Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for September 05 /12
Obama: Military option remains on table
Senior Israeli official: 'Iran information disturbing, not daunting'
Israeli PM: Clear red line could mitigate conflict
Political instability risks financial strength'
Israeli Security cabinet convenes for 10-hour Iran session
Israel: 300,000 disabled will be unprotected if war starts'
If Israel attacks Iran, US Mid East bases will pay dear – Nasrallah
Lebanon's Hezbollah denies possessing chemical weapons
Bahrain says uprising leaders had contact with Iran, Hezbollah
Egypt replaces tanks with armored vehicles in Sinai
Syria says no dialogue before it crushes rebels
Humanitarian challenges mount in Syria
Strained Syrian army calls up reserves; some flee
STL grants victim status to nine more individuals
French FM to Hariri: Paris fears Syria spillover
Blast in south Lebanon kills woman, wounds soldier
Lebanese Army to implement strict ban on weapons during pope’s visit
Lebanon: Hostage negotiator returns home as talks stall
Talks to free 10 Lebanese hostages in Syria snared by captors’ demands
Lebanese Army urges citizens to be vigilant
Lebanese Salvation Cabinet could save the country: sources
Lebanese Military judge summons editor over Samaha leak
Future bloc criticizes Lebanon’s PM “poor and shy” response to Syrian violations
March 14 asks Sleiman to request UNIFIL troops on Syria border
Hariri, Jumblatt bury the hatchet
Aoun voices skepticism over Syrian border violations

STL Pre-Trial Judge recognizes additional victims
September 4, 2012 /The Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s Pre-Trial Judge, Daniel Fransen, granted nine additional persons the status of victims participating in the “Ayyash et al” proceedings, a statement posted on the STL’s website read. “The nine victims will form part of the existing group of 58 victims whose status as victims participating in the proceedings Judge Fransen recognized in a decision in May 2012,” the statement added. According to the statement, Peter Haynes, who is the lead legal representative for the victims said that "the Pre-Trial Judge's decision to increase the number of participating victims is a timely reminder that, whatever motives lay behind the detonation of 14 February 2005, there remains a substantial body of people across the divides of politics or religion for whom the event was life-changing.” “For them the Tribunal's work in discovering the truth behind their loss is a vital belief to cling to," added Haynes.
The STL is probing the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Four Hezbollah members were indicted in the killing, but Hezbollah, which is mainly backed by Damascus and Tehran, has strongly denied the charges and refused to cooperate with the tribunal. -NOW Lebanon

Blast in south Lebanon kills woman, wounds soldier
September 04, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A woman was killed and Lebanese soldier was wounded Tuesday in south Lebanon as a result of an unspecified explosion, security sources told The Daily Star. The woman, Nada Hussein Ghannam, was killed next to Tarbikha gate in Marwahine, Tyre, south Lebanon near the border with Israel, the sources said, adding that she was declared dead after she was transported to a hospital in Bint Jbeil. A soldier was also lightly wounded in the explosion. A Ghanaian contingent belonging to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the Lebanese Army are conducting a search of the area and experts are trying to identify the nature of the explosion

March 14 asks Sleiman to request UNIFIL troops on Syria border
September 05, 2012/By Hussein Abdallah/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: In a petition to President Michel Sleiman Tuesday, the March 14 coalition called for the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers along the northern border with Syria in response to Damascus’ repeated violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.Syria’s Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdel-Karim Ali riposted that realizing such a demand was impossible.
The petition, handed by Future parliamentary bloc leader MP Fouad Siniora to Sleiman at Baabda Palace, also calls for the expulsion of Ali.
The memo, which was signed by 58 lawmakers, calls for the deployment of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon on the poorly demarcated northern border with Syria, which is estimated to be around 550 km long.
UNIFIL has been in south Lebanon since 1978 and was expanded after the 2006 war so peacekeepers could deploy along the border with Israel to help Lebanese troops extend their authority into the south for the first time in decades.
The memo also demands considering Ali a persona non grata “for playing a security and intelligence role rather than a diplomatic one” in his capacity as ambassador.
It also called for taking the case of former Information Minister Michel Samaha to the Judicial Council since “it is a crime against state security.”
The government’s deputy commissioner at the Military Tribunal accused Samaha and two Syrian army generals of plotting terror attacks in Lebanon and planning to assassinate religious and political figures.
Sources close to Sleiman told The Daily Star that the president had told Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi and Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem in a meeting on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran last week that the case of Samaha and the Syrian generals was in the hands of the Lebanese judiciary.
Sleiman told the Syrian officials he was interested in maintaining good relations with Damascus and President Bashar Assad, but was not willing to interfere with the judiciary on the case.
Ali told Al-Manar television it was impossible to deploy UNIFIL troops on the Lebanese-Syrian borders.
“The possibility of achieving this demand is zero,” he said, adding that the Lebanese government was the party concerned with responding to the March 14 memo. The U.N. is probing ways of assisting Lebanese authorities in controlling the border with its neighbor Syria, U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly said following discussions with Prime Minister Najib Mikati Tuesday.
“We, with donors, have been helping over a period of years but we are looking now with more urgency at what we can do to help the security authorities here in Lebanon to control the border as it should be,” Plumbly said in a statement released by his office when asked whether the U.N. had any intention to deploy peacekeepers along the border with Syria.
Plumbly also denounced the recent deadly gunbattles in the northern city of Tripoli and the spree of retaliatory kidnappings of Syrians and Turkish nationals in Lebanon and of Lebanese in Syria.
“We strongly hope that all those who have been kidnapped will be released without any further delay,” Plumbly said.
The March 14 memo also touched on the Tripoli clashes and a recent spate of kidnappings that rocked the country. It urged the government to meet and make an immediate decision to simultaneously disarm the Tripoli areas of Jabal Mohsen and Bab al-Tabbaneh, which have been the scene for clashes last month that claimed at least 16 lives and left over a 120 wounded.
The memo demanded that the government take all the necessary measures to free all those who were kidnapped in Lebanon and bring to justice whoever was responsible for the kidnappings.
UNIFIL representative Andrea Tenenti said that the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers on the border with Syria required the approval of the U.N. Security Council.
“The government’s request for UNIFIL’s assistance along the border with Syria is not enough – the approval of all 15 countries of the Security Council is needed,” Tenenti said.
“The UNIFIL mandate under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is very specific to the area between the Litani River and the Blue Line with Israel,” he added.
The call by opposition groups comes in response to repeated Syrian shelling of Lebanese border towns which at times has resulted in loss of innocent lives and material damage.
Mikati asked Lebanon’s Ambassador to Damascus Michel Khoury Monday to relay to Syrian officials objections over the shelling.
Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoabi denied Monday that any shelling had taken place, saying the Syrian army had had no part in any shelling of Lebanese border villages and that it had no intentions whatsoever to interfere in Lebanon. The March 14 memo urged Sleiman to bring up the issue of Syrian shelling of Lebanese border towns in Cabinet meetings as a first step to reporting “the violation” to the Arab League. The memo also called for suspending the Lebanese-Syrian Higher Council and canceling all security and judicial agreements between the two countries.
Commenting on the March 14 move, Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said the border area between Lebanon and Syria was not properly controlled, adding that the Syrian shelling could be in response to gunfire from the Lebanese side. “We need an explanation of the shelling on the border with Syria after which we can take a position on the issue,” Aoun said. “It is our duty to protect our citizens if they are subject to attack but we need to know first if the shelling is a reaction,” he added.

Hariri, Jumblatt bury the hatchet
September 05, 2012/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt discussed Tuesday night the tense domestic situation in addition to the uprising in Syria during a meeting in Paris, their first in 19 months. Hariri received Jumblatt, accompanied by his wife Noura, at his residence in the French capital, the former prime minister’s office said in a statement. The discussion, which continued over dinner, focused on the latest developments in Lebanon and the region. Also in attendance at the meeting, which was still ongoing as The Daily Star went to press, was Hariri’s chief of staff Nader Hariri. A senior PSP source had earlier told The Daily Star the meeting stems from the two leaders’ “keenness to preserve civil peace.”
“The PSP and the Future Movement have always maintained contact,” the source added. Another PSP source told The Daily Star that discussions between the two political leaders would tackle Syria’s uprising as well as the 2013 electoral draft law that was recently approved by Lebanon’s Cabinet and is due to be discussed by MPs. Jumblatt’s stance toward Hezbollah will also be discussed, the source added. While Hariri and Jumblatt both see eye-to-eye with regards to the 17-month-old unrest in Syria, having openly supported the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad, they differ on the level domestic issues. Jumblatt, in fact, still refuses to resign from the March 8-dominated Cabinet of Prime Minister Najib Mikati, which has come under attack from Hariri and his allies in the March 14 coalition.
“Jumblatt had made it clear among his circles that he intends to ally with the March 14 coalition during the upcoming elections,” the PSP source said, adding that Jumblatt had recently sent a representative to the Lebanese Forces’ Martyrs Commemoration Day Saturday as a gesture of goodwill. The source also said that the PSP leader’s meeting with Hariri would pave the way for a yet-to-be-announced meeting between Jumblatt and Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz.
The PSP leader’s ties with Saudi Arabia froze in early 2011 after he backed Najib Mikati to replace Hariri as prime minister after the resignation of March 8 ministers from the government. Several attempts by Jumblatt to restore ties with King Abdullah have so far been unsuccessful. However, during a Ramadan iftar in Chouf, Mount Lebanon, Jumblatt said his alliance with Hezbollah could not continue under the slogan of the “Army, people and resistance,” in a possible sign of relations deteriorating between the two sides.    The PSP leader has three ministers in the Lebanese government that is dominated by the Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition. Future parliamentary bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat told The Daily Star Tuesday that communication between Hariri and Jumblatt had never been entirely severed.
“Jumblatt’s recent stances on the Syrian uprising helped restore bridges with Hariri,” he said, adding that the PSP and Future Movement always agreed on the need for safeguarding the country’s stability. Jumblatt has been a vocal critic of the Syrian regime and has voiced support for the Syrian people’s demands for democratic change in their country.
Asked if the meeting was a prelude to bringing down Mikati’s Cabinet, Fatfat said: “This Cabinet was established upon a regional, Syrian decision, and it will come down in the same manner.”
As for a possible parliamentary alliance between Jumblatt and the March 14 coalition, Fatfat said, “It is still too early to talk about the 2013 polls, but it is known that both Hariri and Jumblatt have recently criticized the [draft electoral law based on] proportional representation.”President Michel Sleiman over the weekend signed the draft law, which was approved by the Cabinet in August. Hariri and Jumblatt have both criticized the bill, which divides Lebanon into 13 districts.

Bibi, Obama have lost it
Op-ed: Tension between US, Israel detrimental to campaign against Iran's nuclear program
Eytan Gilboa/Ynetnews
Anyone who is following the public exchanges between the US and Israel gets the impression that Obama and Netanyahu have lost it. Obama has contracted Bibi's well-known hysteria and feels the need to respond to every statement made by the Israeli premier, regardless of whether it is wise or shallow. He is acting as though the most important war is the one he is waging against Netanyahu, not the war he should be waging against Iran. And the Iranians? They are sitting in the stands, cracking sunflower seeds and mocking the boys who are playing before them. Obama's rage over what he sees as Netanyahu's support for Romney is driving him up the wall, but this is not how you stop Iran's nuclear program. While all of the Obama administration's spokespeople explain how supportive the president is of Israel and its security needs, his army chief, General Martin Dempsey, says he does not want US forces to take part in any Israeli strike in Iran, thus exposing Obama's reluctance to use force, even after elections are held in the US .
The same day Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the US indirectly conveyed a message to Iran – according to which it would not be dragged into hostilities if Iran refrains from retaliating against American interests in the event of an Israeli strike – another report, which was based on information that was leaked to the press, said the US plans to take military measures in the Gulf in order to threaten and deter Iran. At the same time, the White House spokesman denied that US-Israel relations were in a crisis and told Iran that while there is still time for diplomacy, "that window will not remain open forever."
So what should be done now? First of all, this war of words through the press must stop. It only serves Iranian interests. Obama's people are also displeased by these damaging verbal jabs and are discussing ways to calm Netanyahu down and prevent what they refer to as a premature Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear installations. Netanyahu, for his part, must secretly travel to Washington without waiting for his address at the UN General Assembly. He must meet with Obama and reach an agreement on the conditions that would give Israel more time and give the US and the international community a final opportunity to stop Iran without the use of force.
Israel cannot attack alone, without first reaching understandings with Washington. On the other hand, Jerusalem is not certain that the US would employ force even if it becomes clear that sanctions and diplomacy cannot stop Iran's nuclear program. Due to its superior military capabilities, the US' window of opportunity for striking Iran is much wider than Israel's. Therefore, one of the solutions is to provide Israel with capabilities it does not currently possess. This would broaden Israel's window of opportunity. The US may respond positively to such a request.
Secret negotiations and creative solutions would end to this foolish dispute and increase the level of uncertainty in Iran, as well as the pressure on its leaders.

Obama: Military option remains on table
Yitzhak Benhorin / 09.04.12/Ynetnews
Democratic Party convenes to approve new platform, which stresses president's commitment 'to use all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons' WASHINGTON – Recent tensions between Israel and the United States over a possible strike in Iran are infiltrating American politics and the presidential election campaign. The Democratic Party platform, which will be brought to the approval of the Democratic National Convention opening Tuesday in Charlotte, North Carolina, specifically mentions the option of a military attack on Iran – but only if all other moves aimed at curbing the Islamic Republic's nuclear program fail. The new platform notes that "President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution. At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options – including military force – remain on the table.
"But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime to live up to its obligations and rejoin the community of nations, or face the consequences.President Obama, working closely with our international partners and Congress, has put in place unprecedented sanctions against Iran," the Democratic Party's platform adds.
"Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon, but has continually failed to meet its obligations under the NPT and several United Nations Security Council resolutions, and it cannot demonstrate with any credibility that its program is peaceful.
"The president is committed to using all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
As the new document is being published, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have altered his own rhetoric, starting with a call on the international community to draw a line that would convince Iran it was determined to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear arms.
The military option is yet to be taken off the table, but for the first time in months the prime minister has allowed diplomacy to take center stage. While Israeli statesmen have alluded to sanctions and talks as the solution that could prevent an attack, Netanyahu maintained a combative narrative that all but deemed diplomacy obsolete.
Officials in the capital postulate that Netanyahu has realized that "the time has come to get off his high horse. The tension and the public spat over the media isn't doing any good."
According to the officials, the US has been waging an intensive psychological battle against an Israeli operation over the past few weeks, which included media leaks and effectively de-legitimized a military move by the Jewish state. The bottom line was delivered by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, who went as far as to say that he does not want "to be complicit if they (Israel) choose to do it."
The platform of the Democrats, who are convening for three days of a traditional election campaign celebration, asserts that "when President Obama took office, Iran was ascendant in the region, and the international community was divided over how to address Iran’s nuclear violations.
"The president’s early offer of engagement with Iran – quickly rebuffed by the regime – allowed the United States to expose Iranian intransigence and rally the international community as never before.
Despite several setbacks on the way, the Democrats argue that "working with our European allies and with Russia and China, the administration gained unprecedented agreement for the toughest ever UN sanctions against Iran, laying the foundation for additional national financial and energy sanctions imposed by the United States and other nations.
"As a result, Iran is now increasingly isolated and the regime faces crippling economic pressure – pressure that will only build over time."
The platform includes "an unshakable commitment to Israel’s security" and to increasing security assistance to the Jewish state despite budgetary constraints in the US.
The chapter discussing the Middle East relates mostly to Israel. "A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we share strategic interests, but also because we share common values." "For this reason," the document notes, "the president has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years." The Democratic platform further mentions that "the administration has also worked to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region. And we have deepened defense cooperation – including funding the Iron Dome system – to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.
"The president’s consistent support for Israel’s right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel’s security."Obama's party explains that "it is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state.
"At the same time, the president has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel’s security concerns are met."
In this context, the platform declares that "President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years. "And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements."

Senior Israeli official: 'Iran information disturbing, not daunting'
Attila Somfalvi/Ynetnews/ 09.04.12/Cabinet holds meeting on Iranian threat; members appear to disagree on exact time when Tehran's nuclear program may reach immunity zone
The Security Cabinet held a special meeting on the Iranian threat Tuesday night. "The information presented to the Cabinet was very disturbing, but it wasn’t too daunting," a senior official who participated in the meeting told Ynet. No operational decisions were made during the meeting. Cabinet members, however, seem to disagree on when exactly it could be determined that Iran's nuclear program has reached the zone of immunity – although it is clear that the Iranians are not only vigorously pursuing nuclear endeavors, but are also making sure to "clear up their tracks."
According to the official who spoke with Ynet, while the information Israel has on Iran's progress is troubling "It's not scary. The Iranians are relentlessly pursuing nuclear activities and they're not slowing down. "They are holding their own vis-à-vis the international pressure, but on the other hand, they're not running wild."
Israel, the source added, is in the midst of a "poker game" with the West, as it does not wish to see western nations procrastinate on the issue.
Israeli intelligence have presented a list of sanctions that have yet to be applied by the West, both because the United States desires to curb oil prices, and the objections mounted by China.
Israeli intelligence indicated that the sanctions imposed on Iran are crippling the Islamic Republic's economy, but have yet to bring the regime to its knees. Israel believes that further sanctions should be employed to bring Iran to yield. In August, an official Israeli source was quoted by the foreign media as saying that the eight-minister security forum – the body Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu consults with on security issues, but one devoid of any official authority – has not held "an actual debate" on the issue since October.
The past several days have seen Netanyahu tone-down the rhetoric on Iran, focusing on the international community's need to set a clear red line on the Iranian issue in order to avoid a military campaign.Sources in the Prime Minister's Office stressed that, "There is no change in Israel's position, just a clarification of the prime minister's position." Other than Netanyahu, the Security Cabinet comprises of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, Minister of Intelligence Services Dan Meridor, Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Yaalon, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, and ministers Eli Yishai, Ariel Atias, Uzi Landau, Gideon Saar and Silvan Shalom

Bahrain says uprising leaders had contact with Iran, Hezbollah
DUBAI, (Reuters) - Leaders of a Bahraini uprising last year, whose prison sentences were upheld by a court on Tuesday, were in "intelligence contact" with Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah, a public prosecution official said on Tuesday.
"It is established clearly to us from this verdict that some of the accused had relations and strived to have relations and intelligence contacts with a foreign organisation, which is Hezbollah, which works in the interests of Iran," Wael Boualai told a news conference, in comments carried by state media. Six of the 20 men whose sentences were upheld were found guilty of "intelligence contacts with foreign bodies". They were also jailed for offences including trying to overturn the system of government and violating the constitution. The 20 deny all charges against them, saying they wanted only democratic reform.

Cease the killing
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
It seems that every Arab, Western, or even UN official, including joint UN-Arab league envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, is saying: “The most important thing in Syria now is a ceasefire”. Yet this should cause observers and those concerned to be highly suspicious, and not expect anything practical or tangible to come from these efforts to deal with the plight of the uprising Syrian people at the hands of the tyrant Bashar al-Assad. It is not acceptable under any circumstances to say in the case of Syria: We must focus on achieving a ceasefire, because we must ensure that al-Assad stops killing the Syrian people for good. What is happening in Syria, plainly and simply, is that the repressive regime that dominates power there – in a country that claims to be governed by a “republican” political system – has been using warplanes, artillery and missiles in order to suppress the uprising for nearly 18 months. The people did not take up arms against the tyrant al-Assad and his gang in the early days of the revolution, as was the case in Libya; they did not even use Molotov cocktails. Rather it started out as a peaceful revolution that the al-Assad killing machine confronted with death and organized violence. This is not all, for since the outbreak of the revolution and up until today, the al-Assad regime has not put forth one soldier, let alone an officer, to stand trial for killing innocent human beings, committing abuses, and destroying the Syrian fabric as a whole, so how can anyone say that what is needed in Syria today is a ceasefire?
What is actually required is to stop al-Assad’s killing in Syria for good, and if an official actually said that then one would consider it a victory for the defenseless Syrian people, and believe that there are those looking out for the Syrian state and the protection of its social fabric. We should not try to portray al-Assad as one party and the rebels as another, as the Russian Foreign Minister is currently doing, especially when he says that demanding the al-Assad regime to initiate a ceasefire from its side only is naïve, and more like surrender! The real naivety is to justify the crimes of a regime like al-Assad’s that wants to rule through killings, injustice, abuse and the destruction of the country as a whole, rather than protecting civilians. As a result, the fabric of the Syrian state has become virtually impossible these days to maintain, let alone in the future. What the Syrians and the Arabs will remember for a long time is that Iran and Russia enabled Bashar al-Assad to kill the Syrian people and threaten the unity of the country as a whole. In order not to expose the vulnerable Syrian people to further tricks, whether from some countries in the region or elsewhere, we must reject the term “ceasefire” in Syria. What is correct, and more accurate, is to put a definitive end to al-Assad killing defenseless Syrian people, especially as we hear al-Assad’s Minister of Information yesterday defining the conditions of Mr. Brahimi’s mission, and heaping insults and accusations on the countries of the region while al-Assad’s forces run riot without mercy, or any form of deterrent, in Syria.

Bashar: In the footsteps of Saif Gaddafi
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid/Asharq Alawsat
This time last year Saif al-Islam Gaddafi hosted a group of journalists in the courtyard of the presidential palace in Bab al-Aziziyah, located in the Libyan capital. He appeared in front of his audience from inside his four wheel drive car, with a broad smile across his face, claiming that news of the Libyan rebels occupying the capital was nothing but lies, and offering to accompany the journalists on a tour of Tripoli’s neighborhoods. When someone asked him about the statement issued by a prosecutor in the International Criminal Court, claiming that he would face trial, Saif Gaddafi turned to him mockingly and said “to hell with the International Criminal Court”, and left without taking the reporters on the promised tour.
What happened next is well known. A day afterwards Tripoli fell, Muammar Gaddafi fled and was eventually found hiding in a drainage pipe, whilst Saif al-Islam was arrested trying to flee to Niger. Since his arrest last November, he has pleaded the International Criminal Court to prosecute him, rather than be tried in his own country, Libya, where he faces the death penalty.
Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian President besieged in his capital Damascus, is a lot like Saif Gaddafi, ridiculing the mission of the new UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and working hard to thwart it, despite the fact that it is his only lifeline today. The day will come when al-Assad pleads for Brahimi’s intervention and an international solution to save him. In the past, the Syrian President has engineered the failure of several missions, including those of the notorious Arab League chief observer Mustafa al-Dabi and the former UN-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan. In the latter case, despite the inclinations of the Syrian-Iranian position, al-Assad did not respond to any of the six points outlined to begin negotiations for a peaceful solution. Like Saif Gaddafi before him, al-Assad is probably declaring today: “To hell with Brahimi and the United Nations”. In fact, Brahimi already pre-empted al-Assad’s recklessness by revealing his fear that his mission will fail, recognizing it as a near-impossible task. He advised the Syrian President, whom he intends to meet next Saturday, that he has a significant responsibility to stop the violence of his forces in order to provide the opportunity for talks on a peaceful solution.
Brahimi can only succeed if the rebels succeed in advancing towards the capital and striking its vital centers. Then al-Assad will feel that his days are numbered and his only lifeline to escape from the presidential palace is this international envoy who is accepted by all international parties involved in the conflict. Currently, Bashar al-Assad feels he is protected by Russia and Iran, and able to mobilize about a quarter of a million troops and Shabiha forces to indiscriminately strike all regions without mercy. Yet this is his great illusion, for his forces are crumbling and the Russians will abandon him just as they abandoned Gaddafi.When the moment of truth comes, al-Assad’s only source of help will be Brahimi, but it will already be too late. The rebels and the Syrian people will not accept one of the worst criminals in modern Arab history escaping without being held to account. Al-Assad will find that no exit strategy or solution is acceptable to the the orphans, widows and the displaced. He will be left with the possibility of ending his life himself, as Hitler did, who caused the destruction of Germany and decided in the last days of World War II to kill himself and ordered his body to be burned. Al-Assad does not have the courage to shoot himself in the head or swallow a cyanide pill, thereby ending his life and the Syrian tragedy at the same time, so he will be doomed to the fate of Saif Gaddafi but will not find al-Dabi, Annan or Brahimi to save him.

Mursi: Not “aligned” with Iran
By Dr. Hamad Al-Majid/Asharq Alawsat
President Mursi’s visit to Iran was a “masterstroke”. True, the decision to visit in itself was controversial due to the fact that Iran is the main and strongest supporter of the al-Assad regime, which is committing the most horrific crimes against its own people in Syria. Yet in the eyes of his critics Mursi’s move shifted from a controversial decision to an impressive one after his speech at the Non-Aligned Movement summit, his outright condemnation of the al-Assad regime, and his support for the Syrian revolution to overthrow it. This foreign affairs masterstroke could not have happened were it not for the domestic masterstroke that preceded Mursi’s travel to Tehran, whereby the Egyptian President redressed the balance of his presidency by gathering up any loose ends and sacking his fiercest and most dangerous rivals. This first domestic strike gave him the confidence to deliver the latter strike on the international stage. Iran had intended to hold a conference of those “non-aligned” with the major states, whilst President Mursi used the opportunity to emphasize that Egypt is not “aligned” with Iran, and now many of his former critics have opted to side with him in support. By all accounts, Mursi’s rightful condemnation of the Syrian regime and his support for the people’s revolution to overthrow Bashar al-Assad is an indirect rebuke to Iran, which champions al-Assad’s injustice and supports him financially, militarily, internationally and in the media. Mursi drew a parallel between the suffering of the Palestinian and Syrian peoples, as a result of being suppressed by the Israeli and Syrian regimes respectively, and this was another masterstroke geared to evoke the Iranian revolution’s claim to support the disadvantaged and oppressed. As such it was not surprising to see confusion and embarrassment on the faces of the Iranian leadership because of Mursi’s surprising speech, and official translators became embroiled in a scandal by falsifying the words of a president and lying about what he said in broad daylight. During the speech they changed the word Syria to Bahrain and omitted Mursi’s references to the prophet’s companions. Indeed, these indirect sectarian exchanges resemble something of a cold war between Presidents Mursi and Ahmadinejad, for while the former praised all companions of the prophet, the later only praised “al-Muntajibin”, a select number of companions that are recognized under the Shiite doctrine and can be counted on one hand; a group that certainly does not include Abu Bakr, Omar or Othman, peace be upon them all. In my estimation, Mursi wanted to direct a strong message through his explicit praise of the caliphs, mentioning them all by name and describing them as “our masters”. He could have avoided this Shiite minefield, especially as he was in Tehran, the Shiite stronghold, and under the hospitality of the doctrine’s custodians, but by offering prayers to all the ahl al-Bayt [companions and relatives of the prophet], and by focusing on the names of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, it was as if Mursi was giving a lecture on the virtues of the prophet’s companions rather than a political speech at the Non-Aligned Movement summit. The Egyptian president was sending a message to the Iranian leadership, namely that the Muslim Brotherhood’s discourse, which discourages confrontation with followers of the Shiite sect and seeks to work with them in partnership, regardless of sectarian differences, has been exploited by Iran’s leaders in a depraved manner. Tehran has sought to cause a rift in Egypt’s harmonious sectarian fabric by proselytizing Shiism and increasing the number of Shiites there, in order to serve as a vehicle for Iranian political influence. This has actually happened in a large number of Sunni countries around the world, but Mursi wanted to stress the stature of Egypt and its weight, not only politically but also in an Islamic sense, and to say that Egypt alongside Saudi Arabia have the honor of defending the Sunni world that Iran is trying to penetrate and dismantle regularly.
The question of supporting and strengthening this Egyptian position towards Iran remains the most important in this context. Ideological rivalries must be put to one side within the new Egyptian leadership to promote a strong Egyptian stance towards Tehran, increase Iran’s isolation, and pressure the Syrian regime and its Iranian ally, as argued by the British newspaper The Independent. This stance towards Tehran, coming from one of the key symbols of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt, can serve to shake up the rest of the Brotherhood’s branches’ relations with Iran, especially Hamas. In short, the latest Egyptian position in Tehran is a golden opportunity to continue to exhaust Iranian influence in the Arab world, and then finish it off.

Lebanon is changing but …
Hazem Saghiyeh/Now Lebanon/ September 3, 2012
Since the start of the Syrian revolution, especially since the unmasking of Michel Samaha’s plans, a noticeable change has started to emerge with regard to the Lebanese political balance. For instance, it was not customary for Lebanon to say in the United Nations that “Lebanese sovereignty is being violated by Syrian shells launched by [Syrian] regular troops into the Lebanese territory, thus exposing innocent Lebanese citizens in border areas to extreme danger.” One would never have imagined that the headquarters of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Hamra would be surrounded, knowing that the SSNP is the closest local side to Damascus and the most reliant on its influence.
Hence, one might say that we are getting rid these days of the remnants of the [Syrian] custody nightmare, a process that had started with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. In the meantime, Hezbollah seems confused and does not have anything to say, not even to the Moqdad clan.
Yet the shifting balance may be costly on the political, security and economic levels if it does not go along with rational behavior that assimilates this change and deals positively with it in order to avert violence and draw closer to state building. No safe landing here means a crash landing for all of us.
The critical requirements of a safe landing can be epitomized in the following three missions:
- The random Sunni rise that coincided with the Syrian revolution should be organized and pruned. This means controlling its Sunni aspect to the benefit of its unifying Lebanese character, and mitigating its revengeful expressions. The previous years of oppression, which included the hegemony of Hezbollah’s weapons, are enough to explain this self-assertion. Yet, given its structure, the country cannot be built in the light of excessive assertions by any community that feels like arguing at any given time that it is victorious.
- It is necessary to lay the foundations of a non-racist rhetoric through which the Christian opposition can establish a difference between its opposition to the Syrian regime and its stance vis-à-vis Syria and the Syrian people. In reality, the protest that called for expelling the Syrian ambassador from Lebanon was absolutely not encouraging. Defending, reassuring and protecting the Syrians in Lebanon is nowadays an ethical mission and a cornerstone for a different Lebanese-Syrian future.
- The Shiite (and Alawite) community should be reassured that revenge tendencies are on no one’s agenda. The sick rhetoric about “Persians,” the “Persian project” and the “Safavid project” should be kept under control … While this is a permanent issue on the national and ethical levels, it is rendered even more pressing by the fact that a wounded Hezbollah may be more dangerous than a healthy Hezbollah. Winning the support of a sizeable portion of the Shiite community for the demand of the state’s exclusive control of weapons is, eventually, an essential condition to winning this battle.
By and large, enumerating missions is one thing and hoping for their achievement is, unfortunately, something else.
**This article is a translation of the original, which was posted on the NOW Arabic site on Sunday September 2, 2012

توقع ضرب ايران خلال اسابيع والإستعدادات جارير على قدم وساق. التقرير في اسفل يبين أن الضربة أصبحت حتمية وحزب الله سوف يورط لبنان دون أدنى شك كونه فيلق عسكري ايراني. كارثة فعلا أن ينتهي لبننا في هكذا وضع غريب عجيب
If Israel attacks Iran, US Mid East bases will pay dear – Nasrallah
http://www.debka.com/article/22331/If-Israel-attacks-Iran-US-Mid-East-bases-will-pay-dear-–-Nasrallah
DEBKAfile Special Report September 4, 2012/ Cutting through the US-Israeli debate over where to put “red lines” for Iran, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Monday night, Sept. 3 that Iran would hit US bases in the Middle East in response to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, even if the Americans were not involved in the attack.
Earlier Monday, the New York Times reported on the debate in the White House over whether US President Barack Obama should declare “red lines” for Iran beyond which the US would act, in response to Israel’s complaint that he has been too vague about how far Iran will be allowed to go.
But even if Obama did set a clear red line now, the NYT admits its credibility would be questionable: “The US and its allies have allowed Iran to cross seven previous red lines in 18 years."
The statement by the top US soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, last Thursday that America did not “want to be complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran was interpreted by the prime movers as meaning that US-Israeli discussions in the last two weeks on where to put the "red lines" were at an impasse.
In an attempt to contain the fallout from the Dempsey comment and put the dialogue back on track, the White House is sending CIA director David Petraeus to Jerusalem for more “red line” palaver with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
debkafile, which first disclosed his mission Sunday, Sept. 2, voiced doubts about his chances of success. Both parties to the debate know that the sands on a nuclear Iran are running out faster than they can talk. Roughly by the end of this month or early October, Iran will have enough 20-percent enriched uranium for its first nuclear bomb, overtaking any “red lines” and making them irrelevant.
Feeling the approaching heat, Netanyahu called a special cabinet meeting for Tuesday, Sept. 4 with the participation of the heads of Israel’s clandestine services, Military Intelligence, the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the Foreign Office Research Division, to hear their annual report.
It is likely to go on all day with updates on the situation in Syria, Egypt and Jordan – all weighty topics. But the agenda will certainly be topped with a detailed rundown on the current state of Iran’s nuclear program.
After that rundown, the prime minister and defense minister will enter the final decision-making stage on war against Iran.
At this critical moment, wit calculated timing, Petraeus is due to land in Israel.
Although the opponents of Netanyahu and Barak are fond of painting them as irresponsible adventurers ready to gamble with Israeli lives, it is Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has now raised the stakes in this game of dare and slapped down the highest cards.
The red line he instructed the head of Iran’s Lebanese surrogate Hizballah to lay down was unambiguous and designed to leap over the range of steps the US was planning short of war to “forestall an Israeli attack, while forcing the Iranians to take more seriously negotiations…”.
Nasrallah’s pitch took the scenario straight into stage one of the war to come: “If Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility,” he told the Beirut-based Al Mayadeen TV Monday night.
“A decision has been taken in Tehran to respond and the response will be very great,” he said, citing “Iranian officials.”
Nasrallah carried a triple message from Tehran to Washington and Jerusalem:
1. Iran believes an Israeli attack will take place before the US presidential election on Nov. 6;
2. Tehran is drawing on a powerful deterrent: Lest anyone expected a low-key Iranian response to an attack on its nuclear facilities, the Hizballah leader put them right when he said, “the response will be very great” and “America bears responsibility.”
3. By putting Nasrallah out front as a leading Iranian spokesman, Khamenei signaled that Hizballah would take an active role in the coming conflict.
debkafile: The chatter about “red lines” in the last few days has therefore had the effect of stirring the Iranians into preempting them by a single sharp stroke.

Crucifixions, Not Fictions
by Raymond Ibrahim/Investigative Project on Terrorism
September 4, 2012
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/12226/crucifixions-not-fictions
I recently wrote an article based on Arabic reports that Muslim Brotherhood supporters had crucified Morsi's opponents. Because it was picked up by several websites and disseminated far and wide, as usual, Islam's apologists and others claimed "hoax."
Readers sent me a couple of these articles which, upon further investigation, seem to be based on a National Post article titled "Egypt's 'crucifixion' hoax becomes an instant Internet myth" by one Jonathan Kay. He characterizes the crucifixion account as "a story worth dissecting—not because it's true (it isn't), but because it is a textbook example of how the Internet, once thought to be the perfect medium of truth-seeking, has been co-opted by culture warriors as a weapon to fire up the naïve masses with lies and urban legends."
Alternatively, dissecting Kay's claims is useful as it is a textbook example of how the Western mindset tries to rationalize away whatever does not fit its intellectual boundaries.
First, after mentioning the several websites that carried or quoted my article, Kay wondered how none of the "sources supply the original Sky reporting that purportedly outlines the facts." Then, he offers the following sentence as its own paragraph, apparently as something of an eye-opening revelation:
"That's because there is no Sky report on the subject."
Actually, this big "aha" moment was made earlier and by someone else—me, in my original article. After posting the names of several Arabic websites that carried the same verbatim quote from Sky News, I pointed out that Sky removed its original report. I did not have to make this point, or mention Sky News at all, since other reports—including El Balad, a much higher trafficked Arabic website which I also quoted—independently mentions the crucifixions in original language and further adds that two people died. And that report, as of now, is still up.
Kay then quotes a Sky News official who supposedly told him that the crucifixion claim
began on social media. It started getting pick-up from there and eventually reached us [Sky News]. Our reporters came across reports of the alleged crucifixions and a story very briefly appeared on the Sky News Arabia website. The story—which was taken down within minutes—was based on third-party reports and I am not aware that any of our reporters said or confirmed anything along the lines of what is quoted in the article… none of our correspondents confirmed this issue or commented on it.
Several points here:
First, Sky News admits to having published a story about crucifixions. Likewise, though it admits to taking it down, it never states that the crucifixion accounts are a "hoax" or even false. It simply offers no comment. This is not proof that the story is a hoax.
As for the claim that the report was "taken down within minutes," in fact, someone forwarded me the Sky News link almost two days before I actually clicked it, and the article was still up and written exactly like a report. Investigative reporter Patrick Poole sent me a clear snapshot of the webpage before it was removed, which is before me.
The title, "Protesters Crucified in Front of Presidential Palace in Egypt," is followed by the following standard reporting information: "Thursday, August 9, 3:19 am Abu Dhabi time; 11:19 pm Greenwich; Samir Umar [reporter], Cairo, Sky News Arabic," followed by the portion I originally translated: "A Sky News Arabic correspondent in Cairo confirmed that protestors belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others."
Moreover, the photo of the page shows 286 face book likes: one doubts that a report on a modestly trafficked website would reach that number if it was only up for mere minutes.
Kay also ignored the context of the crucifixions in my original article: Muslim Brotherhood supporters were brutalizing the media for constantly exposing the Islamist agenda—a well documented fact. A major news media facility was ransacked, popular anchors beat and terrorized. Soon thereafter, Brotherhood officials were appointed to "oversee" major media outlets in Egypt.
As I originally pointed out, Sky News may have "censored itself for fear that it would be next in the terror campaign against the media." If this is the case—if Sky News had removed its report on Brotherhood crucifixions in light of the fact that the Brotherhood was in the process of abusing and threatening the media—would it then get itself in deeper trouble by, of all things, telling a Western reporter, "Yes, the Brotherhood crucified people and we took the story down in fear of the Brotherhood"? Not likely.
Kay also writes: "If that [crucifixion] happened, wouldn't someone, you know, take a picture?... Maybe just a few shots with a cell phone camera from one of the tens of thousands of people who no doubt would have witnessed this Biblical horror in one of the most densely trafficked patches of real estate in the entire Arab world?"
One wonders if Kay has ever been around a wild pro-Sharia mob in Egypt savaging its opponents. It's not pretty; the usual instinct is to run for one's life, not take photos and thus further enrage the mobs by collecting evidence against them. Likewise, if photos were the ultimate criteria to validate reports, then over 90% of all news stories become suspect for not carrying pictures.
Even so, yet another reputable Arabic website, Dostor Watany, did post a graphic picture, which appeared in my original article. It depicts a man rescued by security forces, with one side of his body literally carved off. But apparently doubting Kay needs to see the actual holes in the victim's hands before he believes that the same Muslim Brotherhood supporters who mutilated this man could ever crucify someone. Moreover, the reports do not mention any numbers. Yet even if there were, as Kay asserts, "tens of thousands" of people present—and there weren't—that would still say very little.
Recall Egypt's Maspero Massacre: while the disconnected Western mainstream media was portraying it as violent Christians attacking Egyptian police, in fact, it was the Egyptian military slaughtering Christians, killing dozens and wounding hundreds, simply because they came out in large numbers to protest the constant destruction of their churches. And although there were several thousands of people present that night, only a very few amateur videos appeared showing armored-vehicles running over Christians—and these, too, I now see have been taken down from YouTube.
Kay's "evidence" culminates by quoting, of all things, a comment under one of the websites carrying my story, from someone who claims to be a Copt, lives near the area, and heard of no such occurrences.
Such is the sort of "proof" being relied on to "debunk" this story—as if this commenter could not be, say, a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer living up to the dictum of Islam's prophet, that "war is deceit."
All this leads to the most important point. Whereas Kay appears intent on proving that the crucifixions never happened, a close read of my article shows that I never said they did happen. As always, I merely reported and translated what was on the Arabic media; noted that Sky News took its story down; and then offered my own interpretation—including the fact that Muslims have been known to crucify their opponents in the modern era, crucifixions are prescribed by the Koran and Sharia, and an Egyptian parliamentarian recently called for crucifixions to be legalized.
In light of all the above, I reiterate my original conclusion: "there is little reason to doubt this crucifixion story."
Indeed, soon after this crucifixion story appeared in the Egyptian media, a disturbing video surfaced from Yemen, of a mutilated man, crucified.
How long before the usual naysayers try to portray even this video as a "hoax"?

