LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
May 30/12

Bible Quotation for today/Suffering as a Christian
01 Peter/04/12 My dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful test you are suffering, as though something unusual were happening to you. Rather be glad that you are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that you may be full of joy when his glory is revealed. Happy are you if you are insulted because you are Christ's followers; this means that the glorious Spirit, the Spirit of God, is resting on you. If you suffer, it must not be because you are a murderer or a thief or a criminal or a meddler in other people's affairs. However, if you suffer because you are a Christian, don't be ashamed of it, but thank God that you bear Christ's name. The time has come for judgment to begin, and God's own people are the first to be judged. If it starts with us, how will it end with those who do not believe the Good News from God? As the scripture says, It is difficult for good people to be saved; what, then, will become of godless sinners?  So then, those who suffer because it is God's will for them, should by their good actions trust themselves completely to their Creator, who always keeps his promise.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Even Hezbollah and Israel agree/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 29/12
An 'Imaginary' President Appeases a Very Real Islam/By: Raymond Ibrahim/Front Page Magazine/May 29/12
Killing time/By: Hussain Abdul-Hussain/Now Lebanon/May 29/12

An 'Imaginary' President Appeases a Very Real Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com
May 28, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3252/president-appeases-islam
American intellectual Will Durant's The Lessons of History—co-written with wife Ariel and published in 1968, when the Soviet Union posed a threat to the United States—still offers insightful lessons, especially concerning American-Muslim relations.
In the chapter titled "History and War," the Durants posit some hypothetical speeches and approaches concerning war. First, an imaginary U.S. president says before the leaders of communist Russia:
If we should follow the usual course of history, we should make war upon you for fear of what you may do a generation hence…. But we are willing to try a new approach. We respect your peoples and your civilizations as among the most creative in history. We shall try to understand your feelings, and your desire to develop your own institutions without fear of attack. We must not allow our mutual fears to lead us into war, for the unparalleled murderousness of our weapons and yours brings into the situation an element unfamiliar in history. We propose to send representatives to join with yours in a persistent conference for the adjustment of our differences, the cessation of hostilities and subversion, and the reduction of our armaments…. Let us open our doors to each other, and organize cultural exchanges that will promote mutual appreciation and understanding…. We pledge our honor before all mankind to enter into this venture in full sincerity and trust. If we lose in the historic gamble, the results could not be worse than those that we may expect from traditional policies. If you and we succeed, we shall merit a place for centuries to come in the grateful memory of mankind.
Once the imaginary president concludes, "the general smiles," write the authors, and retorts:
You have forgotten all the lessons of history and all that nature of man which you described. Some conflicts are too fundamental to be resolved by negotiation; and during the prolonged negotitiations (if history may be our guide) subversion would go on. A world order will come not by a gentlemen's agreement, but through so decisive a victory by one of the great powers that it will be able to dictate and enforce international law, as Rome did from Augustus to Aurelius. Such interludes of widespread peace are unnatural and exceptional; they will soon be ended by changes in the distribution of military power.
Now, consider how well this hypothetical exchange, written in 1968, applies to the current situation between the U.S. and the Muslim world:
First, the "imaginary" president has become all too real, in the person of Barack Obama. Above and beyond his so-called "historic Cairo speech," where he reached out to and cloyingly flattered the Muslim world, everything this man has subsequently said and done—from expunging all references to Islam in U.S. security documents, to ordering NASA to make Muslims "feel good" about themselves—far exceeds the expressed outreach of the imaginary president.
Next, the situation has changed in a way that makes it even more naïve and irrational for the U.S. to be so appeasing of the Islamic world. Whereas the U.S.S.R was a nuclear-armed superpower—making dialogue and cooperation logical, practically risk-free options, since, as the imaginary president concluded in his speech, the alternative was war, anyway—that is not the case with the Islamic world, which is currently militarily inferior, and thus need not be appeased.
Quite the contrary, by giving one's opponent time and freedom, "subversion would go on," as the imaginary general correctly points out, whether Muslim nations like Iran grow to become nuclear powers, or whether Muslims in the West work to subvert their host nations. This threat of subversion is especially apt considering that Islam's own teachings promote subversion and deceitful tactics.
Likewise, the imaginary president's idealistic approach was directed at Russia, which, while communist for several decades, still shared in the Western heritage and worldview, and so may have been better expected to reciprocate and cooperate—certainly more so than the Islamic world, the culture of which is fundamentally alien to such utopian principles expressed by the imaginary president, the utopian principles expressed by Obama. Accordingly, the general's observation, "Some conflicts are too fundamental to be resolved by negotiation," is especially applicable to today's conflict with the Islamic world—a conflict that stretches back some 1400 years.
Even so, as the Durants indicated, no matter how utopian an American president might be, it was a safe assumption (in 1968) that at least America's generals would maintain sobriety. Yet today, that, too, no longer appears to be the case, as naivety and censorship have so thoroughly penetrated the war colleges and intelligence agencies—evinced by a politically-correct Pentagon, an Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense who absurdly refuses to associate "violent Islamist extremism" as motivating al-Qaeda, and an Intelligence Chief who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular."
What, then, are the "lessons of history"? This: Ideas that were once recognized as overly naïve, put only in the mouths of imaginary characters, have, in the course of half a century, become so mainstream, despite the fact that the political circumstances that may have warranted them then, vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, have changed to make their application now, with the Muslim world, wholly irrational—a sort of slow-motion suicide.
**Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Even Hezbollah and Israel agree
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
Even Hezbollah and the Israeli Prime Minister could not ignore the Houla massacre in Syria, whose death toll stands at around 108, mostly women and children, and have condemned this. The question that must be asked here is: if Hezbollah and Israel have agreed to condemn the massacres in Syria, then what is left for the tyrant Bashar al-Assad and his brutal killing machine?
Hezbollah issued a statement expressing its “deep pain and shock at the terrible massacre in the Houla region of Homs”, condemning this massacre and those who carried it out, without making reference to any specific party! Along the lines of Hezbollah, Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] issued a statement expressing his “disgust over the relentless killing of innocent civilians by al-Assad forces, which continued during the weekend in the village of Houla and included dozens of children”. So if even Hezbollah and the Israelis are united in condemnation of the massacres taking place in Syria, when will the world say that enough is enough with regards to al-Assad’s crimes and acknowledge that the time has come for his departure, even if this must take place via military intervention? The crimes of the tyrant of Damascus are endless, and we are now witnessing a new massacre in Hama, following the Houla massacre, which was condemned by the UN Security Council.
Therefore the danger of what is happening in Syria today, and this is something that the international community has failed to notice –particularly the US president – is that the situation has reached a phase where there is no room for rational thought, and this will only serve to encourage sectarianism and extremism, as well as all forms of violence. Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that Hassan Nasrallah and Netanyahu were not able to remain silent, issuing condemnation of the Houla massacre. This is not fishing in murky waters, but clear evidence that both men are well aware of the gravity of the situation and the threat that is present in the days to come, whether to Syria, or the region as a whole. The brutality of the crimes committed by the tyrant of Damascus exceeds even the brutality of the crimes committed by the terrorist Al Qaeda organization; for the al-Assad regime is literally slaughtering women and children, and all of this points to the alarming presence of sectarianism and desire for revenge, which is what prompted both Hezbollah and Israel to condemn the Syrian massacres, particularly as the death toll in Syria has reached 13,000. So what is the international community, particularly the US, waiting for? Is the UN Security Council, or the international community, still counting on Russia?
I believe that this would be absurd, for the Syrian revolution has exceeded Moscow, and the time has come to take action from outside the UN Security Council. The time has come to establish a regional operational cell in cooperation with NATO, as well as willing regional countries, to engage with the project to topple al-Assad by force of arms, as well as support the call made by Mr. Burhan Ghalioun for the Syrian people to liberate themselves. This will not take place without the establishment of buffer zones inside Syrian territory along its borders, namely along the Turkish – Syrian border and the Syrian – Jordanian border, with NATO support, as well as Arab and western states that are willing to cooperate with this, in order to rescue Syria from al-Assad the tyrant.
Therefore the world must take action today, for now that all solutions and initiatives have been exhausted, what is the international community waiting for? What is the international community waiting for, if even Israel and Hezbollah are condemning the Houla massacre in Syria?

Russian arms ship turned away from Syria. President Putin’s first misstep
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 29, 201/ncoming Russian President Vladimir Putin, after taking stock of his first days of his third presidency, concluded that Moscow’s handling of the al-Houla massacre and Syria’s ongoing collapse into civil war will go down as a Russian foreign policy failure. He personally comes out of the policy as the patron of a bloodthirsty tyrant.
The Kremlin first tried presenting the slaughter of 108 people Friday and Saturday, among them 49 children and 34 women, as the work of unknown non-military bands, partly corroborating the Assad regime’s claim of terrorism. This line was quickly abandoned and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was told Monday, May 28, to assign responsibility to “two sides” at his joint news conference in Moscow with British Foreign Secretary William Hague.
But the information coming out of the Houla disaster area knocked that line on the head too: It turned out that the massacre was perpetrated by the town’s Alawites. Their victims were taken unprepared for their neighbors’ attacks, unlike the Sunni Muslims of Homs, Hama and Idlib and similarly mixed community towns, and mercilessly slaughtered in their homes by rampaging Alawites wielding knives, shot guns and pistols. Syria has thousands of small and large mixed towns and villages divided by barricades manned by local militias – some for and some against Assad. The Houla massacre is therefore apt to be repeated across the country, plunging it into a full-blown civil and sectarian bloodbath.
Moscow is beginning to fear that Russia may be stigmatized as an accessory to this horror - and especially the foreign policy choices made by the new president.
Lavrov tried to save his government’s reputation by declaring out of the blue that Moscow no longer backs Bashar Assad and his regime and fully endorses the UN envoy Kofi Annan’s mission.
