LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

Bible Quotation for today/How Paul Became an Apostle
Galatians 01/11--24: " Let me tell you, my friends, that the gospel I preach is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any human being, nor did anyone teach it to me. It was Jesus Christ himself who revealed it to me. You have been told how I used to live when I was devoted to the Jewish religion, how I persecuted without mercy the church of God and did my best to destroy it. I was ahead of most other Jews of my age in my practice of the Jewish religion, and was much more devoted to the traditions of our ancestors. But God in his grace chose me even before I was born, and called me to serve him. And when he decided to reveal his Son to me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the Gentiles, I did not go to anyone for advice, nor did I go to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me. Instead, I went at once to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. It was three years later that I went to Jerusalem to obtain information from Peter, and I stayed with him for two weeks. I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord's brother. What I write is true. God knows that I am not lying! Afterward I went to places in Syria and Cilicia. At that time the members of the churches in Judea did not know me personally. They knew only what others were saying: “The man who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith that he once tried to destroy!” And so they praised God because of me."

There Is No Distinct Hezbollah 'Military Wing,' So Why Ban It?
Matthew Levitt and Jonathan Prohov /Daily Beast
Focusing on just one facet of Hezbollah is a political distinction of convenience that will limit efforts to target the group's finances, but the EU ban is still a useful step.
By blacklisting Hezbollah's military wing, the E.U. took a long overdue step in the right direction: making clear to Lebanon's Party of God that it will pay a political price for continued acts of terrorism, crime and militancy. For decades, Hezbollah felt a measure of immunity given Europe's hesitancy -- until now -- to hold Hezbollah accountable for its illicit conduct given its political position within the delicately balanced Lebanese political system.
But by listing only Hezbollah's military wing, E.U. member states made a political distinction of convenience. Speaking in October 2012, Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem was crystal clear on the subject: "We don't have a military wing and a political one; we don't have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other...Every element of Hezbollah, from commanders to members as well as our various capabilities, are in the service of the resistance, and we have nothing but the resistance as a priority."
"Resistance" came to European soil last year in the form of a bus bombing in Burgas, Bulgaria, killing six people and injuring many more. The investigation's findings were partly released in early February, spurring a European debate about proscribing Hezbollah in whole or in part. For years, European countries had avoided any discussion on this topic. Some cited the fact that it had not carried out terrorist attacks on the continent since the 1980s, while others highlighted the group's social welfare activities and its status as Lebanon's dominant political party. According to some E.U. leaders, targeting Hezbollah's military and terrorist wings would have destabilized Lebanon even if the political wing were left untouched. European governments also worried that the peacekeeping troops they had contributed to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon would be at risk, or that Hezbollah might retaliate against European interests, and that banning the military wing might somehow preclude political contact with, and leverage over, the group's political leadership.
While the Burgas investigation is ongoing, and some aspects of the case remain unsolved, investigators have definitively determined that Hezbollah carried out the attack based on forensics, telephone communications, and more. Some E.U. officials complained to the media that the evidence as presented to the E.U. was inconclusive, but under the evidentiary rules governing the E.U.'s designation process, the stated investigative conclusion of a country's "competent authority" -- such as that provided by Bulgarian officials -- is evidence enough.
Moreover, the designation was never about just one case. Far more evidence of Hezbollah's recent terrorist activities exists. In late March, a Cypriot court convicted Hossam Taleb Yaacoub -- a Swedish Lebanese citizen arrested just days before the Burgas bombing -- on charges of planning attacks against Israeli tourists. These two cases alone presented a more compelling argument for an E.U. designation than ever before. Ironically, the designation was passed under the E.U.'s Common Position (CP) 931, which at its core is an asset forfeiture authority authorizing the freezing of a banned entity's assets -- it does not preclude contact with the group's members, nor does it include a travel ban. (Note that the ban on contact with Hamas is a product of the Quartet's restrictions, not the E.U. designation of Hamas as a terrorist group.)
The irony is that by limiting the designation to Hezbollah's "military wing," the E.U. effectively undermined its ability to seize any funds under this asset forfeiture regime. Hezbollah accounts in Europe are not likely to list as account holders "Hezbollah military wing." Legally, any funds tied to Hezbollah but not expressly linked to its military wing remain untouchable in Europe. Money being fungible, Hezbollah will likely continue soliciting funds in Europe but under the rubric of political and social activities. Siphoning off funds for less altruistic activities such as the group's militia or terrorist activities would not be difficult at all.
What then is the utility of blacklisting a "military wing" that is in fact indistinguishable from the rest of the organization?
Despite the formal focus on asset freezing, the most significant impact of the E.U. ban will be felt on other fronts. First, it will enable E.U. governments to initiate preemptive intelligence investigations into activities that can be tied in any way to Hezbollah's military wing, thus acting as a strong deterrent. Germany and a handful of other European countries have already conducted such investigations, but the designation will spur many others to do so. This alone is a tremendous change that should make Europe a far less attractive place for Hezbollah operatives. In fact, the day after the ban was announced, Israeli officials announced that they would begin providing E.U. law enforcement officials with intelligence materials to help with enforcement efforts. Second, the ban is a strong means of communicating to Hezbollah that its current activities are beyond the pale, and that continuing to engage in acts of violence will exact a high cost. Previously, the group had been permitted to mix its political and social welfare activities with its terrorist and criminal activities, giving it an effective way to raise and launder money along with a measure of immunity for its militant activities. This week's designation makes clear to Hezbollah that international terrorism, organized crime, and militia operations will endanger its legitimacy as a political and social actor.
As for the financial angle, seizing significant amounts of Hezbollah funds is unlikely because the group's accounts are presumably registered under its nonmilitary names. But the ban will probably still curtail Hezbollah fundraising. Some of the group's members may be barred from traveling to Europe as member states become bolder in opening new investigations and consider issuing visa restrictions under their national authorities as a result. And Hezbollah leaders may unilaterally curtail certain activities on the continent as they assess the ban's full impact and try to cut their losses at a time when the group is under severe international and domestic pressure.
If history is any guide, failure to respond in a meaningful way to Hezbollah terrorist plots in Europe would almost certainly have invited further Hezbollah attacks, and in fact Hezbollah does respond to strong measures. Ironically, in the past Hezbollah was severely constrained by an act of terrorism not of its own making. Al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks proved to be a turning point. Desperate not to be caught in the crosshairs of Washington's "war on terror," Hezbollah appeared to consciously decide to roll back its international operations and keep its efforts to strike at Israeli targets focused and limited. In the past few years however, this has changed. The U.S. State Department's annual terrorism report, released in May 30, noted a "marked resurgence" of Iranian sponsored terrorist activities, adding that "Iran and Hizballah's terrorist activity has reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s."
In addition to plots in Bulgaria and Cyprus, Hezbollah has conducted surveillance, planning, and related activities in Greece and other countries, engaged in a wide array of organized crime across the continent, and increased its military involvement in places where European interests are at stake, such as Syria. This operational uptick is cause for great concern among European law enforcement and intelligence agencies. As the U.S. State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism noted last year, "Hezbollah and Iran will both continue to maintain a heightened level of terrorist activity in operations in the near future, and we assess that Hezbollah could attack in Europe or elsewhere at any time with little or no warning." For these reasons, the E.U. designation is critical, in terms of both sending Hezbollah a message and giving E.U. member states the legal basis and motivation to investigate.
Matthew Levitt directs The Washington Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence and is author of the forthcoming book Hezbollah: The Global Footprint of Lebanon's Party of God. Jonathan Prohov is a research assistant at the Institute.

By Wassim Mroueh/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The European Union published its decision to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing Friday in its official journal, as copies were distributed to top Lebanese officials. Hezbollah’s military wing, referred to as the “Jihad Council,” and “all units reporting to it, including the External Security Organization,” was designated as a terrorist group Monday.
The EU journal stated: “Council Regulation (EC) No. 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 provides for a freezing of all funds, other financial assets and economic resources belonging to the persons, groups and entities concerned and that no funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be made available to them, whether directly or indirectly.”However, the EU stressed again that the designation would not affect ties with the Lebanese government. “The decision to designate the group does not affect legitimate financial transfers to Lebanon and the delivery of assistance, including humanitarian assistance, from the European Union and its member states in Lebanon,” the decision said. Hezbollah is now blacklisted along with Hasan Izz-Al-Din, a member of the Lebanese group allegedly involved in the 1985 hijacking of a Trans World Airlines flight. The decision to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing came after Bulgaria accused the party of involvement in the 2012 bombing in the city of Burgas, which killed five Israeli tourists and their Bulgarian driver. Hezbollah denies involvement and no final verdict has been issued in the case.
The National News Agency said Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry had sent unofficial copies of the EU decision to President Michel Sleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati.
The agency reported Lebanon’s mission to the EU would receive the official copy on Saturday in Brussels, a request made by mission head Ambassador Rami Mortada.
Hezbollah has dismissed the decision as a signal the EU had succumbed to the will of the United States and Israel. The party said the EU’s decision would generate unspecified repercussions, adding that Europe could not simultaneously condemn Hezbollah and engage in dialogue.
The EU’s ambassador to Lebanon, Angelina Eichhorst has made a series of visits this week to explain the motivations behind the decision. She met Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun at his Rabieh residence Friday. In a television interview Friday, she said European states had concrete evidence that Hezbollah was involved in the Bulgaria attack, which would be presented at a later date. Eichhorst said the EU had been mulling over the decision for a year and stressed it did not target the concept of resistance, but of terrorism.
The envoy said that the EU’s ties with Hezbollah were strategic, and dismissed Hezbollah’s criticism that the decision reflected pressure from external actors. Eichhorst voiced her hope that the blacklisting would not negatively impact the Cabinet formation process.
Mohammad Fneish, Hezbollah’s caretaker Minister of State for Administrative Development who met Eichhorst Thursday, said the decision would complicate efforts to pull a government together.
“We stressed to [Eichhorst] that the decision would complicate the Cabinet formation process because the other side [the March 14 alliance] will use it to support its stance, which opposes the participation of a political party [Hezbollah] in the government,” Fneish said in comments to Al-Joumhouriya newspaper published Friday.
Hezbollah MP Nawwaf Musawi dismissed the meetings Eichhorst held this week, saying they reflected an attempt to avoid any reaction by the party’s supporters.
“We consider these meetings an attempt to avoid a necessary reaction to the decision on the popular and national level,” Musawi said during an iftar in the south.
“But we say that Lebanon, its people and political groups will not let this decision pass easily. We will confront this decision which we consider an aggression against our dignity.”Separately, Syria’s ambassador to Lebanon, Ali Abdel-Karim Ali, said the strength of the resistance and the steadfastness of Syria prompted Israel and Europe to conspire against Hezbollah through coming up with excuses to attack the party.
Speaking to reporters after a meeting with caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour, Ali said he hoped the EU decision would impact negatively on countries responsible for it and that Israel benefited the most from the move. For his part, Future Movement MP Nidal Tohme said late Thursday that the EU’s decision was dangerous to both Hezbollah and Lebanon. “The decision came as a result of Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria and other places and putting all of Lebanon on Europe’s blacklist,” Tohme said. “For the sake of Lebanon’s future, we call on Hezbollah to say: ‘I made a mistake’ and to ... redirect the resistance against Israel,” he added.

Sleiman expected to extend Army commander’s term

July 27, 2013/By Wassim Mroueh The Daily Star
BEIRUT: President Michel Sleiman is expected to sign a special decree Monday to extend the term of the Army commander, a move Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun vowed to challenge. Political sources told The Daily Star that Sleiman, who is visiting the United States, would sign a special decree to postpone the retirement of Army Commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi for one year to avoid a power vacuum in the top Army post. In the absence of an extension, Kahwagi would have to retire in September. Sleiman’s move comes amid Parliament’s repeated failure to pass a draft law to extend Kahwagi’s term for three years, though a measure to do so has been on the legislature’s agenda since early July. Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and caretaker Defense Minister Fayez Ghosn will also sign the decree. Also Monday, Ghosn and Kahwagi are expected to endorse a decree to extend the mandate of Army Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Walid Salman, whose term expires in August. Aoun said he would challenge the move to extend Kahwagi’s term. “I will challenge the extension of the term of the Army chief in both the Constitutional Council and the Shura Council, and we will see what happens,” Aoun said at a news conference at his Rabieh residence. Aoun, who described the extension of Kahwagi’s term as unconstitutional, slammed efforts made by officials to keep the Army commander in his post, accusing them of trying to monopolize power in Lebanon.
“There are thousands of competent officers who are able to serve as Army commander ... I say that this extension is illegal and it violates the Constitution, and those seeking the extension are attempting to impose their will on the Lebanese,” the FPM leader said. While Aoun opposes Kahwagi’s extension, the move is supported by his March 8 allies Hezbollah, Amal and the Marada Movement.
Zghorta MP Suleiman Franjieh, the Marada Movement leader, said he supported extending Kahwaji’s mandate. “The caretaker defense minister and I ... support extending the term of the Army commander in order to avoid a vacuum,” Franjieh told reporters during a visit to former MP Farid Khazen in Qleiaat, Kesrouan. “I believe it’s very difficult for all political parties to agree on the appointment of a new Army commander. I support the extension because Gen. Jean Kahwagi is trustworthy and decent,” Franjieh said. When asked about Aoun’s objection over the legality of the extension, Franjieh said there would be an attempt to secure a legal extension, adding that circumstances were not ideal, which meant an imperfect solution was needed. “We’re trying to have a legal extension ... but everything around us is boiling, and we thank God every day that we are not at war and not fighting,” he said. “You ask me, is this the ideal choice? I say no. Is it the best? I again say no, but we aren’t in ideal circumstances,” he said. Parliament has failed to convene twice this month to extend Kahwagi’s term due to a lack of quorum. The political sources said Sleiman would sign the special decree to extend Kahwagi’s term if the next parliamentary session fails to convene Monday. Sleiman is also slated to chair a Higher Defense Council meeting at Baabda Palace the same day. The Central News Agency reported that the council would discuss the repercussions of this week’s EU decision to blacklist Hezbollah’s military wing and the impact of Syrian refugees on the political, economic, health and security situation in Lebanon.The CNA said Sleiman is likely to return to Beirut Saturday evening.

July 26, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea lashed out at Hezbollah Friday, accusing the party of taking the country hostage, and criticized MP Michel Aoun for his ministers’ performance in Cabinet. The opposition leader also vowed to continue the search for Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons. “Most Lebanese are captives in Hezbollah's prison,” Geagea said during a news conference organized by the Martyrs, Casualties and Detainees Department of the Lebanese Forces. “Our rights and decisions are hostage, in one way or another, to Hezbollah because if we don’t go along with the logic of the resistance, we are targeted,” he added. Geagea, a staunch critic of the resistance group, also said the Lebanese had to endure the consequences of Hezbollah’s actions, citing the July-August 2006 between Lebanon and Israel as an example. “The Lebanese are bearing the consequences of Hezbollah’s decisions and they don't even know where Hezbollah's decisions are taking them most of the time,” he said. “We woke up one day and found ourselves in a war we didn’t even want ... regardless of the reasons,” Geagea noted, adding that issues relating to Israel should be the sole concern of the Lebanese state. The LF leader also spoke about the recent killing of Hashem Salman allegedly at the hands of Hezbollah supporters, saying security forces dared not ask who was behind the incident. Salman, a 28-year-old student leader in the Lebanese Option Party, was killed during a demonstration against Hezbollah’s military involvement in Syria on June 9 outside the Iranian Embassy in the Beirut neighborhood of Bir Hasan. Supporters of Hezbollah attacked and shot the protesters before they even stepped out of the bus to begin their rally.
“Hashem Salman was killed in front of the eyes of security forces ... and the killer is known but no one can ask who killed Salman despite the fact that the incident was documented,” Geagea said.
He also lashed out at his rival, Aoun, for accusing the security forces of smuggling arms in and out of Syria via Lebanon's borders.
"Dear [former] general, you are the biggest authority in this resigned government,” he said. “If the security forces are being accused of such a thing, you should take the necessary measures to prevent the smuggling,” Geagea added. He also criticized Aoun for refusing to extend the term of Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi, saying: “Would Aoun have spoken of this had his son-in-law been the head of the Army?”
Media reports in recent weeks say Aoun wants Shamel Roukoz, an Army officer and his son-in-law, to replace Kahwagi. “Our problem today is not the smuggling or corruption at Sukleen but the instability that your [Aoun’s] allies in power have created, coupled with the Arab boycott and now international decisions [against Lebanon],” he said. Geagea was referring to the EU’s recent decision to designate Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organization. The LF leader also spoke about Lebanese detained in Syrian prisons, urging for the establishment of a committee to follow up on their case. “Our case did not begin in 1994 but in 1978 with the first four detainees in Syrian prisons,” he said, adding that most of them were civilian. “We will never forget, not now, nor ever, and relatives of the detainees should have faith that we will continue [to search for them] and we should exhaust all efforts to bring them back,” he said. “We call for the formation of a national committee to search for those who went missing during the Civil War that would follow up on the case of the detainees in Syrian prisons,” Geagea added. He also criticized some politicians for failing to even acknowledge the presence of Lebanese detainees in Syria.

Turkey to pull out of U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon July 26, 2013/
By Mohammed Zaatari/ The Daily Star /SIDON, Lebanon: Turkey will withdraw its troops from the U.N. Interim Forces in Lebanon in less than two months, security sources told The Daily Star Friday, a sudden move that would surely affect the peacekeeping mission. The sources said Turkish peacekeepers will abandon their headquarters in the southern village of Shaatieh in a month and a half. UNIFIL, however, denied the claims. Spokesperson Antoinette Midday said the peacekeeping force was not notified of any decision by the Turkish contingent of its intention to depart south Lebanon. Speaking to The Daily Star, Midday said there were routine adjustments to the makeup of UNIFIL as troop-contributing countries lessen or increase the number of their corresponding peacekeeping force. Such changes are decided between the UNIFIL’s leadership and contributing states and were a regular process in all U.N. peacekeeping forces, Midday added. The important aspect, Midday noted, was to maintain a sufficient number of troops that would be capable of carrying out tasks efficiently. The pull-out would serve a heavy blow to several educational institutions equipped and renovated by the Turkish contingent. The Turkish peacekeepers have recently rebuilt the Lebanese University building in the southern town of Tyre. They have also provided many southerners with electricity generators and computers as well as medical and logistical assistance. The 348-strong contingent, which joined the peacekeeping force in early 2007, also reopened a school in Srifa which was destroyed during the 2006 July war. As of 19 June, UNIFIL consisted of 10,819 peacekeepers from 37 countries, including Turkey. The sources declined to identify reasons behind Turkey’s sudden decision to pull out or whether such a move was linked to the case of nine Lebanese hostages held by Syrian rebels in the Aleppo district of Azaz. The Turkish force’s activities decreased and its security was upgraded in recent months after the families of nine Lebanese pilgrims held hostage by rebels in Syria threatened to attack Turkish interests in the country if their relatives were not released. Families of the hostages, who held several protests outside Turkish institutions including the peacekeepers’ base in south Lebanon, claim that Turkey should have some leverage over the rebels in order to secure the release of the Shiite men who were kidnapped in May of last year. Reasons behind Turkey's decision to withdraw its troops could also be linked to tensions in the region and Lebanon, and possible threats made to the contigent itself.

Aoun fires verbal salvos in all directions
July 27, 2013/The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun lashed out Friday at both political allies and foes, accusing them of undermining state institutions. During an extended news conference at his Rabieh residence, Aoun reiterated his opposition to extending the term of Army commander Gen. Jean Kahwagi, who is approaching the mandatory retirement age, at a time of heightened security threats in the country.
Aoun, who described any extension of Kahwagi’s term as unconstitutional, slammed efforts by officials to see Kahwagi remain in his post following retirement, accusing them of trying to monopolize power in Lebanon.
“There are thousands of competent officers who are able to serve as Army commanders ... this extension is illegal, it violates the Constitution, and there are attempts by those seeking the extension to impose their will on the Lebanese,” the FPM head said. With a paralysis of both the legislative and executive branches of government, Kahwagi’s mandate could be extended for a period of six months via a special decree, sources told The Daily Star earlier this week.Prolonging Kahwagi’s mandate requires the approval of the president in his capacity as commander in chief of the armed forces, and the prime minister as head of the government.
Aoun slammed the country’s top three politicians – President Michel Sleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri and caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati – and accused them of being behind the country’s political stalemate.
Aoun slammed Mikati in particular over attacks against Army personnel in the towns of Tripoli, Arsal in the Bekaa Valley, and Abra, near Sidon, saying the caretaker prime minister “can disassociate himself from what is happening in Syria, but can’t do this over Arsal or Sidon or any region in Lebanon.”
“Those entrusted with running the country are moving in the direction of fragmenting and doing away with the [Lebanese] state,” he said. “They blocked the electoral law to arrive at an extension [of Parliament’s mandate] ... and when we challenged [the extension], they blocked the Constitutional Council,” Aoun said. The FPM leader said “top leaders” were behind preventing the council from achieving a quorum, thus scuttling attempts to rule on Aoun’s challenge. The former Army commander, who heads the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc, blasted the failure to appoint new people to senior positions in the state bureaucracy.
“There are 179 Grade One posts in state administrations ready for appointments ... there were official job interviews for these posts, why hasn’t anyone been hired? They say that they want to build the state, instead they are emptying it of senior civil servants.”
Aoun stressed that the military served as a deterrent force and accused government officials of failing to defend the Army against a campaign targeting its role in the country.
“There are attempts to undermine the security forces and the army. I have examples of abuses to the military and bringing its morale down in Akkar, Abra and Arsal,” he said, accusing the security forces of smuggling arms. “Army officers and soldiers were arrested in Akkar and we heard insults against the military and the Army Command did nothing about it,” he said.
But at one point during the news conference, Aoun said “there are accusations that the Internal Security Forces are involved in weapons smuggling,” demanding that an investigation be conducted.
Asked about his recent meeting with Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, Aoun commented, “I don’t ally with Nasrallah or recognize the resistance in exchange for anything.”
He also slammed what he said was an absence of financial oversight over the activities of the Council for Development and Reconstruction, the Council of the South, the Higher Relief Committee and the Central Fund for the Displaced. “These institutions have never been subject to oversight. They are subject to oversight after the fact, and even this hasn’t happened since 1995 ... I know a lot of things, but I’ll relay this information to the judiciary to make the necessary investigations.” After the news conference, the Council for the South, where Aoun’s ostensible ally Berri holds sway, issued a statement in which it said its activities were subject to the oversight of state financial officials.
The statement urged Aoun to review the legal articles that govern the activities of the Council of the South “before making similar statements in the future.”
For his part, caretaker Interior Minister Marwan Charbel also slammed Aoun’s accusations against the ISF, due to the lack of evidence put forward.
“We urge all political parties to avoid involving the ISF in political disputes, and leave it alone to do its job,” Charbel said.

A Party That Does Not Make Errors
By: Husam Itani/Al Hayat
Friday 26 July 2013
Nothing affects Hezbollah. Nothing. Its blacklisting by the European Union as a terrorist organization, the similar GCC decision, the hundreds of coffins for its fighters who are dying in Syria and its security exposure are all part of a media campaign which deserves nothing but mockery and enigmatic smiles.
But there is a justification to this arrogance. Indeed, ever since its establishment, the party has been hiding behind two parapets. The first is its role as a regional tool for the Syrian-Iranian axis, which moves it based on its own strategy that does not usually take into account Lebanese national interests. The second is its representation of a large bloc of the Shiite sect in the Lebanese equation. And any quiver at the level of one of these two tasks is handled by the party by focusing on the other. This is what happened in the July 2006 war when it resorted to Israel’s deterrence as a pretext to impose its hegemony on the domestic arena, and what it did again in May 2008 when it occupied Beirut “in defense of the resistance weapons that are directed against Israel.”
This strategy, which is similar to a two-storey building, grants the party the ability to distance itself from the internal Lebanese requirements. Hence, whenever the situation deteriorates in the lower Lebanese floor, the party moves to the resisting top floor. And whenever the party is faced with Arab and international objections surrounding its resisting role in Syria for example, it goes down to the first floor and assures it has a veto power over all the Lebanese political equations, considering it is a main sectarian power among no less sectarian forces that do not however enjoy even a small portion of its strength and might.
This unique characteristic enjoyed by the party gives it the right to be arrogant toward the others and mock them, and allows its loyalist writers to describe the remaining Lebanese as being ignorant and incapable of understanding the secrets behind the party’s strength and its doctrine that is wrapped in a religious discourse, which is open to others at times and features rituals that are extremely opposed to anyone who is different at others.
The iron party, which can mobilize hundreds of thousands of armed men with two words from its secretary general – as the latter personally announced – has managed to isolate itself from many Lebanese factors and revealed an undeniable superiority in managing its interests, in comparison with a futile political class that has limited prospects and lacks imagination on one hand, and is deprived of any influential foreign cover on the other.
But what the party is refusing to see lies behind the border and beyond the Lebanese equations and policies. And the storm which the party’s supporters say it can overcome and beat, just like it beat all the previous ones, is forming on multiple fronts. Consequently, what is happening in Lebanon becomes unimportant compared to what is going on in the Arab region, knowing that Hezbollah has made up its mind and placed its bets on the side it believes will win at the end of the ongoing bloody game. And it might be right in the short run.
However, the party and those applauding it failed to pay attention to issues which might not be of interest to them, namely the loss of the general Arab respect toward its current role – if not its past – and its acceptance to stand alongside the Iraqi sectarian militias in the war against the Syrian people, under the pretext of “defending Syria,” although the party’s command knows that this is not true.
When looking closely into the two-storey building, it is clear that it is positioned at the intersection of two hurricanes racing towards Lebanon, i.e. either a Sunni-Shiite war which will not spare anyone, or an Israeli attack that will destroy the building over everyone’s heads. But the iron party that does not err seems reassured towards both possibilities.

Sanctions On Hezbollah In The Context Of Iran
Walid Choucair/Al Hayat
The European Union is confused when it comes to providing a clear justification for its steps to designate the military wing of Hezbollah as a terror group. At times, officials talk about the judicial reason for the move, connected to the accusation that this wing carried out the Burgas bombing in Bulgaria, and a separate bombing attempt in Cyprus. At other times, however, “high-placed” EU sources leak information that the reason for the decision is Hezbollah’s heavy military involvement in the war in Syria. This latter is a political reason, because the EU decision represents a political message to the party.
One will likely get lost in a search for the real reason behind the decision – and there are those who say that it is neither of the reasons above. Instead, the motive for the move is related either to Israeli insistence that the step be taken against the party, or a European message to Iran, via Hezbollah. However, both of these interpretations might be relevant for the move by the EU, which has sparked plenty of fears and warnings in Lebanon about the domestic repercussions of the move on the country, which is already in crisis. It will increase the level of crisis, which was proven in the comments by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, on Wednesday. He told his rivals inside and outside the country: “You will not be able to exploit this decision in Lebanon; there will be no (new) government without Hezbollah and its ministers will be from the party’s military wing.” The comments reflected how a spirit of challenge, rather than fear, prevailed in this response.
This reaction by Nasrallah contained nothing new. Before the EU decision, it was clear that there was going to be no new government in Lebanon, after the party’s rivals decided to stick to their stance that no party members be included in the new Cabinet, and that all parties would be represented by “friends,” to keep the executive branch neutral vis-à-vis the open-ended struggle over the prolonged crisis in Syria. This was amid contradictory wagers by each party; Hezbollah believed that developments were moving favorably for the regime, while the party’s rivals hoped that the balance of power on the ground was moving favorably for the opposition, although they had no evidence that would allow them to make a wager such as this, with the regime holding out thanks to support from the outside, including Hezbollah itself.
Even though Hezbollah is trying to hide the tension caused by the EU decision for its leaders, it retained its stance of being indifferent. Two months ago, amid the news that the Gulf Cooperation Council was headed toward classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist group, Nasrallah commented by saying that this threat meant nothing to him.
The source of the EU's confusion was an attempt to reduce the impact of the decision, by saying that it would be reviewed every six months, or that visa bans and asset freezes would be applied to specific individuals suspected of taking part in terror acts in Europe. If this is indeed the case, then these comments are an attempt to limit any response by Hezbollah, so that there are no hostile acts against UNIFIL peacekeeping forces in south Lebanon; to the same degree, they also leave open the possibility of expanding the sanctions against those who are believed to belong to Hezbollah’s military wing. If these sanctions are expanded, then the political aspect of the decision will enjoy priority. By keeping the judicial measures vague, the Europeans will retain some ability to restrict them, so that they are applied to a few people, or broaden them, to apply to bigger groups, party leaders, or donors to the party, etc. This will hurt the Lebanese, and not just those who are party members, and will serve as a source of anxiety, even for Lebanese who are not party loyalists. Therefore, the Lebanese state and Hezbollah might have to work together to counter the accusations with evidence, instead of putting their heads in the sand. The party adopted this latter tactic with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, as a reaction to seeing some of its members accused of taking part in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
What leads people to think that European countries might widen the vagueness of the sanctions against Hezbollah is the linking of the decision to an affirmation that they intend to continue dialogue with party leaders, because Hezbollah is an essential part of Lebanese society, despite the dangerous accusations they have made against the party. If this is true, then it means that there is European-Iranian convergence when it comes to maintaining stability in Lebanon, requiring that dialogue be retained with a party classified as terrorist.
However, there is another side to the political exploitation of the decision, because it raises the question of how Iran will deal with it. President Hasan Rowhani, who will take office in August, was elected because his priority was to reduce western sanctions on Tehran, because of the harm they are doing to the country’s economy. The sanctions on Hezbollah should not be isolated from the EU’s stance on Iranian policy in the region, and the nuclear issue; Hezbollah plays a prime role in these, in Lebanon and in Syria.
This is another complicating factor when linking the Lebanese situation to the complicated regional one. Will the Europeans link negotiations over sanctions to negotiations over Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon and Syria?

July 27, 2013/The Daily Star
The tumultuous events in Egypt have drawn the attention of many people in the region and the rest of the world, meaning that a higher level of scrutiny of the rapid developments is a natural result.
Taking a closer look at what is taking place is not only natural, but also disappointing – and the performance of the media as well as officials deserves examination.
One aspect of the problem is the surreal nature of the latest charges against ousted President Mohammad Morsi. The Egyptian authorities have decided to detain Morsi for questioning over daring to break out of jail at a time the former regime of President Hosni Mubarak was collapsing, back in 2011. Included in the charges is the notion that Morsi worked with the Palestinian movement Hamas as part of this offensive, which the authorities say left more than a dozen guards dead.
While the killing of prison guards is nothing to be cheered, the question remains: Why did Egypt wait this long to discover the possibility that Morsi was involved in wrongdoing? When the country held elections after the fall of Mubarak, a leading Islamist figure – Khairat al-Shater – was disqualified because of a judicial record, while Morsi was given a clean bill of health.
Now, after Morsi’s sudden move to the list of political personae non gratae in Egypt, comes the accusation that he was involved in something illegal – it’s the kind of retroactive justice that carries no benefit for Egypt.
Meanwhile, the political offensive against Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood continues apace. It’s not unusual to see some regional media describe the dramatic and sometimes violent developments in a given Egyptian town or village as follows: “the Muslim Brotherhood clashes with the people.”
Whether they’re aware of it or not, such items give the impression that the Brotherhood has suddenly become a foreign body in Egypt, after it achieved a string of election victories and finally entered the public sphere, after decades of being suppressed.
The culture of demonizing one’s political enemies isn’t uniquely Egyptian; it’s present in many parts of the world. But at present, Arab countries are recording new achievements in the domain of treating political rivals as less than deserving of recognition.
While calls for unity are heard throughout the region, the real problem is not how to unite, but how to disagree. If Egypt’s rulers have a problem with Morsi and the Brotherhood, the confrontation must be credible.
It shouldn’t rely on retroactive illegality, as in making up the rules as one goes along.
It shouldn’t rely on the knee-jerk tactic of demonization, as in suddenly deciding that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are unpatriotic conspirators.
And it shouldn’t rely on overconfidence, as in making statements that are believed to be above criticism or examination. In this age of internet interconnectedness, it’s becoming more and more difficult to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

Pro-military masses in Cairo wave banners saying “Obama Out! Putin in!”

DEBKAfile Special Report July 26, 2013/Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators filled Cairo’s streets and squares Friday, July 26 in rival rallies shortly after deposed president Mohamed Morsi was formally charged and detained for 15 days. Tahrir Square was packed with crowds responding to Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s call for a mandate to support the military fight on “terrorists.” Another huge crowd of Morsi supporters packed the streets around the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque in Nasser City.
Instead of directing their ire at the overthrown Muslim Brotherhood, the pro-military demonstrators shouted “Bye Bye America!” as huge placards waved over their heads depicting as a threesome Gen. El-Sisi, Vladimir Putin and Gemal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt in the 60s in close alliance with the Soviet Union.
Their rivals in a separate part of Cairo chanted "Sisi out! Morsi is president! Down with the army!"
In Alexandria, five people were killed in clashes between Muslim Brotherhood supporters and opponents.
The anti-American banners represented a message: No matter if President Barack Obama denies the Egyptian people US support because of the military’s steps against the Muslim Brotherhood, Cairo has an option in Moscow.
Reports began appearing Friday morning on the social networks including Facebook from sources close to Putin that Moscow is considering supplying Egypt with advanced fighter bombers to replace the F-16 planes, whose delivery Obama suspended Wednesday, July 24. This was a gesture to show the US President’s displeasure over Gen El-Sisi’s rejection of the demand to release the ousted president and integrate the Muslim Brotherhood in the interim government. The military gave the Muslim Brotherhood an ultimatum to endorse the new situation by Friday. The Brotherhood, whose supporters have maintained a sit-in in Nasser City for 20 days, did not respond.
The military accordingly gave the screw another turn.
A Cairo investigating judge Friday ordered deposed president Morsi detained for 15 days pending investigation into charges of plotting with the Palestinian Hamas to orchestrate a jailbreak during the 2011 revolution and conniving with Hamas in killing police officers and soldiers.
He has been held at an unknown location since the coup.
These charges carry potential death sentences.
They relate to the attack by armed men who on Aug. 5, 2012 killed 16 Egyptian border policemen in their camp in northern Sinai near Rafah. The prosecution claims to have evidence that the raid was plotted by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to depict the Egyptian military as a spent force. That attack kicked off the current armed Salafist mutiny against Egyptian military and police targets in Sinai The other charge relates to the raid on Wadi Natroun prison at the tail end of the 2011 uprising against Hosni Mubarak, which broke out of jail thousands of inmates including Morsi and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders. According to debkafile’s intelligence sources, the jailbreak was executed by special networks of Hizballah and Hamas which had been planted in Cairo and Suez Canal cities for subversion and terrorism.
The radical Hamas, offspring and ally of the Egyptian Brotherhood, is now solidly in the military regime’s sights as a hostile entity.
The military takeover of power in July 3 is gaining the aspect of a neo-Nasserist revolution. Many Egyptians are beginning to turn to Moscow in search of their country’s primary world ally rather than Washington. They have taken note that Putin has shown himself to be the foe of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria as well as Egypt.

Kuwait's Elections: It's Not What Happens Now, but What Happens Next
Lori Plotkin Boghardt /Washington Institute
Tomorrow's parliamentary vote is unlikely to calm the country's domestic scene, and special interest groups outside the legislature may take up more air in Kuwait's political life for the time being.
Kuwait is set to hold national parliamentary elections on Saturday, July 27. Unlike in other Persian Gulf oil states, Kuwait's legislature holds real powers: it can pass or reject laws and grill cabinet ministers, who are often members of the ruling al-Sabah family. The country's political groups span a wide spectrum and include Sunni Islamists, Shiites, Arab nationalists, liberals, populists, and tribes. And while the government has cracked down unusually hard in recent months on those perceived to be insulting the emir (which is against the law) or inciting threats to security, Kuwaitis enjoy rich public political debate unlike anywhere else in the Gulf monarchies.
Yet domestic politics have been particularly turbulent since 2006, with the passing of longtime ruler Emir Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah and the separation of the role of crown prince and prime minister, which left the latter subject to more criticism than before. Tomorrow's parliamentary elections will be the sixth in seven years -- a period in which executive decrees and Constitutional Court findings have led to the dissolution of each elected parliament prior to the completion of its term.
A CALMING EFFECT?
One of the most important issues surrounding the elections is whether they will calm, worsen, or essentially maintain Kuwait's unsettled domestic political life. Two indicators suggest that the vote will not resolve the current predicament.
First, a majority of political groups plan to boycott the elections in protest against the government's unilateral amendment of the electoral law. That ruling, approved by the Constitutional Court in mid-June, changed the number of votes Kuwaitis can cast from four to one. (The parliament has five constituencies of ten seats each and, as before, the top ten vote-getters in each constituency win.) Some see the change as a means of hindering opposition groups and boosting the chances of candidates who are more amenable to the government. The boycott includes Sunni Islamists, a Shiite alliance, populists, and liberals, though some members of the groups in question do plan to run. As in the December 2012 elections, Shiites will likely benefit from the boycott, with the government partly relying on them to balance others at a time of considerable Shiite-Sunni tension across the region.
A second factor is voter apathy. This election is the third in eighteen months, and the lack of enthusiasm surrounding it is palpable. Turnout for the December elections dipped to 40 percent, a low figure that was attributed to the boycott. Tomorrow's turnout is expected to be only slightly higher. This is a significant departure from Kuwait's typical turnout rates, including 60 percent in the February 2012 elections, 59 percent in 2009 and 2008, and over 90 percent in 2006. Holding the elections during the summer heat (when many Kuwaitis leave the country) and more than two weeks into Ramadan (when daytime activity decreases) could also depress turnout.
Kuwaitis were highly disappointed in the previous parliament, which was elected by relatively few voters, included only a minority of political groups, and in general operated as a rubber-stamp body for the government. Given the boycott and other factors, the new parliament may share those problems.
EVOLVING OPPOSITION TACTICS
Groups allied in the boycott have not presented the same kind of front that they did immediately preceding the December elections. During that period, Kuwait witnessed some of the largest demonstrations in its history, as opposition forces partnered to protest the ruler's decree regarding the number of votes an individual could cast -- the same issue under contention today. Reasons for the current lackluster protest movement include the Constitutional Court's support for the decree, public disillusionment and lack of interest regarding parliamentary politics, and the Gulf's hot summer temperatures, which can soar to 120 degrees.
Another factor is that the boycotting groups have been plagued by their differences and have little interest in cooperating, including over a basic opposition platform. Kuwaitis eager for change and poised for political action have grown further disillusioned with traditional modes of protest under the direction of politicians. As a result, special interest groups have emerged as an alternative route for political work. In a sense, this is a continuation of the country's trend toward unaligned youth movements.
One such group is the National Committee for Monitoring Violations. In announcing its formation in March 2013, the group explicitly maintained that it does not seek to challenge the Kuwaiti leadership or security authorities. Instead, its goals include tracking arrests and helping detained activists by connecting them with lawyers. The movement is reminiscent of grassroots efforts in Saudi Arabia, where some citizens have sought to spur political action through campaigns to release the kingdom's tens of thousands of political prisoners, many of whom were arrested on terrorism charges after 2003. The Saudi experience teaches that this kind of interest-group campaign can attract significant public and government attention.
ISLAMIST PROSPECTS
A major issue of interest for Kuwait and the rest of the region is the performance of Islamist groups following the ouster of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-led government. Yet the Brotherhood and many hardline Salafists are boycotting tomorrow's elections, so much of their performance will have to be measured outside vote tallies and parliamentary activity.
Kuwait provides a broad and open political space for these Islamist factions to voice their views. In the Gulf, Bahraini groups also have opportunities to advocate their interests, but only because it is understood that they will cooperate with the government in parliament against majority Shiite groups.
The political group linked to the well-organized Kuwaiti Brotherhood -- the Islamic Constitutional Movement (ICM), also known by the Arabic acronym Hadas -- has decried Muhammad Morsi's ouster just like other Brothers across the region. On July 6, three days after Morsi's fall, the ICM condemned the "coup on the constitution, democracy, and the gains of the popular revolution of January 25," denouncing "the role of all internal and external parties" in supporting the action. And after Kuwait pledged $4 billion in aid to Egypt on July 10 (alongside Saudi and Emirati billions), the group argued that the money should be used toward domestic concerns. Several hundred ICM members participated in a rally denouncing the aid pledges.
Since its establishment following Kuwait's 1991 liberation from Iraq, the ICM has won only a handful of seats in parliamentary elections. Yet the group's current activities suggest that members feel emboldened by being "wronged" in Egypt, and that events in Cairo have galvanized them to make their voice heard on the issue. These sentiments may continue to evolve for as long as there are aftershocks in the region's most populous and, arguably, most influential country -- that is to say, probably for many months.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The election of a parliament that many Kuwaitis believe is not representative will have only a limited impact on the country's overall security dynamic. Yet Kuwait's continuing political paralysis tarnishes the image of parliamentary democracy in the eyes of many in the Gulf. Friends of democracy can only hope that Kuwaitis across the political spectrum find a way to work together more effectively through compromise and common dedication to the national interest.
*Lori Plotkin Boghardt is a fellow in Gulf politics at The Washington Institute.

Seven Killed in Florida Shootout, Hostage Drama
Naharnet/Six people were shot to death in a shootout in an apartment building near the U.S. city of Miami that ended early Saturday when police killed the suspect, police said.
Authorities said there was gunfire on several floors of the Hialeah building before the suspect decided to hunker down in an apartment, taking the couple inside hostage.
His motive was not immediately known, police spokesman Sergeant Eddie Rodriguez said, adding "six innocent people died and also the suspect who initiated this situation."
Rodriguez said the incident began at 6:30 pm Friday and ended at 2:30 am Saturday when a police SWAT team moved into the building and into the apartment where the suspect was holed up. "The pair of hostages did not know the suspect and tried for hours to negotiate with him to surrender," Rodriguez said, adding when the suspect continued to refuse, "police had to act."
The two hostages, a man and a woman, were uninjured. But among the dead were an elderly couple identified by their daughter as Colombians Italo and Samira Pisciotti. Rodriguez said they were the building's landlords. Shamira Pisciotti said her parents had gone "to see a tenant who made a complaint, and it seems there was an altercation.
"The person started shooting," she told Spanish-language news channel Univision.
"I saw my mama. She died the moment she was shot," Pisciotti said, adding she heard 15 to 20 shots in total.
Authorities are still working to identify the rest of the victims.
The building in the mainly Cuban-populated city of Hialeah housed around 90 families. It is not yet confirmed whether the suspect lived there.
Florida has the most permissive gun laws in the United States, and, according to a state report, in December 2012, the state had more than a million permits to carry concealed weapons.
Source/Agence France Presse.