LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Bible Quotation for today/Law or Faith
Galatians 03/01-14/"You foolish Galatians! Who put a spell on you? Before your very eyes you had a clear description of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross! Tell me this one thing: did you receive God's Spirit by doing what the Law requires or by hearing the gospel and believing it? How can you be so foolish! You began by God's Spirit; do you now want to finish by your own power? Did all your experience mean nothing at all? Surely it meant something! Does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you because you do what the Law requires or because you hear the gospel and believe it? Consider the experience of Abraham; as the scripture says, “He believed God, and because of his faith God accepted him as righteous.” You should realize, then, that the real descendants of Abraham are the people who have faith. The scripture predicted that God would put the Gentiles right with himself through faith. And so the scripture announced the Good News to Abraham: “Through you God will bless all people.” Abraham believed and was blessed; so all who believe are blessed as he was. Those who depend on obeying the Law live under a curse. For the scripture says, “Whoever does not always obey everything that is written in the book of the Law is under God's curse!” Now, it is clear that no one is put right with God by means of the Law, because the scripture says, “Only the person who is put right with God through faith shall live.” But the Law has nothing to do with faith. Instead, as the scripture says, “Whoever does everything the Law requires will live.” But by becoming a curse for us Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings; for the scripture says, “Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.” Christ did this in order that the blessing which God promised to Abraham might be given to the Gentiles by means of Christ Jesus, so that through faith we might receive the Spirit promised by God.

Lebanon Begins Implementing Strict Entry Controls on Syrians
Naharnet /The government began implementing strict entry controls on Syrians fleeing the turmoil in the neighboring in an attempt to confront the soaring numbers of refugees. According to An Nahar newspaper published on Wednesday, the security measures are implemented on all border crossings with Syrian including al-Masnaa border crossing in the east, al-Abboudiyeh in Akkar district, al-Aridah in North Lebanon and several others.The measures aim at preventing “terrorist” and anti-Lebanese army groups from entering the country. Only people with valid identification cards or passports can enter and they are filling applications that identify them whether they are refugees or workers,” the report said. Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel previously said that the measures aim at organizing the refugees legal permits. The residency permits will have a timeframe of six months, Charbel noted. Ministerial sources told An Nahar that the entry controls don't target the Syrians but rather aim at safeguarding the Lebanese. Concerning the government's decision to shut down unlicensed businesses owned by Syrians across Lebanon, the deadline for them acquire the legal permits was extended to August 31. The Lebanese state argues that the Syrians the right to work to feed themselves on building sites or other sectors but not in trade or in businesses that require a permit. Many Syrian refugees are forced to sleep rough on the streets because they can not afford to rent somewhere to live. But the presence of 600,000 alongside a population of just four million has sparked mounting friction. A recent opinion poll found that 54 percent of respondents believed Lebanon should close its doors to the refugees. A full 82 percent said that the refugees were stealing jobs from Lebanese.

Connelly Meets Aoun: EU Decision against Hizbullah Shows Party Cannot Act with Impunity
Naharnet/U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly hailed on Tuesday the European Union's decision to blacklist Hizbullah's military wing as a terrorist organization. She said after holding talks with Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun: “The decision sends a strong message that the party cannot operate with impunity and there are consequences for its actions, such as the Burgas bombing and its terrorist plot in Cyprus.” The ambassador and MP discussed the political and security situation in Lebanon, as well as other regional issues. She said that government formation is a Lebanese process and that the Lebanese people deserve a government that reflects their aspirations and strengthens Lebanon's stability, sovereignty, and independence while fulfilling its international obligations. She noted the U.S. hoped to see a formation of a government with which the United States would be able to work more closely. Moreover, Connelly regretted the failure of some parties to respect the Baabda Declaration and noted that interference in Syria by those parties endanger Lebanon’s sovereignty, stability, and security.

Qahwaji Says Political Disputes Forced Decisions to Avert Vacuum
Naharnet/Army Commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji said on Wednesday criticized the political disputes among the rival parties, which pressed politicians to take decisions in order to avoid vacuum.
In his Order of the Day to mark the 68th Army Day, Qahwaji stressed that “there wouldn't have been any fear of vacuum if the political life went on normally and disputes didn't govern ties between parties.”
He reiterated that the army is holding onto the Lebanese constitution and the National Pact principles, which is related to Lebanon's sovereignty, maintaining democracy and respecting international and Arab conventions.
“What happened recently should motivate us all to end the political and personal disputes that terminate our constitutional values and the Taif accord,” Qahwaji added. He pointed out that the army is committed to maintain the “democratic legacy” in Lebanon by preserving the institutions. “We are committed to the law and will not surpass it,” the army chief said. Qahwaji's term, which ends in September when he turns 60, has been the center of disputes among politicians. Most of the political parties voiced support to the extension decision but Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun rejects any attempts to extend his term, describing it as "illegal."

Ghosn Issues Decision to Postpone Qahwaji's Retirement
Naharnet/Caretaker Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn issued on Wednesday an administrative decision to extend the mandate of Army chief General Jean Qahwaji for two years after the parliament failed to take such a move. The decision calls for postponing for two years Qahwaji's retirement and that of Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Walid Salman, which expires on August 7. The decision comes on the eve of Army Day. It will turn the page on a simmering dispute between its supporters who argue that it is necessary to avoid a security vacuum and its opponents who claim the move is unconstitutional. Qahwaji's term expires on September 23 when he turns 60 – the retirement age for army commanders. Media reports on Wednesday, said that Ghosn would have based his decision on articles 15 and 55 of the defense law, which comes a day after the last obstacle on the matter was removed following a meeting between caretaker Premier Najib Miqati and Qahwaji. Several dailies quoted sources as saying that Miqati struck a final deal with President Michel Suleiman to issue the administrative decision on the extension rather than signing a decree to avoid challenges by lawmakers after Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun reiterated on Tuesday that he was ready to challenge the extension, which he described as unconstitutional. The sources said the decision could only be challenged by officers who have been negatively affected by it. But they ruled out such a move by the 350 brigadier-generals in the army.
Aoun's Change and Reform bloc has been among the MPs boycotting a parliamentary session that has the extension on its agenda in addition to 44 other draft-laws. Miqati and the March 14 alliance's lawmakers who have also boycotted the session claim that Speaker Nabih Berri does not have the right to call for a National Assembly amid a resigned government.

State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr Rejects Request to Free Samaha
Naharnet /State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr rejected on Wednesday a request to release former Information Minister Michel Samaha over the seriousness of his crime.
Saqr asked the military court to reject the request made by Samaha's defense lawyer Sakher Hashem a week ago on claims that the crime was only based on plots. Samaha was arrested in August 2012 for plotting terrorist attacks and transporting explosives. His trial has been postponed to December 3 because of the absence of his alleged co-conspirator Gen. Ali Mamlouk, a Syrian security chief, who is believed to be in Syria.
Samaha had been expected to face the first session of his trial before the military court, but the judge announced a delay so that Mamlouk can report to the court. The two face charges of "transporting explosives from Syria to Lebanon in an attempt to assassinate Lebanese political and religious leaders.” If convicted, they face the death penalty. A Syrian colonel known only by his first name as Adnan has also plotted the attacks with them.
According to the indictment, the explosives that were found in Samaha's car were delivered by Adnan to the ex-minister in Syria with the approval of Mamlouk. The Lebanese judiciary issued an arrest warrant for Mamlouk and Adnan and sent Syria a formal notification of the warrant and charges in February, but received no response. In the event of a non-response, Lebanese law allows for the trial against Samaha to proceed with Mamlouk being tried in absentia, but the court has not so far suggested it would take that approach.

Soldier Killed, Another Wounded in Bekaa Raid as Army Arrests 'Dangerous' Fugitive
Naharnet/A soldier was killed and another injured on Wednesday during an army raid to arrest fugitives in the Bekaa, reported the National News Agency. The Army Command issued a statement confirming the martyrdom of a soldier and the injury of another. The communique said: "One soldier was martyred and another was wounded in (the Bekaa region of) Majdal Anjar after their patrol was targeted with gunshots during a raid in the region."
The army revealed that the patrol was able to arrest "one of the most dangerous fugitives in the country." Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) identified the army's victim as Charbel Hatem and VDL (93.3) identified the wounded as Boulos Ashqouti. NNA said that an army patrol in Majdal Anjar in the Bekaa was seeking the arrest of fugitives.It raided the residence of Wissam Abdul Hafiz, but did not locate him. The army then came under fire by unknown assailants as it was leaving the area. Later on Wednesday, the Army Command issued a statement in which it clarified the circumstances of the incident. "Unknown gunmen opened fire on an army patrol in the town of Majdal Anjar this afternoon, which left two soldiers wounded," the statement said, adding that one of them later died of his wounds and that troops returned fire. "Army units took extraordinary measures which resulted in the arrest of one of the most dangerous fugitives, while efforts are underway to arrest the shooters," the statement added.

Jumblat Discusses Qahwaji's Term with Arslan, Franjieh
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat agreed with Lebanese Democratic Party leader MP Talal Arslan and Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh on the importance of extending the mandate Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji in the first such contact between the foes. According to As Safir newspaper published on Wednesday, a dinner banquet gathered two days ago Jumblat and Arslan. The talks between the two officials focused on the decision to extend Qahwaji's term. The newspaper reported that during the banquet Jumblat also contacted Franjieh, after a long broken off ties. It described the telephone conversation as “friendly.” “Extending the terms of Qahwaji and (Army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Walid) Salman is a necessity amid the delicate situation and to prevent any vacuum in the military institution,” Jumblat told As Safir newspaper.
He pointed out that the “army paid the price to maintain stability and shouldn't not be subjected to vacuum.”Salman's mandate expires on August 7, while Qahwaji's term expires on September 23 when he turns 60 – the retirement age for army commanders.

Berri Hits Back at Mustaqbal Criticism, Says Parliament is its Own Master
Naharnet /Speaker Nabih Berri has snapped back at al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc which accused him of encouraging “unacceptable” practices by insisting on keeping the agenda of the national assembly intact. “Everyone should know that the parliament is the top institution and gives legitimacy to governments,” Berri said in remarks published in several newspapers on Wednesday. “It has approved the constitution of the Taef accord without the presence of a cabinet,” he said. The speaker's remarks came a day after al-Mustaqbal said following its weekly meeting that Berri was “insisting on the agenda of the parliamentary session that is aimed at consolidating unacceptable customs.” It said also said in its statement in a reference to Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun that there were factions that claimed to support state institutions while working to undermine the constitution. “The parliament is its own master and will remain so with regard to the legislative session and the same agenda,” Berri said. “All what others are doing is aimed at covering up for the (failure) to form a government,” he added. Berri postponed on Monday for the third consecutive time a parliamentary session which has 45 draft-laws on its agenda, including the extension of Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji's mandate.
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Miqati, the March 14 alliance's MPs and Aoun's Change and Reform bloc have been boycotting the session. While Miqati and March 14, intruding al-Mustaqbal, claim that Berri does not have the right to call for a session with a wide agenda amid a resigned cabinet, Aoun says the extension of Qahwaji's term is unconstitutional.

Al-Mustaqbal: Army Has Double Importance amid Current Circumstances
Naharnet/Al-Mustaqbal bloc lawmakers stressed on Tuesday on the significance of the army's role amid the current critical situation in Lebanon that is manifested in “Hizbullah's infringement of the state's prestige.”
“The army has a double importance in current circumstances, especially after the increased presence of outlaws,” the MPs said in a released statement after the bloc's weekly meeting at the Center House.
The statement elaborated: “The military institution is a main constituent in the country tasked with preserving stability and in the current critical conditions in Lebanon, it has a double role in taking care of the people's safety and applying the law.”"When Hizbullah is violating the state's prestige and when it is practicing political intimidation, the presence and the role of the army become more significant.” The MPs reiterated their “full support to the state and its security institutions to preserve stability and confront the enemy and any attack against Lebanon's sovereignty.” "The only immunity left for the Lebanese people is the state and its institutions. The army is in the forefront of these institutions.” Regarding the parliamentary session that Speaker Nabih Berri called for, al-Mustaqbal lawmakers said that “holding on to the same agenda increases confusion in the country.” Two parliamentary sessions with 45 draft-laws on the agenda, including the extension of Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji, have been recently postponed over the boycott of several blocs and Caretaker Premier Najib Miqati. Berri insists on keeping the 45 draft-laws on the session's agenda intact and had previously vowed to continue to call on MPs for a General Assembly meeting until the agenda is discussed. Meanwhile, Miqati argues that there is no balance between the powers of the legislative and executive branches amid a resigned government. Miqati and the March 14 alliance say that the agenda's articles should be limited to one draft-law, which is extending Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji's mandate. However, MP Michel Aoun's Change and Reform has a different reason to boycott the session. Aoun staunchly opposes the extension of Qahwaji's tenure.Al-Mustaqbal lawmakers accused in their statement some political factions of “pretending to be keen on preserving the state's institutions.” “But in reality, they are only covering corruption in ministries and suspicious deals,” the bloc stated. In a separate matter, the statement condemned “the dangerous measures undertaken by Israel to change the identity of the Palestinian people.”“We urge the United Nations, the Arab League and the U.N. Security Council to adopt the necessary measures against Israel's racial behaviors towards Palestinians,” it stressed. The Israeli government in January approved the Prawer-Begin Bill in January, which calls for the relocation of 30,000-40,000 Bedouin, the demolition of about 40 villages and the confiscation of more than 700,000 dunums (70,000 hectares) of land in the Negev. The bill was also approved by the Israeli parliament in a first reading in June, and two more votes on it are expected. Source/Agence France Presse.

Military Tribunal Charges Asir's Bodyguard over Abra Clashes
Naharnet /Charges were pressed against the bodyguard of salafist cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir over his links to the clashes that took place in Abra in the southern city of Sidon in June, reported LBCI television on Wednesday.
It said that State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr charged Ali Abdul Wahad and referred him to First Military Investigation Judge Riyad Abu Ghida. Abdul Wahad, a 30-year-old Palestinian, was arrested at Rafik Hariri International Airport on July 25 as he was attempting to flee Beirut to Nigeria. In initial investigations with him, he revealed information on several people wanted by the army, including Asir and singer turned Salafist Fadel Shaker. Asir's supporters opened fire on an army checkpoint, last month, leaving around 18 soldiers and more than 20 gunmen dead. The gunbattles concentrated in the area of Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque and nearby buildings in Abra. Asir, a 45-year-old cleric who supports the overwhelmingly Sunni rebels fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad, is no where to be found along with Shaker. Asir teamed up with Shaker, a onetime prominent singer, when around two years ago he began agitating for Hizbullah to disarm.

Qaida Chief Says Syria Exposed Hizbullah as Iran 'Tool'
Naharnet/Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri said that Hizbullah had been exposed as a 'tool of Iranian expansionism,' in an audio message posted online on Wednesday. Zawahiri said that Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah's public acknowledgement in late April that its fighters had intervened in neighboring Syria in support of President Bashar Assad, a key Tehran ally, "tore off the mask he always hid behind." "The jihadist uprising in Muslim Syria has exposed the ugly face of Hasan Nasrallah, the head of the rejectionist (Shiite) Safavid (Iranian) plan for Syria," the al-Qaida leader said. "It has been revealed to the Islamic Umma that he is just an instrument in the rejectionist Safavid plan that aims to spread the hegemony of the vali-e faqih," he said, referring to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollahi Ali Khamenei.Source/Agence France Presse.

Iran Grants Syria $3.6-bln Oil Credit Line
Naharnet/Iran has agreed to supply Damascus with $3.6 billion in oil in exchange for the right to invest in the country, Syria's state news agency SANA said on Tuesday. "An agreement was signed (on Monday) in Tehran... by the Iranian and Syrian central banks, granting Syria a credit line worth $3.6 billion," it reported. The deal stipulates that Syria will pay back the cost of the oil loan "through Iranian investments of various kinds in Syria", said SANA. It did not elaborate on what kind of investments Tehran would make. Iran is the main regional backer of Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose regime has fought for more than 28 months to crush a protest movement that morphed into a bloody insurgency after the army cracked down against dissent. Oil production in Syria has crashed over the course of the country's war, which the United Nations says has killed more than 100,000 people.
Previously a small energy exporter, Syria is now forced to import oil and by-products, Oil Minister Sleiman Abbas said in May.
SourceAgence France Presse.

Where Our Olden And Modern meet
Hazem Saghieh/Al Hayat
For the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to call for, time after time, international intervention to defend their legitimate rule is only a reminder of the failure of their own underpinnings to fulfill their desire to change the status quo. This perception is further reinforced by the fact that the Brotherhood’s appeal for intervention has taken place in parallel with the emergence of a broad consensus among Islamist forces, bringing together, in addition to the Brotherhood, the Salafis, al-Wasat Party, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, and Mohamed Salim Al-Awa; for one thing, this gathering is one of the upshots of the last coup, since the Islamists had hitherto been fragmented and divided. Yet the weakness of the Brotherhood’s underpinnings here remains less dramatic (and scandalous) than the endorsement given by the modernists, the opponents of the Islamists, for the army, giving Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi a mandate. If it took in 1964 something like intervention by the Soviet Union to push Egyptian communists to disband their party and merge into the Arab Socialist Union, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, then pledging allegiance to the army by the leftists and liberals equally did not require any extraordinary international effort this time. Just like Iraqi and Syrian communists joined Saddam Hussein's and Hafez al-Assad's fronts, liberals infused with a flavor of social democracy before them, such as Iraqis Kamel al-Jaderji and Mohammad Hadid, had worked with the governments of the military coup leaders Bakr Sidqi (1936) and Abdul Karim Kassem (1958).
Similarly, in modern Syrian history, a symbol like Akram Hurani was a stark example of the permanent confusion between parliamentary work and military coups. This confusion was not interrupted since Hosni al-Zaim’s coup in 1949 until the ascent of the Baath to power in 1963. Recently, several modernist Syrian intellectuals expressed positions in support of the military rulers and Assad against the popular uprising. This, in turn, expresses the same kind of sentiment as above, and in some cases, the same confusion as Hurani’s.While it is possible to note a thousand criticisms of the U.S. war in Iraq in 2003, what must not be ignored is the failure of the Iraqis, between 1968 and 2003, to topple Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, when Iraqis ran the affairs of Iraq the result was – and continues to be – disastrous. The same applies, albeit on a smaller scale, to the Libyans, whose revolution could only be concluded through foreign intervention. Their administration of their affairs continues to rely on tribes, regional allegiances, and rival militias. In regard to the Syrians, who began the process of toppling Assad by themselves in 2011, it is clear that, without foreign intervention, they will be unable to complete this process. As for the Egyptians and Tunisians who managed to finish the job on their own, they are today stumbling in a profound fashion, and facing many problems in managing their affairs after having toppled their leaders. Most likely, all these events, despite the differences between them, reveal an inherent weakness that cannot produce solid local underpinnings that are adequate by themselves. In general, this is something much more important and dangerous than polity itself. Indeed, the armed forces, the foreign powers, and religious illusions about salvation, remain until further notice the only active forces in our reality, which still struggles to be that, a reality. This kind of dependence is where our past-loving Islamists and modernism-loving liberals and leftists intersect.

Tehran: For restored Iranian aid, Hamas must go back to supporting Bashar Assad
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 31, 2013/The split in the Palestinian camp was more pronounced this week than ever. While a Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority team sat down with Israel in Washington for US-initiated peace talks after Israel agreed to release 104 jailed Palestinians, a secret Hamas delegation arrived in Tehran to patch up the Gaza rulers’ quarrel with Iran. debkafile reveals that the delegation, headed by Muhammad Nasr, included Hamas’ military wing commanders and some of the Palestinian prisoners freed to buy the release of the Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit.
Our Iranian sources reveal that Iranian officials made it clear that ties with Hamas would not be severed. But if the Palestinian group wanted the flow of money and weapons restored, it must revive its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and undersign Hizballah’s military intervention in the Syrian conflict.
This was easier said than done. The Hamas delegation in Tehran was in no position for an authoritative reply, because it could only speak for one of the three sections of its bitterly divided movement, as listed by debkafile sources:
1. The Politburo chief Khaled Meshaal’s party claims since the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood’s president Mohamed Morsi in Cairo that Hamas must henceforth obey the Brotherhood’s “world leadership” and not the leaders under military siege in Cairo.
This is obviously an equivocation since the Egyptian Brotherhood constitutes the movement’s world leadership. Taking this line invites the Egyptian military to continue its crackdown on Hamas and the sealing off of the Gaza Strip by the destruction of the smuggling tunnels to Sinai which sustained it. This operation has deprived the Hamas regime of more than half of its regular revenue and is jeopardizing its grip on the territory.
2. The second party is led by the Hamas prime minister of Gaza Ismail Haniyeh. He has broken relations with Meshaal and no longer defers to his authority. Haniyeh argues that his movement should not worry about its low fortunes or the enmity of many parts of the Muslim world, including the new regime in Egypt, Iran, Damascus and HIzballah, because its focus should be on holding onto power in Gaza and enhancing its authority in the local population. Like Meshaal, Haniyeh also begs the question. How can he explain this policy when he is too broke to pay the salaries of government officials and members of the military wing, the Izzedin al Qassam Brigades.
3. The third group is headed by pro-Iranian, pro-Hizballah Mahmoud a-Zahar, along with the military wing commanders Mohammed Deif and Marwan Issa and the Hamas representative in Turkey, Saleh al-Aruri, who is also in charge of Hamas operations on the West Bank. This group maintains that Hamas lacks the strength and resources for standing up to Egypt and its Persian Gulf backers led by Saudi Arabia and must therefore run back fast to the radical Iran-Syria-Hizballah fold. The fate and fortunes of Hamas bear strongly on the US-led Israeli-Palestinian negotiating track which was resumed in Washington his week after a three-year stalemate and is due to continue within two weeks.Israel has twice switched its orientation with regard to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in the past nine months. In November 2012, Israel accepted the diplomacy of Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, for the ceasefire which ended its Pillar of Defense operation against Hamas missiles. In July 2013, since the coup which overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, Israel is cooperating with the Egyptian military and its champion, Saudi Arabia. This cooperation surfaced when Egyptian Apache gun ships appeared over Gaza skies following a secret Israeli deal with Cairo. What will happen when the Egyptian military goes forward with its plans for a major operation against Hamas - almost certainly in the teeth of opposition by the United States and Palestinian Authority with whom Israel launched peace talks this week?

Israelis and Palestinians agree nine month deadline for peace talks .
London, Asharq Al-Awsat—Israeli and Palestinian negotiators agreed on Tuesday to use the next nine months to seek a “final status” peace deal. The news was announced by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, following preliminary talks between the two sides in Washington DC on Monday and Tuesday. Kerry, speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, said: “sustained, continuous, substantive negotiations on the core issues” would begin at a site in Israel or the Palestinian territories within the next two weeks. He was joined by Tzipi Livni, Israel’s minister of justice, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, who represented the two sides in this week’s talks. Erekat said: “Palestinians have suffered enough… It is time for the Palestinians to live in peace, freedom and dignity within their own independent sovereign state.” Livni told reporters that she was under no illusions that the negotiations would be easy, but that she hoped they “transform that spark of hope into something real and lasting.”Kerry said: “I know the path is difficult. There is no shortage of passionate sceptics. But with capable, respected negotiators . . . I am convinced that we can get there.”Despite the public optimism displayed by Kerry and the negotiators in Washington this week, serious obstacles remain to any final political settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In particular, previous talks in 2010 broke down over the issue of the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which was captured by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, and is expected to form the nucleus of any future Palestinian state. Both sides have said that any deal which involves territorial borders will be subject to referendums in both Israel and the Palestinian territories.
The two sides must also reach a settlement on the city of Jerusalem, which both states claim as their capital, and the “right of return” of Palestinians who were expelled or fled from territory now claimed by Israel in 1948.

What a difference a year makes
By: Ali Ibrahim/ASharq Alawsat
Many of those afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in the Arab countries that witnessed change as a part of the wave of the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2011, assumed that the region, or these countries specifically, would need between 40 to 50 years before a change could happen or other political forces could effectively compete for power. It was surprising how the Brotherhood’s popularity plummeted in only one year. Thanks to an overwhelming public desire, the Brotherhood’s first president was toppled on his first anniversary in office. During the presidential elections, public opinion was divided between those who support the Brotherhood and the ones who want to give them a chance on the one hand, and the ones opposing them on the other. Now after one year of the Brotherhood’s politically fruitless practices and efforts to monopolize power at the expense of national unity, as well as being in conflict with the social and state institutions to the extent that the presidency antagonized the judicial system, it has become clear why the majority of people sided with the opposition.
The good thing is that this put the Brotherhood and its fellow travelers under the microscope like any other normal political movement which people can judge based on its policy. It has stripped the Brotherhood of the religious halo that surrounded them when they were an underground organization or in the opposition. Thus people learned the hard way that politics is politics and statecraft has nothing to do with empty promises.
During the stuttering transition, as well as the bitter political conflict in the country, there have been many analyses and predictions of what Egypt’s model will be in the light of the rise of Islamism. Will it be similar to the Turkish model, which managed to work out a modern formula of Islamism that coexisted with Turkey’s long secularist heritage? Or will it be similar to the Pakistani model?
There is nothing wrong with this at all. Societies learn from each other and benefit from each other’s experiences. However, learning from other societies is one thing and importing foreign models is something else. The model of rule must be consistent with facts on the ground, especially as each society has its own historical structure and experience. As we can see, what we are witnessing now is nothing other than the Egyptian model.
This explains what happened in June 30, including the massive protests that expressed a strong desire felt by large segments of society to change the regime. In fact, the military could not ignore the calls to step in. Otherwise, the military would have jeopardized its reputation and history. What happened in June 30 is similar to January 25, but with one difference: While Mubarak preferred to leave under public pressure, Mursi adhered to power under the pressure of the Brotherhood. This has led to a complex situation whose repercussions continue today in the form of bloody confrontations and a bitter struggle that will require a high political skill to get out of. This is not to mention the interlocking regional and international factors that add to the complexity of the scene.
One glance at the state of polarization in the region, as well as the foreign mobilization represented by the supporters and allies of the Brotherhood as well as the ones who gambled on the Islamist group, clarifies to what extent the sides realize that they are playing with fire. One question remains unanswered: What about the future? Will it be possible for the Brotherhood to return?
A quick look at the political scene demonstrates the level of public anger at the Brotherhood’s year in power, the statements by its members and the way the country has been divided. The Brotherhood will need another 40 years to rehabilitate their image or return with new leaders of modern mentality that realize that the project and the methods of the old generation, or the so-called hard-liners within the group, are incompatible with the nature of the society or even Egypt’s national interests.
It is hard to imagine the return of the Brotherhood, or their president, as some call for, with the public so infuriated at the group and the state institutions rejecting them. Otherwise, chaos will prevail in a manner that would jeopardize the survival of the state itself.
Even national reconciliation appears to be extremely difficult to achieve in the light of the current state of polarization and extremism in the country as well as the Brotherhood’s bet on external pressures to alter things on the ground. The problem is that they fail to notice the strength of the wind of change sweeping through the country.

Egypt’s way forward
By: Abdullah Al-Otaibi/Asharq Alawsat
Last Friday, July 26, marked an important day in Egypt’s modern history, especially the period after the so-called the Arab Spring. The majority of the Egyptian people responded to the Minister of Defense Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi’s call, which was approved by the interim President, to take to the streets in the millions to authorize him to confront violence and terrorism. In fact, unprecedented masses of people took to streets to grant him the authorization he requested.
The writer of this article has previously written that the Muslim Brotherhood, having been deposed from power, will return to their old habit and firmly-established practices of violence and terrorism. In the entire body of their public discourse, the Brotherhood never disavowed such practices, nor did they ever apologize for the crimes they committed; from the assassinations and bombings that were carried out on Hassan Al-Banna’s orders to the bombings and killings last week. However, this situation is likely to be further aggravated unless there is strong and firm confrontation with such a provocative discourse, something the Muslim Brotherhood has long considered as their sole course in dealing with reality.
It is clear that the Egyptian people and the Egyptian state, as well as institutions such as the army, the police, the judiciary, al-Azhar, the church, civil political powers in their guises, and media corporations have all become unified in their rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood’s futile “radical rule” and political Islam in general. Yet, this state of unanimity is required over the roadmap for political transition that has been published and needs to be accomplished, as the disagreements over the way forwards could be even deeper than the disagreements over the rejection of the past.
It is anticipated that in the near future, after the terrorist danger is confronted and political Islam groups die down, some public symbols and youth forces will emerge to criticize military rule and protest against the new reality. They may try to pose obstacles to the attempt to strengthen the state’s reverence once again.
History teaches us that following unrest, uprisings and protests or major defeats, people and nations search for a rescuer, a leader who is seen as charismatic and firm enough to offer them hope of restoring the missing stability and safety. This happened with, for example, Napoleon in France, and Hitler in Germany. In Egypt, the scene is open to a similar scenario. Yet, anyone who seeks leadership in Egypt must be aware that his image will not be an abstract sculpture or fixed image. Rather, his image will be a reflection in troubled waters. That leader’s decisions, firmness and leadership must all be decisive and up to the task.
The continued ideological discourse of the Muslim Brotherhood and their adherent media, as well as of their podium in the “Rabaa Al-Adawiya” intersection is an example of extremism and takfirim. Religious texts and concepts about fighting enemies have all been applied to the Egyptian people, the state’s institutions and civil powers in an explicit manner. This, however, is a continuation of an old Brotherhood discourse according to which they view anyone other than the Brotherhood’s adherents as an unbeliever, an enemy of religion and an opponent of Islam.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders are committing an appalling crime against their followers both inside and outside the country by pushing them to adopt a stance akin to that of suicide, by maintaining violence and terrorism as their sole option. This is because the Brotherhood’s fixed approach is to force their adherents to submit and obey blindly without using their minds or their own volition. This also applies to leaders as well as to individuals. Suffice to say that Omar Al-Telmesani, the Brotherhood’s third general guide, spoke about himself by saying: “I was totally submitting myself to Al-Banna [The Muslim Brotherhood founder].”
A careful reader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s discourse must be aware that it is akin to a mafia but in a rather international or Masonic manner, as described by some intellectuals and Islamists. Anyone who contemplates the reactions of the adherents of political Islam, regardless of what is said about their moderation—whither when in power as in Turkey or away from power as is the case with the Brotherhood in the Gulf—must be conscious that they are all part of one alliance with profound roots and links that acts against their own nations and people, and that they are “one family and one clan” which does not recognize states.
A perfect historical parallel to what is happening now in Egypt does not exist, no matter much how some parties have sought to find one, whether good or bad. Egypt will not have a new Gamal Abdel-Nasser, as wished for by pan-Arabists, nor will the people be intimidated by the scarecrow of a return to the Husni Mubarak regime being brandished by the Brotherhood, nor will Egypt be ruled by the military, as some youth groups dread. Egypt needs a totally new example of its own, one that can restore the state’s reverence, strengthen stability and safety and enhance development. No matter how it is assisted by fraternal countries or aided by friends, it must bring in a solution of its own and defend itself.
Perhaps, it is beneficial for Egypt’s future that the current US administration is still confused regarding what is happening in Egypt in the same manner that it is bewildered at what is happening in Syria. It is still hesitant and cannot express a clear, firm strategy. This, however, is something that can be considered as a step forward for the US, having previously made many mistakes.
One would be mistaken to think that the problems in Egypt could be resolved overnight, or that reaching a national consensuses following major uprisings is easy or simple. History suggests this is not the case. There is nothing as harmful as the misleading examples which some politicians base their decisions on, analyses on which some intellectuals build their analysis, and which people rely upon. There is no solution fit for all times and places.
The accusations leveled against ousted president Mohamed Mursi, the Egyptian Minister of Interior’s statements about ending the Brotherhood’s sit-in by legal means, the continual calls for transitional justice, and prior to this the authorization Sisi acquired to confront terrorism, all must make the declared roadmap quite clear. Accordingly, the roadmap must incorporate strengthening the state’s sovereignty, enforcing the law, searching for the safest ways out, originating a new way that maintains the country’s interests and its strategic relations in the region, and looking forward to gaining international support.
Finally, there is no phrase as expressive of the coming period as that which the Egyptian armed forces said to the people: “Salutation, and thanks.”

Syria’s pain is absent from it’s screens
Diana Moukalled/Asharq Alawsat
In only the first two weeks of Ramadan, more than two thousand Syrians fell, some as victims of bombardment and others in massacres or during fighting.
It is the same tragedy that the Syrian people have been drowning in for nearly two and a half years, but Syria’s agony is no longer an significant happening nor a figure nor an image. This adds to the frustration of the Syrian people and increases their sense of disengagement towards their ordeal and lack of interest. Now, the month of Ramadan television dramas have come to ignite Arab public opinion and give the Syrian people another reason for bewilderment and confusion.
These dramas have brought the Syrian reality back to the spotlight. This includes outlets funded directly by the regime and clearly reflecting its point of view. It also includes work funded by the private sector with reflects professional acting and production that does not take a clear position, which is also indirectly in the interests of the regime.
In the series Sana’oud Ba’ad Kaleel (“We Will Return Shortly”), there is no revolution in Syria and the events that occur are only a backdrop for the stories of the main characters. The script identifies the situation in Syria, via the pro-regime actor Duraid Lahham, as a “crisis” with a focus on nostalgia, longing, and grief towards the nation.
In some Syrian areas under the regime, public cafes are prohibited from displaying the series Al-Wilada min Al-Khasira (“Birth from the Flank”). It is considered the most daring and controversial in depicting the Syrian reality, and entails a big mystery that will only be resolved in the last episode, though it is gradually becoming clearer with every episode.
Though the production addresses issues related to abuse, suppression, security, detention, torture, and intelligence, a list of issues the Syrian people have experienced, the program received official authorization from the Syrian authorities and most of its employees are publicly loyal to the regime. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that the revolution is portrayed as evil, thereby considering the regime with all its mistakes the best for the Syrian people.
In fact, social networking websites have displayed the puzzlement and divided opinion of viewers about the Syrian dramas this year, which have diverged from the way they used to be. But which is more grave: the real drama experienced by the Syrians or the drama they escape to within these series?
There is no doubt that the television programs funded by the regime are seeking to subtly tamper with the mood of the audience, a method the regime has proficiently used in the past ten years. In this sense, there are “pro-regime dramas,” and the opposition haven’t produced a drama of their own.
The ability to influence though drama is a weapon of the regime only. Paradoxically, though the regime has managed to infiltrate Syrian screens, the opposition’s actors and stars are absent from this competition.
This will have an impact on public opinion against the cause of the opposition, supported by screens that displayed the revolution and its victims in a way that supports the culprit.
Once again, the regime succeeds in infiltrating the public via the loose realm of drama.