LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 02/2013

Bible Quotation for today/
  1 Corinthians Chapter 3: "1-23: "Brothers, I couldn’t speak to you as to spiritual, but as to fleshly, as to babies in Christ.  I fed you with milk, not with meat; for you weren’t yet ready. Indeed, not even now are you ready,  for you are still fleshly. For insofar as there is jealousy, strife, and factions among you, aren’t you fleshly, and don’t you walk in the ways of men?  For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you fleshly? 5 Who then is Apollos, and who is Paul, but servants through whom you believed; and each as the Lord gave to him?  I planted. Apollos watered. But God gave the increase.  So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are the same, but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.  For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s farming, God’s building.  According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another builds on it. But let each man be careful how he builds on it.  For no one can lay any other foundation than that which has been laid, which is Jesus Christ.  But if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or stubble;  each man’s work will be revealed. For the Day will declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself will test what sort of work each man’s work is.  If any man’s work remains which he built on it, he will receive a reward.  If any man’s work is burned, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, but as through fire.  Don’t you know that you are a temple of God, and that God’s Spirit lives in you?  If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is holy, which you are.  Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks that he is wise among you in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He has taken the wise in their craftiness.”
Job 5:13  And again, “The Lord knows the reasoning of the wise, that it is worthless.”† Psalm 94:11 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours,  whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. All are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources
 Jabhat al-Nusra’s 2013 is Hezbollah’s 1982/By: Dan Layman/Now Lebanon/February 02/13
On Mistaking Mohamed Mursi For His Mask/by Raymond Stock/Foreign Policy Research Institute/February 02/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for February 02/13
 Report: Lebanese Businessman Kidnapped in Venezuela
 Russia slams Israeli attack on Syria. US forces in Jordan on alert

Lebanese Officials Denounce Israeli Aggression on Syria
 Hizbullah Condemns Israeli Attack on Syria, Considers it Attempt to 'Destroy' Damascus
 Israel Mum over Strike Claims, Considers Transfer of Weapons to Hizbullah 'Red Line'
 Qabalan Urges Dialogue Panel on Civil Marriage as Shiite Council Says It's 'Legally, Ethically Rejected'
 Lebanese Man Charged for Providing Info on Nasrallah Residence to Israel
 Report: Lebanese Businessman Kidnapped in Venezuela
 Gemayel Says Hollande Voiced Concern over Delaying Elections
 Geagea Lauds Hariri, Shrugs off Differences on Vote Law
 Syria Complains to U.N. over Israel Raid, Says Reserves Right to Retaliate
 White House Warns Syria Not to Transfer Arms to Hizbullah
 Hagel assures on Iran, Israel in Senate confirmation hearing
 Two More Killed in Cairo Clashes, Death Toll Reaches 56
 Syria Opposition Says Talks Must Focus on Assad Departure
 U.N. Leader Has 'Grave Concern' over Reported Israeli Attack
 EU Examining whether to Lift Syria Arms Embargo
 Egypt Holds Black Bloc Member over 'Israeli Sabotage Plan'
 White House Condemns Iran for Nuclear Upgrade 'Escalation'
 

Lebanese Officials Denounce Israeli Aggression on Syria
Naharnet/Several Lebanese officials condemned on Thursday an Israeli air strike against a Syrian military research center, accusing the Jewish state of exploiting the current situation in the neighboring country to carry out its “flagrant aggression.” “Israel is exploiting the developments in Syria to carry out its aggressive policies, indifferent to all the humanitarian and international treaties,” President Michel Suleiman said in a statement issued by his press office. He considered that the Israeli boycott of the United Nations Human Rights council session is yet a further proof that it undermines everything related to this field. On Wednesday, Israel boycotted a review by the U.N.’s human rights council after it decided to investigate Jewish settlements in the West Bank. For his part, Prime Minister Najib Miqati condemned the Israeli strike, saying "the Israeli enemy has proved its hostile intentions once again." Miqati described "the attack on the sovereignty of an Arab nation" as "a blatant violation of international laws and charters." "As we condemn this new aggression, we pray to God to protect Syria and its people," Miqati added. Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour also strongly denounced the attack, describing it as a “flagrant aggression.” “This aggression confirms one more time the true approach adopted by the terrorist country Israel since 1948 and the threats by (the Jewish state) on the Arab peace and security,” Mansour said. He considered that the de-facto peace that Israel wants to impose on the region will not “provide it with the required peace and security” that it is seeking. “This aggression requires us Arabs to take a firm stance and confront it with all the legal means,” the FM added. “Our stance from the developments in Syria is known,” al-Mustaqbal bloc leader Fouad Saniora said in a statement about the bloc's support for the Syrian revolution against President Bashar Assad. But he condemned the Israeli aggression, saying “we reject attacks by the Israeli enemy on Arab land.”
On Wednesday, the Syrian army confirmed reports on an Israeli air strike that hit a military research center near Damascus at dawn, denying reports that the raid targeted a weapons convoy near the Lebanese border. "Israeli fighter jets violated our airspace at dawn today and carried out a direct strike on a scientific research center in charge of raising our level of resistance and self-defense," Syria's army said. The raid came "after terrorist groups made several failed attempts in the past months to take control of the site," its general command said, referring to rebels fighting to oust President Bashar Assad's regime.

Report: Lebanese Businessman Kidnapped in Venezuela
Naharnet/A 25-year-old Lebanese businessman has been kidnapped in northern Venezuela, his relative in Lebanon said Thursday. Omar Hussein Fares, who has an electronics shop in the state of Falcon, was kidnapped several days ago, the National News Agency quoted his relative as saying. The relative did not provide details as to how the abduction took place. But NNA said that the man's lives in the city of Punto Fijo.The agency added that Fares hails from the Bekaa town of Qaraoun. Kidnapping is not unusual in Venezuela, and many cases are resolved within hours or days after payment of a ransom.

Lebanese Man Charged for Providing Info on Nasrallah Residence to Israel
Naharnet/State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr charged on Thursday Talal Khalil with collaborating with Israel and revealing information on the residence of Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
The state-run National News Agency said that Khalil disclosed to the Jewish State information on security bases belonging to the resistance and the residence of Nasrallah. The news agency said that Khalil has been dealing with Israel since 2001 and Khalil could be sentenced to death. Saqr referred him to the first military magistrate. Media reports said on Wednesday that Khalil confessed to being tasked by Israeli agents to locate the residence of Nasrallah and to collect information on a telecommunications company that provides the party with telecom services. Meanwhile, Military Tribunal Judge Imad al-Zein sentenced in absentia six Lebanese who entered Israel and were granted the Jewish state's nationality to 3-15 years in jail with hard labor.

Gemayel Says Hollande Voiced Concern over Delaying Elections
Naharnet/Phalange Party leader Amin Gemayel on Thursday said French President Francois Hollande informed him of his interest in the ongoing debate in Lebanon over the electoral system, but noted that the French leader voiced concern that Lebanon might not “respect the constitutional deadlines.” Gemayel was speaking during a press conference he held in Paris to wrap up a several-day visit to France during which he met with Hollande and former premier Saad Hariri. Gemayel's talks with Hollande “focused on the developments of the Syrian crisis and its impact on Lebanon, especially concerning the security, political and humanitarian repercussions caused by the influx of refugees,” according to a statement issued by Gemayel's office. Asked about the electoral law, Gemayel said: “We insist on a law that ensures real equality and equal power-sharing between Muslims and Christians according to the principles of the constitution and the Taef Accord, although this equal power-sharing was symbolic under the 2008 law and the situation cannot remain like this.” “We are seeking real equality, not equality on paper, and this can be achieved through the 50-district, winner-takes-all system proposed by the Phalange Party, or through the Orthodox Gathering's proposal or any other law,” Gemayel added, noting that “as much as we're insisting on ensuring the proper representation of Christians, we're also insisting on ensuring the proper representation of Muslims.” The Phalange leader also revealed that several alternatives are being discussed in a bid to find common ground among the various parties, such as “modifying the Orthodox Gathering's proposal to base it on the winner-takes-all system instead of proportional representation, while maintaining openness to any ideas that ensure proper Christian representation.” Gemayel categorically denied the presence of any tumult in the March 14 camp over the electoral law, describing his meeting with Hariri as “constructive and fruitful.”
Commenting on the tensions in Lebanon over the Syrian conflict, Gemayel reiterated his call for abiding by “positive neutrality according to the Baabda Declaration.”

Qabalan Urges Dialogue Panel on Civil Marriage as Shiite Council Says It's 'Legally, Ethically Rejected'
Naharnet /Vice-President of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan on Thursday called on the leaders of religious communities in Lebanon to form a committee to discuss the adoption of civil marriage in the country. "An extensive study of civil marriage must be undertaken,” Qabalan stated during a meeting with a delegation of Lebanese student and youth organizations. He remarked: “The investigation needs to take into consideration religious laws and concerns and it should be beneficial to the people”. Meanwhile, the Religious Evangilization Committee of the Higher Islamic Shiite Council stated on Thursday its rejection of civil marriage for “ethical, constitutional, doctrinal and national concerns”. “This union contradicts with the constitutional form of marriage adopted in the country and it is a revolution on the Lebanese culture of citizenship,” the committee said in a released statement. It added: "Civil marriage threatens the concept of family founded on ethical and spiritual grounds". The statement referred to several articles in the Lebanese constitution to describe the handling of personal affairs by religious authorities as a “source of richness and cultural diversity in Lebanon not a matter of a political debate that has long divided the people”. "Religious marriage does not contradict with a civil and secular state,” the committee stated, adding that it preserves communities' “ethical and ideological privacy”. It expressed: "Allowing a minority to infiltrate the historical cultural structure of the country is an attack on and a threat to both Christian and Muslim communities in Lebanon”.The statement urged political and religious communities to “thoroughly reflect and use their wisdom before expressing their views on this issue.
Grand Mufti Mohammed Rashid Qabbani had issued a fatwa on Monday against moves to legalize civil marriages inside the country. Qabbani branded as an apostate any Muslim politician who approves civil marriage legislation, saying offenders would not be eligible to be buried in a Muslim cemetery. The religious edict came a day after President Michel Suleiman tweeted that he would remain steadfast in supporting such unions, while Prime Minister Najib Miqati wrote on his Twitter account that a consensus was required to address the issue. The campaign for civil marriage in Lebanon has gained momentum with a daring initiative to create new jurisprudence.
Kholoud Sukkarieh and Nidal Darwish announced earlier this month they had wed as a secular couple by having their religious sects legally struck from their family registers under an article dating from the 1936 French mandate.
Suleiman has since lobbied for a civil marriage law as a "very important step in eradicating sectarianism and solidifying national unity." Suleiman had tweeted that he would "respond to the evolution and aspirations of the people and prepare the appropriate laws for the issue of civil marriage."

Geagea Lauds Hariri, Shrugs off Differences on Vote Law
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea hailed on Thursday ex-Prime Minister Saad Hariri for exerting strong efforts to help the different factions agree on an electoral draft-law that guarantees the best representation for all the Lebanese. In remarks to An Nahar daily, Geagea said he was glad that discussions on an electoral draft-law have reached their final stages. “We will continue to seek with al-Mustaqbal movement and the rest of the parties in the parliamentary subcommittee to reach (an agreement) on the law.”The joint parliamentary committees have extended the mission of the subcommittee for 15 days to discuss starting Monday a hybrid draft-law that combines the winner-takes-all and proportional representation systems. Geagea said Speaker Nabih Berri reacted positively to the LF MPs' insistence to extend the mission. The joint committees held on Wednesday a two-hour meeting under Berri and in the absence of al-Mustaqbal movement, which has boycotted all government-related activity. But Geagea said: “I don't think we can agree on a new law in the absence of al-Mustaqbal.”Berri invited the members of the joint committees to attend open-ended meetings starting February 18 to discuss electoral draft-laws in parallel with the subcommittee's discussions that are only set to focus on the hybrid proposal. Asked about the LF's differences with al-Mustaqbal on the electoral draft-law, Geagea said: “Different viewpoints among allies on the electoral law … do not mean there is an essential problem that could lead to the collapse of the March 14 coalition.” “We are trying on a daily basis to bring the viewpoints closer … and our contacts haven't been lost,” he said. “The electoral law controversy will end in a week or two, 10 elections would take place and March 14 will remain united,” Geagea added. The LF has expressed support for the so-called Orthodox Gathering proposal that calls for a single district and allows each sect to vote for its own lawmakers under a proportional representation system. But al-Mustaqbal, which stood firm in favor of a winner-takes-all system, criticized it for harming the social fabric.

Hizbullah Condemns Israeli Attack on Syria, Considers it Attempt to 'Destroy' Damascus
Naharnet /Hizbullah condemned on Thursday a reported Israeli attack on a Syrian military research center, saying it reveals the Jewish state's attempts to destroy Damascus. The attack “fully unmasked what has been happening in Syria over the past two years and the criminal objectives of destroying this country and weakening its army, which discloses a bigger conspiracy against the Arab and Muslim countries,” a statement issued by Hizbullah said.
The statement described the attack as “monstrous,” urging the international and Arab communities to condemn the attack. “But we have been used to the failure (of these communities) to condemn or take any serious stance of any value when Israel is involved,” it added. Hizbullah expressed its solidarity with Syria's leadership, army and people in the statement, stressing on the danger of the campaign against Syria.
The attack unveiled Israel's policy of preventing "Arab and Muslim forces from boosting their military and technological capacities," it said.
It called for a political dialogue to end the ongoing crisis in Damascus to preserve the country and maintain its role in confronting “the enemies.”
On Wednesday, the Syrian army confirmed reports on an Israeli air strike that hit a military research center near Damascus at dawn, denying reports that the raid targeted a weapons convoy near the Lebanese border.
"Israeli fighter jets violated our airspace at dawn today and carried out a direct strike on a scientific research center in charge of raising our level of resistance and self-defense," Syria's army said.
The raid came "after terrorist groups made several failed attempts in the past months to take control of the site," its general command said, referring to rebels fighting to oust President Bashar Assad's regime.
The attack took place after Israel continuously expressed concerns that Damascus' stockpile of chemical weapons could fall into the hands of Hizbullah.
As well as concerns about Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, Israel has accused Syria of supplying long-range Scud missiles to Hizbullah.

Russia slams Israeli attack on Syria. US forces in Jordan on alert
DEBKAfile Special Report January 31, 2013/The Syrian announcement of an Israeli air strike on a military site near Damascus Wednesday, Jan. 30, drew strong condemnation from Moscow the next day: “Such action if confirmed would amount to unacceptable military interference in the war-ravaged country,” said the statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry Thursday. “If this information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked attacks on targets on the territory of a sovereign country, which blatantly violate the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it.”Israel has made no comment on the Damascus statement which described in detail an Israeli air strike against a “military research institute” near the capital. Witnesses say it was a plant for manufacturing “unconventional weapons.” The facility was destroyed and two staff members killed. Lebanese sources later reported a Russian Mig-31 fighter had crossed over Sinai Wednesday in the direction of Israel. It veered west over the Mediterranean after encountering an Israeli warning not to intrude into its air space and continued flying over Lebanon. debkafile’s military sources say that the only external military force in the eastern Mediterranean region is a fleet of 18 Russian warships, which includes landing-craft – among the largest in the Russian Navy – with 2,000 marines aboard. According to various Middle East sources, the Syrian report of an Israeli air strike has touched off high military alerts across the region. Syria has put its Golan forces on the Israel border on combat readiness and the Lebanese and Jordanian armies are on alert. So too are the Russian fleet opposite Syria and the Lebanese army. Our military sources report that Turkish units on the Syrian border are on high preparedness although Ankara played down the reports of the Israeli air strike in Syria, uncomfortable over the fact that the Israeli Air Force was the first external power to intervene directly in the Syrian conflict.
So too are the US air force units stationed at the Turkish Incerlik air base, the US special forces deployed at the Jordanian Mafraq air facility and the American, German and Dutch Patriot missile interceptors deployed in Turkey opposite Syria. Israel has been on high alert since last week. The prevailing estimate in military and intelligence circles in Washington and NATO capitals is that the Israeli air attack on the Syrian military site near Damascus was but the opening shot for the coming round of military blows they expect to be exchanged in the near future between Israel, Syria and Hizballah, with Iran possibly waiting in the wings for a chance to pitch in.

Syria Complains to U.N. over Israel Raid, Says Reserves Right to Retaliate
Naharnet /Syria threatened Thursday to retaliate over what it says was an Israeli air raid, as Damascus allies rushed to denounce the strike which threatened to take the conflict beyond Syria's borders.
Israel maintained a stony silence over Syria's claims, as well as over separate reports that its jets had hit a weapons convoy near the Lebanon border.
Syria's foreign ministry said Israel "and the states that protect it" are responsible for the air strike, and "affirms Syria's right to defend itself and its territory and sovereignty," state news agency SANA reported.
It called on "all the competent U.N. bodies to take the necessary steps given this grave Israeli violation, and to guarantee that it will not happen again."
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon expressed "grave concern" and called on all parties to "prevent tensions or their escalation in the region."
He called on all sides to "strictly abide by international law, in particular in respect of territorial integrity and sovereignty of all countries in the region," deputy U.N. spokesman Eduardo del Buey said.
Damascus's ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdel Karim Ali, stressed Syria's right to respond to "the Zionist aggression."
"The Israelis, and the United States behind them, along with their Arab and regional accomplices, realize that Syria, which defends its sovereignty and territory, may decide to respond by surprise to this aggression."
"It is up to the competent powers to choose the appropriate answer, and to determine the means and the place," Ali added in remarks to Lebanese website al-Ahad, which is close to the powerful Shiite group Hezbollah.
Reaction from close Damascus ally Iran was strident. Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian warned, without elaborating, that the "Zionist regime's attack on the outskirts of Damascus will have grave consequences for Tel Aviv," the ISNA news agency reported. In the past, Tehran has said any Israeli attack on Syria would be considered an attack on Iran.
Russia's foreign ministry said it was "deeply concerned" but was still trying to verify Syria's allegations.
"If this information is confirmed, then we are dealing with unprovoked strikes against targets located on the territory of a sovereign state, which brazenly infringes on the U.N. Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motive used for its justification," it said.
Late on Wednesday, Syria accused Israel of launching a dawn strike on a military research center in Jamraya, near Damascus.
"Israeli fighter jets violated our airspace... and carried out a direct strike on a scientific research center in charge of raising our level of resistance and self-defense," the army general command said, saying two workers were killed. The army denied separate reports citing security sources that an Israeli strike had targeted a weapons convoy from Syria near the border with Lebanon.
Hezbollah denounced "a new Zionist aggression."
Amid speculation a convoy might have been en route to supply Hezbollah, the White House warned Syria not to do so.
Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said that might "further destabilize the region."
Meanwhile, the White House said Vice President Joe Biden will discuss Syria on Saturday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Syrian opposition chief Moaz al-Khatib.
Israel has frequently warned that if Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons fell into Hezbollah hands, this would be a casus belli.
It has also raised the alarm over long-range Scud missiles or other advanced weaponry, such as anti-aircraft systems and surface-to-surface missiles, being transferred to Hezbollah.
Israeli officials and the military on Thursday refused to confirm or deny any involvement in the alleged attack.
Meanwhile, the main Syrian National Coalition opposition group said any talks on the country's political future must be about the departure of the Assad regime.
A day after SNC chief Moaz al-Khatib expressed openness to discussion with regime members, the political commission issued a statement reaffirming the group's charter that "any negotiation or dialogue must be about the departure of the regime and its pillars." It also welcomed "any political solution or international effort aimed at achieving that objective."
Coalition spokesman Walid al-Bunni told Agence France Presse by telephone: "There were clarifications issued over the way in which (Khatib made) his statements, but no dissent whatsoever."
In Brussels, EU foreign ministers discussed whether to lift an arms embargo on Syria, to help the opposition. A decision is expected in mid-February.
On the ground, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least 109 people were killed nationwide on Thursday in a conflict the U.N. says has left more than 60,000 dead in 22 months.
SourceAgence France Presse

Bus Attacked in Syria, Several Killed and Wounded
GMT 2-1-2013 1:42:18
Assyrian International News Agency
To unsubscribe or set email news digest options, visit http://www.aina.org/mailinglist.html
Qamishli, Syria (AINA) -- According to the Assyrian website ankawa.com, a bus owned by the Ezla Bus Company, an Assyrian owned business, was attacked Thursday with gunfire near the Syrian capital of Damascus. Several persons were killed. Qamishli is the largest city in the province of Hasakah. The bus was on route fom Qamishli to Beirut when it was attacked on the Alnabuk Yabroud Road in Damascus.Among the persons killed was an Assyrian women in her early twenties, named Nina Jamil Oshana.

White House Warns Syria Not to Transfer Arms to Hizbullah
Naharnet/The White House on Thursday warned Syria not to transfer weapons to Hizbullah, as tensions mounted following reported Israeli raids on a military research center and a Lebanon-bound weapons convoy.
"Syria should not further destabilize the region by transferring weaponry to Hizbullah," said Ben Rhodes, a U.S. deputy national security adviser.
Earlier on Thursday Syria warned that it reserves the right to retaliate to what it says was an Israeli air strike on a military research center near Damascus, as it lodged a complaint with the United Nations.
Israeli officials and the military have declined to confirm or deny any involvement in the alleged attack, and had no comment on separate reports that its warplanes had struck a weapons convoy along the Syria-Lebanon border.
Over the past week, Israeli officials have stepped up the rhetoric about Syria's weapons stockpile, which includes chemical agents, warning of dire consequences if they end up in the hands of Hizbullah against which it fought a devastating war in 2006.
But following reports of a pre-dawn strike Wednesday on a weapons convoy heading for Lebanon, coupled with accusations by Syria of an Israeli hit on a military research center near Damascus, official Israel fell silent.
"The best thing that Israel has been hoping for for a long time is that the West will take control of these weapons," admitted Tzahi HaNegbi, an MP who is close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"Israel has always said that if sophisticated weapons coming from Iran, North Korea and Russia fell into the hands of Hizbullah, it would cross a red line," he told army radio.
"But the world is not ready to take such a decision as it did in Libya or Iraq, so Israel finds itself facing a dilemma which we alone can resolve," he said, saying Israel was left with no choice but to take preventative action.
If Israel had indeed attacked military targets in Syria, it was to prevent Hizbullah from changing the strategic balance of power in the region, former top army officer Dan Harel told the radio.
"We are not ready to accept that Hizbullah changes the balance of force," said Harel, former deputy head of the Israeli military.
"We have said it many times in the past. If Israel did do what is claimed, it was to maintain the military balance with Hizbullah," he said.
Israel has said Hizbullah obtaining chemical weapons would be a casus belli which would cause it to act "without hesitation or restraint" but the Jewish state has also warned about the group obtaining other advanced weaponry, such as anti-aircraft systems and surface-to-surface missiles.
Israeli commentators said it was unlikely that the convoy which was attacked was carrying chemical agents, suggesting it could have been transporting anti-aircraft missiles which could damage Israel's aerial abilities over Lebanon. "Israel is particularly concerned about the Russian-made SA-17s because they could substantially restrict the Israel Air Force's freedom of movement over Lebanon, an area where today it can operate virtually unhindered," wrote Haaretz's defense correspondent Amos Harel.
Commentators said the modus operandi was very similar to the 2007 bombing of a Syrian nuclear facility, widely understood to be an Israeli strike but never acknowledged by the Jewish state, which remained silent over the raid. "The reasoning was that as long as Israel didn't claim responsibility, it would be possible for Syrian President Bashar Assad to deny that anything ever happened, and therefore he wouldn't feel obliged to respond," wrote Harel."The critical question is what Hizbullah... will do."
So far, Hizbullah's only response has been a strongly worded condemnation issued early on Thursday in which it denounced "a new Zionist aggression against Syria."
Earlier this week, Israel transferred two batteries of its vaunted Iron Dome anti-missile system to the north, and press reports also spoke of a spike in demand for gas masks.
"When engaging in such activities, we could face an attack by Hizbullah or possibly Syria, that's why we must prepare our defenses and Iron Dome is part of that," former top military intelligence official Danny Rothschild told army radio. Despite the heightened tension in the north, pundits said it was unlikely the strike would spark an immediate escalation.
"The signs have increased recently that the winds of war are blowing in the north," said the Maariv daily. "That said, all the assessments are that the attack -- which did or didn't take place, would not lead to an immediate round of fighting in the north. Hizbullah's arsenal is reserved first and foremost for the day that Israel attacks Iran and not as a response to an attack on an arms convoy," Maariv added.
SourceAgence France Presse

Hagel assures on Iran, Israel in Senate confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chuck Hagel said he backed the U.S. policy of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as he testified on Thursday before a skeptical Senate panel considering his nomination to be President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense. Hagel, a former Republican senator and decorated Vietnam veteran, broadly defended his record on national security issues after a public campaign against his nomination by critics seeking to portray him as soft on Iran and anti-Israel. "No one individual vote, quote, or statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record," Hagel told the lawmakers in prepared remarks. "My overall worldview has never changed: that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world."(Reporting by Phil Stewart and David Alexander

Jabhat al-Nusra’s 2013 is Hezbollah’s 1982
By: Dan Layman/January 31, 2013/Now Lebanon
Western powers remain hesitant of the idea of supporting, in an official manner, the uprising in Syria. But with the rise of new and effective Islamist militant groups in the war, world leaders should take time to reflect on the lessons they learned in another of the Middle East’s major civil conflicts.
In 1982, Lebanon was burning. From Beirut to the border with Israel following the Operation Peace for Galilee invasion, the predominantly Shiite population of South Lebanon was forced to bear the brunt of the fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces and armed Palestinian groups, enduring not only Israeli ground operations and bombing campaigns but PLO intimidation, murder and kidnappings as well. The Maronite-dominated Lebanese government, which had ignored and politically marginalized the Shiites since the signing of the National Pact in 1943, had lost control of the country to disparate sectarian militias. As a result, social services, local infrastructure and basic living conditions in these communities were in complete disarray.
Enter Hezbollah.
Stepping in to take advantage of the security vacuum in Lebanon’s southern region, Hezbollah developed an effective, well-supplied and well-trained military wing to push Israeli forces out of the South. What distinguished Hezbollah from its counterpart groups, however, was its appreciation for the strategic importance of popular support. Its leaders realized that by sustaining the otherwise helpless population they could use a base of civil allegiance to advance their ideological and political interests. Accordingly, the group quickly devoted significant attention and funding to developing its Social Services Section. From collecting garbage, running grocery stores and managing veterans affairs to maintaining schools, hospitals and agricultural development projects, Hezbollah began to operate a growing number of social service branches that far outpaced the capabilities of the Lebanese government. What began as a loosely organized Islamic militant group in 1982 eventually grew to become what is now the most effective social, political and military organization in Lebanon, and arguably the strongest and most multifaceted guerilla force in the hemisphere.
In Syria, the radical Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra has also recognized the strategic advantage to be gained from a supportive social landscape. Though it has been operating in Syria for little more than a year, it has already successfully distinguished itself from bands of disorganized Free Syrian Army fighters accused of looting, intimidation and warlordism in the country’s northwest. Jabhat’s own social services wing, Qism al-Ighatha (Department of Relief), distributes blankets, propane gas and food to civilian communities free of charge. Unlike many FSA groups, whose desperation has forced them to target only those regime installations that offer a large bounty of food or ammunition, Jabhat possesses the means—thanks to wealthy and ideologically aligned international benefactors—to attack militarily significant targets.
Because of its battlefield successes and attention to public service, Jabhat’s recruitment is high and its presence is spreading. Its flags and marked vehicles are appearing in greater numbers throughout the central and northwestern provinces. Its popular support is steadily increasing in the wake of its designation as a terrorist organization by the United States Treasury. And although such international isolation may indeed serve to prevent Jabhat’s political ascendance after the fall of the Assad regime, for the present time the group is reaping the benefits of its well-rounded strategic and social policy.
In this regard, Syria’s 2013 is beginning to very closely resemble Lebanon’s 1982. Then as now, a singular and respected military organization has emerged from amid a great number of less effective armed groups to help a population fatigued by violence and an incompetent government of religious “others.” As Western governments continue to temporize when it comes to addressing the growing instability in Syria, we must remember that history—recent history—has provided us with a strong lesson about socially conscious Islamist militant groups.
We are still dealing with the consequences of Hezbollah’s formation and influence, and we should be wary of Jabhat al-Nusra’s growing popularity. By supporting, even if only financially, certain moderate units of the Free Syrian Army, the US can help stem the expansion of Jabhat’s armed wing and diminish the organization’s influence in favor of a force more likely to foster a democratic and religiously diverse future Syria. Spending money and materiel in this way to undermine Jabhat al-Nusra now may save the West from spending human lives to combat it in the future. At the very least, it will curb the growing power of yet another Islamist militant group in the Levant.
**Dan Layman works at the Syrian Support Group based in Washington, DC

On Mistaking Mohamed Mursi For His Mask
by Raymond Stock
Foreign Policy Research Institute
February 2013
http://www.meforum.org/3438/mohamed-morsi
"You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there." — President Barack Obama, "60 Minutes," January 27, 2013
With President Mohamed Mursi's proclamation of a "new republic" on December 26, after the passage of a Constitution that turns Egypt into an Islamist-ruled, pseudo-democratic state, the "January 25th Revolution" came to a predictably disastrous (if still unstable) terminus. As momentous for world history as the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran (should it hold), it represents the formal—if not the final—victory for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in its 84-year struggle for power in the land of its birth. Indeed, 2012 will likely be remembered as the year that Islamists made the greatest gains in their quest for a new caliphate in the region. And without a drastic change of course by Washington, 2013 might surpass it by far in progress toward the same, seemingly inexorable end.
Egypt, the largest Arab state, the second largest recipient of U.S. military aid, and our second most important ally in the Middle East, is now in the hands of a hostile regime—an elected one at that—which we continue to treat as a friendly one. Even if the sudden outburst of uncontrolled violence along the Suez Canal since January 26—coupled with escalating political and economic tumult in Cairo and elsewhere—leads to a new military coup, it would likely be managed by the MB from behind the scenes. The irony and the implications are equally devastating. This new reality threatens not only traditional U.S. foreign policy goals of stability in the oil-rich Middle East and security for Israel, but also America's declared support for democracy in the Arab world. Moreover, the fruits of Islamist "democracy," should it survive, are catastrophic to the people of Egypt, the region and beyond.
How did all this happen? And what role did the U.S. play?
AMERICA: A BEAST OF BURDEN?
In an earlier E-Note[1] I wrote that Egyptians compare a farsighted leader to the camel—a creature that gazes serenely at the horizon as it plods patiently towards its goal. Conversely, they think of a poor leader like the donkey--a timid but obstinate animal that stares at the ground as it blunders along. Though popular jokes often cast President Hosni Mubarak as a donkey, when it came to seeing what and who would follow him if Obama hastily pushed him from power, he was actually like the camel. In a February 3, 2011 televised interview with Christiane Amanpour, Mubarak said that he had personally warned Obama there would be chaos and Muslim Brotherhood rule if he was forced to step down at that time. Soon he proposed instead turning over some of his powers to a vice-president until the presidential elections, then set for that September, in which neither he nor his son Gamal, who had seemed set to succeed him, would take part. (As his V.P., Mubarak named General Omar Suleiman, the head of Military Intelligence, who had extensive experience both repressing and negotiating with the MB, and was seen by the West as a safe pair of hands.) Though a great many demonstrators seemed to accept this compromise, many others--and the White House would not. On the evening of December 10, Obama issued a statement that the Egyptian people thought the transition to democracy was not happening fast enough. By the next evening in Cairo, Mubarak had stepped down.
Mubarak's prediction turned out to be right. When he resigned, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which had always been subservient to the president, took over state power, which it promised to relinquish after elections for parliament and president, and the approval of a new Constitution. Throughout the demonstrations against Mubarak, the SCAF had been negotiating with a coalition of opposition groups, represented by the MB, and with the U.S. as well. For the next year and a half the SCAF cooperated closely with the MB in running the country, while the secular liberals and some Salafi groups waged an almost uninterrupted campaign of often-violent protests (that were met with crushing force) to demand a speedier turnover of power to "civilian rule." They should have realized that could only mean a handover to the MB and its own Salafi allies—even those who did understand this innocently thought the Islamists would keep faith with their promises to honor democracy in the end. Amid constant bloody demonstrations, incessant, widespread strikes, intensified persecution of Christians and skyrocketing crime, the Brotherhood rode confidently to state power in large part on the back of the Obama administration. The load was shared by the willing Egyptian armed forces that were filled with Islamist sympathizers (leavened with Mubarak loyalists at the top), not to mention the demonstrators in Tahrir Square and around the country. But the American role was crucial.
Few observers knew the MB itself had actually mobilized the protesters in much larger numbers than had the secular liberals on Facebook and Twitter who got the credit for starting the revolution. Indeed, by the second day of demonstrations (on Friday, January 28, 2011), the MB's ability to bring protesters onto the streets dwarfed that of their secular liberal allies, key figures among whom had their own, little-known links to the Brotherhood that the media, government and experts missed entirely. Chief among these was Wael Ghonim, the charismatic young, Dubai-based Google executive, who (as documented in my earlier E-Note) few people knew then knew had been a member of the MB in his late teens. Another— whom a leading MB figure, Essam El-Erian, has described as owing his political loyalty to the Brotherhood—was Alexandrian activist Abdel-Rahman Mansour. Along with Ghonim, Mansour ran a Facebook page, "Kullana Khaled Said" ("We are All Khaled Said") that played a key role in launching the January 25 protests.
America's role as the MB's primary beast of burden didn't begin even with the January 25th Revolution. Or rather, the revolution did not start on that date. Arguably, it really began on June 4, 2009. On that day, Obama gave his famous "speech to the Islamic world" from Cairo University (Egypt's first secular university, founded in 1908), but also sponsored by al-Azhar University (Sunni Islam's most prestigious center of learning, established by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty in the 10th century). Not only was the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood's leadership invited to attend, but to sit in the front row—thus excluding Obama's official host (according to protocol)—President Mubarak.
Essentially, this meant that the president of the United States invited the heads of an illegal revolutionary organization to be not only present, but front and center, when he delivered a historic speech of global reach in the capital of a key ally. Thus, the president of that key allied country, whom Obama called a "friend," could not possibly attend. By this dramatic act, he essentially elevated these criminal elements to the level of a shadow government. Thus, in effect, he was saying to the MB, "You are the future." At the same time, he was telling our long-time, largely reliable ally Mubarak that he was already virtual history. And this message was not lost upon any of them, even if it was missed entirely by nearly everyone else--especially those who should have seen it easily.
Just as importantly, Obama's speech was not addressed to a recognized diplomatic entity. The Muslim world is a religious and cultural concept, one that spans dozens of countries around the world, all quite different from each other: it has no broad geo-political unity. Thus--in another first for an American president—he asked Muslims everywhere to define themselves not by national or even ethnic identity, but by their religion. This idea resonates very closely with his flattering (and equally unprecedented) recognition of the globally-subversive Muslim Brotherhood. This too was noted by only a few back home—but it was obvious to those he intended to reach, and to those it most adversely affected, too.
THE NEW, IMPROVED (DEMOCRATIC) DESPOT
To America's mainstream media (The New York Times above all), policy makers and many specialists on the Middle East, President Mursi is the new, improved (because popularly-elected) Hosni Mubarak. On August 26, a front-page NYT assessment of Mursi's diplomacy by Cairo correspondent David D. Kirkpatrick implicitly cast him as a brilliant new player on the world stage, who despite his lack of experience, has shown his independence of Washington (seen as a positive quality) by going for more diversified international support. Not only had he asked for more aid from Europe, Kirkpatrick enthused, but has also from China and, has even reached out to Mubarak's (and America's) bête noire, Iran (both of which he was to visit in late August). Kirkpatrick's real message can be seen in his approving quotation of an expert's opinion: "Egypt has credibility as 'an emerging player in the Arab world and a somewhat successful model of a democratic transition in the Arab Spring,' said Mr. [Peter] Harling of the International Crisis Group."
But the climax of Mursi's international cachet came in November, when Mursi posed as the honest broker—a traditional American role that Obama outsourced to Islamist Egypt—in the search for a ceasefire in a fierce flare-up between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Hailed as a peacemaker for hammering out a deal that shook dangerous concessions out of Israel (relaxing restrictions on Gaza that may allow more dangerous weapons inside, and an end to targeted killing of terrorists), Mursi is now touted as a pragmatic preserver of Arab-Israeli peace—while America overlooks his dictatorial excesses. That is what critics said about American relations with Mubarak (who tolerated or even encouraged anti-Semitic sentiment in Egypt's media as a safety valve that allowed him to keep the peace on the ground, rather than openly espousing it himself.) Yet the irony is lost on both the U.S. administration and most of the media as well.
In reality, since joining the Muslim Brotherhood during his days as an engineering student at the University of Southern California in the 1980s, Mursi has been part of an organization dedicated to destroying Israel--and the United States too, and to killing all the Jews in the world as the fulfillment of God's will. For decades before he became Egypt's president, he was one of the key leaders in the MB, the hard-line ideological enforcer who purged many more liberal members from the group. He has often spoken of his devotion to jihad, and cheered fellow militants as they spoke of liberating Jerusalem and Gaza and threatened fearsome retribution to the Jews. That is hardly apt to change now that he is head of state—and when a leading member of the MB recently told a local television interviewer that Mursi is still completely under the orders of the group's murshid, or Supreme Guide, Mohammed Badie. In October 2010, Badie declared the MB's open support for the global jihad against Israel and America. At least twice since Mursi's election as president, he has called for jihad against Israel and the Jews.
In January, The New York Times reported remarks that Mursi had made in 2010—two years before he became his country's president—referring to Jews as "apes and pigs," first brought to light by the Washington-based translation service, MEMRI, which monitors statements made in numerous languages by figures via mass media in the Muslim world. Shortly afterward, another MEMRI report revealed that, also in 2010, Mursi had exhorted a crowd in his hometown of Zagazig in the Delta, "Dear brothers, we must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred toward those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them." He went on to call Obama a liar, based on his failure to live up to the grand promises of good will toward the Muslims in his Cairo speech. These comments reflect essential elements of the MB's ideology that it has preached since its founding, as well as Mursi's personal worldview. The White House spokesman, Jay Carney, expressed dismay at them—then went on to imply that since assuming office, Mursi had shown that he didn't really mean them. (Predictably, the NYT took a similar tack.)
An almost amusing postscript occurred when a group of U.S. senators—including John McCain and Lindsay Graham, among others—queried Mursi about those remarks during a recent visit to Cairo. Mursi tried to explain that the American media, which are "controlled by certain forces," were to blame for blowing them out of proportion. The senators reportedly "recoiled" at this suggestion, and pressed him repeatedly if by "certain forces" he had meant the Jews. He kept dodging their questions until they finally gave up, but the bad taste remained. But the senators present have yet to demand that aid to Egypt be stopped or even changed. McCain reportedly even requested that the U.S. funnel another $480 million dollars to Mursi's government after that testy—and presumably eye-opening—encounter.
As Barry Rubin has noted, many in Washington are treating these routine statements of basic beliefs by Mursi as isolated incidents that can be dismissed as aberrations. But a prominent Egyptian columnist, Abdel Latif El-Menawy, in a January 21 column on alarabiya.net,[2] has documented numerous instances in which Mursi personally has said similar things earlier.
Moreover, just a few months prior to the "apes and pigs" flap, MEMRI had posted a current video clip of Mursi (as president) sitting in a mosque in Mansoura in the Delta, in which an imam preaches from the minbar (the Muslim equivalent of the pulpit) for the destruction of all Jews, and of Israel and the United States. As he speaks, Mursi's gestures and facial expression clearly signal assent to what is being said as he prays in the front row of the squatting congregation.
Nonetheless, Mursi is content to let us delude ourselves about who he really is and what he wants to do--until he feels secure enough to finally drop his mask (one he has only worn when facing West). Until then, he will continue soaking up all the money and military technology that our government will throw at him, gathering the strength that could set him free at last. Meanwhile, he's expecting $4.8 billion from the IMF (delayed until he can implement his economic reform program), $5 billion in emergency aid from the European Union, plus several billions more each from Saudi Arabia and Qatar (which has also pledged to invest $18.5 billion in Egypt's economy in the next several years, adding that $2.5 billion would be transferred immediately). In addition, Mursi has asked for $3 billion from China just for his soon-to-be-expanded nuclear program (with an offer of technical and perhaps other assistance from Iran). If he is able to stabilize these arrangements (which are more important to his strategic view than the problem of stabilizing Egypt's economy), he really won't need our $1.6 billion aid tied to the 1979 Peace Treaty with Israel (except for the elements of new military technology and maintenance). He may well reach that point soon: the IMF deal may open further lines of credit—and its failure will not prevent others from trying to save the people of Egypt by propping up Mursi.
That Mursi is demonstrably more dictatorial than Mubarak doesn't seem to faze his donors, real or potential. On November 22, he granted himself powers more immense than those enjoyed by Egypt's rulers in all of the nation's five thousand years of Pharaonic-style rule. Yet just as he did during the 2009 democracy demonstrations in Iran, our president said little: on December 6, he phoned Mursi to express his "concern" and to urge him to engage the opposition in dialogue. There were no reported threats of consequences if Mursi did not comply. He might at least have noted that he had asked Congress for $1 billion dollars in debt relief for the country, to help her weather the worst financial crisis in that country's modern history--the economic price of overthrowing Mubarak. Meanwhile, Mursi awaits delivery of two Class 209 diesel-electric submarines from Germany—which Israel fears (quite reasonably) will be used to menace her developing gas and oil fields in the Mediterranean—for a price of $1 billion.
Clearly it was not Obama, but the massive protests that his decree--and the blatantly Islamist draft Constitution it was meant to help see through the referendum—that led Mursi on December 9 to cancel most of the powers he gave himself in the declaration. The opposition had demanded that he cancel both. As such it was a meaningless compromise, meant to suck the oxygen out of the opposition, while preserving the most important goal of that decree: the Constitution's ratification. Meanwhile the army retains its pose as a neutral guardian of the nation, though in effect it has really been protecting Mursi and his goals. Thus it is beyond the reach of U.S. persuasion—should it ever be seriously tried. As the demonstrations against the Constitution reached their peak in mid-December, the SCAF called for dialogue with the opposition—and in so doing was merely echoing Mursi's own, obviously hollow appeals. (In other words, the army, which the U.S. hoped would be a check on any of Mursi's excesses, simply is no longer willing or able to play that role—if it ever really was.)
Contrast this with Obama's fateful statement that hastened Mubarak's fall from power. But since Mursi's August 12 purge of Mubarak-era leaders in the military (ironically facilitated by Washington, in the interest of further speeding that "transition to democracy"), and with his diversification of foreign aid—radically reducing his dependence on the U.S.—it is doubtful that Obama has any ability to do that again. Nor would he want to replace Mursi, the elected president (who has shown a complete lack of democratic scruples and whom at least half of Egypt feels has lost his legitimacy) anyway.
In a September 24 interview for PBS, Mursi—then in New York for the annual opening of the U.N. General Assembly—was asked by Charlie Rose if Egypt really was (still) an ally. "The U.S. president says otherwise," he shot back (referring to his American counterpart's remark that Egypt was no longer an ally, uttered a few days earlier in exasperation with Mursi's slow response to the incident at our embassy on September 11). He then explained that, "This depends on how you define an ally." He clarified that while Egypt may still be an economic or political partner of the U.S., "the understanding of an ally as part of a military alliance--that does not exist right now." Given that the vast majority of American aid to Egypt is military, this is an extraordinary declaration that should have led to an immediate review of the bi-lateral relationship. He added that it is better to be friends than allies (although "friend" is a diplomatically insubstantial term).
In the same, almost completely unremarked (and shockingly fawning) interview during Mursi's visit to the United Nations General Assembly in New York spoke of his compatriots' widespread "hatred" of the U.S. And he defended their right to express that hatred by demonstrating at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, where a mob—in a pre-planned, not spontaneous, protest organized by the MB and al-Gama'a al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group)—went over an outer wall, burned an American flag flying there, and replaced it with the black jihadi banner used by al-Qa'ida and its affiliates.(Falsely, he claimed in the interview to have protected the embassy, but such an outrage could not have happened under Mubarak. Mursi also tweeted messages in Arabic that incited the protesters: one said, "The noble Prophet Muhammad—may God bless him and grant him salvation—is a red line: whoever transgresses against him, we shall treat as an enemy.") Rose asked him about a reportedly "heated" call that Obama had made to declare his concern about Mursi's slowness to denounce the incident. (Speaking of that event, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Intelligence Committees on January 23: "With Cairo, we had to call them and tell them, 'Get your people out there.'" Mursi hastened to say that their conversation was "warm, it was not hot." When Rose wondered if Obama had threatened to cut off U.S. aid, Mursi said, "There was no threat of any kind.")
Left unsaid in that interview—or almost anywhere else—is that protest against alleged defamation of the Prophet in the "Innocents of Muslims" movie trailer was only one of two reasons for the several days of demonstrations that besieged our embassy in Egypt last September. The other was to demand the release of the "Blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel-Rahman, head of al-Gama'a al-Islamiya and mastermind of the 1981 assassination of Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar al-Sadat; of the Islamist insurgency in Egypt in the 1990s that claimed a thousand lives (including scores of foreign tourists), of the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and whose fatwas provided the justification for the 1992 killing of Egyptian anti-Islamist activist Farag Foda, the 1994 attempted murder of Egyptian Nobel laureate in literature Naguib Mahfouz, and for the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the U.S.
Osama bin Laden is believed to have funded al-Gama'a al-Islamiya, beginning in the 1990s. A major figure in the protests against our embassy was Mohammed al-Zawahiri, brother of current al-Qa'ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, released from prison in Egypt in March 2012. Mursi has personally pardoned dozens of other jihadis convicted of terrorist murders in Egypt. Among them was Mustafa Hamza, who directed al-Gama'a al-Islamiya's attempt to assassinate Mubarak in Addis Ababa in 1996, and the cell that killed 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians at Hatshepsut's Temple in Luxor in 1997 from Afghanistan. (His family is said to have been given safe haven in Mashhad, Iran.) Is it any surprise, then, that Mursi has denounced the current French military operations aimed at reversing the jihadi conquest of Mali?
THE MAJORITY OF A MINORITY RULES
The referendum on Egypt's draft Constitution was held in two stages—on December 15 and 22, divided according to region--passed officially with 63.8 percent of the votes. Though the first round included both Cairo and Alexandria, where the majority of secularists live, the Islamist document won 56.5 percent that day. The second round, on December 22, held mainly in areas where Islamist support is strongest, resulted in a total "Yes" vote of 63.8%. Even as the balloting began, opponents of the charter were still fecklessly debating whether to vote against it or boycott the referendum. That, of course, means the votes themselves are not an accurate reflection of sentiment against it. Turnout for both rounds was low—a total of only 33 percent—down from 43.4 percent in the presidential elections last spring. (That itself was much less than the 54 percent who took part in the 2011-2012 parliamentary elections before them.) Many Egyptians, it seemed, would rather fight than vote. Moreover, with illiteracy said to be at 45 percent (and probably much higher), roughly half the public could not read the long, rambling text (49 pages, 234 articles)—nor anything else for that matter.
Though pundits have cautioned that "turmoil" will continue, many assumed that, with the referendum, Egypt has finally completed its nearly two-year transition to "democracy." Yet the result will actually bear little resemblance to the sort of democracy deliriously expected by so many around the world when Mubarak fell. Among those Egyptians so far vainly battling the Islamist tide, more than a few now rue the revolution as a mistake—and a fatal one at that. Again, that should have been obvious too (as it was to a widely-excoriated few).
However, a glimmer of hope has arisen from a spontaneous uprising that began in Port Said on January 26, launched by people furious at death sentences unexpectedly handed down that day to relatives of theirs for involvement in a riot that left 72 dead at a soccer game there last year. The current melee soon engulfed two other cities along the Canal—Suez and Ismailia. All three are now under curfew in a month-long state of emergency: perhaps a hundred persons have since died in clashes with the police. (In Egyptian society, nothing—not even revolutionary politics—inflames passions so much as either football or family honor and revenge.) In Port Said itself, for the first time, there are reliable reports of gunfire coming from anti-government rioters. However, much of the anti-Mursi opposition has distanced itself from these events, and it is unclear if a united political front will spring up to capitalize on the chaos. Perhaps ominously, a masked group of alleged anarchists, the Black Bloc, which appeared as a new force in the mix of organizations standing up to the chief executive's followers, the "Mursistas," over the past few months—is blamed for much of the bloodshed in latest crisis. And on January 30, the U.S. embassy in Cairo suspended all services after the looting of the luxury Semiramis Intercontinental Hotel next door the day before. As all this unfolds, the combination of the threat to Egypt's all-important Suez Canal revenues with the ongoing protests across Egypt has prompted the Mursi-appointed Army Chief of Staff, General Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, to warn on January 29 that unless some sort of political consensus is reached in the country, "the state could collapse."
Yet, while certainly more intense and widespread, the uproar is not new. In the weeks running up to the referendum, mass demonstrations tore traditionally calm Egypt apart, violent clashes leaving dead on both sides. Throughout this period the Islamists once again proved themselves to be more organized, ruthless and determined. Though both Mursi's backers and foes have their own shock troops formed mainly out of football hooligans called Ultras, the Islamists apparently have been the only side to have used firearms (excluding, evidently, what has since happened in Port Said) and reportedly even roving bands of thugs and rapists on their enemies. They have assaulted Christians and women particularly, including acid attacks on unveiled women in Alexandria. This accompanied an alleged drive to block all unveiled women (who are presumed to be Christians, or else lax Muslims) from voting in that city. Most of the nation's jurists refused to oversee the balloting, with just enough cooperating to give it a veneer of legitimacy, and to make up the core of the new, Islamist judiciary that will likely follow Mursi's victory.
The catalog of the Islamist government's tyrannies has been increasingly impressive. In December, the state prosecutor began to investigate the three top opposition leaders, the heads of the National Salvation Front: Mohammed ElBaradei (ex-Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency), Amr Moussa (former head of the Arab League) and Hamdeen Sabahy (a hard-left activist with Islamist connections who came in third in the first-round presidential vote last year) on suspicion of plotting to kill Mursi. And now he is looking at comedian BassemYousef (often called "Egypt's Jon Stewart") on a possible charge of insulting Mursi: to defame any leading public figure is a crime under the new Constitution.
Nonetheless, despite the openly Islamist and dictatorial character of the MB regime, both America and Europe remain uncritically supportive. The IMF is concerned only about Egypt's economic policies as justification for its loan; the European Union seems to have no pre-conditions at all for its aid. Shockingly, neither does the United States, which—unlike these other institutions—provides Egypt with military aid. Heedless of the dangers of continuing such a relationship with an Islamist regime, the U.S. has not simply failed to cut off its funding. At time of writing, the first four of sixteen F-16s promised to Mubarak at time of writing are en route with an understanding that the rest of the order will be filled. (We are also giving him two hundred Abrams tanks in the same package.) On January 26, Mursi called the F-16s a sign of support for his rule—as it most surely is.
MASSACRE OF THE BENEFACTORS
Obama's dramatic and persistent outreach to the MB, that began at the latest in June 2009, continuing throughout the 2011 revolt and transition and beyond, makes him at the very least a co-author of the Egyptian revolution, and even of the Arab Spring. Indeed, the entire phenomenon arguably could not have happened and unfolded as it did without him. (And in a different sense, it would not have taken off without the previous democracy drive in the region under his predecessor, George W. Bush.) Obama, interviewed (very softly, a la Charlie Rose) with Secretary Clinton on the CBS program "Sixty Minutes" on January 27, bragged to Steve Kroft, "You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there."
Mursi certainly ought to thank Obama for empowering him and the MB. But Mursi's offer of "friendship" (not alliance) as per his interview with Charlie Rose, is similar to an invitation to the Americans to a dinner in which they and their allies will be on the menu.
Arab history is full of tales of massacres of whole dynasties at meetings of friendship. Among the most famous occurred on June 25, 750, when the victorious Abbasid commander Abu al-Abbas Abdullah invited some eighty surviving members of the Umayyad family they had overthrown in Damascus to a banquet of reconciliation at Abu Futrus near Jaffa. Soon after the meal began, assassins struck down the unsuspecting princes in a serial slaughter. As many of them lay still groaning, leather covers were thrown over them, and the dinner continued as before.
Also famous, on March 1, 1811, Muhammad Ali Pasha, later the founder of Egypt's last royal dynasty, invited four hundred and seventy members of the former ruling caste, the renowned fighting Mamluks—who persisted as his rivals—to the Citadel of Salah al-Din in Cairo. After taking coffee with them, the pasha saw off his guests as they rode out of the fortress through a narrow defile toward al-Azab Gate. Abruptly the gate closed before them, as marksmen fired down on them from the walls on either side. The noble Mamluks, Islam's most storied cavalry, galloped their horses back and forth frantically in search of a means of escape—but there was none.
We are now being asked to a banquet by enemies posing as friends, offering a meal that we have paid for with our own treasure. This is not a banquet of food, however, but a feast of phony democracy that we have called the Arab Spring. We shall be seated at a table that we have provided, and butchered with our own arms as we imbibe the wine of false accomplishment. Meanwhile our hosts—our erstwhile protégés—will carry on the party over our corpses.
And once more as in my earlier E-Note—written as Mursi was on the eve of winning his battle with old Mubarak appointees in the military for control last August—we again have a choice: we can either succumb to the charms of the "moderate Islamists," or wisely begin to refuse them at last. All of the aid and recognition we give to these crafty zealots only whets their appetite for more. Their entire history points to this: nothing they say or do, in order to fool those suspicious of them, should ever make us forget who they really are, and what they have always stood for.
If we do, then we shall have forgotten what we stand for too.
NOTES:
[1] Raymond Stock, "The Donkey, the Camel and the Facebook Scam: How the Muslim Brotherhood Conquered Egypt and Conned the World." (Philadelphia: Foreign Policy Research Institute, E-Notes, July 2012). This writer speaks at greater length about Egypt and Islamist rule in an interview by Jerry Gordon, "No Blinders about Egypt under Muslim Brotherhood," New English Review," November 2012. Yasmine El-Rashidi offers an outstanding current analysis in the February 7, 2013 issue of The New York Review of Books, "Egypt: the Rule of the Brotherhood"
[2] Abdel Latif El-Menawy, "Mursi Needs to Admit His Real Stance from Zionists." Al-Arabiya News, January 21, 2013.

Two More Killed in Cairo Clashes, Death Toll Reaches 56
Naharnet/Two more people died in clashes between police and protesters near Cairo's Tahrir Square earlier this week, the health ministry said Thursday, bringing to 56 the number of deaths nationwide in a week of violence. The two -- a 26-year-old male and another unidentified man -- were shot in the head and chest during clashes late on Tuesday night and succumbed to their wounds overnight, health ministry spokesman Ahmed Omar said.
Egypt has been gripped by unrest since rallies last week marking the second anniversary of the uprising that toppled president Hosni Mubarak.
The protests took a violent turn on Saturday after a court sentenced 21 residents of the canal city of Port Said to death for their involvement in football-related violence last year.
Anger on the street has been directed mainly at Islamist President Mohammed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood movement who have been accused of monopolizing power and failing to reform post-revolt Egypt.
SourceAgence France Presse

Canada/Kathleen Wynne to become Ontario's first woman premier on Feb. 11
By Maria Babbage, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press
TORONTO - Ontario will get its 25th premier and a brand new cabinet on Feb. 11, just a week before the legislature is set to re-open.
But premier-designate Kathleen Wynne was tight-lipped Thursday about what that new government will look like once Premier Dalton McGuinty officially resigns.
She wouldn't say who would be added or dropped from the front benches as the governing Liberals get ready to face two feisty opposition parties in a minority parliament.
"You know what, stay tuned. We're just in the process of putting that together," she said after meeting Thursday with McGuinty and Lt.-Gov. David Onley.
"What you'll see is a strong cabinet, a strong government because ... I know the times call for a firm hand and that is exactly what we're going to provide."
The meeting with Onley kickstarted the process of formally transferring power from McGuinty to Wynne, who won the Liberal leadership on Saturday. Ontario's vice-regal asked Wynne to form a government and announced the date for her to be sworn in with her new cabinet.
Wynne has said there's room for all the leadership candidates around the cabinet table. But those who threw their support behind her at the convention could get plum jobs.
Former banker Charles Sousa and celebrated humanitarian Eric Hoskins are both sitting MPPs with cabinet experience. The other candidate, Gerard Kennedy, doesn't have a seat. Harinder Takhar, another former minister who supported runner-up Sandra Pupatello, could stay on as well if Wynne lives up to her promise.
The new cabinet will have just seven days to prepare a throne speech for the opening of the legislature, then finish putting together a budget before the fiscal year ends Mar. 31.
Wynne promised to "hit the ground running," eliminating the $12-billion deficit by 2017-18 while addressing social issues like affordable housing and helping welfare recipients find jobs.
"It is obviously critical that we tackle the deficit and we get to the point where we can be paying down the debt," she said.
The incoming premier acknowledged she's not partial to casinos, which are big cash cows for the provincial government, but will let municipalities decide whether they want them. One could be built in Toronto if city council decides to go ahead with it.
"You all know that I'm not a fan of casinos, I'm not a fan of gambling," she said.
"We have them and they are here, and municipalities have to weigh the pros and cons and they have to make a decision for themselves about whether they want a casino or not."
One decision she has made is that she doesn't want to move into the Liberal-owned house in Toronto purchased for McGuinty, who has said he plans to keep his seat of Ottawa-South until the next election.
The premier-to-be is expected to continue living in the basement apartment she shares with her partner Jane Rounthwaite while their new home is under renovation.
"I'm actually going to be living in my riding," said Wynne, 59, who represents the Toronto seat of Don Valley West. "As far as I know, they've told me I can't drive, but they haven't told me I have to leave my house. Once it's renovated and I can actually move in, then I'm going to stay in my house." Wynne, who's barely taken a break since her leadership victory, said giving up the car keys will be the biggest adjustment for her personally.
She was provided with a car and driver while serving as a cabinet minister, but she drove on the weekends, she said. "I've been driving since I was 19 years old, and you can all calculate how many years that is," Wynne joked.