LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Bible Quotation for today/The One Gospel
Galatians 01/06-10: "I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ, and are accepting another gospel. Actually, there is no “other gospel,” but I say this because there are some people who are upsetting you and trying to change the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell! We have said it before, and now I say it again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel that is different from the one you accepted, may he be condemned to hell! Does this sound as if I am trying to win human approval? No indeed! What I want is God's approval! Am I trying to be popular with people? If I were still trying to do so, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Question: "What is the fruit of the Holy Spirit?"
GotQuestions.org?
Answer: Galatians 5:22-23 tells us, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” The fruit of the Holy Spirit is the result of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of a Christian. The Bible makes it clear that everyone receives the Holy Spirit the moment he or she believes in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). One of the primary purposes of the Holy Spirit coming into a Christian's life is to change that life. It is the Holy Spirit's job to conform us to the image of Christ, making us more like Him. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is in direct contrast with the acts of the sinful nature in Galatians 5:19-21, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” This passage describes all people, to varying degrees, when they do not know Christ and therefore are not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Our sinful flesh produces certain types of fruit that reflect our nature, and the Holy Spirit produces types of fruit that reflect His nature. The Christian life is a battle of the sinful flesh against the new nature given by Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). As fallen human beings, we are still trapped in a body that desires sinful things (Romans 7:14-25). As Christians, we have the Holy Spirit producing His fruit in us and we have the Holy Spirit's power available to conquer the acts of the sinful nature (2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13). A Christian will never be completely victorious in always demonstrating the fruits of the Holy Spirit. It is one of the main purposes of the Christian life, though, to progressively allow the Holy Spirit to produce more and more of His fruit in our lives—and to allow the Holy Spirit to conquer the opposing sinful desires. The fruit of the Spirit is what God desires our lives to exhibit and, with the Holy Spirit's help, it is possible!GotQuestions.org?

Lebanese Authorities Discuss with U.N. Official New Border Controls with Syria
Naharnet /The U.N. refugee agency is negotiating with Lebanon over the country's plan to enforce new border controls that could affect the flow of Syrian refugees, a U.N. official said Friday. "We understand from the government that they are now exerting stricter scrutiny at the border," said Ninette Kelley, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees representative in Beirut. "We will continue to engage with (the authorities) to ensure that refugees in need of protection will have access to Lebanon but also that the legitimate security concerns of the government are respected and observed," she added. The statement comes three days after the government announced new entry controls, in a bid to reduce friction between the local population and Syrian refugees. At least 645,000 Syrian refugees are already in Lebanon -- though the real number is believed to be much higher. Lebanon hosts the largest portion of the 1.8 million Syrian refugees who have fled to neighboring countries to escape a conflict now in its third year. The country's ministers insisted earlier this week that the new rules would not close the border to refugees fleeing Syria. But they said that in the future they would recognize as refugees only those fleeing parts of Syria that have been wracked by violence. But General Security insisted no new restrictions were being imposed, and the new policy was simply to implement existing rules more uniformly. "The rules are the same," a General Security source told Agence France Presse on condition of anonymity. "But in order not to allow people with terrorist ties or other security problems to take advantage of the humanitarian situation, we are now being stricter and ensuring that only people with a valid ID or passport are allowed in," he said. The source added that Syrians must have a valid address in Lebanon. Some 15,000 Syrians enter and leave Lebanon every day, in approximately equal proportions, he added. Lebanon is the only one of Syria's neighbors that has so far kept an open-door policy to refugees, but the country has struggled to keep up with the pace of arrivals. Officials have warned of the security consequences of the influx, and a shortfall in funding to assist both refugees and the people hosting them.
The U.N. has received only 26 percent of the $1.6 billion needed to adequately fund their response plan for the region, Kelley told reporters at a press conference. The U.N. Development Programme's Luca Renda also warned of a range of problems in communities in Lebanon that are hosting refugees. "Competition for jobs, crowding of services, scarcity of drinking water, pressure on waste collection, issues of sanitation (and) increasing tensions between communities," he said. Renda reiterated calls for support, citing Lebanon's "extraordinary solidarity... We should not let Lebanon carry this responsibility by itself".Source/Agence France Presse.

Peres Urges EU to Blacklist Hizbullah, Describes Decision as 'Hypocrisy'
Naharnet/Israeli President Shimon Peres considered that attempts to differentiate between Hizbullah's military wing and political party is plain “hypocrisy,” calling on the European Union to place Hizbullah as a whole on the list of terrorist organizations. Peres wondered in an interview with al-Hurra TV on Thursday night if Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallh is a politician or a military man. “He (Nasrallah) sent his army to fight alongside (Syrian President Bashar) Assad's forces and kill more Syrians,” the Israeli president said. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission added on Thursday Hizbullah's military wing officially to the EU's list of entities, groups and persons involved in terrorist acts, as agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council on July 22. Those on the list are targeted with an asset freeze in the EU. In addition, member states have committed to enhanced police and judicial cooperation in related inquiries and proceedings, it announced in a statement. The decision brings the number of groups and entities subject to these restrictions to 26, while 11 persons remain on the list.
Peres also blamed Nasrallah for sending its members to Syria without the permission of the Lebanese government. Hizbullah “violated international laws and committed actions in Syria, which constitute war crimes.”On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the EU's Foreign Affairs Council decision, saying the party has imposed a "terrorist" rule on large parts of Lebanon. Hizbullah "has imposed terrorist rule on wide sections of Lebanon, has converted them into an Iranian protectorate and is stockpiling tens of thousands of rockets there." "These have been placed in the heart of civilian populations and are designed to be fired at population centers in Israel," he said.

