LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 05/2013

Bible Quotation for today/LOVE
1 Corinthians 13/01-07: "If I speak with the languages of men and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but don’t have love, I am nothing. If I dole out all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but don’t have love, it profits me nothing. Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud, doesn’t behave itself inappropriately, doesn’t seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; doesn’t rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three. The greatest of these is love."

Biden told the AIPAC gathering that “all options including military force are on the table.”
WASHINGTON: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that diplomacy has so far failed to deter Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, warning the Islamic Republic was getting closer to crossing a crucial “red line.”
“Iran enriches more and more uranium, it installs faster and faster centrifuges,” and it is “running out the clock” on diplomatic efforts to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear capability, Netanyahu said.
“We have to stop its nuclear enrichment program before it’s too late,” he warned in a speech via satellite from his office in Israel to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
The Israeli prime minister warned that leaders in Tehran had opted to “just grit their teeth” through punishing international sanctions and pursue their nuclear plan, come what may.
“It’s still not crossed the red line I drew with the United Nations last September,” Netanyahu said, referring to the point at which Israel believes Iran would be able to build a nuclear bomb.
“But Iran is getting closer to that red line, and it is putting itself in a position to cross that line very quickly once it decides to do so.”
With diplomacy failing as yet to bring about any solution to the crisis, Netanyahu stressed that Iran’s leaders have “used negotiations, including the most recent ones, to buy time to press ahead with its nuclear program.”
It was time to flex muscle, Netanyahu suggested. There must be “a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail.”
The U.S. and world nations have imposed a crippling set of sanctions on Iran’s oil and financial industries in hopes of forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table and persuading it to give up nuclear ambitions. Israel and Netanyahu have repeatedly hinted at readiness to use military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, an endeavor the U.S. likely would be dragged into.
Iran insists that its nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes such as power generation and medical uses.
Netanyahu won re-election earlier this year but has so far struggled to scrape together a coalition. But he told the AIPAC audience that “I intend to form a strong and stable government in the days ahead.”
One of its first duties he said would be hosting President Barack Obama on an official visit later this month – his first as U.S. commander in chief.
The two leaders would discuss Iran as well as Syria, where a civil war is raging against strongman Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Netanyahu said his own struggle to cobble together a government prevented him from traveling to Washington for AIPAC, as he has done in the past.
But the political strain in Israel is not expected to affect Obama’s trip, the White House said, with spokesman Jay Carney saying there were “no scheduling changes to announce.”
The Iran crisis is likely to take center stage, and ahead of his visit to Israel, Obama sent Vice President Joe Biden to the AIPAC conference Monday to assuage concerns among Israel’s backers that the U.S. administration was not being forceful enough with Iran.
Republican critics including Senator John McCain, who also spoke at AIPAC, have criticized the administration for appearing weak in the face of continued Iranian nuclear weapons pursuit.
But Biden was insistent that Washington was wholly committed to Israel’s security.
“Let me make clear what that commitment is,” a stern-faced Biden said. “It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Period, end of discussion.” “President Barack Obama is not bluffing,” Biden added, pointing at the crowd of several thousand.
“We are not looking for war. We are looking and are ready to negotiate peacefully. But all options including military force are on the table.”
Biden told the more than 13,000 Israel supporters at the annual conference that efforts to delegitimize Israel represent the “most dangerous, pernicious” change he’s witnessed in relation to Israel’s security, and that Obama would continue to be a bulwark against attempts to undermine the Jewish state.
Also Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that his discussions with Gulf officials had also covered ongoing talks between world powers and Iran on its nuclear program.
Speaking from Riyadh, as part of his first overseas tour in the role, Kerry said that talks with Iran “will not go on for the sake of talks.”
“Talks cannot become an instrument for delay that in the end makes the situation more dangerous. So there is a finite amount of time.”
“Obama has made it clear that Iran will not get nuclear weapons,” said the top U.S. diplomat. “There is a huge danger of proliferation.”
World powers negotiating with Iran to rein in its nuclear program concluded another round of talks in Kazakhstan last week, after putting forward a proposal to ease biting sanctions if Tehran halts the sensitive work of enriching uranium.
“Saudi Arabia supports the efforts to resolve the crisis diplomatically,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.
“We hope that the negotiations will result in putting an end to this problem ... the negotiations cannot go on forever.”

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/74145-we-mean-it-barak-tells-iran-on-nuclear-arms
Naharnet /Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned Iran on Sunday that Israel would never allow Iranian leaders to develop a nuclear weapon, as he addressed a powerful U.S.-Israel lobby.
"It is Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability which is the greatest challenge facing Israel, the region and the world today," Barak told thousands of delegates at the opening of the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). World powers leading negotiations with Iran to rein in its suspect nuclear program concluded talks in Kazakhstan last week, after putting forward a proposal to ease biting sanctions if Tehran halts its uranium enrichment. But Barak, stepping down as defense minister as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu draws up a new cabinet, cast doubt on whether the negotiations, due to resume later this month, would have any success. "Frankly, while exhausting all diplomatic means is understandable, I do not believe it will lead to a moment of truth when the ayatollahs will give up their nuclear situation. Therefore, all options must remain on the table," Barak said. "We expect all those who say it to mean it. Ladies and gentlemen, we mean it. And let me repeat it, we mean it," he added forcefully, receiving loud applause at the pro-Israel conference.
AIPAC, which touts itself as the most influential U.S. foreign policy lobby, will also hear a speech live from Netanyahu on Monday via video link, following an address by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
Some 13,000 people are expected to flock to the three-day event being held at the Washington Convention Center, but the gathering is more muted than in previous years, with neither President Barack Obama nor Israeli President Shimon Peres in attendance.
Obama is preparing to make his first trip as president to Israel in two weeks' time, and Netanyahu has stayed at home as he seeks to patch together a coalition following January's elections.
Iran and its nuclear ambitions will top the agenda for Obama's talks in Israel, along with the war in Syria and the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Barak called for "a daring peace initiative vis-a-vis the Palestinians" adding that "a two-state solution is the only viable long-term solution." The talks have stalled since late 2010, after the Palestinians insisted that all Israeli settlement building must cease. But Barak placed the blame for the stalemate squarely on the Palestinians saying "they clearly bear most of the responsibility for past failures."Stressing he was speaking in a personal capacity, the outgoing minister also insisted that if Israel could not even reach an interim agreement with the Palestinians "we should consider unilateral steps in order to place a wedge on this extremely dangerous slippery slope toward a bi-national state. "It involves demarcating a line within which we would have the settlement blocks and a solid Jewish majority for generations to come," he said.
There have also been fears that Israel could take unilateral action against Tehran, but the threat has somewhat receded after Obama vowed the United States will not pursue a policy of containment if Iran seeks a nuclear weapon. Iran has denied seeking an atomic bomb, saying its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only. Barak thanked Obama and former defense secretary Leon Panetta for their "resolute backing of Israel." And he also wished new Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel "all the best in his new role," adding that "he will no doubt serve his country with the same pride and honor with which he served on the battlefield and in Congress."Hagel's confirmation by Congress met some stiff opposition from U.S. lawmakers over his past statements on Iran's nuclear program and U.S.-Israeli relations.
Hagel was eventually confirmed last week and he will meet with Barak for the first time as defense secretary on Tuesday.
Agence France Presse

IAEA Chief Calls for Access to Iran's Parchin Site
Naharnet/The head of the U.N. atomic agency /called Monday on Iran to allow immediate access to the Parchin military base where it suspects nuclear weapons research took place. Yukiya Amano said that this should be granted "without further delay" and without waiting for stalled talks to conclude an agreement on investigating other alleged "westernization" activities. "I request Iran once again to provide access to the Parchin site without further delay, whether or not agreement has been reached on the structured approach," Amano told the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meeting. "Providing access to the Parchin site would be a positive step which would help to demonstrate Iran's willingness to engage with the Agency on the substance of our concerns," he said, according to the text of his remarks at the closed-door gathering. Iran has refused to give the IAEA access to sites, documents and scientists involved in what the agency suspects were efforts, mostly in the past but possibly ongoing, to develop nuclear weapons. More than a year of meetings, the latest on February 13 in Tehran, have failed to agree on a so-called "structured approach" deal to address all the allegations. Amano said Monday that "negotiations must proceed with a sense of urgency" and that he "would like to report real progress by the next meeting of the next (IAEA) board meeting in June." Tehran says that the IAEA's conclusions about the "possible military dimensions" of its program are based on flawed information from Western and Israeli spy agencies, information that it says it has not been allowed to see. It denies working or ever having worked on nuclear weapons and says that no nuclear activities have taken place at the Parchin military base near Tehran and that therefore the IAEA has no right to conduct inspections there. The IAEA visited the site twice in 2005 but says that since then it has obtained additional indications of activity there that make it want to go back.The agency also conducts regular inspections of Iran's declared nuclear sites and its quarterly reports routinely outline advances in its atomic program in spite of U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a suspension.Agence France Presse

Lebanese president praises military, security forces
Now Lebanon/Lebanese President Michel Suleiman praised the country’s military and security forces’ role in maintaining security and civil peace, the National News Agency reported. The president also voiced his support of the Lebanese Armed Forces’ effort to “preserve security during the municipal by-elections which means that security [provided by the state] is the only legal security provider for the country and for the citizens.” Suleiman called on all parties “to gather around these forces and avoid [assaulting] them because it is in everyone’s best interest to stand by the state and its security agencies.” In February, LAF members Pierre Bachaalany and Ibrahim Zahraman were killed when an LAF patrol pursued a wanted man, Khaled Hmayed, in the Beqaa area of Arsal. Hmayed’s family and friends surrounded the patrol and opened fire, killing the two soldiers and injuring six others. Lebanon has been subject to security instability and Syria-linked conflict ever since the outbreak of a violent uprising against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which has killed more than 70,000 people since it started in March 2011 and has divided the Lebanese political scene between the Sunni-led March 14 movement who supports the revolt against Assad and the Shiite Hezbollah party and its allies who back the regime.

Lebanon leaders sign decree for June elections
Now Lebanon/President Michel Suleiman on Monday signed a decree inviting Lebanese voters to take part in parliamentary elections set for June 9 after the country's premier signed on to it earlier in the day.
“Signing the decree does not mean an adherence to the 1960 electoral law, it is a commitment to the obligations and responsibilities stated by the constitution,” the National News Agency quoted Suleiman as saying.
The president also reiterated his call for a new electoral law and voiced his support for the draft law approved by the cabinet, which is based on proportional representation. Meanwhile, Miqati confirmed Monday evening that he had also signed on to the decree and reiterated that the elections would not be delayed. “The elections will be held on time under the 1960 law unless the parliament approves a new law,” he told MTV television channel.
The premier also reiterated his support for the cabinet’s proposed electoral draft law. On Sunday, Miqati said that “parties still have time to agree on an alternative electoral law [to the 1960 law] before a committee is formed to supervise the elections," in an interview with Al-Hayat newspaper. Signing such a decree would mean that if political parties could not reach an agreement on a new electoral law, elections would be held based on the 1960 electoral law currently on the books. In February, Lebanon’s joint parliamentary commissions approved the Orthodox law that calls for proportional voting along sectarian lines, which prompted criticism from a number of political figures. The draft was endorsed by the Christian Free Patriotic Movement and Marada Movement, as well as the opposition Lebanese Forces and Kataeb Party. However, the Future Movement, Progressive Socialist Party, National Liberal Party, and independent March 14 Christians refused it on the grounds that it could lead to sectarian divisions within the country. Parliaments joint commissions approved the controversial law after weeks of deliberation at the end of which the country’s competing political forces failed to reach a consensus on a proposal that would replace the 1960 law despite the cabinet’s approval in September 2012 of a draft law based on proportionality and 13 electoral districts.

MP Alain Aoun questions president, premier’s regard for Christians
Change and Reform bloc MP Alain Aoun said that the country’s president and prime minister were favoring other religious sects over the Christians. “We were hoping that [President Michel] Suleiman and [PM Najib] Miqati would [take into account] the Christians… as much as they have other sects when they refused the Orthodox law,” the National News Agency quoted the Free Patriotic Movement MP as saying in a statement released on Monday.He later slammed the president and the premier for calling for holding the parliamentary elections according to the current 1960 law, which he described as “unconstitutional.”
“All Christian parties are against [this law]… even the Future Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party refused it.”Meanwhile, the FPM lawmaker warned against the president and the prime minister“[using Speaker Nabih Berri’s] goodwill to [secretly] pass the 1960 law.”Berri has not voiced any objection to the Orthodox law which was approved in the joint commissions’ meeting in February. This proposal, which calls for voting along sectarian lines, received fierce objection from the country’s president and opposition parties, notably the Future Movement and the PSP.However, other parties from the opposition March 14 coalition, the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb Party, endorsed this law along with the FPM and the Marada Movement.

Lebanon’s Deputy Speaker Farid Makari says extension of parliament term unlikely
Now Lebanon/Lebanon’s Deputy Speaker Farid Makari said it is improbable that the parliament’s mandate will be extended because such a decision would only be taken in cases of emergency.
“Extending the parliament’s term happens when [there is] an emergency or for urgent reasons, not on ordinary days,” Makari told Al-Sharq Radio Station. He went on to slam Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah for “wanting to [remain] in power in any way, whether it was [through adopting] the Orthodox law or a law [based on] one electoral constituency.”
Hezbollah’s chief expressed his advocacy of these two electoral drafts in a televised speech last week, which he held to refute “rumors” of him being taken to Iran for medical treatment, along with claims that his party was involved in violence in Syria. Elsewhere, Makari said that Speaker Nabih Berri only approved the Orthodox law because of his political alliances. “Berri’s convictions differ from his circumstances… Sometimes there are political reasons that compel him to propose a draft even without wanting it.”

Lebanon Interior Minister Marwan Charbel slams Sunni Sheikh’s impending fatwa
Now Lebanon/Lebanon Interior Minister Marwan Charbel denounced the fatwa a Salafist Sheikh said he might issue against any offenders of Sunni Islam, because it also targets the army.
“The Lebanese army includes [members of] all sects, especially from the Sunni confession, and if any fatwa affects the army, the whole Sunni sect will stand against it,” Charbel said on Sunday following a press conference.
A day earlier, Founder of the Salafist Movement Sheikh Dai al-Islam al-Shahhal said that “if things remain the same, I will issue a Jihadist fatwa against [offenders] of the Sunni sect.”
Al-Shahhal’s comments came following a quarrel that erupted on Friday between the Sheikh and army forces who stopped the Sunni cleric’s escort and his supporters in Beqaa’s Majdel Anjar.
Elsewhere, the interior minister announced the results of the municipal by-elections, where polling stations opened on Sunday at 7 a.m. in several towns across Lebanon.
Charbel commended the voting process after he said on Sunday that there was a “heavy” voter turnout.

Connelly Voices Concern over Security Situation, Rejects Postponement of Elections
Naharnet /U.S. Ambassador Maura Connelly expressed concern on Monday over the security situation in Lebanon and along its border, stressing that the parliamentary elections should be held on time.
“I share the concern about the security situation within Lebanon and along its borders,” Connelly said after talks with Speaker Nabih Berri. The country has witnessed lately an increase in kidnap-for-ransom phenomenon and spread of arms, igniting clashes in northern Lebanon and in Akkar. The U.S. ambassador described the meeting as “constructive.” Connelly reiterated her country's condemnation to the ongoing border violations by Syrian forces. Two men were killed recently in the Wadi Khaled area that borders Syrian in northern Lebanon. Artillery, mortar fire and automatic weapons were used in battles between Syrian troops and fighters on the Lebanese side of the border. The violence in Syria has increasingly spilled over into Lebanon, with cross-border shelling in the north and east. Connelly also repeated her country's support for the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces “in coordination with Lebanon’s leaders to maintain stability in Lebanon.”
The diplomat discussed with Berri the ongoing debate over the adoption of a new electoral law during the upcoming polls. Connelly hailed efforts exerted by the speaker to reach consensus among the rival political parties over the electoral draft-law, calling for carrying out elections on time. “We appreciate the extraordinary efforts exerted by President (Michel Suleiman), the Speaker, and Prime Minister (Najib Miqati) to adhere to the requirement of the Lebanese Constitution to hold elections on time,” She said. Connelly expressed appreciation for “concerns voiced by many Lebanese that the electoral system can and should be improved.”
“If a new system cannot be agreed upon in the very near term, in our view, failure to achieve consensus on a new law does not mean Parliamentary elections cannot be held on time,” the ambassador added.
Berri's press office later issued a statement stressing that there can be no return to the 1960 electoral law. “The Lebanese people are faced with the Orthodox Gathering proposal or a new one that offers fair representation and respects the constitution,” it said. “It is strange that all sides are calling for a law that adheres to the constitution, while no one really wants to implement it,” it noted.
On the Syrian crisis, the statement stressed the need for dialogue between the regime and opposition. Assistance should be provided to launch this dialogue and “ensure its success without any bias,” it added.
“The results of these talks will decide the fate of Syria,” it noted. The rival parties are yet to agree on a draft law after the adoption of the so-called Orthodox Gathering proposal by the joint parliamentary committees, which drew a sharp debate among the opposition's faction and with rival coalitions.The polls are likely to be postponed if the parliament gives the green light to the proposal that divides Lebanon into a single district and allows each sect to vote for its own MPs under a proportional representation system.But the draft law has been rejected by al-Mustaqbal bloc, the centrist National Struggle Front of MP Walid Jumblat, and the March 14 opposition’s Christian independent MPs. It has been also criticized by Suleiman and Miqati.

Maronite Bishops Slam Frequent Security Incidents: Dialogue Needed to End Wage Dispute
Naharnet/The Maronite bishops council lamented on Monday the various security incidents in Lebanon and the spread of arms in the country, especially the frequent kidnappings. It attributed the frequency of the abductions to “the state's weakness and tendency to achieve stability through appeasement.” It made its remarks after its monthly meeting headed by Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi.“Lebanon, with its Muslim and Christian factions, is witnessing sectarian tensions that contradict the values that the country is built on,” it added. The bishops therefore called on religious and political authorities to take an “historic stand” to confront this reality.Moreover, they lamented the “failure to adhere to the Baabda Declaration” as demonstrated through the tensions along the Lebanese-Syrian border. The declaration, signed in June, stresses the need for Lebanon to distance itself from regional conflicts in order to maintain the country's stability. Addressing the dispute over the new wage scale, the Maronite bishops council noted that dialogue is necessary to resolve this issue. The strikes may lead Lebanon to a new crisis “the consequences of which will be dangerous on all fields and which may even lead to the country's bankruptcy,” they warned. They therefore held the government responsible for the current economic situation in the country, calling on all powers to resolve the new wage scale dispute through “calm dialogue.” The Syndicate Coordination Committee has been holding an open-ended strike for two weeks over the government's failure to refer to parliament a new wage scale decree. It has accused the government of negligence and stalling in fulfilling its demands. On the parliamentary elections, the council renewed its rejection of the adoption of the 1960 electoral law, saying that some sides are seeking its adoption “in a manner that demonstrates a desire to shy away from national duties.”It stressed the need to hold the elections on time on June 9. Following the meeting, al-Rahi headed to the airport where he is expected to travel to the Vatican to attend the first round of meetings of cardinals before the conclave to elect the next pope.Various political powers approved the Orthodox Gathering electoral law, which was rejected by President Michel Suleiman, Premier Najib Miqati, the Mustaqbal bloc, independent Christian March 14 officials, and the National Struggle Front of MP Walid Jumblat.
Discussions have intensified between the factions in recent weeks in order to reach an agreement over a new law to avoid the possibility of the postponement of the elections.

Miqati Announces He Won't Head Elections' Cabinet: SCC Must End Strike to Issue Wage Scale
Naharnet/Prime Minister Najib Miqati announced on Monday that he will not head the cabinet during the parliamentary elections, confirming that the Orthodox Gathering's draft electoral law will not pass "as he has several ways to block it". "I am nominated for the elections and for this I will not be a premier during the electoral process,” Miqati said in an interview on MTV, adding that he supports the formation of a “neutral cabinet”.
Restating his total rejection of the "unconstitutional" Orthodox Gathering's draft, Miqati explained that it contradicts with article 27 of the constitution.
“If they want to suggest federalism, let's honestly discuss it at the national dialogue sessions instead of trying to apply it in different ways,” he remarked.
The PM confirmed that the proposal will not pass, revealing that he has “ways to block it”.
He declared: “It will not even reach the Constitutional Council”.
Miqati elaborated saying that it is a matter of “which Lebanon we are looking to build”.
“We are certainly heading towards a wrong path by supporting the Orthodox proposal,” the PM said.
The controversial Orthodox draft law that divides Lebanon into a single district and allows each sect to vote for its own MPs under a proportional representation system, has been rejected by President Michel Suleiman, al-Mustaqbal bloc, Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat, and the March 14 opposition’s Christian independent MPs.
Miqati expressed that reaching consensus over an electoral law is impossible, describing the Fouad Butros proposal as the “most suitable suggestion to be adopted”.
The Butros Committee electoral draft law suggests electing 71 parliamentary seats based on proportional representation while the remaining 57 seats would be elected based on a winner-takes-all system, where each province would be adopted as an electoral district.
“Political factions are looking for their own interests,” he said.
President Suleiman and Miqati had signed earlier on Monday the decree calling on electoral bodies to hold the parliamentary elections on June 9.
Miqati explained that he signed it to “fulfill his constitutional duty”: “As a statesman, the elections must take place despite my opposition to the 1960's law”.
On the ongoing strike staged by the Syndicate Coordination Committee, Miqati said he will not submit the new wage scale for vote if 'he is not convinced", revealing that it is being examined at the moment and promising to refer it to the parliament after the cabinet's upcoming session on March 21.
"The SCC's demands affect the financial stability in Lebanon and I will not accept putting the banks at risk as they protect the Lebanese people's savings,” Miqati stated.
He elaborated: “If the deficit increased, so will the national debt and then Lebanon will enter a dangerous zone”.
“It will all affect the financial and the investment sectors”.
Miqati confirmed that he will not issue anything under pressure: “I will not submit it for vote if the SCC does not end its strike”.
The SCC has announced an open-ended strike two weeks ago over its demand that the government refers the public sector wage raise - approved last year - to parliament for approval.
The SCC has been holding sit-ins and demonstrations near state institutions almost on a daily basis.
The government argues that it is delaying the decision on the funding in an attempt to thoroughly discuss plans to boost the treasury's revenue to cover the expenses of the salaries boost.
On the security situation in the country and the ongoing clashes on the Lebanese-Syrian border, the premier said it is largely affected by political tensions in the country, calling for applying the defense policy submitted by President Suleiman and for withdrawing all weapons from the streets.
“I cannot guarantee that the incidents on the border will not be repeated but they will not lead to severe problems," he remarked, reaffirming the disassociation policy towards Syria's events.
Suleiman's defense policy, to the Baabda Declaration, stipulates that Lebanon should commit to the policy of disassociation to avoid the spread of the unrest in Syria to Lebanese territory.

Kataeb calls for making Lebanon-Syria border "military zone"
Now Lebanon/The Kataeb party expressed its advocation of intensifying the deployment of security forces along the country’s border with Syria in the light of recent deadly clashes that took place in that area.
“The northern and eastern borders have gradually become an open front, which requires the declaration of the Lebanese-Syrian border as a military zone,” the Kataeb party said in a statement it issued on Monday. The opposition party added that the Lebanese army should control the area with the help of international security forces in order to “prevent importing the Syrian war… into Lebanon.”
Meanwhile, the Kataeb Party reiterated the necessity to abide by the Baabda Declaration, which stipulates keeping Lebanon away from the policy of axes as well as regional and international struggles.
In February, two Lebanese men were killed by gunfire originating from Syrian territory which led to violent clashes on the Lebanese-Syrian borders between the Syrian army and gunmen.
These incidents spurred a wave of condemnation from a number of Lebanese political figures, and prompted the country’s president and prime minister to urge Syria’s warring parties to “refrain from opening fire and launching shells toward Lebanese territory.” Elsewhere, the statement warned against extending the mandate of the parliament without reaching a consensus on a new electoral law to be adopted for the upcoming elections instead of the current 1960 law. “[Extending the term of the parliament] disrupts any future agreement on a new law.” Talks of the current parliament staying in power for a longer period and a possible postponement of elections erupted after the country’s different political parties failed to reach a consensus over a new electoral law. Lebanon’s four major Christian parties, including the opposition Lebanese Forces and Kataeb Party, endorsed the Orthodox draft which proposes citizens vote for candidates of their own religious sect. However, the Future Movement, Progressive Socialist Party and independent March 14 Christians opposed the draft, with the country’s president also voicing his objection to this proposal. The statement tackled another internal issue at the center of controversy when it addressed the general strike called for by the Syndicate Coordination Committee to push for a speedy ratification of new wage increases. The Kataeb Party urged the government to “take advantage of the truce that the Private Teachers Syndicate made and the students’ return to the schools in order to deal with the salary raises issue.” On Sunday, Head of the Private Teachers Syndicate Nehme Mahfoud called for “adopting different methods [for the SCC’s strike] that would not harm the students;” a call that saw private schools resume classes on Monday. “We refuse that this occasion be turned into another lost opportunity,” the statement added. Employees and school teachers have been on an ongoing strike since February 19 to demand that the government speed up its approval of a new ranks and salaries system. The SCC also called for holding several protests in different cities across Lebanon, and warned it would take escalatory steps if their demands were not answered.
In early September 2012, the Lebanese cabinet approved a new ranks and salaries system. However, a debate is ongoing regarding the requisite funds to cover the wage increase for public employees.

Lebanon to become big gas producer, says oil company chief
Now Lebanon/Lebanon’s gas and black oil reserves would make it one of the biggest gas producers in the Middle East, the chief executive officer of the Spectrum Geo Inc. David Rowlands said. “The value of the gas and black oil reserves in Lebanon is worth $140 billion… [Our] company has found [in Lebanon] a quantity of oil that could make the country one of the biggest gas producers in the Middle East,” Rowlands told the British Times magazine. Rowlands also said that 120 companies showed interest in drilling oil in Lebanon, “which is a great jostle that has not been witnessed since Libya opened the way for gas exploration in 2004.”
Meanwhile, Malcolm Graham Wood, the oil and gas adviser for VSA Capital said that the gas reserves in Lebanon amount to more than 25 trillion square feet. “I think that the gas reserves amount to much more than 25 trillion square feet, and all [gas companies] are interested in this wealth,” Al-Arabiya quoted Wood as saying during an interview with the Times magazine

Speaker Nabih Berri has no intention to postpone elections, says MP
A member of the Amal Movement parliamentary bloc on Monday said that Speaker Nabih Berri had no intention to postpone the parliamentary elections scheduled for June 2013.
“Berri is concerned about the dangerous security situation, which warns of strife, before any talk on the parliamentary elections,” the Development and Liberation bloc MP, who spoke to NOW on a condition of anonymity, said commenting on Berri’s interview with An-Nahar, which sparked controversy in the country. “How will the elections be held if no electoral law is agreed upon?” he also asked.
Lebanon has been subject to security instability and Syria-linked conflict ever since the outbreak of a violent uprising against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which has killed more than 70,000 people since it started in March 2011. It has divided the Lebanese political scene between the Sunni-led March 14 movement, who supports the revolt against Assad, and the Shiite Hezbollah party and its allies, who back the regime.

Jumblatt reiterates support for dialogue, Suleiman’s defense strategy proposal
Now Lebanon/The leader of Lebanon’s Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt reiterated his call for dialogue in Lebanon and voiced the importance of President Michel Suleiman’s proposed defense strategy.
“Returning to dialogue and adopting the president’s defense strategy would save the country from sectarian [based] debates,” Jumblatt told Al-Anbaa weekly newspaper in remarks that will be published Tuesday.
The PSP leader also slammed Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over his last statement that a victory of the Syrian rebels would cause war in Iraq and Lebanon. “If only Maliki worked on the national reconciliation in Iraq, respect for minorities and a solution for poverty [in his country] instead of giving such statements on Lebanon, which we condemn totally as much as we condemn [Maliki’s] support for the Syrian regime,” Jumblatt said. During an interview published Wednesday, Maliki said that a victory for rebels in the Syrian conflict would create a new extremist haven and destabilize the wider Middle East, sparking sectarian wars in his own country and in Lebanon."The most dangerous thing in this process is that if the opposition is victorious, there will be a civil war in Lebanon, divisions in Jordan and a sectarian war in Iraq," Maliki told the Associated Press (AP) news agency. Meanwhile, the Lebanese political scene is split between pro-Syrian regime parties affiliated with the March 8 alliance and western-backed forces associated with the March 14 coalition..

Illicit’ deals squander Shiite endowments

‘Illicit’ deals squander Lebanon's Shiite endowments

Now Lebanon/Prominent figures within the Lebanese Shiite community are exploiting the Higher Islamic Shiite Council for personal benefit, according to sources in the council and documents shown to NOW.
While the higher council is supposed to use its influence for the benefit of Lebanese Shiite religious institutions, officials are instead using exploitive contracts to grant themselves land and forgo payments. Deputy President of the Council Sheikh Abdel Amir Qabalan and the Council’s former authorized representative Imad al-Harake were named as the guilty parties by sources within the Higher Islamic Shiite Council.
The sources, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject, revealed that these contracts were prepared and signed by Harake in his capacity as the Council’s authorized representative and in agreement with Sheikh Qabalan. The sources stressed to NOW that the selling of these endowments is against the law, but these dealings still took place, allowing the exploitation of public endowments by several powerful individuals.
The informed sources showed NOW copies of contracts and pieces of evidence, whereby several long-term agreements were made between the Higher Islamic Shiite Council, represented by its deputy president Sheikh Abdel Amir Qabalan and the Kashafat al-Risala al-Islamiya, a Muslim scouts association affiliated with the Amal Movement. The agreements granted the association, which is chaired by Speaker Nabih Berri, dozens of land plots belonging to the Shiite endowments.
The two parties drafted contracts based on illegitimate conditions that go against the Council’s interests, including long-term permits to ensure the agreement is continued, even if an official is voted out of office. The sources showed NOW copies of two contracts proving these claims. Further, while the first contract stipulates that only 3,000 m2 of surface area of land plot no. 66 in the region of Kfarsir is to be used, the Kashafat al-Risala al-Islamiya association uses the whole surface area, totaling 7,000 m2.
The second contract was also signed by the Kashafat al-Risala al-Islamiya association and the Higher Islamic Shiite Council, over land plot no. 1361 in Shhrour, in the Tyr district. The agreement includes the following shadowy clause: “Whereas the second party [i.e. the association] wishes to exploit the public library on the aforementioned land plot according to a free usufruct contract based on a special wording, this agreement was concluded and wholly accepted.” The same expression was used again in clause 6 of the agreement, which stipulates: “The two parties recognize that the present contract is a usufruct contract with a free administration, which is based on a specific duration and fee and which has absolutely nothing to do with the rent law.” The specified annual usufruct fee amounts to 600,000 LL only.
Furthermore, this agreement was drafted for a renewable period of one year between 2008 and 2009, which means that the exploitation has been going on for more than three years without any invoice being sent by the second party, represented by the Kashafat al-Risala al-Islamiya association, to the first party, represented by the Higher Islamic Shiite Council.
Both contracts were signed by the Council’s authorized representative Imad al-Harake and Hassan Hamdan, the deputy general leader of the Kashafat al-Risala al-Islamiya association.
The third contract was between the first party, i.e. the Higher Islamic Shiite Council, and the second party, namely the Lebanese Welfare Association for the Handicapped, chaired by [Speaker Berri’s wife] Randa Assi Berri, in order to benefit from land plot no. 570 in the Bisariyyeh real estate region in return for an annual fee of $10,000. This agreement contains the following clause: “Usufruct fees are paid in advance on an annual basis and the signing of the present contract is regarded as a receipt in lieu of three years of down payment for restoration purposes.” This proves that said association did not pay any amount of money from 2008 to 2011. Even though the contract expired and has not been renewed, the association is still using the land plot in question without paying any fee to date, according to the same observers.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that these contracts between the Higher Islamic Shiite Council on the one hand and the Kashafat al-Risala al-Islamiya association and the Lebanese Welfare Association for the Handicapped on the other, in addition to other violations the sources promised to reveal later on, are being questioned in independent Shiite circles, which have expressed surprise at this “unchecked” administration of the community’s endowments, thus preventing Shiites from benefiting from them.

To be a Shiite, in Sidon
Hanin Ghaddwe/Now Lebanon
March 4, 2013
Something is definitely in the air: a heavy feeling that Sunni-Shiite sectarian strife is soon to become a bitter reality. Long-time residents of Sidon, Shiite and otherwise, are not feeling as secure as they used to. Recently there have been increased calls for boycotting Shiite businesses, in the midst of rising sectarian tension and an increasing display and use of arms.
The rhetoric of Sheikh Ahmad Assir and his followers is feeding this tension and encouraging, sometimes directly, Sunnis to boycott Shiites’ businesses. Hairdressers, cable and internet providers, schools, and restaurants are all getting calls from their clients telling them that they have been “advised” to stop dealing with Shiites in the city. Only some of these clients sound sorry to be ending these relationships.
“The general logic behind this is not religious,” one Shiite business owner told me, “it is about ownership: Assir wants to establish the fact that Sidon is a Sunni city and that Shiites are not welcome as long as he and Hezbollah have issues [with each other].”
This territorial rhetoric reminds many people of the divisions that split most cities during the Lebanese civil war, including Sidon, when many Christians moved out. “Does that mean that it is now [the Shiite’s] turn to move out?” she wondered. Of course, this is not a new feeling. Ever since Hezbollah stormed Beirut on May 7, 2008, arresting and killing civilians in largely Sunni areas, the feeling of injustice and the need for revenge has been growing in the Lebanese Sunni community, especially given the fact that no one has dared hold Hezbollah accountable for what happened.
The relevant authorities continue to ignore Hezbollah’s trespassing on Lebanon’s institutions and sovereignty. Of course, the natural result of this denial and unlimited protection of Hezbollah are phenomena like Ahmad Assir. But his reactions, while natural, are most certainly unjustifiable. The more Assir screams and intimidates the more Hezbollah officials smile. The Party of God is in serious trouble after its involvement in Syria, aligning with the Assad regime against the rebels. To stay away from all the media attention, they certainly need a distraction, and the troubles caused by Assir and his likes in Tripoli are providing the public and the media with distractions from Hezbollah’s troubles. No retaliation is needed. In addition, Assir’s bullying of state institutions and hostility makes Hezbollah appear as the only safety net for Shiites who are now more worried than ever about their safety in Sidon. Also, Hezbollah officials in Shiite towns and villages have been spreading the ‘fear of the Salafist’ for the past two years. Assir is the perfect living example to make this fear of the new enemy seem legitimate.
The ironic part is that Assir seems to be following Hezbollah’s steps in internal politics: the fiery language, the screaming, the intimidating tone, the threat of using arms, the use of arms to intimidate, among other behaviors that revolve around one thing: show of force. But the problem is the big number of Shiites who could be pushed aggressively out of Sidon and other Sunni areas, and back into the arms of Hezbollah, whether they like it or not. When Shiites in Sidon start losing their clients, they might be forced to go to Hezbollah-controlled areas. Some are already considering this option, unenthusiastically.
This territorial sectarianism, combined with the Orthodox law and its sectarian repercussions, means that Lebanon is heading for a sectarian federalism. The problem is, with the absence of state institutions and authorities, and the increasing display and use of arms, Lebanon could also plunge into Sunni-Shiite armed clashes. A major problem in Sidon is its geographic location. As the ‘Gate of the South’, the city is not only very close to Hezbollah’s southern strongholds, but it is also home to a big Shiite neighborhood, Al Hara, controlled by Amal and Hezbollah, and the Ain el-Helwi Palestinian camp, both of which contain all kinds of illegal arms and groups willing to use them. Clashes within the camp itself are a daily story.
The growing sectarian rhetoric in Sidon will not only push the Shiites out, but will also bring in all kinds of trouble that the city (and country) cannot afford. Hezbollah has controlled Lebanon and its institutions along the logic ‘what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours and mine.’ Things have certainly changed for the Party of God, but it will take time for its leaders to realize the new reality and start adapting. Meanwhile, no one needs to invite a wounded bear into their house.
**Hanin Ghaddar is the managing editor of NOW. She tweets @haningdr

US Vice President Joe Biden told : Obama 'not bluffing' on stopping Iran nukes
By MICHAEL WILNER, HILARY LEILA KRIEGER JERUSAL 03/05/2013/WASHINGTON – US Vice President Joe Biden told a packed American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Monday that America’s commitment to Israel remained ironclad, and implied that the White House is preparing for the possibility of confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program.
“President Barack Obama is not bluffing,” Biden said of America’s stated commitment to prevent rather than contain an Iranian nuclear weapon.
While he stressed that the US is not looking to go to war and there is still time for diplomacy to work, Biden also said it was important to pursue negotiations so that the international community would know the US had tried to avoid resorting to military action. “God forbid the need to act occurs, it’s critically important for the whole world to know we did everything in our power to avoid confrontation,” Biden said. “It’s important that the whole world is with us.” The administration’s firm position, he emphasized, “is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, period.
End of discussion. Not contain, prevent.”
Biden spoke of Obama’s anticipation of his trip to Israel later this month, which will be his first as president, but gave few details about the visit. He did, however, speak of America’s continued interest in peace between Israel and the Palestinians. “We make no apologies for continuing to pursue that goal,” the vice president said. “We’re under no allusions about how difficult it will be to achieve.”
“It takes two to tango, and the rest of the Arab world has to get in the game,” he said to applause.
He reiterated several times the importance the US places on its relationship with Israel and preserving the Jewish state’s security, often to standing ovations, but did give a nod to some of the tensions that have characterized the relationship between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama during his first term. “We’ve always disagreed on tactics, but ladies and gentlemen, we’ve never disagreed on the strategic imperative,” Biden said.
Biden also expressed his connection to Israel by saying he was sorry not to be going to Israel in the days leading up to Passover, as Obama is.
“I have to admit I’m a little jealous that he gets to be the one to say, ‘This year in Jerusalem,’” he said. Netanyahu, who followed Biden in addressing the approximately 13,000 AIPAC activists at the three-day policy conference, also referenced the well-known conclusion to the Passover Seder in his remarks, which were delivered from Israel via video-link, because his need to focus on building a coalition prevented him from traveling abroad. “This year in Jerusalem, next year in Washington,” he said, eliciting applause from the audience.
Netanyahu said he looked forward to welcoming the American president to Israel this month and pursuing peace in the region. “With President Obama, we shall work for peace,” he said.
He noted that “Israel is prepared for a meaningful compromise,” but indicated he would not take steps that he felt endangered his country’s security.
“We gave up territory. We got terror. We cannot allow that to happen a third time,” he said. “We must work together to find a realistic path forward. And I think that path has to be a measured, step-by-step process in which we work to advance a verifiable, durable and defensible peace.” Netanyahu also warned against allowing Iran to manipulate the diplomatic process.
“Diplomacy has not worked,” he declared. “Iran ignores all these offers. It’s running out the clock. It has used negotiations, including the most recent ones, to buy time to press ahead with its nuclear program.”
He continued, “Thus far, the sanctions have not stopped the nuclear program either.”While Iran has not yet crossed the “red line” Netanyahu drew at the UN last September in terms of the amount of uranium it has enriched, the prime minister cautioned that Iran has drawn closer and has positioned itself to cross that line very quickly once it decides to do so.
“To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we cannot allow Iran to cross that red line,” he said to applause.

“Words alone will not stop Iran.
Sanctions alone will not stop Iran.
Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail.”
Netanyahu also offered some lighter comments on his efforts to form a governing coalition, noting that he was sorry not to make it to Washington.
“Unfortunately, I had to stay in Israel to do something a lot more enjoyable: putting together a coalition government. What fun!” he said to laughter.
Despite the gridlock in Washington over spending and other major policies, he argued that in Israel it was worse.
“If I can offer a free piece of advice, don’t adopt Israel’s system of government,” he said.
“Believe me, it’s a lot easier finding common ground between two parties than it is to find common ground among 10 parties.”

Netanyahu: Military threat needed to stop Iran
Yitzhak Benhorin: 03.04.13 Israel News/Ynetnews
Prime minister addresses AIPAC's Washington conference via satellite, reiterates need for military contingencies vis-à-vis Tehran; warns terror groups are eyeing Syria's WMDs
WASHINGTON – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the annual AIPAC conference in Washington Monday, via satellite.
Netanyahu began by thanking US Vice President Joe Biden for his strong statement of support for Israel. Quipping, he began his address by saying, "Well, as you know, I was hoping to speak to you in person, but unfortunately, I had to stay in Israel to do something a lot more enjoyable: putting together a coalition government. What fun! If I can offer a free piece of advice, don't adopt Israel's system of government."
The prime minister said that "Despite the difficulties, I intend to form a strong and stable government in the days ahead," and by the time US President Barack Obama arrives in Israel, later in March.
"The first thing that my new government will have the privilege of doing is to warmly welcome President Obama to Israel. I look forward to the president's visit. It will give me an opportunity, along with the people of Israel, to express our appreciation for what he has done for Israel."
According to Netanyahu, the visit will focus on three major issues: The Iranian threat, the escalating situation in Syria and its potential effects on Israel, and the need to reignite the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
"Together with President Obama we will work for peace."
'Diplomacy has failed'
Turning his attention to the Iranian threat, Netanyahu said that "Iran has made it clear that it will continue to defy the will of the international community.
"Time after time the world's leading powers have tabled diplomatic proposals to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue peacefully. But I have to tell you the truth. Diplomacy has not worked. Iran ignores all these offers. It's running out the clock. It has used negotiations, including the most recent ones, to buy time to press ahead with its nuclear program."
Tehran, he continued, remains unfazed by the financial sanctions imposed by the West: "Thus far, the sanctions have not stopped the nuclear program. The sanctions have hit the Iranian economy hard, that is true. But Iran's leaders, well, they just grit their teeth and they move forward.
"Iran enriches more and more uranium. It installs faster and faster centrifuges… Iran is getting closer to that red line, and it's putting itself in a position to cross that line very quickly once it decides to do so.
"To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we cannot allow Iran to cross that red line. We have to stop its nuclear enrichment program before it's too late.
"Words alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail."
The prime minister, echoing in a way Biden's words, said that "Israel must be able to defend itself by itself. The rebirth of Israel is one of the greatest events in history. We shall always defend the one and only Jewish state."
'Terror groups eyes Syria's WMDs'
Netanyahu then turned his attention to Syria, saying that alongside the humanitarian crisis the civil war has caused, "Syria could soon become a strategic crisis of monumental proportions."
The prime minister warned of the threat posed by the possibility that terror groups, especially Hezbollah , might get their hands on Syrian President Bashar Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons – considered the largest in the world. "Syria has chemical weapons, anti-aircraft weapons and many other of the world's most deadly and sophisticated arms. And as the Syrian regime collapses, the danger of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups is very real. "Terror groups such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are trying to seize these weapons as we speak… These terror groups are committed to Israel's destruction.
"This is why we have a common interest in preventing them from obtaining these deadly weapons. I know that here too President Obama fully appreciates Israel's need to defend itself."
'Peace must be grounded in reality'
Israel and the United States both seek to find a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu told the Washington conference.
"Israel seeks a peace with our Palestinian neighbors, a peace that will end our conflict once and for all. Now, that peace must be grounded in reality, and it must be grounded in security. Israel withdrew from Lebanon. We withdrew from Gaza. We gave up territory. We got terror. We cannot allow that to happen a third time."
Israel, he stressed, "Is prepared for a meaningful compromise. But as Israel's prime minister, I will never compromise on our security. We must work together to find a realistic path forward. And I think that path has to be a measured, step-by-step process in which we work to advance a verifiable, durable and defensible peace."
Reuters contributed to this report

Israel warns it can't 'stand idle' as Syria war spills over
Reuters Published: 03.05.13/ Israel News
Israel's Ambassador to UN sends letter to Security Council; says Israel cannot be expected to 'stand idle as lives of citizens are being put at risk by Syrian government's reckless actions'
Israel warned the UN Security Council on Monday that it could not be expected to "stand idle" as Syria's civil war spills over its border, while Russia accused armed groups of undermining security between the states by fighting in a demilitarized zone. Israeli UN Ambassador Ron Prosor wrote to the 15-member council to complain about shells from Syria Alanding in Israel.Israel cannot be expected to stand idle as the lives of its citizens are being put at risk by the Syrian government's reckless actions," Proser wrote. "Israel has shown maximum restraint thus far."
Israel does not have a reputation for being idle. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that an attack on a Syrian arms complex on Jan. 30 showed Israel was serious about preventing the flow of heavy arms into Lebanon, appearing to acknowledge that the Jewish state carried out the strike. The United Nations says more than 70,000 people have been killed during a two-year revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which began as peaceful protests but turned violent when Assad's forces cracked down on the demonstrations.With nearly 1 million Syrian refugees flooding neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon as the conflict worsens, the United Nations has warned that the fighting has developed sectarian overtones and could engulf the region.
Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, president of the Security Council for March, said the security situation between Syria and Israel was also being threatened by "a very new and dangerous phenomenon" of armed groups operating in a so-called area of separation in the Golan Heights between the countries.
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in a 1967 war. Syrian troops are not allowed in the area of separation under a 1973 ceasefire formalized in 1974. Israel and Syria are still technically at war. The area is patrolled by UN peacekeepers
"It's something which potentially can undermine security between Syria and Israel," Churkin told reporters, adding that the UN peacekeeping force, known as UNDOF, was unable to cope with the situation.
"Unfortunately there is nothing in the UNDOF mandate that allows them or equips them to deal with that situation because they are unarmed observers," Churkin said.
Croatia's government said on Thursday that it planned to pull out of UNDOF as a precautionary step following media reports that Croatian arms were being sent to Syrian rebels fighting Assad. Croatia has 98 troops in the 1,000-strong force. The UN peacekeeping department is attempting to find replacements for the Croatians but it will not be easy given the tension in the region, UN officials told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The UN Security Council has been deadlocked on Syria since 2011 over Russian and Chinese refusal to consider sanctions against Bashar Assad 's government. They have vetoed three resolutions condemning Assad's crackdown on the opposition groups.

Rare recording of Hezbollah's Mughniyeh airs
Roi Kais Published: 03.04.13, 23:02 / Ynet
Al-Manar TV airs never before heard recording of Shiite terror group's chief operations officer, who was assassinated in 2008. 'Our objective is within reach, but it requires great sacrifice,' he says The Lebanon-based Al-Manar Television station aired a rare recording of Hezbollah's late operations officer Imad Mughniyeh, as part of a special dedicated to the "Day of Shaids." The anniversary commemorates the Shiite terror group's fatalities throughout the ages. Mughniyeh, who was infamously known and Hezbollah's top henchman, met his own end in 2008, in Damascus. A transcript of the recording was also carried by Beirut's al-Akhbar newspaper, which is also affiliated with Hezbollah, under the title: "Man of mystery returns through rare recording." On the tape, the arch-terrorist is heard giving orders to Hezbollah operatives, as well as sharing some operational philosophy. "The objective is clear. It is clear, and it is great. This is not a simple objective but it is a realistic one and it can be achieved." Mughniyeh does not name the objective, but notes that it is "known to all." He then says that the operatives' training must be compatible to their objectives: "That is the root to a greater understanding, the root to the growth and progress we seek, because the warrior we need now is not the same as the one we needed a year ago. "What we are striving to accomplish today is not the same as it was a year ago. The price we are required to pay today is greater than it was a year ago." According to Mughniyeh, "All these (needs) converge in spirituality. Spirituality is the foundation of Jihad. The force fighting within us is not the physical power. The force fighting within us is the spirituality and it is linked, absolutely, to Allah." Al-Manar's airing of the tape followed a report in al-Akhbar recounting Mughniyeh's final moments.

Europe's Hezbollah cowardice
By Jeff Jacoby

What sooften motivated Europe's appeasers, Winston Churchill understood, was cowardice and dishonor. "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last," he said of the political elites who thought the best way to confront the threat posed by Nazi Germany was to avoid confronting it. "All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured."
What would Churchill say of the European elites today who imagine that the best way to confront the threat posed by Hezbollah, one of the world's deadliest and most fanatic terror networks, is likewise to avoid any confrontation?
For years the United States has urged Europe to designate Hezbollah a terrorist entity. Doing so would not just acknowledge an obvious truth and call evil by its name — though that should be reason enough to act. It would also strip away the fig leaf that Hezbollah's "military wing" is separate from its political and social activities, an ignoble pretext that has enabled an international killing organization to freely raise funds on European soil, recruiting supporters, rallying followers, and generally being indulged as if it were a legitimate actor in Middle East politics. "In Germany alone, some 950 people have been identified as being associated with [Hezbollah] as of 2011," reported The New York Times. "The group has always been treated as a benign force."
It is astonishing that anyone could regard Hezbollah as "benign," given its long history of murder, mayhem, and incitement to genocide. This year will mark the 30th anniversary of Hezbollah's 1983 bombings of the American embassy, the US Marine barracks, and the French military compound in Beirut, acts of carnage that left 362 people dead. Just last summer, Hezbollah carried out a bus bombing in the Black Sea resort city of Burgas, killing five Israeli tourists and their local Bulgarian bus driver. In the intervening decades, Hezbollah — which was created by Iran's theocratic regime, and to which it remains intensely loyal — has shed rivers of innocent blood.
The roster of terrorist attacks that Hezbollah is known or strongly believed to be responsible for is immense. From the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 to the rocketing of Israeli towns, from the murder of US servicemen in Saudi Arabia to the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina, from the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri to the killing of Saudi diplomats in Bangkok, from the abduction and torture of Americans in Lebanon to joining the Assad regime's murderous crackdown in Syria — the horrific list goes on and on. Moreover, as The Washington Post noted last week, a number of terror operations linked to Hezbollah have been foiled, "including botched bombing attempts in India, Thailand, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kenya."
9/11 accustomed most Americans to thinking of al-Qaeda as the quintessential terrorist organization, but prominent dissenters point unhesitatingly to Hezbollah instead. "To be honest," Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said in 2008, "they make al-Qaeda look like a minor-league team." In 2002, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage argued that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the B-team."
So what can explain the European reluctance to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and shut down its fundraising and logistical operations? As in Churchill's day, cowardice and dishonor might have something to do with it.
"There's the overall fear if we're too noisy about this, Hezbollah might strike again," Sylke Tempel, editor-in-chief of the German foreign affairs magazine Internationale Politik, said last month as the Bulgarian government was preparing its report on the Burgas bus bombing. "And it might not be Israeli tourists this time."
The moral stench of that rationalization is almost as repellent as its stupidity. Yes, Hezbollah's foremost targets are Jews and the Jewish state — it has always proclaimed the destruction of Israel as its goal — but have Europeans still not figured out that while Nazis and the Nazi-like start by killing Jews, they rarely end with them? After 30 years of Hezbollah butchery around the world, can Europe still imagine that pretending Hezbollah is mostly "benign" will keep them safe? That if they feed the crocodile enough, it won't eat them just yet? "The storm will not pass," Churchill warned Europe's appeasers. "It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely." Trying to appease the unappeasable is always folly. Europeans were supposed to have learned that lesson from the Nazis. Must they learn it again from Hezbollah?

Biden urges int'l community to name Hezbollah terror organization
Published: 03.04.13, 18:04 / Israel News /US Vice President Joe Biden discussed the status of the Hezbollah organization in the world, saying: "Hezbollah is a terror organization, period. And we are urging every nation in the world to start treating Hezbollah as such and naming them a terror organization. We'll do our part to stop them and we urge our friends in Europe to declare them a terror organization." (Ynet

Geagea: No real state if Hezbollah controls decision making
March 4, 2013/Filed Under Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon, Syria /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea told al-Liwaa newspaper in remarks to be published on Monday that we cannot have a real state state in lebanon as long as Hezbollah controls the strategic decisions in the country. “A real state in Lebanon cannot be built as long as Hezbollah controls the country’s strategic decision-making power.”He also criticized the party for acknowledging that it is taking part in the fighting in Syria.He said: “No one can ignore Iran’s role in Syria and the party should have stressed the need to maintain neutrality or support the people’s revolt, but it unfortunately chose to take the opposite route.” Geagea said. Hezbollah’s position has sparked the outrage of the Syrian people, which may drag Lebanon towards the unknown, warned the LF leader.
Electoral law
Geagea acknowledged that differences reamina within the March 14 camp over the parliamentary electoral law issue , but added they are being resolved. He said: “We supported the Orthodox Gathering proposal at the electoral subcommittee for the sake of reaching an agreement over an electoral law.” An agreement over a new law can be reached in the upcoming days if political powers continue the serious efforts they have shown in the past few days. Geagea warned over delaying the elections, set for June 9, calling it “fatal for our democratic system.”
He added : “Postponing the elections for a month or two for technical reasons aimed at allowing the Interior Ministry to take the necessary preparations is the only acceptable excuse,” .
The main rival Christian parties agreed to adopt the so-called Orthodox Gathering proposal which divides Lebanon into a single district and allows each sect to vote for its own MPs under a proportional representation system.
But the draft law has been rejected by the Future Movement bloc, the centrist National Struggle Front of MP Walid Jumblat, and the March 14 opposition’s Christian independent MPs. It has also been criticized by President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Najib Mikati.

It’s Hezbollah’s diminishing
By Hazem al-Amin
Monday, 04 March 2013
http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2013/03/04/269503.html
Al Arabiya News/If the Lebanese have paid a price in issues related to the Arab Spring, it is Hezbollah who really paid it because the party’s situation for almost two years has greatly transformed. It has gone from being one that aspires to be a model speaker of the Arabs, speaking out for their struggle with Israel, into one that is sectarian-tasked with a narrow mission to defend Iran’s last stand in the region.
It is true that the party was performing this task before the Arab Spring, but it has engulfed it with a bouquet of struggles, thus it succeeded in presenting itself to the Arab public opinion as a rare success story in the struggle with Israel.Pitiful
Syrian events complemented the party’s new mission. Hezbollah could not adapt itself to the new givens, and it considered that a change in Syria’s regime will affect its position in Lebanon.
Hazem al-AminThe party’s situation is currently pitiful. The “central mission” is now not on the table. The party’s situation also no longer suits the Arabs’ mood which is confused with other issues and perhaps this issue of the struggle with Israel comes last. Hezbollah’s mission to perturb Israel was shaken a few years before the Arab Spring, particularly following the July 2006 war which resulted in a huge victory for the party. The party has ever since given its back to the border and engaged in Lebanese adventures. As soon as the war ended in 2006, its supporters invaded Downtown Beirut whilst in 2008 its fighters invaded Beirut. Later the party assigned its new ally Najib Miqati with the task to topple Saad Hariri’s government.
Syrian events complemented the party’s new mission. Hezbollah could not adapt itself to the new givens, and it considered that a change in Syria’s regime will affect its position in Lebanon. I think it is probably right. But instead of adapting itself to all possibilities, it decided to fight the battle alongside the regime until the end. The party’s transformation was accompanied with pushing the Shiite sect to this same position it found itself in. Hezbollah has so far lost a lot of what it considered a popular base. Its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, no longer makes speeches to anyone outside Beirut’s southern suburb. Its Palestinian twin, Hamas, set itself free from it and requested the sonship of its father, the Egyptian Brotherhood.
Diminishing image
Hezbollah’s secretary general who used to transcend from debating presidents, took it upon himself to debate Sidon (Lebanon’s third-largest city) cleric Ahmad al-Assir whilst the Future Movement kept away from him. Meanwhile, the entire party looks like it dragged itself in Sidon’s alleys just like it did in the alleys of the Syrian town of Qusayr along the border with Lebanon. Proceeding in this civil task makes the task of luring the party into civil traps very easy. Hezbollah has deployed in Lebanese areas upon a different logic where it was not assumed that security restrictions will weaken and civil content will increase. However, the situation is currently captive of both.
For example in Sidon in South Lebanon, the party has offices, houses and presence amid Sunni residential areas. Its presence was not only protected by its security and military power but also by civil balances, Sunni allies and its influence in the government and state security institutions. This security umbrella is no longer present. Civil balances have been disrupted and his Sunni allies’ influence in Sidon decreased to the maximum. State security institutions cannot appear like they are biased to a sect against another. This was exactly the case in Aarsal when these institutions’ forces were not able to raid Aarsal following the murder of Lebanese soldiers.
Opportunities are now equal in Sidon between Ahmad al-Assir and Hezbollah. The situation is as such in Qusayr along the border with Syria. This is the tax the party has to pay. It is represented with its shrinkage into a civil position, the absence of flexibility and the inability to maneuver.
We must also not rule out the manifestations of fatigue resulting from this transformation of positions. The civil position has its conditions. The party for few years has sunk up to its ears with its sufferance. There have been financial scandals and corruption among its ministers’ entourage. The prices it is paying is squandering what is left of a reputation it built during decades of diligence. It currently accepts the Orthodox proposal sacrificing loyal historical allies on the altar of a disloyal ally like Michel Aoun. It overlooks the collaboration of this ally’s help to Israel, thus giving up a treacherous speech it built up during decades.
This is the highest paid tax which put an end to the party’s appearance on the level of the old struggle and which diminished its image.
This article first appeared in al-Hayat on March 3, 2013.
**Hazem al-Amin is a Lebanese writer and journalist at al-Hayat. He was a field reporter for the newspaper, and covered wars in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza. He specialized in reporting on Islamists in Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, Kurdistan and Pakistan, and on Muslim affairs in Europe. He has been described by regional media outlets as one of Lebanon's most intelligent observers of Arab and Lebanese politics.

Europe's Hezbollah Cowardice
By Jeff Jacoby · March 4, 2013
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17026
For years the United States has urged Europe to designate Hezbollah a terrorist entity. Doing so would not just acknowledge an obvious truth and call evil by its name -- though that should be reason enough to act. It would also strip away the fig leaf that Hezbollah's "military wing" is separate from its political and social activities, an ignoble pretext that has enabled an international killing organization to freely raise funds on European soil, recruiting supporters, rallying followers, and generally being indulged as if it were a legitimate actor in Middle East politics. "In Germany alone, some 950 people have been identified as being associated with [Hezbollah] as of 2011," reported The New York Times. "The group has always been treated as a benign force."
It is astonishing that anyone could regard Hezbollah as "benign," given its long history of murder, mayhem, and incitement to genocide. This year will mark the 30th anniversary of Hezbollah's 1983 bombings of the American embassy, the US Marine barracks, and the French military compound in Beirut, acts of carnage that left 362 people dead. Just last summer, Hezbollah carried out a bus bombing in the Black Sea resort city of Burgas, killing five Israeli tourists and their local Bulgarian bus driver. In the intervening decades, Hezbollah -- which was created by Iran's theocratic regime, and to which it remains intensely loyal -- has shed rivers of innocent blood.
The roster of terrorist attacks that Hezbollah is known or strongly believed to be responsible for is immense. From the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 to the rocketing of Israeli towns, from the murder of US servicemen in Saudi Arabia to the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina, from the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri to the killing of Saudi diplomats in Bangkok, from the abduction and torture of Americans in Lebanon to joining the Assad regime's murderous crackdown in Syria -- the horrific list goes on and on. Moreover, as The Washington Post noted last week, a number of terror operations linked to Hezbollah have been foiled, "including botched bombing attempts in India, Thailand, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kenya."
9/11 accustomed most Americans to thinking of al-Qaeda as the quintessential terrorist organization, but prominent dissenters point unhesitatingly to Hezbollah instead. "To be honest," Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said in 2008, "they make al-Qaeda look like a minor-league team." In 2002, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage argued that "Hezbollah may be the A-team of terrorists and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the B-team."So what can explain the European reluctance to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and shut down its fundraising and logistical operations? As in Churchill's day, cowardice and dishonor might have something to do with it."There's the overall fear if we're too noisy about this, Hezbollah might strike again," Sylke Tempel, editor-in-chief of the German foreign affairs magazine Internationale Politik, said last month as the Bulgarian government was preparing its report on the Burgas bus bombing. "And it might not be Israeli tourists this time."
The moral stench of that rationalization is almost as repellent as its stupidity. Yes, Hezbollah's foremost targets are Jews and the Jewish state -- it has always proclaimed the destruction of Israel as its goal -- but have Europeans still not figured out that while Nazis and the Nazi-like start by killing Jews, they rarely end with them? After 30 years of Hezbollah butchery around the world, can Europe still imagine that pretending Hezbollah is mostly "benign" will keep them safe? That if they feed the crocodile enough, it won't eat them just yet?
"The storm will not pass," Churchill warned Europe's appeasers. "It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely." Trying to appease the unappeasable is always folly. Europeans were supposed to have learned that lesson from the Nazis. Must they learn it again from Hezbollah?.
"....It would also strip away the fig leaf that Hezbollah's "military wing" is separate from its political and social activities..."
C'mon, Jeff - Why stop there? The fact of the matter is that Islam uses the facade of being a religion when their entire purpose is world Sharia domination - a totalitarian form of government. It's also all written down in their filthy Koran. So, while I concur with you about Europe's cowardice (what else is new?) - why don't you write an essay about Islam's agenda?
Or, are you a coward, too?

The Forgotten Secular Turkish Model
Turkey, Past and Future
by H. Akın Ünver/Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2013, pp. 57-64
http://www.meforum.org/3458/secular-turkish-model
As the euphoric predictions of a brave new Middle East give way to more tempered expectations, Turkey is increasingly seen as a possible model for the fledgling Arab governments to emulate. According to a recent YouGov survey, 72 percent of Arabs identified Turkey as a "good model" with this figure higher (75 percent) among North African respondents and lower (65 percent) among Syrians and Lebanese. The three main reasons for this choice were Turkey's affinity with the Arab states in terms of culture, religion, and traditions (57 percent); Ankara's perceived prestige "in the eyes of the world" (56 percent); and the influence of Islam in Turkish politics (49 percent).[1]
The original "Turkish model," which blended republicanism, nationalism, and secular modernization, was the brainchild of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (center), the republic's founding father, and was only adopted with limited success by one other Middle Eastern leader, Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran (right).
Interestingly enough, the only Turkish experience that seems to be worthy of emulation is that of the ruling Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP), ignoring the "original" Turkish model—secular modernism—and the role it played in post-colonial Middle Eastern history. Yet it was precisely this secular-democratic system that eventually—albeit unintentionally—led to the emergence and triumph of the Islamist AKP, which built much of its legitimacy on the critique of the very system from which it emerged. By contrast, the similarly secularist Arab regimes were ruthless dictatorships that held their subjects in an iron grip until a number of them were swept from power by the recent uprisings. An exploration of the original Turkish model, its strengths and weaknesses, might thus help inform and guide the future.
Colonialism and the Appeal of Secular-modernization
The prevailing narrative of the "Great Arab Revolt" of World War I presents it as the culmination of deep-rooted resentment against four centuries of Ottoman control, ending once and for all any political unity between the Turks and the Arabs. What is less acknowledged, however, is that the Hashemite dependence on Britain, both during the war and throughout the attendant peace talks, can be retrospectively seen as a major mistake, creating a long-term dependency on the great powers and laying the foundations for the Middle East's chronic legitimacy crisis and anti-Western bent.
The ambitious anticolonial independence movements launched after the war were thus suppressed or co-opted by the colonial tutelage system. Even more problematic perhaps is that, with the exception of Algeria (and non-Arab Israel), the Arab states gained their independence not through struggle but by the consent of their post-World War II colonial administrators. It was only after (and because of) the latter's imperial decline that they offered independence, leaving behind illegitimate, hastily built governments that were expected to protect the interests of their colonizers without colonial troops.
The Turkish republican leadership's obsession with independence and sovereignty, which rejected all forms of mandate, supervision, and foreign "assistance," stood in stark contrast to the Hashemites' acquiescence in joint state-building with the Allied powers as it was the Turkish war of independence (1919-23) that paved the road for modern Turkey to emerge as a fully sovereign and independent state from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkish independence is almost intrinsically tied to what can be termed the Kemalist project, after Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), the republic's founding father, with its combination of republicanism, nationalism, and secular modernization. It was first copied by a non-Arab ruler—Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran (r. 1925-41), who embarked on an ambitious reform program along Turkish lines, which later slowed down because of mounting resistance from the Shiite clergy and finally collapsed altogether after his removal from power by the Anglo-Soviet invasion of 1941.[2] In the 1940s, Syrian Arab intellectuals Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar, and Zaki al-Arsuzi pioneered the pan-Arab Baath party whose motto, "unity, liberty, socialism," mirrored that of the late Ottoman-era Committee of Union and Progress (with the addition of socialism).[3] And while Egyptian-based Nasserism and Syrian and Iraqi Baathism initially mirrored early Turkish secular nationalism with its emphases on unity, independence, corporatism, and foreign policy neutrality, these movements coincided with the early phases of the Cold War, prompting Arab leaders to abandon neutrality and embrace the Soviet bloc.
The anti-Israel agenda of Arab socialism soon echoed the familiar discourse of communism versus colonialism, but it was the Arabs' obsession with Israel that ultimately led to their departure from one of the absolute fundamentals of the initial Turkish model: rejection of all patronage and tutelage relations with outside powers. Just as the Arabs had replaced Ottoman colonialism with British imperialism, they now replaced the latter with Soviet military guardianship for the sake of destroying Israel, which they viewed both as deeply illegitimate and an outgrowth of Western imperialism.
At the same time, the Arab secularists suffered from the same problem that dashed the Iranian attempt to emulate the Kemalist model: no decisive victory against foreign control. Reza Shah had no such success and his son, Mohammed Reza, was first crowned by the Anglo-Soviet invaders, then reinstated (in August 1953) in a coup orchestrated by the U.S. and U.K intelligence agenices, the CIA and MI5. And while Nasser's position was boosted by Egypt's resistance to the combined forces of Britain, France, and Israel in the Suez crisis of 1956, this relative success was a direct result of Washington's intervention. By June 1967, Nasser's prestige had all but disappeared as Egypt's crushing defeat in the Six-Day War dealt a mortal blow to his pan-Arab pretensions and deepened his already heavy dependence on Moscow. Nasserism, thus, can be hardly considered a historically sustainable model of sovereignty and independence.[4]
Perhaps most importantly, the 1967 Arab defeat was a milestone in the transformation of the projects of Arab unity and socialism. Nasserists and Baathists attempted to counter their loss of legitimacy following the war by redefining the role of their militaries as domestic tools of repression rather than defense organizations against foreign threats. The clearest manifestation of this process was the rise of the dreaded mukhabarat security-intelligence branch, which dealt with domestic dissent and challenges to state legitimacy as a direct result of the states' inability to deal with the Israeli military or U.S. involvement in the Middle East.[5] The era of Middle Eastern military dictatorships, effectively marking the Cold War and post-Cold War history of the Middle East, is in many ways the history of this militarization of Arab socialism. From a unity, liberty, and corporatism-based doctrine, it assumed a repressive-militarist character.
The "Original" Turkish Model: Limitations and Lessons
In contrast to the Arabic-speaking countries, Turkey went through its quasi-dictatorial Kemalist period much earlier (1925-47), overlapping with a similar pattern of post-imperial dictatorships in Europe. European, as well as Kemalist, authoritarian periods began with the collapse of empires at the end of World War I and ended after World War II.[6] Turkey switched to a multiparty democracy in 1947, following which the founding Republican People's Party (CHP) was democratically forced into opposition in the 1950 elections. Despite constant military tutelage over politics (a pattern that could be observed during the Cold War period in a number of Western countries, notably Spain and Portugal) and three military coups, Turkey's relationship to democracy was much different from that of the Arab states, which lived under the sustained and permanent yoke of dictators and whose behavior mirrored that of their former colonial administrators. While it is sometimes argued that Kemalism is a dictatorial ideology in and of itself, placed in its proper context against the backdrop of contemporary European and Middle Eastern experiences, the system reveals its instrumental versus permanent nature.[7] Notwithstanding brief similarities, Kemalism and Arab nationalism went in two separate ways, manifested in two very different modes of governance.
While publicly subscribing to his predecessor's legacy, Atatürk's foremost chieftain and successor, Ismet Inönü, was very much his own man. Struggling to surmount the uncertainty attending the death of Turkey's founder, Inönü faced a legitimacy crisis domestically as well as the formidable military challenge of keeping Turkey out of World War II by deterring a massive Red Army in the Caucasus and a Nazi army in Thrace; this period is generally regarded as a dictatorial episode.[8] This undemocratic interlude notwithstanding, it was Inönü who in 1947 inaugurated the multiparty era by enabling the establishment of opposition parties—a process culminating in the defeat of his own party in the 1950 elections. And while Inönü might have made this transition out of external necessity (joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] and the U.N.) rather than true conviction, his political behavior as leader of the opposition in 1950-72 indicates the extent to which he had internalized and believed in the principles of multiparty democracy—a behavioral pattern entirely absent in the perpetually authoritarian Muslim Middle East.
The original Turkish model has been criticized because of the four military coups (1960, 1970, 1980, 1997), alongside the generals' influence on "high politics" though it was probably no more flawed, at least until 1980, than Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, the Greek military junta period, or even the De Gaulle era in France. Actually, the foremost problem of post-Atatürk Kemalism was its inability to articulate a peacetime identity for itself and the country, requiring a constant narrative of domestic and foreign "foes" to be able to sustain its relevance in politics. At the same time, these limitations were challenged by a number of successful political parties such as Adnan Menderes' Democrat Party or Turgut Özal's Motherland Party. Perhaps the most ambitious attempt to define a peacetime ideology for Turkey was that of the AKP, which accomplished more than its predecessors in terms of trying to establish a more flexible, accommodating Turkish political identity—at least during the first years of its tenure.
Thus the "old" Turkish model—early secular-modernism—could and still does offer a model for the Arab states by producing governing classes that have upheld the sovereignty and independence of the Turkish state—within an imperfect democratic system, but one that is far more representative than the failed Arab authoritarianism. This is because the model always saw its authoritarianism as a temporary condition that prevailed only in crisis situations and returned willingly to full democracy once the crisis situation had been resolved.[9]
It is important to note that the flagship party of Kemalism, the CHP, has remained in the opposition since the first multiparty elections of 1950 and never assumed a militarist character to take back power. While the prevalent Islamist critique would disagree with this statement, it must be remembered that Inönü's CHP had a problematic relationship with the military and its coup attempts during the multiparty period and that the party was shut down following the 1980 coup. The Arab states, by contrast, have been marked by a constant inability to establish true sovereignty and independence. When finally attained, governments lacked legitimacy, which in turn created perpetual dictatorships and sustained militarization of the ruling elite.
The "Old" Turkish Model and the Arab Upheavals
These facts have potential implications for the future trajectory of the Arabic-speaking countries. Arab societies have, at long last, successfully launched revolts against their long reigning dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, banishing the ghosts of the Hashemite World War I revolt with its colonial and post-colonial consequences. Soon after the removal of their dictators, many of the Islamist movements that came to prominence, such as Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and Tunisia's Ennahda movement, officially stated that they were looking at Turkey's AKP as a role model or inspiration.[10] Morocco's post-revolutionary government party even named itself the Justice and Development Party.[11]
While the AKP is seen by Arab revolutionaries as a successful Islamist party, party leaders have repeatedly denied this label insisting instead on their definition as "Muslim conservatives; not Islamists."[12] While leading AKP figures have criticized the shortcomings of Kemalism, they have also not shied away from passing judgment on the "extremes" of the Islamist Welfare Party tradition (1983-98) and its leader, Necmettin Erbakan.[13] During his September 2011 visit to Egypt, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan went so far as to call on Egyptians "not to be afraid of secularism," drawing criticism from the Muslim Brotherhood there.[14] It would seem then that notwithstanding its Islamist nature, much of the AKP's appeal stems from its pragmatic adaptation to the political rules of the game.
Moreover, two of the most attractive aspects of the "AKP model" in Arab perception—Turkey's apparent economic success and growing international prestige—owe much of their success to contributions of the secular elite. Turkey's economic "miracle," for example, is based upon the 2001-05 stabilization program whose foundations were laid by a secular high-level World Bank technocrat, Kemal Derviş (currently the U.N. Development Program administrator).[15] Many Islamists play down the importance of Derviş's economic model and argue that his one-year ministership (2001-02) cannot possibly define the AKP's ten-year success, perhaps forgetting how John Maynard Keynes' 1936 theory set the tone of global economy for the next forty years. Likewise, the AKP's soft power activism rests upon a network of deterrence antecedents established by its predecessors in the late-1990s; and while the AKP's "zero-problems" policy vis-à-vis neighbors such as Greece, Syria, Iran, and Iraq may be seen as a critique of Turkey's deterrence policies of the 1990s, the policy, nonetheless, was only able to function as a result of the strategic-military achievements of these years.
Two foreign policy successes attributed to the AKP—improvement of relations with Greece and Syria—were in fact initiated during the tenure of another secular technocrat, Ismail Cem, diplomat and minister of foreign affairs in 1997-2002. Turkish-Greek rapprochement was a product of Cem's hard work with his Greek counterpart, George Papandreou while Syria's more cooperative attitude toward Turkey was a direct result of Ankara's threat of invasion in November 1998 in response to Hafez Assad's harboring Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the Kurdish nationalist organization, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party—Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan).[16]
Now that this policy has been totally discredited—with the honeymoon with Damascus (and its Iranian ally) souring over the Syrian civil war and relations with Greece in tatters following Ankara's threats to Cyprus over the gas finds in the eastern Mediterranean—it seems that the AKP's "zero problems" policy has been based on a flawed grasp of the strategic and political foundations inherited from their secular predecessors. Likewise, given the growing signs of an economic slowdown, if not imminent collapse, the AKP's economic acumen seems less impressive.[17]
Conclusions
Without properly contextualizing the AKP's success, one can expect more existential frustrations for the nascent Arab governments. While the AKP has successfully transcended its original Islamist constituency to establish itself as a party of the masses, it is not a model that post-revolutionary governments can emulate precisely because it has not disavowed its Islamist precepts. In the apt words of academic Sebnem Gumuscu: "There is no 'Turkish model' of an Islamist democracy."[18]
The AKP model can primarily be replicated by countries that have already switched to a functioning and legitimate democratic system, its success being paradoxically rooted in a strong, independent, and legitimate secular-democratic system and its simultaneous critique of and outgrowth from it.
The new Arab rulers, on the other hand, have succeeded in eliminating regimes with contested legitimacy through revolution and pushed their countries into a state of uncertainty, soul searching, and identity crisis—all normal and temporary aspects of post-revolutionary societies. They do not, however, enjoy the AKP's advantage of functioning as a democratically legitimate government within a fully independent and sovereign state system. Quite the opposite, these movements have gone "back to the future" and operate in a state of similar uncertainty as their predecessors faced during and after World War I. Perhaps they do not confront the same kind of spatial and geographic uncertainty, but in terms of regime type, institutions, and reorganization of capital relations, the Arab upheavals have created circumstances identical to the legitimacy and sovereignty questions raised by the "great Arab revolt," none of which resemble the AKP experience.
At this critical juncture in their history, Arabs can perhaps learn from the original Turkish experience. Rather than the peacetime environment giving rise to the AKP, the Kemalist model of state legitimacy and identity-building in times of crisis and uncertainty suits the immediate needs of post-revolutionary Arab societies. Aptly recognizing the nature of external and domestic challenges confronting Turkey, Atatürk skillfully redefined the nature of Turkish nationhood and laid the foundations of early twentieth-century secular-modernization, something that could serve as a model for the Arabic-speaking countries.
It also bears noting that while Atatürk's rejection of foreign involvement and his armed struggle against the Allies led to the emergence of modern Turkey as a pro-Western country, the Hashemite decision to outsource the cause of pan-Arabism to outside powers laid the foundations of modern anti-Westernism in the Middle East. This reality has important implications for Western policy toward the post-revolutionary Arab societies.
For one thing, history tells us that the concept of Western-friendly regimes is a mirage and that short-term independence from foreign control produces more sovereign and cooperative administrations over the longer term. For another, those Arab intellectuals emphasizing the indispensability of U.S. financial support for establishing the legitimacy of the post-revolutionary governments[19] are effectively repeating the Hashemite historic blunder of outsourcing the cause of a revolutionary movement to the goodwill of foreign powers, something that is liable to exacerbate local dependence and anti-Western sentiments.
The Arab revolutions can only succeed if they produce unique and case-specific models rather than emulating other historical experiences, let alone outsourcing their state building to external factors. But if they, nevertheless, find the Turkish model so appealing as to merit a serious debate, it should begin with Kemalism—not the AKP.
H. Akın Ünver is a faculty fellow in the Department of International Relations, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, and the winner of the Middle East Studies Association's 2010 Social Sciences Dissertation Award. This article was written during his Ertegün Lectureship at Princeton University's Near Eastern Studies Department. The author wished to thank Andrew Arsan for his valuable suggestions on this article.
[1] "Should Arabs follow the Turkish political model?" YouGov Doha Debates, Feb. 9, 2012.
[2] Touraj Atabaki and Erik Jan Zurcher, Men of Order: Authoritarian Modernization under Ataturk and Reza Shah (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), pp. 44-65.
[3] L. Carl Brown. Imperial Legacy: The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 139-48.
[4] Avraham Sela, "Abd al-Nasser's Regional Politics: A Reassessment," in Elie Podeh and Onn Winckler, eds., Rethinking Nasserism: Revolution and Historical Memory in Modern Egypt (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2004), pp. 179-205.
[5] Milton Viorst, Sandcastles: The Arabs in Search of the Modern World (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995), pp. 141-9.
[6] Jason Brownlee. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 18-21.
[7] Taha Parla and Andrew Davison, Corporatist Ideology in Kemalist Turkey: Progress or Order? (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2004), pp. 143-209.
[8] John M. VanderLippe, The Politics of Turkish Democracy: Ismet Inonu and the Formation of the Multi-Party System, 1938-50 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005), pp. 21-6.
[9] Ergun Özbudun, Perspectives on Democracy in Turkey (Ankara: Turkish Political Science Association, 1988), pp. 11-8.
[10] Southeast European Times Türkiye (U.S. European Command), Nov. 22, 2011.
[11] BBC News Africa, Nov. 27, 2011.
[12] See, for example, State Minister Egemen Bagis's statement, "İslamcı olmadığımızı kanıtlamak için illa haç mı çıkarmamız lazım?" Zaman Online (Istanbul), Jan. 12, 2008.
[13] See for example, State Minister Bülent Arınç's statements, "Resmi Yenilikçiden Erbakan Eleştirisi," NTV Online (Istanbul), July 8, 2011.
[14] The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 15, 2011.
[15] Erinc Yeldan and Umit Cizre, "The Turkish encounter with neo-liberalism: Economics and politics in the 2000/2001 crises," Review of International Political Economy, Aug. 2005, pp. 387-408.
[16] Svante E. Cornell, "What Drives Turkish Foreign Policy?" Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2012, pp. 13-24; Damla Aras, "Turkish-Syrian Relations Go Downhill," Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2012, pp. 41-50.
[17] David P. Goldman, "Ankara's 'Economic Miracle' Collapses," Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2012, pp. 25-30.
[18] Sebnem Gumuscu, "Egypt Can't Replicate the Turkish Model: But It Can Learn from It," Sada, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jan. 12, 2012.
[19] See, for example, Sabina Dewan "Helping Complete the Arab Spring," Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C., Jan. 3, 2012.