Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 12/12
Two more US carriers, dozens of mini-subs rushed to Hormuz
Olmert: Even before Hezbollah war, Israel knew it was hopeless to retrieve abducted IDF soldiers Capture of reservists
Damascus residents fear regime reprisals
Syrian Opposition: Syria's Iraq ambassador has defected
Top Syrian diplomat bails on Assad
Moscow Threatens to Veto West's 'Unacceptable' U.N. Resolution on Syria
Syrian military defector Tlass in contact with opposition: France
Syria: ambassador who defected should be punished
Syria Arrests Top Businessman for 'Inciting Civil Disobedience
Paris Says Syria Defector Tlass in Contact with Opposition
Egypt president, Saudi king discuss regional stability
Musri and al-Katatni could be imprisoned – Egyptian judge
Egypt's Mursi visits Saudi Arabia to mend ties
Suleiman from France: Visit is Aimed at Supporting Lebanon’s Neutral Position on Arab Developments
Germany, Britain welcome Lebanon's STL funding, approval of budget
Hezbollah official blasts attempts to suck Lebanon into Syrian crisis
Geagea wants Koura residents to “vote according to their conscience”
Koura Candidates Heat Up Campaigns for Sunday by-Elections
Lebanon: 2 Bank Robberies in 3 Days, Assailants Escape on Motorcycle
Hariri urges supporters to vote for LF candidate in Koura
Lebanese Salafist Sheik Assir adamant on continuing sit-in despite mounting criticism
Lebanese Cabinet passes budget, Lebanon pays STL dues
Defector lashes Assad, troops raid Damascus suburb
Tripoli mufti says city to be focus of national conference
Report: Nasrallah Hails Firm Alliance with Aoun

Two more US carriers, dozens of mini-subs rushed to Hormuz
DEBKAfile Special Report July 12, 2012/debkafile's military sources report substantial US reinforcements, led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, are being rushed to the Persian Gulf opposite Iran, with dozens of unmanned underwater craft for destroying mines.
The USS John C. Stennis arrives in August, raising the number of American aircraft carriers in waters off Iran to four including the USS Enterprise and the USS Abraham Lincoln, with the French Charles de Gaulle due soon to make up a fifth. The Eisenhower, which reached its new position in the first week of July, operates under the joint commands of the US Sixth (Mediterranean) and Fifth (Gulf) Fleets.
Thursday, July 12, American military officials announced that the US is also dispatching to the Persian Gulf dozens of tiny, unmanned SeaFox submersibles that can detect and destroy mines if strewn by Iran to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint for transporting one-fifth of the world’s oil.
About 4 feet long, they each carry an underwater television camera, homing sonar and an explosive charge.
There are now additionally eight American minesweepers in the Persian Gulf as well as the USS Ponce, a platform for the special forces, helicopters and warships there to fight off Iranian marine units attempting to plant mines in the vital waterway. debkafile's military sources say that Washington decided to expand its military deployment in the area after concluding, in consultation with French and British naval experts, that Iran is short of the military strength and sophisticated measure for completely sealing off the Strait of Hormuz to all sea traffic, especially oil tankers.
All the Iranians can do is plant enough underwater mines to impede traffic and slow it down.
The new, bolstered US deployment in the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean is on the ready for immediate action against any Iranian military threat. "If Iran starts spreading underwater mines in international waterways, i.e., the Strait of Hormuz, it will find American forces ready to dismantle them on the spot," said a Western military source.
In any case, said the source, a slowdown of oil traffic through Hormuz won’t have an immediate impact on the world oil market or prices. "The world has enough reserve oil in storage to supply its needs for six full months,” said the source.

Annan's Latest Syria Plan Is a Bad Deal
Jeffrey White /July 11, 2012
Washington Institute
UN envoy Kofi Annan's latest plan to end the violence in Syria -- perhaps better labeled the Annan-Assad plan -- is a bad one. It extends yet another lifeline to the regime, undercuts the armed opposition's growing effectiveness, and substitutes diplomatic bustle for progress toward ousting Bashar al-Assad. Like Annan's previous ineffective ceasefire, the new plan is almost certainly doomed to failure -- and the sooner the better.
Developed in consultation with Assad himself, Annan's latest proposal hinges on building security and stability from the ground up. That is, in areas of intense conflict, it calls for local arrangements to contain the fighting. This plays straight into the regime's hands, and it is no wonder Assad participated in its formulation. If implemented, local ceasefire arrangements would simply reduce pressure on Assad's increasingly stretched forces, giving them time to rest and refit, while preserving the regime's increasingly precarious military position in key provinces in the north (Idlib and Aleppo) and east (Deir al-Zour). They would also allow the government to redeploy forces to areas that are increasingly threatened by the opposition Free Syrian Army, such as the Damascus countryside. The regime will no doubt seek to exploit any such local agreements, or simply ignore them if it sees a military advantage in doing so.
The new proposal is a step back from the six-point agreement Annan brokered in March, which obliged the regime to withdraw its forces from in and around urban areas, end the use of heavy weapons, stop troop movements toward cities, and cease firing on a countrywide basis. The regime failed to implement that agreement in any meaningful way, and violence has increased dramatically since mid-May.
Despite these obvious warning signs, Annan's plan could gain traction internationally, which would suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of both the conflict and the regime. The war in Syria has become a war to decide the fate of the regime, not a prelude to power-sharing agreements or Assad-led political reform. It is, quite literally, a life-and-death struggle, yet Annan continues to proceed as if it were a political dispute that nimble diplomacy can resolve.
Similarly, the notion that Assad is a real partner in diplomacy flies in the face of what has happened throughout the seventeen-month rebellion. The regime does not seek political compromise with the opposition. Rather, it wants to break the opposition, killing as many people -- armed, unarmed, and innocent -- as necessary. That has been apparent from the beginning. Lately, however, the regime has been losing control of the military situation, and its position in the distant provinces is crumbling. Therefore, Assad probably regards the new proposal as a way to shore up his defenses, at least temporarily. This makes Annan's plan a bad deal for the Syrian opposition and all those seeking the regime's end, but a good deal for Assad.
*Jeffrey White is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute.

Damascus residents fear regime reprisals
12/07/2012
Asharq Al-Awsat
Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat – Many Syrian political activists are certain that the Syrian capital will be the scene for the final battle to topple the al-Assad regime, however they also fear that the Baathist regime will seek to carry out systematic reprisals against Damascus residents upon its ouster, particularly as the city is surrounded by heavily armed pro-regime troops and militia.
A Damascus political activist working with the opposition Local Coordination Committee [LCC], who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat under the name “Farah”, revealed that “Bashar al-Assad will not easily surrender Damascus, even if he believes that his regime has been toppled. There is a spirit of retribution in the decisions of this man and those around him, and this spirit will be transformed into a burning desire for revenge, particularly against the residents of Damascus, the city which rose up against al-Assad after he believed that they would stand by him.”
The Damascus-based political activist added that the Syrian capital failed to effectively join the revolution during its first months, but the Syrian capital – which is known for indecision and close family ties – broke its silence when the suppression and violence being carried out by the al-Assad regime exhibited religious and sectarian aspects. She stressed that the people of Damascus will not sit idly by whilst women and children are being killed, and so they took to the streets to protest against the Bashar al-Assad regime and its violence.
For his part, Adnan, another Damascus-based political activist, confirmed the presence of fears that the al-Assad regime could seek to avenge itself on the capital’s residents. He told Asharq Al-Awsat “two critical changes prompted Damascus to join the Syrian revolution, namely the proximity of the rural areas that joined the revolution in its early stages to central Damascus, and secondly the presence of the Free Syrian Army [FSA] in major Damascus suburbs, launching operations against the institutions and centers of the ruling regime.”
The Syrian dissident also stressed that “the final battle will take place in Damascus, as the regime will fight violently in this city, not to defend it, but to destroy it, because al-Assad is well aware that the majority of the social fabric of Damascus stands against him.”
As for the FSA and whether it is capable to positively resolve the battle for Damascus, Adnan told Asharq Al-Awsat “the FSA’s capabilities are modest in comparison with the regime’s arms” adding “the regime’s forces are stationed on the peak of Mount Kassioun [in Damascus], and they can destroy the city with artillery, if they want.”
Damascus, is 105 square km, and is the second most populated city in Syria, after Aleppo. The Syrian capital’s approximate 2.6 million residents are living in a state of fear, not simply due to the on-going battles between the al-Assad regime forces and the FSA, but also because they fear that the regime may turn its guns on the unarmed residents of Damascus, should it be convinced that its ouster is inevitable. For his part, Syrian media activist, Tariq, told Asharq Al-Awsat that “the al-Assad regime has stationed its military brigades in Damascus, and has ordered Republican Guard brigades to defend al-Assad in the city.” He added “should a possible battle break out, it will be the people of Damascus who will pay the price for this.”
Tariq also asserted that the presence of a Sunni majority that opposes the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus will not positively resolve the battle, particularly as the regime has armed the Alawite neighborhoods of the capital, particularly the Mezze Jebel neighborhood.
The city of Damascus has found itself at the center of frenzied military and security deployments and positioning, including the arming of Alawite militias to control the city’s entry and exit points. Political activists revealed that the pro-regime Shabiha militia are playing a primary role in securing the Syrian capital and suppressing any anti-regime protests or demonstrations that break out.
The al-Assad regime had been pointing to the stability in Damascus as evidence that the Syrian revolution was not widespread or broad-based, however the increasing demonstrations and FSA attacks within the Syrian capital over the past few days has served to counter this claim.

Suleiman from France: Visit is Aimed at Supporting Lebanon’s Neutral Position on Arab Developments
Naharnet/12 July 2012/..President Michel Suleiman stated on Thursday that his visit to France is aimed at bolstering Lebanese-French ties and helping it maintain its stability amid the regional changes.
He said: “The visit is aimed at supporting and preserving Lebanon’s neutral position on Arab developments.”He made his remarks after holding separate talks in Paris with French Senate Speaker Jean-Pierre Bel and the President of the National Assembly Claude Bartolone.“Once these Arab countries make the shift to democracy, Lebanon will be able to practice its own,” added Suleiman.
For his part, Bel praised the president’s role in maintaining security and stability in Lebanon and resuming the national dialogue, as well as his success in “preventing the developments in Syria from spreading to Lebanon.”Bartolone meanwhile stressed France’s “constant support for Lebanon’s stability, unity, sovereignty, and independence.”
Suleiman thanked the officials for France’s support for Lebanon, hoping that Lebanese-French ties will be developed on different levels, especially the parliamentary one.”
The president arrived in Paris on Thursday where he is set to hold talks with his French counterpart Francois Hollande and other senior officials.

Koura Candidates Heat Up Campaigns for Sunday by-Elections
Naharnet/ July 2012, 07:15
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri urged al-Mustaqbal supporters in the northern district of Koura on Thursday to vote for March 14 candidate Fadi Karam during the weekend by-elections as the rival candidates expressed confidence in their victory.Karam stressed that the March 14 campaign officials are cooperating to prepare for Sunday’s elections.
He told Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) that he expects the residents of Koura to heavily participate in the democratic process.
“They are very eager and have already made their choice,” Karam told the radio station.He confirmed that his chances of winning the polls are very high.“We are optimistic… the numbers confirm that our chances are better than the other candidate,” Karam stated.Koura is likely to witness a tough electoral battle on Sunday to fill the Greek Orthodox seat vacated by the death of Lebanese Forces MP Farid Habib in May as the March 8 forces sought to take a seat away from their rivals by announcing the candidacy of Syrian Social National Party member Walid al-Azar.
For his part, Azar said that this battle is decisive where the Koura residents will be able to express their genuineness.
“It is my duty to warn the Koura residents from the racist and extremist alliance of others that aims at dividing the country and forcing the immigration of the minorities,” he said during a rally for the March 8. He pointed out that Sunday’s elections will win over the political money that “they” are using to take advantage of the poor people. As the two campaigns heated up, Hariri said in a statement that “casting your votes in this election is the essence of the democratic process that we are working on implementing and maintaining in Lebanon.”
He noted that voting for Karam is essential to preserve the 2005 Cedar Revolution, its achievements and the principles that it’s holding onto. “Voting for Karam on Sunday will be purely choosing the March 14 project, which is based on a democratic, Arab, sovereign, free and an independent Lebanon,” Hariri stated.The Mustaqbal movement leader noted that the Koura by-elections are very important as they are held amid major changes in the Arab region.“I trust that al-Mustaqbal supporters in Koura have enough democratic culture and national awareness to heavily participate in the electoral process on Sunday,” the statement quoted him as saying. Jean Jabr Mufarrej, Naim Moussa al-Ojaimi, Youssef Assaad Skaff and George William Mattar have also announced their candidacies for the by-elections.

Geagea wants Koura residents to “vote according to their conscience”
July 12, 2012 /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Thursday called on all the residents of the Koura district in North Lebanon to “vote according to their conscience because this is a political battle par excellence.”“We are fighting this battle not only to win it [in terms of] results, but to win it with all its political and humanitarian implications… we cannot allow Koura to become [controlled] by [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad,” Geagea’s press office quoted him as saying.The special election in Koura is set to kick off Sunday to elect a successor for former LF MP Farid Habib (1938-2012), who passed away on May 31 after a struggle with an illness. The LF is affiliated with the Western-backed March 14 alliance, while the SSNP and the Marada Movement are part of the pro-Syrian regime March 8 coalition. Geagea also condemned the Syrian shelling of Lebanese northern towns, and voiced surprise over the Lebanese cabinet’s silence regarding the Syrian army’s violations against the country.
Shells fired from Syria landed in northern Lebanon after an exchange of fire along the border, a senior Lebanese security official told AFP early Tuesday.
There was no immediate report of casualties, but this latest incident came just two days after border clashes in which two girls were killed and several other people wounded in Lebanon.
-NOW Lebanon

Report: Nasrallah Hails Firm Alliance with Aoun
Naharnet/12 July 2012/
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah stressed that the alliance with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun is firm and will not collapse, al-Akhbar newspaper published on Thursday.
Nasrallah hailed Aoun’s stances, noting that his party is exerting efforts to resolve the dispute among the March 8 parliamentary majority, the daily said.
Nasrallah told Hizbullah senior leaders that the relations with the FPM should be developed to a better level.
The secretary general stressed the importance of maintaining the alliance between Hizbullah, AMAL and the FPM.
The parliament’s approval of a draft law proposed by the joint parliamentary committees to include all the Electricite du Liban workers in a selection process for permanent employment created a rift between AMAL and the FPM, which prompted the Change and Reform bloc to boycott the parliament.
Christian lawmakers lashed out at Speaker Nabih Berri, who is the AMAL leader, arguing that around 80 percent of them belong to non-Christian sects and most of them support Berri, who is a Shiite.
Energy Minister Jebran Bassil also accused Hizbullah of being a “spectator” as the speaker “violated the protocol” by not discussing his proposal to allow 700 contract workers to stand for an official exam, out of some 2,500 employees.
His suggestion also calls for allowing the rest to become employees at private companies under a three-month probation period as the company can’t contain all of the employees.
Al-Akhbar reported that the FPM and Hizbullah held several meetings to swiftly resolve the crisis and discussed the controversial issues as consultations were kicked off with Berri to reach a solution that satisfies all parties. FPM sources reiterated the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc’s conditions where finding a solution to EDL’s contract workers strike is a priority.
