LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 22 /12

Bible Quotation for today/
Mark 10/28-31: "Peter began to say to him, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you.’ Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.’"

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Protests are as mindless as anti-Islam film/By Salman Shaikh/CNN/ September 21/12
How the Arab Spring Killed Hezbollah/By: Thanassis Cambanis/The New Republic/September 21/12
America’s dangerous lethargy on Syria/Michael Young/Now Lebanon/ September 21/12
When imperialists happen to be Muslim/By Michael Young/The Daily Star/September 21/12
Don't waste your time with Syria/By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat/September 21/12

Protests are as mindless as anti-Islam film
By Salman Shaikh, Special to CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/shaikh-mideast-protesters/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
September 20, 2012/(CNN) -- To say that I am upset by the copycat violent protests spreading around the Arab and Muslim world would be an understatement. I want to protest against the protesters.
The mindless and criminal actions of a few in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and elsewhere, which have already led to the deaths of innocents, threaten to do a great deal of harm and seem never to make a sensible point. Like many other Muslims, I suspect, I have wrestled with the most appropriate response to that 14-minute trailer of trash produced by extremist, criminal -- yes, the "producer" apparently has a criminal record -- filmmakers in California. I have come down on the side of sanity.
For sure, as a Muslim, I am offended by those who recklessly and purposely denigrate my faith and those who share my faith. Certainly, some of the protesters represent the unemployed, the abused and the just plain forgotten in Arab and Islamic states that have been ruled by autocrats enjoying the patronage of Western governments.
It is also an obvious point for anyone living in this part of the world that virulent anti-Americanism is a driving force for what is happening today. U.S. policy in the region has bequeathed a fatal breakdown in trust between successive American administrations and Arabs and Muslims. An unjust and illegal Iraq war, a "war on terror" that spawned a whole new drone industry, Washington's double standards in promoting human rights in the region and its unflagging support for Israel in spite of an expanding occupation in Palestine have all contributed to that legacy.
As Arab states undergo a historic transformation, this breakdown in trust is having a devastating effect as the Obama administration wrestles with the right thing to do. Arabs, with the notable exception of most Libyans, give the U.S. very little credit for what it is doing and complain, as in Syria and Bahrain, about what it is not.
Wolfowitz on what Obama 'should've said'
Sudan protesters burn German embassy But absolutely none of the above should justify the violent protests sweeping the globe.
Instead, the violence of the protests has undermined our legitimate pain in the eyes of billions across the globe. The protests have reinforced those who seek to portray Muslims as wide-eyed extremists and Islam as an inherently intolerant, violent faith.
News: Free speech or incitement? French magazine runs cartoons of Mohammed
Worse still, they have detracted the attention of the world from the continuing slaughter in Syria. Last month was reportedly the most violent on record in all the Middle East's recent conflicts -- more so even than Iraq at the height of its civil war. Many Syrians on social media and elsewhere are asking themselves, rightfully, where are the protesters when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime continue to kill more than 150 men, women and children a day? And when his supporters continue to chant "There is no God but Bashar"?
If we are not careful, these protests could encourage the world to forget the so-called Arab Spring and turn away from the struggle for dignity, justice and opportunity that has driven people to demand change. Surely, that is the hope of their biggest supporters -- a mix of former regime elements, al Qaeda offshoots, other jihadists and Salafi political parties.
It is no coincidence that the protests first took root in weakened states, such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, which are in the early stages of democratic transitions. While not all the protesters may know it, their actions are helping those who want to derail those transitions.
That is why new governments in these countries must show zero tolerance for the violent challenge posed by these protesters. As they must surely know, they are engaged in a battle for the soul of their societies. There must be no hesitation, no equivocation and no nuance in dealing with such violent aggression.
In particular, President Mohamed Morsy of Egypt, an Islamist leader from the Muslim Brotherhood party, has to demonstrate the clear moral leadership that is required to steer his country to calmer waters. For many, his response to date and that of the Muslim Brotherhood has been troubling, illustrating both a lack of understanding of the United States and a desire to appease the demonstrators. It has shown a lack of confidence.
Morsy must realize that he is the president of Egypt, not simply a leader of the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party -- from which he actually resigned on taking office just a few months ago. The economy and international reputation of his country is suffering great damage, which he must urgently reverse. Although opinions about him are sharply divided, Morsy has the legitimacy to rally his people. He has the responsibility to insist on safeguarding the rule of law, without restricting new democratic freedoms.
The protesters must realize that we cannot continue to go through this kind of turmoil every time an ill-meaning hate-peddler decides to mock our faith. The idiocy and recklessness of the people behind "Innocence of Muslims" are without question. Sadly, those who continue to protest violently against them are acting just as stupidly.

Iran pours more troops into Syria, ready to target Israel from Syria and Lebanon
DEBKAfile Special Report September 20, 2012, Iran continues to fly military personnel and quantities of weapons into Syria by civilian aircraft which cut through Iraqi airspace, American intelligence sources disclosed early Thursday, Sept. 20. UN Secretary General Ban ki-Moon also said that, "Unfortunately, both [Syrian] sides, government and opposition forces, seem to be determined to see the end by military means."Clearly, Iran is augmenting its military involvement in the constantly escalating Syrian civil war, broadening it into a multinational conflict which threatens to drag Lebanon in, by means of the Iranian-Syrian ally, Hizballah. The UN Secretary General's statement implying that the two Syrian sides are determined to fight to the bitter end is echoed in Iran’s resolve to fight to the bitter end for Assad, on Syrian soil. Tehran is not hiding its actions. Sunday, Sept. 16, Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Commander Gen. Ali Jafari said openly that Al Qods Brigades units were present and operational in both Syria and Lebanon. No comment on this revelation has come from the US, Israel or Israel’s military (IDF) chiefs - notwithstanding its menacing import, namely, that Tehran is no longer hanging about and waiting for its nuclear program to be attacked in order to punish Israel, but is getting ready for a pre-emptive operation.
Still, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have chosen silence in the face of what any other nation would regard as a casus belli: the open deployment of enemy forces on its northern and eastern borders. This must have been the catalyst for the IDF’s surprise two-division strength drill Wednesday on Israel’s Golan border with Syria. But the IDF spokesman sounded almost apologetic when he explained that the exercise had nothing to do with the events in Syria or with Hizballah, and that it was no more than a routine drill for testing preparedness.
debkafile's military sources say that, in the current climate, no military operation by any army on the Syrian border – especially one of this magnitude – may be regarded as “routine.” Only a week ago, the Golani Brigade concluded a large military exercise in northern Israel including the Golan. That sort of frequency must have operational connotations: The IDF is evidently keeping the army on the move and in a constant state of readiness to fight a real war without delay on terrain made familiar by repeated war games.
IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz has a penchant for expressing himself through symbols, his method of overcoming the restrictions placed on his tongue by military and other constraints.
On New Year’s Eve last week, the general handed military correspondents a small gift: The Hebrew edition of the American writer Richard David Bach's "There's No Such Place as Far Away."
For the Golan drill Wednesday, he decided to attach Maj. Gen. (res.) Nati Sharoni, chief artillery officer in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, to his party of advisers and observers.
The book was a clear message to Tehran and doubting Thomases at home that the IDF is fully capable of an operation against Iran’s nuclear program and of successfully accomplishing any mission far from its shores. Gen. Sharoni’s presence at the Golan exercise, and the exercise itself, was a warning to Iran, Hizballah and Syria that they will be disappointed if they hope to catch Israel unready, as it was by the surprise attack which almost overcame the IDF 39 years ago before the tide of war was turned back against Egypt.

Lebanese Army soldiers, two officers injured in Beirut shooting
September 21, 2012 /The Lebanese Army said in a statement on Friday that several soldiers, including two officers, were injured when an army patrol came under fire in Beirut’s southern area of Ghobeiri.
The incident occurred during the pursuit of a suspect. The statement read that following the attack, an army patrol launched raids during which it apprehended several suspects involved in the shooting. However, it added that the search for the initial suspect was still ongoing.-NOW Lebanon

Security forces arrest Lebanon KFC attackers
September 20, 2012 /Security forces arrested on Thursday assailants involved in an attack on a KFC restaurant in North Lebanon’s Tripoli, the National News Agency reported. Protesters angered by an anti-Islam movie that denigrates the Prophet vandalized a KFC restaurant in Tripoli’s Al-Bohsas before setting it on fire last Friday. The NNA said that security forces stationed in Tripoli will reveal the detainees to media outlets on Friday morning before referring them to the relevant judicial authority. -NOW Lebanon

Israeli soldier, three gunmen killed in Egypt border attack
September 21, 2012 /An Israeli soldier and three militants who infiltrated from Egypt's Sinai Peninsula were killed in a clash along the border on Friday, the army said.
It said troops came under fire from gunmen who sneaked across the border, sparking a firefight which killed the three attackers.
An Israeli soldier was also killed and a second moderately injured, a military spokesperson said, confirming a report from Egyptian security sources in the Sinai."I can confirm he is dead," she said, without saying how he died or confirming Egyptian reports that one of the attackers had blown himself up. Friday's deadly ambush was the latest in a string of attempts by militants to sneak across the border and attack Israelis, with an army spokesperson saying that quick action by its troops had foiled "a very big terror attack."
The incident took place on the Israeli side of the frontier at a place called Har Harif which is almost half-way down Israel's 240-kilometre (150-mile) border with the Sinai.
"Three armed terrorist entered from the Sinai into Israel," army spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Avital Leibovich told reporters.
"They opened fire toward IDF [army] troops that were guarding the workers [building the fence] in that area. Another force that was nearby... rushed to the area and targeted those three terrorists," she said. "All three terrorists were killed."She said the gunmen were "very well armed and prepared" in terms of equipment. At least one was wearing an explosives belt, the army said.
"A very big terror attack was thwarted by the quick response of these soldiers," Leibovich said, ruling out the possibility that any other gunmen had infiltrated Israeli territory.
Egyptian security sources in Sinai said one of the attackers had died when he detonated an explosives belt he was wearing. Witnesses in the area said they heard an explosion followed by heavy gunfire.
In Israel, a spokesperson for Soroka hospital in the southern city of Beersheva said doctors were treating an injured soldier who had been airlifted from the site of the attack.
"One soldier is in moderate to serious condition with a stomach injury," said spokesperson Inbar Gutter.
Border security incidents have increased over the past 18 months as a wave of lawlessness has gripped the Sinai since the overthrow of veteran Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.
On August 5, Islamist militants staged a bloody ambush on an Egyptian security post, killing 16 border police before crashing an armored vehicle and a truck through the Israeli border fence where they were killed by troops.At least three militants on June 18 sneaked across the border from Sinai and ambushed two cars carrying Israeli construction workers, killing one and sparking a firefight with the army in which two of the gunmen died. The third fled back to Egypt.Israel has accused Gaza-based militants of using the Sinai as a launchpad for cross-border attacks and has demanded that Egypt crack down on Islamist elements in the lawless peninsula.In a bid to prevent such attacks, as well as the entry of illegal immigrants from Africa, Israel has been working on the construction of a massive steel barrier along its border with the Sinai.-AFP

How the Arab Spring Killed Hezbollah
Thanassis Cambanis/The New Republic
September 20, 2012
Hassan Nasrallah has always been more sophisticated than the caricatured nightmare featured in the breathless propaganda of Hezbollah’s many enemies. Even at his most noxious he usually managed to present himself as a man of principle. That’s why it was almost sad to see Nasrallah this week pandering like an old-time Arab despot to public anger over the misbegotten Prophet Mohammed YouTube clip.
“America, which uses the pretext of freedom of expression needs to understand that putting out the whole film will have very grave consequences around the world,” Nasrallah said at a Hezbollah rally on September 17, one of the exceedingly rare occasions on which he appeared in public since he went into hiding during the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. Though the message sounds militant, it was actually just a flailing attempt to catch up to developments elsewhere in the region. Hezbollah, which used to set the Arab world’s trends, now finds itself forced to opportunistically jump on the latest global Islamist bandwagon.
In fact, Hezbollah’s embrace of the controversy over the video marks a final stage of its speedy evolution from revolutionary militant resistance movement to Machiavellian establishment power center. Lebanon’s Party of God once literally threw bombs at those who stood in the way of its ideology, attacking powerful enemies like America and Israel as well as smaller rivals at home. Today, Hezbollah represents the very sort of power it used to oppose. It dominates Lebanese politics as the majority party, choosing the prime minister; it commands a formidable standing army; its complicity in domestic political assassinations no longer is credibly debated; and it remains comfortable with its deep, compromised embrace of Bashar Al-Assad’s criminal regime in Syria.
There’s no mystery here: Hezbollah has become essentially conservative, fearful of the status of its political interests and financial and military networks. The very fact that Nasrallah felt compelled to risk emerging from his underground safe haven suggests that he fears very seriously for his organization’s future. It’s a remarkable change for a movement that was once confident in its ideological rigor and in its ability to earn unparalleled popular support in the region.
IN THE FIRST two decades of Nasrallah’s stewardship, Lebanon’s Party of God transformed itself from a potent but small militant group, best known for spectacular terrorist attacks, into the driver of the Axis of Resistance, crafting a widely appealing message of nationalism and fearless self-reliance built on an uncompromising opposition to Israel and the United States. Just two years ago, Nasrallah was still crowing about an open war with Israel and was still reaping the political benefit of being seen as the sole Arab leader to stand up to the U.S. and Israel.
Today, of course, his critical patron in Syria is teetering, threatening to vastly curtail Hezbollah’s military power, and his source of money and weapons in Iran is distracted by sanctions, a feeble economy and its nuclear showdown with the West. More importantly, the Arab world is awash in genuine retail politics. Indeed, what ultimately broke Hezbollah’s monopoly on popular legitimacy—what ultimately put the Axis of Resistance to rest as a meaningful political or ideological bloc in the Middle East—were the Arab revolts.
Like any establishment power with too much to lose, Hezbollah has kept a distance from uprisings that empower competitors. Still, there is no denying that those rivals have risen throughout the region; fire-breathers and populists have taken position all along the political spectrum from the Islamist right to the secular-anarchist left.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood embraces many similar views to Hezbollah, without the call to violence and regional war. There are Salafi extremists running political parties, and there are secular nationalists who sound every bit as uncompromising as Hezbollah when it comes to Israel. To round out the picture, there are voices that oppose violence and endorse diplomacy and pluralistic electoral politics, again along all parts of the spectrum (although sadly, they form a minority). Even Hamas, one of the four pillars of the Axis, has quietly quit its alliance with Syria (and its reliance on Iranian money), gambling that a dignified and principled stand against Bashar Al-Assad will pay handsome long-term dividends in popularity and legitimacy.
Hezbollah, however, calculated that it had no such option. The Assad regime has long allowed Syria to serve as Hezbollah’s rear staging area. Weapons transit through the Damascus airport to Hezbollah training camps and depots. In times of war, trucks can ferry all manner of material into Lebanon from safe havens in Syria. Without Syria, Hezbollah could find itself isolated in the tiny confines of Lebanon, where about half the population detests Hezbollah and its project. For now, Hezbollah’s hard power is undiminished, but the future doesn’t look so secure for the Party of God.
And so, backed into a corner, Hezbollah has responded to the radical transformation of Arab politics much like American policy makers, improvising on an ad hoc basis. Hezbollah has doubled down on its anti-Israel and anti-American credentials, but has abandoned the more inclusive nationalistic part of its resistance credo that arguably propelled its meteoric rise and sustained power. Nasrallah used to unabashedly endorse any populist Arab movement that opposed dictatorship at home or Western ambitions abroad. Now, Hezbollah seems to pick and choose the occasions when justice matters: Yes for the Shia of Bahrain, less so for the citizens of Egypt, and not so much for the Sunnis of Syria. When Israel was occupying southern Lebanon or bombing its villages, and U.S.-backed tyrants were oppressing much of the region, the sense of a powerful, monolithic enemy united support behind Hezbollah. The new reality is patently more complex, with none of the old bugbears solely to blame for the Arab world’s woes. Without a villain, Hezbollah’s fundamental recipe for power and legitimacy loses its yeast.
Of course, Hezbollah has never become explicitly or exclusively sectarian. It has managed to maintain a tight, six-year alliance with Lebanon’s largest Christian party, Michael Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement. But this has never been an especially durable strategy. The contradictions are profound and irreconcilable. To some, Hezbollah is a pan-Arab guerilla front against Israel. To some it is a dogmatic Shia religious movement that sincerely embraces Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s theocratic theology. And to some, it is a shrewd and pragmatic political actor that knows how to make the trains run on time. Yet, it cannot be all of these things at once.
Hezbollah has never been free of such tensions and Nasrallah has always managed to masterfully hold the movement together despite them. As the disconnect has grown wider, however, the false narrative that Hezbollah uses to bridge the gap has grown ever more tenuous. It’s getting harder for even Hezbollah’s most committed supported to believe that Syria’s uprising is a foreign, American-backed plot to massacre innocents, create sectarian strife, and impose Israeli hegemony over the Levant. As the civil war next door spills ever more toxically across the border into Lebanon, claiming lives in Hezbollah’s neighborhoods, it has become impossible to maintain the charade of denial. As the nature of the Syrian regime’s brutality (and the cynicism with which Nasrallah has blessed it) begins to sink in, Hezbollah risks ending up looking more and more like a Shia sectarian movement, just another player in a polarized regional struggle.
If history is any guide, of course, Hezbollah will be nimble and adaptive, and use any circumstances possible to turn a bleak outlook to its advantage. Some holes, however, are too deep to climb out of. The fall of the House of Assad might be one of them. And, judging from his flailing, Nasrallah himself seems to know it.
Thanassis Cambanis is a fellow at The Century Foundation and author of A Privilege to Die. He is writing a book about efforts to create a new Egyptian order after Mubarak.

