LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 06/12

Bible Quotation for today/An evil and adulterous generation
Matthew 16/01-04: "The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, ‘When it is evening, you say, "It will be fair weather, for the sky is red." And in the morning, "It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening." You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.’ Then he left them and went away.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
Al-Assad is still digging/By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 05/12
Egypt's Sex Slave Marriage/By: Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute/July 05/12
To Wael and Hazem...again/By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat/July 05/12
Egypt: SCAF fulfilled its promise/By Hussein Shabokshi/Asharq Alawsat/July 05/12
Is this the time of the Islamists/By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat/July 05/12

Moscow may hand Iran S-300, breach arms embargo if Assad ousted
DEBKAfile Special Report July 5, 2012/ Moscow has removed the gloves in its defense of Syrian ruler Bashar Assad. Wednesday, July 4, senior official Ruslan Pukhov warned: “If the Syrian regime is changed by force or if Russia doesn't like the outcome, it most likely will respond by selling S-300s to Iran."
Pukhov, who sits on the Russian Defense Ministry’s advisory board and heads a defense affairs think tank in Moscow, added: "The fall of the Syrian government would significantly increase the chances of a strike on Iran. Resuming S-300 shipments to Iran may be a very timely decision."
Moscow has since 2010 withheld the S-300 air defense system from Iran at the request of the US and Israel. The Pukhov statement indicated that, just as that was the correct decision for the time, the strategic situation in the Middle East with regard to Syria and Iran has since changed, and so providing Iran with these weapons would be the timely decision now.
Kremlin strategic thinking on the region shifted radically in August 2011.
On August 8, two weeks before NATO and Arab forces drove the Libyan rebel invasion of Tripoli to oust Muammar Qaddafi, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, warned in an interview to the Russian Izvestia, "NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the regime of President Bashar Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran."
To this day, Moscow is certain that the same Western-Arab coalition will sooner or later intervene militarily in Syria and then move against Iran.
Sources in Washington and Jerusalem found evidence of that suspicion in comments made by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his visit to Israel on June 25. He is reported to have scattered vague threats indicating that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s overthrow would be treated by Moscow as violating Security Council resolutions and elicit Russia’s exit from the international arms embargo on the Syrian regime. Putin was not specific.
Russian S-300 missiles batteries would make the targeting of Iranian nuclear sites by US and Israeli warplanes difficult because that weapon is reputed to have a near-zero miss ratio for intercepting ballistic and cruise missiles – even when they come in at very low altitudes.
In late 2009, Moscow began sending Iran some of the technical accessories for the S-300 batteries while withholding the actual missiles and their control and radar systems, debkafile's military and intelligence sources report. During 2010 and the first half of 2011, Iranian teams were trained in their use at bases in Russia. Moscow continually assured Tehran that with patience, US-Israeli pressure would abate and the missiles could be released.
In any case, Israeli air crews are at bases in Greece training in counter-measures since developed to outwit the S-300, debkafile’s military sources disclose.
Tehran has tried to manufacture homemade equivalents to the S-300 on its own - drawing on the knowhow of Iranian military personnel trained in their use in Russia to form designer and construction teams working from blueprints provided during their training.
China, which has received these systems from Russia and is replicating them, was quietly approached by Iran for assistance. Beijing is reported to have handed over some of the technical materials but not the key blueprints for enabling their manufacture.
That is why Iranian generals often report progress in producing an air defense system similar to the Russian model and declare it will be operational by mid-2013, but have never displayed a homemade prototype.

MP Butros Harb says survived assassination attempt
July 05, 2012/By Dana Khraiche/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: MP Butros Harb said Thursday he survived an attempted assassination after two detonators were found on top of the elevator inside the Beirut building housing his office.
"This is not a message and not a matter of intimidation but an attempted assassination that [did not succeed],” Harb said in a statement, adding that the country cannot continue in its current chaotic state.
“It is time for the issue [of chaos] to be resolved in a serious manner. This issue should be discussed not because I was targeted by this attempt ... we should sound the alarm and say the country cannot continue this way,” he said. Head of Beirut police Brig. Gen. Deeb Tobayli confirmed Thursday that the detonators were found on top of the elevator in the building, which is located in Badaro, Beirut but denied the presence of an explosive device as reported earlier by local media.
The country's top three leaders, President Michel Sleiman, Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Speaker Nabih Berri, along with local and international figures condemned what they described as the attempted assassination of Harb. Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri, U.N. official Jeffrey Feltman and EU Ambassador to Lebanon Angelina Eichhorst telephoned Harb voicing condemnation of the incident, as did several Lebanese parliamentarians. Interior Minister Marwan Charbel's office said the minister phoned Harb and told him that the new means to assassinate politicians is to blow up their electronic elevators.
According to Harb's press office, members of his security team deemed the behavior of a group of people to be suspicious and moved to detain one of them. The man produced a dagger and a fight ensued.
A number of security personnel and doctors were injured in the fight, according to Harb's press office.
The security personnel subdued the man but before they could hand him over to the police, a BMW with tinted windows arrived at the scene. An armed man claiming to be with the Lebanese Army’s intelligence department emerged from the car, pointed his gun at the suspect and ordered him to get into the car, which sped away. Other vehicles arrived at the scene shortly thereafter but left when their occupants learned that the man had been taken away earlier. The vehicles drove away in the direction of the Beirut quarter of Tayyouneh.
Army intelligence reported that the first vehicle was stolen and that the license number was fake. During a talk with reporters at his residence in Hazmieh, Harb voiced pessimism over the ability of the judicial investigation to unearth anything tangible. The March 14 MP also said that Thursday’s incident and the attempted assassination of Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea in April should motivate the state to play its role and serve as an incentive for parties to lift the political cover they may be providing violators.
“With security turning into an operation requiring the consent of [political factions] and with the presence of weapons outside the jurisdiction of the state, it is only normal for the state to reach this kind of chaos,” Harb said in his statement.

Berri Laments Opposition Boycott of Parliament’s Meeting as EDL Contract Workers Crisis Soars
Naharnet/05 July 2012/The Parliament's Bureau Committee failed to convene on Thursday as the March 14-led opposition MPs boycotted the meeting pending a “comprehensive solution.”
MTV channel said that the opposition is demanding a solution for the parliament’s approval of Electricite du Liban’s contract workers’ full-time employment as political tensions soared over the controversial issue. Speaker Nabih Berri meanwhile told reporters that the March 14 MPs had demanded that a meeting for the Parliament Bureau Committee be held.
“They asked for the meeting and they did not attend, which is wrong,” he stated. He added that the MPs had requested the postponement of the meeting after news broke out of the failed assassination attempt against MP Butros Harb. “There is no boycott, but I was asked to postpone the meeting,” he explained. Berri stressed that he has been committed to parliament work for 20 years. “Whoever wants a problem is free to create one, but I am committed to the constitution,” he declared. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea had earlier stated that the March 14 MPs’ boycott is “an expression of their opposition to the way matters are being managed at parliament.” He made his remarks after holding talks with deputy Speaker Farid Makari.
“The only solution lies in reviewing the functioning of constitutional institutions, and in this case, parliament,” he noted.
Earlier, parliamentary sources told As Safir newspaper that the committee will endorse the minutes of Monday’s parliamentary session, as the majority of the members have voiced their support to the draft law on the contract workers. If the committee failed to approve the session’s minutes then the draft law would lose its grounds and become annulled.
According to al-Liwaa newspaper, consultations are ongoing between the March 14 forces and the March 8 coalition, separately, in an attempt to maintain the alliances intact.
Sources close to the March 14-led opposition accused Berri of mismanaging the parliamentary session as the cabinet failed to defend the proposal suggested by Energy Minister Jebran Bassil and didn’t object on the draft law. According to al-Liwaa daily, a meeting was held on Wednesday between al-Mustaqbal bloc MP Ahmed Fatfat, Lebanese Forces MP George Adwan and MP Marwan Hamadeh to agree on a united stance for the March 14 alliance. Hamadeh told As Safir newspaper that the coalition will discuss the available options to resolve the crisis.
“It would be better if we take the issue back to the parliament to resolve it away from any complications,” he said.
The solutions are based on three main options, As Safir newspaper reported. The first is voting again on the draft law at the parliament, which Berri has previously rejected, the second the possibility that President Michel Suleiman would refuse to ink the parliaments’ approval of the workers’ permanent employment or thirdly, challenging the draft law before the Constitutional Council.
Suleiman said on Wednesday that the parliament’s draft law wasn’t referred to him yet.
“I will study it; if it includes any gaps then we will discuss them… I can refer it back to the parliament and refuse to sign it which falls into my jurisdictions,” he pointed out.
The president is entitled not to sign the draft law and refer it back to the parliament; the matter then will have to be discussed by the Constitutional Council, which was established to supervise the constitutionality of laws. However, the Council can also return the draft law back to deputies.
On Tuesday, Berri decided to suspend the legislative session after the Change and Reform bloc, the Phalange party, Lebanese Forces, Ashrafiyeh and Zahle MPs boycotted the session to protest the parliament’s approval of EDL contract workers’ full-employment. The Christian MPs argue that the permanent employment of those workers would destabilize the sectarian balance at EDL as around 80 percent of them belong to non-Christian sects and most of them support Berri, who is a Shiite.

U.S. group: Lebanese banks laundering money
July 05, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: An anti-Iranian U.S. activist group is piling pressure on U.S. and European banks to dump their holding of Lebanese sovereign debt, describing Lebanon’s banking sector as a front for Iranian money laundering in cooperation with Hezbollah. "As a result of the actions and omissions of BDL [Lebanon’s Central Bank] and the LBS [Lebanese banking system], Lebanon has become a sovereign money laundering jurisdiction that receives massive inflows of illicit deposits ... from Hezbollah’s terror and criminal activities, and the illicit symbiotic relationships among Iran, Syria and Hezbollah,” said a press release issued Tuesday by the New York-based group United against Nuclear Iran.
The press release was quoting a May 28 letter by UANI CEO Mark D. Wallace to Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh.
UANI argued that despite Lebanon’s “great risk of sovereign default” due to its high debt to GDP ratio, Lebanese sovereign bonds showed “irrational strength” that corresponds with increased pressure against Iran. “The obvious risk of sovereign default is great – unless there is a fraudulent hidden scheme driven by Hezbollah and its state sponsors, Iran and Syria, to support this economic house of cards. There is exactly such a scheme,” the press release read. UANI is also pushing to bar Lebanese financial institutions from participating in the U.S. financial system, urging the U.S. Treasury to designate Lebanon’s financial system as a “money laundering concern” under a statute of the Patriot Act. The U.S. Treasury has intensified its scrutiny of Lebanon’s banks over the past few years in an attempt to crack down on Syrian and Iranian attempts to evade Western sanctions.
UANI said three financial firms have already confirmed that they have divested themselves of their holdings in Lebanese securities in recent months.
The firms are Ameriprise Financial Inc., Finland’s Aktia Bank, and Vienna-based Erste-Sparinvest KAG.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Ameriprise said its decision was made before receiving correspondence from UANI. It added that HSBC and DekaBank both contacted UANI and said they also were investigating the charges raised against Lebanon. Lebanese banks recently came under the spotlight once again after reports in the U.S. media said that four Lebanese individuals may have been involved in funding Hezbollah through illegal drug businesses.However, the secretary-general of the Association of Banks in Lebanon told The Daily Star Tuesday that the U.S. Treasury and American financial authorities did not produce any evidence that the Lebanese banking sector was involved with money laundering activities or terrorist funding.
“There are a number of articles published in prestigious U.S. newspapers that claim that some of our banks are hoarding illegal cash or getting involved in terrorist funding. [None of] these allegations were substantiated by their authors,” Makram Sader said. The U.S. Treasury blacklisted Lebanese Canadian Bank last year over charges of involvement in money laundering and connections to a terrorist group.
Several leading bankers have expressed their indignation over what they say is a campaign waged by U.S. newspapers to discredit the reputation of Lebanese lenders.
The country’s banking secrecy has attracted those who seek protection for their assets. Since 2001, Lebanese authorities have tightened supervision on accounts to ensure that there are no attempts to conduct illegal activities. For this purpose, Lebanon formed the Special Investigation Commission to investigate suspected accounts and to lift banking secrecy if the need arose.