Hezbollah transferred $100,000 to Burgas bombing suspects'

By JPOST.COM STAFF07/26/2013/
http://www.jpost.com/International/Report-Hezbollah-transferred-100000-to-Burgas-bombing-suspects-321166
Money wired to help fund deadly attack, Bulgarian daily reports.Hezbollah's military wing transferred about $100,000 to two suspects of a bus bombing in Bulgaria last July that killed five Israelis and their Bulgarian bus driver, a Bulgarian newspaper reported on Friday. The money was allegedly wired to help fund the attack in the Black Sea resort town of Burgas and for intelligence operations in Bulgaria and other countries, wrote AFP, citing Bulgarian daily 24 Hours as reporting. Bulgaria’s Interior Ministry on Thursday said the two suspects behind the deadly attack in Burgas were identified as 32-year-old Australian citizen Meliad Farah, also known as Hussein Hussein, and 25-year-old Canadian citizen Hassan el-Hajj Hassan. Bulgarian foreign intelligence agencies and international financial institutions alleged that the funds were transferred to the Burgas bombing suspects' bank accounts in Australia and Canada, according to the report. The two suspects were allegedly recruited while students in Beirut in early 2010 and subsequently received military and explosives training, 24 Hours reported. While Bulgaria has blamed the militant Shi'ite organization for the deadly bombing in Burgas, Hezbollah denies any involvement in the attack. Fueled by concerns over Hezbollah’s activities in Europe, European Union governments – in a reversal of past policy – agreed Monday to put the Lebanese organization’s armed wing on the EU terrorism blacklist. *Benjamin Weinthal and Reuters contributed to this report.

Eichhorst: Blacklisting Hizbullah's Military Wing Doesn't Justify Israeli Move against Lebanon
Naharnet/EU ambassador to Lebanon Angelina Eichhorst stressed on Friday that the European Union's decision to blacklist Hizbullah's military wing doesn't justify any Israeli action against Lebanon. “It's a decision that denounces terrorism acts carried out in EU countries,” Eichhorst said in comments published in As Safir newspaper in response to Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's speech. Nasrallah said on Wednesday during an iftar banquet organized by the Women's Committee of the Islamic Resistance Support Association that the EU's decision means it would share responsibility for any Israeli attack against Lebanon or the party. “The EU isn't targeting the Shiite sect. We will not halt granting visas to people and Hizbullah's participation in any upcoming cabinet will not be rejected,” the EU ambassador told the newspaper. “The decision taken unanimously by the 28 EU countries includes a strong message that we reject terrorism and denounce any attacks on European territories.” Asked about the nature of Hizbullah's military wing, Eichhorst pointed out that the party has a “Jihadist Council” and “Foreign Security Committee,” which are responsible for the military operations of Hizbullah. “We differentiate between terrorism and any country's right to defend itself against occupation,” the diplomat noted. Eichhorst told As Safir that Hizbullah has the right to challenge the decision before European courts, saying: “We will reevaluate our decision every six months.”She stressed that the decision comes in light of investigations over an attack that targeted Israelis at the Black Sea airport of Burgas in Bulgaria. Israel blamed Iran and its Lebanese "terrorist proxy" Hizbullah for the bombing, the deadliest attack on Israelis abroad since 2004 and the first in a EU member state. Asked if the EU's decision concerning Hizbullah was linked to an earlier decision to ban its 28 members from dealing with Jewish settlements to push forward peace efforts, Eichhorst said: “We are not here to please anyone.” It took Bulgaria six months to make what it called a "justified conclusion" that Hizbullah was behind the attack. More than a year on, the investigation is still bogged down by lengthy procedures for collecting witness testimony from Israel and legal assistance reports from abroad. “There is so far compelling evidence that proves that Hizbullah's military wing is involved in Burgas bombing,” Eichhorst said.
The EU official said that the EU seeks to press Lebanese parties to resume the national dialogue and maintain the country's sovereignty and independence. “We will carry on with our previous policies with the Lebanese,” she stated. On the process of cabinet formation, Eichhorst stressed that the EU backs any government that achieves Lebanon's best interest. “We will not reject any cabinet that Hizbullah participates in,” the diplomat said.

