LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 30/2012

Bible Quotation for today/
Luke 21/12-19: "Before all this happens, however, they will seize and persecute you, they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons, and they will have you led before kings and governors because of my name. It will lead to your giving testimony. Remember, you are not to prepare your defense beforehand, for I myself shall give you a wisdom in speaking that all your adversaries will be powerless to resist or refute. You will even be handed over by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed. By your perseverance you will secure your lives.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Big Sunni gains may bring Lebanon pain/By Michael Young/The Daily Star/November 29/12
What’s next for March 14/By: Alex Rowell/November 29/Now Lebanon/November 29/12
Should we commemorate the Lebanese Independence/By: Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/November 29/12
Palestine at the UN: Mixed Messages/By: David Pollock/Washington Institute/November 29/12
A Sunni awakening/By: Claude Salhani/Now Lebanon/ November 29/12

Report: Major Powers Press Forward Resignation of Miqati, Formation of New Cabinet
Naharnet /The ambassadors of major powers stressed to Prime Minister Najib Miqati the importance of swiftly resolving the political crisis in Lebanon, al-Joumhouria newspaper reported on Wednesday.
According to the newspaper, the ambassadors reiterated to Miqati before his visit to France the importance of “pressing forward the cabinet change.” Miqati headed to France on November 19 on a three-day official visit during which he held talks with President Francois Hollande and several other officials among them French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and the president of the National Assembly, Claude Bartolone. “The peaceful opposition carried out by the March 14 alliance shouldn't give him (Miqati) the impression that his cabinet is not demanded to step down,” al-Joumhouria quoted sources as saying. The daily said the ambassadors informed the premier that a transitional government would safeguard the country from any security breaches and pave the way for reaching consensus over a new electoral law for the upcoming 2013 parliamentary elections. The rival political parties have yet to agree on a new electoral law based on proportional representation or amend the 1960 law that is based on a winner-takes-all system. Sharp differences surfaced recently between the opposition and the March 8 alliance after the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan in October. The March 14 coalition accuses the Syrian regime of being behind the murder and blames Miqati's cabinet for covering the crime, prompting it to boycott its political activity until the resignation of the government.

Aoun: March 14 aims to obstruct new electoral law
November 28, 2012 /Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun on Wednesday said that the March 14 coalition boycotted Lebanon’s cabinet and parliament to prevent discussions on a new electoral law to replace the 1960 law. “We discussed the issue of March 14’s boycott and the reasons behind it, and we found that it aims at preventing discussions on a new electoral law,” Aoun said following his bloc’s weekly meeting in Rabieh. He reiterated his rejection of the 1960 electoral law, adding that it was unfair and goes against the constitution’s principles.
The Free Patriotic Movement leader also held March 14 parties, “notably the Kataeb and the Lebanese Forces,” responsible for injustice against Christians.
The Kataeb and the LF were “toadies for other parties” and were being paid by them to support their stances, Aoun added. He also criticized Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad Assiri’s visit to the country’s Metn and Zahle areas, adding that Riyadh was “mingling in Lebanon’s internal affairs.” Parliamentary activity in Lebanon has been disrupted since the opposition March 14 coalition announced that it would cut all ties with the current government, including meetings held by parliamentary committees to discuss proposals transferred by the cabinet. The boycott decision followed the assassination of Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan on October 19 in Beirut’s Ashrafieh.
-NOW Lebanon

PSP Delegation, Hizbullah Agree on 'Importance' of Dialogue
Naharnet/A Progressive Socialist Party delegation held talks on Wednesday with Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem as part of an initiative to achieve a breakthrough in the lingering political crisis in the country. “We agreed on the importance of the resumption of dialogue among the political powers to reach common grounds,” Transportation and Public Works Minister Ghazi Aridi told reporters.
He pointed out that the only way to reach consensus is through dialogue.
Aridi noted that the delegation will hold talks with all the Lebanese parties and “will not exclude anyone.” PSP leader MP Walid Jumblat's initiative focuses on the need for the return of all political powers to dialogue, ending any boycott, and halting the tense media exchanges between the rival factions. He called on all officials on Monday to abide by the Baabda Declaration - made in June after the first national dialogue in over 18 months - in which rival political leaders pledged to commit themselves to dialogue and political, security and media pacification, avoid speeches that fuel sectarian incitement and bolster stability to prevent Lebanon from sliding into sectarian strife. The minister stressed that Jumblat's initiative is to express support to “President Michel Suleiman efforts to defuse tension among the rival parties.”
The delegation has previously held talks with Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Miqati, who welcomed the initiative.
Asked about the president's decision to postpone the all-party talks session that was scheduled to be held on Thursday at the Baabda Palace, Aridi said that “this decision isn't to give time for the parties to take our initiative into consideration but because there's a political alliance that doesn't want to attend.” Suleiman postponed on Wednesday the national dialogue session to the first week of January.
“All the Lebanese parties don't want to ignite the situation locally despite the surrounding developments in the region,” Aridi said.
He urged officials to safeguard the country from the negative repercussions in the region. The delegation included in addition to Aridi, ministers Wael Abou Faour, Alaeddine Terro and several other officials in the PSP. For his part, Qassem said in a statement that Hizbullah agrees on the importance of the resumption of dialogue among the rival parties but “without previously imposed conditions.”
“Our position is clear in that no faction, no matter how great it is, can usurp power or sectarian or political representation in Lebanon,” he explained.
“The only productive and effective solution lies in searching for means that may help reach constructive dialogue, which is the substitute for power vacuum in Lebanon,” he stressed.
“In the end, those banking on the outcome of regional and international developments will realize that dialogue is the solution, but that will only happen after losses, which can be avoided, are incurred,” Qassem remarked. Earlier PSP Secretary Zafer Nasser told As Safir newspaper that “the delegation is tackling with Lebanese foes the current political crisis and fears of slipping into a dangerous level as a result to the current boycott among officials,”. Nasser pointed out that the delegation is also seeking to reach consensus with the rival parties over the formation of a new cabinet through dialogue.
According to As Safir, the delegation is scheduled to meet with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun at 11:00 a.m. on Friday. The assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan on October 19 deepened the gap between the March 14 and 8 alliances. The opposition boycotted political activity with its foes after it blamed Miqati's government for covering up the crime, calling on it to step down, and said it would not sit at the same dialogue table with Hizbullah.

