LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 25/12

Bible Quotation for today/Teaching about the Law
Matthew 05/17-20:" Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true. Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with—not until the end of all things. So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. On the other hand, whoever obeys the Law and teaches others to do the same, will be great in the Kingdom of heaven. I tell you, then, that you will be able to enter the Kingdom of heaven only if you are more faithful than the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in doing what God requires.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Separating fact from fiction in the pilgrimage kidnapping crisis/By: Alex Rowell/Now Lebanon/May 24/12
Presidential Elections Will Not End Egyptian Instability/By: Eric Trager/Washington Institute/May 24/12
A testimony about Lockerbie/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/May 24/12
Al-Assad: From one slogan to another/By Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat/May 24/12

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for May 24/12
Iran and world powers agree to hold more nuclear talks in mid-June
Iran talks with world powers hit snag over sanctions
Israel revives military option after Obama rejects its nuclear demands of Iran
Israel offered $6 million to victims of Gaza flotilla raid, say Turkish lawyers
Address by Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Baird at University of Calgary School of Public Policy Dinner
Amnesty International: Israel frequently uses excessive force against Palestinians
Egyptians back at the polls to pick president
UN panel blames Syria army for most abuses
Video Shows Sid al-Bauchrieh Murder of Elie Numan
Al-Rahi: I Do Not Support Calls for Government’s Resignation
Sleiman denies Syrian claims of Islamist-led instability
Hezbollah: 'March 14 weapons' should be directed at Israel
Outgoing leader says Syrian opposition bloc hit by divisions
Chamoun: Some politicians’ actions put army in ‘predicament’
ICRC facilitates repatriation of Lebanese couple from Israel
Outgoing leader says Syrian opposition bloc hit by divisions
U.S. calls for immediate release of Lebanese hostages in Syria
Mufti urges Lebanese to prevent civil strife, hopes for return of dialogue
Ahmadinejad praises Lebanon, Hezbollah on Liberation Day
U.S. State Dept names Abdallah Azzam Brigades terrorist group
Lebanon's opposition calls on Mikati government to resign
Man with ties to Al-Qaeda arrested after deadly Beirut standoff
Britain demands “urgent” steps from Iran after talks
Iran says it has “absolute right” to enrichment
Aoun says some contributing to Syrian crisis from Lebanese territory
Jumblatt “increasingly concerned” over Lebanon situation
US envoy discusses Lebanon security with ISF chief
Initial probe into killing of Lebanese sheikh nearing end
Syrian sheikh says mediating release of kidnapped Lebanese
Suspect in Caracas Shooting Reportedly Linked to Group Tied to Hariri Assassination
Jumblat Voices Support to Cabinet, Says No Better Alternative in Absence of Dialogue
FPM, PSP Ministers Argue on Army’s Role in Akkar
Beirut shootout leaves two dead, six injured
Amnesty International's Annual Report on Lebanon
Amnesty International's Annual Report on Syria
Amnesty International's Annual Report on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories
Amnesty International's Annual Report on The Palestinian Authority
 

Hezbollah's bogus Liberation & Resistance Day
By: Elias Bejjani*
Believe it or not, on May 25 each year since 2000 Lebanon has been celebrating a so-called "Liberation & Resistance Day." Sadly, this celebration commemorates a bogus event, and a phony heroism that did not actually take place.
On May 22, 2000 the Israeli Army unilaterally and for solely Israeli domestic reasons withdrew from the security zone of South Lebanon in accordance with UN Resolution 425. The withdrawal was a fatal Israeli decision that has inspired the Hamas terrorism acts and the on-going havoc in the Palestinian Gaza strip. During the last 11 years many Israeli officials and politicians form all parties openly and harshly criticized Barak's Government (Barak was PM at that time) hasty and unwise decision through which Israel' abandoned its ally the South Lebanon Army (SLA) and gave Hezbollah all south Lebanon on a plate of sliver.
The unilateral Israeli withdrawal created a security vacuum in south Lebanon. The Syrians who were occupying Lebanon at that time and fully controlling its government, did not allow the Lebanese Army to deploy in the south and fill this vacuum after the Israeli withdrawal. Instead Syria helped the Hezbollah militia to militarily control the whole southern region, and even patrol the Israeli-Lebanese border.
It is worth mentioning that the Israeli army's withdrawal was executed without any military battles, or even minor skirmishes with Hezbollah, or the Lebanese and Syrian armies. The Syrian regime, in a bid to justify both its on going occupation of Lebanon and the avoidance of disarming Hezbollah, came up with the "Shabaa Farms occupation big lie" and declared Hezbollah a Liberator, alleging it had forced Israel to withdrawal from South Lebanon.
Syria, in the same camouflaging and devious context, dictated to both the Lebanese parliament and government to declare May 25th a National Day under the tag of  "Liberation & Resistance Day".
In reality Hezbollah did not force the Israeli withdrawal, and did not play any role in the Liberation of the southern Lebanese region. In fact both Hezbollah and Syria deliberately hindered and delayed the Israeli withdrawal for more than 14 years.
Every time the Israelis called on the Lebanese government to engage in a joint, serious effort under the United Nations umbrella to ensure a safe and mutually organized withdrawal of its army from South Lebanon, the Lebanese government refused to cooperate, did not agree to deploy its army in the south, and accused the Israelis of plotting to divide and split the Syrian-Lebanese joint track. This approach to the Israeli calls was an official Syrian decision dictated to all the Lebanese puppet governments during the Syrian occupation era.
Since then, Hezbollah has been hijacking Lebanon and its people, refusing to disarm and advocating for the annihilation of Israel. This Iranian mullahs' terrorist army stationed in Lebanon, is viciously hiding behind labels of resistance, liberation and religion. Hezbollah has recklessly jeopardized the Lebanese peoples' lives, safety, security and livelihood. It has been growing bolder and bolder in the last four years and mercilessly taking the Lebanese state and the Lebanese people hostage through terrorism, force and organized crime.
Sadly, Hezbollah is systematically devouring Lebanon day after day, and piece by piece, while at the same time marginalizing all its governmental institutions in a bid to topple the Lebanese state and erect in its place a Shiite Muslim regime, a replica of the Iranian Shiite mullahs' fundamentalist republic. Meanwhile the free world and Arabic countries are totally silent, indifferent, and idly watching from far away the horrible crime unfolding without taking any practical or tangible measures to put an end to this anti-Lebanese Syria-Iranian scheme that is executed through their spearhead, the Hezbollah armed militia.
Who is to be blamed for Hezbollah's current odd and bizarre status? Definitely the Syrians who have occupied Lebanon for more than 28 years (1976-2005). During their bloody and criminal occupation, Syria helped the Iranian Hezbollah militia build a state within Lebanon and fully control the Lebanese Shiite community.
But also the majority of the Lebanese politicians, leaders, officials and clergymen share the responsibility because they were subservient and acted in a dire Dhimmitude, selfish and cowardly manner. If these so-called Lebanese leaders had been courageous and patriotic and had not appeased Hezbollah and turned a blind eye to all its vicious and human rights atrocities, intimidation tactics, crimes and expansionism schemes, this Iranian Shiite fundamentalist militia would not have been able to erect its own mini-state in the southern suburb of Beirut, and its numerous mini-cantons in the Bekaa Valley and the South; nor would Hezbollah have been able to build its mighty military power, with 70 thousand militiamen, or stockpile more than 50 thousand missiles and force the Iranian "Wilayat Al-Faqih" religious doctrine on the Lebanese Shiite community and confiscate its decision making process and freedoms.
Since Hezbollah's emergence in 1982, these politicians have been serving their own selfish interests and not the interests of the Lebanese people and the nation. They went along with Hezbollah's schemes, deluding themselves that its militia and weaponry would remain in South Lebanon and would not turn against them.
This failure to serve the people of Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to make many Lebanese and most of the Arab-Muslim countries through its terrorism propaganda to blindly swallow its big lie of theatrical, faked resistance and Liberation.
Hezbollah would not have been able refuse to disarm in 1991, like all the other Lebanese militias in accordance to the "Taef Accord," which called for the disarmament of all militias. Hezbollah would not have become a state inside the Lebanese state, and a world-wide terrorism Iranian-Syrian tool which turned against them all after its war with Israel in year 2006 and after the UN troops were deployed on the Lebanese - Israeli borders in accordance with the UN Resolution 1701.
On May 7, 2008 Hezbollah invaded Sunni Western Beirut killing and injuring in cold blood hundreds of its civilian citizens, and attempted to take over by force Mount Lebanon.
Hezbollah's General Secretary Sheik Hassan Nasrallah called that day (May 7, 2008) a great and glorious victory for his resistance, and keeps on threatening the Lebanese that a replicate of that day will take place if they do not succumb and obey his Iranian orders.
Hezbollah is a deadly dragon that the Lebanese politicians have been allowing him to feed on sacrifices from the southern Lebanese citizens, especially on those who were living in the "Security Zone" and who fled to Israel in May 2000 after the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon. This dragon who enjoyed devouring his southern sacrifices has now turned on all the Lebanese and if they do not stand for their rights and dignity, he will keep on devouring them all one after the other.

