LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 10/2013

Bible Quotation for today/ Don’t withhold good from those to whom it is due
Proverbs 03/27-28: "Don’t withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it. Don’t say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again; tomorrow I will give it to you,” when you have it by you".

Latest analysis, editorials, studies, reports, letters & Releases from miscellaneous sources

Call for patriots/The Daily Star/September 10/13
DEBKAfile/ Russian ultimatum to Assad: Give up chemical arsenal – or face US attack alone/September 10/13
The Islamic world could resolve the Syrian crisis/By: Aylin Kocaman/Asharq Alawsat//September 10/13
Syria and the legality of confronting the illegal/By: Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Alawsat/September 10/13
The Charge Is Graver Than The Strike/Ghassan Charbel/AlHayat/September 10/13

Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources/September 10/13

Topple Syria's Hitler, Save the Syrian People
By: Elias Bejjani
September 09/13
http://www.10452lccc.com/elias%20english09/elias.assad9.9.13.htm
Proverbs 03/27-28: "Don’t withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it. Don’t say to your neighbor, “Go, and come again; tomorrow I will give it to you,” when you have it by you".
It is true that Cancer is a fatal disease that kills people, But in reality and actuality what is more fatal and more dangerous than Cancer is stupidity. While cancer kills the body, stupidity kills the intelligence of people, blinds their discretion, and makes them mere corpses breathing and walking with soul or heart. Meanwhile science might hopefully will find a cure for cancer, but no one can cure stupidity or even thing of finding a remedy for this evil ailment.
Sadly most of the politicians, officials and clergymen in Lebanon, Syrian and in many Arab countries are stupid and detached from reality because they do not respect the intelligence of their people, do not care about their safety, dignity or future and viciously try to fill up their heads with false victories, imaginary military powers, education hostility, isolation fanaticism and hatred.
Wrong, Wrong, we loudly say to all those in the Western countries who are deceived by the vicious misleading propaganda that al-Assad is venomously spreading all over. In reality al-Assad is not a minority protector at all. He is a butcher, a criminal and a little Hitler. The Christians in Syria as well as all other minorities are treated badly, deprived of all their basic human rights, and taken hostages like the rest of the Syrian people. Human rights are not honored in Syria under the al-Assad dictatorship.
Christians as well as other minorities in Syria are all enslaved, oppressed, taken hostage and deprived of any actual political role, freedom and democracy. In this brutal and enslaving context, the Christian church leaders as well as other high ranking religious clergymen are picked up by al-Assad intelligence and even sermons in every church are in general dictated by them.
Considering the Christians in Lebanon, the Ottoman Turks did not harm us as much in the 430 years of their wicked and savage occupation of our country compared with what the al-Assad regime did and is still doing. It is all propaganda, lies and fabrications that the al-Assad regime is protecting the Lebanese Christians.
The Syrian regime is not only oppressing and murdering its own people, destabilizing neighboring countries, especially Lebanon, but it is the main obstacle for peace in the Middle East between the Arab world and Israel.
The al-Assad regime is behind all local, regional and international terrorists, fundamentalists, and Salafists. Ninety-nine percent of all these groups were hatched by Syrian intelligence. Meanwhile, even many of the Al Qaeda sub groups were founded, financed, armed and used by the al-Assad regime.
In summary, this regime is even worse than Hitler’s regime in Nazi Germany. I believe strongly that the Western Free World and Arab countries have moral, humanitarian and ethical obligations to topple this regime as soon as possible and by necessary force.
Hitler tried to occupy the whole world and his brutal wars were forced on Europe and the USA. The same evil scenario applies to Syria and Iran which are working hard to spread havoc, destabilize peace worldwide and to possess a nuclear weapon (Iran is almost there) to attack other countries, including Israel and the Arabian Gulf countries. The magnitude of the serious threat is the same. There is no difference between Hitler and the Axis of Evil (Syria, Iran and Hezbollah).
If the concept of not assisting oppressed people in other countries was applied, Hitler would now have been ruling the whole world and slavery would not have been defeated. It is an obligation to help oppressed people and to put an end to regimes like that of Hitler and little Hitler, al-Assad. Meanwhile, many terrorist groups that wage attacks against Western communities were founded by al-Assad regime.
In conclusion, if we in the Free World countries abstain from stopping rulers like al-Assad they will attack us similar to the horrific crime of the 11th of September that hit the USA. There is no choice, either we wait till they attack us or we take action and stop them before. People in Western countries who don’t know enough about the Middle East in particular ought to avoid taking stances and judgments on the Middle East countries’ internal crisis, oppression, poverty, revolutions etc., in accordance to Western standards and Western mentality and code of ethics. Religiously, legally and ethically, those who commit crimes and idle observers are full partners with those criminals. We are not calling for wanton invasions of other countries, but the necessity of toppling evil regimes like that of al-Assad and preventing its forces from attacking and killing its own people and from spreading terrorism in other countries.

Russian ultimatum to Assad: Give up chemical arsenal – or face US attack alone
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report September 9, 2013
In an unexpected turn of events along the road to a US military strike on Syria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday afternoon, Sept. 9 that he had urged Syria to hand over its nuclear arsenal to international control if that would stop an American attack. Moscow had lost no time in picking up the gauntlet thrown down by US Secretary of State John Kerry in London a short time before.
Asked if there were steps the Syrian president could take to avert an American-led attack, Kerry replied: “Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week — turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow the full and total accounting.”
The Obama administration had in this way given Bashar Assad a week to turn in his chemical weapons to an international team that would no doubt be put together by the US, Russia and the United Nations.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, who arrived in Moscow earlier Monday, was informed that the Kremlin expected a positive and expeditious answer from President Assad. Within the hour, he came back with a welcome for the Russian “proposal” to place his country’s chemical weapons under international control. But he said nothing about letting the arsenal be moved out of the country and destroyed , as both Lavrov and Kerry specified. Sunday, DEBKAfile reported that a secret US proposal had been presented to Assad and that negotiations were in progress on a deal for a way out of the crisis generated by the chemical attack east of Damascus on Aug. 21. The transfer of Syria’s entire chemical stockpile to international control was a part of that proposition. Our military sources add that Assad was in no position to flatly rebuff the Russian ultimatum; only to try and maneuver and haggle to buy time. If Moscow stops the air corridor lifting military supplies to Damascus, the Syrian army will quickly run out of ordnance for fighting the rebels.

Syrian FM Welcomes Russia's Calls to Hand Over Chemical Weapons
Naharnet/Syrian President Bashar Assad's foreign minister on Monday welcomed Russia's proposal that Damascus hand over control of its chemical weapons arsenal to international supervision to avoid U.S. military action.
"I carefully listened to (Russian foreign minister) Sergei Lavrov's statement about it. In connection with this, I note that Syria welcomes the Russian initiative based on the Syrian leadership's concern about the lives of our nationals and the security of our country," Walid al-Muallem said in televised comments. "We also hail the wisdom of the Russian leadership which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people," he added without elaborating. Lavrov called Monday on the Syrian regime to hand over control of its chemical weapons arsenal to international supervision as a way of staving off the threat of military action. After talks with al-Muallem in Moscow, Lavrov called on Syria to "place the chemical weapons under international control and then have them destroyed".
He said such a plan would help "avoid military strikes" that are being considered by the United States and its allies. Lavrov said he had already made the proposal to Muallem and hoped for a "quick and positive answer" from Syria. "We do not know if Syria agrees to this, but if placing the chemical weapons under international control helps avoid military strikes, then we will immediately get to work on this," Lavrov said.
"We have already handed over this proposal to minister Muallem, who is in Moscow, and hope for a quick and positive answer," Lavrov said in a prepared statement he read out to reporters at a news briefing in Moscow.
As well as handing over the weapons and having them destroyed, Syria should also become a full member of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Lavrov said.
Meanwhile, Syria's top rebel commander in a television interview Monday accused President Bashar Assad's regime and Moscow of deceit after Syria welcomed a Russian proposal to hand over its chemical weapons.
"We call for strikes and we warn the international community that this (Assad) regime tells lies, and the liar (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is its teacher. Putin is the biggest liar," Free Syrian Army chief Selim Idriss told Al-Jazeera. Idriss was enraged by both Lavrov and Muallem's comments, and urged the world not to believe them. "The regime wants to buy time to save itself" from a proposed strike, the rebel chief told the Qatar-based satellite broadcaster. "I say to decision-makers that we know this regime, we have experienced it, and we warn you against falling into its trap of deceit and dishonesty," Idriss said.
Damascus and Moscow both "know that a vote is coming up in the U.S. Congress, and they also know that such strikes would bring down Assad's regime", he said.
Lavrov's comments on Monday came after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier that Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding his purported use of chemical weapons by turning "every single bit" of his arsenal over to the international community by the end of the week. Asked by a reporter in London whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop a military strike, Kerry answered: "Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week -- turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it), but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."
Moscow has also made clear it is unconvinced that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical weapons attack on August 21 that the United States and its allies say was carried out by the government.
The visit by Muallem came as U.S. lawmakers were to return Monday from a summer break and debate limited U.S. military action in Syria.
Russia and the United States agreed in May to organize a peace conference in Geneva bringing all sides to the table, but the idea is fast receding as momentum grows for strikes over the alleged chemical attack outside Damascus.
SourceAgence France Presse