Annan was back in Damascus Tuesday holding talks with the Syrian ruler. It his hard to see how he can salvage even a vestige of his mission when the Syrian ruler has broken every commitment he made from the word go a month ago.
The other step decided by the Kremlin was to quietly order the Russian arms ship Professor Katsman to stop unloading its cargo at the Syrian port of Tartus, sail west and wait for fresh orders after the furor dies down. President Putin is clearly floundering before deciding on his next steps with regard to Syria and calculating to the last figure the cost of supplying the world’s most hated despot with arms and spreading a diplomatic net under his feet

Western countries expel Syrian diplomats following Houla massacre
U.S., France, U.K., Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, and Canada expel Syrian ambassadors and diplomats; Dutch government declares Syrian ambassador 'persona non-grata.'
By The Associated Press and DPA | May.29, 2012
UN-Arab League Joint Special Envoy for Syria Kofi Annan with Syrian President Assad in Damascus, May 29, 2012. Photo by AP Text size Comments (0) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byThe Associated Press DPA related tagsSyria Bashar Assad related articlesRussia condemns Syria over Houla massacre By The Associated Press | May.29,2012 | 3:02 PM | 2 The U.S., Italy and Spain have announced Tuesday that they are expelling Syrian ambassadors - following similar moves by France, Germany, Britain, Australia, and Canada after a massacre in which the United Nations says families were shot at close range in their homes.
A U.S. official also said Tuesday that the State Department will be expelling Syria's top diplomat in Washington on Tuesday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Syrian diplomat would be given 72 hours to depart the country. Syria's longtime ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha, was recalled to Damascus late last year and a formal replacement had not been named.
The Dutch government, meanwhile, announced that the Syrian ambassador was no longer welcome in the Netherlands after a series of deadly attacks on civilians in Syria over the weekend.
"The Netherlands has taken this decision in consultation with European Union partners," the Foreign Affairs Ministry said in a statement.
The Netherlands cannot expel the Syrian ambassador, as several other EU countries have done, because he resides in Brussels from where he represents Syria in both Belgium and the Netherlands.
The ambassador to Germany, Radwan Loutfi, was given 72 hours to leave Germany on Tuesday.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Germany and its allies hope "that this unambiguous message does not fall on deaf ears in Damascus."
The Italian Foreign Ministry said Ambassador Khaddour Hassan was called to the ministry and informed of his new status -which was also extended to an unspecified number of Syrian functionaries.
Spain said it was giving Syrian Ambassador Hussam Edin Aala and four other diplomats based in Madrid three days to leave the country.
France was the first country to announce the decision.
French President Francois Hollande said on Tuesday that Syria's ambassador is being expelled amid continuing violence by government forces against civilians and opposition members.
Hollande told reporters in Paris on Tuesday that the ambassador would leave "today or tomorrow." He gave no further details.
Also on Tuesday, Germany summoned the Syrian ambassador in Berlin, Radwan Lutfi, and informed him he had 72 hours to leave the country. Meanwhile, Britain expelled the Syrian charge d'affaires in London.
The announcement came amid increasing diplomatic efforts to end the bloodshed in Syria and put pressure on Assad.
The UN said Tuesday that entire families were shot in their homes during a massacre in Syria last week that killed more than 100 people, including children in the west-central area of Houla.
The UN's human rights office on Tuesday added new grim details of the massacre, saying that most of the dead were shot at close range, some of them women and children who were killed in their homes.
The brutality of the Houla killings, documented in gruesome amateur videos of scores of bodies laid out before burial, sparked widespread international outrage and raised new questions about the ability of an international plan to end 15 months of violence in Syria.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague confirmed that the United States, Canada, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Australia were all taking action to expel the diplomats.
In Canberra, Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said Charge d'Affaires Jawdat Ali, the most senior Syrian diplomat in Australia, is to be expelled along with another diplomat from the Syrian Embassy. He said they were told to leave the country within 72 hours, in response to the massacre in Houla.
"This is the most effective way we've got of sending a message of revulsion of what has happened in Syria," Carr said.
In a statement, he called the killings a "hideous and brutal crime" and said Australia would not engage with the Syrian government unless it abides by a UN cease-fire plan.
In Vienna, Foreign Ministry spokesman Nikolaus Lutterotti said the Syrian ambassador is being summoned to the ministry where officials will deliver a very hard protest about the massacre.
When asked if the expulsions were EU-wide, Lutterotti said this had not yet been decided. He said the ambassador to Austria would not be expelled as he holds an additional function as the representative to the UN organizations in Vienna.
The UN estimates 9,000 people have been killed since the uprising began in March 2011.
International mediator Kofi Annan told Assad on Tuesday that "bold steps" were required for his six-point peace plan to succeed, including a halt to violence and release of people arrested in the uprising, a statement said.
"Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan met President Bashar al-Assad this morning to convey the grave concern of the international community about the violence in Syria, including in particular the recent events in Houla," said the statement issued by his spokesman Ahmad Fawzi after talks in Damascus.


Netanyahu deputy hints at Israeli involvement in Iran cyber attack
In Israel's first official comment on Flame worm, which was revealed on Monday to have infected computers in Iran and various Arab countries, Vice PM Ya'alon says such steps 'reasonable' in face of Iranian threat.
By Haaretz | May.29, 2012 | 10:44 AM | 9
Ya'alon, left, with Netanyahu in the Knesset, May 2012. Photo by Michal Fattal Text size Comments (9) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byHaaretz related tagsIran Iran nuclear Iran threat
Ya'alon speaking at the Herzliya Conference in February, 2012. Photo by Osim Tzilum related articlesIran warns West: New sanctions will jeopardize talks over nuclear programBy Reuters | May.29,2012 | 10:44 AM New computer virus hits Iran, West Bank in unprecedented cyber attack By Oded Yaron | May.29,2012 | 10:44 AM | 9 Vice Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon hinted on Monday at possible Israeli involvement in the Flame bug, which was revealed to have targeted computers in Iran and the West Bank on Monday.
"Anyone who sees the Iranian threat as a significant threat – it's reasonable [to assume] that he will take various steps, including these, to harm it," Ya’alon said Tuesday morning in an interview with Army Radio.
"Israel was blessed as being a country rich with high-tech, these tools that we take pride in open up all kinds of opportunities for us," he added.
According to experts at internet security company Kaspersky who first detected the virus, Flame was most likely created by a state actor, and is capable of transferring files, screenshots, audio recordings and keystrokes from infected computers.
Ilan Proimovich, Kaspersky's representative in Israel, told Army Radio that the worm "does not operate independently, but is controlled by a remote computer, and thus only when it receives an order does it start working. For this reason, it is difficult to detect, because it is not always active."
Calling it a "masterpiece of programming," he said it was sophisticated enough to change its characteristics and develop according to orders.
Kaspersky said on Monday that Flame shared certain characteristics with Stuxnet, the bug that attacked Iranian centrifuges and was discovered in 2010. Unlike Stuxnet, however, which was designed to cause damage to computerized equipment, Flame is meant to collect information. The source of the bug is as yet unknown.

Iran's comments a threat to Europe too, German president tells Haaretz
Joachim Gauck is concerned about growing resentment of Israel but insists: criticism is possible between friends.
By Adar Primor | May.29, 2012 | 1:41 AM | 1 /Haaretz
German President Joachim Gauck arriving in Israel on Monday. Photo by DAPD Text size Comments (1) Print Page Send to friend Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this story is byAdar Primor He's the very "abnormal" president of a country that he insists on describing as normal. He's disturbed by rising European extremism, but is convinced that Germany today is a state that can be counted on.
Gunter Grass angers him, but the writer's positions do not reflect those of most of his countrymen, he believes. He doesn't buy the games Iran is playing with the international community, but he doesn't support the way the Israeli prime minister is dealing with the situation, either.
Joachim Gauck, Germany's 11th president, begins his first official visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories on Tuesday, a visit that has generated a great deal of curiosity. And for good reason. In less than three months as president, the Lutheran pastor has developed the aura of a national superstar.
The charismatic Gauck, a former anti-Communist civil rights activist in East Germany, has been hailed as the "president of hearts" and 'Germany's Nelson Mandela." He is an apolitical personality and a proud patriot who describes himself as a "conservative liberal with leftist leanings."
All told, Gauck, one of the leaders of the |peaceful revolution| that led to the downing of the Berlin Wall, is a symbol in the eyes of his countrymen ¬ a symbol of freedom, unity and hope.
But regarding Israeli-German relations, hope is not the prevailing attitude. If anything, the opposite is true. In advance of Gauck's visit, Stern magazine published a poll showing that around two-thirds of Germans believe Israel is an "aggressive state," a "state that advances its own interests while ignoring other peoples," and worst of all, "a state to which Germany has no special responsibility."
In a wide-ranging interview with Haaretz on the eve of his visit, Gauck painted a complex picture of the mood in his country.
"I don't want to attach too much significance to opinion polls, but as a friend of Israel these results alarm me nevertheless," Gauck says.
"Although growing resentment of Israel isn't solely a German phenomenon, we Germans have to ask ourselves especially critically: In what spirit do we judge Israel's policies? We must do so purely in a spirit of friendship. It's certainly acceptable to voice criticism, but there's no room for prejudice."
He attributes the poll results to ignorance, which he plans to fight, and to a general wave of xenophobia that "flares up here and there, time and again."
According to Gauck, while nationalist extremists use anti-Semitic stereotypes, these "are not aimed at Israelis" but are meant to convey internal political messages. He notes that whenever right-wing extremists demonstrate in Germany's streets, they are confronted by counter-demonstrations 10 times the size.
Germany, he insists, "has a unique responsibility for Israel due to the darkest chapter in our history," a responsibility, he says, "that will never cease. Germany is fully committed to the security and right to exist of the State of Israel."
