Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/July 21/13

Helen Thomas, Daughter of Lebanese Immigrants and Longtime White House Press Corps Dean, Dies
Nasrallah Says Entire Lebanon Facing 'New Security Situation', Urges Dialogue on Defense Strategy
Hezbollah facing mounting threats
Geagea Slams Nasrallah's Willingness to Resume Dialogue
Salam Meets Berri's Envoy, Reiterates Positions on New Government
Lebanon Holds Relatives over Syria Official's Slaying
Charbel: Central Security Council Will Take Final Decision on Removing Extra Guards of Some MPs
Berri Questions 'Suspicious' Campaign against Army in Light of Abra Clashes
Rudeina Malaeb Accuses Rabih al-Ahmed of Deceiving her, Says his Story Fabricated
Lebanon's ISF Urges People to Refrain from Celebratory Fireworks
Two Held for Opening Fire on ISF Checkpoint in Corniche al-Mazraa
Egypt: New constitution ordered as Mursi supporters rally
DEBKAfile: Kerry obtains Israeli, Palestinian consent to negotiate interim accord, without borders issue
Devil in Details for Mideast Peace Talks
Netanyahu: Reviving Talks in Israeli Strategic Interest
Jordan King in Egypt, First Head of State after Coup
Years of Diplomatic Stagnation about to End, Says Israel's Livni
Egypt Forms Panel to Amend Constitution
Man in Wheelchair Detonates Device at Beijing Airport
New Syria Opposition Chief Sets Arms Priority
NGO: Syria Kurds Expel Jihadists from Post, Seize Weapons
Egypt to 'Reexamine' Severed Syria Ties

Helen Thomas, Daughter of Lebanese Immigrants and Longtime White House Press Corps Dean, Dies
Naharnet/Helen Thomas, the longtime dean of the White House press corps who covered U.S. presidents from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama, died Saturday. She was 92.
Thomas "died Saturday morning at her Washington apartment after a long illness. She would have been 93 next month," the Gridiron Club said. Thomas was a former president and first female member of the club, a Washington journalistic institution. From her front row seat in the White House press room, Thomas was a formidable, sharp-tongued inquisitor of every U.S. president since Kennedy. She was such a fixture, she had the unique privilege of a front row seat with her own name on it. She began covering the White House for United Press International in the early 1960s, one of only a few women in a male dominated Washington press corps. The daughter of Lebanese immigrants, she had a strong interest in the Middle East and was a fierce defender of Palestinian rights. Her blunt, fearless style made her famous but tripped her up in 2010 when controversial remarks about Israel led to her resignation from a post that she dominated for decades. She ran into trouble when an interviewer from the website rabbilive.com asked her what she thought about Israel. "Get the hell out of Palestine," she responded. Jews, she said, should "go home, to Poland and Germany, America and everywhere else."Source/Agence France Presse.

Nasrallah Says Entire Lebanon Facing 'New Security Situation', Urges Dialogue on Defense Strategy
Naharnet /Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Friday said that all Lebanese regions are going through a “new security situation,” noting that Hizbullah is willing to engage in national dialogue over a national defense strategy “without any preconditions.” “There's no doubt that we're going through a new security situation,” Nasrallah said in a televised address during the annual iftar banquet held by the Islamic Resistance Support Association.
“We call on people to be cautious and vigilant, not only in the environment of the resistance as those seeking to stir strife might strike anywhere. Everyone must cooperate and security is the responsibility of the state. We must be vigilant and through cooperation we can overcome this difficult period,” Nasrallah added. But he reassured that “compared to what's going on in the region, we are still in a very good situation.”
“We overcame a lot of plights and conspiracies through people's will, sacrifices, honesty and patience … With the same level of faith, action, will and accuracy, we will overcome this stage and be confident that this resistance is competent and capable of overcoming all the current and coming difficulties," Nasrallah added. On July 9, fifty-three people were wounded when a bomb blast went off in the Beirut southern suburb of Bir al-Abed, a Hizbullah stronghold. On Tuesday, a bomb in the Bekaa region hit a Hizbullah convoy traveling towards the Lebanese border crossing with Syria, killing one person and wounding three others.
The Bekaa bombing is the fourth time that a vehicle has been targeted by an explosive device in the Bekaa region, which is also a stronghold of Hizbullah. Hizbullah has dispatched fighters to battle alongside the Syrian regime against rebels seeking the overthrow of President Bashar Assad. The conflict, pitting a Sunni-dominated rebel movement against Assad, has raised sectarian tensions in Lebanon and Lebanese Sunni fighters have also been killed while fighting alongside Syrian rebels.
Turning to the latest controversy over the army's military operation that ended the presence of anti-Hizbullah cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir in Sidon, Nasrallah said: “We call on the Lebanese to be extremely cautious in light of the current divisions. If, God forbid, the army was split or weakened, the country would no longer know peace or stability, as in any security incident that happens we are all counting on the army to prevent chaos."
“Should the army be divided, the state and the country will cease to exist, not to mention that the army is a main factor in confronting the Israeli aggressions,” Nasrallah added.
“The military institution must be kept outside the political disputes and of course we are calling for strengthening this institution and several times we said that the Islamic Republic of Iran is willing to help, but some Arab and foreign states do not want a strong army in Lebanon,” he went on to say. “I am not theorizing. This is our rhetoric and this our culture regarding the army. We are saying that it is the guarantee and the partner of the resistance and one day the army is supposed to defend this country on its own and we would return to our normal life,” Nasrallah said.
On June 23, gunmen loyal to Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir attacked an army checkpoint near the Islamist cleric's mosque in Sidon's Abra. Eighteen soldiers were martyred and 20 others were wounded in the attack and in the fierce clashes that ensued.
At least twenty of Asir's gunmen were also killed in the battle that ended when the army stormed Asir's headquarters on June 24.
In the wake of the clashes, the March 14 forces demanded a probe into alleged abuses by army troops against civilians and suspects and into claims that Hizbullah fighters had taken part in the clashes. “Our civilians were demonstrating in the light of day in 1993 when the army opened fire on them. Ten people were martyred and 50 others were wounded but the people in Dahieh did not fire a single bullet on the army. A number of brothers and I went to the area and said no one must attack the army because this is our creed,” Nasrallah recalled.
“The entire world knows that seven civilians were killed in the Mar Mikhail incidents and that no one opened fire on the army,” he added.
“There is the case of martyr pilot Samer Hanna and we admitted that we made a mistake and handed over the perpetrator to the judiciary and the judiciary dealt with the issue,” Hizbullah's secretary-general went on to say.
He called on the Lebanese parties to “protect our last guarantee,” in reference to the army, noting that “as long as this (military) institution exists, we can form governments and hold elections.”
Turning to the issue of Hizbullah's controversial arsenal of weapons, Nasrallah said: “We are willing to engage in any form of dialogue over a national defense strategy without any preconditions, before or after the formation of the new cabinet, because we are honest in seeking to protect our country.”
“I had proposed a defense strategy but no one tried to discuss it around the dialogue table or even outside national dialogue. No one held a seminar over this strategy because they are not serious in discussing the issue. They only want one thing, which is to remove our weapons,” he added. “This is everyone's country and we must all defend it and regardless of debates, there is a real national need to discuss a national defense strategy,” Nasrallah noted. He pointed out that “a popular resistance managed through its faith and proper utilization of capabilities to create a balance of terror that is protecting Lebanon from attacks.”
“Can anyone claim that Lebanon has become outside the circle of Israeli threats and ambitions? If anyone believes that, then this is a real tragedy,” Nasrallah said.
He warned that “the expansionist ambitions of Israel know no limits,” noting that caretaker Energy and Water Minister Jebran Bassil “voiced clear remarks that Israel has started to take our oil and gas, but no one stirred a finger.” “When any of us approaches the issue of the army, the resistance or diplomacy, we must take the dangers, choices and the feasibility of these choices into account,” said Nasrallah.
“We must not discuss the sex of angels or whether the weapons are legal or illegal, we must rather ask whether we need this resistance or not,” he added. “The big question is who can we count on to protect our country … What has the Arab League done regarding our problem with Israel?” Nasrallah said. He asked: “What is the alternative to the weapons of the resistance?”
“Whoever thinks that we enjoy combat is mistaken ... but when an enemy is threatening you, it is your responsibility to fight, defend and protect,” Nasrallah clarified.
He stressed: “The resistance is unbreakable and anyone who tries to defeat any faction of the resistance will fail, as the resistance is not an organization, but rather an enormous and firm popular will.”
“The theories of elimination and isolation will lead nowhere and we don't want to eliminate anyone. We are willing to engage in dialogue and to meet with everyone. We can keep the Syrian topic out of the discussions and we can agree on the Lebanese issues. Why should we stop at the points of contention and forget all the points of agreement?” Nasrallah added.
“Let us be patient in dealing with each other and we have asked our MPs to discuss things in a calm manner. We also call on the Syrians, Palestinians and Egyptians to resort to dialogue, which is the only choice regardless of the level of rivalry and animosity,” he said.
 

Analysis: End of Hezbollah's resistance myth

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4407360,00.html
Support for Assad in Syrian civil war proves Lebanese terror group not fighting for well being of fellow Arabs or Palestinian cause
Riccardo Dugulin Published: 07.20.13 / Ynetnews
Since its inception, the Shiite movement branding itself as the Party of God has found its legitimacy both in Lebanon and in the Middle East because of its supposed role in the overall concept of resistance.  Applied to the region, the notion of resistance has been defined since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as both a social policy and an international posture. On the internal level, Hezbollah has been known to position itself in favor of the Lebanese Shiite population thus acting like a revolutionary party moving against "arrogant" political forces. This rationale based upon a non-state and extra-parliamentary welfare system had been attracting the masses of poorer branches of the Lebanese society.  The fact that a number of Christian parties did adhere to this discourse and strategy, showed that the Hezbollah message could be exported outside the traditional Shiite boundaries.
The strength of the movement nevertheless lies on its ability to take full advantage of the popular support it enjoys within a part of the Lebanese society as well as in other regional circles to build, develop and sanctify the resistance myth. The core and unique raison d'être of the non-state armed militia is based on the fact of waging a continued campaign against what are deemed as Arabs' enemies and more generally the enemies of Islam.
For that reason the resistance myth has found itself anchored on three pillars: An all-out and relentless terrorist campaign against Israel in the region, a global terrorist network serving the goal of harming Israeli, Jewish and Western interests and a powerful military build-up inside Lebanon to assert and further Iranian strategic posture in the Near East. The Palestinian card has been wisely utilized by Hezbollah’s cadres as it became, over the last two decades, a parallel to objective of liberating Lebanese territories. This situation, effectively putting Hezbollah in a protracted state of war, has been made possible by the impossibility of the party to reach its goals and by the inability of Israel to eradicate the Hezbollah threat. In other words, even if Israel would have left the Cheba'a farms and Ghajar, the so-called Party of God would have had the legitimacy to continue the fight against the Jewish state due to its attachment to the Palestinian discourse. The resistance myth as a whole is suffering a knockout blow. Since the 2006 summer war, a number of Lebanese parties and movements have become extremely outspoken concerning the need to limit Hezbollah's armed capabilities. It is nevertheless in the ruins of the Syrian crisis that Hezbollah has voluntarily sealed the end of its role as the Arab resistance champion, a role which it had created for itself a decade ago. Three steps are instrumental to understand the way Hezbollah revolutionized its posture. The movement is no longer a Lebanese or an Arab strong element but it is in the process of becoming solely an armed tool to the Iranian foreign policy. The first point has been demonstrated with the 2006 war and the 2008 civil war test-run. These events proved to the Lebanese people that Hezbollah gives no value to the overall Lebanese nation but is only interested in furthering its interests.
By turning its guns against fellow Lebanese, Nasrallah has demonstrated the first fallacy of its rhetoric: Hezbollah does not fight for Lebanon. As an internal policy matter, since the fall of the Saad Hariri government, Hezbollah has effectively become the strongest force in the country thus transforming itself indirectly into a governing party, leaving its opposition role. This situation is leading to a cannibalization of Lebanese resources by the Shiite party, an increased repression by Hezbollah's Shabiha against all critics and a transformation of Lebanese State interests into Hezbollah's on regional interests. The last step is found in the all out support Hezbollah provides the Bashar Assad regime. With thousands of operatives in Syria, Hezbollah is a major warring party in the civil war. As its first large scale international ground intervention, Syria proves the fallacy of the second aspect of the resistance myth: Hezbollah does not fight for the well being of fellow Arabs or of the Palestinian populations.
The Syrian regime has effectively entered into conflict with Palestinians and Hamas has cut its ties with its former protector. On the other hand, Nasrallah vowed to support the Iranian-backed government no matter what. Turning its guns on fellow Arabs and virtually making Lebanon the backyard of a regional conflict, Hezbollah once again proved its own resistance myth wrong. The question is then, what's next for Hezbollah? As the resistance myth is coming apart, the first results of a challenge to the Shiite Party monopoly in Lebanon are being felt. Hezbollah operatives are being targeted in their traditional safe havens. Car bombings and rocket fire targeting Dahiye and IEDs in the Bekaa valley are to be considered the first step of an increased campaign led against Hezbollah by Syrian rebels, Palestinians and Lebanese Sunni extremists. The Lebanese security environment is likely to tilt when local Lebanese forces opposed to Hezbollah, may they be Christian or Sunni, will consider it beneficial to increase their political and armed pressure against Hezbollah and its supporters. The end of the resistance myth doesn't bode well for the overall stability in Lebanon. As Hezbollah may be forced to fight a two-front protracted war, a civil conflict on Israel Northern border appears to be ever more likely. In a situation of organized chaos, the Hezbollah global terrorist network will possibly be used to attack Israeli, Jewish and Western targets in order to divert the international attention from the Lebanese situation and to further Iranian foreign policy objective, a technique which has already been used in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Riccardo Dugulin holds a Master degree from the Paris School of International Affairs (Sciences Po) and is specialized in International Security. He is currently working in Paris for a Medical and Security Assistance company. He has worked for a number of leading think tanks in Washington DC, Dubai and Beirut. His personal website is www.riccardodugulin.com
Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter
 

Hezbollah facing mounting threats
July 20, 2013/By Mirella Hodeib/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: A recent spate of attacks against Hezbollah have imposed a new challenge on the party despite its recognized military prowess and robust intelligence network, political sources and analysts told The Daily Star this week. The analysts said Hezbollah was becoming acquainted with new terrain thanks to the ongoing turmoil in Syria, but dismissed the idea that the group would violently retaliate against attacks on the party, which are expected to continue. A senior political source close to Hezbollah said the party had not waited until the last minute to take the necessary precautions or introduce some changes to its tactics.
“Widening political divisions [in Lebanon and the region] as well as growing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites have imposed fresh challenges on Hezbollah and security considerations of a new kind,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.“[But] vigilance in Lebanon has become part of Hezbollah’s doctrine of protection against Israel.”
Hezbollah’s active involvement in the Syrian conflict and the leading role it played in crushing rebel groups in Qusair this summer have turned it into the sworn enemy of the Syrian opposition as well as militant Islamist groups such as the Nusra Front, which has vowed to target the party in Lebanon.
Saudi Arabia, one of the main backers of the Syrian opposition, has been highly critical of the military backing the Shiite party has given Damascus. In June, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said his country “cannot be silent” over Hezbollah’s intervention in Syria. In a clear sign that the spillover from Syria had actually hit Lebanon, threats against the party materialized in late May when a rocket attack hit Beirut’s southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, wounding four people and damaging property.
A security source said two rocket launchpads the Lebanese Army discovered in the Kesrouan town of Ballouneh and the rocket that slammed into a valley in Jamhour, near Baabda, last month were also meant to strike the southern suburbs. In the latest incident, a roadside bomb exploded near two SUVs on the highway linking the town of Majdal Anjar to the Masnaa border crossing with Syria earlier this week, killing one Hezbollah operative and wounding three others. It was the fourth time that a vehicle transporting Hezbollah fighters to Syria was targeted by an improvised explosive device in the Bekaa Valley, another party stronghold.
But the most significant attack was the July 9 car bombing in the Beirut suburb of Bir al-Abed, which wounded at least 50 people and caused considerable material damage.
Hezbollah has not seen these types of problems facing them within Lebanon for some time, said Charles Lister, analyst and head of MENA at the London-based IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Centre. But such attacks were to be expected considering the threats that have been made against the party both in Lebanon and Syria, he added.
Bilal Saab, executive director and head of research & public affairs of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis North America, called the recent attacks “nothing new.”
“Hezbollah has dealt with such attacks and assassinations throughout its military struggle against Israel,” Saab said. “This is nothing new, even if the perpetrator might be new.”
Lister predicted that Hezbollah would not change its rhetoric or policies on Syria as a result.
“I think we can expect certainly sort of an increased Hezbollah security presence in their areas of particularly strong support, so perhaps a gradual militarization of their areas in southern Beirut for example,” he said.
“We could also see some Hezbollah scouting operations in terms of watching Sunni villages up in the Bekaa Valley known to currently hold members of the Syrian opposition or Syrian rebels, such as Arsal, for example.”
While Lister noted that the pace and continuity of attacks seemed to suggest the perpetrators were “almost definitely Lebanese and if not, they are Syrian with very strong links in Lebanon,” Saab argued that the perpetrators could be any number of people. “It is very much unclear who is behind these attacks. Lebanon is a heavily penetrated country and its security is profoundly compromised,” Saab said.
But the senior source close to Hezbollah disclosed that preliminary investigations had shown Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians were behind the attacks, although the party hadn’t ruled out Israeli involvement via agents.
With Syrian refugee numbers nearing 1 million and no active government, Lebanon’s already vulnerable security situation has become even weaker. The source said Hezbollah circles widely believed that Syrian rebel groups plotted the IED attacks in the Bekaa Valley. A string of villages in the western Bekaa, including Saadnayel, Barr Elias, Majdal Anjar and the eastern bank of the Qaraoun Lake, constituted a “friendly environment” for Lebanon-based anti-Assad groups. “These groups are made up of Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians and other nationalities and receive basic training in abandoned farms in the western Bekaa,” said the source. “They’re incapable of carrying out artillery training, but they are taught to put together rudimentary explosive devices.” As for the Bir al-Abed bombing, Hezbollah blames extremist Lebanese and Palestinian groups, the source said. The source confirmed that Hezbollah had apprehended a Syrian man believed to be behind last week’s bombing in Beirut. The man planted the bomb under a parked vehicle, according to security sources.
He then apparently left the area in a pickup truck driven by two Palestinian men. The security sources said the party had asked Palestinian factions in camps adjacent to the southern suburbs to hand over the two suspects.
According to the senior political source, Hezbollah was well aware that Palestinian camps constituted a safe haven to those carrying out attacks against the Army and Hezbollah. However, the source said the party would not be dragged into a confrontation with the camps, adding that it was in close contact with various Palestinian factions, including former ally Hamas, with whom ties have greatly suffered due to their opposing views on Syria.
For IHC Jane’s Lister, the idea of Hezbollah retaliating in Lebanon wasn’t feasible: “I think they realize they are in a bit of tough situation now and retaliating ... in Lebanon will only make that worse.”
“Despite the fact that supporting Assad has proven to be a fairly damaging move for Hezbollah, I think at the same time the Hezbollah leadership has shown itself to be relatively smart.”The source close to Hezbollah said it was “difficult to imagine Hezbollah resorting to any kind of hasty or uncalculated reaction since the attacks so far have resulted in limited damage.”“But in the event a senior Hezbollah official is targeted ... or loss of civilian lives occurs, nobody can predict the reaction of Hezbollah supporters.”
 

Geagea Slams Nasrallah's Willingness to Resume Dialogue
Naharnet/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea criticized on Saturday Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech, lashing out at his announcement that he's willing to engage in the national dialogue. “How dare Nasrallah call for dialogue a year after the Baabda declaration was unanimously by all sides,” Geagea said in a statement issued by his press office. Nasrallah said on Friday that Hizbullah is willing to engage in national dialogue over a national defense strategy “without any preconditions.” Nasrallah during the annual iftar banquet held by the Islamic Resistance Support Association said his party will resume dialogue “before or after the formation of the new cabinet, because we are honest in seeking to protect our country.” The LF leader said that Nasrallah clearly violated the dissociation policy after his group engaged in battles in the neighboring country Syria.
The Baabda Declaration was unanimously adopted during a national dialogue session in June 2012. It calls for Lebanon to disassociate itself from regional crises, most notably the one in Syria.
The last round of national dialogue was held on September 20 at the Baabda Palace. On Tuesday, President Michel Suleiman said that he hopes he will be able to call for a national dialogue session “soon” to discuss the defense strategy and find solutions to the current political crises. He reiterated at an Iftar banquet in Baabda Palace calls for abiding by the Baabda Declaration, urging factions to commit to it “in words and in deeds.”

Salam Meets Berri's Envoy, Reiterates Positions on New Government
Naharnet/Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam held talks on Friday with Speaker Nabih Berri's envoy caretaker Health Minister Ali Hassan Khalil on the government formation efforts in what the daily al-Joumhouria on Saturday said was a new round of consultations on the matter. Salam's sources told the daily that Khalil did not offer any new cabinet lineup, while the premier-designate remained committed to his stances on the government. Political sources highlighted to the daily An Nahar the significance of the hour-long meeting, noting that it was the first between the two sides since Berri announced his readiness to facilitate the formation efforts.
Khalil reiterated to Salam the speaker's proposal that the cabinet should be comprised of 24 ministers whose five Shiite members would be named by Hizbullah and the AMAL movement.
Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun would name the ministers of his choice for his own share. For his part, Salam told An Nahar that he relayed to Berri his gratitude for his efforts, renewing his commitment to the guidelines he set for the new government, which includes his rejection of granting any bloc veto power. He informed Salam that he does not oppose forming a political cabinet as long as it adheres to the rules he designated, reported An Nahar. Meanwhile, Khalil told al-Joumhouria that he did not offer Salam any names of potential ministers and that the talks did not address the distribution of portfolios. “How can names be proposed when an agreement over the distribution of shares has not been reached yet?” he asked. Salam is seeking the formation of a 24-member cabinet in which the March 8, March 14 and the centrists camps would each get eight ministers.
The March 8 camp has meanwhile been demanding that it granted veto power in a new cabinet, which the premier-designate has repeatedly rejected.

Berri Questions 'Suspicious' Campaign against Army in Light of Abra Clashes
Naharnet/Speaker Nabih Berri criticized the criticism directed against the Lebanese army and parliament, saying that the two institutions are symbols of Lebanon's unity, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Saturday.
He labeled the campaign against the army as “suspicious”, wondering why soldiers would be put on trial over the recent clashes in the southern region of Abra in the city of Sidon. “The army gave the truth about the clashes, so why do they want to put it on trial?” he asked, He noted that the army had conducted an internal investigation in light of the Abra unrest, “so why is it still coming under attack?” The army has evidence that the supporters of Salafist cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Asir had attacked it, but it did not reveal them in line with judicial regulations, revealed Berri. Furthermore, he praised caretaker Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn and the Army Command for “refusing to be dragged into disputes at the parliamentary defense committee meeting aimed at addressing the Abra clashes.” He said that the meeting was aimed at demonstrating that the army was the first to assault al-Asir's supporters. A meeting for the parliamentary defense committee was postponed on Thursday after Ghosn failed to attend the session set to discuss Hizbullah's involvement in last month's clashes in Abra. The fighting in Sidon was sparked when al-Asir's supporters opened fire at an army checkpoint, leaving around 18 soldiers and more than 20 gunmen dead in the ensuing two-day battles.
The cleric remains at large. Ghosn stressed on Friday that he rejects any attempts to question the Lebanese army's actions, pointing out that the military institution is a “red line.”

Two Held for Opening Fire on ISF Checkpoint in Corniche al-Mazraa
Naharnet/An exchange of gunfire erupted on Friday between two gunmen and members of an Internal Security Forces checkpoint in the Beirut district of Corniche al-Mazraa, state-run National News Agency reported.
“An ISF checkpoint was stopping cars violating the ban on tinted-glass windows when it asked a violating driver to pull over and started removing the illegal tinting. Another tinted-glass car arrived on the scene and its passengers tried to voice objection before two men arrived on a motorcycle and opened fire on the checkpoint's members,” NNA said. “The checkpoint's members returned fire, wounding Mohammed Ali Abdullah Qameh in his leg while his companion was arrested,” the agency added. Qameh was rushed to hospital, NNA said, adding that the ISF seized the car that sparked the incident. The passengers of the second car, however, managed to flee the scene. Al-Jadeed television said the first car was driven by a woman and that she had telephoned the two men who arrived on the motorcycle. It quoted a security source as saying that “the shooter belongs to a political party and has a criminal record.” Jaras Scoop FM radio reported earlier that “head of the Mousaitbeh office of AMAL Movement Talal Qameh was hurt in an exchange of gunfire between members of AMAL and the ISF in Corniche al-Mazraa,” adding that “he was rushed to hospital amid tension in the area and an armed deployment by AMAL members.”But Voice of Lebanon radio (100.5) said Qameh has a criminal record, noting that he had opened fire on the al-Helou ISF barracks in Beirut's Mar Elias in the past. “High-level contacts are underway to prevent any repercussions,” the radio station added. Later on Friday, a security source told Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) that an armed group tried to storm Beirut Hospital to liberate Qameh.

ISF Urges People to Refrain from Celebratory Fireworks
Naharnet /The Internal Security Forces called on Saturday citizens against resorting to the use of fireworks during various celebrations. It said in a statement: “The use of fireworks for national, religious, and social occasions, such as weddings, sports events, and the announcement of exam results, raises fear among the people.” “It also causes bodily harm, including permanent disabilities, and could even reach innocent bystanders,” it added. It said that the material damage from fireworks could extend to public property and cause disputes among residents of the same neighborhood. “The ISF urges the people to refrain from the use of fireworks for their safety and that of the public and instead turn to peaceful means that reflect our civility,” it stressed.

Rudeina Malaeb Accuses Rabih al-Ahmed of Deceiving her, Says his Story Fabricated
Naharnet /Rudeina Malaeb, a Druze woman who married a Sunni man who was attacked by her angry family, said on Saturday that Rabih al-Ahmed deceived her to marry him. “Everything that Rabih said is fabricated... He tried to assault me several times,” Rudeina, 20, told LBCI, in her first appearance since Rabih's penis was cut off in the Aley town of Baisour two days ago. Rudeina expressed hope that justice would take its course. Rabih and Rudeina met on Facebook and were married by a Sunni sheikh in July, against the wishes of the bride's family. Marriage between members of the Druze community and non-Druze are extremely rare and officially banned by the religious group, which is present in Lebanon, Syria, Israel and the West Bank. For his part, 39-year-old Rabih, who is currently being treated at a hospital, stressed that he didn't force Rudeina into marriage.
He pointed out that her family lured him to Baisour under the pretext of a reconciliation meeting. “I was brutally beaten up by seven men for half an hour, then I was dragged to the town's square where they cut off my penis,” al-Ahmed told LBCI. He said that seven men were accomplices in the assault, two of them work for MP Akram Shehayeb. The attackers, who include the two brothers of Rudeina, one of them a soldier, remain at large Al-Ahmed revealed that his wife, Rudeina, tried to commit suicide before over her older brother's acts, demanding the arrest of all the culprits and the return of his wife to him. Caretaker Justice Minister Shakib Qortbawi said that the judiciary will not hesitate to carry out its duties. “The offenders will be arrested,” he added. Even beyond the Druze community, intermarriage between Lebanon's 18 religious communities remain uncommon.The country was ravaged by a civil war that pitted many of its religious communities against each other between 1975 and 1990.

Lebanon Holds Relatives over Syria Official's Slaying
Naharnet/Lebanon's security forces have detained two relatives of the wife of a murdered Syrian official on suspicion they were involved in his killing, a security source told AFP Saturday. Mohammad Darrar Jammo, a strong supporter of Syrian President Bashar Assad, was gunned down at his home by unknown attackers early on Wednesday in what initially was thought to be a political assassination. Lebanon's army however later ruled out a political assassination while a judicial source told AFP "family reasons" were behind the killing.  The security source on Saturday confirmed that suspicion had fallen on members of the family of Jammo's Lebanese wife, Siham Younis. "Lebanon's military intelligence is questioning Badie Younis, who is the brother of ... Siham, as well as her nephew Ali Khalil, over suspicion that they participated in the murder," the source said.
Jammo, a Syrian who had lived in Lebanon for 25 years, was a pro-Assad political commentator who often appeared on Lebanese television. Lebanese media said Jamo's funeral was held Friday in Latakia, on Syria's Mediterranean coast. Speaking to Lebanese television channel Al-Jadeed, Jammo's wife denied any connection to the killing. "What's going on?... He's been my husband for 20 years," Younis told the broadcaster. She said she had been interrogated by the Lebanese security forces before traveling to Syria for her husband's funeral. Asked whether there was any chance her brother or nephew were behind the murder, she said: "Whoever the perpetrator is, he should be punished." Syrian state news agency SANA had initially blamed Jammo's killing on "terrorists", using the Damascus regime's terms for rebels who are fighting Assad's forces.

Charbel: Central Security Council Will Take Final Decision on Removing Extra Guards of Some MPs
Naharnet/Caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel questioned the media uproar and “lawmakers' hysteria” over the decision to withdraw the additional security forces of some lawmakers, reported al-Joumhouria newspaper on Saturday. He told the daily that the decision has not taken effect yet and it will be approved or rejected by the Central Security Council during an upcoming meeting. “I do not believe that the addition guards offer any real security to any of the political leaderships should they be targeted,” he remarked. “Some of the members do not even perform security duties,” he added. “The decision to withdraw the security forces will be reconsidered in some exceptional cases,” continued the minister. “The danger some officials face does not change whether they have an extra security forces member or not,” Charbel stressed. “The crimes in the past demonstrated that the extra guards only serve to increase the number of victims in the attack,” he stated. The security forces of several March 14 camp MPs were withdrawn on Thursday at the orders of the Central Security Council.
The additional guards of Phalange MPs Nadim and Sami Gemayel and Elie Marouni were withdrawn, as well as those of Lebanese Forces lawmaker Antoine Zahra. The Interior Ministry explained on Thursday that the security forces were withdrawn because having additional members is a violation of decree number 2512. The withdrawn forces will “undergo training and serve in police stations all over Lebanon.” "The protection of figures is the responsibility of the general-directorate of the Internal Security Forces' officers,” added the Ministry.

Egypt Forms Panel to Amend Constitution
Naharnet/Egypt's interim president on Saturday appointed a committee of experts to amend the constitution that was suspended following the military's overthrow of president Mohammed Morsi, the presidency said.
Under a decree issued by the caretaker president, Adly Mansour, the committee, which consists of four university professors and six judges, will begin its work on Sunday. The committee members will have 30 days to make their amendments, which will then be presented to a 50-person body representing different groups in Egyptian society. The larger panel will include members of political parties and trade unions, religious officials and army officers, and will in turn have another two months to make final changes to the draft before submitting it to the president. Mansour will then have 30 days to call a referendum on the charter.
Ousted Islamist president Morsi's government adopted the controversial previous constitution by referendum in December 2012 with a majority of 64 percent, but a voter turnout of just 33 percent.
Opposition politicians and members of Egypt's Coptic Christian community denounced the Islamist-drafted text, which was also criticized by U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay for curtailing certain rights, including those of non-Muslims. Egypt's caretaker president issued a charter last Monday outlining the timetable for the constitutional reforms, as well as fresh parliamentary and presidential elections due to be held early next year.
Shortly after it was announced, Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood rejected the temporary charter as a decree enforced by "putschists".Source/Agence France Presse.

Three Dead as Rival Egyptian Factions Clash
Naharnet/Three women died in clashes between loyalists and opponents of Egypt's ousted Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, medics said Saturday, despite warnings by the military that it would crackdown on violent protests. "Three people were killed and seven others wounded by birdshot and stabbing attacks during clashes between Morsi supporters and his opponents," Adel Said, a hospital official in the Nile Delta city of Mansura, told AFP. The three killed Friday were all women, he added. A pro-Morsi protester injured in the clashes, also speaking by phone, said thousands of loyalists were marching through the city's narrow streets when "thugs" attacked them with guns, knives and rocks. Tensions are running high in Egypt more than two weeks after the army ousted the country's first freely-elected president following massive protests calling for him to go.
Rival protests were staged in several cities on Friday, with tens of thousands rallying in Cairo to demand the Islamist leader's reinstatement. Before Friday's demonstrations, the army warned that it would decisively confront any violent protesters. "Whoever resorts to violence in Friday's protests will endanger his life, and will be treated with utmost decisiveness, within legal bounds," it said.
Morsi's army-installed successor Adly Mansour vowed to fight for stability against opponents he accused of wanting to plunge the crisis-hit country "into the unknown". "We will fight the battle for security to the end. We will preserve the revolution," he said in a speech broadcast by state television on Thursday. Several thousand supporters of Morsi's overthrow by the military descended on Cairo's Tahrir Square on Friday evening, setting off fireworks and chanting pro-army slogans. Earlier, a vast crowd gathered at the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque in the capital, where Morsi loyalists have camped out since the military overthrew him on July 3. About 10,000 protesters then set off in the direction of an elite military compound, the scene of the deadliest violence since Morsi's overthrow, carrying pictures of the deposed president and chanting slogans.
But they were blocked by soldiers and armored vehicles. "I believe Morsi will return as president, God willing. The people will win in the end," said protester Mohammed, a 45-year-old veterinarian. Smaller rallies took place elsewhere in Cairo and Egypt's second city Alexandria after the Muslim Brotherhood had called for a day of protests dubbed "Breaking the Coup". Morsi has been held in custody since his ouster and other senior Brotherhood leaders have also been detained, prompting international concerns. U.N. rights chief Navi Pillay summoned the Egyptian ambassador in Geneva and requested information about those arrested in connection with the events of July 3, her spokesman said on Friday. On the eve of the demonstrations, Mansour pledged to rein in those who wanted to push Egypt "into the unknown".
"We will fight the battle for security to the end. We will preserve the revolution," he said, in comments echoed by the army. The army had warned on Thursday that it would decisively confront any violent protesters.
"Whoever resorts to violence in Friday's protests will endanger his life, and will be treated with utmost decisiveness, within legal bounds," it said. Although mostly peaceful, the pro-Morsi protests have resulted in deadly clashes, with the unrest claiming more than 100 lives in all, according to an AFP tally. In the worst bloodshed, at least 53 people, mostly Morsi supporters, were killed outside the Cairo headquarters of the Republican Guard on July 8. The Brotherhood accuses the army of committing a "massacre," while the military says it was responding to a "terrorist" attack. The demonstrations by those celebrating Morsi's ouster have been far smaller since the mass rallies that swept the country in the days leading up to the coup.
In his speech, Mansour offered an olive branch to the Brotherhood, saying: "The framework of justice and reconciliation extends to all." The movement has categorically refused to recognize Mansour's caretaker government, which was sworn in this week but with Islamist parties and movements totally absent. On the diplomatic front, Britain announced it was revoking export licenses for equipment used by Egypt's military and police amid concerns it could be used against protesters. The United States has refrained from saying Morsi was the victim of a coup, which would legally require Washington to freeze some $1.5 billion in U.S. military and economic aid to Cairo.
Another major challenge facing Egypt's new government is the security situation in the restive Sinai peninsula, which has been rocked by deadly violence in the past two weeks. Two civilians were killed and one wounded on Friday when militants fired rockets at an army checkpoint in El-Arish, one of several attacks in the Mediterranean town which also left one soldier injured. The army launched a major offensive earlier this week against Islamist militants in north Sinai, where at least 15 police and soldiers have been killed since Morsi's ouster, as well as seven civilians.Source/Agence France Presse.

DEBKAfile: Kerry obtains Israeli, Palestinian consent to negotiate interim accord, without borders issue

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report July 19, 2013/After substantially lowering his expectations, US Secretary of State John Kerry was able to save his mission to restart peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians with only moments to spare before his sixth round of shuttle diplomacy crashed. Friday night, July 19, Kerry announced in Amman that “initial talks would resume in Washington very soon.”
In this exclusive report, debkafile discloses for the first time details of the formula for which Kerry obtained the consent of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and, after an unscheduled side trip Friday to Ramallah, of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as well.
According to the Kerry formula, the forthcoming negotiations would focus on attaining an interim peace accord - without determining final borders - for establishing a Palestinian state in broad areas of the West Bank from which Israeli would withdraw.
Those areas would be subject to trilateral US-Israeli-Palestinian consensus on security arrangements and require some Jewish settlements to be removed.
Initial negotiations will start next week in Washington behind closed doors. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and the prime minister’s adviser Yakov Molcho will represent Israel and senior negotiator Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian side. A third US team will report to John Kerry.
It was also agreed, according to this exclusive debkafile report, that the negotiating process would last no less than nine months up until March 2014, during which Israel agreed to an undeclared partial standstill on construction in Judea and Samaria outside the settlement blocs - except for building to accommodate natural growth.
The freeze would not apply to the West Bank settlement blocs or Jerusalem.
The Palestinian leader dropped his stipulation for a total construction freeze. He also promised not to carry out his threat to push anti-Israeli measures through UN and other international institutions during the talks.
The US Secretary also persuaded Abbas Friday to waive his ultimatum for peace talks to be based on 1967 borders. Instead, President Barack Obama will send him a letter affirming US recognition that the object of the negotiations is to establish a Palestinian state as the national home of the Palestinian people whose borders will be based on 1967 lines.
Obama will send another letter to Netanyahu affirming that the negotiations must lead to the recognition of the state of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, whose future borders will be based on the 1967 lines while also accommodating Israel’s security needs and its realistic demographic circumstances.
The talks will proceed on two levels: The Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams in Washington, who will defer to their principals, Binyamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Abbas and John Kerry. Those three will only meet for direct talks when the teams have tangible results in the bag.
Before leaving Amman, the US Secretary said cautiously: “The agreement is still in the process of being formalized."


'Kerry Stands a Chance with Israelis and Palestinians
David Makovsky /Washington Institute
Secretary Kerry may be able to exceed low expectations about the prospects of relaunching Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
In his latest round of talks culminating early this week, Secretary of State John Kerry spent close to twenty hours in separate meetings with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas. Afterward, he declared that "real progress" had been made and that the parties could be within grasp of launching final-status negotiations.
LOW EXPECTATIONS
Kerry has visited the Middle East five times over the past few months, yet peace-process expectations have been low for each trip due to several factors:
Although numerous polls clearly show that Israelis and Palestinians favor a two-state solution, each side has convinced the other that they do not, and that an agreement is therefore impossible at the moment. For example, in a just-released joint poll by Hebrew University's Harry Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 68 percent of Israelis and 69 percent of Palestinians said that the chances of establishing an independent Palestinian state next to Israel in the next five years are low or nonexistent. Both sides see past diplomatic failures as vindicating their prism of analysis, creating deep skepticism about the prospects for progress.
Netanyahu and Abbas have been hesitant. At a Likud Party meeting this week, Netanyahu declared that he did not want to publicly announce concessions because it would only weaken Israel's bargaining position. On a more basic level, both leaders are risk-averse; neither wants to get out ahead of the public or be branded as quixotic. They are also convinced that any progress would mobilize hardline elements within their own polity to take action against them. Thus far, they have preferred to let sleeping critics lie.
Kerry's style engenders low expectations. The secretary's statements about the peace process tend to be discounted publicly as the honeyed words of a career politician, in large part because he does not release tantalizing details that might support his claims. Kerry used a similar "close hold" style in meetings with dignitaries when he served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, believing it was key to avoiding complications that might hinder diplomatic breakthroughs.
Even the pre-negotiations phase is heavily loaded. Contrary to public perceptions, the crux of the impasse is not about arranging a meeting between Netanyahu and Abbas -- under normal circumstances, that could be done fairly easily. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, however, the pre-negotiations phase is deeply substantive. Fairly or not, Abbas believes that Israel needs direct talks more than he does, based on frequent mention (by Israelis and others) of the country's international "delegitimization" and isolation. He has sought to use this imbalance as leverage, seeking assurances from Israel on territorial contours before the talks even begin -- namely, a commitment to return to the pre-1967 borders. U.S. officials have been ensnared by this issue in the past; Israel resisted such commitments before the Annapolis talks of 2007 and the September 2010 talks in Washington.
HINTS OF PROGRESS
Despite these obstacles, low expectations have not doomed the Kerry mission. Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu wanted to be blamed if the mission failed, believing such an outcome would only complicate relations with Washington and, in Netanyahu's case, with parts of his own public. Abbas is aware that if he keeps spurning the Obama administration, the United States will likely move on to other crises, and the deadlock will continue. He also realizes that protracted stalemate is bound to push the populace toward Hamas radicalism, and his nonviolent approach will no longer be able to compete. For his part, Netanyahu defended the idea of peace with the Palestinians during a speech last week at the gravesite of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stating, "We do not want a binational country."
As for the meetings with Kerry, a report by the Israeli daily Maariv indicates that Netanyahu expressed his willingness to seek security cabinet approval for preventing expansion of settlements beyond Israel's West Bank security barrier; he is even willing to make unspecified limitations on the settlement blocs adjacent to the pre-1967 boundaries. Approximately 80 percent of Israeli settlers are concentrated in blocs that constitute 5 percent of the West Bank, while the remaining 20 percent of settlers are dispersed in the other 95 percent of the land.
The Maariv article also claimed that Israel has agreed to release about 60 of the 123 prisoners convicted before the 1993 Oslo Accords. This issue is complex because many of these prisoners were arrested on murder charges. If they are released, the amnesty would occur in three phases, and only after talks begin. Netanyahu has said in the past that he does not want to set prisoners free before negotiations commence because he does not want "pay" for talking to the Palestinians. If the prisoners are released up front, he and other officials may be concerned that the Palestinians will have no incentive to continue the talks.
In exchange for these concessions, Netanyahu reportedly wants Abbas to drop his demand that Israel commit in advance to negotiations based on the pre-1967 borders and land swaps. According to Maariv, Abbas is willing to do so but would like all 123 prisoners delivered at once in order to make a bigger splash with the Palestinian public, especially since Israel released over 1,000 prisoners to Hamas in 2011 in return for hostage Gilad Shalit.
In short, if an agreement to enter final-status talks is reached, it would entail Israel compromising on settlements and prisoners, and Abbas dropping his territorial preconditions.
Kerry's visit has produced other interesting signs as well. For example, the Israeli Ministry of Defense suddenly announced this week that it would crack down on perpetrators of violence against innocent Palestinians. Meanwhile, Kerry left behind Jonathan Schwartz, a State Department legal advisor who has the best institutional memory in the U.S. government about Arab-Israeli negotiations and is usually dispatched when talks reach the agreement drafting stage.
More broadly, Kerry views his current mission as a piece of a wider Israeli-Palestinian puzzle. In late May, for instance, Washington tasked Gen. John Allen -- U.S. Central Command's former number-two man on the Middle East -- with discussing Israeli security concerns as part of any final-status deal. Since then, he has reportedly held at least three rounds of meetings with the Israelis. Kerry also persuaded an Arab League delegation to renew their commitment to an Arab peace initiative; specifically, they discussed the prospect of Arab states normalizing their relations with Israel after it yields the West Bank, indicating that Israel could keep some settlements as long it offsets annexations with land swaps. Last but not least, Kerry declared a $4 billion economic development program for the West Bank.
THE MISSION AND THE REGION
Kerry has pursued the Israeli-Palestinian issue not because he sees a peace deal as potentially transformative for the Middle East, but because he fears an outbreak of violence would have explosive resonance in a region already in turmoil. Israelis and Palestinians have various tactical reasons to understate the Kerry mission. Yet if reports are to be believed, he stands at least a chance for getting the parties to the table after years of deadlock, primarily by avoiding all-or-nothing principles and finding compromises. If a breakthrough fails to emerge, nobody can accuse Kerry of not prioritizing the issue.
**David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute.
 

Preventing another failure in possible US–Iran talks

Shahir Shahid Saless/Asharq Alawsat
According to a July 13 report in the Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration intends to press for direct negotiations with Tehran. According to the report, this follows Iran’s president-elect, Hassan Rouhani, sending “positive signals both publicly and privately about his interest in engaging with the international community on the nuclear issue.”
The report also quotes a senior official as saying: “We are open to direct talks, and we want to reinforce this in any way [we can].”
The history of US–Iranian relations is filled with failed talks, both secret and open. Nevertheless, despite the hostile relations between the two states since the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, there have been offers to open dialogue from one or both parties under the tenure of every president of the United States.
There are many indications that both parties are willing to resolve their disputes, from the secret trip by Robert McFarlane, President Reagan’s special envoy to Tehran, in 1986 and Iran’s unofficial proposal for a “grand bargain” in 2003, to Iran’s cooperation with the Americans in overthrowing the Taliban in 2001 and President Obama’s offer of a “new beginning” in his 2009 remarks for the Iranian New Year.
However, until now the two countries have not been able to find a way out of the quagmire of non-negotiation and non-compromise. This pattern did not exist between the United States and its foes even in the Cold War, when the US maintained diplomatic relations with the communist bloc.
In this article, there is no space to delve into causes of the formation of this rare relationship; however, major factors that have obstructed the formation of a sustained and meaningful negotiation process can be briefly mentioned.
Some point to Israeli hostility to Iran as one of the reasons for the continued antagonism between the US and Iran. Many argue that given the hostility between Iran and Israel, no agreement can be reached and no deal can be made between the United States and Iran. Re-establishing normal relations between the US and Iran is far-fetched as long as Iran and Israel maintain their hostile posture toward each other; however, there is a distinction between conducting meaningful talks and restoring relations. Meaningful talks can help reduce tensions and lead to finding solutions to critical issues, such as the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, without necessarily and immediately leading to re-establishing relations.
Aside from the role of Israel, there are bilateral tensions between the US and Iran that ensure that relations remain adversarial. Deep mistrust is one of the major factors obstructing the formation of meaningful dialogue between the two countries. Both sides have a long list of elements that have shaped their mistrust of each other.
In the case of Iran, the admitted role of the US in the 1953 coup d’état and the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq, Iran’s popular and democratically-elected prime minister, is central to and the beginning of Iran’s mistrust toward the US.
In the case of the Americans, seizure of their embassy in Tehran in 1979 by radical students, followed by the taking of 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, marks the beginning of suspicion and distrust of the Iranian government.
This poisonous mindset, saturated with doubt and suspicion, has created a chronic bias that precludes the formation of an environment suitable for constructive negotiations.
Another obstacle to dialogue is the activities of hardliners and spoilers on both sides of the fence. These elements constantly sabotage US–Iran relations and escalate the level of hostility between the two governments. In Iran, the hardline faction has consistently tried to define talks with the US as the red line of the nezam (establishment), while Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, stated in March that he is “not opposed” to direct talks with the United States—although he remarked that he is “not optimistic,” either.
The next factor that blocks enduring talks between the US and Iran is the role that pride has in Iran’s politics, and the fact that it is entirely ignored by American policymakers. For better or worse, Iranians are a proud people. This characteristic has roots in Iran’s long history and its longstanding geopolitical influence in the region. The notion of pride plays a pervasive role in Iran’s politics. It was pride that gave the impetus to the shah’s ambitious plans. The language that the Americans use is dominated by threats and intimidation, while their policies toward Iran are centered on coercion. This approach closes the door on the establishment of enduring talks. The Iranian party is not receptive to this language, and therefore either predictably reacts irrationally or leaves the negotiations.
To Western politicians, political decisions are often made within a framework of cost and benefit analyses, so it is incomprehensible to them how pride can play a decisive role in policy-making.
Prominent Iran experts, such as George Perkovich and Shahram Chubin, have asserted that national pride drives Iran’s nuclear program. Kamal Kharrazi, Iran’s former foreign minister, once said that “no government [in Iran] can relinquish an issue that has gained it national pride.” Bearing this in mind, if any direct talks between the two governments are to take place, the issue of mistrust must be noted and compensated for. A mediator familiar with both the Iranian and Western cultures could help sustain the talks. The role of the mediator would be to correct chronic misunderstandings between the two parties, and could be filled by a third country or a group of people.
Since hardliners on both sides of the fence become more active as direct talks near, watching their complex moves may help to save the negotiations from failure.
The language of threat and intimidation will result in the failure of the talks, as has been repeatedly experienced in the past. It is noteworthy that the Iranian leadership has constantly linked the nuclear program to ezzat-e melli (national dignity), ensuring that Iranian negotiators cannot retreat or offer concessions under coercion. Finally, as a former Iranian diplomat told this author, both sides should be ready “to give big in order to get big.”
The opportunity that has now emerged to resolve the deadlock over Iran’s nuclear program is new; it did not exist for the last eight years. Hassan Rouhani is determined to bring this stalemate to an end. The Iranian people, by voting for him, have participated in a referendum and have voted to bring the nuclear issue to a conclusion. Crucially, given Iran’s faltering economy and Rouhani’s landslide victory over his conservative rivals, Iran’s supreme leader will not raise a barrier to his reconciliatory policies. Rouhani has clearly drawn the lines, saying: “We should break the sanctions . . . [and] we should take the Iran dossier off the United Nations table.” If Rouhani is not given the chance to ease the sanctions on Iran in exchange for some concessions on their nuclear program, as Iran’s economy deteriorates further, the hardliners will likely organize a mass campaign against him, probably in the next few months. Ultimately, they will first marginalize and eventually neutralize him. The fact that the United States has reacted swiftly to Rouhani’s election is grounds for optimism, and is an indication that Americans have realized the urgency of the issue at hand.

Egypt: New constitution ordered as Mursi supporters rally
Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat—Supporters of deposed Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi gathered in eastern Cairo’s Rabaa Al-Adawaiya Square on Saturday in their tens of thousands, renewing call for his reinstatement. This comes as part of an on-going sit-in that has been staged in front of the Rabaa Al-Adawiya mosque since Mursi’s removal from power.
Crowds backing Mursi’s ouster and the Egyptian military’s intervention also gathered in Tahrir Square, but in far smaller numbers.
Egyptian media reported that at least two people were killed during clashes in the Nile Delta city of Mansura on Saturday, bringing the total death toll across the country following Mursi’s ouster to at least 101.
Islamists joined Mursi’s supporters in Rabaa Al-Adawaiya Square as Egypt’s interim president, Adly Mansour, issued a presidential decree ordering a committee of legal experts to begin working on Sunday to amend the country’s suspended constitution. The controversial constitution drafted last year by an Islamist-dominated committee was suspended on July 3 following the military’s intervention.
According to the decree issued following Mursi’s ouster, the drafting of a revised constitution will precede parliamentary elections, which in turn will be followed by a new presidential vote.
A committee of 10 legal experts is set to meet tomorrow and will have just 15 days to make proposals to a broader body, which will have a further 60 days to deliver a final draft of a constitution.
In his first public statement, Egypt’s new foreign minister, Nabil Fahmy, stressed that Cairo has no intention of waging jihad against Syria and will “re-examine” diplomatic ties with the country.
Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Egypt’s newly installed foreign minister stressed that Cairo supports the Syrian people’s legitimate desire for freedom but will not pursue jihad against the Assad government.
This comes after the former Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government of Mohamed Mursi supported a call by some Sunni clerics for a jihad against Bashar Al-Assad’s Alawite regime.
On June 15, Mursi announced that Egypt was severing its diplomatic ties with Damascus. Following this decision, Egypt closed its embassy in the Syrian capital and shut down the Syrian diplomatic mission in Cairo.
Fahmy said that Egypt’s new government, headed by president Adly Mansour, will “re-examine” the decision to cut full diplomatic ties with Syria. However, he warned that this “doesn’t mean they will resume or not resume.”

Egypt’s military did not have to intervene
M. Fareed El-Shayyal/Asharq Alawsat
When asked whether I support Egypt’s military intervention, my reply is that the statement issued by the Armed Forces’ General Command and read by Gen. Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi, Minister of Defense and commander of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), on Wednesday night did not mention the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the statement did not explicitly stipulate the ouster of legitimate president Mohamed Mursi at all. Yet different clauses of the statement suggested the surprise decision that the constitution would be suspended temporarily and that the head of the Supreme Court would assume the duties of the President of the Republic until new presidential elections could be held. According to all this, I suggest that a more apt question is: Doesn’t the ouster of a freely elected president by the military constitute a coup d’etat?
The direct answer to this question, in ordinary circumstances, is an unequivocal yes. Army Commander and Minister of Defense Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi suspended the constitution, which he swore to uphold when he assumed his post. In the first place, this represents an invalidation of any claimed legitimacy, and in fact even curtails the legitimacy of El-Sisi himself. It was also noticeable that the statement was issued by the General Command, not the SCAF, which that was only represented by the commander of the Marine Forces and two other members out of a total of 17. This, however, prompted many to believe some news reports that were leaked about a large number of senior leaders being dissatisfied with Sisi’s decision, most prominently commanders of the 2nd and the 3rd Field Armies. This is apart from the fact that, as far as the chain of command goes, Sisi should report directly to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and president of the republic, Dr. Mohamed Mursi. Military traditions and customs in all military apparatuses across the globe stipulate that orders flow downwards—otherwise, what we are looking at is a coup.
However, this opinion is strongly objected to by the millions of people who took to streets on June 30 to demand Mursi’s ouster. These millions believe that they, by flocking to Egypt’s squares and streets to reject Mursi, have become the rightful owners of decision-making and legitimacy, and thus have the right to oust and appoint whomever they want. However, no matter how much they want to believe this, we must look at things clearly and impartially.
I also understand the stance adopted by millions of other Egyptians who uphold President Mursi’s legitimacy, and who now are taking to the streets of Egypt to protest. The objective of these millions is to let the opponents of constitutional legitimacy see that Mursi also has millions of supporters, and this number could get bigger. This was manifested in the huge number of people who took to streets earlier this week to demand Mursi’s return. These crowds were not limited to the Brotherhood or their supporters alone, and they were joined by a large number of Egyptians who want to stop the military from burying Egypt’s new democracy alive.
President Mohamed Mursi was the first freely elected civilian president in the history of modern Egypt since the end of the monarchist era and the declaration of the republic on June 18, 1953. He came after four military rulers. The first one was Gen. Muhammad Naguib, head of the Revolution Command Council (RCC), and he was appointed by the said council that continued to rule the country unilaterally throughout the transitional period (1952–1957). On November 14, 1954, the same council overthrew President Naguib and installed Maj. Gamal Abdel Nasser in his place. Later on, Nasser renewed his term by means of a nominal referendum, in which voting was limited to either yes or no, and he won with 99 percent of the votes. When Nasser died in 1970, he was succeeded by Anwar Sadat (Nasser’s colleague in the Free Officers Movement) after he won by 97 percent in a referendum similar to the ones held by Nasser. Sadat became the third Egyptian president and remained in his post until he was assassinated on October 6, 1981. Then came Lt. Gen. Hosni Mubarak, who ruled the country for nearly 30 years, with five nominal referendums being held in his favor. Mubarak was the only candidate in his first four referendums, but he allowed other candidates to stand in his fifth and last one. Nevertheless, he unsurprisingly emerged triumphant, winning a fifth successive term in office until the January 25 revolution forced him to step down and hand over power to the SCAF.
On June 30, 2012, Dr. Mohamed Mursi assumed the presidency after winning a majority—52 percent—of the votes in the runoff election against Gen. Ahmed Shafiq, who was being backed by numerous powers both inside and outside the country. This included army commanders, either out of desire to return the old Mubarak regime to power or simply to keep the presidency out of the hands of the Islamists.
Mursi’s priorities included completing and accelerating the construction of the institutions and pillars for a modern civil democratic state by drawing up a new constitution and electing a legislative council. Yet, the Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of the parliament that was elected by 32 million people in a free and transparent manner. Then, the counter-revolutionary forces, together with their allies from leftist and liberal parties, were united in rejecting the constitution. This is despite the fact that the constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly, a body that incorporated 100 members who were carefully selected according to parliamentary rules established and approved under the auspices of the SCAF in April 2012. In fact, this constitution was the best that Egypt has ever seen. Yet these groups launched a campaign to void the constitution although the people had approved it by a majority of 67 percent in a referendum.
The counter-revolutionary forces, along with allies from leftist and liberal parties, all hindered Mursi’s efforts, refusing to cooperate with him, fabricating crises, and encouraging protests and sit-ins. Production halted as a result and unemployment rates and debts soared. Furthermore, the police authority’s negative stance under his rule caused a lack of security to prevail in the country. As a result, neither his restless efforts nor his shuttle diplomacy across the world succeeded in attracting investors to Egypt. Besides this, fraternal Arab states declined to fulfill their promises of helping Egypt, something that eventually impacted the economy, devalued the Egyptian pound and brought more suffering for the people.
To sum up, Egypt’s military didn’t have to intervene, and their intervention can only be described as a military coup.
The counterpoint to this piece can be read here.