U.S. to take 'Hard Look' at Russian Syria Weapons Plan, Senate's Primary Vote Set for Wedneday
Naharnet/The United States said Monday it would welcome a plan for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons but expressed skepticism at the Russian initiative, which is designed to head off American air strikes.
However, the U.S. Senate announced later on Monday that it will hold a procedural vote Wednesday on a measure authorizing President Barack Obama to use military force against Syria.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate will vote on a motion to debate the resolution endorsing "limited military action" in retaliation for Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons.
"This matter demands the attention of the Senate and this country (and) all should agree that we should have this debate," Reid said on the Senate floor as he ushered in the newest legislative session following a five-week summer recess. Should there be objections to the motion, as at least one Republican senator threatened last week, the 100-member chamber would need 60 votes to move the resolution forward.
Obama's Democrats control the Senate, but it is unclear whether Obama has the necessary support in the upper chamber to meet the 60-vote threshold.
Earlier on Monday, senior officials at the White House and the State Department moved swiftly to respond to the Russian plan, as they escalated a political effort designed to win backing from lawmakers for U.S. air attacks on Syria. Tony Blinken, a deputy U.S. national security adviser, said that Washington would consult with Russia over the plan, but expressed doubt about Syria's intentions.
"We would welcome a decision and action by Syria to give up its chemical weapons," Blinken said.
"We will take a hard look at the proposal," he said.
But he added that Syria's "track record to date, doesn't give you a lot of confidence."
Another deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, told MSNBC that Washington would not "take the pressure" off Damascus, arguing like other officials that it was only the threat of U.S. strikes that prompted Russia to come with the plan. Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, warned that any plan to get Syria to dispose of its chemical arms should not be "another stalling tactic."
"The Russians for months and years have stood up for the Syrian regime at the U.N. and in the international community," she said.
Moscow earlier seized the diplomatic initiative by announcing a plan for Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control, which it said could forestall U.S. air strikes.
Earlier, in London, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked what Assad could do to prevent a military attack.
"Turn it over, all of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that," Kerry told reporters, referring to Syria's chemical weapons.
"But he isn't about to do it and it can't be done."
Harf said earlier that Kerry had spoken to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov before leaving London on Monday.
Meanwhile, President Obama's national security adviser said Monday that the United States needs to strike Syria in part to send a message to its ally Iran over its nuclear program.
Susan Rice, joining a major public effort by Obama to persuade a skeptical Congress, said the United States was morally bound to respond to Syrian President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons.
Rice said that U.S. action on Syria was also critical for the broader influence of the United States, which has joined Israel and European nations in warning Iran against developing nuclear weapons.
"We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon," Rice said at the New America Foundation, a think tank.
"As the president has said, all options remain on the table. For our efforts to succeed, however, the leaders in Tehran must know that the United States means what we say," she said. "If we do not respond when Iran's close ally uses weapons of mass destruction, what message does that send to Iran? It risks suggesting that the international community cannot muster the will to act when necessary," Rice said.
Iran denies that it is seeking nuclear weapons, saying its program is for peaceful purposes. Newly elected President Hassan Rowhani has called for better relations with the rest of the world but has strongly opposed a strike on Syria.
Iran, led by Shiite clerics, counts Assad -- a secular leader from the minority Alawite sect -- as its closest ally in the region, while the rebels are supported by Gulf Arab monarchies Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Obama has resisted involvement in Syria's civil war, which has claimed more than 110,000 lives, but warned Assad that the use of chemical weapons was a "red line" for the United States.
Rice noted that Iran itself suffered chemical weapons attacks during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who launched the attacks, enjoyed Western assistance at the time.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius insisted Monday that Syria's Assad "commit himself without delay" to the elimination of his country's chemical weapons arsenal.
"The proposal of Lavrov merits close examination," Fabius said, demanding that Assad "commit himself without delay to put his chemical arsenal under international control and to let all of it be destroyed."
Fabius also demanded that those behind the alleged August 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds outside Damascus be tried by the International Criminal Court.
SourceAgence France Presse

Jumblat Refrains from Making Weekly Anbaa Statement 'in Anticipation of Strike against Syria'
Naharnet/Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat refrained on Monday from making his weekly editorial in the PSP-affiliated al-Anbaa website “in anticipation of a possible military strike against Syria.”
He hoped in a statement that the “security and chemical repercussions of the strike will not reach Lebanon, despite the rising possibilities of the Syrian regime's intention to link Lebanon to this ever-escalating crisis.”
He noted sarcastically: “The majority of the Lebanese political class and its various local and external branches have turned into geopolitical analysts.”“Television screens have become flooded with hundreds of military experts and retired generals of great capabilities in interpreting international positions and their strategic and tactical implications,” he added in the same tone. “Their humble capabilities during their years of military service have emerged into the spotlight to bestow upon the people the gift of understanding major plots,” he continued. Given that the political class has abandoned local concerns and the needs of the Syrian refugees and “instead focused its time and effort in studying the impending strike against Syria, the PSP will refrain from making its weekly statement to al-Anbaa,” Jumblat remarked. “Some politicians have turned their bedrooms and bathrooms to operation rooms linked directly to the Pentagon and other regional powers,” he added. “They have remained glued in front of television screens and set up radars in anticipation of the strike or of the movement of any warship with a complete disregard to the silly concerns of the Lebanese people,” he lamented. “Therefore in order to avoid distracting the clear minds of these grand strategic analysts and in order to allow the people the right to maintain access to all political and military theories, no matter how absurd or superficial they may be, the PSP will distance itself from making its weekly statement,” Jumblat concluded.

Suleiman Denounces Violations of Holy Places
Naharnet/President Michel Suleiman denounced on Monday any violation of holy places and sites for the “symbols of civilization they hold and spirit of peace and tolerance they have.”The president expressed deep dismay after reports that Syrian rebels, including jihadists linked to al-Qaida, have taken control on Sunday of the historic Christian town of Maalula north of Damascus. The town, home to around 5,000 people, is strategically important for rebels, who are trying to tighten their grip around the capital that could also be used as a launching point for attacks on the highway between the capital and Homs, reports say. The battle for the town left at least 17 rebels dead and more than 100 wounded overnight, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, adding that dozens of regime forces and pro-militia members were also killed or wounded. Suleiman described the acts against Maalula as “disgraceful, shameful and incompatible with the tolerant spirits of religion.” He called on all armed groups to respect the principles and laws that govern warfare and human relationships. During his meeting with French President Francois Hollande in Nice on Saturday, Suleiman highlighted the issue and vowed to discuss it with the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, president of the Security Council, and heads of delegations participating in the General Assembly of the United Nations later this month.

Syria and the legality of confronting the illegal
By: Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Alawsat
The summary of the argument in the West on the Syrian crisis, and the repercussion of Assad’s use of chemical weapons there, revolves around the legality of foreign intervention without the UN Security Council’s approval to confront Assad’s crimes. In Europe and America, there is an argument going on about the legality of intervention without Security Council approval. Ridiculously, we find Hezbollah saying Western intervention in Syria is part of organized terrorism and is a threat to the region. Russia says that no intervention should be allowed without Security Council approval, while the Security Council is defunct because of the Russian position, which defends Assad.
We are therefore facing something resembling a Hollywood movie, where police are trying to capture a Mafia gang, while the police itself defends the Mafia and protects them by providing them with information to prevent their capture. This, of course, is what Moscow is doing in the Security Council in defense of Assad, and after that, Russia tells the international community about the importance of resorting to the Security Council, which has been made defunct. The West is asked to go to the Security Council despite the fact that everyone knows it is defunct, and it is hostage to the Russian position that supports Assad’s crimes. All this happens while Iran and Hezbollah interfere in Syria without questions from the West about the legality of such interference, even though Tehran’s and Hezbollah’s interference aims at killing more Syrians. These are, of course, joined by Iraqi Shi’ite militias.
After all that, some parties in the West say that the safety of minorities in Syria must be guaranteed. Some talk about the importance of international intervention falling under the Security Council umbrella, while no one in the West—institutions, associations or writers—criticized the Israeli military strike on Syria a few weeks ago, which targeted arms said to be en route to Hezbollah, which came without the approval of the Security Council.
This argument continues in the West on legal matters while Syria and the region witness one of the biggest crimes of the century, and the argument continues while Assad’s killing machine, using Russian weapons, continues to kill Syrians and destroy Syria. Is there a failure bigger than this? And is there worse inaction? The irony does not end there. however. London’s Al-Hayat newspaper quoted a European diplomat as saying the evidence presented by intelligence recently has convinced the Europeans that Assad’s regime was involved. The European diplomat continued, saying, “The only question remaining is: Did Assad take the decision or was the decision taken at the military level?”Is there contempt or inaction worse than that?

