "Sharia interests" that run directly counter to Western civilization and law, from empowering Islam to subjugating infidels. To realize these, Muslims, through tawriya, are given a blank check to lie—a check that surely comes in handy: not just in trivial occasions, like avoiding unwanted callers, but momentous ones, such as at high-level diplomatic meetings where major treaties are forged.
Note: The purpose of this essay was to document and describe the doctrine of tawriya. Future writings will analyze its full significance—from what it means for a Muslim to believe the Supreme Being advocates such lying, to how tawriya is liable to suppress one's conscience to the point of passing a lie detector test—as well as compare and contrast it with the practices of other religions, and more.
**Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum
http://www.meforum.org/3181/tawriya-creative-lying-islam

The 1,500 Year Old 'Bible' and Muslim Propaganda
GMT 2-29-2012 22:56:14
Assyrian International News Agency
http://www.aina.org/news/2012022916569.htm
(AINA) -- Much has been made of the recent discovery in Turkey of a Bible purported to be written in the Aramaic language, 1,500 years ago. The Muslim media, as well as Western media outlets, quickly pounced on this, claiming this Bible contains verses attributed to Jesus Christ, in which Christ predicts the coming of Muhammad. No media outlet has published a facsimile of these verses.
This "Bible" is written on leather in gold letters. The picture of the front cover show inscriptions in Aramaic and a picture of a cross.
For any native speaker of Modern Assyrian (also known as neo-Aramaic), and that would be your average Assyrian today, the inscription is easily read. The bottom inscription, which is the most clearly visible from the published photos, says the following:
Transliteration: b-shimmit maran paish kteewa aha ktawa al idateh d-rabbaneh d-dera illaya b-ninweh b'sheeta d-alpa w-khamshamma d-maran
Translation: In the name of our Lord, this book is written on the hands of the monks of the high monastery in Nineveh, in the 1,500th year of our Lord.
Nineveh is the ancient Assyrian capital and is located in present-day north Iraq, near Mosul.
There are spelling errors that are immediately noticeable.
The first word, b'shimmit maran ("in the name of our Lord"), is erroneously spelled with a 't' instead of a 'd'. The 'd' in Assyrian is the genitive, and it prefixes the word that follows. It should read b-shimma d-maran, not b-shimmit maran (note, the last word of the sentence is correctly spelled d-maran ("of our Lord")).
The first word also contains another spelling error. The correct spelling for "name" in Assyrian is ashma, with the initial 'a' being silent. Therefore, when correctly spelled, 'in the name of our Lord" should be written as b-ashma d-maran.
The word idateh is misspelled, it should end with an 'a', idata. Also the phrase al idateh ("on the hands") is incorrect, it should read b-idata ("by the hands").
The bottom sentence uses the word ktawa ("book") to refer to the book, but in Assyrian the Bible is never referred to as a "book." One says awreta (Old Testament), khdatta (New Testament), or ktawa qaddeesha (holy book). Given this, since no one has seen the inside of this "Bible," we cannot be sure if it is in fact a Bible.
Most significantly, this writing is in Modern Assyrian, which was standardized in the 1840s. The first bible in Modern Assyrian was produced in 1848. If this book were written in 1500 A.D. it should have been written in Classical Assyrian.
It is highly unlikely for monks to make such elementary mistakes. It remains to be seen whether this book is a forgery, or even what kind of book it is.
The bottom inscription also says the book was written in 1500 A.D.. If the book does contain verses predicting the coming of Muhammad, it is no great accomplishment to predict something 870 years after the fact, since Muhammad founded Islam in 630 A.D..
Most media outlets, as well as Muslim and Christian outlets, lead the story with headlines pronouncing "1500 year old Bible predicts the coming of Muhammad" -- without any evidence to support this.
For Muslims, the implications of the headlines are desirable, that Jesus Christ is a Prophet, just like Muhammad, and not the Son of God. According to Al Bawaba, the Turkish culture and tourism minister, Ertugrul Gunay, said "In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel [this Bible] treats Jesus as a human being and not a God. It rejects the ideas of the Holy Trinity and the Crucifixion and reveals that Jesus predicted the coming of the Prophet Mohammed."
Commenting on the errors in the book, Al Bawaba says in another article:
For example, the book says that there are nine heavens and that the tenth is paradise while in Quran they are seven only and claims that Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus without any pain while the Quran story says she got labor pains.
According to the gospel, Jesus said to Jewish priests that he is not the Messiah and that the Messiah is Mohammed. This means a denial of the existence of a Messiah, who is in fact Jesus Christ, and makes Jesus and Mohammed seem like they are one and the same person.
The book also contains information that lack historical credibility like the presence of three armies, each made up of 200,000 soldiers, in Palestine whereas the entire population of Palestine 2,000 years ago did not even reach 200,000. In addition, Palestine was occupied by the Romans at the time and it is impossible that Palestine was allowed to have any army or armies of its own.
The last sentence in chapter 217 says that 100 pounds of stones were placed on Christ's body. This confirms that the gospel was written quite recently because the first to use the pound as a unit of weight was the Ottomans in their experiments with Italy and Spain and it was never known during the time of Jesus.
Chapter 20 also stated that the cities of Jerusalem and Nazareth are sea ports.
This same article ends with "According to many studies, the gospel attributed to St. Barnabas was written by a European Jew in the Middle Ages who was quite familiar with the Quran and the Gospels. He, thus, mixed facts from here and there and his intentions remain unknown."
But despite the availability of information on this "Bible," most media outlets, Muslims, liberal and secular organizations have portrayed this discovery as something that undermines Christianity, ignoring the many problems with this book and presenting it as virtual fact. In fact, in their zeal to support the anti-Christian narrative, they have withheld or suppressed information questioning the authenticity of this book. For these organizations and individuals, this is another tool in their arsenal for the attack on the foundations of Christian doctrine.
By Peter BetBasoo and Ashur Giwargis
Copyright (C) 2012, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use.