When asked about the scandal that arose this year when German Nobel laureate Gunter Grass argued that Israel, not Iran, is the true threat to world peace, Gauck answers decisively.
"Gunter Grass has expressed his personal opinion. He's allowed to do that. I don't in any way agree with what he said, and I want to categorically state that Gunter Grass' position is not in line with Germany's policy on Israel," Gauck says.
Grass himself later tried to explain that his comments were aimed at Israel's policies, apparently in an effort to integrate his criticism with that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"The chancellor is furious at [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and doesn't believe a word he says," Barak Ravid reported in Haaretz in October. That was only one of a long line of reports over the past year that have described the relationship between "Israel's best friend in Europe" and the Jewish state as being in crisis mode over the continuing construction in the settlements and the government's dealings with the Palestinians.
Asked about this, Gauck paints a complex picture once again. Clearly he has no intention of contradicting Merkel's stance and the position of other EU countries, which "have not been shy about making their views clear [about the settlements]. I believe it is always possible to speak openly and frankly and express critical words when you talk to friends," he says. But he makes clear that his visit is "an opportunity to express my friendship with the Israeli people."
Here he trots out the familiar formula about direct bilateral negotiations that are aimed at bringing about two states, during which "the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people must be taken into consideration." And the goal is also "to ensure that Israel can live in peace within secure borders."
Removing the threat posed by Iranian nukes is a top priority for the German president. The recent reports from the latest round of talks in Baghdad and the latest declarations from Tehran only increase his lack of trust in the ayatollahs' regime.
"I'm very concerned about Iran's nuclear program," he says. "Given the comments made by Iran's leaders, it not only represents a concrete threat to Israel but also a potential threat to the region and also for us in Europe."
He believes that Europe's tough sanctions are what has led Iran to the negotiating table and hopes that it will be possible to reach a diplomatic solution backed up by sanctions.
But he has no illusions. "At any rate, we will judge Tehran by its actions and not by its words," he says.
Immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gauck was dubbed the "Stasi hunter" for his efforts to publish thousands of classified documents from the archives of the East German secret police and to expose their crimes. Until then, for around four decades, he felt the heavy hand of the Soviet bloc country most hostile to Israel.
He is proud of the efforts his countrymen made to gain their freedom, and is proud that they, too, can "stand by Israel and Germany's responsibility for the Jewish people.
As someone who played a major role in that development, he is excited by the "wonderful message" from the Arab Spring, "which gives courage to the forces for freedom around the world."
With that, he understands Israel's concerns about regional Islamization "because the changes are neither uniform nor linear. No one can say today whether the changes will become firmly established at all, or in what direction they will go."
German intelligence chief Heinz Fromm recently warned about Islamic radicalization in Germany itself, and of the possibility that an anti-Jewish attack like the one in Toulouse, France in March could happen there as well.
Gauck promises that Germany will "show no tolerance of intolerance," but stresses that of the 4 million Muslims living in Germany, "the vast majority of them reject fundamentalism and actively oppose it."
The global economic crisis is leading to a different type of radicalization that troubles Gauck no less. Germany's austerity policy to restore the European economy is generating hostility toward Berlin; it provides the background to the rise of extreme right-wing and even Nazi parties, as well as extreme leftist parties.
Gauck, who describes Germany as a "quite normal country," and even "very normal," seeks to cool the rhetoric.
"In view of its history, its geographical location and its importance as one of the world's leading economic powers, Germany has a responsible role to play in Europe," he says. "The fact that Germany has transformed itself from the into an anchor of economic stability in Europe shouldn't give any cause for concern. We are happy to use our potential to overcome the crisis. We do so as committed Europeans."
At the same time, Gauck says, "the populists on the left and right who promise a seemingly easy way out of the crisis aren't helping anyone. The road to recovery will be long and demanding. I believe that sincerity and credibility are crucial when it comes to dealing with this situation."
Less than 100 days into his presidency, Gauck is enjoying widespread popularity. He assumed office after his two predecessors had to resign their presidencies early due to scandals, and expectations of him are sky-high. The Suddeutsche Zeitung wrote that "he has never surrendered to his critics." He says what he thinks and is expected to be an uninhibited and even uncontrollable president.
Asked about this, he says his main ambition is to create an active civil society in which people believe in their strengths and abilities. He welcomes the fact that the next generation of Germans is being educated to feel shame and sorrow about the history that his predecessors are responsible for.
He adds, however, "We are not only the country of guilt and the country of guilty people a guilt we have taken over and that we have accepted from our ancestors and our predecessors. We are also a country that has been able to achieve a remarkable economic miracle, a country that has been able to carry out a very enormous effort of returning to democracy and the rule of law and a constitutional state. I think that that is worthy of admiration.
"Now, at the age of 72, I see a complete other country than the one I knew in my youth. Because of that I would like to tell the younger generation not only what their grandfathers have done, but what their parents were able to create.