We call on the Lebanese government, the Lebanese Parliament and on all the free and patriotic Lebanese politicians and leaders to cancel the May 25 National Day, because it is not national at all, and also to stop calling Hezbollah a resistance, put an end for its mini-state, cantons and weaponry, and secure a dignified, honorable and safe return for all the Lebanese citizens who have been taking refuge in Israel since May 2000.
Click Here to read the updated Arabic version of the above editorial
http://www.10452lccc.com/elias.arabic09/elias.thrier25.5.11.htm
Click Here to listen to the updated version of the above editorial (Media player)
http://www.eliasbejjani.com/elias%20audio11/elias.tahrier24.5.11.wma
*Elias Bejjani
Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator
Email phoenicia@hotmail.com
Web sites http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com
Mailing phoenicia group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Phoenicia/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/home.php?sk=group_128479277182033&ap=1
 N.B: This editorial was first published on 25/05/2009.  I an republishing it today with minor changes because the same problems that it addressed remain unsolved.

12 years after Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon
By: Elias Bejjani* & Charbel Barakat*
There is no question that the withdrawal of a foreign army from any country should be hailed with a sense of relief and joy; even if it was an ally its withdrawal indicates that the country is self-governing and is capable of defending itself independently.      
Meanwhile, the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon on May 23/2000 was not hailed by our people, because practically it was the beginning of a new tragedy that was added to the many Lebanese tragedies. Why was there this bitter feeling and why is it still painful after 12 years?
The other question is why our people who are patriotic and adore their land have decided at that time to leave their beloved country and go into exile in neighbouring Israel? Did they actually follow the withdrawing Israeli army?
The intention of this editorial is not to delve into many analyses, but to summarize the actual reasons that made our people hastily cross the border and seek refuge in Israel: 
1-At that time Lebanon was still under the oppressive Syrian occupation and its mere decision making process was fully controlled by Syria, the occupier.
2- Hezbollah, an armed militia, which is totally affiliated to the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was in control of Lebanon's Shiite communities culturally, ideologically, militarily and economically, especially in numerous parts of the south.
3- The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) stationed in south Lebanon failed in their duty of reassuring the citizens of their safety, did not show any interest in the outcome of the Israeli withdrawal, did not negotiate with the southern citizens in the absence of the Lebanese authorities or even ask for their opinion or protect them.
While Israel was logistically preparing for the withdrawal, Hezbollah waged a merciless and savage media campaign against the southern Lebanese citizens. The campaign was aired publicly on all local and international TV channels and radio stations. The most frightening threats were uttered personally by Hezbollah's Secretary General, Sheik Nasrallah, who savagely said, �We will enter their bedrooms, pierce their stomachs, slaughter them and slice their throats. 
But Nasrallah’s threats did not frighten the South Lebanon Army (SLA), on the contrary this rhetoric was ridiculed on May 18/2000, six days before the Israeli withdrawal, when the Hezbollah militia tried to overcome and control one of  the SLA posts at the "Hamra Bridge". The attack failed badly and Hezbollah suffered huge losses.
Facing this disastrous milieu and all the other uncertainties, southern citizens were left with two bitter options: to militarily defend their land, engage with Hezbollah and repeat the status that prevailed before 1978; or to succumb to Hezbollah, surrender their weapons and live under its authority. Encountering this dilemma, they decided to avoid more Lebanese bloodshed and to leave Lebanon, the country that they cherished, without a fight and take refuge in Israel.
As a result of the Israeli withdrawal, there has been an enormous global escalation of terrorism not only in the Middle East, but in many other countries. Progress of peace efforts suffered a remarkable setback and worldwide violence prevailed leading to the 9/11 attacks and to subsequent acts of terrorism throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
The Free World countries responded by waging a massive global military anti-terrorism campaign that primarily focused on both Iraq and Afghanistan. Subsequently, the international community tried to amend the fatal mistakes that were committed in Lebanon and issued UN Security Council Resolution 1559 that addressed three important issues:
1-Syrian occupation: It called for the immediate withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon.
2-Weapons of terrorism: It called for the disarming of all militias, and in particular, of Hezbollah.
3- Safeguarding Lebanon's democratic system: It called for free parliamentary elections without Syrian interference.
UN Resolution 1559 provided the Lebanese people with the incentives to take action. Accordingly, the Cedar Revolution emerged and the Lebanese people by the hundreds of thousands peacefully took to the streets forcing the withdrawal of the Syrian army.Unfortunately, this revolution did not finish the job, which gave Hezbollah the route to brazenly escape and instigate a war with Israel in 2006. Sadly, due to the Lebanese authorities’ and politicians’ hesitation, poor judgment and lack of courage, they did not fully utilize the available circumstances to finish off the Hezbollah phenomenon. Instead Hezbollah besieged the government's headquarters, alleged a divine victory on Israel in the 2006 war, and on May 07 and 11/2008, invaded the western section of the capital Beirut and attempted to conquer the Shouf Mountain, enforcing a new national balance equation in a bid to abort the Cedar Revolution and circumvent and cripple UN Resolution 1559.
http://www.clhrf.com/un%20documents/1559.english1.htm
The Iranian endeavours for not allowing the disarmament of Hezbollah unveiled the actual elements of her plot:
1-A well set plan to expand Iran's hegemony on the whole Middle East.
2-The establishment of a military base In Eretria and Yemen.
3-The mobilization of the Shiite Houthis tribes on the Saudi -Yemeni border.
4-Supporting and instigation of instability in neighbouring Iraq.
5-The formation of numerous sleeping militant cells among the Shiite Arabian Gulf countries' communities.
6-Keeping Egypt unfocused on the actual Iranian scheme through instigation of strife between Egypt and other African countries that share the Nile River.
7- Playing with and tickling Muslims’ emotions and instigating religious fanaticism to fight Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
At the same time, Iran has been working day and night to become a nuclear power and  possess a nuclear weapon that is intended to be used for intimidating the Middle East countries, control their resources and wealth and have a monopoly on the region's fate and decisions.
Hezbollah is pivotal for all of the above Iranian schemes and a primary source of manpower. Its militant members who number in the tens of  thousands speak the Arabic language, are ideologically and religiously well prepared, and more than ready to carry out missions in any country as instructed.
There is no doubt that the current situation in the whole Middle East in general, and in Israel and Lebanon in particular, is much worse from the day the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon was implemented 10 years ago. The Iranian danger to both Israel and Lebanon is escalating. Lebanon did not enjoy any kind of stability despite the UN Resolutions, the bitter events' experience, the great sacrifices and the presence of new players (powers) on its arena.
Sadly, Lebanon is now living a repeat of same ghastly milieu that prevailed in 1982: tension, instability, chaos, and forced absence of any input on what goes on its land. The war-peace decision making process is again in the hands of Syria and Iran, while weapons of all kinds are smuggled to Hezbollah and to other Lebanese - Palestinian armed terrorist groups via Syria without any kind of control or impunity.
Based on all of the above, we request:
1- Lebanese officials to be prudent, patient, thoughtful and not to fall prey to the axis of evil’s schemes, terrorism, fanaticism, violence, intimidation, and whims of sabotage. Their patriotic duties and obligations as responsible Lebanese officials and leaders are to help in making Lebanon a country of peace, prosperity, freedom and stability in the region and not to be an arena and battlefield for Iran, Syria and their armed proxies. They must be aware that for the past 30 years, our Lebanese people have endured much more than they can tolerate, and as the saying goes: "He who does not learn from the past cannot make the future."
2- The  Cedar Revolution’s masses to hold dearly to their solid faith in a free, sovereign and independent Lebanon that should not under any circumstances be an aggressor, but a peace maker and an advocate for human rights and democracy. We encourage the masses to actively help in preserving the historic Lebanese role in hailing the right of all countries and people in the region to live freely without any kind of oppression. Lebanon's mission and message are to protect the weak and the oppressed and not to hail the conceited and arrogant.
3- Neighbouring Syria to overcome its ongoing expansionism schemes and accept once and forever the reality that Lebanon is an independent and sovereign country and not a Syrian territory or satellite. Accordingly, the joint borders must be patrolled and all kinds of infiltration and smuggling permanently stopped.
4- Israel to re-evaluate the achievements and setbacks of her withdrawal decision; meanwhile, We agree fully with Moshe Arens's analysis of May 17/10, which stated: "Chief among the assumptions underlying the decision to withdraw unilaterally was that once Hezbollah had achieved its stated goal of freeing southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation, it would restrict its activities to the Lebanese political arena and abandon further military operations against Israel. Secondly, should Hezbollah, nevertheless, continue military actions against Israeli targets after the withdrawal, Israel believed it would then be free to respond with drastic military actions that would dissuade Hezbollah from engaging in further military activities against Israel. Well, wrong on both counts. After the Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah not only did not disband its militia but intensively armed itself, including the acquisition of large numbers of long-range rockets, and developed from a guerrilla band into a well-trained and -equipped military force." 
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/withdrawal-right-for-the-wrong-reasons-1.290772
5-The Free World and Arab countries to completely support a free and democratic Lebanon and take a courageous stance in this regard before it is too late. A regime in Lebanon fully under the direct control of Syria or Iran or through their armed proxies is a dire threat to peace and stability to not only the Middle East but to the whole world.
6- Our people, the southern Lebanese citizens, who have been living a forced exile in Israel since May 2000 to remain as tall as Lebanon's Holy Cedars. They should know that the free Lebanese people hail their heroism, courage, peaceful inclinations, acceptance of others, tolerance, patriotism, sacrifices, love  of their homeland and deeply rooted faith. We know that they have proudly, honourably and courageously defended their beloved land and rights and never attacked others. We assure them that Lebanon won’t have long lasting stability until their honoured and dignified unconditional return is achieved. 
Elias Bejjani
*Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator
*Email phoenicia@hotmail.com
*Web sites http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com
*Mailing phoenicia group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Phoenicia/
*LCCC Face Book http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17974722934
Charbel Barakat
*Retired Lebanese army officer
*Renowned worldwide expert on terrorism.
*Human Rights Activist
*Author, analyst & political commentator
*Colonel Charbel Baraket's full English text testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Near Eastern & South Asian Affairs Subcommittee/14/6/2000/
http://www.10452lccc.com/special%20studies/barakatjune2000.htm
*Colonel Charbel Baraket's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Near Eastern & South Asian Affairs Subcommittee  June 7/1997/
http://www.10452lccc.com/barakat/barakat.june.97.teste.htm
 N.B: This study was first published on 23.05.10

March 14 calls on cabinet to make way for “salvation government”
May 24, 2012 /The March 14 coalition on Thursday issued a statement calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s cabinet and the formation of a “neutral salvation government.”
“The recent developments that have affected the country indicate that the Syrian regime decided to undermine stability, spread chaos, target [state] institutions… and renew [civil] war,” said the statement issued following a broad meeting of March 14 figures. “[We] call for the formation of a neutral salvation government as an essential preliminary step toward dialogue capable of preventing Lebanon from collapsing.” March 14 also accused Mikati’s government of being complicit in the Syrian “conspiracy” against Lebanon. “It is regrettable that this current government, by attempting to cover up the [Syrian] conspiracy… is unable to live up to its national and historic responsibility.”The statement slammed the cabinet for not “covering up security violations in Tripoli” and “almost destroying the role of the Lebanese army.”March 14 also announced it would present a proposal to President Michel Sleiman to form a salvation government and resume the national dialogue on the precondition it would discuss non-state arms.
It also said it would call for a “national safety net” inclusive of all the country’s people to fend off the threat of a new civil war.
Tension has been high in Lebanon the past two weeks after sectarian clashes left 10 people dead in Tripoli and street fighting in Beirut’s Tariq al-Jedideh killed two people. Other security incidents, including a Wednesday night shootout in West Beirut, have also raised fears.The March 8 coalition collapsed former PM Saad Hariri’s national-unity cabinet in January 2011 and sponsored Mikati’s rise to the premiership. -NOW Lebanon

Lebanon's opposition calls on Mikati government to resign
May 24, 2012/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The March 14 coalition called Thursday for the formation of a neutral salvation government to replace the Cabinet of Prime Minister Najib Mikati and accused Syria of instigating recent violence in the country. The opposition group also called for a continuation of national dialogue to resolve the issue "of all the weapons outside the jurisdiction of the state."
“The March 14 coalition demands the departure of this government and the formation a neutral salvation Cabinet that can maintain peace, with national dialogue headed by the president of the republic, ... and oversee parliamentary polls," the group said following a meeting at former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s residence in Beirut.
Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who read the statement on behalf of the opposition, blasted the government’s track record, saying it was incapable of living up to its responsibilities, and accused it of being an extension of a “regional axis.” “The current government is complicit [in the conspiracy against Lebanon] and incapable of handling this national responsibility given the nature of its formation and composition and given the fact that it is an extension to a regional axis that does not believe in Lebanon's stability,” Siniora said, in an apparent reference to Syria-Iran axis.
The meeting by the opposition group lasted almost two hours and included former Defense Minister Elias Murr, representatives from the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb as well as other figures in the March 14 coalition. The staunch critics of Syria’s President Bashar Assad also accused Damascus of being behind recent violence in the country.
“The Syrian regime has decided to destroy the temple over Lebanon’s head and transport its crisis to us,” Siniora said, referring to the months-long unrest in Lebanon’s neighbor.
The group also said Mikati’s government was complicit in the unrest in Lebanon.
Siniora said Mikati’s Cabinet had covered up “suspect security acts” that triggered the recent deadly clashes between opponents and supporters of Assad in Tripoli that left at least 11 dead and over 100 wounded. “[The government] also promoted [claims] of the existence of Al-Qaeda in Lebanon in support of allegations by Syria’s envoy to the U.N.,” Siniora said.
Syria’s U.N. envoy Bashar Jaafari sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on May 17 listing a dozen incidents since mid-March that involve the alleged smuggling or attempted smuggling of weapons from Lebanon to Syria. The letter accused the Future Movement, Al-Qaeda and Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood of involvement in some of the incidents.
Siniora accused the government of failing to respond to such allegations. Mikati and President Michel Sleiman have both dismissed the claims by Jaafari.
In its statement, the March 14 also called for the continuation of national dialogue that should be devoted to resolving the issue of “all weapons outside the legitimacy of the state.”
Siniora said the Lebanese Army was the guarantor of civil people and said the March 14 movement would not allow the country to “slide into civil war.”

Chamoun: Some politicians’ actions put army in ‘predicament’
May 24, 2012/Now Lebanon
National Liberal Party leader MP Dori Chamoun said in remarks published on Thursday that some politicians’ actions put the army in a predicament.
“The actions of certain politicians put the army in a predicament. Political pressure turned the army into an institution incapable of carrying out its duties, which led to a loss of credibility,” Chamoun told Al-Mustaqbal newspaper.
“But in the end we cannot give up on the army,” he also said, and called on certain Lebanese parties “to stop working against the army.”Chamoun also commented on the killing of a Sunni cleric and said that he thought the incident was not “planned.”
The MP also slammed some parties’ rhetoric in Lebanon saying they served Israel.
“The [rhetoric] of [Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel] Aoun and his allies, as well as their actions, make them the biggest Israeli agents. They are providing Israel with free service,” Chamoun said.
He added that Hezbollah “helped the spread of immoral [people] who do not respect the law.” On Sunday, army troops shot dead Sunni cleric Ahmad Abdel Wahed when his convoy allegedly failed to stop at a checkpoint in North Lebanon, the scene of deadly clashes linked to the uprising in Syria.
His death sparked tension in many Lebanese areas where protesters blocked roads using burning tires. In Beirut, two people were killed overnight Sunday in street battles in Tariq al-Jedideh.
-NOW Lebanon

Al-Rahi: I Do Not Support Calls for Government’s Resignation
Naharnet /May 2012/
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi voiced on Thursday his support for the various calls for holding dialogue in Lebanon away from the threat of arms. He said: “I do not support calls for the resignation of the government.” He made his remarks upon his return to Lebanon from a tour of North America. One does not demand the resignation of the government or burn tires calling for its collapse whenever disputes erupt in Lebanon, continued the patriarch. “Demands for its resignation are signs that we do not respect anything in Lebanon,” he added. “The government needs stability and trust. There are constitutional measures that can be adopted when it reaches a dead end,” al-Rahi stated. Furthermore, he noted: “Only the army protects us and the country.”“The military institution alone defends the state,” he declared.
The March 14 forces have grown increasingly critical over the government’s performance in light of the recent instability in Beirut and northern Lebanon.They have also questioned the government’s ability to supervise the 2013 parliamentary elections, demanding that it be replaced with a neutral cabinet.

Israel revives military option after Obama rejects its nuclear demands of Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 24, 2012/ Israel has withdrawn its pledge to US President Barack Obama not to strike Iran’s nuclear sites before the November presidential election after he rejected its minimal demands for nuclear negotiations with Iran. This is reported exclusively by debkafile’s Washington sources.
In public, Israeli ministers still talk as though they believe in results from the Six-Power talks with Iran, which Thursday May 24 limped into their second day in Baghdad with the parties still miles apart. But the presidential veto has essentially cast Israel outside the loop of influence on the outcome of diplomacy.
When Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon on May 17 he was told that Obama had rejected Israel’s toned-down demands for Iran to at least to halt high-grade uranium enrichment, export its stocks of material enriched higher than 3.5 percent grade and shut down production at the Fordo nuclear plant near Qom. For six months, the Obama administration tried to sweeten the bitter pill of this rejection by bumping up security aid. The latest appropriation covered another $70 million for manufacturing more Iron Dome short-range missile interceptors.
After talking to Panetta, Barak turned to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in the hope of winning their support for softening Obama’s ruling. Clinton replied she was not involved in the negotiations with Iran and Donilon, that a personal decision by the president was not open to change.
A week of consultations followed the defense minister’s return home, during which it was decided to tear up Israel’s pledge to refrain from attacking Iran during the US presidential campaign. Wednesday, May 23, the day the Baghdad talks began, Barak signaled Washington to this effect.
It was conveyed in a little-noticed early morning radio interview with the defense minister. To make sure his words reached the proper address without misunderstandings, the defense minister’s office issued a verbatim English translation from the Hebrew: "There is no need to tell us what to do, and we have no reason to panic. Israel is very, very strong, but we do know that the Iranians are accomplished chess players and will try to achieve nuclear capabilities. Our position has not changed. The world must stop Iran from becoming nuclear. All options remain on the table."
As the Baghdad talks went around in circles, Israel’s military option was put back firmly on the table and on the US-Iranian chessboard.

Iran and world powers agree to hold more nuclear talks in mid-June
By Barak Ravid | May.24, 2012/Haaretz/Despite little progress in talks, the Islamic Republic and the six world powers agree to hold another round of discussions in Moscow next month. Despite the dead end reached in the talks between Iran and the six world powers in Baghdad on Thursday, the sides agreed to hold another round of talks in Moscow in mid-June, according to the Iranian news agency Mehr.
According to Mehr, the EU's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton told a press conference in Baghdad that the third round of nuclear talks will take place on June 18 and 19 in Moscow.
Talks continued early Thursday morning between Iran and representatives of the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K., France and Germany. After a short lunch break, the talks resumed in the afternoon, and are expected to conclude in the late afternoon. During Thursday's morning's discussions, the Iranian delegation began to create the impression of a crisis in the talks in their briefings to Iranian media and foreign news agencies. The Iranians claimed that the six world powers had reneged on earlier promise of gestures toward Iran in exchange for moves on its part.
"Representatives of the world powers, and especially the American representatives, used language and expressions in the discussions that were very similar to those of senior Israeli government officials, which presented an obstacle to the progress of the discussions," an Iranian diplomat told Mehr. At this point, despite the crisis atmosphere created by the Iranians, no side seems to have an interest in putting an end to the talks. Thus, the sides agreed to hold another round of talks in three weeks.

Israel offered $6 million to victims of Gaza flotilla raid, say Turkish lawyers
By Zvi Bar'el and Reuters | May.24, 2012 | Haaretz/One of several lawyers representing 465 victims and victims' relatives of the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid says Israel made proposal to him through an intermediary foreign ambassador a month ago. A Turkish lawyer said on Thursday that Israel had offered to pay $6 million to victims of Israel's storming of a Gaza-bound Turkish aid flotilla to settle lawsuits against the Israeli military.  Ramazan Ariturk, one of several lawyers representing 465 victims and victims' relatives, told Reuters that the Israeli government had made a proposal to him through an intermediary foreign ambassador in Ankara just over one month ago. He said the money would have been paid to a Jewish foundation in Turkey for distribution, and been followed by a statement of "regret" for the raid by the Israeli government. "I told the ambassador I did not think the offer was appropriate or moral and also discussed the issue with the victims and their friends and they also stated that they could not accept this," Ariturk said. The Turkish Foreign Ministry agreed with his decision, saying Israel should have contacted it directly, he said. Ariturk declined to disclose the nationality of the ambassador or reveal the name of the Jewish foundation to which the payment would have been made.
However, a senior Israeli official who declined to be named said that Israel, having indicated last year that it was prepared to indemnify victims without accepting blame, had not renewed its offer.
Sources in the Turkish foreign ministry told Haaretz that they had not been officially approached by any Israeli officials, although, "If Israel had presented such an offer, it would have been considered seriously. In principal, there is no problem, to arrive at an understanding over the issue of damages, and actually a year ago we already reached an agreement over how to pay out damages, and according to this agreement, payment will be made through the Turkish government, and not directly to families in order to prevent recurring claims and long legal proceedings."
"However, controversy still remains the question of apology. Israel is opposed to declaring publicly that it apologizes and Turkey is not prepared to accept a wording of regret that does not include taking responsibility, that is required in an expression of apology," the sources said.
Israeli commandos stormed the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara ship to enforce a naval blockade of the Palestinian-run Gaza Strip in May 2010. Nine Turks were killed in clashes aboard the ship.
The raid proved a watershed moment in Israel-Turkey relations, with the once staunch allies trading blame over responsibility for the incident. Turkey has insisted that Israel apologize for the raid and its consequences, as well as pay reparations to the families of those killed. Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador and froze all military cooperation with its former ally after a UN report into the incident last September largely exonerated Israel. Turkey has demanded a formal apology from Israel alongside compensation for victims and the families of the dead, but Netanyahu has only voiced "regret".
On Wednesday an Istanbul prosecutor submitted an indictment seeking life sentences for four former Israeli military commanders in connection with the raid, including the Chief of General Staff at the time.
The UN report on the raid last September was meant to encourage a rapprochement but ultimately deepened the rift when it concluded Israel had used unreasonable force but that its blockade of Gaza was legal Israel said its marines had been attacked by activists wielding metal bars, clubs and knives when they boarded the Mavi Marmara, and had opened fire in self-defense.

Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
May 22, 2012 /Now Lebanon/Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivered an address on Tuesday after a group of Shia Muslim Lebanese men were reported kidnapped by rebels in Syria while returning home from a pilgrimage in Iran. He said: “My speech is directed toward the families of the [13 Lebanese Shia men abducted in Syria]. What I will say now is on my behalf and on behalf of the Amal Movement. We coordinated [the stance] together. This abduction is condemned. The issue at hand is to resolve the matter. What I want to confirm to the people is that Hezbollah and Amal will deal responsibly with the case. There is a cabinet in Lebanon. The cabinet should address the abduction like a cabinet that respects itself should.
We and Speaker Nabih Berri began making efforts to release them. If the families of those abducted want to protest in a square, a compound… it is their right to do so. But no roads should be blocked. We do not want anyone to block roads. How does this benefit us? This harms people and obstructs people’s lives. It can also lead to other [negative results] amid the tense situation in the country. Some [Lebanese people] threatened to kidnap Syrians in Lebanon [as a reaction to what happened]. This is unacceptable. The Syrians in Lebanon are our brothers. Blocking roads and committing violent actions do not serve the case. Contacts began with the Syrian authority and with some regional influential countries. We will carry out our duties regarding the abduction [of the 13 men]. We will work day and night [to release them]. Briefly, this is what I wanted to [tell the Lebanese people].May peace be with you.”

Holy hell /Separating fact from fiction in the pilgrimage kidnapping crisis
Alex Rowell, May 24, 2012/Now Lebanon
In one of a number of events contributing to unrest in the capital this week, over 60 Lebanese men and women were kidnapped on Tuesday in the province of Aleppo, Syria, on their journey home via Turkey from a Shia religious pilgrimage to Iran. News of the abduction sparked tire-burning demonstrations and road closures in Beirut’s mostly Shia southern suburbs—two days after deadly clashes in the nearby Sunni Tariq al-Jdeideh neighborhood—that only abated after Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech appealing for calm. While the women were quickly released, arriving safely in Beirut in the early hours of Wednesday, at the time of writing 11 of the men have yet to be freed.
The exact details of the kidnapping remain incomplete, but what is known so far is that the pilgrims were travelling in two buses when they were pulled over by armed men. After being held for three to five hours, around 50 men and women were released while 11 men were kept captive. At a rally attended by NOW Lebanon on Wednesday in the southern suburbs held in solidarity with the abductees, Hezbollah MP Ali Ammar assured relatives that the men were alive and that the party had secured their imminent release through its various contacts. Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri were also reported to be working on the case.
Accusations as to the identity of the kidnappers have varied widely, mostly in accordance with established political divides. Allies of the Syrian regime such as Ammar have put the blame on the Free Syria Army (FSA), the most prominent militant component of the opposition to President Bashar al-Assad. This claim was echoed by the Lebanese National News Agency.
However, the FSA has denied all involvement, with leader Riad al-Assaad blaming “a group of bandits” belonging to “recently formed financial mafias” and adding that his fighters “will risk our life to liberate” the captives. Separately, high-ranking FSA officer Mustafa al-Sheikh said the kidnapping is “no doubt the work of the regime, which wants to sow chaos in the region” and “distort the image of the FSA”—a claim with which FSA spokesman Khaled Youssef Hammoud concurred.
For its part, the opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) has not made any direct accusations, although it has stated that it “does not think it impossible that the regime is involved in this operation.” The regime itself has placed the blame on an “armed terrorist gang.”
Meanwhile, one anonymous relative of a captive has accused “an extreme Syrian fundamentalist group” of being behind the kidnapping. Appearing to support this accusation is the claim made on Thursday by the Syrian Islamist Sheikh Khaled al-Zoaabi that he is attempting to mediate on the captives’ behalf. “The kidnapped [men] are well,” he told Reuters. “I am attempting to [help] release them, but the shelling of the Syrian army on this area prevents this until now.” He asserted that the kidnappers will soon release a tape showing the men in good health, and that they will be handed over to the Lebanese authorities.
As for the testimony of the returned abductees themselves, no consensus on the kidnappers’ identities has emerged. Some were adamant that they belonged to the FSA. NOW spoke to Siham Mahmoud, who was on one of the buses and whose husband, Awad Ibrahim, remains captive. “It was the FSA who boarded the bus and took the men away,” Mahmoud told NOW. “They introduced themselves as the FSA, and they even had a badge on their military uniforms that said they were the FSA.”
This is partly corroborated by statements given by fellow pilgrims at Beirut airport. Questioned upon arrival by Al-Jadeed, several named their captors as the FSA.
However, several also denied that the kidnappers identified themselves as such, and significantly contradicted the others’ testimony in numerous respects. For example, while some said they were abused while captured—“They insulted us, they wiped the floor with us”—others said they were treated well and were unharmed. While some said the kidnappers wore military uniform, others said they wore civilian clothes. While some told of encountering intimidation on the same road during the outbound journey to Iran, others denied any such occurrence. While all agreed that the captors were armed, some described them not as militants but simply as “criminals” and “immoral [people].”
Similar discrepancies arise with regard to the alleged motives of the kidnappers. In the video, one woman claims that the “boss” of the captors told them, “We don’t want anything from you. We just want to exchange [men] with the Syrian regime.” This is echoed by the aforementioned anonymous relative, who asserts that, “The hostages are being held […] in hopes of swapping them for those of their comrades held [by Assad’s forces].” If true, the incident would resemble the exchange that took place earlier in the month of two Lebanese, Abdullah al-Zein and Khodr Jaafar, for over two dozen Syrian nationals.
However, no such quid-pro-quo has been publicly requested by the kidnappers, and indeed Hezbollah’s Ammar has denied that they have made any demands.
With so much uncertainty clouding the details, and tensions palpable on the streets, there is little to do at this stage but wait for further information. When contacted by NOW on Thursday, Hezbollah press spokesman Ibrahim Moussawi was decidedly reticent. “I don’t have any updates, I’m afraid. But I can assure you there is a committee that is following the case minute by minute.”
*Luna Safwan and Amani Hamad contributed reporting to this article.

Amnesty International: Israel frequently uses excessive force against Palestinians
By Haaretz and DPA | May.24, 2012 /Annual report for 2012 says Israel killed 55 civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, including 11 children.. The Amnesty International 2012 annual report was released on Wednesday, detailing the violation of human rights worldwide. The report is highly critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, charging that the Israel Defense Forces frequently uses excessive, sometimes lethal, force against demonstrators in the West Bank and civilians in Gaza. The IDF this year has killed 55 civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, including 11 children, the report said.
The report charges that Israeli authorities were prolonging the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip with the continued implementation of blockade. The report also criticizes Israel for restricting the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank. The construction of the security barrier is also mentioned as a source of grievance as it is mostly constructed on Palestinian land and in many cases serves to annex land to settlements in breach of international law. The report states that Israel has engaged in the demolition of Palestinian homes and other facilities in the West Bank, as well is inside Israel itself, where homes of Palestinian citizens are destroyed in "unrecognized” villages in the Negev desert. According to the report, Israel often fails to bring those that attack Palestinians to justice. Amnesty says three Palestinians were killed by settlers during the past year. The report goes on to criticize Israel's policy regarding the imprisonment of Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons, with more than 307 being administrative detainees held without charge or trial; others received prison terms following military trials. Israel held more than 4,200 Palestinian prisoners at the end of 2011. The report cites reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees. 2011 'watershed' for human rights  Elsewhere in the world, the report, which surveyed the state of human rights in 155 countries, said there was a "compelling case" for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigations of crimes against humanity. It documents specific restrictions on free speech in at least 91 of the countries, and says that torture and ill treatment continues in at least 101 countries around the world. Amnesty singled out Azerbaijan, the country hosting the Eurovision song contest, for particular criticism, calling for the release of 16 prisoners of conscience who were behind bars "for raising their voices" in 2011. There was also "no sign of significant change" in countries such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, said the Amnesty report. In sub-Saharan Africa, where the protests movements of the Arab Spring had "resonated strongly" with people, "excessive force" was used against protestors in countries from Angola to Senegal and Uganda. Social protest gathered strength in the Americas, where demonstrators had clashed with "powerful economic and political interests." Activists were threatened and killed in countries including Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, said the Amnesty report. In 2011, China was among countries which "threw the full weight of their security apparatus into the suffocation of protest," stated the report. Fearful of a protest movement inspired by events in the Middle East and North Africa, authorities in China unleashed one of the harshest crackdowns since the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations, Amnesty said.

Presidential Elections Will Not End Egyptian Instability
Eric Trager/Washington Institute/May 22, 2012 /Washington has little ability to influence the outcome of this week's election, in which most leading candidates appear disinclined to maintain strong relations with the United States. But it can encourage the Egyptian military to minimize the likelihood of another uprising. Despite the relative openness and unpredictability of Egypt's first post-Mubarak presidential election, scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the outcome will likely solidify two worrisome trends. First, radical ideologies will increasingly dominate Egyptian politics, steering the country in a theocratic, anti-Western direction. Second, Egypt may become more politically unstable, with the new president struggling against other power centers, including the military and the Islamist-dominated parliament.
BACKGROUND
The election is shaping up to be a competition between former Mubarak regime members and Islamists. Of the thirteen candidates, four are considered true contenders: former Arab League secretary-general Amr Mousa, who served as Hosni Mubarak's foreign minister from 1991 to 2001; former air force commander Ahmed Shafiq, who served as Mubarak's last prime minister; Muhammad Morsi, who chairs the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Freedom and Justice Party; and former Brotherhood Guidance Office member Abdel Monem Abouel Fetouh, who was ousted from the group last year when he announced his candidacy against the organization's wishes. (A fifth candidate, former Nasserist parliamentarian Hamdin Sabahi, finished second in the expatriate voting that concluded last week, but he is considered a long shot.)
None of these major candidates emerged as the clear front-runner during the campaigns. While polls suggest that Mousa is leading and Abouel Fetouh and Shafiq are gaining momentum, most Egyptians appear undecided. The 75 percent Islamist victory in the parliamentary elections, which concluded in January, would seem to indicate strong support for an Islamist president. Yet ongoing instability has damaged the Islamists' popularity and raised the profile of former regime candidates, whose popularity derives from the belief that they can reestablish domestic security. Moreover, polls cannot adequately capture certain other factors, including the Brotherhood's unparalleled mobilizing capabilities, which should enhance Morsi's performance; Shafiq's outreach to the heads of influential rural clans, many of whom previously supported Mubarak's ruling party; and the possibility that the military could intervene to bolster a non-Islamist candidate such as Shafiq or Mousa. If no candidate wins a majority this week, the top two vote-getters will proceed to a runoff on June 16-17.
A RADICAL POLITICAL CONSENSUS
Although the unpredictability of the outcome demonstrates the relative competitiveness of post-Mubarak politics, the candidates' convergence on key policy questions illustrates Egyptian consensus on an anti-Western foreign posture and a legal system based on Islamic law. Indeed, the tenor of the campaigns reflected strong support for policies inimical to Western interests, with most major candidates calling for engagement with Iran and Islamist contenders aggressively using anti-American rhetoric for political gain.
For example, Abouel Fetouh -- whom many of the major Salafist groups have endorsed, including the U.S.-designated terrorist organization al-Gamaa al-Islamiyah -- called the assassination of Usama bin Laden "state terrorism" and accused Washington of conspiring to "hit Muslim interests." And Brotherhood candidate Morsi vowed that, if elected, he would demand the U.S. release of Omar Abdul Rahman, the so-called "blind sheikh" convicted for involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was the most common foreign policy target of Islamist and non-Islamist candidates alike. Abouel Fetouh called the Camp David Accords a "national security threat" and, during a debate with Mousa, called Israel an "enemy." Mousa, though typically more circumspect on the issue, responded by calling Israel an "adversary" and agreeing that the accords should be reviewed. Although no candidate has called for abrogating the treaty outright, the Islamists have suggested that they will not deal with Israeli leaders if elected.
The candidates similarly converge in support of a legal system based on sharia. Morsi and Abouel Fetouh have both called for "implementation of the sharia," which is more strident than their previous embrace of an interpretive sharia approach. Meanwhile, even the non-Islamist Mousa advocates retaining Article II of the current constitution, under which the "principles of the Islamic sharia are the principal source of legislation."
The only candidate not following the anti-Western, pro-sharia pattern is Shafiq. The former prime minister has called implementation of sharia "difficult," accused the Islamists of "monopolizing religion to pass their own political agenda," expressed skepticism about opening ties with Iran, supported strong ties with the United States, and affirmed his commitment to Camp David. But his election could deepen Egypt's domestic turmoil, creating a different kind of policy nightmare for Washington.
EGYPT WILL STILL BE UNSTABLE
Even if this week's voting is fair and credible, the election is unlikely to restore political stability. For starters, the new president's powers will remain ill defined in the absence of a new constitution, and he will struggle for authority against the Islamist-dominated parliament and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Meanwhile, even if a military figure such as Shafiq is elected, there is no mechanism forcing the SCAF to answer to him. The military may therefore remain autonomous for the foreseeable future, intervening in politics whenever it fears that its narrow interests are threatened.
The SCAF is already behaving in this manner. Last Friday, Egyptian state media reported that the council would issue an updated "constitutional declaration" allowing it to retain absolute powers in reviewing its internal affairs, including its budget. The declaration will also reportedly expand the president's powers, including the authority to dissolve parliament. This follows rumors that the SCAF has been trying to dissolve parliament via court order -- a prospect that could ignite a severe confrontation between the military and the Islamists.
The election will not end Egypt's slide toward bankruptcy either. Although currency reserves have increased slightly in the past month, they have declined by as much as $21 billion since last year's revolt and now stand at only $15.2 billion. A further decline could threaten food subsidies, which would unleash unprecedented chaos given that at least 40 percent of Egyptians live on less than $2 per day.
U.S. POLICY OPTIONS
The election marks the next stage in Egypt's post-Mubarak transition, but there is little room for optimism in Washington. Most of the leading presidential candidates appear disinclined to maintain strong relations with the United States, and deterioration of the Camp David Accords -- a linchpin of U.S. policy in the region for over three decades -- is possible. Perhaps most worrisome, the election will not solve Egypt's ongoing political instability, and may even exacerbate it given that the president's powers have not been defined constitutionally.
Unfortunately, Washington has little ability to influence the outcome, and the Obama administration is therefore wise in not declaring support for any individual candidate. But it can -- and should -- influence the extent to which the election catalyzes greater instability. Specifically, the administration should use its ongoing communications with Egypt's military leaders to insist that the voting be conducted fairly. Since late March, the Muslim Brotherhood has accused the military of trying to rig the election, and the tight restrictions on election monitors have only fueled such fears. The perception that Shafiq enjoys military backing could make for a delicate situation if he emerges as one of the two finalists.
Washington should also push the SCAF to follow a credible constitutional process rather than issuing diktats that enshrine a leading role for the military. Otherwise, the military will be setting the stage for a new round of mass protests that would severely hamper efforts to restore domestic security and reverse Egypt's increasingly dire economic situation.
Given the U.S. interest in regional stability, the prospect of chaos following Egypt's election should be deeply alarming to policymakers. Washington should therefore use its $1.3 billion in military aid as leverage, encouraging the SCAF to administer the coming period with an eye toward minimizing the likelihood of another uprising -- one in which Islamists would likely play a leading role.
*Eric Trager is a Next Generation fellow at The Washington Institute.

Syrian sheikh says mediating release of kidnapped Lebanese
May 24, 2012/Daily Star
BEIRUT: A Syrian Islamist sheikh said on Thursday that he was mediating the release of Lebanese Shiite men kidnapped in Syria two days ago.
"They are well and safe, we are trying to secure their release, but the Syrian army shelling of the area has been blocking it so far," Sheikh Ibrahim al-Zoaby, head of Free People of Syria group, told Reuters.
Zoaby said the kidnappers will issue a video or recording of the kidnapped men soon to show they were well. He said the kidnappers want to hand the men to the Lebanese authorities.

Man with ties to Al-Qaeda arrested after deadly Beirut standoff
May 24, 2012 12/ The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A gunman with ties to Al-Qaeda was arrested Thursday in Beirut after an hours-long standoff with Lebanese soldiers that also claimed the lives of two men, security sources said Thursday. The apprehended gunman, Hani Ash-Shanti who holds a Lebanese passport, is part of a 13-member group affiliated with Al-Qaeda and is said to have been linked to the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the sources said. The early morning standoff was sparked after two gunmen at an aprtment in Caracas began firing at members of the police who had been dispatched to the area following the sound of gunfire. In response, the Lebanese Army, backed by Armed Personnel Carriers, was called in and the military cordoned off the area.
Taking up positions around the building, the army ordered the gunmen to surrender themselves.  After refusing to heed the army’s calls, the gunmen began shooting and hurling hand grenades at soldiers.
At 6:15 a.m., an army team stormed the apartment and traded fire with the gunmen, killing one of the men and wounding the other. Four Lebanese soldiers, including an officer, were also wounded in the exchange of fire. Upon inspecting the apartment, the army also discovered the body of a dead man, who security sources said had been killed during a dispute at the apartment over a Syrian woman, Gharam al-Hussein.

Al-Assad: From one slogan to another
By Hussein Shobokshi/Asharq Alawsat
The Syrian scene is becoming increasingly immoral and debauched, and this is a polite way of describing the work, actions and policies of the regime in Syria. In reality, normal words can no longer describe the traumatic events and massacres that the regime has been carrying out against its own people for over a year and a half, ever since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution. We should not forget that the Syrian people only began to revolt after enough was truly enough, after more than four decades of humiliation and torment at the hands of a regime that showed no mercy or respect for them.
More explosions have occurred in several locations throughout Syria, and according to the official media of the Syrian regime, terrorist organizations are responsible for this. This is a broken record that has been repeated by the regime since the start of the revolution. However, there is an obvious question here, which may seem naïve, but is nonetheless important: why do “terrorist bombings” only occur in locations and cities that are standing up to the regime, and witnessing intense demonstrations against it? How can terrorist groups (which according to the official Syrian media want to overthrow the regime because they are part of a global conspiracy against it, as are the revolutionaries, and thus both – the revolutionaries and the terrorists – are on the same page) carry out the bombings in key revolutionary locations, but not in other areas that are secure for the regime, such as the loyal coastal and mountainous cities?
This question has remained in my head constantly since the explosions first started to occur in various Syrian cities, and only in the presence of UN or Arab League observers; a strange coincidence! The regime’s political and media explanations are closer to a joke or a comedy rather than a logical, reasonable and acceptable interpretation. Furthermore, instead of the Syrian regime working to spare the blood of its people, stop its killings and arrests, and commit to any of the initiatives it has been offered on a silver platter, it has continued with its destructive and bloodthirsty approach. The regime is seeking to penetrate the ranks of the opposition, fragment it, distort its image and portray its symbols as foreign agents, traitors and mercenaries who are promoting lies. This is despite the fact that many opposition figures are more worthy and have better reputations than all the members of the current regime; however this is the dire and regrettable state of affairs in Syria.
The official Syrian media machine continues to promote stories about key members of the regime being eliminated through targeted assassination operations, and then denying the same stories later on, so that the opposition loses credibility and therefore popularity. This is an old and cheap method, but the regime does not stop there. Now it is transferring part of the problem and the revolution into neighboring Lebanon, fuelling confrontations with Syrian arms and equipment, and via the tongues of pro-Assad parties within the Lebanese body politic, of which there are many. Hence the scene has transferred immediately to the heart of the Lebanese capital Beirut, due to the work of sectarian political parties that are supportive of al-Assad and his project. Moreover, MPs from the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have begun to shout at the top of their voices inside the parliament’s halls, demanding the return of the Syrian army to Lebanon immediately, in order to maintain security and stability and put an end to the chaos. This, of course, is part of the “plan” that has been developed by some within the Syrian regime, namely for Syrian troops to return to Lebanon after promoting a political and security rationale that forces Syria to intervene in order to preserve its security and protect its neighbor. However, the most important purpose of this plan is to control Hezbollah’s weapons and restrict them, through a major political, security, military and intelligence deal with Israel and the West (similar to what Gaddafi did with America and George W. Bush when he gave up his program to produce chemical weapons of mass destruction). However there is great hesitance from some within the regime regarding the implementation of this plan, and the possibility of achieving the desired results has been severely disrupted, especially in light of the growing humanitarian cost, in terms of the number of people killed and wounded, whilst the revolution in Syria is still going strong.
If Lebanon does not maintain its unity then it will be dragged into the arena of conflict in a quick and costly manner. The Gulf States are aware of the danger that surrounds their citizens in Lebanon, a country that will support al-Assad with every means at its disposal, and will undertake “human sacrifices” as proof of this support. What about the story of the old man who was shot dead in Tripoli [Lebanon]? This is nothing more than a spark to incite the Lebanese to support al-Assad! “In spirit and in blood we sacrifice ourselves for you, al-Assad” is more than just a slogan, this is a political approach that was initiated by the Syrian regime. It seems that the al-Assad regime’s shadowy political course will be concluded by another slogan, namely: “al-Assad or we burn the country”!

A testimony about Lockerbie
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
In 1995 I met with Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fahima in Tripoli, the two suspects accused of bombing a US passenger jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. In 1991, allegations were made against the Muammar Gaddafi regime, charging it with masterminding, funding and carrying out the bombing. As I entered Libya over land from Djerba, Tunisia - as a result of the no-fly zone imposed on Libyan territories because the regime had refused to hand over al-Megrahi and Fahima - I kept asking myself the same question: Was Gaddafi really crazy enough to bomb a US airplane? Or was the accusation part of an international campaign to demonize the former Libyan leader?  I had been granted the opportunity to conduct a televised interview with Gaddafi, which lasted for six hours over the space of two days. During the penultimate commercial break on the second day of filming, I whispered in Gaddafi's ear "I have a special request for you, brother Muammar". He stared at me, obviously thinking that I had a personal request or agenda to fulfill. Then he said "What can I do for you?", to which I replied "I want to conduct a live interview tomorrow with al-Megrahi and Fahima."
He remained silent for a moment and then realized that the only honorable gift a ruler can give to a journalist is to secure him a major "scoop". He answered "very well", and gave the order to his aides.
This was my first interview with Fahima and al-Megrahi, and I remember that it was a Monday because both of them were fasting, and they broke their fast by eating dates and drinking a glass of milk. I asked to be alone with both of them, without the presence of any Libyan police or intelligence officers, and we talked for two hours before we began filming. I swear by God that both Fahima and al-Megrahi left a number of positive impressions upon me, which I can summarize as follows:
1- There was a Libyan role in the bombing; this may have centered on the funding, but not the implementation.
2- Both individuals were certainly members of a security apparatus affiliated to Gaddafi, but they were not directly involved in the Lockerbie bombing.
3- They felt extremely guilty because Libyan citizens had lived for years under sanctions, boycotts and an international embargo, a result of the regime's refusal to hand them over for prosecution.
Fahima and al-Megrahi, two figures from Gaddafi’s inner circle, were examples of individuals who had been forced to serve the regime, but not to the extent of bombing a passenger airplane.
This was what I saw, heard and felt during the interview, and this was what came to my mind when I read the news of al-Megrahi's death.

Colonial threads combine to strangle a sectarian Syria
Charles Glass/The National
Twenty-five years ago, I travelled by land through what geographers called Greater Syria to write a book. I began in Alexandretta, the seaside northern province that France ceded to Turkey in 1939, on my way south through modern Syria to Lebanon. From there, my intended route went through Israel and Jordan. My destination was Aqaba, the first Turkish citadel of Greater Syria to surrender to the Arab revolt and Lawrence of Arabia in 1917. For various reasons, my journey was curtailed in Beirut in June 1987. (I returned to complete the trip and a second book in 2002.)
The ramble on foot and by bus and taxi gave me time to savour Syria in a way I couldn't as a journalist confronting daily deadlines. People loved to talk, linger over coffee and tea, play cards, and complain. One of the more interesting critics of President Hafez Al Assad's then 17-year-old Baathist regime was Hafiz Jemalli. Dr Jemalli, a distinguished statesman and diplomat then in his 80s, had been a founder of the Baath Party. By 1987, he belonged to Syria's silent opposition.
"Everyone is afraid," he told me then. "I accepted to be a minister. Why? Because, if not, they put me in prison. Nobody has the courage to tell our president there is something wrong. Our president believes he is an inspired person, with some special relationship with God. If he is inspired, nothing is wrong. If there is some crisis, it is a plot, of Israel or America, but nothing to do with him, because he is inspired."
Many of the civilian members of the Baath Party, whose founders claimed to believe in secularism and democracy, deserted its ranks when the party took power in 1963. They rejected the militarisation of the party, which kept power, not through elections - but by force of the arms of its members within the army. Among them was the father of Rulla Rouqbi, whom I met a few weeks ago at the hotel she manages in Damascus. Faissal Rouqbi had died a month earlier, which explained why the attractive 54-year-old was dressed in black. A vigorous supporter of the revolution that began in Syria last year, she believes hers is the same struggle her father waged against one-party military rule.
"I was questioned twice by the security forces," she told me in the hotel's coffee shop, which looks onto a busy downtown street. "They did it just to show me they know what I am doing and they are here." She said that, because young dissidents gathered in her coffee shop with their computers, the police cut the hotel's Wi-Fi connection. Nonetheless, several young people were there discussing the rebellion, much as their forefathers did in the old cafes of the souqs that the French destroyed to put down their revolts, over strong Turkish coffee or, now, newly fashionable espresso.
Ms Rouqbi detected a generational split in the conflict: "A lot of people here, nationalists of the old generation, are with the regime because they think it's against imperialism and the Zionist project." There was also an economic divide: "In Damascus, only the poor class is taking part. In Homs, all classes, all sects. It's really a revolution."
Her hotel had taken in 30 families who fled the fighting in Homs, which has become the main focus of the rebellion and of its suppression. From conversations with Homsi refugees, it became clear that another source of division was sectarian. Sunnis from Homs tended to flee from fear of army artillery and arrests, while Christians and Alawites sought shelter from Sunni fundamentalists who treat them as enemies and inferiors.
Back in 1987, Dr Jemalli told me, "When we resisted the French, we had to act as a unified people. Now we are divided. We are Muslim. We are Alawi. We are Druze. We are Christian. How did it happen? Syria in the 1940s was liberated from sectarianism, but now we are divided into sects. The army is now composed of Alawi officers. A majority of our army is a minority of our people. It comes only by chance?"
When France seized Syria in 1920 and divided it into four mini-states, most Sunnis and Christians were Arab nationalists opposed to French rule. They refused to serve in the Troupes Speciales du Levant that became the Syrian Army, so the French recruited impoverished Alawite peasants. The Alawite foothold in the armed forces was one legacy of that brutal 25 years of colonial rule. The Alawites, whose daughters were mistreated as household servants in Damascus until recently, helped the French to crush nationalist rebellions in the 1920s.
When the CIA sponsored the army coup that destroyed Syria's parliamentary democracy in 1949, the way was open for Alawite officers (whose survival over centuries of religious intolerance had required them to be master conspirators) to come to the fore in 1966.
The rebellion against tyranny is turning into a sectarian and class war that could destroy Syria for a generation and drive out those with the talent, education or money to thrive elsewhere. Neither side speaks of conciliation. The end game for both requires the destruction of the other. Foreign backers appear to encourage confrontation, when they should seek agreement to save Syria from the fate of its neighbours Lebanon and Iraq.
A glimmer of hope came from the former World Bank economist Nabil Sukkar. "The opposition is not going to retreat," he told me in Damascus. "The stalemate could last to 2014." Bashar Al Assad's term of office ends that year, when Dr Sukkar believes he could stand down without losing face or having his Alawite community punished.
He continued, "For [Kofi] Annan to succeed, there has to be compromise from both sides. The regime must stop killing, and the opposition must stop smuggling [arms]. And foreigners must stop sending arms. Then there can be a ceasefire and a transition government." However unlikely that seems today, it could work if Russia and Iran compel the regime and the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar push the opposition to achieve it. Otherwise, Syrian will fight Syrian - just as the Lebanese did - in what the respected Lebanese journalist Ghassan Tueini called "a war for the others".
**Charles Glass is the author of several books on the Middle East, and a publisher under the London imprint Charles Glass Books. A new edition of his book Tribes with Flags: A Journey Curtailed is being published this year by Harper Collins