Lebanon Internet blackout lingers
July 05, 2012/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Telecommunications Ministry said Thursday that a severing in the IMEWE cable caused the nation-wide Internet blackout. A statement released by the ministry said that the IMEWE cable – a submarine fiber optic cable linking Lebanon to international Internet capacities - was severed at a junction 50 kilometers from the coast of northern Egyptian city of Alexandria and affected eight other countries. The ministry added that they were working with the proper authorities in Egypt and Cyprus and in coordination with Ogero to rectify the situation.
The ministry has asked Ogero to distribute the remaining Internet capacity to all Internet users across Lebanon, both in the public and private sectors, according to the statement.
The ministry has also said that the launch of an emergency committee has been initiated in order to follow up on repairs and locate temporary solutions for Internet shortages.
Lebanon plunged once again into an Internet blackout Wednesday evening when the IMWE (India-Middle East-Western Europe).
Telecoms Minister Nicolas Sehanoui said that his ministry is currently negotiating with Cyprus to allow the passing of the cable through its waters.
“This is a very serious failure affecting some 350 links on IMEWE. Lebanon utilizes just two links,” Sehnaoui told The Daily Star Wednesday night, dismissing the possibility of completing repairs over the next 24 hours.Lebanon, the minister said, was among the few nations that rely entirely on a single submarine cable for Internet connectivity. “The lack of a redundant route makes the country completely vulnerable to such blackouts.”Sehnaoui added that his ministry would seek an urgent solution by linking Lebanon to Cyprus’ submarine Internet cables – ALEXANDROS and CADMOS – via the already existing cable infrastructure. But the temporary solution is unlikely to restore normal Internet connection speed and capacity.
A pre-scheduled upgrade conducted on IMEWE had caused a three-hour blackout Monday evening. But the maintenance works and the blackout Wednesday “are not at all related,” the minister said.
The Telecoms Ministry and Internet provider Ogero traded blame Tuesday over responsibility for informing the public about the planned works.

Merkel meets with Mikati, reiterates support for Lebanon
July 5, 2012/German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday after her meeting with Prime Minister Najib Mikati that her country would continue supporting Lebanon “through its participation in the UNIFIL,” Mikati ‘s press office reported. Merkel also reiterated her support for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which is investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
In turn, Mikati said that he discussed with the German chancellor his cabinet’s policy “aiming at keeping Lebanon away from the dangers and repercussions of the situation in the region, especially in Syria.”
“Mrs. Merkel voiced her understanding of Lebanon’s policy, [since] Germany is keen on Lebanon’s stability and [security],” Mikati added. Lebanon’s political scene is split between supporters of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regime, led by Hezbollah, and the pro-Western March 14 camp.
-NOW Lebanon

Future bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat criticizes Hezbollah’s silence over Jibril’s statements
July 5, 2012 /Future bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat said on Thursday that Hezbollah supports Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General command leader Ahmad Jibril’s statement, as shown by its silence over the latter’s warning that Iran and Hezbollah would fight alongside the Syrian regime if it was attacked by foreign forces. “Hezbollah approves what Jibril said… which means that the national dialogue and the discussion on a defense strategy are pointless,” Fatfat told Al-Akhbar al-Yawm news agency. Fatfat also said that Hezbollah’s decisions were based on the party’s “security agenda that extends beyond the Lebanese borders.”-NOW Lebanon

Change and Reform bloc MP Nabil Nicolas retorts to Qobeissy’s “shameful and condemnable” remarks
July 5, 2012/Change and Reform bloc MP Nabil Nicolas said in remarks published on Thursday that Development and Liberation bloc MP Hani Qobeissy’s statement describing the boycott of the parliament session as motivated by sectarianism was “shameful and condemnable.”“What Qobeissy said when he considered the situation in parliament as being close to a Christian-Muslim division is shameful and condemnable,” Nicolas told Kuwaiti daily Al-Anbaa, adding that these remarks “do not represent the point of view of those who opposed the draft law on Electricité Du Liban (EDL) hourly-wage workers.” “The consensus reached by the Christian [blocs in parliament] concerning the issue of permanently employing the EDL hourly-wage workers, despite their political differences, does not indicate that it is [burgeoning] into a sectarian parliamentary bloc in the face of blocs of opposite religious confessions,” he added.
The MP also said that the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) was not intending to destroy its ties with Hezbollah and denied media reports concerning a breakdown in relations between the two parties.
“I condemn some of the points of views voiced by MPs that stipulate that the sacrifices of the FPM from 2006 until today when it comes to supporting the Resistance and its weapons are not enough to confirm the Movement’s patriotism and non-sectarianism.”On Wednesday, Qobeissy said that some Christian lawmakers boycotted the morning’s parliamentary session for reasons motivated by sectarianism. The Kataeb, Lebanese Forces, Change and Reform bloc MPs boycotted Tuesday’s parliament session after the parliament on Monday approved a draft law to conduct an assessment for Electricité Du Liban hourly-wage employees to select those competent for hiring. Speaker Nabih Berri later postponed the session due to lack of quorum.
The Change and Reform bloc and the Development and Liberation bloc are both affiliated with the March 8 coalition which is spearheaded by Hezbollah.
-NOW Lebanon

Aoun Accuses Berri of ‘Hiding’ Draft-Laws, Says he ‘Liberated’ Hizbullah from FPM ‘Burden’
Naharnet/Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun accused Speaker Nabih Berri on Thursday of “hiding” the projects of Change and Reform bloc MPs proposed to parliament rather than pushing for their approval. Berri is “hiding our projects” in the drawers of parliamentary offices, Aoun told al-Akhbar daily about the failure of parliament to discuss several draft-laws proposed by his bloc’s lawmakers, including the establishment of a security committee, and resolving the issue of Lebanese who have escaped to Israel and of property ownership by foreigners.
Media reports have said that ties between the FPM chief and Berri, who are both allied with Hizbullah, deteriorated after the Change and Reform bloc accused the speaker of encouraging the parliament’s approval of a draft-law on the full-time employment of Electricite du Liban workers without considering the cabinet’s bill.
Monday’s approval of the draft-law forced three Christian blocs, including the Change and Reform, to boycott the parliamentary session on Tuesday, leading to its suspension.
The ministers loyal to Aoun also boycotted a cabinet session.
Aoun stressed to al-Akhbar that the boycott has nothing to do with sectarian divisions after several MPs argued that the EDL bill would lead to the underrepresentation of Christians in state institutions.
“We are talking about administrative, organizational and legal standards,” the lawmaker said.
About his ties with Hizbullah, Aoun reiterated that he backs the party as a resistance against Israel. But in politics, “it was proved that the FPM’s priorities are different than the priorities of Hizbullah,” he said.
“I am not saying that there has been a separation between us and the party. I am just saying that we liberated the party from the burden of an internal political approach that probably exhausts it or that it cannot tolerate,” Aoun said.
Al-Akhbar hinted that the agreement reached between the FPM and Hizbullah in 2006 was in tatters after the Shiite party stood as an “observer” when EDL’s contract workers launched a strike two months ago to demand their employment rather than standing beside Energy Minister Jebran Bassil, who is Aoun’s son-in-law.
FPM sources also accuse Hizbullah of not pressuring Berri into adopting several of the draft-laws proposed by Change and Reform bloc MPs.

Aoun says Jumblatt should “keep silent” over criticism of FPM
July 5, 2012 /Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said in remarks published on Thursday that Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblatt should “keep silent” following the latter’s criticism of Energy Minister Gebran Bassil’s electricity sector reform plans. “If he is unable to respond to the substance of what we [propose], let him keep silent for good,” Aoun told Al-Akhbar newspaper.
“I take pride in considering myself non-feudal… I might be the first in a dynasty [of non-feudals] while he is the last in a dynasty [of feudals],” he added. Aoun also criticized Speaker Nabih Berri accusing him of undermining the projects advanced by the Change and Reform bloc. “[I accuse Berri] of [undermining] the projects of the bloc despite the sacrifices made in recent months in order to maintain trust [between us and] Berri.” In June, Jumblatt lashed out at the FPM, holding it responsible for the electricity crisis in Lebanon. The Kataeb, Lebanese Forces, Change and Reform bloc MPs boycotted Tuesday’s parliament session after the parliament on Monday approved a draft law to conduct an assessment for Electricité Du Liban hourly-wage employees to select those competent for hiring. Speaker Nabih Berri later postponed the session due to lack of quorum.The FPM, members of which are in the Change and Reform bloc, is affiliated with the March 8 coalition which is spearheaded by Hezbollah.
-NOW Lebanon

Report: Top Syrian general, a close friend of Assad, defects and flees to Turkey
By Haaretz | Jul.05, 2012/Manaf Tlass, son of former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, fleed Syria two days ago. Manaf Tlass, the son of former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass and once a close friend of Syrian President Bashar Assad, has defected from the army and fled to Turkey, Al-Arabiya reported on Thursday. Manaf Tlass is a top ranking general in the Syrian army. Mustafa Tlass, his father, was a close friend of Hafez Assad, and served as his minister of defense. According to reports in Arab media outlets, Tlass defected from the Syrian army two days ago.

From America, with love
Anthony Elghossain, July 5, 2012/Now Lebanon
A Lebanese-American boy protests in Dearborn, Michigan. While protesting is allowed in Lebanon, there is no absolute freedom of speech. (AFP photo)
It’s the Fourth of July and I’m listening to Fairuz. I never understood why my parents found solace in her siren calls, but an oddly irresistible mixture of misery, comfort and pride is bubbling to the surface.
Alone in America, my mind wanders to Lebanon’s comforts: wine, women, food, friends, family and an authentic, if overstated and incomprehensible, joie de vivre. I scale the familiar mountains that ascend instantly from the Mediterranean; I dance in search of sunrise – or a good shawarma; and I nearly come to blows with dear friends as we discuss politics over bitter, spilt coffee.
But the dreams soon give way to serious thoughts. And I remember why I’m an American in the first place. Freedom.
Lebanon is a libertarian’s paradise – it is not free.
Beneath a coat of Levantine traditionalism, nothing is taboo. Hedonists find drugs, alcohol and sex with ease. Piles of cocaine lie in ornate mountain villas, where the elders next door rant about moral decline in the West. Enterprising gentlemen sell vodka and marijuana in areas that frown upon the consumption of such substances; they then donate the funds to Islamists bent on eradicating sin. Prostitutes sit in open-air nightclubs, masquerading as teachers and consultants, in the shadows of churches and mosques. (These vices are, and perhaps should be, celebrated as proxies of progressivism. But these liberties are not freedoms.)
The reckless, too, are at home in Lebanon. They drive drunk, or simply mad, hurling their Hummers through people and property with impunity. They purchase arms without a license, and shoot hot lead into the air whenever one of Lebanon’s little princes speaks. They beat fellow citizens with pipes – as the hapless police watch, bemused – to claim contested parking spaces. (Full disclosure: I’ve seen this shit. It’s a horrifying spectacle.)
And the crafty earn their fortunes in illicit trades, avoid taxes altogether, and routinely join the ranks of influence. These foxes now embody aspiration in post-war Lebanon.
Meanwhile, despite its libertarian impulses, America has rules. Intellectual property laws recognize, protect and reward innovation. Property laws provide security of possession. Business regulations establish a predictable order of things. Initiative does not depend on the protection of racketeers, force of arms, or the whims of elite cliques.
While inevitably flawed in practice, the rule of law is an ideal that Americans have adopted as a defining attribute. America is not as liberal as we imagine, but it is freer than we can understand. That’s why people flock here.
In 1977, almost by chance, my father left war-torn Lebanon for the United States. “I was playing volleyball one day,” he recalls, “and a distant cousin of mine asked me if I wanted to go to New Jersey. I told him ‘that my dad should decide that sort of thing’ and I went back to my game.”
“When I got to New Jersey, I didn’t speak any English… ‘Good morneeng’ and ‘souzand’ [thousand] were pretty much all I knew,” he constantly reminds me. “But I was hungry. The system, the people, the goddamn culture, encouraged me to work. That’s why America is great.”
Dramatic. But he did alright. Decades later, his siblings and children are scattered across this continent of a nation. Some are highly educated, fussing over problems of choice that he’d never contemplated as a young man. Others struggle to make a dime, confronting material wants that I find foreign.
Even so, they’re all free. They’re free to think, speak, write or read. They’re free to burn their flag; they’re free to question war. They’re free to fuck; they’re free to “fuck the government.” They’re free to kill for America; they’re free to reject violence of all forms. They’re free to strive for greatness; they’re free to wallow in aimless simplicity.
And, at least in principle, they’re free from the excesses of others. They’re not free from crime, but they’re free from impunity. They’re not free from discrimination, but they’re free from its enshrinement. They’re not free from unjust laws, but they’re free to demand change. They’re not free from government, but they’re free to dissent.
So I’ll keep dreaming of Lebanon. But I’ll aspire to America.
Anthony Elghossain is an attorney at a global law firm in Washington, DC. He blogs at Page Lebanon.

Is this the time of the Islamists?
By Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Alawsat
In some Gulf states, as well as many other Arab states, Islamists are endeavouring to play a larger political role, believing that this is the time of the Islamists, or rather the time of “political Islam.” At this point, we must clarify that when we use the term "Islam" in this instance, we are not talking about Islam as a religion or Muslims in general, but rather the political groups that use Islam as a name, in the same manner that some people incorporate the term "nationalism" or "liberalism" in the name of their political parties. However this is nothing more than a name being used by political groups, and does not mean that others are infidels, traitors or slaves. The name is just an attractive slogan whose objective is to garner popularity, legitimacy, immunity and power for the political groups in question.
The problem is not the Islamists’ right to the presidency should they win the elections, as has happened in Egypt and prior to this Tunisia. The real problem lies in the present interpretation of history. When Muhammad Mursi won the presidency of Egypt and took the oath of office before the Supreme Constitutional Court, this victory was echoed throughout our region not because he had won the elections but rather because he had taken power! Some people were confused about what this moment actually meant. Some Islamists, as well as their opponents, considered it to be the beginning of a rule that is no different than the military rule. They believe that Mursi and his companions will remain in power for another 60 years until they too are forcibly removed. Whilst the Islamists considered this to be their crowning moment in history, and senior Muslim Brotherhood member, Safwat Hijazi, joyously proclaimed: “This is the time of the United Islamist States.”
Some people believe that the new system regarding the transition of power will be precisely the same as the old, namely that rule is to be plundered. This is also the opinion of those who are angry over the victory of the Islamists and want to deny them the right to rule.
I have an opinion on this matter, and this is not a new one. I believe that contemporary Islamists are important for the development of the concept of the state. They can contribute to the building of a system of rule that will achieve stability and progress. The reason behind the failure of Egypt was that the revolution of 1952 – which brought the military to power – annulled all other powers including the Al-Wafd Party and the Islamists. This is also because some of the Islamists understanding of the concept of the state emanated from their conflict with Mubarak and the presidents that came before him. They have therefore been unable to absorb the concept of the civil state, namely a state not based on religion or the military. If the Islamists learn to understand and appreciate the civil state, they will have better luck in government than their opponents, particularly as Mursi came to power via the ballot boxes. However if they turn their back on the civil state like Hamas did in Gaza, they will lose all the gains they have made and Egypt will enter an endless state of conflict.
I do not imagine that the Egyptians, who got rid of totalitarian military rule, will succumb to a similar form of religious rule. It is not true that people will accept anybody who raises the slogan of Islam. The Al Qaeda organization has attempted to use the motto of Islam and failed. The rulers in Sudan raised the banner of Islam and also failed. Iran is the best example of a country that uses Islam as a cover, and it also has failed. The Iranian rule is using the name of Islam, whilst in reality it possess all the shortcomings of Mubarak’s rule in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, in terms of corruption, oppression and administrative failure.
We must also not forget that what is happening in Egypt is a liberal democratic change, not the imposition of an Islamic caliphate. After much deliberation, the Islamists of Egypt named themselves the Freedom and Justice Party. This is a liberal name, expressing the Islamists understanding of the new political culture. It also demonstrates the Islamists awareness that the majority of those who risked their lives and got rid of Mubarak were university students, studying at Cairo University and the American University in Cairo, rather than al-Azhar University. These students, who were among the first to take to the streets against Mubarak, did not vote for Mursi during the recently-concluded presidential elections. Whilst it is true that their candidate, Ahmed Shafiq, did not win, they nevertheless remain a large proportion of Egyptian society, just less than half of all eligible voters. As for the current political system in Tunisia, this is a liberal one, just like the political system in Egypt, despite the fact that the rulers in both countries are Islamists.