"I will therefore, come to Israel with a little bit more self-confidence, since I sincerely believe that Germany today can be trusted by other nations, Israel included.


Neither Mursi nor Shafiq will benefit
By Dr. Hamad Al-Majid/Asharq Alawsat
The situation in Egypt today has become even more complicated, and Egypt will experience a period of tension after the two teams that will compete at next month’s presidential run-off vote have been revealed. There is the “Muslim Brotherhood” team led by Captain Mohamed Mursi, who will face off with the “former regime” team that is captained by Ahmed Shafiq. This match will be no less heated than the frenzied Cairo derby between those perennial rivals, Al-Ahly S.C. and Zamalek S.C.
If the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party candidate wins the elections, his government will enjoy a degree of comfort in its dealings with the Egyptian parliament and Shura Council, particularly as Islamists – and those who sympathize with this trend – enjoy a strong presence there. However a Mursi-run government would find it more difficult to run the country because “Mubarakists” are still in control of major pillars of the Egyptian state, including the military, the security apparatus, the media, the economy and even the political scene. Even if Dr. Mursi is able to replace these figures, Mubarak’s presence remains deeply-rooted throughout the country.
To clarify this image, let us look at a realistic example. Successive Pakistani leaders – with different political affiliations and agendas – including Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif and others – all sought and failed to bring the Pakistani military under control. Even the US, in spite of the pressure it has exerted and its political and economic influence, has reached the point of complete exhaustion in its attempts to do this. In fact, the revelation that Osama Bin Laden was in hiding in a residential compound not far from a Pakistani army base and intelligence headquarters represents the deathblow to US attempts to control the Pakistani army.
This is precisely what prompted critics, even those who are sympathetic with the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party, to blame the Muslim Brotherhood for “monopolizing” the scene, namely Egypt’s parliament, Shura Council, Higher Constitutional Committee and most recently, the presidency. In fact, the Brotherhood should have left the presidency for somebody else, and this would have served as a strong message of reassurance to the political powers in Egypt. This is not to mention the fact that even if a non-Brotherhood candidate is elected as president, he will nevertheless serve as a minesweeper for the Muslim Brotherhood, getting rid of all the Mubarak landmines present on the political scene, along the lines of Tunisia’s Ennahda Movement which allowed President Moncef Marzouki to serve as a minesweeper for Ben Ali’s political landmines. Whilst it is true that the Ennahda Movement does not agree with Marzouki’s positions and views, they share an antagonism towards Ben Ali and a willingness to remove any traces of his presence.
As for what if Ahmed Shafiq wins the elections, this scenario would be precisely the same, although reversed. The Islamists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, now being in a position of power, will exhaust his rule. Whilst it is true that Mubarak – and prior to him Sadat and Nasser – enjoyed absolute authority, the Brotherhood nevertheless remained a thorn in their side, and they all failed to tame or weaken the Muslim Brotherhood organization in spite of the mass detentions, torture, political constraints and the media war that was waged against them and their ideology. This was due to the Brotherhood’s strong influence, organization and popularity. In this case, what can we say about a post-revolution president with limited powers, alongside a parliament that was freely elected, which is something that the entire world is testifying to?

Asharq Al-Awsat book review: Patriot of Persia
28/05/2012
By Amir Taheri
Patriot of Persia
Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup
By Christopher De Bellaigue
300 pages
Published by Harper, New York and London 2012
When writing of non-Western societies in the past century or so, many Western European and North American historians and chroniclers adopt one of two attitudes.
The first attitude could be described as “the Imperialism of arrogance”. Here, we are told that whatever good that has happened in non-Western societies is due to the generous action of Western powers whose mission was to civilise export “ civilisation.” The people of those societies, referred to as “ natives”, could not have anything good on t heir own.
The second attitude, let’s call it the “Imperialism of guilt” claims that whatever bad happened to the “ natives” was the fault of the Western powers. The “natives” could never do any harm to themselves.
For decades, the debate on Iran in the United States and Western Europe has been dominated “ the Imperialism of guilt”. At the heart of this is a legend in which an elderly aristocrat plays the central role. The legend is that in August 1953, a couple of CIA operatives organised a coup d’etat that toppled a democratically elected government and paved the way for the seizure of power by the mullahs 26 years later. The hero of the legend is one Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh who had been appointed Prime Minister by the Shah for a second time in 1952.
The legend was born almost a decade after the events when the CIA, its reputation in tatters after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was desperately looking for some success story.
However, the British intelligence service would not let American spooks claim all the glory. De Bellaigue tries to satisfy both sides. The American edition of his book bears the subtitle:” A Tragic Anglo-American Coup.” The British edition, however, has a more succinct subtitle: “ A Very British Coup”.
The point man for the coup was one Kermit Roosevelt who, if De Bellaigue is to be believed, was a genius in black arts. He arrived in Tehran on 19 July and overthrew Mossadegh just a month later before travelling to have lunch with Winston Churchill in London. To assist him, the CIA had a few assets, including the New York Times reporter Kenneth Love and an unknown UPI stringer of Iranian origin.