The Charge Is Graver Than The Strike
Ghassan Charbel/AlHayat
Monday 09 September 2013
How do you view the current situation in Syria?
- It is extremely dangerous and I can say that it has reached a point of no return.
> What does this mean in practice?
- The chemical massacre was a critical juncture.
> But the regime denies any involvement in it?
- If this is true, then it has made a terrible mistake. It should have acted quickly. It should have declared a ceasefire and asked the inspectors to go immediately to the scene, and allow in the international media. It is clear that it has not done so.
> But Barack Obama is finding it difficult to get authorization from Congress for military action?
- If the strike does not take place, and this is something I believe is unlikely, the alternative would be heavily arming the Free Syrian Army, not just to prevent the regime from achieving victories, but also to speed up the process of its exhaustion. The regime’s problem does not lie only in the military strike. Its problem is that the regime that is accused of using chemical weapons becomes unacceptable as a party to any settlement until its decision-makers pay the price; furthermore, it becomes a burden on its allies.
> What would you do if you were in the place of Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem?
- I do not want to be in his place, first, because he is my friend, and second, because he is in an unenviable situation. I hope his visits and contacts do not end up being similar to those undertaken by Tariq Aziz, that is to say, that he would be carrying unconvincing proposals or proposals that are not commensurate with the size of the threat and therefore cannot be sold.
> Suppose you are in his place, what would you carry to Moscow?
- I would act on the basis that time is running out. I would give Vladimir Putin real cards in the hope that he is able to help the regime survive the strike and emerge out of its predicament. For example, I would convey to him the approval to put the Syrian chemical arsenal under the supervision of United Nations experts, with guarantees and participation from Russia. I would leave the door open to insinuations that Syria is willing to dismantle its chemical arsenal. And to bring about a shock that would divide the Western coalition, I would give him the right to inform the Westerners that the Syrian regime is ready to declare an immediate ceasefire and move quickly to Geneva 2, on the basis of the initial interpretation of the Geneva Communiqué, which would establish a transitional government with full powers. Before giving Putin these cards, Damascus must ensure it has the approval of Tehran.
> Why would Damascus offer today what it previously rejected, as long as the talk now is about a limited strike?
- Because the charge of using chemical weapons itself is graver than the strike, and because after the inspectors' report, the front calling for punishing the Syrian regime will broaden. Damascus must read quietly into European and Arab attitudes. After the report, the crisis will cause severe embarrassment to the Russians and Iranians. The Syrian regime should not be reassured a lot.
> You know the Russians and Iranians well; will they fight for the Syrian regime?
- Russia has made it clear that it will not. I believe that Iran will also not risk everything despite the importance of the Syrian regime for it.
> What is the mistake committed by Iran in recent years?
- It missed an opportunity to negotiate with Obama before fire broke out in Syria. I heard from the Americans that they were eager to negotiate with Iran and back then, Iran had cards in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The group led by the Revolutionary Guards obstructed this opportunity and the Supreme Leader endorsed its position. Iran has fewer cards today. The Syrian regime is in a bad situation, and Hezbollah is not in the best of its days.
> Is it not better for the Syrian regime to contain the strike and then come out declaring victory?
- Syria is not Hezbollah or Hamas. It is a state and not an organization. Furthermore, the strike is part of a broader strategy against the regime. If no strike were carried out, the other part of the strategy would be activated. Anyone who believes that what comes after the chemical attack will be the same as what stood before is mistaken.
> Why do you believe that the charge is graver than the strike?
- Look back at the fate of the regimes that had been accused of the same.
> Do you think that Moallem is carrying in his briefcase what you believe is necessary?
- I doubt it. For this reason, I told you I do not envy him for the situation he is in.