Address by Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Baird at University of Calgary School of Public Policy Dinner
May 22, 2012 - Vancouver, British Columbia
Check Against Delivery
I am really pleased to be back in Vancouver—it’s one of my favourite cities in the world.
And, as our gateway to Asia, it’s vitally important to Canada’s success in the global economy.
This past week marked the one-year anniversary of my appointment as foreign affairs minister.
And it brought me back to my first day on the job, when I received phone calls from various counterparts around the world.
They told me that I was joining the world of diplomacy at the most interesting time in recent history.
How right they were!
In the last year or so, waves of change and conflict have crested over large parts of the world.
These have dominated day-to-day news coverage.
Less reported, though, is the fact that, fundamentally, the tides of global affairs are also changing, and changing fast.
And strong trade winds swirl across the Pacific, tilting the balance of power from West to East, and from North to South, with profound implications.
Some are calling this the Pacific Century.
Canada, as a Pacific nation, can—and will—be a major player in these exciting times.
How we plan to do that will be the focus of my remarks tonight.
My friend and British counterpart, William Hague, said recently: “A strong economy is the bedrock of international influence.”
Foreign policy is, of course, an extension of the national interest. Canadian interests and Canadian values must come first in all we do.
For today’s Canada, this means enhancing economic opportunity to ensure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.
It means working with our international partners to increase global safety and security.
And it means promoting and protecting Canadian values—and projecting them as a source of strength:
•freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law; and
•dignity for all people.
How we protect these important Canadian values while also creating economic opportunity will determine Canada’s success in a time of great uncertainty and fundamental transformation globally.
The International Monetary Fund believes that China’s economy could very well be bigger than the United States’ by 2016.
In recent years, 400 million Chinese people have been pulled out of poverty and now form part of that country’s ballooning middle class.
That’s a middle class that is much larger than the population of the United States.
The use of online social networking systems is growing by leaps and bounds, and the Chinese government is moving to make the yuan an international currency.
Just a few short months ago, under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, we were pleased to conclude both a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement and a nuclear cooperation agreement with China.
Last summer, I told business audiences in both Toronto and Shanghai that Canada-China relations had hit a high-water mark.
I’m pleased to say that mark is even higher today.
Relations are better, our friendship even stronger.
And we have the pandas to prove it.
But the Asia-Pacific transformation is not just about China.
It’s also about Japan, the Republic of Korea, India and the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] member states—especially Indonesia and Vietnam.
Explosive growth is happening throughout these countries.
Our government gets it.
Singapore’s economy, for example, is expected to double within six years.
A recent report by HSBC predicted that by the year 2050, 19 of the 30 largest economies will be in countries we now call “emerging.”
The numbers are simply staggering.
The economic potential is immense.
The demographic shift is monumental.
And Canada must be a part of it. This is not a choice. It is an imperative.
That’s why before visiting London or Paris, I went to cities in China and Indonesia.
Together, those two countries are home to more than 1.5 billion people.
And the good news is this: Canada is ideally positioned to promote our interests on the global stage—both in terms of raw, natural resources and human capital, and in terms of values and freedom.
Canada has what others want.
Global energy needs will increase by 50 percent by 2030, largely in Asia.
So when I meet with my counterparts around the world, I consistently build up Canada’s reputation as a resource superpower.
Jaws drop when I tell people we have the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world; many don’t know this.
Many don’t fully appreciate that we’re among the top producers of copper, nickel, zinc and uranium.
And for many, the statistics surrounding B.C.’s forestry sector, for instance, are simply unfathomable.
There is huge demand for these resources. And it’s time for Canada to take full advantage of our blessings.
That is why we believe the Northern Gateway pipeline is so fundamentally important to our future prosperity.
We must remind the world that Canada can be a source of stability in an unstable world.
That Canada can be a trusted partner to develop its resources responsibly.
Western Canada, in particular, is poised for amazing things.
Our government gets that.
This is not a problem, as some in Ottawa have suggested recently.
This is an exciting reality of the Canadian economy.
As a senior minister from Ottawa, I know this is a huge part of our nation’s prosperity.
Just as the auto sector was galvanized by the Auto Pact in the 1960s, the whole country should be galvanized by the opportunities created by the West’s rise.
What is good for the West is good for Canada.
What is good for the East is good for Canada.
I don’t espouse the values of Western Canada in my travels. I espouse the values of Canadians from every part of this country.
Great opportunities are within our grasp, and if we are prepared to seize those opportunities, we will ensure the prosperity and the security of the next generation of Canadians.
But success does not just happen.
We must prepare for success, create the conditions for success, and make it easier to do business with our partners—both new and traditional.
The Prime Minister and our government are doing just that.
We have been clear that the United States, as our closest neighbour, will also remain our closest ally and most important trading partner.
That’s why we support the Keystone XL pipeline, which will create tens of thousands of jobs throughout North America.
It’s why we are working hard to twin our busiest and most important border crossing at Windsor-Detroit.
It’s why Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed to the elements of the wide-ranging Beyond the Border Action Plan to facilitate and increase legitimate trade and travel.
We are also seeking new trade agreements with Europe. International Trade Minister Ed Fast, who hails from nearby Abbotsford, is working tirelessly to get a deal done this year with the European Union.
That deal would mean billions of dollars in benefits for the Canadian economy.
Yes, traditional alliances are still important. They have helped Canada become the incredible place it is today. But Canada’s future success depends on our ability to embrace change, forge new relationships and network differently.
My focus has been to reinvigorate our diplomacy, re-engage with the world, and reallocate limited resources to places we need to be now and 10 and 20 years from now.
We’ve sought to enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
We’ve opened six offices in China, three in India, one in Mongolia and one in Brazil.
Furthermore, we are working to complete free trade agreements with India, Japan, South Korea and Thailand.
We’ve reached out to new people and in new ways.
We’ve asked the private sector to do the same.
Earlier today, I met with members of various Asian diaspora communities: people with different backgrounds, different personal stories.
But all of the people I met can help link Canada to their native countries in a real way, and help create new opportunities.
Last year, The Economist magazine reported that diaspora business networks are, and I quote, “reshaping the world.”
The report said these diaspora communities can help speed information flow, foster trust and create connections that help people collaborate.
In other words, this model has the potential to transform business worldwide.
We must be part of this as a country.
A globalized economy compels us to forge new relationships, break new ground and blaze new trails.
Canada, as a Pacific nation, is uniquely positioned for a bright future, not least of all because of our values.
Our interests and our values are very much connected.
They are what make us uniquely Canadian.
They are the intangibles we bring to the table.
And they, like our resources, make us the envy of the world:
•freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law; and
•dignity for all people.
These are values Canadians hold true, and the values for which the world aches.
Canada and other liberal democracies have a vested interest in making sure these values are at the heart of our foreign policy and our dealings.
The Arab Spring was sprung from one street vendor in Tunisia.
He, like many in his country, wanted the dignity and the freedom that he saw much of the world enjoying.
He, and those he inspired, craved hope and opportunity—basic things of fundamental importance.
History is punctuated by revolutions of the marginalized, the disenfranchised and the young.
Across the Arab world, these cries for freedom were not just about human rights, but were about dignity.
The dignity to provide for one’s family.
The dignity to practise one’s faith.
The dignity to contribute to one’s society.
That notion of individual dignity is critical to any nation’s progress.
In the past year, it has become clear that the calls for freedom and openness around the world are becoming louder and more insistent.
In North Africa, in the Middle East, in Burma and elsewhere, people are engaged in a struggle to claim their individual rights.
They are struggling for the right to express their views, to voice their concerns, to have a say in how they are governed.
They want the chance to benefit from the rewards of this new century’s open societies.
In other words, they want what we all want: hope and opportunity.
Hope and opportunity are the building blocks of stability and prosperity in any society.
And it is in our interest to help those people who are seeking to create a free society, to give a voice to the voiceless and to enable every individual to live in peace and dignity.
We’re not selective in which human rights we defend, nor are we arbitrary in whose rights we protect.
Sadly, this is something lost on too many in positions of power in too many countries.
Progressive countries like Canada embrace pluralism and draw strength from our differences.
We don’t compromise on basic rights.
Nor are these rights the privilege of a select few.
We stand firm on the ideals and principles that have made our country diverse, prosperous and free.
Those who would attempt to spread hate and intolerance within our borders are subject to the rule of law—one that respects our common values and our people’s freedoms.
We stand with the marginalized, religious minorities, gays and lesbians, women and girls who are denied fundamental rights and the dignity they deserve.
In a true open society, there is room for all to grow and prosper.
For Canada, the bottom line is that economic opportunity, whether ours or that of those beyond our borders, rests on free, transparent and open societies.
Our foreign policy will continue to support the development of these societies in Asia and elsewhere.
We have a shared interest in ensuring that is the case.
A shared interest in ensuring, as my Dutch counterpart said in Ottawa the other day, “that all countries, including in Asia, are committed to the international institutions that safeguard our security and prosperity.”
This is the global landscape, the current state of play.
And in promoting Canadian values and Canadian interests together, by being honourable in our dealings, and by harnessing the same pioneer spirit that built this country to greatness, success can and will be Canada’s—in this Pacific Century, and always.
Thank you.