Aoun voices skepticism over Syrian border violations
September 4, 2012 /Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun on Tuesday voiced skepticism over the violations of the Lebanese border by Syrian regime forces and called for a detailed report into the border incidents. “There are some who are infiltrating the border and opening fire from the Lebanese territories in the direction of Syria. On the other hand, the situation has reached the point whereby there are calls for severing the relations [with Syria] and cancelling agreements. We want a detailed investigation into what is happening at the border before we take a stance on the issue of the relations [with Syria],” Aoun said following his bloc’s weekly meeting. The lawmaker added that the March 14 coalition, which had handed Lebanese President Michel Suleiman a memorandum regarding the Syrian-Lebanese relations, should withdraw its document until official reports on the border incidents were published. The March 14 group on Tuesday called for the expulsion of Syria's ambassador to Beirut, accusing him of being behind kidnappings and attacks on Syrian activists in the country.
Regarding the debate surrounding the new electoral law based on proportionality, Aoun said that his bloc would be prepared to back a law based on smaller constituencies rather than middle-size ones.
“[My bloc] is prepared in parliament to back the idea of 15 constituencies instead of 13.”
Lebanon’s political circles are debating the adoption of a new electoral law based on proportional representation for the upcoming parliamentary elections in 2013.
Last month, the cabinet approved an electoral law based on proportionality and 13 electoral districts for the 2013 parliamentary elections. It seeks to replace the 1960 electoral law, which was based on simple majority representation. The parliament received the electoral proposal from the cabinet on Monday. Speaker Nabih Berri later transferred the draft law to the relevant parliamentary committees to discuss it, the National News Agency reported. Aoun also addressed the issue of the Lebanese nationals detained in Syrian prisons and commented on the release of Yaaqoub Chamoun who had been detained in Syria for 27 years. “Chamoun wasn’t detained in Syria, he was convicted and his name was not included in the list of the disappeared in Syria. He is a Syriac from Qamishli [in Syria] and he fought with the Kataeb Party [during Lebanon’s civil war] and received [military] training in Israel.”One of the longest serving Lebanese prisoners in Syria has been released after 27 years in jail and sent back to his homeland. The Beirut An-Nahar newspaper said last week that the relevant committees charged with the issue of Lebanese prisoners in Syria “discovered” a few days ago that the Syrian authorities had released Chamoun.-NOW Lebanon