Mossadegh’s Iranian opponents get a thorough thrashing from De Bellaigue. While Mossadegh’s supporters are described as “the people” or “popular masses”, his opponents are labelled “slum-dwellers and thrash rising against a Cabinet of ministers with French PhDs.”
De Bellaigue cannot imagine that at least some ordinary Iranians might have disliked Mossadegh. Only “ goons and mobsters” marched against the “Doctor”.
When they burn buildings and shops, Mossadegh’ supporters are merely “showing popular anger.” But when Mossadegh’s opponents march against him, De Bellaigue calls their action “sedition.”
When supporting Mossadegh, Dr. Mozaffar Baghai is described as “a young nationalist”. But when the same Baghai turns against Mossadegh he gets a different adjective “rabble-rouser”. (In fact Baghai was Professor of Logic at Tehran University, a Member of Parliament and leader of the Social Democratic Toilers’ Party).
Mercifully, the Mossadegh legend, and its anti-American addendum, are as full of holes as Swiss cheese and De Bellaigue cannot ignore all of them.
Let’s start with the claim that prior to the supposed CIA intervention Iran had been a democracy.
The truth is that Iran was not a democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the king, known as the Shah, had the right to appoint and dismiss the prime minister. By 1953, the Shah who had acceded to the throne in 1941 had appointed and dismissed 10 prime ministers, among them Mossadegh.
And between 1953 and 1979, when he left for exile, he was to appoint 12 more. None of those changes of prime minister was described as a coup d’etat because, fully constitutional, they did not alter the substance or the form of Iran as a nation-state.
Interestingly, Mossadegh himself never challenged the Shah’s right to dismiss him as prime minister. During his trial he claimed that he had initially doubted the authenticity of the Shah’s edict dismissing him. Nor did Mossadegh himself claim that the Americans had played a role in ending his tenure as prime minister.
De Bellaigue is at pains to portray Mossadegh as “one of the first liberals of the Middle East, a man whose conception of liberty was as sophisticated as that of anyone’s in Europe or America.”
The trouble is that there is nothing in Mossadegh’s career, spanning half a century, as provincial governor, Cabinet minister and finally prime minister to portray him even remotely as a lover of liberty.
Here is how De Bellaigue quotes Mossadegh on the ideal leader who is “that person whose every word is accepted and followed by the people.”
De Bellaigue adds: “His understanding of democracy would always be coupled by traditional ideas of Muslim leadership whereby the community chooses a man of outstanding virtue- and follows him wherever he takes them.” Word by word, that could be the definition of “the ideal leader” by the late Ayatollah Khomeini who would have felt insulted had he been described as a democrat.
During his premiership, Mossadegh demonstrated his dictatorial tendency to the full. Not once did he hold a full meeting of the Council of Ministers, ignoring the constitutional rule of collective responsibility. He dissolved the Senate, the second chamber of the Iranian parliament, and shut down the Majlis, the lower house. He suspended a general election before all the seats had been decided and announced that he would rule with absolute power. He disbanded the High Council of National Currency and dismissed the Supreme Court. Towards the end of his premiership almost all of his friends and allies had broken with him. Some even wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations to intervene to end Mossadegh’s dictatorship.
During much of his premiership, Tehran lived under a curfew while hundreds of opponents were imprisoned.
But was Mossadegh “a man of the people” as De Bellaigue claims? Again, his account provides a different picture. A landowning prince and the grandson of a Qajar king, Mossadegh belonged to the so-called 1000 families who owned Iran. He and all his children were able to undertake expensive studies in Switzerland and France. The children had French nannies and when they fell sick would be sent to Paris or Geneva for treatment. (De Bellaigue even insinuates that Mossadegh might have had a French sweetheart, although that is improbable.) On the one occasion that Mossadegh was sent to internal exile he took with him a whole retinue, including his special cook.
Dean Acheson described Mossadegh as “ a rich, reactionary, feudal-minded Persian inspired by a fanatical hatred of the British.”
However, even his supposed hatred of the British is open to question. His uncle Farmanfarma was Britain’s principal ally in Iran for almost four decades. In his memoirs, Mossadegh says that in his fist post as Governor of the province of Fars he and the British consul “worked hand in hand like brothers.”
As a model of patriotism, too, Mossadegh is unconvincing. According to his own memoirs, at the end of his law studies in Switzerland, he had decided to stay there and acquire Swiss citizenship. He changed his mind when he was told that he would have to wait 10 years for that privilege. At the same time, his uncle Farmanfarma secured a “ good post” for him in Iran, tempting him back home.
Mossadegh’s name is associated with the nationalisation of Iranian oil in 1951. However, he was not even a member of the parliament that passed the nationalisation act. The Shah appointed him Prime Minister to implement the act and, plagued by indecision and always a prey to the demons of demagoguery, he failed in that mission.
De Bellaigue tries to build the 1951-53 drama in Iran as a clash of British colonialism and Iranian nationalism. However, that claim, too, is hard to sustain. Iran was never a British colony. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was present in five remote localities that did not amount to even half of one per cent of the country’s territory, in one of Iran’s provinces. At its peak the company employed 118 British nationals. Thus the overwhelming majority of Iranians had never seen a single Brit in their lives. However, De Bellaigue labels Iranians as “natives” or “Orientals” facing “ the white world”. (Iranians, of course, do not consider themselves as “blacks” or even worthy oriental gentlemen!)
Sadly, De Bellaigue seems to know nothing of the hundreds of books and thousands of essays that provide the Iranian narrative of the events. The assumption is that, mere objects in their own history, Iranians cannot offer a valid narrative.
Mossadegh’s career spanned more than half a century. History may end up seeing him as a spoiled child who refused to grow up. His brand of negative populism may have been attractive many decades ago. Now, however, it sounds bizarre, to say the least.

Killing time
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/Now Lebanon
May 29, 2012/Syrian rage against Assad has proved deep and thus invited unprecedented brutality in response from the regime. (AFP photo)
If it took the United States a surge in troops, immense resources and winning over the local population to turn the tide against a raging insurgency in Iraq, what makes Bashar al-Assad—with his exhausted elite units, depleted resources and a hostile population—think that he can prevail in Syria?
Since the outbreak of the Syrian uprising 15 months ago, the Assad regime has been in a hurry to bring it to an end, often through the use of lethal force, not only to kill, but to show a brutality that should dissuade others from joining the revolt. The regime has also arrested anti-Assad activists, tortured and raped them in a sadistic ceremony of "rehabilitation" aimed at reminding the population why they have remained silent all these years and why they should continue to do so. Finally, neighborhoods showing solidarity with the victims have been collectively punished through large-scale bombardment.
Since the early days of the uprising, Assad's propaganda machine has been announcing victories over insurgents. While many were real, the regime's military successes—without winning the population—have rendered the confrontation a game of cat-and-mouse.
Assad knew that he could not kill all of his opponents, only enough to convince the rest to give up. He was hoping the number would remain small to keep the international community muted.
But Syrian rage against Assad proved deep and thus invited unprecedented brutality. Rage and brutality then started feeding off of each other, both rising sharply. A shamefully shy world fell short of forcing Assad to change course and only succeeded in isolating his regime to an extent.
Assad reasoned that he could kill his opponents now and deal with the political consequences later. According to his then-ambassador to the US, Imad Mustafa, Damascus would hunker down for a decade or so, lean on capitals like Beijing—where Mustafa is now representing Assad—and work slowly to mend political ties with the rest of the world after having killed the uprising.
Yet even stopping the revolt proved complicated for Assad. Despite the resilience of his killing machine, scores of army personnel turned their guns against his loyalists. This forced the regime to rely more on its elite forces, which became thinly stretched and unable to subdue insurgents in more than one city simultaneously, as seen in February when they arranged for a truce with insurgents in Zabadani until they could finish up in Homs. Only after decimating Homs did Assad’s forces turn their attention back to Zabadani.
Retaking land, whether in Homs, Zabadani or elsewhere, proved no victory. "The rebels who withdrew from the Baba Amr neighborhood [of Homs] [in] March 2012 demonstrated the tactical wherewithal to retreat in order to preserve combat power," according to a paper by Joseph Holiday, of the Institute for the Study of War.
US forces faced a similar problem while fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. "Being fluid, the enemy can control his loss rate and therefore cannot be eradicated by purely enemy-centric tactics," wrote David Kilcullen, the Australian architect of the surge in Iraq, in his book “The Accidental Guerilla,” a manual on how armies can win asymmetric wars.
On Iraq, Kilcullen concluded that "an insurgent enemy needs the people to act," which made America focus on winning over the Iraqi population. In Syria, to Assad's detriment, popular support of the anti-Assad Free Syria Army (FSA) has no doubt given the rebels resiliency that, according to Holiday, "will make the Assad regime’s endurance difficult."
Perhaps realizing his shortcomings, Assad reasoned he could depend on something the Americans did not have in Iraq: The loyalty of Alawites and other minorities. Such a tactic that drives wedges between the different Syrian communities, however, transformed Assad from a president to a factional leader.
Desperate to show the population how strong it is, Assad provoked sectarian animosities to garner some support. This will further complicate his effort to remain president when the fighting stops, if it even does in the near future. Sectarianism is guaranteed to take the country into civil war, but not enough to turn the tide of the anti-Assad insurgency.
And if Syria goes into a full-fledged civil war, Assad's chances of emerging as a winner will be slim because those who start such conflicts are rarely the ones who preside over their end.
The Assad regime was founded on the premise of always being ready to swiftly defeat domestic challenges, whether coups, insurgencies or rebellions. But times have changed, and the template of the founder, Hafez al-Assad, is proving inadequate for his son Bashar, who over the past 15 months has been trying desperately to kill the Syrian revolution, but has so far only killed time.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain is the Washington Bureau Chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai