Is Syria's opposition extremist?
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
There is no problem with the opposition representing all Syrians, including the fighters on the ground. This is normal and important. The Syrian opposition should not just represent one segment of society, particularly following the experiences of the Arab Spring states, which saw just one section of the opposition, namely the Islamists, achieve predominance. However the question that must be asked here is: is Syria's opposition extremist, or rather has it been hijacked by the extremists?
This is an inaccurate opinion, even if this was put forward by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, particularly as Bashar al-Assad expressed the same sentiments before her, indeed since the first day of the Syrian revolution. The reality is that the Syrian opposition has been neglected by everybody, regionally and internationally, for almost two years, namely since the revolution first began. All of the efforts that have been exerted to unify the opposition represented attempts to attract others with similar beliefs, for example, on the part of those who prefer the Muslim Brotherhood line and who sought to consolidate their ranks. Otherwise, dealings with the Syrian opposition were based on the approach of wasting time, to the point that some officials were embarrassed to be photographed with Syrian opposition figures! Therefore, nearly two years into the Syrian revolution and following the deaths of almost 30,000 Syrians, it is natural for the situation to have become increasingly complicated, not just in Syria, but also within the ranks of the Syrian opposition itself. Our duty now is to develop a practical plan to ensure that the Arab Spring states mistakes’ are not repeated in Syria. Most of these mistakes took place with western – and sometimes Arab – backing, from Egypt to Tunisia, not to mention some attempts in Libya. These mistakes can be summed up as attempts to impose the Muslim Brotherhood on these Arab Spring states based on the view that the Brotherhood was the strongest and most organized trend on the ground. This is something that is only permissible during a state of stability where the power in the street, for example, is the one that wins the elections. As for during periods of chaos and rebuilding, constitutions and legislation must be the guarantors for everybody. This mistake, which Arab Spring states are today suffering from, is precisely what happened in post-occupation Iraq, so predominance was granted to the party that was strongest and most organized on the ground, namely the Shiites. From this point, Iraq became a sectarian and exclusionist state, and the same applies to the Arab Spring states today. This is something that must not be repeated in Syria, whether from the international community, Arab world, or Syrian opposition themselves.
Therefore, blame is not helpful now, particularly as the Syrian revolution has seen enough organized deception and trickery, whether from the al-Assad regime or the international community. Saying that what is happening in Syria is a civil war is a deception, for in reality this is a revolution that was confronted by organized armed violence. Saying that Al Qaeda is involved with the revolution is a deception, for with al-Assad using all weapons under his control, not to mention the Iranian involvement, with all of their capabilities, as well as Hezbollah and Russian arms; nobody can blame the Syrians even if they appealed to the devil himself! The deception does not stop here, for the missions undertaken by General al-Dabi, Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Barahimi were also deceptions and time-wasting; therefore it is irresponsible to point the finger of blame at the Syrian opposition today. So what is required is serious work. The first step that the Arab world and international community must take is not to prefer one party over another, in addition to selecting a framework that includes all Syrians, which means restructuring the Syrian National Council [SNC] without preference or favor. The new Syria must be for all Syrians, whilst it must also avoid the mistakes made by Arab Spring states.

 
London, Paris, Jerusalem line up for post-US vote action on Syria, Iran
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report November 3, 2012/The UK , France and Israel showed signs this week of lining up for military action with regard to Syria and Iran as soon as America’s presidential election was out of the way Tuesday, Nov. 6, debkafile’s military sources report. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spent two days (Oct. 31-Nov. 1) talking to President Francois Holland. As the Defense Minister Ehud Barak landed in London the next day, Prime Minister David Cameron was reported on standby for the dispatch of RAF fighter-bombers to the Persian Gulf.
Barak flew to London after US Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had spent several days in Israel, no doubt tying up the last ends of US-Israeli cooperation for potential action.
Although America’s top military chief can’t tell who will be his next commander-in-chief - Barack Obama for another four years or the Republican Mitt Romney - he is duty-bound to have US forces in the Middle East ready for any contingency.
Although none has admitted as much, all the parties to these consultations did their best this week to chart alternative scenarios applicable to either winner. The consensus was that whether it is Obama or Romney, the two flaming Middle East crises can no longer remain subject to the policy immobility dictated by the presidential campaign – certainly not the Syrian bloodbath.
But the presence of thousands of Iranian and Hizballah combatants fighting for Bashar Assad on the battlefields of Syria oblige Western policy architects to reckon with reactions from Tehran and its Lebanese surrogate, HIzballah, as well as their Palestinian allies in the Gaza Strip.
debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report that all the US, British and French forces that might be needed for military action are already in place in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, while Israel’s Defense Forces are on standby. They are awaiting orders to go forward after first being told which way to jump – Syria or Iran.
US strength – air, naval and strike ground units – are concentrated on the Red Sea Socotra Island and Oman's Masirah Island in the Persian Gulf. Since mid-October, Washington has maintained supplementary special operations and anti-air units in Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
Britain and France have massed naval, air and special operations forces in the big naval base of Port Zayed and the Al Dhafra air facility – both in the United Arab Emirates. A French fighter-bomber squadron is also parked at the Tabuk air base in Saudi Arabia.
Military strategists regard the initial phases of the Iran-Israeli confrontation as already being in motion, manifested by an Iranian stealth drone which overflew Israel on Oct. 6 and Israel’s raid on Oct. 24 of the Sudanese factory manufacturing and storing Iranian missiles. They are predicting that such shadow-sparring exercises between Tehran and Jerusalem may evolve next month into more direct clashes between Israel, Iran and Hizballah - more probably isolated incidents related to Iran’s Middle East deployments, especially in Syria and Lebanon, rather than a full-blown eruption of hostilities all at once.
Meanwhile, after both Obama and Romney voiced disapproval of direct US military involvement in Syria, Washington embarked on quiet moves for a diplomatic accomodation.
During a recent round table in Ankara, Admiral James Winnfeld, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that Washington would reveal its intentions toward Syria once the 6 November presidential elections were over. But he then announced to his Turkish counterparts that a peace plan had already been negotiated with Moscow for keeping Assad in power and that the UN Security Council would not authorize the creation of buffer zones on which Ankara had pinned its plans for Syria. Instead, Herve Ladsous, the UN Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, announced that he was studying the possible deployment of peacekeepers ("blue helmets") in Syria.
This new situation comes at the expense of Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar and Turkey - all of whom back the Syrian revolt and demand regime change in Damascus. This anti-Assad coalition is now split between those demanding a compromise solution and those trying to sabotage the process underway between Washington and Moscow.
But no one has meanwhile heard from Assad or Tehran.
It is important to remember that Assad does not sit in Vladimir Putin’s pocket and may veto the project; so too might Tehran.

Hollande visit to show support for Sleiman
November 03, 2012 /By Hussein Dakroub /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: French President Francois Hollande will visit Beirut Sunday in a show of support for President Michel Sleiman’s efforts to preserve stability in the face of security threats following tensions linked to last month’s assassination of police intelligence chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, officials said Friday.
Hollande is due to arrive Sunday morning from Saudi Arabia for a three-hour visit for talks with Sleiman at Baabda Palace.
“The French president’s visit is aimed at expressing support for President Sleiman’s efforts to resolve the current political crisis in Lebanon,” a source at Baabda Palace told The Daily Star.
The talks between Sleiman and Hollande will cover the situation in Lebanon, bilateral relations, developments in the region and the 19-month-old crisis in Syria and its repercussions on Lebanon, the source said. The source added that Hollande and the accompanying delegation would get an official reception at Baabda Palace instead of at Beirut Airport.
The talks, not to be attended by other Lebanese leaders, will be followed by a news conference by Hollande, the source said.
In Paris, a French government source said Hollande’s visit was “a strong political gesture of backing for Lebanon’s sovereignty and the preservation of its integrity in the face of destabilization threats.”
While in the Saudi city of Jeddah, Hollande will hold talks with Saudi King Abdullah on the international standoff on Iran’s contested nuclear program and the Syrian crisis, French officials said.
Hollande this week said he would back more sanctions if there were no “concrete acts” from Iran to prove it was not pursuing a nuclear arms drive.
Paris and Riyadh have “very similar views” on the bloody conflict in Syria and the two leaders are due to discuss this and energy issues, including nuclear power, French sources said.
The French and Saudi leaders, whose countries support the Syrian uprising against the regime of President Bashar Assad, are also expected to discuss the situation in Lebanon amid mounting fears of a spillover of the turmoil in Syria into the country.
It was not immediately clear whether Hollande would suggest in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia ideas for resolving the political crisis triggered by Hasan’s assassination.
Saudi Arabia, which wields great influence in Lebanon through its allies in the opposition March 14 coalition, has repeatedly voiced its support for stability and security in Lebanon while the bloody conflict has raged in neighboring Syria. Riyadh has not commented on the March 14 coalition’s calls for the resignation of the government.
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a close ally of Saudi Arabia and the leader of the March 14 coalition, has called for the government’s resignation following Hasan’s assassination, saying there could be no dialogue between rival factions before the government steps down.
Hollande’s trip will be the first by a French president since the previous head of state, Nicolas Sarkozy, visited Lebanon in June 2008.
The French president’s lightning trips to Lebanon and Saudi Arabia come before attending an Asia-Europe summit in Laos to talk trade at a time of economic crisis.
The visit also comes amid rising local and international concerns for stability and a power vacuum in Lebanon following the opposition’s calls for the government to resign in the wake of Hasan’s assassination.
The March 14 coalition has called on Prime Minister Najib Mikati to step aside after accusing his government of complicity with the Assad regime in Hasan’s assassination.
Hasan, his driver and a woman were killed in a car bomb in the Beirut district of Ashrafieh on Oct. 19.
The coalition has also announced a total boycott of the government and all Cabinet-related meetings in Parliament as part of its moves to pressure the government to resign.
Sleiman has been consulting with rival leaders in an attempt to convene a National Dialogue session to explore a solution for the political crisis, including the possibility of forming a new government.
Hollande’s visit comes three days after U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Jones renewed Washington’s call for the formation of a new government that would bolster Lebanon’s stability, sovereignty and independence.
Meanwhile, Mikati expressed his satisfaction with the international support for his government.
“Since everyone fears a [power] vacuum, the government will shoulder its responsibility and will never allow the country to fall into the trap of vacuum,” Mikati told As-Safir newspaper in remarks published Friday. He called on all parties to support Sleiman’s efforts and consultations to convene a National Dialogue session which, he said, enjoyed Arab and international support.
Ministerial sources said the talk of a Cabinet change was premature and National Dialogue was needed to address the divisive issues between rival parties.
“During contacts between officials nobody proposed or mentioned the issue of resignation or the formation of a new government,” a ministerial source told The Daily Star.
“The focus of these contacts is to ensure that dialogue [as proposed by Sleiman] will take place,” the source said. “Therefore, talk of a government change is premature.”
In a veiled criticism of the March 14 coalition’s boycott of the government, Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Beshara Rai said that paralyzing the work of state institutions was unacceptable.
“The [Maronite] Church condemns all political performance that works exclusively for personal and individual interests at the expense of the public interest, or calls and works to paralyze the state institutions for personal purposes and seeks to attain power,” Rai said in an opening speech at a symposium held in Bkirki, the seat of the Maronite Catholic Church, north of Beirut.
“The Church does not stand idly by and will not remain silent in the face of injustice, attack and the obstruction of public life that only a sound state and its institutions can provide,” Rai said.
He added that the country’s National Covenant on power-sharing calls for sectarian coexistence, mutual respect and equality between the Christians and Muslims and for neutralizing the Lebanese from any allegiance to the East and the West. Former President Amin Gemayel, head of the Kataeb (Phalange) Party, said the United States was now encouraging a Cabinet change in Lebanon after having voiced fears over stability and called for bolstering the government’s position.
“But this U.S. stance has developed to supporting stability through a government that can satisfy everyone,” Gemayel, who met Jones during her visit to Beirut, said in an interview with Akhbar al-Yom news agency. He said the change in the U.S. stance came in Washington’s call for “a government that reflects the aspirations of the Lebanese people.”
“This means that Washington is encouraging a change toward [the formation of] a Cabinet that reflects the feelings and interests of all the Lebanese,” he added.
Lebanese Forces MP Antoine Zahra dismissed local and international fears over a power vacuum should the government resign.
“In our constitution, there is nothing called a [power] vacuum if it was difficult to form a Cabinet because the outgoing government can serve in a caretaker capacity until a new Cabinet is formed and wins [Parliament’s] confidence,” Zahra told the Free Lebanon radio station.
“The intimidation over a vacuum is not justified and comes as part of defending the government at a time when the international community is giving priority to developments in Syria and the U.S. presidential elections,” he said. Zahra rejected Mikati’s call for agreeing first on an alternative Cabinet before the government’s resigns. “The Cabinet formation takes place through binding consultations and not outside the constitutional framework.”

Geagea: Opposition wants end to ‘killing machine’
November 03, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces Leader Samir Geagea said Saturday that the March 14 coalition’s primary demand was to stop the “killing machine” and assassinations in the country, according to his press office. “The March 14’s basic demand is not to topple the Cabinet just for the sake of it but because the crime is centered in it ... our primary demand is stop the killing machine,” Geagea said.
According to Geagea, the March 14 alliance does not want to take part in the new Cabinet it is calling for, nor a candidate to head it.
“We are not aspiring for a political post or a Cabinet [post], all we want it for the crime to end so that political life in Lebanon can get back to normal,” Geagea said.
The LF leader also said the March 14 could not sit down “[at the same table] with a group which only knows the language of killing and violence.”
“Although I do respect all those calling for dialogue, I call on them to think thoroughly about what I am saying as what we need is to say things as they are without any evasion to find a solution to the problem,” he said. The opposition has accused Syria of being behind the Oct. 19 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who headed the police’s Information Branch, and hold the government of Prime Minister Najib Mikati responsible. In the wake of Hasan’s assassination, the March 14 alliance called for the government to quit ahead of the polls and allow the formation of a neutral government to oversee the 2013 elections. Some Future Movement MPs have also complained that their lives are at risk and say they are receiving death threats from Syrian numbers.

Lebanon's Speaker Nabih Berri: Lebanon Sitting on Region's Greatest Oil, Gas Wealth
Naharnet /Speaker Nabih Berri stated that a foreign company had conducted a survey of Lebanon's offshore and land petroleum and gas resources, which revealed that the country enjoys a wealth that exceeded previous estimates, reported As Safir daily on Saturday.
He said that Spectrum and Petroleum Geo-Services company's survey revealed that Lebanon enjoys the greatest oil and gas wealth in the region, surpassing that of Israel.
“The discovery will not only lead to Lebanon's entry to the club of oil-producing countries, but even lead it to occupy its front row seats,” said As Safir.
The Spectrum company had unveiled its findings during a conference in London, during which it confirmed that Lebanon's oil wealth off its southern coast is among the richest and best in the region.
The quantities in the South are three-times more abundant than other regions, it added.
Berri therefore urged the government to immediately tackle this file “and stop wasting precious time” with various disputes, reported As Safir.
He noted that the Spectrum report warned that Lebanon's failure to address its wealth will harm its credibility and push investment companies to search for other fields.
“Investing in this sector will end Lebanon's public debt and end labor disputes,” stressed the speaker.
“We must stop these losses and the crime against our economy,” declared Berri.
As Safir meanwhile reported that efforts are ongoing in order to appoint the members of the petroleum sector.
Government sources told the newspaper that this issue will be the cabinet's priority during the next phase in Lebanon.
The daily revealed that among the candidates being proposed to be appointed to the management board of the sector are Nasser Hoteit (Shiite), Wissam Shbat (Maronite), Wissam al-Thahabi (Sunni), Issam Abou Ibrahim (Druze), Walid Nasser (Catholic), and Gaby Daaboul, Rafik Haddad, or a member of al-Qazan family (Orthodox).
Lebanon and Israel are bickering over a zone that consists of about 854 square kilometers and suspected energy reserves there could generate billions of dollars.
The cabinet approved in September the proposed borders of Lebanon’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the Mediterranean.
In June, Lebanon was able to restore 530 square kilometers of a maritime zone that it considers it to be within its EEZ.
Media reports said that, the United States and the United Nations acknowledged Lebanon’s rights to control the 530 square kilometer disputed area after prolonged diplomatic and political efforts.
Lebanon has been slow to exploit its maritime resources compared with other eastern Mediterranean countries. Israel, Cyprus and Turkey are all much more advanced in drilling for oil and gas.

Najib Miqati Office to Naharnet: Date for Miqati's Visit to Paris 'Not Set Yet'
Naharnet /Prime Minister Najib Miqati's visit to Paris is still being discussed between Lebanese and French authorities after several local newspapers reported that the premier's visit to the French capital is being reconsidered due to French President Francois Hollande “surprise” visit to Beirut on Sunday.
“No date has been scheduled yet to Miqati's visit to Paris,” the premier's office said on Saturday in comments to Naharnet.
“There's no link between Miqati's visit to Paris and Hollande's visit to Beirut... They're completely separate events,” it pointed out.
The PM's office noted that “French and Lebanese authorities are still discussing the date for Miqati's visit to Paris,” ruling out that the date mentioned in newspapers is accurate.
Hollande is due to arrive in Beirut on Sunday for a three-hour visit to meet with his Lebanese counterpart President Michel Suleiman.
An Nahar daily reported on Saturday that Miqati's visit to Paris scheduled on November 19-21 is being reconsidered after the recent political developments in Lebanon, which caused Hollande to “suddenly” add Beirut to his scheduled visit to the Middle East.
“Paris sought to include Beirut on Hollande's scheduled visit to the region so that it's stance would not be awkward if it welcomed Miqati, it would show Paris as if it supports a team against another,” An Nahar said.As Safir newspaper also reported on Friday that the premier will reconsider his scheduled visit to France on November 18 in light of Hollande's “sudden” visit to Beirut.
The political crisis in Lebanon deepened the gap between the March 14-led opposition and the March 8 alliance after the assassination of Internal Security Forces Intelligence Bureau head Wissam al-Hasan on October 19.
Suleiman is carrying out consultations with various political powers on the possibility of resuming the all-party talks, however, the March 14-led opposition insists on the resignation of the cabinet as a main condition to continue any political activity with its foes, while the March 8 coalition rejects the formation of a new government.
Hollande has continuously reiterated on senior officials to avoid any political vacuum in the country and for the cabinet to continue its tasks.

Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Nov. 3, 2012
November 03, 2012 10:51 AM
The Daily Star
Lebanon's Arabic press digest.
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese newspapers Saturday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports.
An-Nahar
Hollande’s message tomorrow: Sleiman is the solution center
Opposition fiercely rejects coalition cabinet
Although no official statements were issued about the surprise visit of French President Francois Hollande to Lebanon, the visit has significant dimensions. Paris will be conveying a clear and simple message about its support to Lebanon at this crucial phase and to President Michel Sleiman’s efforts in trying to get the country out of its crisis.
During Hollande’s meeting with his Lebanese counterpart, the French president will stress the need to preserve national unity and encourage dialogue among all parties.
The visit also has another dimension related to a previously scheduled three-day visit by Prime Minister Najib Mikati to Paris on Nov. 19. The latest events in Lebanon have led to France modifying its stance and Paris felt embarrassed about receiving Mikati in such delicate circumstances in order not to be portrayed as siding with one Lebanese group against another.
Thus, France sought to take advantage of Hollande’s visit to the Middle East in order to make a quick visit to Baabda, which will make Mikati reconsider his visit to Paris.
Meanwhile, a leading source in the March 14 coalition said his group has made a final decision to totally reject forming a Cabinet with [those who carry]arms. The source said the March 14 alliance is calling for a neutral government that will organize elections. He said whoever wins the elections should form a majority government.
Other sources close to President Michel Sleiman and Progressive Socialist Party head MP Walid Jumblatt said that the two leaders are suggesting forming a national unity Cabinet that can confront the risks facing the country. The sources said such a government would bring all Lebanese parties together in joint responsibility.
As-Safir
Hollande’s visit: Rising French concerns over spreading of Syria fires
Lebanon joins the ‘oil countries’ club’... and the ‘petrol committee’ is absent
Lebanon receives tomorrow French President Francois Hollande who is on a quick business trip to the country during which he will meet with President Michel Sleiman before moving from Beirut to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
European diplomatic sources said that the European stance on the March 14 coalition’s boycott of the Cabinet and parliamentary activity is similar to its stance regarding the March 8 boycott of parliament and former PM Fouad Siniora’s Cabinet [in 2008].
The sources said that Europe is calling on Lebanon to make use of democratic institutions, especially that it is a leading country in terms of democracy in the region.
Meanwhile, President Michel Sleiman told his Baabda visitors Thursday that the boycott was always futile and would have a negative impact on everyone.
The president also voiced satisfaction over the phone call between former Prime Minister Saad Hariri and PSP leader MP Walid Jumblatt and said the conversation between the two ended the misunderstanding that resulted from Jumblatt’s latest TV appearance.
Separately, government sources said appointments for an oil regulatory committee were likely to be a priority for the Cabinet in the coming phase.
Al-Akhbar
Kataeb goes against boycott decision?
On the eve of the arrival of the French president in Beirut, prominent stances emerged on the scene, mainly by Cardinal Beshara Rai who talked about disrupting [the work of] institutions and Marada Leader MP Sleiman Franjieh’s stances over President Michel Sleiman, the assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan and the elections.
Meanwhile, the Kataeb party gave assurances that it would attend the parliamentary sub-committee meetings to discuss the elections’ law. Kataeb deputy leader Sejaan Azzi said that March 14 was boycotting the Cabinet and the Parliament sessions which the government attends and not the meetings of the sub-committee tasked with discussing the electoral law.
However, a Future Movement lawmaker said the opposition’s boycott would still apply in such an instance. According to the politician, since Interior Minister Marwan Charbel, a representative of the Cabinet, will attend the sub-committee Tuesday session, his group will boycott the session.
Al-Joumhouria:
Sleiman discusses two Cabinet formulas, Jumblatt sticks to Mikati, and Hariri says [Mikati] should not run in polls
Amid the inter-Lebanese dispute that has deepened after the assassination of Brig Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, French President Francois Hollande arrives in Beirut Sunday to discuss the latest developments, including the Syrian crisis.
As the international community’s strict instructions over the need for a governmental change have become apparent to all parties, President Michel Sleiman has been consulting with PSP leader MP Walid Jumblatt and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri over two suggestions on new Cabinet formulas.
Sources said that Sleiman was trying to complete his consultations because the international community alluded to him that the matter was a race against time. However, the sources said it was still too early to say which formula could work.
The sources also said that Jumblatt is proposing to form a new Cabinet of centrists that would still be headed by Prime Minister Najib Mikati.
Meanwhile, other sources said that former Prime Minister Saad Hariri conveyed a message to relevant sides, saying he would accept a Cabinet chaired by Mikati provided the latter does not run in the upcoming parliamentary elections.

PM says March 14 preconditions only deepen crisis
November 03, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Prime Minister Najib Mikati said Saturday that setting preconditions to participating in National Dialogue aimed at entrenching the current government crisis, in a clear criticism of the March 14 opposition that has boycotted all dealings with the Cabinet. “Setting preconditions on resuming National Dialogue, called for by President Michel Sleiman, means some parties have clear intentions to take Lebanon toward further crises,” Mikati said after talks with EU Ambassador to Lebanon Angelina Eichhorst, according to a statement from his office.
Mikati said the opposition has the right to call for the resignation of the Cabinet and implement whatever steps it deems appropriate as long as they abide by the Constitution.
However, the prime Minister questioned the intentions behind March 14’s decision to boycott the Cabinet and wondered whether they were seeking to block the people’s interests.
The March 14 coalition called this week on Mikati to resign over the Oct. 19 assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who headed the police’s Information Branch since its inception in 2006.
The opposition, which blames Syria for the killing and holds Mikati’s Cabinet responsible, declared it would boycott the government and any political activity it is involved in.
The March 14 alliance also said it would not resume all-party talks until Mikati tendered his resignation.
Mikati Saturday reiterated the need for parties to come together to safeguard the country given regional developments.
“All sides must come together and discuss how to strengthen Lebanon in light of the crises surrounding it,” Mikati said.
Lebanon faces a risk of a spillover of the crisis in Syria, a divisive issue between the rival March 8 and March 14 groups.
For her part, Eichhorst reiterated Europe’s support to Lebanon’s constitutional institutions and the efforts by President Michel Sleiman, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Mikati to help Lebanon out of the government crisis. She said the international community was willing to assist Lebanon in whatever way it could and that it has great confidence in the Lebanese people’s ability to overcome the crisis. Also Saturday, Mikati met with the head of the Higher Lebanese-Syrian Council Nasri Khoury.
Khoury also paid a visit to Sleiman for talks on the bilateral ties and the developments in Syria, a statement by the president press office said.

Wounded Fatah official dies at S. Lebanon hospital
November 03, 2012/Mohammed Zaatari The Daily Star /SIDON, Lebanon: A Fatah official who was shot and severely wounded earlier this week died of his wounds Saturday at a hospital in the southern coastal city of Sidon, sources told The Daily Star. Imad al-Saadi, a former member of the Palestinian Armed Struggle was severely wounded Thursday when a gunman fired several shots at him in the Akbara neighborhood of the eastern quarter of the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain al-Hilweh near Sidon. The sources said that Fatah officials are concerned his death might trigger clashes inside the camp, especially given that the head of the Palestinian National Security Forces, Sobhi Abu Arab, vowed to avenge his death. Security was beefed up at all Fatah offices in Ain al-Hilweh following the attack. Security sources said Friday that the Islamist group Jund al-Sham was likely behind the assassination attempt. Abu Arab called Friday on the Islamist movement to hand over the assailant after a meeting with the camp’s Follow-Up Committee at the headquarters of the National Security Forces. He said that Saadi represents not only Fatah but also an influential family with a record of social work within the Ain al-Hilweh camp, Lebanon’s largest refugee camp.

Kataeb in line with March 14, official says
November 03, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Kataeb deputy leader Sejaan Azzi said Saturday that his group is in line with the decisions of the March 14 coalition. “We are committed to the statement issued by the March 14 and we are in line with the coalition’s decision,” Azzi told The Daily Star. The Kataeb official said his party would attend the parliamentary sub-committee meetings to discuss the elections’ law “because the March 14’s statement didn’t mention boycotting the committee.” “March 14’s statement was clear... It said it will boycott the Cabinet and the parliamentary activities in which the government is involved.
“However the sub-committee is formed of eight lawmakers, divided between March 8 and March 14, and no Cabinet representative will attend it,” said Azzi.
“If a Cabinet representative attends the meeting, we will ask him to leave,” he added. The March 14 coalition said this week it would boycott the Cabinet and any political activity in which it is involved.
The Kataeb official said that the meetings of the sub-committee are of high importance because “it’s crucial to reach a new electoral law in order not to go back to the current 1960s law.”
As for dialogue, Azzi said the March 14 coalition’s statement did not reject outright all-party talks. “The March 14 statement was not a total no to dialogue,” Azzi said, adding that the Kataeb supports keeping contact among parties to preserve stability. Meanwhile, Future Parliamentary bloc MP Atef Majdalani told The Daily Star that the March 14 coalition would not attend the sub-committee meetings for “security reasons.” “MPs from the March 14 coalition are receiving death threats, so we are not as free to move around as other parties and that is why we are not attending the meetings,” Majdalani said.
As for the Kataeb stance toward dialogue, Majdalani said the “March 14 is not a totalitarian movement.”“However, a group includes different parties and opinions. All the coalition’s components agree on the basic principles and that is what matters most,” he added.He added that the March 14 statement said any dialogue would be futile before the political assassinations in the country stop and before the resignation of the Cabinet.

Franjieh says displeased with president’s Syria stances
November 03, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Marada movement leader MP Sleiman Franjieh said late Friday that President Michel Sleiman was not acting as an unbiased leader and voiced his dissatisfaction with the president’s recent stances.
“The president can’t be a judge. I am not pleased with Sleiman’s recent stances and I hope that his stances [against the Syrian regime] were a slip of a tongue [incident],” said Franjieh in an interview to Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television station. Franjieh said that “Sleiman was a reasonable leader. However, his recent stances have changed and the upcoming phase will prove whether he is really a moderate.”
The Marada leader was criticizing the president over his statements about the case of former Lebanese Minister Michel Samaha, who was accused of transferring explosives from Syria to Lebanon.
Samaha and a leading Syrian official were charged in August for planning attacks in Lebanon. "Sleiman has changed ever since the case of Samaha," said Franjieh. Sleiman has also condemned Syria’s repeated violations of Lebanese territory, which have heightened tensions along the border with Lebanon’s neighbor. The Marada movement leader also slammed the March 14 coalition for accusing Syria of being involved in the assassination of Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan, who was killed in a car bombing in Beirut last month.Franjieh added that the possibility of Israel being involved in Hasan’s killing should not be ruled out. He accused the March 14 alliance of taking advantage of Hasan's assassination in order to topple Prime Minister Najib Mikati's government.
“Blaming Mikati for Hasan's blood is a way to seize control over the Cabinet,” he said. “The March 14 alliance is not boycotting the government in order to topple it, but rather to form its own government or for the electoral law,” Franjieh added.

Lessons from a Forgotten War
Robert Satloff/Foreign Policy/Washington Institute
November 2, 2012
How America's first foray into the modern Arab world can help solve its current entanglements.
U.S. troops to North Africa...Fighting in Benghazi...Scandal over the president's handling of crisis in the Middle East...
These themes sound like they were lifted from the presidential foreign-policy debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. In fact, they are echoes of events that occurred 70 years ago next week, when American forces, along with their British allies, launched Operation Torch, the largest amphibious assault in history at the time and America's first foray into the uncertain terrain of the modern Arab world.
Circumstances were, of course, very different from what they are today. The world was at war and North Africa was a critical front in the global conflict. France, the region's main colonial power, held sway in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. Its collaborationist Vichy government, headed by Marshal Philippe Petain, worked closely with Nazi Germany. To the east, Fascist Italy controlled Libya, where Benghazi was a key target of back-and-forth fighting between Italian and British troops.
Torch, an operation few recall today, was the beginning of the end of World War II. Until that point, the allies were on defense; Torch was the first major U.S.-led offensive operation of the war. U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided that the effort to defeat Adolf Hitler, smash the Axis, and free Europe would begin on North African shores that had not seen U.S. troops since the days of the Barbary Corsairs in the early 19th century. The result was that from November 1942 to May 1943, the most important territory in the European theater of war was in Arab lands. This is where hundreds of thousands of Americans -- led by generals named Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, and Clark -- had their first taste of real battle.
Today, there are few reminders left that American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines once crisscrossed the region. Moreover, today's Middle East politics -- the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood, the emergence of vast numbers of salafis, the spread of jihadist cells and the still unfinished conflicts between rulers and ruled -- owes little to that brief but pivotal moment of American dominance. Still, decision-makers looking for solutions to the problems that confound the United States in the Middle East today would be wise to consider these five lessons from an American military engagement in the Arab world that was both among our most consequential and our most fleeting.
The importance of strategy: To many people, it made little sense to attack Casablanca, Algiers, and Oran at a time when it appeared as though the real fight was with the Germans across the English Channel. But Roosevelt and Churchill had a grand strategy to win the war. They understood that sound tactical decisions often meant that the shortest distance between two points was not a straight line, and that expending blood and treasure in North Africa so that Allied troops could cross to Italy and attack the soft underbelly of Axis-controlled Europe might be the most effective way to achieve victory.
Today, the urgency of defining a global strategy -- and determining where the Middle East fits within it -- still applies. Despite all the talk about the need to tilt America's strategic attention to Asia, it is impossible to wish away the threats and dangers emanating from the Middle East.
The contemporary Middle East analogue to Roosevelt and Churchill's strategy of using North Africa as a gateway to eventual victory in Europe is the Syria conflict and its link to the strategic competition against Iran. Like snatching North Africa from the Axis, toppling President Bashar al-Assad is likely to be an effective, if indirect, way to strike a blow against the ayatollahs. Achieving that goal has strategic consequences for which the United States should be willing to invest more assets -- and take more risks - than it is doing today.
The certainty of unintended consequences: The allies took less than four days to secure their objectives in Torch, quickly silencing Vichy guns along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts and roaring overland toward Tunisia. However, the North African campaign did not end with that swift and decisive Allied victory. To the contrary, the Anglo-American success convinced Hitler that he needed to stop the enemy advance before the Allies could make the leap across the Mediterranean to southern Europe. The result was the German invasion of Tunisia on Nov. 8, 1942. Within days, this led to a full-fledged Nazi occupation -- including the dispatch of thousands of Jews to forced labor camps -- and a grinding six-month battle between Allied and Axis forces for control of that tiny country at the northern tip of the African continent.
In today's Middle East, unintended consequences abound. Success against "al Qaeda central" did not end the threat of violent Sunni extremists, it only triggered a transformation that has seen al Qaeda affiliates sprout up from Mali to Benghazi to Sinai. And the heady optimism of Tahrir Square, praised by American leaders as an echo of the ideals of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. was the prelude to the Islamization of Arab politics, not the coming of a new Arab liberal age. The lesson -- which is not limited to the Middle East, of course -- is that one celebrates the first signs of triumph at one's peril. Real success takes time and persistence, and is often littered with losses and setbacks along the way.
Prioritizing is messy and even sordid -- but essential: Operation Torch had its own explosive political scandal -- the agreement ironed out by U.S. commanders and diplomats with the ranking Vichy officer in Algeria, Adm. Francois Darlan, to leave the pro-fascist, virulently anti-Semitic regime in place in exchange for safe passage of Allied troops across North Africa. Under this agreement, U.S. officers watched in silence as Vichy officers jailed the leaders of the largely Jewish underground network in Algiers who had risked their lives to make possible the allied entry into the city.
Roosevelt came under a barrage of criticism, especially from within his own party, for cutting what was derisively termed the "Darlan Deal," but he stayed the course. The president said he would "walk with the devil" himself to enable Allied troops to take the battle directly to the Germans in Tunisia, thereby shortening the war and saving American lives.
Prioritizing competing interests -- which in practice often means maintaining distasteful double standards -- is a fact of life for great powers, especially in times of war and conflict, as is the case in the Middle East today. While principle should define policy whenever possible, expediency is often deemed necessary. The key is not to let expediency become the "new normal." After Torch, it took a long, agonizing year, but Vichy's anti-Semitic laws were finally repealed in North Africa. Roosevelt's Pentagon famously decided not to bomb the railways to Auschwitz, but uneasiness with the Darlan Deal may have played a role in the decision to seek unconditional surrender from Nazi Germany.
In today's Middle East, for example, the United States opposes the spread of radical Sunni extremism. However, Washington still supports the radical Sunni extremists who govern Saudi Arabia and Qatar because of our larger interests in energy and the need to counter the threat of a hegemonic Iran. A lesson from Torch is that this emphasis on security interests should not forever trump the need to speak up loudly and forcefully on issues of principle, such as the values of personal freedom, free speech, and religious tolerance. America needs to find a time, a place, and a way to assert all its interests.
Gratitude will be fleeting, if it exists at all: Seventy years ago, Allied troops roared through North Africa and ended the occupation of local countries by the Vichy French, Nazi Germans and Fascist Italians. The cost was thousands of American dead, including the 2,841 laid to rest in the pristine grounds of the 27-acre U.S. military cemetery near Carthage; the names of another 3,724 are chiseled in stone as "missing." Some locals -- especially those who suffered personally under Axis rule -- were grateful for this sacrifice. However, the views of most were summed up by a Tunisian historian who I once asked to describe the scene in Tunis on the day the city was liberated. "Liberated?" he asked caustically. "What liberation? We went from German occupation back to French occupation."
Times haven't changed very much. U.S. forces saved Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's stranglehold, but the desert emirate votes against the United States at the United Nations about two-thirds of the time and has been among the most miserly Arab states when it comes to responding to American requests to support the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Iraq today has a chance to build a functioning democracy thanks to the United States, but it's hard to find a pro-U.S. politician in Baghdad -- let alone a nice word for what America did on behalf of the Iraqi people. And it is easier to find a ham sandwich in Mecca than a "thank you" for the billions in development assistance that the United States has provided Egypt over the past three decades.
But gratitude is not the metric of a wise policy. Americans didn't make the greatest sacrifice 70 years ago to win the love of North Africans, and that shouldn't be the goal of our policy in the Middle East today. National interest -- not high poll numbers, warm embraces or polite thank yous -- drove policy then, as it should now. Again, that doesn't mean America should be indifferent to Arab goals and aspirations. To the contrary, should Arab countries and their leaders succeed, with American help, at developing well-functioning economies with representative, inclusive, transparent systems of government, this is, in the long run, a big win for the United States. We just shouldn't expect a thank-you note.
We came, we fought, we went: American troops raced across North Africa in World War II as fast as they could because their goal was to jump across the Strait of Sicily to begin the long march to Rome and, eventually, Berlin. They had little interest in transforming politics and society along the way and therefore set up no post-conflict military governments, organized no U.S.-style elections, and handpicked no local leaders to hand the reins of power. The Pottery Barn rule -- "you break it, you buy it" -- did not apply; the first store didn't open its doors until 1950, anyway.
Today, in contrast, the United States is deeply involved in the political life of countries across the region -- sometimes because of our direct presence, aid and support; sometimes because of the lure of our culture; sometimes only because the conspiratorial nature of local political thinking inflates the role we play into a phantom reality which takes on an absurd but very real life of its own.
To be sure, there are places where the United States should embrace this connection as an opportunity and other places where we can't run from the responsibility even if we wanted to do so. But if there is a lesson to be drawn from America's experience seven decades ago, it is that Washington should, at times, be willing to hew more closely to the Torch-era model of defining interests, achieving objectives, and then saying a bientot.
In the "Arab spring" states of Egypt and Tunisia, for example, new leaders have a sense of entitlement that America owes them billions of dollars in assistance as compensation for our past support of pro-U.S. autocrats. In turn, some in Washington appear to have a breathless passion to "get on the right side of history" by rushing to "educate" oppositionists-turned-politicians who spent a lifetime condemning America, and to provide them with substantial support without a clear understanding of the quid pro quos involved.
While the era may have passed when America could have the strategic equivalent of a one-night stand -- close intimacy followed by a swift, no-regrets farewell -- our standing in many countries is likely to improve the more we expect local governments to win us over, not vice versa. This means projecting less eagerness and enthusiasm and more restraint and coolness.
Learning from history has its limits: Torch and its aftermath do not provide all the answers for the many facets of America's current involvement in the broader Middle East. After all, the North African campaign was essentially a two-dimensional military affair -- Allies versus Axis -- whereas today's Middle East is characterized by a multiplicity of actors in a complex and highly politicized environment. But the lessons this forgotten chapter of American engagement in the Arab world does offer -- from the importance of defining strategy to the prioritization of competing interests to the most effective way to engage local actors -- continue to resonate. Indeed, preventing the next American deaths in Benghazi could depend on learning from the legacy of the 2,841 buried in Carthage.
**Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.

Syria and the Next U.S. Administration
David Schenker/Washington Institute/November 1, 2012
Although Syria has long been a vexing policy issue for the United States, intervening after the election to help end the Assad regime should not be a difficult decision.
During a trip to Lebanon earlier this month, outspoken Druze leader Walid Jumblatt complained bitterly to me about the absence of a serious US policy that would end the senseless killing and destruction in Syria. Jumblatt was right. The Obama Administration's Syria policy since the beginning of the uprising has demonstrated a real lack of leadership and sense of urgency.
Even before the popular revolt, the Administration's policy of trying to diplomatically engage with the clearly irredeemable dictator was misguided. But over the last nineteen months, this early Administration misstep was compounded -- first by opposing the militarization of the intifada, then by focusing efforts on the hapless Syrian National Council, and later by outsourcing the lead on Syrian policy to the Turks, the French, and finally the United Nations.
The approach suggested a total misreading of the nature of the Assad regime and the trajectory of events on the ground in Syria.
In addition to the staggering cost in human lives and the loss of Syria's historical patrimony, the Obama Administration's inability until now to formulate and lead an effective response to the massacre has resulted in the radicalization, Islamization, and jihadization of the conflict, trends that may be difficult if not impossible to reverse.
To be fair, Syria -- under both Hafiz and Bashar -- has always been a tough nut to crack for US policymakers. In 2003 when I was responsible for Syria at the Pentagon during the Bush administration, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tasked me to come up with a strategy to "put more pressure on Syria," which was at the time flooding Iraq with insurgents. Prior to putting pen to paper, I consulted with then assistant secretary of defense, Peter Rodman, who had worked with Henry Kissinger in the Nixon and Ford Administrations. Rodman told me that Kissinger had tasked him with the same assignment in 1973.
In the end, while the Bush Administration levied a series of painful sanctions -- including particularly onerous actions against the Commercial Bank of Syria and the designation of Assad's cousin and money-man Rami Makhlouf -- and supported anti-Syrian Lebanese in their heroic efforts to end the brutal Syrian occupation, we never succeeded in changing Assad's reckless and murderous behavior.
Regardless of whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is elected on November 6th, the start of the next Administration presents an opportunity for a change in US policy on Syria.
The first step should be to end the gratuitous opposition to arming the Free Syrian Army. While Qatar and Saudi Arabia have done an important service in providing weapons to fuel the revolt, these states' penchant for arming Islamist militants -- who, after Assad's demise, will surely seek to change Syria's traditionally tolerant and moderate religious outlook -- serves neither Syrian nor American interests.
After the elections, Washington should take the lead in vetting and providing units of the Free Syrian Army with the weapons required to more quickly end the war. Governor Romney has already indicated that if elected, this would be his policy. It's possible that if re-elected, President Obama -- freed from electoral constraints -- might also move in this direction.
The logic is simple: the longer the fighting continues, the harder it will be to prevent violent retribution against ethnic and religious communities that perpetrated or were seen as supporting regime atrocities. At the same time, continued fighting all but assures a fragmented, chaotic post-Assad Syria dominated by well-armed -- and perhaps Islamist -- militias, a dangerous prospect in a state with one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the region.
Second, Washington should immediately implement a diplomatic initiative focused on establishing an Arab consensus in support of a no-fly zone patrolling the territory in northern Syria liberated from Assad. It should by now be clear that Russia and China are not going to end their opposition in the United Nations to concerted international action to protect the Syrian people. Absent this kind of so-called "international legitimacy," Arab support for military action would be helpful in encouraging a more forward-leading US policy.
Even better would be Arab leadership in establishing the no-fly zone and, eventually, a post-Assad peacekeeping force. After all, the Qatari, Emirati, and Jordanian Air Forces were deployed in the Libya conflict. Unlike Iraq, after Assad is dispatched, Arab states -- and not the US -- should be prepared to take the lead in investing their money and troops in post-war stabilization and rebuilding efforts.
Given the capabilities demonstrated in Libya, there is no reason the United States alone should bear both the burden and the risk in Syria. To wit, notwithstanding the generally applauded US military involvement in the Libyan revolution, experience suggests that the US would be both praised and cursed for helping to liberate Syria.
No doubt, historically Syria has been a vexing policy issue for the United States, but intervening now to help end the Assad regime should not be a difficult decision. Not only has the dictator massacred tens of thousands at home, he has undermined US interests in Lebanon and Israel and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Moreover, the fall of Assad would be a significant setback for the theocratic regime in Tehran. The provision of meaningful military support for the Syrian revolution would reflect both US humanitarian concerns and strategic interests. It is a policy that the next US President -- and Arab states -- should adopt.
*David Schenker is the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute.