LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 20/2013

Bible Quotation for today/Christ Our Helper
01 John 02 -06: " I am writing this to you, my children, so that you will not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have someone who pleads with the Father on our behalf—Jesus Christ, the righteous one. And Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven, and not our sins only, but also the sins of everyone. If we obey God's commands, then we are sure that we know him. If we say that we know him, but do not obey his commands, we are liars and there is no truth in us. But if we obey his word, we are the ones whose love for God has really been made perfect. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God: if we say that we remain in union with God, we should live just as Jesus Christ did."

FSA says will hit Lebanon in response to Hezbollah fire
February 20, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: The rebel Free Syrian Army warned Tuesday it would strike back at Hezbollah if the party did not halt its attacks on Syrian territory. “If Hezbollah does not stop shelling Syrian territories, villages and unarmed civilians from inside Lebanese territory within 48 hours, we will respond with our arms to the sources of its fire and silence them inside Lebanese territory,” the FSA command said in a statement.It urged residents in the eastern city of Hermel near the border with Syria to stay away from Hezbollah’s rocket launchers and military posts. The FSA again accused Hezbollah, a key ally of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, of “committing massacres” in Syria with “artillery cover from inside Lebanese territory.”The FSA’s warning came a few days after three Hezbollah fighters and 14 others were wounded in fierce fighting with Syrian rebels in the Syrian town of Qusayr near the border with Lebanon. Twelve Syrian rebels were also killed the clashes.

Lebanon keen on best of ties with Arabs: Sleiman
February 20, 2013The Daily Star /BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman said during a Cabinet meeting Wednesday that Lebanon is committed to maintaining the best of relations with Arab states, in an apparent bid to repair ties with Gulf states soured over recent remarks by Free Patriotic Movement MP Michel Aoun. “We are committed to having the best of relations between Lebanon and Arab states,” Sleiman told ministers during a Cabinet session at the Presidential Palace Wednesday. Strained ties with Gulf countries over Aoun’s remarks had been expected to top Cabinet’s discussions, which were held at Baabda Palace.Following complaints by Gulf states, Prime Minister Najib Mikati disavowed Aoun’s recent remarks in which the FPM chief criticized the international community and the Arab League for its lack of support of Bahraini protesters, calling their predicament an “injustice.”Aoun denied Tuesday Gulf accusations he had interfered in Bahrain’s affairs, saying his comments were meant as recommendations.Social Affairs Minister Wael Abu Faour said ahead of the Cabinet meeting the government needed to “issue a clear stance over its ties with the Gulf countries.”State Minister Ali Qanso, for his part, told reporters that Mikati had already made a clear stance regarding ties with Gulf countries.In a bid to avoid a row between Lebanon and Bahrain, Mikati told his Bahraini counterpart Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman Sunday that Lebanon would not interfere in Bahrain’s internal affairs and said Aoun’s remarks did not reflect the government’s official stance.A third of the government is made of ministers belonging to Aoun’s FPM. Aoun’s remarks continued to draw criticism Wednesday. In remarks to Saudi Al-Watan newspaper published Wednesday, Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, hinting at Aoun, said that some Lebanese politicians “have a short” memory, citing the numerous times Riyadh had supported Lebanon in its time of need. He added that Saudi Arabia should not let “small details” affect its ties with Lebanon. During the cabinet session, Sleiman also tasked Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi with following up on the recent case of caricatures insulting Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz that were widely distributed in Beirut earlier this week.A parliamentary source told The Daily Star Tuesday that Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri met Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awad al-Asiri to convey his disapproval over the incident. Berri reportedly ripped the flyer apart after being shown the caricature by an unnamed Future Movement MP.

Ex-Lebanese minister, Syrian general indicted in terror plot
February 20, 2013/The Daily Star /BEIRUT: A Lebanese judge recommended Wednesday the death penalty for former Information Minister Michel Samaha, a Syrian general and another holding the rank of colonel over a terror plot to destabilize Lebanon. Military Investigative Judge Riad Abu Ghayda issued the indictment, which requests the death penalty for Samaha, Maj. Gen. Ali Mamlouk, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, and his aide, Col. Adnan, whose family name remains unknown.The indictment charges the three men of holding a meeting under Mamlouk at the National Security office in the Syrian capital Damascus and orchestrating a plot to assassinate Syrian opposition figures and arms traffickers entering Syria from Lebanon. According to the indictment, the Syrian officers handed Samaha explosives. It also charged Samaha of transporting the bombs in his car from Syria to Lebanon. The former minister was also charged with summoning Lebanese police informer Milad Kfouri, handing him the explosives and ordering him to blow up Iftar gatherings in Lebanon.
“It’s all right: kill them,” Samaha was quoted as telling the police informer when the latter informed him that religious figures would be attending the Iftar dinners, according to the indictment.
A judicial source told The Daily Star Tuesday that once the indictment is made in the Samaha case, it will take months to get to the court due to judicial procedures.
The evidence, which includes audio recordings implicating Samaha in terror plots with officials from the Syrian regime, is still with the ISF Information Branch, an issue that Samaha’s lawyer argues impedes a fair trial.

Gunmen kidnap schoolboy in Lebanese capital
February 20, 2013/ The Daily Star /BEIRUT: Gunmen kidnapped Wednesday a 12-year-old student in front of his home in Wata Moseitbeh, Beirut, security sources told The Daily Star.The sources said Mohammad Nibal Awada was waiting for his school bus early at 7 a.m. when four unidentified gunmen pulled up in a Nissan Sunny with tinted windows and snatched him.The kidnappers fired one shot in the air, apparently to cover their escape, and headed toward south Lebanon, the sources said. The boy’s father, Nibal, is a wealthy businessman who owns two dressmaking factories in Lebanon. Lebanon has been struck by a series of kidnap-for-ransom cases

Lebanon’s largest mall set to open in April
February 20, 2013/By Mohamad El Amin The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Shopping malls may be spread across Lebanon from Sidon to Tripoli, but contrary to what many might think, the Lebanese market remains hungry for more, according to the manager of the country’s biggest shopping center as it prepares for the grand opening.The economic downturn and political instability did not affect the $350 million project by UAE-based real estate developer Majid Al-Futtaim, senior mall manager Sleiman Mallat told The Daily Star.Set to open its doors early in April, Beirut City Centre is expected to do great business in spite of the tough economic conditions, Mallat said from his offices near the megastructure, where scores of workers are putting together the final touches.Centrally located between Beirut and its suburbs in the Hazmieh district, the mall will feature 200 retailers, over 40 international restaurants and cafes and 16 food outlets.
The mall has been fully rented ahead of its opening, Mallat said, adding that 50 percent of the shopping center would be for new brands to the Lebanese market. It will be anchored by the biggest Carrefour hypermarket in the Middle East.“The market is completely different from what people believe. We do not have too many malls. In fact, many Lebanese areas remain untapped and you can easily build a very successful mall,” Mallat said.
“But of course you have to know precisely where to build and develop your shopping center,” he added.Asked why malls are becoming popular, Mallat said they are emerging as a primary “family destination.”“People are searching more about the experience, about the lifestyle. Somewhere where you can spend three or four hours without noticing,” he said.The location, Malat explains, was chosen following extensive market studies covering incomes and needs of people in accessible vicinities.A primary trading area was defined as people within a 5 minute drive of the mall, a secondary one as people within 15 minutes drive of the mall and a third trading area included customers who would travel from a distance to visit the new mall.The merchandising mix inside the shopping center, Mallat adds, will be based on the study.
“It is not that we want a certain retailer to be here. We chose the shop that suits our trading areas based on the numbers in the market study,” he said.“It is a very scientific approach,” he added, explaining the mall will offer everything from low-end brands to luxury products.Given the bright prospects for the mall market, the company will not just complete the City Centre mall, but will also soon tap new locations.A mall of similar size near Majid Al-Futtaim’s Waterfront City in Dbayeh is in the planning phase, Mallat said, adding that full details will be announced at a later time.
To extend the mall’s reach, the company recruited a consultancy firm to study road access to the mall. The study was followed by a road infrastructure investment of $3 million, in coordination with the local municipality.
“We are not making a short-term investment. We know for a fact that when the situation improves, it will pay off very well,” he said.

Lebanese Cabinet Grants Miqati Power to Decide on Transfer of Telecom Data to Security Agencies
Naharnet/Cabinet granted on Wednesday Prime Minister Najib Miqati the power to decide on the transfer of telecommunications data to security agencies despite the objection of a number of ministers.
The requested data dates from January 15 to May 15, 2012.Miqati added that he requested that the content of the data not be revealed.LBCI television had reported earlier that Ministers Salim Karam, Salim Jreissati, and Jebran Bassil objected to the decision to grant Miqati the power to decide on the transfer of telecom data, while Ministers Wael Abou Faour and Alaeddine Terro opposed the transfer of the complete data.The security agencies' request was rejected by Telecommunications Minister Nicolas Sehnaoui, who argued that the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority did not approve it.Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun had also rejected the request, deeming it as unconstitutional, while Miqati had explained that “Article 9 of article 140 of the wiretapping law stipulates that each of the defense and interior ministers could be granted the right to intercept phone calls through written consent and the prime minister's approval in order to garner information aimed at combating terrorism and crimes against the state.”SourceAgence France Presse

Suleiman Disavows Aoun's Bahrain Remarks, Reiterates Baabda Declaration Commitment
Naharnet /President Michel Suleiman called on Wednesday for the commitment to the Baabda Declaration, saying statements made by Lebanese politicians against Bahrain don't reflect the government's policy.
Addressing cabinet ministers during a session held at Baabda palace, Suleiman said: “We hold onto the best of ties with Bahrain and its government.”
The opinions of Lebanese politicians do not reflect those of the government, he said.In the Baabda Declaration, rival March 8 and 14 alliance leaders have affirmed their commitment to the Taef Accord and agreed to distance Lebanon from the policy of regional and international conflicts.Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun has recently criticized the international community and the Arab League for their lack of support for Bahraini protesters.Bahrain's majority Shiites are seeking a greater political voice in the Sunni-ruled kingdom.
Bahrain summoned on Friday Lebanese charge d'affaires Ibrahim Assaf over Aoun's remarks after accusing him of meddling in its internal affairs.
However, Prime Minister Najib Miqati stressed on several occasions that the comments reflected Aoun's personal viewpoint and not that of the government.
During Wednesday's session, Suleiman also slammed a caricature of King Abdullah, urging Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi to follow up the case.
Banners and fliers portraying Abdullah as the king of spades holding in his hand a sword stained with blood were hanged and distributed in two areas in Lebanon on Tuesday morning.
“This insult is totally rejected,” the president told the cabinet.

Aoun 'Congratulates' Geagea, Gemayel, al-Rahi on Orthodox Law Approval, Says May Create 'New Realities'
Naharnet /Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun on Tuesday said “new realities” might emerge concerning ties with his Christian rivals, after they contributed to the joint parliamentary committees' approval of the controversial draft electoral law proposed by the Orthodox Gathering.
“Today is the brightest day in Lebanon's history because rights were returned to their owners without encroaching on the rights of others. The value of the votes of marginalized groups has been restored, that's why we're happy with this achievement,” Aoun told reporters after the weekly meeting of the Change and Reform in Rabiyeh.
“This law will restore parity and true democracy and will not lead to a conflict among sects. Those who have got used to encroaching on the rights of others are describing others as violators. We are willing to continue to build Lebanon together, but according to a reformist orientation and equal rights, not according to a provocative approach,” Aoun added.
Earlier on Tuesday, the FPM's mouthpiece OTV reported that Aoun telephoned Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Phalange Party chief Amin Gemayel and Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi to “exchange congratulations on the approval of the Orthodox Gathering proposal.”
Asked by reporters about his phone talks, Aoun said: “I thanked them for their role in securing the success of this law which might create new realities.”
“Those affected by the Orthodox Gathering law are speaking as if the LF and the Phalange Party are their followers. This is politics and alliances change. They might lose some seats to us and they don't want us in power and that feverish wish is driving them crazy,” Aoun said, referring to al-Mustaqbal movement, Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat and independent Christian MPs, who have rejected the Orthodox Gathering proposal and walked out of Tuesday's session. “They are insisting that the Orthodox Gathering proposal will not pass, but why will things be different than they were today? Walkouts will entail great responsibilities that no one can bear,” he added. Asked whether the June parliamentary elections will be postponed, Aoun said: “Those who have been insisting on approving a new electoral law will insist that the elections be held on time.”
Turning to the issue of the alleged military intervention by Hizbullah in the Syrian conflict, Aoun said: “There is an incident that happened in Syria and the truth is that there are Lebanese people who live in 12 towns on the border with Syria and you will always have problems on borders. Hizbullah is not fighting the terrorist and fundamentalist organizations, but it is normal that they are helping their neighbors and relatives.”
Three Lebanese Shiites have been killed in fighting in Syria, a Hizbullah official speaking on condition of anonymity said Sunday, as the Syrian opposition accused the Lebanese group of intervening on the side of the regime.
He said they were acting in "self-defense,” without specifying if they were Hizbullah members. The Shiite party occasionally announces the death of one of its fighters killed "carrying out his jihadist duty," but without clarification.
In October 2012, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged that party members had fought Syrian rebels, but said they were acting as individuals and not under the party's direction.
Nasrallah clarified that the Hizbullah fighters were killed while defending Lebanese-inhabited border towns inside Syria. Asked about his contorversial remarks on the situation in Bahrain, Aoun said: "My remarks cannot be considered a foreign interference in Bahrain's affairs, as I only voiced support for human rights in Bahrain and said that the protest movement must be taken into consideration after three years from its launch. I did not call for arming anyone or for a rebellion.""There is a systematic campaign to expel the Lebanese from Gulf countries and from Bahrain and my remarks do not contain an interference, but rather an advice," he added.

Lebanese basketball player dies
February 19, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Rony Abou Jaoude, the young basketball player who was admitted to hospital last week with brain injuries, died Tuesday. He was 26.The Bejjeh club shooting guard, who was admitted following a road accident Thursday, died in the early hours of the morning at the intensive care ward of the Middle East Hospital in Bsalim, in the Matn.Abou Jaoude, described by friends and family as a true servant to the sport, had been on his way home in Samaya, Jounieh, where he is thought to have lost control of his vehicle while passing near Yassouh al-Malak before colliding into a roadblock and veering off the road, where his car turned upside down.Fans of the young athlete, moved over his loss, used social media platforms to express their sorrow.“R.I.P Rony Abou Jaoude – Goodbye,” a Facebook page set up by his supporters, contained dozens of farewell messages.“We may have lost a great person on Earth! But we definitely won an Angle in Heaven! R.I.P,” one of the posts read.“Rest in peace Rony Abou Jaoude and may god bless your soul,” read another.Although not a household name, Abou Jaoude had over the last years been a remarkable player in the Lebanese league. He played for Sagesse in the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 seasons as a shooting guard, helping the team stay in the top tier despite financial constraints and the departure of most of their stars in 2006.He joined Antranik in 2009 then moved to Hoops the next season before he ended up in Bejjeh, where he earned the captaincy for his leadership and sportsmanship.

Aoun meets Berri, reiterates backing for Orthodox law
February 20, 2013 /The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun said Wednesday that the general elections would be held based on the recently endorsed Orthodox Gathering law if politicians fail to reach a consensus on an alternative draft in the time frame set by the house speaker. “We are going to the elections with the Orthodox Gathering law if we don’t have another law that achieves justice and parity to all sects,” said Aoun following talks with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.Lawmakers in joint parliamentary committees approved Tuesday the controversial Orthodox Gathering law, which projects Lebanon as a single district where each sect elected its own representatives in Parliament under a system of proportional representation. Future Movement and Progressive Socialist Party lawmakers withdrew from the session ahead of the vote in protest.
On Tuesday, Berri and Interior Minister Marwan Charbel issued appeals for rival political factions to reach a consensus on a new electoral law if the elections are to be held on time.
Addressing the feuding parties, Berri said that the 1960 law, the current law, was no more and that there was no other choice than to reach a consensus over a new electoral law to avoid a vote on the Orthodox proposal in Parliament. “Berri is the decision maker and he is giving enough time for everyone to reach a consensus,” Aoun told reporters after the meeting with Berri.
“But, if we reach a deadlock, he will decide what to do,” said Aoun. “The electoral proposals presented until now are all the same and they are unacceptable. Berri gave them a week, let’s see if they will offer something new,” he added. In remarks published earlier Wednesday, PSP leader Walid Jumblatt warned that the Orthodox law that would lead the country to the unknown.“Approving the Orthodox proposal divides ... the country and leads it to the unknown,” Jumblatt, who spoke to An-Nahar newspaper, said.
Jumblatt described the day of the vote as a “sad” one. The PSP leader also argued against Berri’s bidding farewell to the current law and said “the 1960 law remains [until this moment].”
The Orthodox law has also caused divisions in the March 14 coalition, mainly between the Future Movement and it Christian allies, the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb Party. An-Nahar reported Wednesday that LF leader Samir Geagea and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri held extensive talks over the phone overnight to address the latest developments over the electoral law and to discuss the possibility of reaching a new one that gains consensus.The PSP leader also warned that the approval of the Orthodox gathering law endangered the country’s Taif Accord, which ended the 1975-90 Civil War.
“The Taif Accord has become threatened by some people’s backward mentality,” said Jumblatt.
“We should adopt a law that abolishes sectarianism and elect a senate on a sectarian basis ... what happened [invalidates] equality and the Taif Accord,” he added.

Syrian Christians in danger but not targeted: Aleppo bishop
February 20, 2013/Daily Star/AMMAN: Christians in strife-torn Syria face the same sort of dangers as their Muslim counterparts but are not being specially targeted in the conflict, a Chaldean bishop from the Syrian city of Aleppo said on Wednesday. Antoine Audo, who is attending a three-day regional conference of the Catholic charity Caritas in Jordan, told AFP that Christians in Syria are also not being forcibly displaced but are trying to find refuge elsewhere due to instability in the country. "I do not think Syrian Christians are targeted although they are in danger, just like our Muslim brothers who are suffering," said Audo, who also heads the Syrian branch of Caritas which has provided aid to more than 25,000 people in Syria."Syrian Christians are not being displaced but because of the unrest in Syria, they try, just like other people, to seek refuge in safe places."
Syrian Christians, who form five percent of the country's 23 million population, have remained neutral in the conflict which according to the United Nations has left at least 70,000 people dead in the past 23 months.
A Vatican delegation and Middle East Catholic leaders, meanwhile, began three days of talks in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss the plight of Syrian refugees.
The head of the Vatican's Cor Unum humanitarian affairs department, Cardinal Robert Sarah, is also taking part in the Jordan conference.
"The Church does not support emigration of Syrian Christians," Sarah told AFP after visiting Syrian refugees in Jordan's northern city of Zarqa.
"But in certain situations and if Christian families lost everything, including hope to live in their own country, no one can stop them from seeking a new life in another country."
The United Nations has warned that refugee numbers in countries neighbouring Syria could reach 1.1 million within months. Amman says there are about 380,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan.
The Jordan meeting will discuss Caritas humanitarian work in the Middle East and North Africa.
The Christian leaders attending the conference are due to meet with Jordan's King Abdullah II later Wednesday.

Future slams Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria war
February 20, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Future bloc condemned Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis Tuesday and warned against involving Lebanon in a violent conflict, the state-run National News Agency reported.
“The bloc denounces, in the strongest terms, the increasing involvement of Hezbollah in the armed conflict in Syria by fighting alongside the army of the Syrian regime and its shabiha,” the bloc said in a statement released after its weekly meeting. Shabiha refers to armed men, loyal to the Syrian leadership, who allegedly assist the Syrian army in repressing rebels.
“These actions implicate the party and Lebanon in an endless conflict, undermine all the fake slogans of non-interference in Syrian affairs and expose the Cabinet’s disassociation policy, which is used only for media purposes,” the statement added.The bloc accused Hezbollah of turning itself into a “tool used in the regional conflict [and does not serve] the interests of the Lebanese people, who refuse to take part in fights that greatly harm Lebanon’s citizens and the safety of its territories.”

US security expert: Iran nuke won't start Mideast arms race
By REUTERS 02/20/2013
US think tank says fear of "atomic arms race" is "overplayed"; Riyadh announces plan to build 17 gigawatts of atomic energy by 2032, but in case of war, Saudi Arabia to rely on US for protection, not nukes.
RIYADH- Fears that an Iranian nuclear weapon might trigger an atomic arms race across the Middle East are overplayed, a US security think tank said on Tuesday, arguing that countries like Saudi Arabia face big disincentives against getting the bomb.Western powers believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian atomic electricity program, a charge Tehran denies.
Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, is engaged in a fierce rivalry with Shi'ite power Iran and is seen in Western countries as the most likely Middle Eastern state to seek an atomic weapon if Iran did the same.Analysts have also said an Iranian nuclear weapons capability might persuade Egypt and Turkey to seek a bomb too.
Israel, which has never declared its atomic weapons capability, is thought to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed power now although Iran's eastern neighbor Pakistan has atomic weapons.
In December 2011, former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal said that if Tehran did gain nuclear weapons capability, Saudi Arabia should consider matching it.
Riyadh has also announced plans to build 17 gigawatts of atomic energy by 2032 as it moves to reduce domestic oil consumption, freeing up more crude for export.
However, a report by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) says that although there is some risk that Saudi Arabia would seek an atomic bomb, it would more likely rely on its ally, the United States, to protect it.
"The conventional wisdom is probably wrong," the report said.Even if Saudi Arabia wished to acquire a bomb, "significant disincentives would weigh against a mad rush by Riyadh to develop nuclear weapons".

Bahrain: Another Terrorist Cell Disrupted
By Abeed al Suhaimy
Manama, Asharq Al-Awsat—The Bahrain authorities announced the arrest of several individuals alleged to be part of a new terrorist cell last Thursday evening. The Bahraini minister of interior, Lt. Gen. Sheikh Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa, stated that this cell had been trained in the use of weapons and explosives in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. The minister revealed that the cell was composed of eight people and that “these arrests were made with the cooperation of a fellow brotherly country,” understood to be Saudi Arabia. General Khalifa announced that all elements of the new cell are Bahraini citizens, stressing that investigations have revealed their movements between Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, and that they “had received training in weapons and explosives and also obtained funding from outside Bahrain.” Bahrain authorities claimed the same day to have disrupted another attack on the King Fahd Causeway. Ministry of the Interior spokesmen told reporters that a bomb had been discovered and defused by police technicians on one of the bridges linking the island state to Saudi Arabia. The security source stressed that the new cell has no ties to the previous cell that the Bahraini security forces uncovered in November 2011. At that time, it was claimed the cell was targeting the King Fahd Causeway linking Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi embassy in Manama, and the headquarters of Bahrain’s interior ministry. On a related matter, attorney general Abdul-Rahman al-Sayed revealed that the prosecution service has completed their investigation into the seizure of a warehouse containing in the region of Salmabad, and the arrest of some of those allegedly involved in the manufacture of explosives, which were later used to target the security forces and terrorize citizens. The prosecution has referred nine defendants—four detained by the security forces, and five still at large—to trial, on the charge of belonging to a group aiming to disturb public order and putting the safety and security of the Kingdom at risk, and using terrorism as a means to achieve its objectives. The defendants have also been charged with training others in the manufacture of explosives, manufacturing and possessing explosives themselves, and using them to violate public security for terrorist aims. Further charges include creating explosions in order to terrorize innocents, and raising funds to finance a terrorist group. The defendants will appear before the High Criminal Court on 28 February. Sayed said that the seized explosives contained a mixture of substances including nitroglycerin and nitrocellulose, a highly explosive mixture that forms the basis of dynamite. Other items seized in the possession of the accused include video clips and instructions on how to make bombs and explosive materials, Qassam rockets and anti-armor weaponry, along with ways to measure the materials used in the manufacturing process. The attorney general said that investigations have proved that some of the accused were behind the blasts that occurred near the International Exhibition Center in November 2011.

Muslim Brotherhood “Drowning”: Ex-presidential Adviser
By Ahmed Imbabi/Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat—Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat yesterday, former Egyptian presidential adviser Dr. Khaled Alam El-Din revealed that the “Muslim Brotherhood are drowning” in terms of their administration of the state. The ultra-conservative Alam El-Din, who is a member of the Salafi Nour Party, was fired from his position as presidential adviser on environmental affairs by Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi amid allegations of abuse of office.
Speaking following his controversial dismissal, Dr. Alam El-Din said, “We tried to help them (the Brotherhood) but they refused, we then proposed that they form a government by themselves so that they solely bear responsibility and they also refused this.”
The ruling Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, responded strongly to Dr. Alam El-Din’s accusations, with Freedom and Justice Party spokesman, Dr. Murad Ali, saying “We are focusing on the parliamentary elections. Our difference of opinion is natural and not surprising.”
This contentious division amongst Egypt’s Islamists is reportedly over the Supreme Constitutional court’s rejected of an election law presented by the Islamist-dominated parliament. The court has called for a number of amendments to the law in a move that could delay the forthcoming elections and prolong the tense political atmosphere taking root in the country.
Egypt’s political scene is concerned over the unprecedented violence seen in the country since the January 25 revolution, as well as the divisions within the ranks of the country’s Islamist political forces, particularly the Salafi Nour Party and the Muslim Brotherhood and presidency. Alam El-Din’s dismissal became even more contentions after presidential adviser Bassem Zarka—also a member of the Nour Party—resigned in solidarity with his fellow presidential aide. Alam El-Din appeared alongside Zarka in a televised press conference on Monday during which he denied abusing office and broke down in tears, demanding an apology from the Egyptian president. The former presidential adviser characterized his dismissal as “political.”
Responding to a question put to him by Asharq Al-Awsat at this press conference, Dr. Alam El-Din said, “The Muslim Brotherhood are drowning, they cannot deal with the challenges facing the country.”
He asserted that the Nour Party “is extending a helping hand to the Brotherhood in order to rescue the country and save them (the Brotherhood) at the same time, until they grasp the danger of their practices which are only serving to increase the political crisis in the Egyptian street” adding “however they (the Brotherhood) do not accept this.”
He also revealed that the Nour Party had proposed to withdraw from government so that the Muslim Brotherhood would be solely responsible for decision-making and resolving the current situation, however the Freedom and Justice Party rejected this.
Dr. Alam El-Din emphasized that he and Bassem Zarka had agreed to resign from their posts as presidential advisers more than two weeks in protest to the manner in which the presidential advisory body was being utilized. He said, “We were not being consulted in any way, while whatever actions we took were criticized.” He also clarified that Zarka had requested that they postpone this measure until they could present it to the Nour Party presidential council for approval.
Responding to a question regarding whether this Nour Party—Muslim Brotherhood dispute is over the Salafists position towards dialogue with the opposition National Salvation Front, Alam El-Din stressed that the national dialogue initiative was being welcomed by all national political forces. He added that the Nour Party had cooperated and coordinated with the Brotherhood over the constitution and constitutional referendum, confirming that “we are driven by legitimate interests and the interests of the country as a whole, and they (the Brotherhood) are well aware of this.”
Freedom and Justice Party spokesman, Dr. Murad Ali, told Asharq Al-Awsat that any tension or division among the country’s Islamist forces does not involve the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing. He confirmed that the major parties involved in this are the presidency and the presidential advisory body. He also clarified that the Freedom and Justice Party is only concerned with ensuring that innocent people are not falsely condemned and that corruption—if uncovered—is not swept under the carpet.
Commenting on the escalating divisions between the Freedom and Justice Party and the Nour Party, Dr. Ali said that such differences of opinion are natural and not surprising. He added that the Nour Party previously competed against the Muslim Brotherhood in the previous parliamentary and presidential elections which did not hinder future cooperation and coordination between the two parties.
As for the reservations expressed by the Freedom and Justice Party towards the Nour Party’s meeting with opposition National Salvation Front and whether this is a reason for the recent division, Murad said, “We do not judge anybody else’s intentions.” Responding to the Nour Party’s proposal to withdraw from government, leaving government responsibility solely on the Muslim Brotherhood’s shoulders, Dr. Ali told Asharq Al-Awsat: “How can we form a government, then change it 40 days after the parliamentary elections?” He added that Egyptian society and the international community would view continuous changes in Egypt’s government a as a sign of instability. He also clarified that the Freedom and Justice Party is focused on preparing for the forthcoming parliamentary elections, adding that this is something that all national political parties should be doing.

Saudi, Sudan Hold Joint Naval Maneuvers
By Ahmed Younis/Khartoum, Asharq Al-Awsat—The Sudanese Army has revealed it is conducting joint maneuvers with Saudi naval forces in an attempt to promote collaborative action, combat maritime smuggling, and unify the common language between the two states, given Saudi Arabia’s geographical proximity to Sudan. Colonel Alsawarmi Khalid Saad, a spokesman for the Sudanese army, told Asharq Al-Awsat that two Saudi warships, along with members of the Saudi infantry and Marine Corps, are taking part in the exercises that began on Friday and will continue until next Thursday. The spokesman described the operation so far as a "success," and revealed that preparations began last October with the arrival of a Saudi delegation, and the subsequent visit of a Sudanese delegation to Saudi Arabia last January.
Local newspapers quoted Admiral Majdi Sayid Umar, commander of the Sudanese naval forces at the Port Sudan base, as saying that the current exercises come within the framework of consolidating naval diplomacy and strengthening the security of the Red Sea. He added that the Sudanese navy has close relations with other international and regional maritime forces, including the Saudi Royal Navy, and maintains extended and continuous cooperation in the fields of training, coordination, and the exchange of expertise. He emphasized that the current maneuvers are the first of their kind, and will be the beginning of greater efforts to safeguard the Red Sea basin and consolidate relations between the Republic of Sudan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The docking of Iranian warships at Port Sudan on two separate occasions last November caused significant clamor and sparked rumors of a Sudanese-Iranian military alliance targeting regional countries. At the time, the Sudanese army claimed it was a "routine" visit, and that it was eager to maintain relations with all countries of the region. The Iranian warships docked at Port Sudan following the destruction of the Yarmouk military complex in the south of Khartoum, which the Sudanese blamed on Israeli warplanes. Despite the fact that the Israeli government refused to comment on the Sudanese accusations, reports in the Israeli media claimed the military complex was being used to manufacture and stockpile Iranian weapons. These were then smuggled through the Sinai desert to the Palestinian resistance, particularly Hamas militants, thus establishing a Sudanese-Iranian military alliance targeting Israeli and US interests in the region. Political analysts then suggested that military relations with Iran would undermine Sudan's relations with other countries in the region, particularly the Red Sea littoral states. The Sudanese foreign minister Ali Karti also revealed—in a statement carried by domestic and international media—that his ministry was not aware of the Iranian ships’ visit, and described the docking act as detrimental to Sudanese interests.

The Arabs Between Turbulent Revolutions and Stable Tyranny
By Dr. Hamad Al-Majid/Asharq Alawsat
God fights against oppression and tyranny but they still remain, despite their enduring connotations of hardship, corruption, injustice, tragedy, and brutality. Like alcohol, oppression and tyranny are primarily a great source of sin, but that is not to say they have no advantages. One of the biggest virtues of tyranny is its accompanying security and economic stability, and this is exactly what the states of Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Somalia have lost. It is important to point out here that the latter two, Iraq and Somalia, are completely different cases to the Arab Spring revolutions, as change did not come about as a result of a mass popular movement. The regime in Iraq was overthrown by a superpower that attacked it, and as for Somalia, Siad Barre’s rule was reliant upon a contract structured around tribal and ideological complexities. But the common factor that brings Iraq and Somalia together with the rest of the Arab revolutions is the “forced” change of a strong and stable regime, regardless of who actually carried it out. The Saddam, Mubarak, Assad, Ben Ali, Saleh, Barre, and Gaddafi regimes were all controlled by leaders who held onto power with an iron fist. It is true that they suppressed their people, squandered their wealth, and ravaged, destroyed, and killed, but in return they ensured a stable country and a strong central government.
So far, in all of the Arab Spring states without exception, there does not appear to be anything on the horizon to warm the hearts of the masses. Some tyrannical figures were executed and others overthrown, and the revolutionaries breathed in the air of freedom and finally expressed their opinions, but nevertheless the Arab Spring, in some cases, left behind massive destruction, tens of thousands injured or dead, and millions displaced, as in Syria. At best it left behind weak central governments, fragile security, teetering economies, and disturbances in the street out of the state’s control, as in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. As for Libya, the government’s control does not extend beyond the capital Tripoli, while the rest of the country remains under the control of battalions affiliated to tribes or armed groups motivated by different ideologies.
I am certainly aware that the most notorious consequences of revolutions—whether ancient or modern, Arab or non-Arab—are what we are witnessing now in the countries of the Arab Spring, from fragile security, political unrest, to economic stagnation. The post-revolution situation in these countries is like a patient after an operation to replace his heart or to remove a large tumor from his brain; a long period of recovery is needed. However, the most important observation in this regard remains that the price paid was too high and too dangerous. The Arab revolutions, in terms of their danger, were exactly like a high-risk medical procedure; either it leads to complete success, death, or the patient remains in a critical condition. In the Arab Spring states, no country has been restored to full health but none are resting with the dead either.
The key issue is that the majority of people in the Arab states where revolutions did not break out still consider the Arab Spring as an inspiration for change. They have become intoxicated with the overthrow of tyrannical leaders, energized by the roars of the masses in their million-man marches, but still they completely overlook the critical conditions created by these revolutions. These sentiments, coupled with the state of congestion caused by corruption, poor management, and declining popular participation in decision-making, create a favorable climate for infection. As a result, a number of Arab states are no longer safe from the fire of revolutions, regardless of whether they feel immune themselves. Here it would be wrong to rely on changing the convictions of people, for this is nearly impossible. It is more realistic for governments to strive to keep pace with the changes with genuine reforms and an honest and effective fight against corruption.

Obama Forgets the Palestinians Again
By Ahmed Othman/Asharq Alawsat
In his latest State of the Union address, the US President did not utter the word Palestine or mention the Palestinian cause even once. Furthermore, Barack Obama, who has decided to visit Israel, the West Bank and Jordan next month, has no intention of visiting any major Arab capital or talking about an issue the Arabs have long considered their pivotal cause. In his address, the US President spoke only of the Iranian nuclear danger and called upon Tehran’s leaders to accept a diplomatic solution now, otherwise an alliance will stand united to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Now initiating his second term in office, Obama's stance seems totally different from the one he adopted four years ago when he came to the White House for the first time. On 4 May 2009, Obama addressed the Islamic world from Cairo University, where he promised to treat the Palestinian cause as a high priority. To fulfill his promise, on 19 May 2010, the US President overtly emphasized the need to settle the Palestinian cause, hence calling upon the two parties (the Palestinians and the Israelis) to return to negotiations on the basis of establishing a Palestinian state in accordance with the 1967 borders. In response to his call, negotiations commenced between Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu—under the auspices of the US— on 2 September 2010. However, the Palestinians did not negotiate for very long and decided to withdraw after only one month, on account of Israeli settlement construction. Furthermore, Mahmoud Abbas announced that he would not return to negotiations unless Israel ceased its settlement construction in the West Bank.
Although President Abbas' stance—when making this particular decision—complied with firm Palestinian principles, with it he destroyed the last remaining hope of establishing a Palestinian state on its own soil, nearly 62 years on from the establishment of the Israeli state. On 3 October 2010, Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Executive Committee, said that in order to resume negotiations, Israel must take concrete steps beforehand to prove its seriousness, most notably ceasing settlement activity without restrictions. As a result, Netanyahu effectively acquired carte blanche from the Palestinian leadership to build whatever settlements he wanted as long as the Palestinians remained distant from negotiations.
It was clear from the outset that Netanyahu did not want to reach an agreement leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state before he accomplished his settlement plan in the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem. However, Abbas could have exposed Netanyahu by carrying on with negotiations despite the settlement construction, in order for the Palestinians to establish their own state. Then a comprehensive agreement could have been reached, borders could have been demarked, and settlement construction could have been dealt with in a more effective manner.
When the Oslo Agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was concluded in 1993, it was decided that occupying troops would withdraw from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, with Gaza and the occupied Western Bank coming under the control of the Palestinian Authority. However, the Hamas government, chaired by Ismail Haniyeh, imposed its own control on the Gaza Strip in June 2007.
All attempts to unite the various Palestinian entities under one political authority, to negotiate on behalf of all the Palestinian people, have failed. The latest attempt was held in Cairo under Egyptian auspices following the recent Islamic Summit. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, held a meeting with Khaled Mishal, leader of the Hamas political bureau, in order to sign an agreement that was concluded in both Doha and Cairo, but this did not happen. Now, only a few weeks before the US President is due to visit Ramallah in March 2013, Fatah and Hamas still are unable to reach a unified Palestinian stance. So will Barack Obama venture to solve this issue when Palestinian side cannot even agree on its own objectives, while other parties are unanimous that Iranian nuclear weapons are now the main threat for the Middle East?

Syria: Is it Time for Military Intervention?
By Amir Taheri/Asharq Alawsat
Has the time come for military intervention in Syria? Despite efforts in many capitals to dodge the question, it is moving to the center of the debate over the Syrian tragedy. British Foreign Secretary William Hague says “no option” has been ruled out, code for readiness to consider military intervention. Senior American and French officials have expressed similar views, albeit with varying degrees of ambiguity.
In a sense, the question may well be redundant because military intervention is already taking place in a variety of ways. Russia and Iran continue to supply Bashar Al-Assad’s forces with arms and military advice, while elements of Lebanese Hezbollah may also be involved in fighting anti-Assad units. At the other end of the spectrum, Turkey and several Arab states have been helping rebel groups secure arms and funds since the start of the conflict. The presence of non-Syrian fighters on the side of the rebels may also be regarded as foreign military intervention, albeit an informal one.
However, the real debate is about the wisdom or folly of a ‘game-changing’ intervention. Such a course of action must have the magnitude to tip the balance in favor of the rebels and accelerate Assad’s downfall.
Those opposed to intervention represent a spectrum of opinions. Some are pacifists who oppose all wars. Others are political orphans of the Cold War who back Assad because they see him as part of a burgeoning anti-West bloc that includes Russia and Iran. The majority of those who oppose intervention, however, present a number of political and practical objections that must be considered on their merits.
The first objection is that there is no clear strategy for intervention. Do we want foreign armies to destroy Assad’s war machine and march on Damascus? The answer must be no. The intervention needed would be aimed at two precise objectives. The first is to enforce the arms embargo already approved by over a hundred nations. This requires a naval blockade plus aerial and ground surveillance of possible smuggling routes through Iraq and Lebanon. The second objective would be to set up safe havens, and to protect them against Assad’s air force and mechanized ground units. Three such safe havens already exist in embryonic form, just inside the borders from Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. Last week, the United Nations managed to ferry aid to one of those for the first time, circumventing Assad’s regime.
The second objection is that an embargo imposed by Western powers, especially through naval blockade, could attract stiff opposition from Russia and Iran, triggering the risk of a broader conflict. That is highly unlikely. Iran lacks the military muscle to make an impression in the Mediterranean, although it might attempt to persuade Lebanese Hezbollah to launch reprisal terrorist operations. Though an opportunist power, Russia pursues a pragmatic, realist foreign policy. Even when it was the Soviet Union, Russia knew how far to push a confrontation, as illustrated during the Cuban crisis of 1962. In any case, Russia lacks the naval power to challenge a blockade imposed by NATO in the Mediterranean. Russia will back Assad as long as the price it has to pay is not higher than any possible future rewards.
The third objection is that there is no legal basis for intervention because Russia’s veto blocks the United Nations’ Security Council. Lack of explicit UN approval, however, does not make an intervention illegal. In fact, since the end of the Second World War, we have witnessed scores of wars that took place without a UN imprimatur. In fact, UN-approved wars were the exception, notably in Korea in 1951 and Iraq in 1991. Over decades, the duty to intervene—especially to stop or prevent genocide—has been woven into the international judicial culture. In 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime and stop genocide. A few months later, the Tanzanian army moved into Uganda to evict Idi Amin and stop the massacres he had started. In 1983, the United States, leading a coalition of Caribbean states, invaded Grenada to liberate hundreds of hostages and change the regime in place. In none of those cases was there UN authorization. The same principle was used to justify intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina and, later, Kosovo: to stop genocide. In both cases, the UN was paralyzed by the threat of a Russian veto.
Addressing the UN General Assembly in 1999, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan offered a reflection on the genocide in Rwanda: “If, in those dark days and hours leading up to the genocide, a coalition of states had been prepared to act in defense of the Tutsi population, but did not receive prompt Council authorization, should such a coalition have stood aside and allowed the horror to unfold?”
Annan insisted that the world cannot stand aside when gross and systematic violations of human rights are taking place, and challenged the international community to adopt the notion of humanitarian intervention as legitimate and universal principle.
The fourth objection is that Syria’s geography makes intervention much more difficult than was the case in Libya. Actually, the opposite might be true. Libya is the world’s seventeenth-largest country, while Syria is eighty-ninth. Blockading Libya would mean sealing off 1,770 kilometers of coastline. The comparable number for Syria is 193 kilometers. Libya’s land borders are almost twice as long as those of Syria, while four out of Syria’s five neighbors have little or no reason to help Assad hang on to power.
The fifth objection is that, being costly, military intervention would be hard to sell to Western nations grappling with growing national debts and economic decline. It is true: war is expensive. However, allowing Syria to become an ungoverned land, and thus a haven for terror and crime on the Mediterranean, could prove far costlier in the long run. Worse still, the Syrian civil war could morph into the prelude for a larger regional war, as was the case in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–1939. Western public opinion may not be favorable to military intervention at present; however, this is because the debate has not taken place and the public has not been informed of arguments for and against. A good debate could address that lacuna and mobilize public support for humanitarian intervention.
The sixth objection is that, unlike Libya, which was a homogenous society, Syria is a mosaic of religious communities and ethnic groups. Thus, military intervention would not necessarily produce a harmonious transition. The fact, however, is that Libya is also a diverse country. Ethnic Arabs, Berbers and black Africans constitute different communities brought together under Italian and British colonial rule and, later, the dictatorship imposed by Colonel Gaddafi. Eastern and western Libya have been separate and distinct regions since Roman times. Even when it comes to religion, Libya is home to scores of different brands of Sufism and versions of Islam mixed with tribal folk culture. To be sure, Syria offers a greater degree of diversity, although at least seventy percent of the population are Sunni Muslim Arabs. Diversity, however, does not disqualify a nation from seeking freedom.
The seventh objection is that we do not know what would happen once the despot is booted out. There are no democrats in Syria, and foreign intervention could produce either chaos or another dictatorship. While pessimism is prudent in most cases in Middle Eastern politics, it is wrong to let the massacre continue for fear that something worse may follow. There are no democrats in Syria because there has never been democracy there. It is the chicken-and-egg conundrum.
The eighth objection is that democracy could not be imposed by force. This is true. However, force could be used to remove impediments to democracy, as was the case in Germany and Japan in the 1940s. In any case, the urgent aim of intervention now is to stop the massacre of Syrian people, not to install democracy there. The first step is to put the people of Syria in charge of their own destiny. What they do with their sovereignty and what kind of political system they wish to build would then be their own affair.
The ninth objection is that unlike Gaddafi, who had given up his weapons of mass destruction, Assad still has large quantities of chemical arms that he could use against the people of Syria or its neighbors as a ‘Samson option.’ The possibility of Assad using chemical weapons must not be taken lightly. After all, his fellow Ba'athist, Saddam Hussein, did use poison gas to kill thousands of Kurds in Halabcheh. However, one cannot allow Assad to blackmail his people and the entire humanity with his chemical arsenal. Concern about the possibility of a larger massacre does not justify indifference to the daily killings already taking place.
The tenth objection is that, faced with major military intervention by Western powers, Assad might well threaten Israel in conjunction with Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is controlled by Iran. Such an eventuality is more than remote. The Assad regime, father and son, has always used the Palestinian issue as a means of justifying its despotism while carefully avoiding a direct clash with Israel. In any case, one could not justify the current massacre of Syrian people as the price the world has to pay for Assad’s promise not to threaten Israel. The Palestine issue has been the last refuge of many scoundrels for more than six decades: in his time, Saddam Hussein used it to justify his own murderous regime.
The eleventh objection is that military intervention would dash all hopes of a political solution. So why not allow diplomacy to deploy its full arsenal of means and measures before we consider other options? This is good advice. War must always be the last resort. If the Gordian knot could be untied with fingers, why use the sword? However, diplomacy cannot become a fig leaf to hide inaction. Over the past two years, numerous diplomatic efforts have been made, including two missions led by Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi, two diplomats of the highest standing. Thanks to inside knowledge, we can report that Brahimi has offered the fairest and the most realistic compromise formula. More recently, Moaz Al-Khatib, the nominal head of the Syrian opposition, has gone further by calling for direct negotiations with the regime, exposing himself to charges of treason. All of these attempts to implement a peaceful solution have hit the brick wall of Assad’s refusal. Military intervention could be triggered at the end of a fixed period of reflection granted to Assad.
The twelfth objection is inspired by Machiavellian calculations of power politics. It runs like this: why not let Iran and Russia bear the burden of prolonging Assad’s moribund regime for a while longer? Syria has already cost Iran over USD 10 billion, and that at a time that the Islamic Republic is facing economic meltdown. For Tehran, Syria has become an expensive embarrassment. Allow things to continue a bit longer and Syria may well pull down Iran with it. As for Russia, why not let Vladimir Putin to consolidate his image in the minds of the Arabs as a guarantor of delinquent despots? I called this argument ‘Machiavellian,’ but ‘diabolical’ might be more apt. Should the people of Syria be sacrificed so that Iran could be brought to its knees and Russia shut out of the Arab world as an enemy?
While we ponder the question, in Syria, people die.

Christians Call for Justice Following Church Attack in Egypt
2/19/2013 Washington D.C. (International Christian Concern) - International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that Christians gathered in Cairo on Sunday to protest the destruction of a church that was attacked by Muslim villagers this weekend in Egypt's Fayoum Province. It was the second attack on Christians in the province in a little over a month. Twenty to thirty Muslims, most from an extended family, attacked Mar Girgis church in Tamiyyah village in Egypt's Fayoum Province following a 3 p.m. service on Friday. The villagers pelted the church and four worshippers with stones, tore down the cross erected on top of the building, and threw Molotov cocktail-type explosives at the structure with the intent of setting it on fire, Morning Star News reports. Following the attack, local authorities conducted a "reconciliation" meeting between Christians and Muslims in the village to resolve the dispute, which the church viewed as "unfair and humiliating," according to the Assyrian International News Agency. About a hundred Christian protestors rallied in the Shubra district of Cairo on February 17 demanding that the church be rebuilt and that those responsible be brought to justice. In addition, Christians called for an end to "reconciliation" meetings, a traditional form of "conflict resolution" arranged by Egyptian authorities to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians following anti-Christian violence. The sessions are often held to bypass the judicial system and victims are at times compelled to abandon their claims to a legal remedy.
"Protestors demanded their rights, that the attackers be tried in a civilian court and not pardoned at a 'reconciliation' meeting. No one was held, as usual. It's the same old story," Wagih Yacoub, a Coptic human rights activist, told ICC. "If you break the law, you should be punished. It's that simple. Why should there be double standards between Muslims and Christians? Whenever we're attacked, we're told to attend a reconciliation meeting and our rights are taken from us. We demand that the law be applied equally, whether Muslim or Christian."
The attack on Mar Girgis church was the second assault in the past five weeks against Coptic Christians in Fayoum Province. On Jan. 15, hundreds of Muslims attacked a community center in Fanous village that was being constructed by a Coptic Christian charity, Morning Star News reports. The charity was accused by a local Muslim cleric of building a church, despite having legal permits to construct the facility.
Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, "The attack on Mar Girgis church is just one more indication that nothing has changed in the 'new' Egypt, which many hoped would bring justice and equality, as perpetrators of anti-Christian violence continue to go unpunished. Moreover, the rights of Christians, which are now practically nonexistent in Egypt, are all but taken from them at compulsory 'reconciliation' meetings which, by their very nature, are used to excuse those responsible for attacks and shift the blame onto victims. These sessions have contributed to Egypt's climate of impunity and have only encouraged further assaults. We call on Egyptian officials to investigate the attack on Mar Girgis church and arrest those responsible. No one should be withheld the protection granted by law simply because they are a member of a minority religious community."
For interviews, contact Aidan Clay, Regional Manager for the Middle East: clay@persecution.org