Al-Assad is still digging!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
The Turkish “Cumhuriyet” newspaper has been publishing an interview – in three parts – with the tyrant of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad. This is the second interview that al-Assad has given over the past week. The first interview was with Iranian state television, whilst today we see al-Assad giving a second in-depth interview – which is full of fallacies – with the Turkish newspaper. In this interview, there are a number of points that merit contemplation and response. The first point is that al-Assad’s interview with the Turkish newspaper takes place following the criticism he received for his interview with Iranian state TV. This means that al-Assad wants to balance this step, whilst he also wants to play on the strings of the Turkish opposition, attempting to strengthen its contrasting position towards the Syrian revolution. The second point is that this interview unquestionably demonstrates that Bashar al-Assad is personally handling the crisis in Syria, as al-Assad’s logic, fallacies and media discourse in this interview are precisely the same as what we have witnessed since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution. This includes the operations of the Syrian regime, its diplomatic and media output, and even the security crimes. Everything that al-Assad said in this interview was akin to a fallacy of a fallacy. Al-Assad said he regrets the downing of the Turkish warplane, and that it crossed into Syrian airspace in a manner that led Damascus to believe it was an Israeli plane. He thinks he is being clever by saying that the Turks are allying with the Israelis; however in reality Israeli warplanes flew at low-altitude over al-Assad’s palace in 2006. This incident led to Moscow selling al-Assad anti-aircraft systems, however despite this the al-Assad regime failed to respond to these Israeli jets and this breach of its territory. At the time – and I heard this myself from a Russian official in Moscow – it was said that these Israeli jets could be heard from al-Assad’s bedroom! Following this, the Israelis targeted what they believed to be a nuclear reactor in Deir Ezzour, and the al-Assad regime also failed to respond in any way. The Americans later landed in Syria and kidnapped wanted terrorists from inside Syrian territory, along the Syrian – Iraqi border, and the al-Assad regime also failed to respond. Therefore, the Turkish Foreign Minister has every right to describe what al-Assad is saying about the downing of the Turkish jet as “lies”.
The fallacies do not stop here, for when al-Assad asks why Turkey has failed to take any action towards the fighting in the Gulf, what Gulf is he talking about? Does he mean Bahrain? What happened in Bahrain cannot be compared to the crimes in Syria, for the death toll there was limited, and included victims on both sides, the police and the protesters. In addition to this, what happened in Bahrain was the result of Iranian intervention, whilst what is happening in Syria – over the past 18 months – is a crime committed by al-Assad, aided by Tehran and Moscow. More importantly than this, the al-Assad regime itself viewed the confrontations in Bahrain at the time as an internal affair, so has al-Assad forgotten this, or was his regime’s position on Bahrain an attempt to buy the silence of the Gulf States regarding the crimes he is committing in Syria? Therefore, al-Assad’s most recent interview with the Turkish newspaper reveals to us that he is in a hole, and that he is still digging, particularly as the fire is now directly approaching him. This enhances the possibility of the sudden collapse of the al-Assad regime in Syria, as the British Foreign Security warned yesterday!

To Wael and Hazem...again
By Adel Al Toraifi/Asharq Alawsat
Last week, the Economist magazine addressed the issue of the transition of power in Egypt, warning that the country is enduring a difficult labor and may deviate from the righteous path of democracy. The Economist magazine editor wrote: “Beneath the chaos lies a complex power struggle between generals and Islamists. The West should back the latter.”
This position is very consistent with what the magazine put forward during the latter stage of 2011, regarding the need to engage the Islamists. The difference today is that the Economist is calling for the transfer of power – or the “revolution”, if you prefer – to the Islamists entirely, rather than merely calling to engage them.
In the same context, the recent cover article of Time magazine focused on the situation in Egypt and was entitled “The revolution that wasn’t”. In this piece, Jay Newton-Small and Abigail Hauslohner argued that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces [SCAF] and the remnants of the former regime are trying to bury the Egyptian “revolution”, and that hope lies with the Islamists, represented in the victory of President Mohammed Mursi, in order for Egypt to move away from the whims of the military. The authors claimed that Mursi and the Brotherhood were the only hope to tip the balance in favor of forming a consensual democratic government, which is more than the Brotherhood initially hoped to achieve. The article suggested that these Islamists are now able to change the political dividing lines in Egypt, so that matters focus on the conflict between a civil state and military rule, rather than a conflict between the Islamists and secular democrats.
This is just a sample of what is being published in the Western press, where there is strong, enthusiastic support for the rise of the Islamists. The Islamists are being portrayed as if they are the democratic forces and human rights activists who were persecuted in previous eras, and now it is their turn to lead the transition towards a civil state!
Much of what has been written alternates between oversimplification and generalization. How can the Islamists, with their various currents, be considered better than previous regimes, without any consideration of their ideas and history? When were the Islamists ever advocates of pluralism or supporters of civil liberties? How can it be said that a conflict between the Islamists and the secularists has ended abruptly with the fall of the former regime? Or that the Islamist community’s crisis with modernity has been resolved by the Islamists winning the elections?
The Islamists have every right to participate in elections and engage in political work, but it is not correct to attribute certain opinions or stances to them that are contrary to their ideological convictions and rhetoric. Even if they have changed some of their stances as a political tactic, or by taking into account the current circumstances and balances, this does not mean that an ideological shift has taken place within the Islamist’s narrative, or that they are prepared to give this ideology up.
There is no doubt that the “Arab Spring” debate has changed in the space of one year. We were initially told that these revolutions had emerged to fight against dictatorships and oppression, and that they were being led by youths without ideological inclinations, seeking to reject the ideas and practices of the past. Yet here we must return to the very first questions, ideas, and the former players themselves.
What does it mean for the Islamists to win elections in every “Arab Spring” country where voting has taken place? The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi currents have captured the political scene entirely to form these countries’ forthcoming constitutions and regimes. In the past, the debate revolved around choosing between dictatorship and democracy, between tyranny and freedom. Today, it has become a choice between the Islamists or the military and remnants of the former regime.
In truth, this is a disappointing result for some, and an encouraging result for others. In April last year I wrote an article entitled “To Wael and Hazem: Every revolution has its good and bad”, in which I tried to spark a discussion using the cases of the prominent Lebanese writer Hazem Saghiya and the Egyptian activist Wael Ghoneim. This was at a time when by universally celebrating the popular revolutions – or uprisings – we were failing to ask the necessary questions: Can a modern civil state be built in Libya? Are there trained technocrats and economic experts available to improve living standards in Tunisia? Does Egypt have an independent, nationalist current to draft a civil and secular constitution away from the military and the Islamists? How can power be transferred peacefully in Yemen in a manner that ensures the country does not disintegrate?
Unfortunately, “Arab Spring” literature soon transformed into a laudatory discourse; championing the “revolutions”, honoring the alleged martyrs and recovering from the previous regimes. Lines were blurred between men of the former regime and technocrats of the country, between the country’s structural problems and the corruption of its ruling elite, and between the authoritarian nature of the former regime and the solitary reforms it achieved in this country or that.
Just over a year later, articles and reports began to criticize some of the negative aspects of the revolution, especially the chaos and violence that followed the collapse of those regimes. However, no one acknowledged that the enthusiasm and seduction of the moment had engulfed activists, commentators and observers, so that they neglected the main concerns and dismissed the substantial challenges with regards to the economy and state-building. Voices of criticism were marginalized and deemed to be living in the past, or unaware of this momentous change in history. The debate surrounding the “Arab Spring” passed through a phase of drowning in a utopian dream after a long spell of dictatorship.
At the beginning of the revolutions, Hazem Saghiya wrote claiming that the choice was “between a disaster which has been developing in multiple phases over dozens of years…and the disaster which is happening en masse at the moment, but may pave the way for foundations for the future”. However, during the last few weeks Saghiya’s position has changed from cautious optimism to frustration, or what he called “a lack of meaning and direction”. Commenting on the results of the Egyptian elections won by the Muslim Brotherhood, Saghiya wrote: “the electoral process has begun to mirror ambiguity and conflicting wills rather than the popular will; it is a painting that depicts political impossibilities more than it depicts prospects for the future”. (Destructive ambiguity, al-Hayat newspaper, June 23rd).
On the other hand, Wael Ghoneim, the Google executive to whom the outbreak of the January 25th revolution is largely attributed to – an activist who was celebrated in Western forums and presented with several international awards – does not seem concerned or upset by what has happened in Egypt, namely that a Muslim Brotherhood candidate has been elected.
There is no shame in electing an Islamist, this is the voter’s individual right, but in doing so I do not think you can refer to yourself as an advocate of the civil state or human rights. There are various trends amongst the Islamist groups; some of them adhere to the aforementioned principles, whilst others have their own perceptions on what is religiously permissible with regards to these “Western values”. The image of the young man, Wael Ghoneim, who challenged the Mubarak regime on the eve of the revolution, is now overshadowed by another image, namely the image of him cheering enthusiastically for the Muslim Brotherhood’s winning candidate. In other words, a young man who was portrayed in the Arab and Western media as a democratic and civil example seeking to peacefully stand up to tyranny in order to secure public freedoms, is nothing more than a young affiliate of the Brotherhood (in its modern guise), who opposed the military regime.
This does not diminish the courageous role that he played, but we must call a spade a spade.
In the film “American Gangster”, Frank Lucas (played by Denzel Washington) tells one of the other characters that “when you own something, you can call it what you want”.
Popular uprisings took place in some Arab countries for many reasons. Those who reaped the spoils are able to call it what they want, but others are not obliged to accept this.

Egypt: SCAF fulfilled its promise
By Hussein Shabokshi/Asharq Alawsat
After the ceremonial duties that followed the election of Mohammed Mursi, the new Egyptian President took the oath of office before the Supreme Constitutional Court's general assembly, as President of the Republic. Then President Mursi delivered his main speech in the Grand Hall of Cairo University, in front of a broad spectrum of Egyptian society with all its various guises. The day concluded with a celebration held under the auspices and perfect organization of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), whereby power was "completely" handed over to the first ever civilian president in the history of Egypt.
Amidst the celebrations of such a grand and significant event, people tend to forget the vital role played by the Egyptian armed forces. In fact, the head of SCAF, and the actual leader of the country over the past 16 months, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, will go down in history for handing over power to a civilian president. He is only the third military leader to have done such a noble deed in the Arab world after Field Marshal Swar al-Dahab in Sudan and Colonel Fal in Mauritania. SCAF provided an honorable service during extremely complex, tense and chaotic scenes. It administered the country's affairs at a dangerous time when the state and the government were collapsing, security and stability were being undermined, confidence was shaken and the economy was in decline. All this happened within the first few days, and the situation was further compounded by the sharp divisions in the Egyptian political street.
A language of mistrust, doubt and slander prevailed across Egypt in an unprecedented manner, no body or authority was safe from such insults or accusations, and everyone experienced their share of defamation. Nevertheless, SCAF was committed to carrying out the parliamentary elections on time and in a remarkably successful manner. SCAF also carried out the presidential elections despite the state of public "clamor". Interventions from the media, revolutionaries, political forces and legal bodies all sought to cast doubt on the election results, stressing that the army would cancel the whole process or at the very least repeat the elections to bring a SCAF affiliate to power. However, none of this happened and power was completely transferred to the new president. This step was reinforced by a group of government institutions that performed a striking role in consolidating the state and respecting it. Hence, the world watched as the Supreme Constitutional Court, the presidency, the Republican Guard, the cabinet and the military establishment, each with a specific and a well-known role, aimed to lay the proper foundations required for the transitional period. SCAF was the unknown solider of the January 25th Revolution, and today the Egyptian army appears civilized and refined compared to its counterparts in Libya, Yemen and Syria.
The Egyptian army promised to completely hand over power in accordance with a specific timeframe, and this promise was fulfilled. There were several mistakes, slips and stumbles, as the situation was unprecedented and highly tense, with the country being in a heated state of revolution, where outrage and suspicion prevailed. The climate was not particularly conducive towards good governance, particularly as there were several groups and factions with their own desires to influence the situation on the ground, whether positively or negatively.
Military rule [in the Arab world] had become an abhorrent phrase, owing to its connotations of deceit, fraud, disgrace and indignity. Looking back through history, the experiences of Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Algeria and Egypt bear testament to this.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of shameful examples of horrific and blood-thirsty military rule in the Arab world. What is happening now in Syria at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his inner circle is nothing more than the latest manifestation of this. Therefore, Egypt's SCAF, with its refined and responsible conduct, and its respect for the will and desire of the people, has displayed its absolute commitment to change that was both required and inevitable. This was an example of how duties should be fulfilled in the best manner possible. We saw this clearly in the military salute given by Field Marshal Tantawi and his deputy Lieutenant General Sami Anan to President Mursi, something that emphasized that the military’s "governance" role is now completed, and that the army will return to their barracks under their new president. This was truly a rare and wonderful scene!

WikiLeaks publishing two million Syria emails
July 05, 2012/Daily Star
LONDON: WikiLeaks said Thursday it was publishing over two million emails from Syrian political figures dating back to 2006 but also covering the period of the crackdown on dissent by Syria's regime.
"Just now... WikiLeaks began publishing the Syria files, more than two million emails from Syrian political figures, ministries and associated companies dating from August 2006 to March 2012," said spokeswoman Sarah Harrison. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a written statement: "The material is embarrassing to Syria, but it is also embarrassing to Syria's external opponents.
"It helps us not merely to criticize one group or another, but to understand their interests, actions and thoughts. It is only through understanding this conflict that we can hope to resolve it."
The news came a day after Russia denied having discussed with Washington offering exile to Syria's President Bashar Assad. WikiLeaks' release also comes ahead of a meeting Friday in Paris of the so-called "Friends of Syria," which supports Assad's ouster. The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says the 16 months of bloodshed in Syria has claimed more than 16,500 lives.
WikiLeaks said on its website that the files would shed light on the workings of the Syrian government but also "reveal how the West and Western companies say one thing and do another."
It said the 2,434,899 emails came from Syrian ministries including foreign affairs, finance and presidential affairs. There are around 400,000 emails in Arabic but also 68,000 emails in Russian.
Harrison said WikiLeaks could not comment on the full contents of the release, which is being organized in collaboration with media partners in countries including Lebanon, Egypt, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. She said it would take time for all the stories to come out.The publication comes amid continued wrangling between world powers about how the bloody conflict in Syria should be tackled.
Russia has indicated it will stay away from the Paris meeting on Friday after accusing the West of seeking to distort a deal struck last weekend for a political transition in the violence-hit nation.
Moscow's move to shun the gathering comes after UN-Arab League peace envoy Kofi Annan stressed that a ceasefire was imperative.Assange meanwhile is holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London as he seeks political asylum in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations that he sexually assaulted two former WikiLeaks volunteers.

Egypt's Sex Slave Marriage
by Raymond Ibrahim/Originally published by the Gatestone Institute
July 5, 2012
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11952/egypt-sex-slave-marriage
What is being dubbed as Egypt's "first sex-slave marriage" took place mere days after the Muslim Brotherhood's Muhammad Morsi was made president.
Awn telling his concubine-bride what to say during their "nuptial vows," which included her "enslavement" to the self-proclaimed Sharia expert.
Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa ("the Truth"), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi began the program by airing a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, "marrying" his "slave." Before making the woman, who had a non-Egyptian accent, repeat the Koran's Surat al-Ikhlas after him, instead of saying the customary "I marry myself to you," the woman said "I enslave myself to you," and kissed him in front of an applauding audience.
Then, even though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared her forbidden from such trappings, commanding her to be stripped of them, so as "not to break Allah's laws." She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, certainly by Muslim standards, a promiscuous red dress (all the other women present were veiled). The man claps for her as the video-clip (which can be viewed here) ends.
The owner-husband, Abd al-Rauf Awn, then appeared on the show, identifying himself as an Islamic scholar and expert at Islamic jurisprudence who studied at Al Azhar. He gave several Islamic explanations to justify his "marriage," from Islamic prophet Muhammad's "sunna" or practice of "marrying" enslaved captive women, to Koran 4:3, which commands Muslim men to "Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four… or what your right hands possess."
For all practical purposes, and to avoid euphemisms, "what your right hands possess"—also known in Arab as a melk al-yamin—is, according to Islamic doctrine and history, simply a sex-slave. Linguistic evidence further suggests that she is seen more as a possession than a human.
Even stripping the sex-slave of her hijab, the way Awn commanded his concubine-wife, has precedent. According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to be veiled behind a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed. During the program Awn even explained how Caliph Omar, one of the first "righteous caliphs," used to strip sex-slaves of their garments, whenever he saw them overly dressed in the marketplace.
Awn further explained that sex-slave marriage is ideal for today's Egyptian society. He based his position on ijtihad, a recognized form of jurisprudence, whereby a Muslim scholar comes up with a new idea—one that is still rooted in the Koran and example of Muhammad—yet one that better fits the circumstances of contemporary society.
He argued that, when it comes to marriage, "we Muslims have overly complicated things," so that men are often forced to be single throughout their prime, finally getting married between the ages of 30-40 (when they might be expected to have a sufficient income to open a household). Similarly, many Egyptian women do not want to wear the hijab in public.
The solution, according to Awn, is to reinstitute sex-slavery—allowing men to marry and copulate much earlier in life, and women who want to dress freely to do so, as technically they are sex-slaves and mandated to go about loosely attired, anyway.
The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to "repent" and stop dishonoring Islam, arguing that "there is no longer sex-slavery"—to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, "Who said sex-slavery is over? What—because the UN said so?"
In many ways, this exchange between Awn, who advocates sex-slave marriage, and the Al Azhar professor symbolizes the clash between today's "Islamists" and "moderate Muslims." For long, Al Azhar has been primarily engaged in the delicate balancing act of affirming Islam while still advocating modernity according to Western standards, whereas the Islamists—from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Salafis—bred with contempt and disrespect for the West, are only too eager to revive distinctly Islamic practices that defy Western sensibilities.
While this may be the first sex-slave marriage to take place in Egypt's recent history, it is certainly not the first call to revive the practice. Earlier, Egyptian Sheikh Huwaini, lamenting that the "good old days" of Islam are over, declared that, in an ideal Muslim society, "when I want a sex-slave," he should be able to go "to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her." Likewise, a Kuwaiti female politician advocated for reviving the institute of sex-slavery, suggesting that Muslims should bring female captives of war—specifically Russian women from the Chechnya war—and sell them to Muslim men in the markets of Kuwait.
And so the "Arab Spring" continues to blossom.