Aoun Accuses LF, Phalange of Unfairly Treating Christians, Receiving Funds to Gain Power
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun accused the Mustaqbal Movement and its allies of “oppressing” Christian factions in Lebanon through their practices over the parliamentary electoral law. He said after the Change and Reform bloc's weekly meeting: “Its allies, the Lebanese Forces and Phalange Party, are unjustly treating other Christian powers in Lebanon.”
He also accused the LF and Phalange Party of receiving funds “in the hope of obtaining illusory power.”“Who is responsible for the oppression exercised by the Mustaqbal Movement and its allies?” he wondered. “These two parties should be held accountable for allowing their allies to get away with this oppression,” stressed Aoun.
Commenting on claims that he may launch a campaign to boycott the parliamentary elections should the 1960s law be adopted, he replied: “Oppression could incur results that are worse than a boycott.”
Furthermore, the FPM leader accused the March 14-led opposition of deliberately boycotting parliament and government-related activity in order to thwart an agreement on a new parliamentary electoral law. “We will not allow anyone to convince Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi to agree to the 1960s electoral law,” he added. An amended version of the 1960s law was adopted during the 2009 parliamentary elections. The government recently approved an electoral draft law based on proportional representation and 13 electoral districts.
The opposition and Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat rejected the law, saying that it does not offer just representation. Asked to comment on Jumblat's recent initiative aimed at ending the political crisis in Lebanon, Aoun responded that he will take a position on the issue after holding talks on Friday with a PSP delegation.
The delegation had been holding talks with a number of political forces on Jumblat's initiative, which focuses on the need for the return of all political powers to dialogue, ending any boycott, and halting the tense media exchanges between the rival factions. He called on all officials on Monday to abide by the Baabda Declaration - made in June after the first national dialogue in over 18 months - in which rival political leaders pledged to commit themselves to dialogue and political, security and media pacification, avoid speeches that fuel sectarian incitement and bolster stability to prevent Lebanon from sliding into sectarian strife.

President Michel Suleiman Postpones National Dialogue to January
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman postponed a national dialogue session that was set to be held on Thursday to January 2013 after the March 14 alliance most likely informed him of the opposition's final stance on boycotting the all-party talks. Media reports said the new date for the session was set for January 7.
Presidential sources had earlier told An Nahar newspaper published Wednesday that “when Suleiman receives a final answer on March 14's non-participation in tomorrow's meeting, then the presidency will issue a statement announcing the postponement to a later date.” An Nahar had received information that an opposition official will visit Baabda palace on Wednesday to inform Suleiman about the coalition's stance from the dialogue. Al-Joumhouria daily expected al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc leader Fouad Saniora to call Suleiman and inform him of the opposition's decision to either attend or boycott the dialogue. It was not clear how the president decided to postpone the session and whether the opposition had sent an envoy to meet him.
Lebanon plunged in a political crisis last month when the opposition announced its decision not to sit at the dialogue table with Hizbullah, and boycotted all parliamentary activity after it blamed Prime Minister Najib Miqati's government on the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch chief Wissam al-Hasan. March 14 also called for the resignation of the cabinet and the formation of a neutral salvation government following al-Hasan's Oct. 19 killing in a car bomb explosion in Beirut's Ashrafiyeh district. But Suleiman insisted on calling for the all-party talks and bringing the rival March 8 and March 14 factions together as a starting point for the discussion of the government crisis. He said Tuesday that he was sure both camps would end up engaging in dialogue sooner or later. “It seems the concerned parties have no intention of taking part in the next round of dialogue,” he said. “But I am sure they will eventually participate" in it. Suleiman also told a visiting delegation from the Press Club that if the opposition alliance wants a new government, then its leaders should attend the all-party talks and “directly announce their desire to change the government and hear the response.”

Detained Lebanese activist Pierre Hashash released
November 28, 2012 /Detained Lebanese political activist Pierre Hashash was released on Wednesday after Military Judge Sami Sadr dropped all charges against him, Hashash’s lawyer Bassem al-Aam told NOW. Last week, Hashash was allegedly apprehended by plain-clothed army intelligence officers, who severely beaten at a restaurant in Batroun.
Hashash’s sister claims to have been beaten unconscious by an army intelligence officer when she tried to film the scene of her brother’s arrest.
-NOW Lebanon

What’s next for March 14?
Alex Rowell, November 28/Now Lebanon
March 14 partisans demonstrate against Prime Minister Najib Miqati, the collapse of whose cabinet they have called for since October’s assassination of intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan
Wednesday’s postponement until January of a national dialogue session scheduled for Thursday demonstrated the continuing failure to break the political deadlock into which the country plunged after October’s dramatic assassination of intelligence chief Wissam al-Hassan.
In the days following Hassan’s killing, which groups including the March 14 coalition and Walid Jumblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) blamed on Syria, March 14 announced a complete boycott of all government and parliamentary activity until the current cabinet, led by Prime Minister Najib Miqati, was dissolved.
One month later, however, the cabinet remains intact and even appears to have a degree of support from March 14’s international allies, including the United States and the European Union, who have expressed fears of a power vacuum.
Accordingly, March 14’s boycott tactic has faced criticism even from those sympathetic to its broader vision. A leading independent politician with close ties to March 14 told NOW Lebanon that he preferred not to comment on the boycott, “because I would be forced to criticize it, and now is not the time to do that.”
Recently, both President Michel Suleiman and the PSP have been trying to coax March 14 back into all-party talks.
How exactly March 14 could be induced to embrace dialogue, however, is unclear. One option, proposed by former MP Mosbah al-Ahdab of the independent Tajaddod Movement, is for the coalition to launch a separate initiative on its own terms. “A solution would be for them to set the points that should be taken into consideration and agreed by the other side in order to launch a new dialogue,” he told NOW. “We’re back to square zero, we need to start all over again, and I think they should be setting a priority list, or let’s say starting points, for a new discussion.”
However, Dr Imad Salameh, political science professor at the Lebanese American University, believes nothing short of the cabinet’s collapse will bring March 14 to a dialogue table. “March 14 has no way out other than confronting the current government,” he told NOW. “For years, March 14 has been trapped over and over into senseless dialogue in which it always ends up making concessions. That’s why the resignation of this government is a pre-requisite for further dialogue.”
Certainly that was the view of March 14 partisans interviewed by NOW at the sit-in opposite Beirut’s Grand Serail on Tuesday evening. Since October 20 – the day after Hassan’s assassination – around half a dozen tents have been erected outside the Prime Minister’s office, and the activists who have spent their days and nights there told NOW they aren’t budging.
“The only compromise we will accept is that the government goes. Nothing less,” said Jihad Naamani of the Future Movement. When asked if he felt the sit-in was achieving its goals, Naamani said, “Yes, just by keeping our camp alive and having lots of people coming down every night for meetings and seminars, we are accomplishing our part of the goal.” While admitting that the government had succeeded in fending off March 14’s demands thus far, Naamani asserted that the cabinet would fall “within two or three months” at the most.
Contra Ahdab, Salameh argues the onus is in fact on March 8, not March 14, to break the deadlock. “The way out is not March 14’s responsibility as far as I’m concerned, it’s the responsibility of the current government and those who control it, particularly Hezbollah. If [the latter] want to yield a fair share of power and control of security apparatuses, which seem to have totally slipped into the hands of [March 8], then March 14 will have reason to negotiate.”
PSP secretary-general Zafer Nasser, however, questions how such an agreement could be reached without March 14 agreeing to talk in the first place. “One cannot offer anything to them if they don’t participate in dialogue,” he told NOW. “One has to sit with them and talk so they offer something and the other party offers something. You cannot tell them, ‘Here you go, this is a settlement’ and then ask them to attend dialogue. They would say, ‘Why attend dialogue if a settlement has already been reached?’”
To this, Salameh retorts that March 8 shares the blame for the lack of talks. “The media says [that March 14 is the one blocking dialogue], but in actuality one should ask what are the issues being discussed? Are we going to negotiate whether Hezbollah’s arms will become subject to government control? Are we going to negotiate a new government? Are we going to negotiate the restructuring of the security apparatuses?” Without these items on the table, says Salameh, dialogue “will only lead to additional concessions on March 14’s behalf and will strengthen the position of the government and Hezbollah.”
*Amani Hamad contributed reporting.

Should we commemorate the Independence?
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon
The Lebanese commemorated Independence Day in a manner that glosses over their deep divisions, which are likely to burst at any moment into an open-ended civil conflict. In reality, the focus on the Lebanese Armed Forces when commemorating the Independence corroborates the following fact: The “people” are not united in the first place and do not agree on the very meaning of the Independence.
This is not the appropriate occasion to discuss the opinions of various confessions and communities on the Independence and on their vision of one another. Suffice it to say, 69 years of independence were not enough to dispel this vision and the gap that stood between the Lebanese in 1943 was certainly smaller than today’s.
Over 69 years of independence, few years were spent building a stable society and a sovereign state. This has always been due to domestic reasons, even if domestic circumstances played a noticeable role in blowing those reasons out of proportion. This holds especially true due to Lebanon’s stance in the Arab-Israeli conflict and its proximity to a military regime in Syria.
Yet one would be tempted to say that this independence futility that Lebanon has experienced is applicable to many “Third World” countries. These countries have gained their independence, which – in principle – is an essential condition of universal equality, before seeking to provide the social and cultural reasons allowing them to benefit from this independence.
Based on these past experiences, one would be tempted to say that decolonization was a premature decision especially since the golden age of colonization extended from the end of World War I to the end of World War II. In other words, the prevailing strategic considerations, especially with regard to curbing and besieging German influence, were detrimental to achievements, some of which were initiated by colonizing powers who failed to bring them to completion. Hence, colonizers were not true to the mission entrusted to them. They thus hampered parliaments and constitutions, which they themselves had established, and used cruelty and repression in dealing with popular movements that terrorized them by showing sympathy towards their European foes in times of war. By and large, this helped to paint an extremely bleak image of colonization, one that was extensively rehashed and replayed by Arab struggle literatures.
Still, this does not deny the fact that many independent countries failed to score achievements such as those [in colonized countries]. This includes parliaments, administrations, railways and schools, in addition to laying the foundations of a class of politicians who would take over the administration of the former colonies. It goes without saying that the French and British authorities did not do all that out of love for us or as an expression of a genuine humanitarian trend, but rather for their own sake and for the sake of their interests. According to the same Marxist literature, capitalism is the first system in history, the making and dynamics of which drive it to unite the world and bring its components together.
In short, we are dually unlucky: First because decolonization occurred prematurely and second, because we did not manage to use the years following [our] Independence] in order to build political communities that would extend the positive traits of colonization to the detriment of its negative ones.
Accordingly, is there a cause for celebration?
*This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday November 26, 2012

Big Sunni gains may bring Lebanon pain
By Michael Young/The Daily Star
November 29, 2012
In recent days, the regime of President Bashar Assad has suffered significant setbacks in northern Syria. This may not be the end, but it only affirms that the dynamics of the conflict are being driven by the armed opposition, so that for the first time since March 2011, Assad rule appears to be decisively shaken, not to say terminally ill. From a Lebanese perspective, the greatest danger will come once the battle in Syria is over. Lebanese Sunnis will feel triumphant, and legitimately so, after decades when they were regarded as a threat by the Assad regime. Their sense of renewed empowerment, in parallel with that of their brethren in Syria, could make them overconfident. This in turn could bring them into confrontation with an increasingly fearful but still militarily potent Lebanese Shiite community, led by Hezbollah. Managing this phase properly will require mechanisms of compromise and dialogue to avert the worst.
The problem is that for Sunnis, the removal of the Assads will represent a seminal moment. For decades, Sunnis have seen their powerful communal figures fall or marginalized. Rafik Hariri was assassinated, as was the mufti of the Republic, Sheikh Hassan Khaled, and other clerics, allegedly by Syria or their allies. Damascus sought to limit ties between Sunnis and their traditional regional reference points. The Syrian fear was that a resurgent Sunni community in Lebanon would give dangerous ideas to their brothers in Syria, in that way weakening the hold of the Alawite-dominated regime. Hariri’s elimination in 2005 could be well understood in this context.
The withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon that year did not immediately ameliorate matters. Hezbollah responded to the so-called Cedar Revolution with poorly concealed contempt. The party mouthed the necessary words about Hariri, while all the time doing its best to derail an international investigation of the crime – a crime, it now appears, in which Hezbollah members participated.
In 2006, after provoking an unnecessary war with Israel, Hezbollah went further, hoping to use its self-declared victory as a lever to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. For 18 months Hezbollah and its partners held a sit-in in the downtown area, destabilizing Lebanon and exacerbating Sunni rancor. This interregnum ended in May 2008, when the party’s gunmen and their partners, in response to a government decision to investigate Hezbollah’s illegal telephone network, overran western Beirut and humiliated the Sunnis, in the process killing dozens of people.
Hariri was trapped in his mansion, but would later tell me that he had avoided a political explosion by not calling for help from his Sunni followers outside Beirut. That was true. Hezbollah’s massive firepower neutralized its foes, but a call to arms from Hariri, which would certainly have ended up being clothed in sectarian language, would have been a catastrophe of unheard of proportions.
The Sunnis understandably never digested this violence done to the unwritten rules of the Lebanese sectarian system. When the equilibrium is undermined and one side gains the upper hand, especially through arms, the consequence is that the other side begins to accumulate weapons as well. As we saw on the night of Wissam al-Hasan’s funeral, Sunni groups in Tariq al-Jadideh have guns, even if their arsenal is nothing like Hezbollah’s. It doesn’t take much to start a war, and in war acquiring more weapons is easy.
Equally worrisome is that there is fragmentation in the Sunni community. Saad Hariri has been out of the country for a year and a half, creating large openings for others. The person who has benefited the most is Prime Minister Najib Mikati. More ominously, so too has the Salafist Sheikh Ahmad Assir in Sidon. Assir has criticized Hariri for his absence, and has loudly condemned Hezbollah. Earlier this month, there was a clash in Sidon between Assir’s partisans and Hezbollah, followed by a promise from Assir that he would form a militia, though he later said he would delay this.
If anyone is reassured by this purported delay, they should not be. The default setting of a populist firebrand like Assir is to enhance hostility, to rally more supporters. The sheikh has both discredited March 14 by declaring it ineffective and drawn on the deep reservoir of resentment among Sunnis against Hezbollah and its arrogance. This is a volatile mix, pushing Hariri and March 14 to stake out a hard-line position on national politics after the Hasan killing, in order, partly, to retain the allegiance of the Sunni street.
Yet there are signs of fraying. March 14 has little say over Assir, and it had little say over the armed groups that took over Tariq al-Jadideh and sought to provoke clashes with Shiite parties in nearby Barbour. Like the fighting in Sidon, this was a portentous moment for Lebanon, one too soon forgotten by many Lebanese. That is why Hariri can no longer delay his return. He has to regain control over his community and offer an alternative to warfare.
Presumably, the former prime minister will be on the first airplane back to Beirut after the collapse of the Assad regime. His primary aim must be to come to an agreement with his Sunni rivals first, before initiating a dialogue with Hezbollah and finding practical ways to avoid friction in the street. Hariri’s mantra must be the strengthening of the Lebanese state, which requires him to speak as one alongside President Michel Sleiman, Najib Mikati and Walid Jumblatt. It may be personally difficult for him to talk to Hezbollah, but the former prime minister has to remember that the future is his once the Assads go, and that political power will derive from his ability to manage the relationship with the party in a way that reassures the Lebanese.
When high expectations transcend the capacity of a political system to absorb the consequences, instability follows. We’ve learned this on countless occasions in Lebanon. Prepare to learn it again.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

March 14 boycott forces Dialogue postponement
November 29, 2012/By Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman officially postponed Wednesday a new National Dialogue session until early next year after his efforts to prod rival factions into talks on resolving the current political crisis foundered due to a March 14 boycott. Also Wednesday, ministers from MP Walid Jumblatt’s parliamentary bloc strived to promote the Progressive Socialist Party’s political initiative to bridge the wide gap between the March 8 and March 14 parties due to the crisis sparked by last month’s assassination of the country’s top security official. “President Sleiman has decided to postpone a session of the National Dialogue Committee, scheduled for Thursday, until Monday, Jan. 7, 2013, at the Presidential Palace in Baabda,” said a statement released by the president’s media office.
The terse statement gave no reason for the postponement, which was widely expected given the opposition March 14 coalition’s insistence on the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government as a prerequisite for attending any talks with the Hezbollah-led March 8 parties. Addressing a Cabinet meeting he chaired at Baabda Palace, Sleiman said any Dialogue session should be held “amid a political consensus rather than under the pressure of a catastrophic security development. Anyone who wants to raise any matter can do so at the Dialogue table.”
The March 14 stance was reaffirmed Wednesday by the coalition’s MPs.
“The March 14 parties support dialogue but no dialogue under the shadow of this government. The gateway to enter into dialogue is the resignation of this government,” Beirut MP Ammar Houri told the Voice of Lebanon radio station. Houri, who belongs to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s parliamentary Future bloc, praised Sleiman’s continuous efforts to find a solution for the crisis. He stressed that the March 14 parties were not at odds with Sleiman on the “broad outlines” for a solution to break the political stalemate that threatens to destabilize the country.
“The March 14 parties are in disagreement with the other [March 8] side and with those in the government who want to give themselves the right to form the next government. This is the bone of contention,” Houri said. Beirut MP Michel Pharaon, also from the Future bloc, said in a radio interview: “Dialogue today is useless. Priority at this stage should be changing the government and forming another transitional government that can lead the country until the next parliamentary elections.” Lebanon was thrust into a political crisis following the Oct. 19 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who headed the Internal Security Force’s Information Branch. March 14 has since demanded the government’s resignation after accusing it of complicity with the Syrian regime in Hasan’s killing. The coalition has also demanded the formation of “a neutral salvation Cabinet” to supervise next year’s parliamentary elections before attending any National Dialogue session.
Sleiman has criticized the two sides for setting preconditions for attending all-party talks and betting on developments of the 20-month-bloody conflict in neighboring Syria. He also criticized March 14’s decision to boycott the National Dialogue, the government and all Cabinet-related meetings in Parliament as part of the opposition’s tactics to force a government resignation.
In tandem with Sleiman’s efforts to bring the rival political leaders to the National Dialogue table, ministers from Jumblatt’s bloc met with a Hezbollah delegation to brief them on the PSP’s initiative aimed at breaking the political deadlock and averting much-feared Sunni-Shiite strife following tensions over the conflict in Syria.
The initiative, announced by Jumblatt Monday, basically called on all parties to accept dialogue as the only means to resolve the crisis and avoid involvement in Syria’s conflict.
Public Works Minister Ghazi Aridi, Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour and Minister of Displaced Alaaeddine Terro met with Hezbollah’s deputy leader Sheikh Naim Qassem, Minister of State for Administrative Reform Mohammad Fneish and MP Hasan Fadlallah.
Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Aridi said the PSP’s initiative went hand-in-hand with Sleiman’s efforts to resume all-party talks. “Our meeting today was useful and there is an agreement that dialogue can resolve all issues,” Aridi said. “There is an agreement among all political parties without exception on the need for dialogue and serious work to reach common grounds,” Aridi said. “Dialogue is the only means for understanding among the Lebanese.” Aridi criticized March 14 parties for boycotting the National Dialogue. “It is not through boycott that problems can be solved.”
Qassem reiterated Hezbollah’s support for an inter-Lebanese dialogue. “The main core of the [PSP’s] initiative is dialogue. Hezbollah supports dialogue without any restrictions or preconditions,” he said in a statement after the meeting. Qassem said no party, regardless of its magnitude and popular representation, can claim representing the country alone or have monopoly over political and popular representation. The PSP ministers will visit Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun Friday. Aoun criticized the March 14 boycott of Thursday’s National Dialogue session, saying the move was aimed at keeping the 1960 electoral law in place to be used in the 2013 elections.
“We discussed the March 14 parties’ boycott of the Dialogue session and its motives. It appeared to us that the boycott was [designed] to prevent the discussion of a new election law,” the FPM leader told reporters after chairing a meeting of his parliamentary Change and Reform bloc at his residence in Rabieh, north of Beirut.
“We all know that the Lebanese are in agreement that the 1960 law was unjust and did not treat the Lebanese equally. It is the most unjust election law history has ever known,” he said.

Palestine at the UN: Mixed Messages
David Pollock/Washington Institute
November 28, 2012
On November 29, the anniversary of the 1947 UN General Assembly vote to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into "an Arab state and Jewish state," the assembly will vote on a new draft resolution recognizing Palestine as a nonmember observer state. A majority vote in favor is all but guaranteed given the near-automatic support from the nonaligned and Islamic blocs and some other delegations.
But in presenting the draft, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are defying U.S. and Israeli objections to this unilateral move. It fails the test of resolving all issues only by mutual agreement with Israel and could further complicate future negotiations. In addition, enhanced UN status could open the door to attempts at pressing Palestinian demands through such bodies as the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice rather than through peace talks with Israel.
At the same time, the draft resolution once again puts the PA, along with the entire UN General Assembly, on record as endorsing "the vision of two states, an independent, sovereign, contiguous, and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security with Israel." This is significant -- especially now, when the rival Hamas movement in Gaza, despite its new ceasefire with Israel, continues to reject the very idea of peace. Both the Israeli and U.S. governments, by contrast, have previously declared their acceptance of the two-state solution.
Some important UN members, such as Britain, have reportedly suggested certain reasonable improvements to the existing draft. One key suggestion is to insert an explicit commitment to resume negotiations with Israel promptly and unconditionally. Another useful improvement would be a Palestinian commitment to refrain from new applications for membership in certain UN subsidiaries -- or at least to refrain from exploiting their new status to practice "lawfare," or legalistic assaults, against Israel in lieu of peace negotiations.
Unfortunately, the latest unofficial accounts indicate that the Palestinians are still refusing these friendly amendments. An alternative might be more general language committing to resolve all issues only through peaceful negotiations. Another possibility would be a side letter or similar understanding to that effect, even if not included in the text of the resolution.
A different but equally helpful set of improvements would be to remove language inconsistent with other, more constructive clauses. For example, one clause toward the end of the preamble affirms "the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two states." This implicitly recognizes, for the first time in such a formal document, at least part of the city as Israel's capital. It also accepts the requirement of negotiating this issue rather than simply demanding Jerusalem, or even just East Jerusalem, as the Palestinian capital.
More broadly, draft paragraph 5 recognizes the possibility of territorial adjustments "on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, with delineation of borders to be determined in final status negotiations." And paragraph 6 expresses "the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process." These are relatively positive formulations.
Other clauses, however, contradict all of the above by prejudging the issues of borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements, as well as the overall outcome of negotiations. Amending or deleting such language would be a step forward. Otherwise the entire resolution, as it stands, is literally illogical, not to mention potentially harmful.
Conversely, some conceivable last-minute changes to the draft would only make matters worse. In that category falls any mention of Hamas, "resistance," or potential penalties for noncompliance. Such late additions would only push the prospect of productive negotiations, and of meeting legitimate Palestinian and Israeli aspirations for peace and security, even further away.
Regardless of how the exact wording and the vote turn out, much will depend on the follow-up. If the Palestinians fulfill their announced intention to return to peace talks with Israel in good faith, with no artificial preconditions or deadlines attached, that would certainly be welcome. If, however, their next step is to file international lawsuits against Israel, or to maintain their insistence on concessions from Israel even before they sit down at the negotiating table, it would simply confirm the worst judgments about their current UN gambit. The United States should make abundantly clear that its continued engagement -- including any aid or political support -- will depend upon which of those two courses the PA chooses to pursue.
*David Pollock is the Kaufman fellow at The Washington Institute.

Engagement without Illusions
Building an Interest-Based Relationship with the New Egypt
Vin Weber and Gregory B. Craig
November 2012
DOWNLOAD PDF
Today's Egypt -- with its first-ever civilian president, Islamist leader Muhammad Morsi -- is a very different country from the one with which successive U.S. administrations built a strategic partnership for more than thirty years. The fundamental changes seen there since 2011 mandate an equally fundamental reassessment of the bilateral relationship. To inform this process, The Washington Institute established the bipartisan Task Force on the Future of U.S.-Egypt Relations, dispatching veteran foreign policy practitioners Vin Weber and Gregory B. Craig to the region to assess the situation firsthand. The resulting report offers specific advice to the Obama administration on how to secure U.S. interests with the "new Egypt." The key recommendations include that U.S. policy should be based on presenting Egyptian leaders with a set of clear choices that would give them a pathway to act as responsible national leaders rather than as religiously inspired ideologues. While Washington cannot convince or compel the Islamists governing Egypt to give up their deeply held ideology, the United States can use its leverage to affect Egyptian behavior. that the president should agree to certify to Congress that Egypt is fulfilling two baskets of commitments -- on "regional peace" and "strategic cooperation" -- as a condition of continued provision of U.S. aid and backing for international loans.that the president and congressional leaders should together inform the Egyptians about an additional "informal conditionality" on issues of "constitutional democracy and political pluralism," i.e., that backward movement on constitutionalism or substantial violations of human rights or measures against women and religious minorities would make it politically difficult to maintain a close and mutually beneficial relationship. that the administration should use a portion of Egypt's military aid -- at least $100 million to start, and increasing over time -- to incentivize more aggressive efforts by the Egyptian government to combat terrorism in Sinai. that the administration should actively engage with the broadest possible spectrum of political actors in Egypt, even if the non-Islamist opposition is currently weak and divided.
THE AUTHORS
Vin Weber is a former Republican congressman from Minnesota and former chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy.
*Gregory B. Craig served as White House counsel in the Obama administration and as director of State Department policy planning in the Clinton administration.

Mysterious grotto lies beneath Mina Cathedral
November 29, 2012/By Stephen Dockery/ The Daily Star
MINA, Lebanon: Many visitors to the St. George Cathedral in Mina are surprised to learn that a mysterious grotto is located underneath its main alter.
The cathedral, situated just a few meters away from the municipality square in the center of Mina and constructed in 1732, has long been a local tourist attraction.
But little is known about the grotto that lies beneath it.
In his book “The Orthodox: People and Stones,” historian John Abdallah maintains that the St. George Grotto is indeed very old, but it is not clear when it was discovered. Historians are also unsure about how it was discovered, or whether it was excavated all at once or in sections.
To reach the grotto, visitors must walk down a stone staircase leading to the low entrance. There you find yourself in the courtyard of the grotto.
It is possible to stand upright in the small courtyard, whereas other areas of the grotto force you to crouch to avoid dangling rocks.
One theory is that the grotto was originally used as a hidden sanctuary for prayers, as there used to be a passage connecting it to the sea, providing a quick escape for the early practitioners of Christianity in the area.
While this theory has not been historically proven, it is possible that the passage was dug in the early days of Christianity when prayers were held in secret and believers were persecuted for their faith.
There are no inscriptions or drawings on the grotto’s walls, but it is full of icons and candles lit by visitors.
According to Priest Gregorius Moussa, these visitors come from areas all around the country and from all sects.
Moussa says that the square that today faces St. George Cathedral used to serve as the Christian cemetery.
Remains of the dead were found there in 1872, when the area was rebuilt and turned into a public square named after Dr. Yaacoub Labban.
Labban, who hails from Mina, was known for his charitable work as a physician who treated the poor.
A statue in the square depicting Labban is inscribed with a poem written by Mina’s mukhtar, Edward Rouhanna, in the 1960s.
“Father of poor you were buried after delivering your message,” the poem reads.
Visitors to the grotto often pray for the health of sick loved ones.
When Priest Moussa receives those who visit here, he often asks out of curiosity what led them to come.
“I try to understand their problem and help them if possible ... before going to the grotto and seeking the help of St. George to cure the sick and lead them down the right path,” he says.
Seeking the intercession of people who have passed away is something common among both Christians and Muslims, he says.
Moussa explains people seek out this place to pray to their loved ones who have passed, “because we hope these good people who pass into the afterlife are now in the position to help.”

A Sunni awakening
Claude Salhani/Now Lebanon/ November 28, 2012
Ahmad al-Assir speaks at a rally in support of the Syrian uprising in Beirut. Assir is a rising Sunni force in Lebanon. (AFP photo)
As the predominant majority in Islam, the Sunnis have historically been the major political force in the Middle East, but after recent developments they have found themselves suddenly in a weakened position vis-à-vis the Shiites, their traditional foes. In Lebanon, where the Sunnis excelled in the political arena, they lagged behind other communities on the military front. Regretfully, history has shown that without an armed wing none of the country’s major political blocs ever managed to accomplish what in other parts of the world is gained through ballots and not bullets.
But that may be changing soon with the new rising Sunni force in Lebanon, Ahmad al-Assir, the sheikh from Sidon with the look of the ultra-conservative Salafist, long beard and all. His followers, however, say he is not a Salafist, but a moderate.
“The sheikh certainly looks the part,” said Nader Sabbagh, editor of an economic monthly publication and an adviser to the sheikh. “Sheikh Ahmad supports Lebanon’s Christians and realizes that this country belongs to neither Christians nor Muslims, but needs to be shared by all.”
Like many other observers of Lebanese politics, Sabbagh fears that a clash between the country’s Sunni and Shiites is in the making. Predicting Lebanon’s political future has always been a gamble more than an exact science. Blame that on the political precariousness. However, one relatively safe prediction is that the Sunnis have awoken from their political slumber realizing that they were being overtaken by the growing influence of the Shiites, spearheaded by Tehran.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution gave the Shiites unprecedented political clout as they reached out to their coreligionists in Lebanon, financing and arming them and turning Hezbollah into the formidable force it is today—and in the process giving Iran a firm foothold north of Israel. As Shiite power began to grow, Sunni leaders started to worry, reviving the historic distrust and expanding the schism that existed between the majority-Sunni Arabs and Shiite Iran.
Sunni leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, as well as Turkey feared this change, and with good reason, insofar as they were concerned, given the situation in Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Gaza. It could hardly get any worse. Can it? Oh yes, it can. Just keep your eye on the new—or not so new—growing divergence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
This intra-Muslim conflict is playing itself out on two stages: the regional and the national. On the national front the current situation in Lebanon remains volatile as ingredients for a revival of the 15-year civil war are slowly falling into place like pawns on a giant chessboard. A renewal of the Lebanese civil war will not mirror the previous fratricide war of 1975 to 1990, taking on a different shape as this time Sunnis and Shiites will find themselves at loggerheads. The Sunni-Shiite schism is of course nothing new; the novelty here is the degree and the scope to which it has grown in the past few years.
A clash between the two main branches of Islam in Lebanon—and beyond—appears inevitable, according to many observers in the region.
“Not only is it inevitable, it is ‘a must,’” said a source with close ties Sheikh Assir who asked that his name not be used due to the sensitivity of the issue.
Indeed, Assir, according to another source close to the militant sheikh who spoke to this reporter but asked not to be identified, has started training young Sunnis in various camps scattered across the country. Possibly coming under pressure from various sides, Assir announced two weekends ago that he was putting his project for a military wing “on hold” for the moment.
The growing importance that Lebanon’s Sunnis represent as a counter measure to Iranian influence has not gone unnoticed by the US government, which is eagerly seeking new allies in the region. A source close to Assir said that the Muslim cleric was invited along with some of his entourage to a briefing at the American Embassy a couple of weeks ago, where the US deputy chief of mission briefed the group.
“The Americans are just now waking up to the fact that they can no longer continue to ignore main-street Muslims,” a supporter of Assir said.
“What we are likely to see in the near future is a realignment of forces in the Middle East conflict.” The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon cease to be an issue and will be replaced by an Arab-Persian dispute, he added.
That may well come to pass, but not before more regional realignments occur, among them another major confrontation such as the one that just occurred between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Already another step in the long-running conflict was breached during the week-long battles as rockets fired by Hamas landed for the first time in the Tel Aviv area and Jerusalem.
The civil war in Syria is partially an extension of the Sunni-Shiite dispute, if you consider that the Alawites are an offshoot of Shiism. The pieces of the Sunni-Shiite clash are falling into place, especially with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar playing important roles in support of the main-street Muslims.
For once the repercussions of a wider Middle East dispute are not felt in Lebanon, the traditional battlefield of most regional disputes. At least not yet, but the great fear here is that it may well change.
*Claude Salhani, a specialist in conflict resolution, is an independent journalist, political analyst and author of several books on the region. His latest book, 'Islam Without a Veil,' is published by Potomac Books. He tweets @claudesalhani.

Canadian Egyptian sentenced to death in Egypt over anti-Islam film fears kidnapping
By The Canadian Press | TORONTO - A Canadian man who was sentenced to death in absentia today in Cairo over an anti-Islam movie says he's terrified of being kidnapped and taken to Egypt.
An Egyptian court has sentenced Nader Fawzi and seven others to death in relation to "Innocence of Muslims" — a low-budget film that sparked deadly riots in parts of the Muslim world.
The Toronto store manager tells The Canadian Press he had nothing to do with the movie. He says Egyptian authorities are out to get him because he is an outspoken Coptic Christian activist.
Fawzi also says he's afraid to travel to any country that might detain him and send him to Egypt. He says he plans to sue the Cairo government for wrongful prosecution.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirms 'no' vote on Palestine at UN
By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press –
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed that Canada will vote against a motion to confer statehood on Palestine in a vote set for Thursday at the United Nations.
Harper says Canada favours a two-state solution in the Middle East which requires the Palestinian authority to return to the bargaining table for talks with Israel.
The prime minister says his government will not support any "shortcut," such as giving the Palestinians a declaration of statehood in advance of negotiations.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is travelling to the UN in New York on Thursday to personally cast Canada's vote against the motion.
The UN General Assembly resolution would raise the Palestinians' status from a UN observer to a non-member observer state.
The United States and Israel are strongly opposed to the move

As Fatah fades, UN recognition of Palestine may eventually benefit Hamas
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 29, 2012/Thursday night, Nov. 29, the UN General Assembly grants Palestine non-member observer status within 1967 borders by a majority vote. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried dismissing this upgrade as meaningless – awarding its initiator Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) nothing more than a small town sheriff’s badge. But the fact remains that this status and those borders are on the books, no matter which Palestinian government is in power, Abbas’s Fatah which rules the West Bank from Ramallah or the extremist Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And Israel now has a new headache, especially if the Palestinian entity seeks membership of the International War Crimes Court in The Hague.
For now, the Palestinians are treading carefully. They say they won’t apply as yet. However, by having Yasser Arafat’s remains exhumed in a grand military ceremony, for samples to be tested for poison in Paris and Moscow, they have set a road sign pointing to The Hague.
The Palestinians have long suspected Israel of poisoning the food given Arafat after he was confined in his Ramallah headquarters under siege in 2002. A special team of IDF officers examined every item of food and drink provided him.
Even if no poison is found and there is no proof that Israel was instrumental in his death, the case has an odd and macabre bearing on the UN vote of Nov. 29 in two ways:
1. The Palestinians have an incurable tendency to overlay their diplomacy with acts of terror. Arafat himself kept up a ferocious terrorist campaign against Israel while engaged in one round after another of “peace negotiations.” And just last week, Hamas engineered a bus bombing in Tel Aviv, recalling the bad old days of Arafat’s reign and injuring more than 30 people. The blast provided the background noise for Hamas’s acceptance in Cairo on Nov. 21 of a ceasefire, which halted their missile offensive and Israel’s eight-day operation in Gaza.
Abbas a spent force
2. Compared with the aggressive Hamas, PA Chairman Abbas, at 77, is increasingly regarded as a spent force in the Palestinian and Arab arenas. His Fatah party and the Palestinian Authority are worn out by infighting and becoming increasingly irrelevant – except as a ball for batting among Israeli politicians. Abbas is using the Arafat case and his UN initiative to show he still has muscle – if not legitimacy.
Elected president seven years ago, his term ran out, according to the Palestinian constitution, in 2009.
The illegitimate Ramallah regime
The same goes for the Palestinian Legislative Council, which was elected in 2006 in a vote that gave Hamas a majority. Since then, Abu Mazen has suspended the Council’s work. There is frequent talk in Ramallah of new elections but nothing comes of it, partly for fear of giving the rival Hamas another chance to gobble up the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip.
So the Palestinian president and prime minister holding court in the seat of government in Ramallah lack legal authority for ruling the West Bank or representing the Palestinian people to the outside world. They are only kept in power by seven battalions of special forces financed by the US. Their corrupt administration runs day to day affairs only with the help of donations from Western and Arab governments and Israeli economic aid. Without regular Israeli cash infusions in recent months, Abu Mazen’s regime would not have covered the payroll for the members of his bloated administration and security services.
All Abbas and his Fatah have to show for the many billions which world powers showered on them over the years to make the dream of a sustainable Palestinian state come true is a failed Palestinian entity ruled by a corrupt bureaucracy, with no standing in the Arab arena.
The UN farce
It is to this entity that the UN General Assembly, which itself is losing relevance as a player in international affairs, has voted to extended a measure of legitimacy on the world stage.
The Palestinian UN Ambassador may now get a bigger office at UN Center in New York with a view of the East River. But in Ramallah, after the well-orchestrated celebrations in honor of Abu Mazen are over, nothing will change. The toxicology tests on Arafat’s remains are awaited there in the hope of some drama. But the real hub of Palestinian affairs has moved from Ramallah to Gaza City.
Pilgrimages to Gaza
On December 8, treading in the footsteps of the Emir of Qatar and Arab foreign ministers, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan pays his first visit to Gaza.
He will be accompanied by the deposed Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. So far, he has not persuaded Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh to welcome Mahmoud Abbas as a token of Palestinian unity.
The disunity is such that when Abbas’ foreign minister Riyad Malki tried to enter the Gaza Strip with a party of Arab foreign ministers in the course of ceasefire talks, he was stopped at the Rafah crossing by Hamas security guards who denied his standing.
None of the Arab ministers interceded on his behalf. They just left him at the gate.
Erdogan will therefore not make Abbas’s company a precondition for his own Gaza visit. For him its importance lies in his being the second Muslim visitor to Gaza after the ruler of Qatar’s arrival on Oct. 23.
Most of all, it signifies his recognition of Hamas at the expense of Fatah in Ramallah as part of the burgeoning Sunni Muslim Middle East axis, which is strongly though silently endorsed by the US and Israel.
No Arab leader or foreign minister has been seen in Ramallah for some time. However, in his declining years, Abbas has left UN endorsement of Palestinian nonmember observer status ready on the shelf to be collected at some future date by Hamas – should those extremists qualify for a place in the new US-backed Sunni Middle East grouping in formation by Egypt, Turkey and Qatar.
At some future point, the dormant Middle East Quartet may wake up and revive its stipulation for Hamas to give up terrorism and its ambition to eradicate Israel – the key points of its “resistance” posture – in order to buy international acceptance.

Islam's status unchanged in Egypt draft constitution
November 29, 2012/Daily Star
CAIRO: An assembly drafting Egypt's new constitution voted on Thursday to keep the principles of Islamic law as the main source of legislation, unchanged from the previous constitution in force under former President Hosni Mubarak. The issue was the subject of a long dispute between hardline Salafi Islamists and liberals in the assembly which will vote on each of 234 articles in the draft constitution before it is sent to President Mohamed Mursi for approval. After that, Mursi must put it to a popular referendum. The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group that nominated Mursi for the presidency, hopes that quick approval of the constitution will help end a crisis ignited by a decree that expanded his powers. While Article Two of the constitution - describing the source of legislation - stays the same, the constitution includes new provisions explaining what is meant by "the principles" of Islamic law, known as sharia. The assembly also approved a new article that states that Al-Azhar, a seat of Sunni Muslim learning, must be consulted on "matters related to the Islamic sharia". The final draft makes historic changes to Egypt's system of government. For example, it sets a limit on the number of terms a president may serve to two. Mubarak stayed in power for three decades. It also introduces a degree of civilian oversight over the powerful military establishment, although not enough for some critics of the document.
The process has been plagued by disputes between the Islamists who dominate the body writing the constitution and secular-minded parties who say the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies have marginalised them in the process. Prominent assembly members including former Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa have withdrawn from the assembly, as have representatives of Egypt's Coptic Church.