The Islamic world could resolve the Syrian crisis
By: Aylin Kocaman/Asharq Alawsat
Who would have thought during Assad’s glory days three years ago that Syria would be ruined, that 100,000 people would have died violently and that two million would be living in tents in other countries? In the furor surrounding US attempts to intervene militarily in Syria these past few weeks, we also took a close interest in the behavior of the three countries that support the regime in Damascus: Russia, China and Iran. Russia issued one of two vetoes of a UN resolution that would have authorized military intervention in Syria and has criticized the idea of an intervention at every opportunity. China, which issued the second veto of the draft in the UN Security Council, is generally silent, following Russia’s lead. But what about Iran? Turkey received an interesting proposition from Iran a few days ago. Iran’s ambassador in Ankara suggested the following collaboration with Turkey on behalf of his country: “Let us stop the Westerners when it comes to Syria and do something ourselves!” Turkey has long been known to be in close contact with Iran on the subjects of Syria and Egypt, but such a proposition of concrete unity from Iran is most unusual, especially when there are very serious differences between Iran and Turkey over Syria.
Ambassador Bigdeli said that the use of chemical weapons was a crime against humanity, no matter who perpetrated it. In one sense, this gave the impression of Iran taking a step back with regard to Assad. The proposed solidarity with Turkey confirmed this. What Bigdeli was essentially saying was, “We Muslims must repair the damage in the Islamic world, not the West.”
The Iranian ambassador was quite right. It has become a habit to blame the West for problems in the Islamic world, but then to look to the West for a solution. This is unjust in two respects: First, it is true that some Westerners benefit from problems in the Middle East, but sectarian clashes—Shi’ite–Sunni clashes—are an unpleasant tradition among Muslims, not Westerners. Second, it is pitiful to both blame the West and to look to it for a solution.
It was right and proper for the US to go into action. In one sense, it prevented other countries from keeping silent. I have always supported the presence of the US in the Middle East as a teacher of democracy, but the US intervention in Syria will in all probability take place with the same methods used unsuccessfully in the past. Although Obama declared that the US “would not put boots on the ground,” such a method will inevitably cause further bloodshed. Moreover, US interventions in the Islamic world have always incited hatred toward that country on the part of some parts of society, and hatred of the US in the Islamic world inevitably triggers Islamophobia in the West. This vicious circle has been going on for the last 20 years.
A bloody intervention will also keep feelings of revenge alive. The Assad regime may fall in such an intervention, but the radicals will still be there, and they will seek revenge for the thousands of people they have lost. That vengeance will produce more images of slaughter, just like we are now seeing in Iraq every week.
Enough blood has been shed in Syria. An intervention without bloodshed is perfectly possible. If Iran is sincere in its call for unity, then Islamic countries can do this.
Do you think Assad or the radical groups could hold out in the face of such a powerful army representing a union of Muslim countries? Could an Assad who has lost half his troops and tanks, and who is left with only six of his 27 air bases resist? Of course not. Such a deterrent union could ensure the immediate fall of the regime in Syria and the withdrawal of the radicals. The new Syrian government must also be determined by this union. It would, of course, be good for there to be US and Western support behind the scenes during this process.
Rest assured that such an operation, in which the West is not directly involved and which includes Iran and Turkey, will not trouble Russia at all. Russia will not oppose a regime change in Syria, its ally of 50 years, so long as it does not fall into the hands of the West or the radicals.
If Iran, which has rather isolated itself in the Islamic world and in the Middle East, wants to polish its image and come to a genuine solution, this is their golden opportunity. This is the most accurate, rational and bloodless solution. The only question here is whether Iran is ready for an alliance of the good. If it is, we can win two countries over at once: Syria and Iran.

Report: Hollande Advises Lebanese against Dragging Lebanon to Situations that Harm Country
Naharnet /French President Francois Hollande stressed his country's keenness on Lebanon's stability and the importance of adhering to the Baabda Declaration, reported the daily An Nahar on Monday.
He added that the Lebanese people should avoid “reactions that may lead their country towards situations that do not benefit Lebanon.”He made his remarks while meeting President Michel Suleiman in Nice, France over the weekend. The discussions tackled the regional situation, bilateral ties, and the military aid presented by France to Lebanon. Suleiman had urged Hollande to speed up the process of properly equipping the Lebanese army, highlighting the pivotal role it could play given the critical situation in Lebanon and the region, reported An Nahar. Informed sources told al-Joumhouria daily Monday that the talks with the French president were positive, especially after Suleiman received word that France will play a major role during the conference on Syrian refugees in Lebanon scheduled for September 25 on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly.
Tensions have been high in the region over the possibility of a U.S.-led strike against Syria over its regime's alleged chemical attack on August 21. Syrian refugees have been pouring into Lebanon since the eruption of the uprising in their country in March 2011. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said that more than two million Syrians have now fled their war-ravaged country. France in cooperation with U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon has called for an international conference on the sidelines of the the General Assembly meeting in New York to establish a fund for the refugees. The conference is expected to discuss ways to provide the necessary assistance to Lebanon to help it confront the rising number of the displaced.