Tehran displays missiles capable of reaching Israel
Dudi Cohen, agencies/09.21.12/Ynetnews
Ahmadinejad opens military parade by saying anti-Islam film an Israeli-hatched plot 'to divide Muslims.' Air force chief warns that 'Zionist entity will cease to exist' if war breaks out Iran proudly paraded its military hardware in Tehran on Friday under the gaze of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who used the event to again defiantly lash out at the West and Israel. The display, involving thousands of military personnel, tanks and missiles borne on trucks, marked the anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Among the weapons on display were the surface-to-surface missile Qadr-F, which has a range of 2,000 kilometers (about 1,243 miles) and can reach Israel, and the Sajjil two-stage ballistic missile, which was not displayed in previous parades. It also has a 2,000-km range. The Fateh-110, Shahab-2 and Qiam missiles were also displayed.
During the parade, Iran's Revolution Guards Corps' Aerospace Commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh warned that the day a conflict begins, "the number of missiles launched would be more than the Zionists could imagine.
"If a conflict breaks out, the Zionist regime would be able to manage the beginning of the war, but the response and end would be in our hands, in which case the Zionist entity would cease to exist," the Fars news agency quoted the commander as saying.
Before the procession began the Iranian president lashed out at the West over an anti-Islam video produced in the United States and the publication of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed by a French satirical weekly.
Ahmadinejad said that "in return for (allowing) the ugliest insults to the divine messenger, they — the West — raise the slogan of respect for freedom of speech."
He asserted that this shows a double standard and "is clearly a deception." The Iranian leader spoke during a military parade Friday in Tehran.
The remarks come after a week of protests and riots by Muslims angered by the film that depicts Islam’s prophet as a womanizer, religious fraud and child molester. The violence has left at least 30 people dead.
He called the film an Israeli-hatched plot "to divide (Muslims) and spark sectarian conflict."
In the speech, which was broadcast on state television, Ahmadinejad said that Iran was using "the same spirit and belief in itself" shown in that war to "stand and defend its rights" today against pressure from world powers.
Iran is locked in a showdown with the UN Security Council over its controversial nuclear program.
The West, led by the United States, has tightened the vice on Iran by implementing crippling economic sanctions, while US ally Israel - the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear weapons state - has threatened air strikes on Iranian atomic facilities.
Ahmadinejad implicitly referred to his often expressed opinion that the Holocaust never happened to lambast the West for perceived selective censorship.
"They stand against a question about a historical incident... they threaten and put pressure on nations for posing the question while at the same time in regards to the obscenest insults to the human sanctities and prophets... they shout adherence to freedom (of expression)," he said.
Ahmadinejad's stance challenging the facts surrounding the Holocaust is shared by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the country's commander-in-chief.
Early this week, Khamenei told naval cadets: "In some Western countries, no one dares to question the unknown incident of the Holocaust or for that matter some of the morally obscene policies like homosexuality... but insulting Islam and its sanctities under the pretext of freedom of expression is allowed."

Lebanon's Arabic press digest - Sept. 21, 2012 September 21, 2012
The Daily Star
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese newspapers Friday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports.
Al-Mustaqbal
Siniora demands Hezbollah pledge to not use its weapons for non-Lebanese objectives
Sleiman strategy: No resistance without occupation
A National Dialogue session convened Thursday under President Michel Sleiman, who presented his views on a defense strategy to be discussed at the next meeting, scheduled for Nov. 12 after each party had examined it.
Sleiman’s views focused on three points: the risks, most notably posed by the Israeli enemy, terrorism and the proliferation among citizens; dealing with these dangers through strengthening the capabilities of the state and developing its potential to resist any attack on Lebanese territory; and determining the pillars of the strategy, most notably providing the Lebanese Army with the appropriate weaponry to carry out its tasks.
For his part, head of the Future parliamentary bloc Fouad Siniora said during all-party talks that his coalition does not accept that Lebanon become a “missile launch pad for other [countries]."
Siniora demanded that Hezbollah make a pledge to the Lebanese that it has no intention to use its arms for anything not in the interest of the country.
An-Nahar
Sleiman’s view on defense strategy: Resistance should be under the Army’s command
Signs of quiet objection from March 14 Forces
Precautionary measures today ahead of protests
New security steps in campaign to combat kidnapping
Under the influence of the quiet political atmosphere that prevailed following the Pope’s visit to Lebanon last week and the nationwide condemnation of the film and the cartoons insulting The Prophet Mohammad, a National Dialogue session convened at Baabda Palace yesterday. It ended with a quiet examination of Sleiman’s views regarding the defense strategy – even though early reactions to Sleiman’s views were generally negative, particularly from March 14.
One can summarize the scenario put forward by President Sleiman as being that the fundamental principle of the defense strategy is that the command belongs to the Lebanese Army while the role of the resistance and its weapons remains recognized.
As-Safir
Siniora: A collapsing government; Mikati: No to self-righteousness; Raad: Where are the Future Movement’s views?
Sleiman’s strategy: Smooth recipe ... for impossible equations
President Michel Sleiman kept his promise, and provided a theoretical framework for a national defense strategy without provoking any political party, building fantasies or challenging the balance of power.
Michel Sleiman appeared as he did during his march from the Army to the Presidency. He sets [realistic goals] and does not [strive for the impossible]. He realizes that he is dealing with a reality that was not crafted during his tenure – a reality inherited from the moment the plight of the Palestinians put Lebanon on the map of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Michel Sleiman acted as head of state and defender of the state. He decided to preserve Lebanon’s rights in line with the Constitution.
He also managed to [show] that the people did not resist out of love of resistance and weapons and death, but in defense of their land and their lives.
Al-Akhbar
March 14: Sleiman’s proposal in the "monologue" session empty
According to leaks of a National Dialogue meeting yesterday, one can describe the session as a “monologue.” The real dialogue was outside the hall, through media leaks and statements that came in response to President Michel Sleiman’s views on a defense strategy – which was not discussed Thursday, but postponed till Nov. 12.
A high-ranking March 14 official, who took part in Thursday’s session, told Al-Akhbar that Sleiman’s proposal “offers nothing new. The document is empty. It neither angers March 14 nor delights March 8. It is just a call for dialogue.”

STL defense accuses the U.S. of political interference
September 21, 2012/By Willow Osgood/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Defense attorneys at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon accused the United States Thursday of interfering in the court’s work after the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on defendant Mustafa Badreddine. “The defense questions the rationale behind the timing of the sanctions, which do not appear, in so far as they concern Mr. Badreddine, to be related to any alleged support on his part to the Assad regime,” Badreddine’s attorneys said in a statement.
“Rather, having been adopted a few weeks after a date was set for trial in March 2013, the imposition of sanctions appears to be an attempt to influence the Tribunal, prejudicing the minds of the judiciary against Mr. Badreddine in advance of his impending trial and thus interfering with the proper administration of justice.”
Last week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new sanctions on Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah for allegedly providing support to the Syrian regime, as well as on Talal Hamiyah and Badreddine for supporting the party’s “terrorist activities.”
In its statement, the Treasury Department also mentions Badreddine’s indictment by the STL, which the defense argues is a demonstration of the U.S. government’s “scant regard for the presumption of innocence and for international criminal due process.
“It is notable that in the U.S. Treasury release there is no reference to the fact that Mr. Badreddine is presumed innocent of the charges brought by the STL prosecutor,” the attorneys added.
Badreddine, along with three other members of Hezbollah, was indicted by the U.N.-backed court in the 2005 attack that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The defense attorneys argued their defendant was unlikely to receive a fair trial since the United States, which referred to Badreddine as a “senior terrorist leader,” provides funding to court.
In response to the defense statement, the court rejected the suggestion that the U.S. could influence judicial proceedings.
“It does not matter that the U.S. has branded him ‘a senior terrorist leader.’ The only thing the judges make their decisions on is the evidence related to the attack on Feb. 14, 2005,” STL spokesman Marten Youssef told The Daily Star.
“There are 26 countries on five continents that support the tribunal financially. That support for the STL is strictly financial and stops there – there is no room for interference in the judicial process,” he added.
The defense also expressed concern that one of Badreddine’s attorneys, John Jones – a dual citizen of the U.S. and the U.K. – would be unable to continue his work because of the new sanctions.
By Thursday evening an exemption had been granted to allow Jones to continue as co-counsel for the defendant.
The four men accused by the STL remain at large and have had no contact with the attorneys appointed for them by the court

Anti-film protests kick off across Lebanon, security boosted
September 21, 2012/The Daily Star
SIDON/BEIRUT/TRIPOLI: Security was bolstered across the country Friday as protesters took to the streets to demonstrate against a film insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammad.
In the Ras al-Nabaa neighborhood of Beirut and in the southern coastal city of Sidon, angry protesters burned U.S. and Israeli flags, chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
In Sidon, Sheikh Maher Hammoud called on all Muslims capable of killing the filmmaker to do so.
“Every Muslim capable of killing the insulter of our religion, the producer of this film, should do so,” the sheikh said, comparing his fatwa to the one issued against Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses.”In 1989, Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared Rushdie's novel “blasphemous” and called for his death.
The Sidon protesters chanted slogans calling for the death of the filmmaker who produced “Innocence of Muslims,” the low-budget film that insults the prophet and has sparked a spate of demonstrations, some of which were violent, against U.S. and foreign missions around the world.
In Ras al-Nabaa, demonstrators carrying flags of the Youth Party for Arab Lebanon burned U.S. and Israeli flags, a few miles away from the French Embassy, which was closed Friday.
Three separate protests were planned for Friday: one in Beirut organized by Sheikh Ahmad Assir; another organized by Hezbollah in Baalbek, east Lebanon; and the third in the northern city of Tripoli.
The French Cultural Center closed its branches in the southern coastal city of Sidon as well as the northern city of Tripoli Friday. French schools across the country also closed Friday.
The French cultural centers had announced that they would close Friday, fearing protests in response to the publication Wednesday by French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo of cartoons depicting the prophet. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Wednesday that his government had stepped up security at embassies in countries where there could be a hostile reaction to the cartoons.
Last week in Tripoli, one protester was killed and 15 policemen were injured when stick-wielding and stone-throwing demonstrators protesting “Innocence of Muslims” clashed with Lebanese security. Protestors also set ablaze fast food establishments KFC and Hardee’s, which are housed in the same building.
Security around the American Embassy in Lebanon has been boosted since protests over the film erupted.
In a rare public appearance Monday, Hezbollah’s Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah warned of worldwide repercussions if the full version of the movie is released.
Currently, a 14-minute preview is available on YouTube, though it is inaccessible in several predominantly Muslim countries. With additional reporting by Mohammed Zaatari

Lebanon's President Michel Sleiman plan bridles Hezbollah arms
September 21, 2012/By Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BAABDA, Lebanon: President Michel Sleiman proposed to Lebanese leaders Thursday a national defense strategy that would allow Hezbollah to keep its arms but place them under the command of the Lebanese Army, which would have exclusive authority to use force.
Under the proposal, Hezbollah would not hand its arms over to the Army, as demanded by the March 14 coalition, nor would there be coordination between the resistance and the Army, the defense strategy that Hezbollah has backed.
Instead, the arms of the resistance would be used by the state until the Army could take over all defense responsibilities. The plan stipulates that the resistance would operate only in the event of occupation.
“In line with Article 65 of the Constitution and the law of National Defense and until the Army is provided with the appropriate power needed to handle its mission, an agreement [should be] reached on the appropriate frameworks and mechanisms to use resistance arms, to specify control over them and to put them under the command of the Army which has the exclusive right to use force,” says the proposal.
Sleiman’s plan, which he announced at Thursday’s National Dialogue session, calls for providing the Army with sufficient weapons, equipment and training to develop its human and military capacity to defend Lebanon’s land, airspace and sea.
According to the three-page proposal, Lebanon faces dangers from Israel, terrorist groups and the proliferation of arms among individuals, parties and Palestinian groups, which requires a defense strategy that has at its heart an Army capable of defending the state.
Forcing Israel to implement U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and boosting Lebanon’s presence in the international arena through diplomacy are among the strategy’s pillars.
According to the plan, Lebanon would take all steps needed to liberate Lebanese territories that are still under Israeli occupation and would follow the armistice agreement with Israel signed in 1949.
Copies of Sleiman’s proposal were distributed to Dialogue participants, who made brief comments on it before demanding time to study it carefully and make their remarks in the upcoming session, which is scheduled for Nov. 12.
During the talks, which lasted for almost two hours, former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora touched on recent remarks by Mohammad Ali Jaafari, the top commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, who said members of the elite force are in Lebanon as advisers.
The head of the Future parliamentary bloc said that before starting Dialogue, Hezbollah should assure the Lebanese that it has no intention to use its arms for anything not in the interest of the country.
“He [Jaafari] wanted to say by these remarks that the Revolutionary Guard has an armed presence in Lebanon and that Lebanon and Hezbollah’s arms could be used to threaten others and that Lebanon could be used as a bargaining card,” Siniora said.
“I want to clarify that we, like most of the Lebanese, strongly oppose any aggression against Iran by Israel or another state ... but at the same time we cannot accept that our country becomes a launching pad for a group, or as a land of confrontation between regional powers or to confront international powers,” Siniora said.
“Some will say that I am raising the issue and trying to exploit it and that the remarks of the head of the Revolutionary Guard were distorted ... but we did not hear a clear and honest denial by Hezbollah or assurances that its arms serve only Lebanese goals,” the Sidon lawmaker added.
Nabatieh MP Mohammad Raad, the head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, said that steps taken by Sleiman were enough in this regard.
Sleiman demanded official clarification from Tehran over Jaafari’s remarks during a meeting with Iran’s Ambassador to Lebanon Ghazanfar Roknabadi Monday.
Siniora also warned that Cabinet’s rushed handling of the economic situation in the country would backfire.
“Is it plausible that the Cabinet passed a new salary scale without being aware of its actual costs, as some ministers acknowledged?” Siniora asked.
The final statement issued following the session said: “Participants agreed to consider the proposal made by the president a starting point for discussion in a bid to agree on a national defense strategy that includes the issue of [Hezbollah’s] arms.”
Speaking to reporters following the session, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt said the talks were excellent, adding that discussing a national defense strategy requires time.
The PSP leader cited the time it took for the Irish Republic Army to give up its arms as an example of how difficult it can be for groups to come to a resolution.
“It took more than 15 years, if not 20 years ... in our case, every day there are Israeli threats and aggressions.”
“Everyone has his own remarks [on the defense strategy] ... matters are only resolved via a slow and constructive dialogue ... there are no miracles here,” Jumblatt said.
“It is maybe the first time that I speak [to reporters] following a Dialogue session ... the session today was excellent and calm and there was no tension at all,” Jumblatt said.
“The president presented to us a very important paper, which is not final but will be subject to discussion,” he added. “We finally started to address major topics.”
Future Movement MP Jean Ogassapian, speaking to The Daily Star following the talks, described the meeting with his rivals as “positive” and said that there were many points of agreement between Sleiman’s proposal and that of the March 14 coalition.
The opposition lawmaker acknowledged, however, that there are important differences with Sleiman’s proposal that center on the issue of who controls the resistance’s arsenal.
“President Sleiman suggested that Hezbollah keep its arms but [they] can only use them under the command of the state while we think the party’s arms should be handed in to the state,” Ogassapian said.
The lawmaker said the next Dialogue session would address this point.
Siniora and Sleiman held a closed-door meeting after the session.
Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh, who did not take part in the previous session, did not attend Thursday’s talks due to prior engagements outside Lebanon, while the head of the Lebanese Democratic Party, MP Talal Arslan, was absent for personal reasons. As in the previous three dialogue sessions, Future Movement leader MP Saad Hariri and Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea did not take part. – With additional reporting by Jana El Hassan

Bank robbery gang plotted terror attacks in Lebanon: source
September 20, 2012/The Daily Star
Intelligence members and army soldiers stand guard in front of BLOM Bank after an armed robbery at a branch northeast of Beirut, Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012. (The Daily Star/Hasan Shaaban)
BEIRUT: A four-member network involved in several bank robberies across Lebanon planned to carry out attacks against military and security leaders as well as judges, a source familiar with the case said Thursday. “The group was planning terrorist acts, including blowing up the Military Tribunal [court] in Beirut as well as attacks against security chiefs and judges,” the source told The Daily Star.
The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the armed group was “stealing money in order to fund these operations.”
The gang, which the source said is led by Mohammad J., was arrested last month in the southern city of Sidon.
In an Aug. 20 communiqué, the Lebanese Army said it had detained four men in Sidon.
The statement said some of the detainees were thought to be involved in the Aug. 9 armed robbery of BLOM bank in Elissar, northeast of Beirut.
Lebanese Army officer Zayyan al-Jurdi, who had intervened to thwart the break-in, was shot and seriously wounded.
It said several guns, ammunition, a quantity of drugs and cellular phones were seized from the suspects.
The source said the four suspects, who are still in the custody of Military Intelligence, are likely to be handed over soon to the Military Tribunal.

When imperialists happen to be Muslim
September 20, 2012/By Michael Young The Daily Star
It never ceases to amaze how Arab eyes are forever on the lookout for some manifestation of Western hegemonic intent or condescension toward the Arab world, and how this vigilance seems to breaks down whenever it involves non-Western states behaving the same way.
This comes to mind after the announcement Sunday by the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jaafari, that members of the Guard’s Quds force were present in Syria and Lebanon, albeit only as “advisers.” Imagine the sarcasm had Barack Obama said such a thing. Jaafari, against overwhelming evidence to the contrary, explained that the Revolutionary Guard’s presence “does not mean that we are militarily present [in Syria and Lebanon]. We offer advice and opinions based on our experience.”
Iran has never hidden its sense of neo-imperial entitlement in the Middle East, despite its claims to speak for the oppressed of the earth and to represent a bulwark against imperialism. Leaders in Tehran look upon their country as a natural regional dominator, and such thinking helps explain why they feel that they have a right to develop nuclear weapons, or at least the capability to build them.
Iran maintained an expansionist urge following the fall of the shah in 1979. Many regarded Iran’s regional militancy as reflecting a broad desire to lead a revolutionary global umma, or Muslim community. In fact, Iranian nationalism has repeatedly proved more powerful in influencing Tehran’s behavior in the Arab and Muslim worlds. And when Jaafari says that Iran offers “advice,” he means it will ensure that Syria and Lebanon serve Iran’s interests.
The Iranian-Israeli standoff over nuclear weapons is a tale of competing regional hegemonies. Israel seeks to maintain its monopoly over such weapons, while Iran means to end that monopoly. Both have a dangerously exaggerated sense of self-importance. Iran has threatened to engulf the region in flames if it is attacked, while Israel has sought to enlist the U.S. in an assault on Iran to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear capability, the dire consequences notwithstanding.
The Middle Eastern lexicon today fails to properly express that the impulse for regional domination is as strong among non-Western Muslim states as among Western states, if not more so. How odd, given that most of the empires ruling over what would become the modern Arab world were native to the region – Egyptian, Sassanid, Umayyad, Abbasid and Ottoman, to name the more obvious ones.
The story of the Arab world in the last decade has been one of increasing marginalization at the hands of its periphery, above all Iran, Turkey, and Israel, even if Israel’s superiority has been in relative decline when compared, let’s say, to what it was during the 1960s and 1970s. Great attention has been focused on the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which is usually interpreted as an instance of aggressive Western neo-imperialism. And yet how ironic that the Iraqi intervention allowed Iran to again throw its weight around regionally, thanks to the Bush administration’s removal of an old Iranian enemy in Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a Shiite-controlled order, many of whose representatives were close to Tehran.
Turkey, in turn, reacted to the European Union’s implicit rejection by looking for newfound relevance within its vicinity, and under an Islamist government no less. This has pleased some Arab states and displeased others. However, the Turkish aspiration for “zero problems with the neighbors,” as Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu envisaged it, proved absurd. As Turkey began advancing its core interests, these were always going to clash with the core interests of its neighbors.
It’s puzzling how many people in the Arab world appear more amenable to the regional ascendancy of Muslim states such as Iran or Turkey than to that of Western countries, above all the U.S. Puzzling not because consistency requires that they should embrace Western hegemony as well, but because it requires rejecting any form of hegemony whatsoever, whatever its origin.
There are Arabs who fear the rise of a Shiite Iran, just as there are others, mainly Shiites, who welcome this. By the same token, Turkey is frequently deemed by Sunnis to be a valuable counterweight to Iran, which cannot but displease certain Shiites. Sectarian discord has divided the Arabs, making it easier for Iran and Turkey, and others, to augment their authority at the Arabs’ expense.
Turkey and Iran are perhaps not as forceful as Western colonial powers were at the start of the last century. Still, Lebanon and Syria are close to being Iranian protectorates, and Turkey has never hesitated to enter Iraq or Syria to subdue the Kurds. When the two countries, and Israel, reflexively shape their surroundings in order to preserve their regional sway, this tells us that we are in the presence of domination not so different from the one once enforced by Western states. But then the West offers so much more convenient a target.
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

The General, the Mullah and military fantasies
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
What would Iran do if, as Benjamin Netanyahu threatens, it is attacked by Israel?
One man who should know is the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major-General Muhammad-Ali Aziz Jaafari. At a press conference last Sunday, Jaafari provided an unexpectedly detailed answer.
Last February, the general gave another talk in which he claimed that Iran faced the twin threat of Israeli air attacks and full invasion by the United States. Then he detailed his strategy for dealing with an American invasion through asymmetric war in Iranian provinces south of the Zagross mountain range. It now seems that Jaafari no longer believes that the US might invade, at least not as long as Barack Obama is in charge.
“The Zionist regime {i.e. Israel} has been trying to persuade America to take military action against Iran,” Jaafari said. “Our assessment is that {Israel} will not succeed.”However, the threat of Israeli military action remains and the general says he has a plan to deal with it.
His is an odd plan if only because it contains no provision for direct Iranian retaliation against Israel. The general says that, if attacked by Israel, Iran will respond by attacking US targets.
The general’s “strategic response” to an Israeli attack has four axes.
The first axe is diplomatic. The Islamic Republic will renounce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and accelerate uranium enrichment. This is what North Korea did in the 1990s in response to pressure by the United States.
Such a move, however, would be hard to justify on diplomatic grounds. Because Israel is not a signatory of the NPT its acts would not concern nations that are. By leaving the NPT Iran would antagonize nations that had nothing to do with the Israeli action.
The second axe is the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, to create an “oil panic” and damage the US economy. Israel will not be affected because it imports its oil from Nigeria, Angola and Gabon. Assuming that the general is capable of closing the strait, the nations most affected would be Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and - last but not least - Iran itself. The UAE is already exporting part of its oil through a new pipeline to Fujairah while Saudi Arabia maintains export facilities on the Red Sea.
Under international law, the closing of Hormuz would be an act of war and would oblige the United Nations’ Security Council to respond. The move would also put Iran in a state of war with Oman which controls the southern gateway to the strait. And if the “oil panic" does materialize Iran would face hostility from the 170 nations that are net importers of energy.
The third axe in Jaafari’s "strategic response" consists of “missile attacks” on US bases, military assets and economic interests in the region.
Jaafari boasted about IRGC’s success in developing new generations of the Zelzal (Earthquake) rockets with a range of 300 kilometers and the Raad (Thunder) missiles with a range of 27 kilometers. To these must be added Behpad drones fitted with Sadid (Barrier) rockets.
The arsenal unveiled by Jaafari is made of theatre weapons, that is to say arms for use in a limited area. If launched from Iranian territory none would reach Israel. But they could hit US “military assets” and economic interests in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman. The largest American-cum-NATO base in Incirlik in Turkey is also within range.
To sum up, Jaafari's strategy means putting Iran at war not only with the US but with most of its neighbors, not to mention oil-importing countries and the United Nations.
In other words, Jaafari's plan would put virtually the whole world on Israel's side against Iran.
Jaafari’s assumption that that the US would take no action to defend its “military assets" and economic interests against Iranian rocket and missile attacks is open to question.
It would be wiser to assume that the US, even under Obama, would be obliged to react in self-defense. And that would escalate the conflict to levels at which Jaafari's chances of winning would diminish by the hour.
Jaafari says Israel has failed to persuade America to take military action against Iran. His strategy would oblige the US to do exactly what Netanyahu is supposed to want.
Jaafari makes another big and dangerous assumption.
“Under no circumstances do we take into account the possibility of extensive American military retaliation against Iran,” he said.
And, why not?
“Because they know for sure they will be defeated,” he says.
This is irresponsible talk of the kind that the Japanese military used when they dragged their country into an unnecessary war with the United States.
Prudence dictates to assume that if Iran attacks US bases and kills Americans, Washington would retaliate with “extensive military action”.
But, what about Israel in all this?
The general says that he has subcontracted the whole thing to the Lebanese Hezbollah, a militia created by Iran in the 1980s. According to best estimates, Hezbollah has around 3,000 fighters, recruited and trained by IRGC for “asymmetric warfare”.
However, Jaafari does not count on those fighters. He pins his hopes on “thousands of rockets and missiles” that Iran has amassed in Lebanon for use against Israel.
Even supposing those missiles could be used with success the question of timing remains.
Will the missiles be unleashed before Israel has attacked and, presumably, destroyed Iran’s nuclear sites or after?
If they are unleashed before, we would have a different configuration. Israel would claim self-defense and move into Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah. An attack on Iran itself would be postponed until after Hezbollah is eliminated. If, however, the missiles are launched as an act of revenge after an Israeli attack on Iran they would serve little military purpose.
Before he was appointed IRGC Commander, Jaafari had a reputation as a tactician. Has he remained stuck at that level, unable to develop a strategic analysis of Iran’s options and capabilities and the threats it faces?
I doubt it. He is an intelligent man. If he depicts a world of military fantasies it is because his political allies, chiefly Ali Khamenei, have lost all contact with reality.