The workers have been holding an open-end strike for the past three months, vowing to continue their protest until the parliamentary decision is published in the official gazette and until their May and June salaries are paid.

Moscow Threatens to Veto West's 'Unacceptable' U.N. Resolution on Syria
Naharnet /12 July 2012/Russia rejects as unacceptable the text of a Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria and will use its veto if the draft is brought to a vote later Thursday, a deputy foreign minister said. "If they decide this (a vote on Thursday) -- knowing that for us the text is unacceptable -- then we will not allow it to pass," Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told the Interfax news agency. Gatilov added he did not expect there to be a vote as soon as Thursday: "The process of consultations is only just starting and should take some time," he said.
"As a whole, their resolution is unbalanced and foresees that obligations should only be fulfilled by the Syrian government. Practically nothing is said about the obligations of the opposition," he said.
He objected that the resolution links an extension of the mandate of the U.N. mission in Syria -- which Russia supports -- with the introduction of sanctions if the Syrian government does not fulfill certain conditions.
"We will try to move to a constructive text for a possible draft resolution which can reflect the true situation," Gatilov said.
Britain, France, Germany and the United States submitted a draft text that would give President Bashar Assad 10 days to implement U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan's ceasefire plan or face tough new sanctions. If Security Council members approve it, the resolution would allow for non-military sanctions under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter if Syrian government forces keep up their offensive on cities.
Negotiations on the Western draft and a rival Russian resolution, which does not mention sanctions, started Thursday in New York. A vote must be held before July 20, when the mandate of the U.N. observer mission in Syria ends.
Russia made clear from the outset that sanctions were a "red line" for veto-wielding Moscow.
"Anything can be negotiated but we do not negotiate this. This is a red line," Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador Igor Pankin told reporters at the Security Council after the first talks among key envoys.
Russia and China have previously twice used their powers as permanent members of the Security Council to veto resolutions which hinted at sanctions.
The draft calls for an "immediate" end to violence by government and opposition forces and demands that President Assad's troops return to barracks in line with the Annan plan and U.N. resolutions passed in April. The resolution would renew the mandate of the U.N. Supervision Mission in Syria for 45 days, and calls on the mission to take on more political duties, moving away from monitoring a non-existent ceasefire.U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on an Asian tour, coordinated with China on moves to support the peace plan drawn up by Annan, who has said the U.N. motion should include "clear consequences" for the regime if it fails to act. "I had a good discussion on these issues with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang (Jiechi) today and we agreed to do all we can in New York to see the Geneva plan... be implemented," she said on Thursday. World powers agreed in Geneva last month a plan for a transition in Syria which did not make an explicit call for Assad to quit power. However the West swiftly made clear it saw no role for Assad in a unity government.
"We do look to the Security Council and all its members including Russia to join us in a serious resolution that gives special envoy Kofi Annan what he needs, what he's asking for and imposes real consequences on the regime for continuing to defy its obligations," Clinton said.
The regime and the opposition publicly accept Annan's peace plan, but fighting has raged on and rights monitors estimate that more than 17,000 Syrians have died since March 2011.
SourceAgence France Presse.

Olmert: Even before Hezbollah war, Israel knew it was hopeless to retrieve abducted IDF soldiers Capture of reservists
By Gili Cohen | Jul.12, 2012/Haaretz
Israel's leadership knew it was hopeless to try and retrieve Israel Defense Forces soldiers abducted in 2006, an action which sparked the Second Lebanon War, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Thursday.
The capture of army reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in a cross border raid in July 2006, exactly six years ago, triggered a 34-day war in Lebanon. Olmert, who was prime minister at the time, ruled out talks on their return. He later relented, negotiating through a UN-appointed mediator.
The bodies of both soldiers were exchanged in July 2008 in a prisoner swap for five Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.
Speaking on the Second Lebanon War on Thursday, Olmert said that Israel's leadership knew in advance that the retrieval of the two soldiers was a lost cause, saying that the war had "one objective which we did not achieve, and knew in advance that we couldn't achieve, and it was said in cabinet meetings."
"We said that we were working to bring about the two soldiers' release, [however] we had no doubts that it was so (that they were no longer alive), but we didn't want that to stand as it is, if they were murdered," he added.
Olmert then said that those who had participated in cabinet meetings at the time "said that there wasn't a chance to bring them back through a military operation."
The former prime minister also spoke of that war's final push, a move to advance IDF forces as much as possible in the last 48 hours prior to the planned ceasefire.
According to Olmert, the Israeli government received an overnight message toward the end of the war from a senior U.S. official, which said that United Nations was about to pass a resolution that was significantly different than the ceasefire, and that was written "under French pressure and [using French] wording, and that the Americans weren't able to withstand the pressure of this maneuvers."
"We understood that perhaps the only way to change these things is to let this wider move [of entering moving IDF forces to the north of their positions in Lebanon] to appear as the real thing, so to apply the required pressure on agents in the international arena," Olmert said.
According to the former premier, "attempts to get anything from the Americans failed, because everyone was asleep. And so eventually, it boiled down to a point in time where it's possible that the required pressure would not have been created. That's where the operation dubbed "the last 48 hours" was born."
Olmert emphasized that "there wasn't an intention to change strategy, just to create the required effect to bring the international community to finalize things in a direction which we perceived as the right one."

Egypt president, Saudi king discuss regional stability
12/07/2012/JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia, (AFP) — Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi said he and Saudi's King Abdullah held "fruitful" talks focused on regional stability, SPA news agency said Thursday after a late night meeting between the two leaders. Discussions were "fruitful and constructive and in the interest of Egypt, of Saudi Arabia and of the people of the region," Mursi told reporters in Saudi's southern port city of Jeddah at the end of Wednesday night's meeting.
"Everything (King Abdullah) said was in the interest of the future, of the region and of Egypt," he said, adding that the king spoke with "wisdom and knowledge and love for the Egyptian people."
Mursi arrived in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday for his first foreign trip since taking office and met first with King Abdullah and then with Crown Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, who had greeted him on his arrival. Few details were given on the talks between Mursi and Abdullah, though the Egyptian president said regional stability was a key focus of their discussions.
"The stability of the region depends on the stability of Egypt and the Gulf, at the head of which stands Saudi Arabia," he said.
Mursi said he chose Saudi Arabia for his first official visit due to the "deep rooted and historical relationship shared between the two countries."
Tensions have long existed between the Gulf, where the strict Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam applies, and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, moderate Islamists who were thrust to power by the Arab Spring revolt that swept the country last year. Under Mursi's predecessor, the ousted Hosni Mubarak, Egypt and Saudi Arabia enjoyed close relations.
But a rare diplomatic crisis between the two regional powers in April saw Riyadh recall its ambassador in Cairo and close its embassy for several days, after protests demanding the release of a lawyer and rights activist detained in the kingdom.Mursi was expected Thursday to travel to Mecca and Medina, Islam's two holiest cities, to perform the umra, the so-called less pilgrimage that is carried out throughout the year unlike the annual hajj which is held at a specified time each year.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's most dangerous battle
By Osman Mirghani/Asharq Alawsat
Looking at all the challenges that Egypt is facing, most notably the economic crisis that urgently requires a return to national stability, newly-elected President Mohamed Mursi – by annulling the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces [SCAF] dissolution of parliament –chose to fight his first battle over powers. This battle contains significant confrontation and tension. If Mursi, supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, is seeking to challenge SCAF and strip it of the powers that it has acquired as a result of the Interim Constitutional Declaration, then he is making a big mistake! This is because, by doing so, Mursi will be initiating a confrontation with the judiciary and the Supreme Constitutional Court, inciting public fears that the Brotherhood are seeking to dominate and monopolize all authorities and powers in Egypt. This decision incited many judges and judicial officials to rush to warn against any aggression towards the judicial authorities by annulling the law, stressing that Mursi had exceeded his authority and overstepped the powers of the Supreme Constitutional Court. The Supreme Constitutional Court has the sole authority regarding issuing rulings on the constitutionality of laws and legal rulings, whilst its rulings are legally binding on all authorities. A president who argues that the Interim Constitutional Declaration is unconstitutional and illegitimate cannot perform his duties by ignoring the rulings of the Supreme Constitutional Court and granting himself the power to issue judicial interpretation over legal decisions. This is something that must not be allowed, otherwise the fundamentals of the state and the basis of democracy will be null and void. In addition to this, the warnings of those who said that the Brotherhood are the last group to abide by the law or lay the foundations for democracy would be proven right.
Some may argue that this decision was issued by Mursi, not the Muslim Brotherhood, and that following his election, the Egyptian president announced his resignation from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice party, stressing that he would be the president of all Egyptians. However in reality this talk about his resignation was unconvincing, nor was it required, as Mursi was the chosen presidential candidate of a particular party and current and did not run for the presidency as an independent. Thus, it is not convincing that he should subsequently emerge and announce his resignation from the Brotherhood because he wants to be the president of all Egyptians. Even if this was the case, what is the problem if the president is affiliated to a certain political party, and he demonstrates this affiliation in broad daylight, rather than under the cover of night? Presidents in all democracies in the world are elected whilst representing a political party, and they do not hesitate to overtly say that they are implementing the policies of their political party. This is a state of affairs that has never previously aroused suspicions of divided loyalty, nor were these rulers ever viewed as solely representing their own partisan interests, rather than all citizens of the country.
The problem with the Muslim Brotherhood is that they want to be engaged in politics, but behind the scenes. Therefore they form a party, choose a leadership, and then this party announces that it has no official ties to the Brotherhood. Following this, the political party choses a candidate to run for the presidency, mobilizing support for this candidate and organizing demonstrations and rallies in order to guarantee victory, and then once this candidate is announced as president, he claims that he is no longer a member of this party! They do all this whilst the general public sees the Brotherhood leaders and spokesmen speaking about the newly-elected president, his plans and programs, as if they are responsible for this. Similarly, we see the Brotherhood moving in harmony with the Freedom and Justice party and backing all the president's statements. In this case, how else would we explain the meeting that was held by the Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau and Shura Council on Saturday night – described as an important and urgent meeting – which coincidentally took place on the eve of Mursi's surprising decree to recall parliament? This is a decree that some described as a political earthquake, whilst others saw it as an explosion in the battle over powers. How else can we explain the Freedom and Justice party's announcement of demonstrations organized and initiated by Cairo mosques to support Mursi’s decree? How should we view the slogans chanted by Brotherhood demonstrators on Sunday night in Tahrir Square, including chants like “Freedom and Justice…Mursi has men behind him” and “Live free, die happy, a revolution once more”?
There can be no doubt that this form of democratic muscle-flexing is an addition to the series of threats and challenges that are hindering the endeavour to establish a democracy based on the respect for institutions, the judiciary and the law. There can be no true democracy, which functions properly with correct mechanisms, unless the executive, legislative and judicial authorities are separate and well-respected, not to mention respect for the fourth estate, namely the media. Furthermore, this form of democracy can only be established if there is also a constitution present, whilst the rule of law must be respected, and everybody must be subject to this. This is because the law is the major guarantor of rights and it alone can specify the duties and authorities of each party, without this a state would be subject to the whims and desires of those with influence and power.
It is clear that the Brotherhood were seeking to consolidate the president's powers and revive the Islamist-dominated parliament. This is something that would not only have meant the withdrawal of SCAF’s legislative powers, but would also ensured the Brotherhood’s complete dominance over Egypt’s legislative and executive authorities during the constitution-drafting phase, which will determine the path that Egypt will take in the future. It is no secret that from the outset, the Brotherhood maneuvered to postpone the constitution battle until after the parliamentary and presidential elections. The Brotherhood were well aware that as the most organized political force on the ground, they had a good chance of winning early elections, and this allowed them to reap the fruits of the Egyptian revolution, before others political forces could match their readiness. When they achieved their victory in the legislative elections, they dominated the Constituent Assembly, which was in charge of drafting the constitution. This, however, caused the Brotherhood to come under heavy criticism which ultimately resulted in a decree to dissolve the assembly. The Constituent Assembly was later returned to work, however the Administrative Court is scheduled to look into the complaints raised about this assembly next September. Therefore the Constituent Assembly appears to be in a race against time to finish drafting the Constitution before next September. What was striking in this regard is that Mursi’s recent decision to revive parliament was linked to a decision that this parliament would have approval over this constitution, and that new parliamentary elections would only be held following the approval of the constitution. This is to say that if the Constituent Assembly is hindered for any reason and its work is delayed, parliament would have remained operative – according to the decree – for a long period of time, or at least until its four-year term was completed.
The battle over powers and authorities in Egypt has now begun, and this is a battle that is taking place on more than one level. This battle may have entered its most dangerous stage, because much will depend on its results, not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, but also their opponents and Egypt as a whole.

America writes itself out of the script
July 12, 2012/By Michael Young The Daily Star
Lately, the U.S. administration has been so preoccupied with domestic issues vital to President Barack Obama’s re-election, that you wonder where the Middle East stands in Washington’s future. That’s not to say that American officials are ignoring the region. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has devoted much effort to Syria and Iran, while related American concerns further afield, such as those in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have also preoccupied decision-makers. The problem is more fundamental. Because the president’s mind is focused elsewhere, there is a sense of conceptual confusion when addressing the Middle East.
It is understandable that Obama’s aims are to revive the U.S. economy and shift foreign and defense priorities toward Asia, where American interests are bound to expand in the coming decades. What is less explicable is that at such a revolutionary moment in the Arab world, when foreign policy certitudes are collapsing almost on a daily basis, the administration does not appear to have any long-term overriding vision or interpretation of the region to help define how the United States must act to advance its national interests.
In many ways strategy is a narrative that policymakers apply to situations to explain probable outcomes, allowing them to take the long view in planning advantageous behavior.
Developing a foreign policy strategy is complex, demanding clear direction from the president or a State Department mandated by the White House to take the lead in policy formulation. It entails interaction between different, often competing, government bureaucracies, which have to ultimately hammer out compromises (successful or not) that ensure everyone is on the same page. At some stage Congress, which controls the money, is brought on board, and usually will try to impose alternative paths of its own. Ideally, a strategy requires flexibility, so that Washington can adapt to political surprises, which tend to overwhelm the big ideas and can substantially rewrite the story.
But if crafting a strategy is never easy, articulating it so that foreign capitals and the public know what is going on is not rocket science. The administration will insert relevant references in speeches. Officials will write op-ed pieces and publish papers. Think tanks will be enlisted to disseminate or will pick up new policy vibes from the administration. And the president and his aides will get on an airplane and spread the good word. Time is valuable, so the time that a president devotes to an issue shows how important he thinks it is.
On the basis of all this, the Middle East seems to be a rather poor cousin in the Obama administration. After high-profile visits early in his term, Obama has kept away from the Arab world. Even in his speeches, his disinterest is palpable. And the speeches of others reflect no guidance on the region from the White House, but rather multiple guidances that rarely seem properly integrated.
For instance, in Syria, where the Americans have the capacity to politically cripple a principal regional rival, namely Iran, the Obama administration is still dependent on the goodwill of Russia and China, two countries that want to see American power reduced.
Is that surprising? Washington is still stuck in the old ways. During the past 18 months there has been no visible overhaul in American thinking to adapt to the transformations in the Arab world. There have been conferences, statements of purpose, reactions to events, promises, much sound and fury, but none of it noticeably part of a larger cohesive framework in the minds of administration figures.
Even the military involvement in Libya last year was done in spite of Obama’s manifest misgivings. The president allowed himself to be dragged into the conflict because he did not want to be accused of allowing a massacre in Benghazi. As in Egypt a few weeks earlier, the U.S. seemed to be caught off guard, propelled by events largely outside its control, for which it seemed inadequately prepared.
Most of the pillars sustaining American involvement in the Middle East since the end of World War II have collapsed. The relationship with Saudi Arabia has been severely shaken during Obama’s term. Egypt has entered a new phase of its history, one in which American influence is in decline. The so-called Palestinian-Israeli peace process is without a process and offers no prospects of peace.
On the more encouraging side, a prominent American adversary, Syrian President Bashar Assad, is struggling to survive, and his almost certain fall will weaken two American enemies, Iran and their Lebanese followers in Hezbollah. And Iraq, while it remains under the significant sway of Tehran, will slowly move away from Iran and assert its political independence, not least thanks to the revitalization of its oil production capacities.
It is astonishing that at such a crucial stage in the Arab world, Washington is doing little hard thinking. Obama has written himself out of the script, a distant apparition alien to the peoples of the Middle East. But the region remains critical, no matter what the president believes, and it can still bite the world in the rear end. When that happens, the Americans cannot afford to lead from behind. They need to be up front, knowing precisely what they want.*
*Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

Musri and al-Katatni could be imprisoned – Egyptian judge
11/07/2012/By Abdul Sattar Hatita
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Justice Muhammad Hamid al-Jamal, former president of the Egyptian State Council, has claimed that newly-elected Egyptian president, Dr. Mohamed Mursi – alongside Egyptian parliamentary speaker, Dr. Saad al-Katatni – could be dismissed from their posts and imprisoned for their violation of the ruling issued by the Supreme Constitutional Court last month dissolving Egypt’s parliament. Speaking exclusively to Asharq Al-Awsat on Monday, al-Jamal called on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces [SCAF], which handed over power to Mursi last week, to intervene to prevent this attack on constitutional and legal legitimacy.
Following parliamentary elections beginning on 28 November 2011 and ending 11 January 2012, Egypt’s Islamists won a strong parliamentary majority. Egypt’s Islamist parties – including the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, the Salafist al-Nour party and others – won approximately 70 percent of seats in Egypt’s People’s Assembly. However a legal ruling was later issued by the Supreme Constitutional Court branding the parliamentary elections unconstitutional and dissolving Egypt’s parliament. This ruling was implemented by SCAF chairman Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi, prior to Mursi’s election. Following Mursi’s election, the newly elected Egyptian president branded the Supreme Constitutional Court ruling and the dissolution of parliament unconstitutional, calling for parliament to be reconvened. In turn, SCAF and the Supreme Constitutional Court branded Mursi’s actions unconstitutional, with the military and the presidency currently at loggerheads.
In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, former president of the Egyptian State Council, Justice Muhammad Hamid al-Jamal, offered his expert legal opinion regarding the chaos prevalent on the Egyptian political scene today.
As for the constitutionality of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling to dissolve parliament, Justice Al-Jamal informed Asharq Al-Awsat that the suspended Egyptian constitution stipulates the presence and powers of this court, which include determining the constitutionality of the laws, interpreting ambiguous laws and legal statutes, settling conflicts between rulings and issuing legally binding rulings.
Al-Jamal stressed that “by law, this court’s rulings are categorical and final. These rulings are binding to all state authorities and officials, including the head of state…from the date the ruling is officially issued.”
Justice Al-Jamal also told Asharq Al-Awsat that “when this ruling was issued, all state authorities should have implemented this, including the head of the executive authority. This implementation is based on the ruling’s constitutional and legal authority…there is no need for another ruling authorizing the implementation.
He added “this means that the implementation ruling issued by SCAF is nothing more than a media and executive expression of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s original ruling.”
Justice Al-Jamal stated that the resolution stipulating the dissolution of the Egyptian People's Assembly, which was signed by SCAF chairman Field Marshal Tantawi on the basis of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling, is superfluous and does not establish anything new, because the People’s Assembly was null and void from the moment of the first ruling.
Justice Al-Jamal stressed that in this case, “what the president did two days ago, issuing a decree recalling the People's Assembly…is null and void and has no constitutional or legal basis, because it violates and contradicts the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling. This also amends the valid constitutional declarations, including what we call the Complementary Constitution declaration and the Interim Constitution. This determines (the date of) new parliamentary elections following the drafting of a new constitution, and dissolves the current People’s Assembly.”
As for whether the newly-elected Egyptian president has the right to nullify the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling or recall parliament, Al-Jamal told Asharq Al-Awsat that “these are all powers that have no basis in the existing constitution…the president does not possess any such powers.”
He added “just because he is the president, this does not mean he can do anything that he wants, because his powers are derived from the constitution and the laws. Therefore, this [presidential] decree is null and void, as it violates the judicial authority and the powers of SCAF.”
As for whether those who follow President Mursi’s decree will be subject to punishment for failing to abide by the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling, Justice Al-Jamal stated “of course…first of all there is the text of the interim constitution which stipulates that legal rulings must be respected and implemented, and whoever fails to do so is committing a crime punishable by law. Whilst Chapter 2 Article 123 of the Penal Code stipulates that the punishment for any public employee or official who hinders, suspends, or cancels the implementation of legal rulings is imprisonment and dismissal from his post. Naturally, the president – who issued the presidential decree – is primarily responsible for this, as well as anybody who implements this decree which is contrary to the rulings of the constitution and the law, including speaker of the dissolved People’s Assembly, Dr. Saad al-Katatni.”
Answering a question as to whether parliamentarians and parliamentary security guards who followed the president’s decree to reconvene the People’s Assembly will be punished, Al-Jamal said: "If these employees carried out the orders of Mursi and Al-Katatni, they will also be liable to the law."
Al-Jamal stressed that “the fundamental principle regarding legal and constitutional legitimacy is that there is no obedience to a superior who issues an order that violates the constitution and the law. Naturally, public employees must object in writing to implementing such orders, and if they fail to do so…they will be committing a crime, which must be punished.”
Justice Al-Jamal informed Asharq Al-Awsat that SCAF must intervene in order to protect the implementation of the original and valid ruling issued by the Supreme Constitutional Court dissolving the People’s Assembly. He added that SCAF must prevent the aggression against the constitutional and legal legitimacy in the country, because this is something that incites chaos and disrespect towards the law, the constitution and judicial rulings.
As for the consequences for MPs attending sessions of the officially dissolved People’s Assembly, and the legality of the salaries and financial remunerations they will get for this, Al-Jamal stressed that everything in this regard is null and void, including "the preparation of laws and the dispensation of monetary sums for any work they claim to have done.”
Answering a question regarding what will happen now in Egypt, with SCAF and the presidency divided over the issue of the dissolution of the Egyptian People’s Assembly, Justice Al-Jamal told Asharq Al-Awsat “I expect one of two options. The first is that SCAF will postpone any intervention until all cases raised before the administrative and Supreme Constitutional courts as a result of Mursi’s decree are settled. This option involves extraordinary patience. The second option is that SCAF will rely on the enforceability, legitimacy, and authority of the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling regarding the dissolution of the People's Assembly, and will give orders preventing parliament being entered illegally.”

Support Libya!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
There can be no doubt that Libya is not Muammar Gaddafi, and it does not even resemble Gaddafi’s end, which epitomized his rule and approach. Libya is an Arab state that has a role and status that must be restored. It is a country whose people are eager for peace and a life of dignity, and we must help them in this regard. This is not by interfering in Libya’s internal affairs, but the opposite.
Today, the Arab world, and particularly the Gulf States, should extend their hand to Libya and the Libyan people, by sending a prestigious ambassador to their country. This is not to interfere in Libyan affairs – whether positively or negatively – but in order to strengthen communication and return Libya to its rightful place in the Arab world. This would be in order to deepen cooperation and coordination, opening all the doors to allow Libya to integrate in the Arab world. Libya’s importance is in its history, its Arab identity and its people, not its conflicting and gloomy history during the Muammar Gaddafi era. The importance of Libya today, particularly following the recent elections whose results have brought joy to the people of Libya, as well as the intellectuals in the Arab world – or shall we say the advocates of stability – is that it has confirmed that the majority of Libyans want to build a civil state, away from religious controversies or otherwise. Therefore, Mr. Mahmoud Jibril, leader of the National Front Alliance [NFA], was politically correct to ask that his coalition not be described as a “liberal” coalition, but rather as a national Libyan coalition, and a victory for all of Libya.
This is political language that must be respected, however the reality tells us that Libya today is a different country, and the victory of the NFA means that it has blocked the emergence of a Muslim Brotherhood triangle in Africa, namely a triangle incorporating the Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Tripoli is important because it is oil-rich, therefore the results of the Libyan elections means that it is vitally important to help Libya today. This help would be characterized by respecting Libya’s status and restoring it to its natural and sought after place with regards to all the rational political approaches in the region, whether with regards to the Syrian file or other regional issues. This will not take place by attempting to control Libya, or interfering in its internal affairs, whether in terms of politics, economics or media. This is something that will occur by communicating with Libya, respecting its position and role, and extending the hand of cooperation to the country, as well as involving it in Arab concerns and granting it the space that it requires.
The results of the Libyan elections confirm that the Libyan people are eager to move forward. We do not know whether the Libyans benefitted from what has taken place in the surrounding region in Egypt and Tunisia or if they had sufficient experience of armed militias or whether Libya is a different story that the Arabs do not understand, believing the country to be Gaddafi and nothing more. What is most important today is that the Libyan people themselves have stated – via the ballot boxes –that they are eager for the future and keen to build a civil state based on institutions. Therefore it is our duty to help them, and as I stated before, this will not occur by interfering in internal Libyan affairs, but rather by extending the hand of genuine cooperation to the people of Libya, respecting the country’s sovereignty and granting Tripoli the position it deserves in the Arab region, particularly as Libya has decided to be a rational state searching for stability, rather than a state based on ideologies and adventures. Therefore it is clear that Libya has chosen to distance itself from Gaddafi’s adventures and madness, and this is something that is worthy of celebration and respect.