Geagea: Hizbullah Wise Enough Not to Get Involved in Syria if Military Action Taken against it
Naharnet /Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea ruled out the possibility that Hizbullah and Iran would retaliate to a U.S.-led strike against Syria, reported As Safir newspaper on Monday. He told the daily: “I assume that Hizbullah and Iran are wise enough to avoid slipping into a large-scale war.”Political affiliations in Lebanon will not change in light of a strike against Syria, but that does not mean that Hizbullah will not be affected by any hit against its ally, he said. This in turn will affect the Lebanese internal scene in one way or another, remarked Geagea. “The internal scene will become exposed to all possibilities,” he warned without elaborating. Given the dangers, the LF leader called for the formation of a neutral government that would not be comprised of members of the rival March 8 and 14 camps. He explained that a political government will “transfer the volatile local and regional situation to cabinet.” Commenting on the assault on the historic Christian Syrian town of Maalula, Geagea said: “I sympathize completely with the town, but I must express my deep regret that some Lebanese factions have exploited its suffering for petty political gain.” He condemned the Free Patriotic Movement's exploitation of the Maalula assault for its political interests, saying: “It is shameful that the movement is allied with a regime that does not hesitate to use chemical weapons against its people.” In addition, he slammed FPM official and caretaker Energy Minister Jebran Bassil's claims that the Maalula attack was aimed at driving Christians out of the East, noting: “Such allegations are a form of propaganda in an effort by dictatorships to portray themselves as being secular regimes that safeguard minorities.”“The only way to save Maalula and the whole of Syria lies in changing the regime and replacing it with an open and democratic one,” Geagea said. Moreover, he voiced his support for a “balanced foreign intervention” against the Syrian regime, “otherwise we would be partners in the ongoing crimes being committed against the Syrian people.”Bassil on Sunday warned that the rebel assault on the Syrian Christian town of Maalula was a “serious signal that the plot to displace Christians from the Levant has started.”He warned of the rise of takfiris in the region, stressing: “We first need to reject their rise to power and we then need to reject war because it will lead to the displacement of Christians.”Syrian rebels, including jihadists linked to al-Qaida, have taken control of Maalula north of Damascus, a watchdog and residents said on Sunday. The battle for the town left at least 17 rebels dead and more than 100 wounded overnight, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, adding that dozens of regime forces and pro-militia members were also killed or wounded.

Driver Hurt as Bomb Rips Through Car in Tripoli's al-Qobbeh
Naharnet/A bomb ripped through a car moments after it was parked by its owner in Tripoli's al-Qobbeh area on Sunday, state-run National News Agency reported. “The blast targeted the Jeep of Sheikh Saadeddine Ghiyyeh, leaving him lightly wounded,” NNA said. “A military expert who arrived on the scene estimated the explosive device to weigh around 200 grams,” the agency added. Citing preliminary security reports, MTV said the bomb was likely planted inside the car. But an army statement issued later on Sunday confirmed that the bomb weighed 200 grams, noting that it was placed under the vehicle and set to detonate with a timer.
LBCI television said Ghiyyeh was wounded in the leg and rushed to al-Shamal Hospital for treatment. On August 23, 45 people were killed and more than 500 wounded in twin bombings that targeted the Taqwa and al-Salam mosques in Tripoli as worshipers were performing weekly prayers.

1 Dead, 5 Hurt as Hizbullah Members Clash with Palestinians in Burj al-Barajneh
Naharnet/One person was killed and five others were wounded Sunday in an armed clash between members of Hizbullah and Palestinian young men near the Burj al-Barajneh refugee camp in Beirut's southern suburbs.
State-run National News Agency identified the dead man as Palestinian national Mohammed al-Simrawi, saying the gunfight erupted when a number of Palestinians in a wedding convoy refused that their cars be searched by a Hizbullah checkpoint. “Security forces and representatives of the factions of the Palestine Liberation Organization intervened in a bid to contain the incident as clashes abated,” the agency added.
Earlier, MTV said a number of Palestinians “opened fire on a Hizbullah checkpoint near the Burj al-Barajneh slaughterhouse after they refused to be searched.”Al-Jadeed television said Hizbullah was “communicating with the camp's security committee to pacify the situation.” LBCI television said protesters burned tires at the camp's entrance and shouted anti-Hizbullah slogans in the wake of the clash. Later on Sunday, NNA said a meeting got underway between Hizbullah and the Palestinian factions at the party's office in Haret Hreik and that a joint statement would be issued after the talks. Hizbullah had beefed up its security measures in and around Beirut's southern suburbs in the wake of a powerful car bombing that rocked the Rweiss neighborhood in Dahieh and left 27 people dead and around 300 wounded.