Asharq Al-Awsat talks to Hamas Deputy Leader Musa Abu-Marzuq
21/09/2012
By Saleh Jumaa
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat – In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Dr. Musa Abu-Marzuq, Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau spoke about the situation in the Gaza Strip, the prospects of inter-Palestinian reconciliation and elections. Musa Abu Marzuq also touched upon numerous other topics including Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi in Egypt, the worldwide Muslim protests against the US film that insulted the prophet and the killing of the US ambassador to Libya.
The following is the full text of the interview:
[Asharq Al-Awsat] There have been reports that Hamas is seeking to establish a diplomatic corps independent of the Palestinian Authority [PA] and Palestinian Liberation Organization [PLO]. What is the truth behind this issue?
[Abu-Marzuq] Hamas cadres taking part in diplomatic training courses does not mean that we intend to undertake independent diplomatic representation. Rather, all this means is that Hamas intends to train its cadres in all fields, including the diplomatic sector.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] President Mahmoud Abbas raised the issue of Palestinian representation at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran. What was the reason behind President Abbas's objection against the participation of Ismail Haniyeh’s government?
[Abu-Marzuq] The recent speech by President Abbas referred to the issue of Palestinian representation. He spoke in an inappropriate manner on this issue, particularly as Haniyeh had not been invited in his capacity as the representative of the PLO. The invitation was clear, and he was only invited as a private guest to the conference, therefore we do not know why he [Abbas] was so angry. Haniyeh has visited many countries and Abbas was not angered then. Haniyeh is not a “nobody”, as Abbas said, particularly as Abbas refuses to recognize any other [Palestinian] party, even though this party won the elections. If we are speaking about the side that enjoys legitimacy now, it is Haniyeh who is head of an elected government. Therefore, Abbas cannot cancel and sanction according to his wishes. This is something inappropriate, and this is the reason why Abbas was angry with Egypt’s stance. When Egypt says that it is the same distance from all Palestinian sides, Abbas says that there are no other Palestinian sides. We believe that the man [Abbas] needs glasses to see that there are Palestinian parties that enjoy legitimacy after winning the last elections held in the country.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] In your view, why is Abbas so angry?
[Abu-Marzuq] What angered Abbas is that Egypt is now serious regarding the issue of neutrality toward the Palestinian parties and their files. The talk that Egypt is the same distance from all Palestinian factions is not new in Egyptian foreign policy and this was said over many years. Former President Hosni Mubarak and later [Intelligence chief] Omar Suleiman would always repeat this; however Abbas was not angered by this then because this talk was not in line with the reality on the ground. At that time, Egypt was 100 percent biased toward the Palestinian National Authority and used to deal with Hamas as a fait accompli. However Abbas is now, during the presidency of Mohamed Mursi, witnessing a new form of seriousness regarding Egypt's neutrality toward the Palestine cause and its files. This is something that strongly angered him, although he has no right to be angered by this.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you not consider Hamas delegations carrying out foreign visits to represent a kind of duplication in terms of Palestinian diplomatic representation?
[Abu-Marzuq] There are countries that deal with Hamas and do not deal with the PA. We do not encourage this because we do not want to have duplication of representation in any way. However, the presence of a Hamas representative in any country is not considered duplication in representation. The PLO is the representative, and we are not seeking to be an alternative to this. However, in many countries there is a Fatah representative and a PLO representative, and nobody has spoken about duplication in representation. Abbas should read contemporary Palestinian history, as more than one country contains both a Fatah official and a PLO representative. This is very clear and unambiguous; Abbas should be more accurate when he speaks.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] President Abbas has raised the issue of tax clearance between the PA and Israel. What precisely did he mean by this and what are the dimensions of this issue?
[Abu-Marzuq] Abbas has spoken for the first time about the issue of clearance, and the people do not know about the issue; therefore, many people have been surprised and are wondering just what precisely Abbas is speaking about. The Zionist entity imposes a tax on all commodities that enters the Gaza Strip. This tax is relayed to the PA on the condition that the PA is in possession of the tax documents. This is true, however there are some tax documents that the PA is not in possession of and cannot reach, and these are in the possession of the Gaza government. Therefore, there tax documents are present in Gaza, and they can be exchanged for money, which is the right of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Israel refuses to deal with the Gaza Strip, and Hamas, whilst Hamas, for its part, refuses to deal with Israel. Therefore the only way to restore the money is through the PA. Hamas is prepared to restore this money via the PA, but the PA does not have the sufficient sense of responsibility to return this tax money, which by rights should return to the Gaza Strip. This issue has recently been settled, and they [the PA] were given a sum of more than 30 million shekels to create a mechanism to restore this money. However, they took the money and have not done anything for the Gaza Strip. According to the agreement, the money should be spent in the Gaza Strip, not anywhere else. This does not represent bias for one area at the expense of another.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] However, hasn’t President Abbas claimed that most of the PA's budget is being spent in the Gaza Strip?
[Abu-Marzuq] This is untrue. The whole of the PA's budget is spent in the West Bank, and nothing is spent in Gaza except salaries, which are estimated at 100 million shekels. This does not stand for more than 25 or 30 percent of their budget, not 48 percent as brother Abbas claimed. Furthermore, most of this money comes from the tax money collected from the Gaza Strip.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What are the latest developments regarding the issues of inter-Palestinian reconciliation and elections?
[Abu-Marzuq] Abbas said that no one can reject the elections as a means for the people to choose their leaders. This is the civilized way that is followed these days, and nobody can ignore it, whilst nobody has legitimacy without the legitimacy of the elections. However, this has nothing to do with restoring cohesion and ending the inter-Palestinian division. To be clear, this means the unity of the presidency. We have agreed that Abbas, who is president, would be the head of the Palestinian Government. However, he is the one who does not want to move forward and form this. We agreed to restore the Legislative Council and to work out a single budget and plan. These are the most important headlines related to the geographic and political unity between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
We believe that elections are unfeasible. This means that many questions are going to be raised, particularly as comprehensive elections would demonstrate the unity of the Palestinian people more than independent elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This would mean the renewal of the responsible Palestinian leadership that represents the Palestinian people. This also means electing a Palestine National Council, which is better than separate elections in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The second thing is would President Abbas be pleased to hold elections that exclude Jerusalem? This issue has yet to be resolved, and until this moment, Israeli rejects holding [Palestinian] elections there. In addition to this, there must be political freedom in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to ensure that any elections are free, honest, and transparent. This is something that has also not been achieved. The question that remains is: what if elections are held and Hamas wins, will we be allowed to operate politically or are obstacles going to be placed in our path, as happened following the 2006 elections when Hamas was deprived of its legitimate rights after people chose it?
Therefore, I believe that this is a pretext that should be set aside and people should go for direct talks, ignoring all the sensitivities and preconditions in order to end the Palestinian division and turn over a new page. I must also take this opportunity to note that we, in the national Palestinian arena, need to carry out a comprehensive review of the political track as a whole because Abbas has undoubtedly reached a dead end in terms of political settlements. Israel does not believe in the two-state solution at the present time, and it is simply waiting for the opportune moment to carry out a unilateral withdrawal. It will therefore leave the Palestinians in part of the West Bank, and they will not be able to do anything due to the influence of the [Israeli] security services, whilst they would also prevent any form of resistance in the West Bank.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] In your assessment, what is the real crisis in the Palestinian arena?
[Abu-Marzuq] We have a problem regarding the national project…we need to work according to an agreed-upon national project, and I think this task will be the priority following the formation of an elected or agreed-upon Palestine National Council. The second task is to resolve the problems related to the clash of programs, particularly since we have tried all the existing programs and the political settlement option is powerless and cannot lead the Palestinian people to what they want. We are facing a Palestinian Spring, and this spring will be a good omen for the Palestine Cause in the future. The Palestinian arena should be prepared to receive the results of the Palestinian Spring in a unified and strong manner, as well as a political vision through which we can achieve the national objectives that we have decided for ourselves.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think that Hamas’s relations with Egypt improved after President Mursi took office?
[Abu-Marzuq] Egypt acts on the basis of its national interests, and I believe that in the most recent period, the tunnels [between Gaza and Egypt] have been closed in a manner that they were not during the Mubarak era even. The [Palestinian] people have been clearly harmed by the closure of these tunnels, and this means that President Mursi is working – day and night – to serve his own country and its national security. Whilst it is true that he takes the Palestine question into consideration, his main concern at present is to solve the domestic problems that Egypt is facing. Thus far, and since President's Mursi's election victory, Egypt has not hosted any dialogue or reconciliation meeting. As for the halting of the operations of the Palestinian Election Commission, we took this decision before Mursi won the elections. [Asharq Al-Awsat] What about Egypt’s investigations into the killing of 16 officers and soldiers along the Gaza border? Has anybody in Gaza been implicated by this?
[Abu-Marzuq] Thus far, Egypt has not informed us of the involvement of a single Palestinian in that operation. Whilst DNA tests could not be performed [on the attackers] because the corpses were burnt. Furthermore, [the people in] the Gaza Strip are known, and if any person is missing for one or two days, everybody will notice his absence. As for the Palestinian security services, which are closely monitoring this case, we informed the Egyptian side that we have thus far not discovered any suspicious absences in the Gaza Strip since the incident, and the whereabouts of all those who left are known.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Can you tell us if Egypt is seeking to promote any Palestinian reconciliation initiatives between Hamas and Fatah in the near future?
[Abu-Marzuq] We welcome Egypt playing a crucial and strong role in restoring Palestinian national unity and ending the state of division. This is something that we would welcome. Abbas should feel the same way, and so we are waiting to see what will happen. However, we believe that President Mursi will be very busy with foreign visits in the forthcoming period, and we believe that any Palestinian vision must be redrawn and redrafted in a way that serves the Palestinian cause and the future of Palestine as a whole.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Is hope in a Hamas – Fatah reconciliation dwindling, particularly following the increasingly divergent positions of the two parties?
[Abu-Marzuq] For the Palestinian people, reconciliation is a must. The Palestinian people cannot live whilst they are divided, politically and geographically. I believe that some minor issues will be overcome and Palestinian national unity will return as it was in the past. I only hope that this takes place within its wider framework, which is the framework of the PLO and its establishments.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] In your opinion, why is Washington continuing to support Egypt and its new president, despite his different political and religious tendencies in comparison to his predecessor. In other words, why are they supporting Mursi, even though he is an Islamist?
[Abu-Marzuq] The Americans are pragmatic and cannot ignore their interests in any way, shape or form. However, they are trying to contain, absorb, and pressure, utilizing soft power, to reach their objectives. They are fully aware of what they are doing and where they are going, and they know that they must deal with the forces that are present on the scene. For them, relinquishing Egypt would be a great strategic loss for the United States. As for the Palestinians and the presence of the Islamists, this issue involves the Israeli side, so it is completely different.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Do you think that the United States' support for the Muslim Brotherhood is part of a strategy to support the Sunnis to confront Iran?
[Abu-Marzuq] Iran is a geographic reality that cannot be ignored or bypassed, and the Arabs – in their ethnic capacity –can only deal with the Persians as an ethnicity. The ummah [worldwide Muslim community] has no choice but to deal with all its components. Israel should remain the enemy, and there is no other enemy for the ummah. We should deal with others in accordance with an intellectual and strategic perspective.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] What is Hamas’s position on the amateur film that insults the prophet, peace be upon him? What is your stance on the killing of the US ambassador to Libya, which was said to be in retaliation to this?
[Abu-Marzuq] We strongly condemn and denounce the production and showing of the movie "Innocence of Muslims" in the United States, which insults Islam and the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. We consider this an attack on our holy images and symbols, and an insult to our religion. I call on the US administration to bring the producer of this film to account, and I call on the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC] and Arab League to adopt a firm and tough stance against this and file a law suit against those that produced and financed this film. This is because they are harming humanity as a whole by insulting the prophet, peace be upon him. However, and at the same time, we condemn the killing of the US ambassador and a number of US embassy employees in Benghazi because they were under our protection, and Islam prohibits attacks on ambassadors and those who are our guests and under our protection.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Has the problem regarding the Palestinian refugees who fled Syria and who are trying to return to Palestine been resolved?
[Abu-Marzuq] We have secured the entry of many of the Palestinians who fled Syria for Egypt into the Gaza Strip. A limited number remain in Egypt due to certain problems and issues, such as studying. They may remain in Cairo for up to one year, and then we will work to secure their entry into the Gaza Strip following this.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] Why is senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Zahhar visiting Iran?
[Abu-Marzuq] Dr al-Zahhar's visit to Tehran and his meetings with Iranian officials is part of talks on a number of issues, and he has been assigned this role by Hamas.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] When will the elections for the post of head of the Hamas Political Bureau be held?
[Abu-Marzuq] This will take place soon, and anyone in the [Hamas] Shura Council has the right to nominate themselves or anybody else for this position.
[Asharq Al-Awsat] You made a statement recently regarding the disturbances taking place in the West Bank and the possibility that they could spread to the Gaza Strip? What is your view of the situation now?
[Abu-Marzuq] I clearly stated that what is going on in the West Bank, in term of injustice, should not be restricted to the economic dimension, since the West Bank is under occupation, and this is the worst forms of injustice. The demonstrations should be staged against Israeli occupation, particularly as this is the cause of high prices, the lack of security and much more. The situation in the Gaza Strip is different since it is under siege. Therefore, the problems in the Gaza Strip are different from those in the West Bank, and if the residents of the Gaza Strip revolt, they will revolt against those who besiege them and not against those who are in government, particularly as the sides that are controlling the problems facing the people of Gaza such as water, electricity, and sewage are neighbouring countries, in addition to the enemy state, which used to supply the Gaza Strip with electricity, oil, and diesel directly. However, let it be known that we believe that citizens’ have the right to take to the street and express their views openly regarding what is happening in the political arena.

Don't waste your time with Syria!
By Emad El Din Adeeb/Asharq Alawsat
I do not think the Turkish-Iranian dialogue conducted in Cairo under Egyptian auspices will be of any benefit to Lakhdar Brahimi and his mission to settle the bloody conflict in Syria.
Here someone could say to me: The crisis in Syria has profound regional dimensions, meaning that dialogue between regional actors is an absolute necessity. Even if this meeting is unsuccessful, surely it will do no harm.
Yet the lesson one must learn from the art of crisis management is that there are substantial, fundamental questions that must be contemplated before a single step is taken in any direction. The questions are as follows:
1 – Are the relevant parties "aware" of the truth of the crisis?
2- Do the parties really "want" to resolve the crisis?
3- Can these parties afford to "pay" the bill of settling the crisis?
Here we are facing the trinity of awareness, desire and ability.
If this is the case, then without a doubt we have come to a complete impasse in the handling of the bloody struggle currently taking place in Syria.
The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is "aware" of the crisis only from a unilateral point of view. His awareness is inflicted with megalomania and misconceptions based on an alternate reality that is completely detached from what is happening on the ground.
As for the “desire” to reach a settlement, the will is there, but only on al-Assad’s own terms. This means that the ruling regime would remain in power, whereas the opposition alone would pay the full price for what has happened!
Here we come to the last point; the ability of the relevant parties to reach a settlement. Let me ignore all logic, realities and facts for a second, and suppose purely theoretically that President al-Assad is "aware" of the crisis from a completely objective standpoint, and that he has a sincere “desire” to reach a settlement. Having taken all this into consideration, the question that remains is: Does he have the "ability" to do so?
The decisive answer is "no and a thousand times no", because the decision is not in President al-Assad’s hands. Rather, it is in the hands of members of the al-Assad and Makhlouf families, senior figures in the Alawite sect, and the Sunni businessmen who adhere to the regime.
All the aforementioned have interests tied with the Syrian regime, and they will never let the opposition take over in its place. In fact, they would only accept change under one condition, namely that the current President al-Assad be replaced by another member of the same sect.
Therefore, regardless of Turkey's regional role and its geographic sensitivities towards Syria, and no matter how strong the strategic alliance between Tehran and Damascus, Bashar al-Assad’s "awareness", "desire" and "ability" are the decisive factors for any regional understanding.

America’s dangerous lethargy on Syria
Michael Young/Now Lebanon/ September 21, 2012
It’s up to President Obama to formulate a policy that shapes whatever happens in Syria to the advantage of the United States. (AFP photo)
Amid signs that Barack Obama is moving closer to winning a second term, one question that comes to mind is whether his victory might mean a better future for Syrians. The president has been inept and dishonest, neither formulating a cohesive policy toward Syria nor properly guarding against the repercussions of the absence of a policy.
One problem is that the Free Syrian Army is not benefiting from sufficient military assistance. Some argue that Turkey, with American encouragement, is preventing certain types of weapons from entering Syria, for fear that they will fall into the wrong hands. Others suggest the problem is principally poor organization or favoritism in the delivery of arms. Whatever the truth, this situation is ensuring that the carnage in Syria drags on for longer than it needs to. Is this intentional? Perhaps not, but the Obama administration cannot imagine that the Syrian rebels will interpret it in any other way.
The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, put it well earlier this week when he noted, “Unfortunately both sides, government and opposition forces, seem to be determined to see the end by military means.” Ban went on to say, “I think military means will not bring an answer.” He may be right, but Washington is neither here nor there on the matter. The Americans clearly believe that there is no political solution possible with President Bashar al-Assad, but have taken no steps to ensure that a military solution will succeed either.
Such dallying only makes more likely the exacerbation of violence, therefore the breakup of Syria. This cannot be desirable to the Americans. Syria’s disintegration would put considerable stress on other ethnically and religiously mixed societies in its vicinity, namely Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. Obama’s objective in avoiding direct American involvement in sending weapons to Syria, while also regulating weapons flows by others, is to avoid allowing a worsening of the conflict. Yet everything the president has done, by thwarting a decisive outcome, has only worsened the conflict.
Unfortunately the Americans are unlikely to soon change their approach, in light of the attacks on American diplomatic missions last week. The prevailing wisdom in Washington is that the Arab uprisings have only reinforced forces hostile to the United States, and that the administration’s decision last year to take a stance against autocratic regimes brought America few tangible benefits, or popularity.
In that context, the stilted America view may well be that Islamists will, once again, gain from outside assistance in Syria, even though there is, plainly, a struggle there between secular rebel groups on the one side and Islamist groups on the other. American intelligence officers are on the ground and must be aware of what is taking place. If so, it’s up to Obama to formulate a policy that shapes whatever happens in Syria to the advantage of the United States.
Then there is the fact that the administration’s lack of initiative in Syria is apparently allowing chaos to prevail in the arms-distribution process. This can only further increase the risks for Washington.
In a fascinating article for Time magazine, Rania Abouzeid chronicles the different agendas of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in getting weapons to the rebel forces. She describes “disorder and distrust” between Riyadh and Doha, noting that “the rift surfaced in August, with the alleged Saudi and Qatari representatives in charge of funneling free weaponry to the rebels clearly backing different factions among the groups--including various shades of secular and Islamist militias--under the broad umbrella that is the Free Syrian Army.”
According to Abouzeid, the Saudi effort is being run by Oqab Saqr, a Lebanese parliamentarian from the Future Movement (and someone formerly in charge of the Arabic section of NOW Lebanon). Saqr, who has denied participating in efforts to equip the rebels, has been criticized for showing favoritism toward certain groups. The Qataris, in turn, reportedly prefer to send arms to the regional military councils formed by the rebels for distribution. They are also apparently reinforcing groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, from whom the Saudis are staying away.
If Abouzeid is correct, then this is potentially very dangerous for the Americans. After all, the fragmentation of the rebel forces, especially over weapons, can create the same kind of pandemonium that the administration now regrets in Libya. It’s in such volatile environments that militant jihadists tend to thrive. That is precisely why the Obama administration has a vested interest in imposing order on the provision of arms, while also transferring weapons that provide the rebels with fundamental tactical advantages, for instance anti-aircraft missiles, so that the war can end quickly.
Washington was surprised by the revolutionary events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya last year. That shortcoming should be alarming enough not to be compounded by the utter absence of a strategy in Syria today. What is it with the Obama team? The Middle East will not simply drop off the American plate. Syria will get very much worse before getting better. If the Americans don’t want to absorb the backlash, then it’s time they end their hypocritical game of condemning Assad then doing nothing to push him out of office.
Michael Young is opinion editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon. He tweets @BeirutCalling.