Hezbollah: EU move has repercussions

July 26, 2013/ The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Hezbollah said Thursday that the European Union decision to blacklist the party’s military wing would have repercussions, adding that Europe cannot reasonably expect to engage in dialogue with the party after condemning it. “Certainly ... the decision will have repercussions; it will not pass by easily. I won’t predict [what these repercussions will be], this has to do with our leadership,” said Ammar Musawi, Hezbollah’s official in charge of international relations. “No one can condemn me and extend a hand to me simultaneously,” Musawi added, after a meeting with EU Ambassador Angelina Eichhorst at his office in the southern suburbs of Beirut.
Asked whether the decision would affect Hezbollah’s relations with the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, Musawi said: “I do not want to jump the gun, but I already said: You cannot condemn me and extend a hand to me at the same time.”
The EU’s 28 member states decided unanimously Monday to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing, after Bulgaria accused the Lebanese resistance group of involvement in a 2012 Burgas bombing that killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian driver.
In line with the decision, the Council of the European Union announced Thursday that Hezbollah’s military wing had been added to “the EU’s list of entities, groups and persons involved in terrorist acts.”The council said in a joint statement with the European Commission that the decision would not prevent the EU from engaging in dialogue with Lebanese political parties, including Hezbollah. “In addition, the Council and the Commission agreed that the decision does not affect legitimate financial transfers made to Lebanon and the delivery of assistance, including humanitarian assistance, from the European Union and its member states in Lebanon,” the statement added. The decision will be published in the EU official journal Friday and will be reviewed every six months.
But Musawi stressed that no separate military wing of Hezbollah existed. “Hezbollah is one body, with one command; military personnel [in Hezbollah] are politicians and politicians are military personnel,” he said.
Musawi said he informed Eichhorst of his party’s opposition to the move, saying it reflected Europe’s yielding to the will of Israel and the United States. He also reportedly told Eichhorst the move was an insult to Hezbollah. For her part, Eichhorst said she informed Musawi about the motivations behind the decision.
“We discussed the impact of the decision. First and foremost, the reason behind the decision ... is as you all know the attack on European soil, which took place last year in Bulgaria,” she said. “The European Union condemns any attacks on its soil and the [EU] foreign ministers have taken a decision to give a political message to the military wing of Hezbollah.”Bulgaria released pictures Thursday of two suspected collaborators who aided the bomber who blew up the bus packed with the Israeli tourists last year, identifying them as 32-year-old Australian Maliad Farah, also known as Hussein Hussein – a bearded man with dark hair, thick black eyebrows and brown eyes – and 25-year-old Canadian Hassan El Hajj Hassan – a man of lighter complexion, with a closely shaved head and a goatee. Hezbollah denies any involvement in the attack.
Eichhorst said the decision would not prevent the EU from continuing to cooperate with Lebanon and its political parties.
“It will not affect the European Union assistance to Lebanon which we will continue to give to the country. Lebanon is a strong partner for the European Union, for all the member states and we hold to this partnership,” she said. Eichhorst said the decision was not “a justification for an action of any country including Israel in Lebanon.”
Musawi said the EU decision was part of an attempts to put political pressure on Hezbollah and would come to no avail.
He also said that the head of Bulgaria’s intelligence indicated that Hezbollah was not involved in Bulgaria’s attack two weeks ago.
“But few days ago, when the last round of discussions over blacklisting Hezbollah began, Bulgarian Interior Minister [Tsvetlin Yovchev] said his country had important findings [implicating Hezbollah],” he said.
Eichhorst’s talks with Musawi were part of a string of visits she paid to Lebanese officials Thursday to explain the motivation behind the EU move.Eichhorst visited Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel, Hezbollah’s caretaker Minister of State for Administrative Development Mohammad Fneish and Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam. Following talks with Fneish, Eichhorst said the EU’s financial and economic assistance to Lebanon would continue. She said the EU would continue to support the Administrative Development office as well. Separately, U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Derek Plumbly ruled out the possibility that the EU decision would have any impact on UNIFIL. “The United Nations is the United Nations. The United Nations is made up of all states and UNIFIL includes troops from over 30 states. I believe everyone in Lebanon and in the region is benefiting from the security and stability that derives from the presence of UNIFIL troops in the south,” Plumbly told reporters after visiting Gemayel. Marc Otte, the Belgian Foreign Ministry’s Special Envoy for Syrian Affairs, said after meeting caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour that any decisions Europe makes to protect its people against terrorism would not interfere with its political ties, including those with Hezbollah. Sheikh Abdel-Amir Qabalan, the deputy head of the Higher Shiite Council, said the resistance was not a terrorist organization, but was working to prevent strife. “Those accusing us of terrorism should stop challenging us, they have to deal with us politely and engage in dialogue with us,” Qabalan said.

Aoun Vows to Challenge Qahwaji Extension Term if Legal Councils 'Still Function'
Naharnet /Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun on Friday accused some officials of seeking to extend the term of the army chief while keeping other top posts in the administration vacant, warning his bloc would challenge the extension. “There is a plot against the cabinet which has the sole authority to propose a bill on the extension” of Gen. Jean Qahwaji's term, which ends this September when he turns 60, Aoun said during a press conference at his residence in Rabieh. “If the Constitutional Council or Shura Council are still functioning, then they can deal with the challenge that we would make,” Aoun quipped. Last month, the Constitutional Council failed to address legal challenges to parliament’s extension, after several judges boycotted the meetings due to political interference. Aoun described Qahwaji's extension as “illegal,” saying it harms army ranks. “There are a lot of competent officers who can lead the army,” said Aoun, whose Change and Reform bloc has boycotted two consecutive parliamentary sessions that have the extension on the agenda in addition to 44 other draft-laws. Another session is set for next Monday. The FPM chief urged officials “to open their files and choose the best” from among the army's ranks, rather than making the extension. “There are around 179 high-ranking vacant posts in the administration. Why haven’t there been appointments?” he wondered. Asked about the European Union's decision to blacklist Hizbullah's military wing, Aoun said: “Europe is being controlled by Israel.” He hinted that the EU's “feeling of guilt” over the Holocaust has pushed it to “commit another mistake” by adding the military wing of Hizbullah to its list of terrorist organizations. The EU's 28 foreign ministers reached the decision unanimously at their monthly meeting on Monday. The action came after prolonged diplomatic pressure from the United States, the Netherlands and Israel, which consider Hizbullah a terrorist organization. On the security situation in the country, Aoun said: “The army is not a concierge” in the northern city of Tripoli. “It should be there to control the situation and not to be murdered in an unclear mission,” he said. “The government shouldn't distance itself from the incidents in Akkar, Tripoli, Arsal and Sidon,” he told reporters. He said he urged Caretaker Premier Najib Miqati on several occasions not to steer himself clear of the incidents in the country.
“The army cannot be paralyzed,” he said while lamenting that the “abnormal situation is affecting the morale of the military.”

Geagea: Millions of Lebanese Captives in Hizbullah Prison since 1990
Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Friday vowed that the LF will continue to search for the Lebanese detainees who “went missing” in Syrian prisons, noting that “there are millions of captives in Lebanon" and accusing Hizbullah of putting the fate of the Lebanese people in danger. “The detainees in the prisons of the Syrian regime were used for political ends and I ask everyone to be confident that we will carry on with our efforts to release them,” Geagea said at a seminar in Maarab on the Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons. “Until the moment, the (Lebanese) state has been writing our history in a curtailed manner and we want it to take care of all of its sons who were wounded in wars,” Geagea added. “Given what the Syrian regime is doing now in Syria, we can say that it was very merciful in dealing with us in Lebanon, and we regret that some Lebanese leaders are saying that there are no captives in Syrian prisons,” he went on to say. Geagea stressed that the fate of the 17,000 people who went missing during the civil war “has nothing to do with those who are in Syrian prisons,” noting that the LF backs efforts to unveil the fate of the Lebanese who disappeared between 1975 and 1990. “We will continue the search for our detainees in Syrian prisons,” Geagea pledged. Turning to the political issues, Geagea said there are “millions of captives in Lebanon and they are Lebanese captives who have been in Hizbullah's prison since 1990.” “Our freedom is captive and our decision is captive and those who don't mention the resistance in their rhetoric would be harmed in some manner. The state would pay the price whenever it acts against Hizbullah, the thing that has led to subduing a large number of Lebanese,” Geagea added.
“A lot of Lebanese cannot voice their free opinion because of Hizbullah and no one is asking about the killers of (Lebanese Option Party member) Hashem al-Salman although the pictures of his killers are available,” the LF leader said. Al-Salman was shot dead during a scuffle between supporters of the LOP and Hizbullah in front of the Iranian embassy in Beirut on June 9.
“After 50 days from the martyrdom of Hashem al-Salman, no one has been arrested until the moment while the case of (slain Syrian pro-regime figure) Mr. Mohammed Darrar Jammo was solved in 48 hours,” Geagea noted.
“Today, the Lebanese do not know when exactly Hizbullah might take a decision that puts their fate in danger and on July 12 (2006) the government woke up to a war,” he added.
Geagea stressed that “no one has the right to start a war whenever they want and to usurp the rights of others,” adding that Hizbullah's fighters are now “in Damascus and Aleppo and the issue is affecting everyone.”
Criticizing the remarks voiced earlier in the day by Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun, Geagea said: “He has accused the Internal Security Forces of smuggling weapons in the past two years, but he is the biggest force in cabinet, so why is he telling us this?” “If Sukleen is squandering public funds according to Aoun, I remind that Aoun himself had promised that he would not accept to renew its contract in cabinet,” Geagea added, referring to Lebanon's main waste management contractor. “You must propose a draft law in parliament to revise Sukleen's contract as it is unacceptable for you say that the cabinet is working on its own,” Geagea said, addressing Aoun. Commenting on Aoun's remarks on the army, Geagea said: “Three officers, two non-commissioned officers and six soldiers were detained over the Shiyyah incidents on January 27, 2008, so why is it acceptable to put officers in detention over this incident and not over the (Kuwaikhat) incident that has to do with the Sunnis?” “Would the General (Aoun) have talked about the army had they appointed his son-in-law (Commando Regiment commander Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz) as army commander? Those who love the army must hand it over their weapons and must convince their allies to hand over their weapons,” Geagea added.

July 26, 2013/By Hussein Dakroub The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Given the spiraling tensions and the exchange of vetoes by rival factions, it is impossible for Tammam Salam to form a political government in which the country’s main parties are represented, a source close to the premier-designate said Thursday .“The conditions and counter-conditions set down by the rival factions is already complicating the Cabinet formation,” a source close to Salam told The Daily Star.
“But amid the current tensions, sharp differences and vetoes and counter-vetoes, it is impossible to form a government representing the political parties,” the source said. “If anything, the current situation underlines the importance of forming a nonpartisan government that can work as a homogeneous team and be productive.”“A nonpartisan government is needed to run the country and tackle the citizens’ deteriorating socioeconomic conditions,” the source added. The source said this week’s decision by the EU to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing did not help defuse escalating political and sectarian tensions stoked by the split over the more than 2-year-old civil war in Syria. According to the source, major divisive issues such as “Hezbollah’s arms, a national defense strategy and the participation of some Lebanese factions in the fighting in Syria,” could be addressed at National Dialogue which President Michel Sleiman has called for. Defying March 14 calls for excluding his party from the next Cabinet because of its deep involvement in the war in Syria, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said Wednesday no government could be formed without his group’s participation. “A government in which Hezbollah is not represented will not be formed, this is logic,” Nasrallah said in a televised speech. He reiterated his support for resuming Dialogue sessions and for the formation of a “capable political government that protects Lebanon.”
Beirut MP Jean Ogassapian, from the Future Movement, said the Cabinet formation had been more complicated by the EU decision. “Sayyed Nasrallah’s remarks indicate that no government [will be formed] soon,” he told the Voice of Lebanon radio station. The March 14 coalition demands a neutral, nonpartisan government. It says Hezbollah should not be represented in the Cabinet before it withdraws its fighters from Syria.
Hezbollah and its March 8 allies insist on a national unity government in which all political parties are represented in proportion to the size of their representation in Parliament, which Salam has rejected.
They also rejected Salam’s proposal for a 24-member Cabinet, with eight posts each for March 8, March 14 and centrists. Salam opposes granting veto power to any party.
Salam also still insists on the rotation of key ministerial posts among all parties and sects, the source said. This appeared to be aimed at Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun, who wants the key portfolios of the Energy and Telecommunications ministries to remain with his bloc.
Caretaker Environment Minister Nazem Khoury ruled out the formation of a new Cabinet soon in view of political differences among the feuding parties. “It is not possible to form a government amid this split,” he said in a radio interview. Khoury, who is close to Sleiman, said the EU decision on Hezbollah had further complicated the situation. Aley MP Talal Arslan, the head of the Lebanese Democratic Party, struck an even more pessimistic note. “No government, no Dialogue and no legislation in the foreseeable future – thanks to those who stuck to their impossible conditions which no sane person can accept,” Arslan said in a statement. Hezbollah renewed its call for a national unity government, blaming “external interests” for the delay in the Cabinet formation.
“We are keen on the formation of a national unity Cabinet and pumping life into the crippled and paralyzed state institutions. But the impossible conditions and linking the decision in favor of external interests are obstructing the Cabinet formation,” Hezbollah MP Hasan Fadlallah told an iftar banquet at a Beirut hotel. The Future Movement parliamentary bloc reiterated Tuesday its call for the formation of a nonpartisan government to handle deteriorating economic conditions. The bloc’s head, former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, said the bloc was ready to attend Dialogue only after the formation of a new Cabinet.

Last Chance for Hezbollah
Hassan Haidar/Al Hayat
The Lebanese, or at least some of them, expect the European Union’s decision to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist organizations to disrupt their lives and their stability in the European countries of the diaspora, to which they have migrated forcibly or willingly over the past forty years. Yet this will be nothing compared to what their fellow citizens in Lebanon will have to endure, whether in terms of the decision coming into effect next week and the repercussions of close examination and hindrance it will have on their trade, their transactions, their money transfers, their business and of course their travel, or in terms of what this decision will mean with regard to exposing the situation in Lebanon to every threat, especially at the security level, if Hezbollah is not deterred. This is not the first time the Lebanese population has had to pay the price for Hezbollah’s unilateral strategies or bear the burden it lays on their shoulders every time Iran decides to move some of its pawns, Hezbollah being most prominent among them, in the regional and international game of influence. Yet this new European decision in effect means lifting the last remaining element of immunity held by Lebanon and the Lebanese, after the Europeans had long hesitated to follow the example of the Americans and Arabs, who had preceded them in this.
In past experiences, the most recent and most important being the July War of 2006, European diplomacy had succeeded to protect Lebanon, including Hezbollah, from the large-scale destruction which the US administration had given Israel the green light to carry out. It had been able to rein in the enemy’s military machine and minimize the damage it could inflict, in exchange for keeping the South Lebanon front in check and participating in securing it through the deployment of UNIFIL troops. Today, however, Hezbollah’s public and growing involvement in the war in Syria and suspicions that it might be responsible for a series of terrorist attacks in some European countries have made the Europeans realize that their protection of it has been counter-productive. Thus, instead of Hezbollah moving, after the “sealing” of the South Lebanon front, to gradually turn into a political movement and abandon its weapons within the framework of integrating its forces into the army and security services, it has begun to expand the range of its activity beyond Lebanon, so as to expend its excess power and entrench its role within the regional equation, after having succeeded to either obstruct or control Lebanon’s state institutions. It is true that the Europeans have only taken the first step – having made the distinction between the “military wing” of the party and its “political wing”, while being well aware that they are both one and the same in a party with a security-based structure, as well as knowing that Hezbollah would not back down on its involvement in the war in Syria, because this has taken place under orders from Iran, which it cannot go against. They have nonetheless given it one last chance before leaving it all alone in the international arena in any future confrontation with Israel – a confrontation that may not be far off, and of which the outcome will be destructive for all of Lebanon. The European decision means that Hezbollah must settle the contradiction it has gotten itself into, and determine whether it wants to continue to benefit from the protection given by Lebanese legitimacy if it decides to be part of it, or whether it wants to continue turning against this legitimacy, weakening it, obstructing the work of its institutions and overstepping its decisions, among them in particular the policy of dissociation from the civil war in Syria. In other words, Hezbollah cannot continue to play the card of Lebanon’s stability and claim to be concerned for it, while it drags the country gradually, and against the will of most of its people, into the politics of regional axes, which will bring it nothing but misfortune.

Lebanon's Neck, Or Hezbollah's?
Zuheir Kseibati/Al Hayat
Speaker Nabih Birri probably wishes he was as reassured as British Foreign Minister William Hague, who appeared confident that Lebanon's stability will not be affected by the European Union's decision to place the so-called military wing of Hezbollah on the terrorism list. And while it was noticeable that some Syrian official media outlets went beyond the party's reaction to what Birri described as being a conspiracy, which is closer to an attempt to suffocate Lebanon and not just Hezbollah through the European decision, the other paradox is that this EU step coincided with threats by the so-called An-Nusra Front to launch an open confrontation with the party, one which is not limited to an arena or a front. On the eve of the European decision and after its issuance, circles thought to be close to Hezbollah confirmed the infiltration of Takfiris on the Lebanese scene to expand the scope of the fierce war in Syria. In addition, fears emerged over the targeting of the UNIFIL troops spread south of the Litani River as a reaction to the decision, which is why Speaker Birri stressed on their stay. In reality, there is no doubt that Hezbollah can exercise self-restraint especially in light of its preoccupation with its war on Syrian soil, one that is considered to aim to "protect the resistance." However, fifth columns might provoke clashes with UNIFIL to implicate the party and facilitate its accusation of retaliating for the Europeans' decision.
On the other hand, it was natural for Israel to celebrate the decision, at a time when Benjamin Netanyahu recognized that he accompanied its difficult birth and interfered in it until the last moment. But what is not natural is for Lebanese politicians to assume that the European Union has no choice but to treat Lebanon like a spoiled child, no matter how disruptive or unruly it is. After the decision's birth, the Europeans practically recognized that the placement of Hezbollah's military wing on the terrorism list was a mere symbolic step, but is definitely a pressuring message in the hope that the party's command would reassess its decision to participate in the war in defense of the Syrian regime until the end. Still, this step was justified to the EU governments based on the European timing, especially after the balance of power along the Syrian fronts tilted in favor of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, owing to Iranian-Russian support and the help offered by elements from Hezbollah to regain control over areas seized by the Free Army and the opposition fighters. This was followed by further embarrassment for the Americans and Europeans in particular, seeing how they rushed to arm the opposition at first, then retreated out of fear from An-Nusra Front and the extremists.
And while the paradoxical question is related to the reason why the Europeans are punishing Hezbollah although the two have a common enemy in the Syrian war (i.e. An-Nusra Front and dozens of Takfiri brigades), what is certain is that the Lebanese scene, which is oscillating along loose security strings, has become an extension of this war's fires. In addition, the threats of the leader of An-Nusra, i.e. Al-Golani, to Hezbollah - which coincided with the issuance of the European decision and under the pretext of the Sunnis' cornering in Lebanon - will only enhance the new map of the conflict inside and over Syria, both on Syrian soil and across the crumbling border with Lebanon. To those fond of the flourishing talk about "conspiracies" in parallel to the regional winds of the Arab spring, the European decision aimed to increase Hezbollah's implication in the battle that will determine the fate of the Syrian regime, which would eventually extend the war so that it undermines what is left of Syria and its unity. This is due to the fact that no sane person would believe that military commanders in the party have accounts in Swiss, French or German banks, or that the party's supporters in its nurturing environment have projects in Europe to fund it. As for the chances of seeing the “message” change the direction of Hezbollah's weapons, everyone knows they are almost non-existent, ever since it decided to engage in the war with direct Iranian sponsorship. At the level of the Lebanese timing, Parliament Speaker Nabih Birri believes that the Europeans' decision was very wrong, considering that it did not take into account all the efforts being deployed to distance the country from vacuum. Birri did not disregard the possibility of seeing the decision create "illusions among internal powers," in reference to the March 14 forces, which might use it to increase the pressures on Hezbollah. And although the parliament speaker did not confirm that the European step constituted an attempt to "tighten the noose" around the party's or Lebanon's neck, what is certain at the very least is that supporters of the March 14 forces believe that the time is right to trade the party's calls for the revival of national dialogue to the formation of the non-partisan government. Once again, there is a return to square one at the level of the Lebanese tug of war between the shocked, the astonished, the regretful and the concerned over Lebanon, its security and economy, knowing that the latter are not reassured by the reiteration of the European commitments regarding the non-severance of dialogue with Hezbollah and the insistence on the loose line between what is political and what is military in the party that does not want to fight on Lebanese soil. But is this not a sufficient security guarantee and a reason to open the file of the defensive strategy?!

Hezbollah and the European Position
Abdullah Iskandar/Al Hayat
It is likely that Hezbollah’s command will not really give attention to the details of the sanctions featured in the European Union’s decision to place its military wing on the terrorism list, as it is accurately aware of the major technical difficulties facing the separation between the party’s military and political wings. In addition, it drew valuable lessons from the Iranian experience in this area. And even if these difficulties are overcome, it is acting as though it were unconcerned by everything coming out from the international community and its bodies in regard to the party, proving this after the international tribunal for Lebanon issued accusations against elements from the party in the case of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination.
Hence, this classification is primarily a political message, while the announcement of the separation between the party’s two wings – at a time when everyone knows that all its levels, committees and institutions combine both – is intentional. Indeed, it is a warning to the party and its command against the danger of taking over power in Lebanon, in light of the party’s full immersion in the Syrian conflict and the transformation of the Land of the Cedars into an arena of conflict, also subjected to the balance of the military powers. This was also done in line of its obstruction of the formation of the upcoming Lebanese government, and the diffusion of a constitutional vacuum behind which the party is suspected of standing, in order to fill this vacuum when the time is right. These fears, expressed by members in the European Union, prompted warnings saying that the sanctions affecting the military wing will become sanctions against the party if it were to impose a new reality in a unilateral way, on both Lebanon and the authority in it. The party’s secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, might have been aware of the upcoming European decision, which is why he anticipated it by announcing the willingness to engage in dialogue with all the Lebanese parties. In other words, he responded in advance to the European fears and warnings, while pushing the embarrassed Lebanese state to defend the party, although it has resorted more than once to the use of military force on the domestic arena to amend the political balance of power in its favor, making the terrorism description apply to it to the letter. On the other hand, the European position – even if it was justified by the Bulgaria attack and the attempted attack in Cyprus – cannot be dissociated from an Arab-Gulf inclination featuring doubts surrounding the party, due to its role in the fighting in Syria and the role attributed to it in the context of networks affiliated with Iran in those countries. In other words, the European position became more attainable for those calling for sanctions against the party, after it lost its Arab safety net and is facing sanctions in the GCC states. And while the Gulf position against Hezbollah escalated ever since the exposure of its military role in the conflict in Syria, accusations were made against elements from the party in numerous countries in the United States, Latin America and Asia, of standing behind explosions, assassinations and all types of smuggling operations to fund activities classified as being terrorist ones. Hence, a combination of terrorism of all kinds and smuggling operations of all kinds was linked to the party, thus reflecting a mafia-political-sectarian image of it.
It is likely that this image will be the most dangerous threat on the long run for what the party believes it represents. True, many are working hard to demonize the party for political and sectarian reasons, and trying to exploit any incident to confirm its mafia-political image. But what is also true is that the party’s command did not do much to change that image, especially at the level of its practices and relations with the other sides, except for the seasonal promises that dissipate when they are no longer needed.

Egypt and the Costly Duel
Ghassan Charbel/Al Hayat
It is an extraordinary scene that cannot be interpreted using the tools of the present century: The defense minister and commander of the army calling on the people to protest, and requesting from them “a mandate and an order to end violence and terrorism.” It is clear that Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is relying on the popularity made possible by the 30 June uprising. He is also counting on the traditional popularity of the Egyptian army and its deep roots in society, and banking on the deep fears among the Egyptians over the developments of the past few days, from Cairo all the way to the Sinai.
Sisi did not forget to allude to the fact that “the legitimacy granted by the people through the ballots can be withdrawn and rejected,” which he said should be respected. He openly declared willingness to hold elections under international supervision, and said, “We want elections attested to by the whole world.” Sisi then slammed the door on the hopes of the supporters of ‘former President’ Mohamed Morsi, when he unequivocally confirmed that there would be no going back on what happened on June 30. It is no simple thing for the commander of the army to call on “all honest Egyptians” to take to the streets tomorrow, Friday, to grant him a mandate. Sisi wants this mandate to come from the street, from the millions who came out on June 30, giving cover to the decision to impeach Morsi. But simply put, this means that masses will be protesting against masses, and anti-brotherhood Egyptians will be demonstrating against pro-Brotherhood Egyptians. Sisi is therefore betting that the Egyptians will prove tomorrow that the size of the popular legitimacy which rejects the Brotherhood is many times the size of the group’s electoral legitimacy. Since the impeachment of the ‘Brotherhood president’ Mohamed Morsi, the supporters of the group have been stationed in the street under the slogan of “overthrowing the coup.” Clearly, they have made a firm decision to prevent the new administration from normalizing the situation in the Egyptian street. They have decided to undermine the new administration, with all the security and economic implications this may have. The Brotherhood has decided to disallow ‘Sisi’s coup’ from catching its breath. So perhaps it was for this reason that the man made his recent appearance, seeking the help of the people. The purpose of his appearance was to say to local and foreign audiences that the Brotherhood has a problem not with the army, but with the majority of the Egyptian people, and that what the army is doing does not go beyond respecting the will of the majority and preventing the country from sliding towards the abyss.
Egypt will hold its breath while it waits for tomorrow’s duel in the streets and the public squares. Most likely, Egypt will also hold its breath in the days after. What if the masses clash, and what if the killings, of which we saw a sample in the past few days, escalate? What if the infighting expands and spreads beyond their current theaters? What will the army do after gambling all its popular currency it has on the test? Will it declare a state of emergency, and if so, then what comes after? What if the country slides into a bloodbath and an open-ended civil war? What will remain then of the transitional period and what about Egypt’s reputation abroad? The most dangerous confrontations are those where backing down is not possible. Indeed, it is not easy for the heirs of Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb to accept a defeat of this magnitude, after the office of the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide had a taste of power. What will the Guide tell the Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere? Their loss would not affect them alone. Others will lose along with them, in Gaza, Jordan, Tunisia, Syria, and beyond. The image of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood Spring’ will be shaken violently, and the so-called Turkish model will join the list of medicines whose shelf lives have expired.
Since Hosni Mubarak was toppled, Egypt has been living to the tune of surprises, uprisings, and major gambles. The Brotherhood made a gamble by running in the presidential race, when they took control of the palace, and also when they lost the palace. The opposition made a gamble when it decided to shorten Morsi’s term using a tsunami of protesters. The army made a gamble when it responded to the crowded public squares. Those who made June 30 happen cannot back down. The army cannot back down either. Sisi has pushed the battle to its peak. From now until tomorrow evening, he will keep checking his watch. Another man who must constantly check his watch is the Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie. Going ahead with the gamble might turn a bitter defeat into a major catastrophe. No doubt, Egypt is heading for a costly duel.

Assad forces advance in Damascus Palestinian refugee camp
Thousands in Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp, mostly under rebel control, flee after pro-government faction captures nearly third of camp
Associated Press/Ynetnews
Officials say pro-government gunmen are advancing in the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus. Fighting in the camp broke out earlier this week. It has been mostly under rebel control since late last year.Anwar Raja, a spokesman for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, said Friday the Palestinian Popular Committees want to "cleanse" the camp of "terrorist gangs."
The PFLP-GC is close the Syrian government. Khaled Abdul-Majid of the Popular Struggle Front, another pro-government faction, said Popular Committees have captured nearly a third of the mostly empty camp. Thousands of refugees have fled. Syria hosts half a million Palestinian refugees, most living in Yarmouk, descendants of those admitted after the creation of Israel in 1948, and has always cast itself as a champion of the Palestinian struggle, sponsoring several guerrilla factions. Both Assad's government and the mainly Sunni Muslim Syrian rebels have enlisted and armed divided Palestinian factions as the uprising has developed into a civil war.
Since the start of the unrest, Palestinians in Syria have struggled to remain on the sidelines. Still, some young Palestinian refugees have joined the rebels in the fight against President Bashar Assad's regime.
*Reuters contributed to this report

Egypt’s Testing Times

Bakr Oweida/Asharq Alawsat
Last Sunday, I received an email signed, “Kylil Morrow, 18 years old from Michigan University,” containing the following question: Do you expect the Syrian scenario to be repeated in Egypt—not between the army and the people, but between the Muslim Brotherhood and secularists? I answered thus: I do not think there is a danger of street wars in Egypt’s main cities, like we see in Syria, but jihadists will not make it easy for the army outside Cairo or other cities. As for reaching some compromise between the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest, secularists or others, this may never be achieved.
Had I received the email today, my answer would have been different. The reason is clear: Egypt is moving quickly towards the eruption of a civil war where the minority fans the flames without a care for the future of the majority, who only want to lead a normal life.
Yes, despite the disparity in numbers, and ignoring the exchange of accusations about the use of Photoshop to make the numbers seem greater, the crowds in Tahrir Square and in Raba’a Al-Adawiya remain a minority in comparison to the total population of Egypt.
Those on either side might say their numbers are many times what they really are. On the flip side, I think that once the army had resolved the issue, in what was seen as bias to the side of the majority—and after the ouster of Mursi received varying degrees of acceptance, agreement or silence from the international community—this debate lost its relevance. It is no longer needed and no longer valid. To insist on it from either the anti-Mursi/Brotherhood side or the ousted president’s side can only lead to a pointless argument, which will only delay Egypt’s return to normal life.
What is more dangerous is that the continuing disruption of stability is paralleled by a dangerous escalation that places Egypt on the edge of a civil war, which could spread from Sinai in the east to Mersa Matruh in the west, not to mention Upper Egypt and the countryside. Putting out the fires before they spread is a test each side faces, whatever its role or influence. However, I will take a risk—I expect an angry backlash—and say that the greater burden falls on the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Why? Because they are more powerful, yet they are weaker at the same time. The power of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau lies in what is known as Bay’ah (an Islamic term for offering allegiance to a leader) because anyone who swears allegiance to a leader binds themselves to obey that leader unquestioningly. This is an important source of power.
The weakness is represented by the fact that nearly two-thirds of the Egyptian people are exempt from that obligation.
The swift success of the Tamarod (Rebellion) campaign in collecting millions of signatures is an indication of the Brotherhood’s failure, which came faster than expected, to garner support from outside the confines of the organization. This meant that the support for the Tamarod movement was a protest against the Brotherhood’s ideology and rule.
The important question now is: Will the Brotherhood’s leaders accept this outcome? At the time of writing this article, there were no indications that the Brotherhood’s leadership had accepted the reality of post-June 30 Egypt. Thus, they ignored the source of their power, which would enable them to pass the test of saving Egypt, a success for which they would be credited. Had they accepted, the Guidance Bureau could have issued orders for the Brotherhood to withdraw from every street and every square. This would be a binding order.
This should also pave the way for improvements by eliminating the worst option and accepting the least harmful one, which in this case means for the Brotherhood to accept that they had failed in their attempt to govern and to accept a return to the opposition.
What was said above does not mean that the responsibility of the other parties is less important, even if the burden seems smaller, because they are in the stronger position. Like in other movements, Tamarod leaders are required to review their positions to prove the seriousness of their intentions to respect other parties and views.
The Brotherhood’s adherents need to be assured that they will not be eliminated from the political arena or hounded in everyday life should be understood. Then there is a task that no reconciliation effort can be imagined without—that is, the release of Mohamed Mursi, especially with the approach of the last ten days of Ramadan, important days for observant Muslims. Let the man go home to his family—what is the problem in that?
However, in light of General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi’s speech on Wednesday, it is hard to imagine that the release of Mursi is possible. It is more probable that the situation is going to escalate, with an ending which is difficult to imagine. Egypt welcomes its visitors and allows them to enter safely. Should its people not be allowed to do what they can to put Egypt first, so that all of them can be safe on every inch of its soil?

Salafist behind Tunisia's Brahmi Assassination
Naharnet/Protests and a general strike swept Tunisia Friday after gunmen killed an opposition head with "the same gun" used to kill a colleague, as under-fire authorities pointed to al-Qaida links.
Mohammed Brahmi was gunned down with the same weapon used to kill another opposition politician, Chokri Belaid, six months earlier, Interior Minister Lotfi Ben Jeddou said.
He said the main suspect in Brahmi's killing was a member of the radical Sunni Muslim Salafist movement linked to Al-Qaeda.
"The first elements of the investigation show the implication of Boubaker Hakim, a Salafist extremist," he said a day after Brahmi was gunned down outside his home near Tunis by two gunmen on a motorcycle.
The 30-year-old Paris-born suspect was already wanted in Tunisia for kidnapping and arms trafficking, the minister said.
Public security chief Mustapha Taieb Ben Amor named 14 radical Islamist suspects -- including four behind bars -- implicated in the two political killings.
Replying to a question, Ben Jeddou ruled out the involvement of political parties in the murders.
"The suspects are radical extremists, and some of them belong to Ansar al-Sharia," the main Salafist group in Tunisia, he said.
Meanwhile, with many streets in the capital deserted, national airline Tunisair and European carriers cancelled flights, and fresh street protests were expected amid allegations of government connivance in Brahmi's killing.
In rival shows of force, thousands of pro-government demonstrators held a solidarity rally in Tunis.
Brahmi, 58, an MP with the leftist and nationalist Popular Movement, was assassinated outside his home in Ariana, near Tunis, witnesses said.
The state prosecutor's office said an autopsy found that Brahmi, whose family and political colleagues said would be buried as a "martyr" on Saturday, had been mowed down by a hail of 14 bullets.
Balkis Brahmi, 19, one of his five children, said her father was killed by two men in black on a motorbike.
"At around midday, we heard gunfire and my father crying with pain. We rushed out -- my brother, mother and I -- to find his body riddled with bullets at the wheel of his car parked in front of the house," she told Agence France Presse.
As news of the killing spread, angry protesters took to the streets Thursday in both Tunis and Sidi Bouzid, birthplace of the Arab Spring and Brahmi's hometown.
Police in Tunis fired tear gas to disperse demonstrators who tried to set up a tent for a sit-in calling for the fall of the regime after the second such killing of a critic of the country's Islamist leadership.
Tunisian newspapers forecast a breakdown of stability.
"Rather than isolated acts, violence is being turned into a system. By whom? By people determined to seize power or to stay in power," Le Quotidien said, pointing the finger of blame at the government led by the moderate Islamist movement Ennahda.
According to analyst Sami Brahem, "the reasons behind the assassination of Chokri Belaid are the same as those which led to the murder of Mohamed Brahmi: to bring about the failure of the democratic transition."
Belaid's February 6 assassination, also outside his home, sparked a political crisis and charges of Ennahda involvement.
Beji Caid Essebsi, head of the main opposition party Nidaa Tounes, said Ennahda was to blame because it had failed to identify Belaid's killers.
"There has not been any serious judicial action," he told AFP.
The General Union of Tunisian Labour (UGTT) called Friday's general strike in protest at "terrorism, violence and murders".
UGTT deputy secretary general Sami Tahri reported that all sectors nationwide were observing the strike, singling out banks, health services and most public transport.
Tunisia's presidency told AFP Friday was being observed as a day of national mourning "following the assassination of lawmaker martyr Mohamed Brahmi".
-- Ennahda back in firing line --
Like after the Belaid murder, Ennahda was back in the firing line of accusations.
Ennahda chief Rached Ghannouchi rejected the charge in a statement to AFP, calling the killing "a catastrophe for Tunisia".
"Those behind this crime want to lead the country towards civil war and to disrupt the democratic transition."
Political tension has been rising in Tunisia, with the launch of its own version of the Tamarod (rebellion) movement in Egypt that led to the ouster of Islamist president Mohammed Morsi on July 3.
The U.N. human rights office urged official restraint in the face of public anger.
"We urge the authorities in Tunisia to take great care not to inflame the situation further with excessive use of force and to respect the right of people to protest peacefully," spokesman Rupert Colville told reporters in Geneva.
Brahmi was elected MP in October 2011 for Sidi Bouzid, birthplace of the revolution that year that toppled president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
On July 7, he resigned as general secretary of the Popular Movement, which he founded, saying it had been infiltrated by Islamists.
Source: Agence France Presse