Mansour Calls For a 'United Stance to Confront Aggression against Syria'
Naharnet /Caretaker Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour defended the Syrian regime on Monday and called on all Arab states to unite their stances and reject a U.S.-led military strike against Syria, the state-run National News Agency reported. “All Arab countries must take a unified stance to confront an aggression against Syria because the repercussions will reflect on the entire region,” NNA quoted Mansour as saying.
Assuring that Syria does not stand alone but has friends all over the world, Mansour added: “We cannot imagine how an Arab country could possibly support an aggression against another,” stressing that a “military strike against an Arab state cannot be overlooked whatever the latter's regime and policy are.”“We cannot say that the drums of war on Syria have stopped. We have to know what the American administration wants and whether they actually want to go to war,” said the minister.He concluded: “We should wait for the results of the investigation on the use of chemical weapons and not make wild accusations.”
U.N. experts left Syria at end of August after investigating an alleged chemical weapons attack, which killed hundreds of civilians, while the U.S. said it was planning a limited response to punish Syria's President Bashar Assad for the "brutal and flagrant" assault.

Jumblat Refrains from Making Weekly Anbaa Statement 'in Anticipation of Strike against Syria'
Naharnet /Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat refrained on Monday from making his weekly editorial in the PSP-affiliated al-Anbaa website “in anticipation of a possible military strike against Syria.”
He hoped in a statement that the “security and chemical repercussions of the strike will not reach Lebanon, despite the rising possibilities of the Syrian regime's intention to link Lebanon to this ever-escalating crisis.”
He noted sarcastically: “The majority of the Lebanese political class and its various local and external branches have turned into geopolitical analysts.”
“Television screens have become flooded with hundreds of military experts and retired generals of great capabilities in interpreting international positions and their strategic and tactical implications,” he added in the same tone.
“Their humble capabilities during their years of military service have emerged into the spotlight to bestow upon the people the gift of understanding major plots,” he continued.
Given that the political class has abandoned local concerns and the needs of the Syrian refugees and “instead focused its time and effort in studying the impending strike against Syria, the PSP will refrain from making its weekly statement to al-Anbaa,” Jumblat remarked.
“Some politicians have turned their bedrooms and bathrooms to operation rooms linked directly to the Pentagon and other regional powers,” he added.
“They have remained glued in front of television screens and set up radars in anticipation of the strike or of the movement of any warship with a complete disregard to the silly concerns of the Lebanese people,” he lamented.
“Therefore in order to avoid distracting the clear minds of these grand strategic analysts and in order to allow the people the right to maintain access to all political and military theories, no matter how absurd or superficial they may be, the PSP will distance itself from making its weekly statement,” Jumblat concluded.

Call for patriots
September 09, 2013/The Daily Star
For several weeks, the drums of war have been beating at a steadily increasing tempo due to developments in Syria. And prior to this recent surge in violence and rhetorical levels, for month after month, many Lebanese officials have warned against the dangers of intervening in the Syrian crisis.
Nevertheless, the wave of comments and statements about the war next door has continued, seemingly without pause. In simple terms, Lebanon is in enough danger already without any group inviting more by either intervening in the war or using the kind of rhetoric that, under the current circumstances, borders on the absurd.
It is particularly important for Hezbollah, as the largest Lebanese group involved in the Syrian conflict, to be aware of the dangers of such an approach. But when one hears the party’s politicians commenting on developments underway in Lebanon’s neighbor, one might think that they represent a superpower. It’s a flagrant divergence from the saying that when giants lock horns, lesser beings should try to take cover and protect themselves.
The overwhelming majority of Lebanese appreciate Hezbollah’s role as a resistance organization protecting the country against the threat posed by Israel. But when Hezbollah veers away from that mission and acts to increase the dangers posed by the outside world, it loses this popular legitimacy. Under the current circumstances, it should be focusing all of its resources and efforts to protect Lebanon and the Lebanese.
If Hezbollah truly wants the public to see it as a defender of Lebanon, its military capabilities should be directed south, and its political and other capabilities should be focused east, not by intervening in Syria, but by doing what it claims to do, namely protect Lebanon from further spillover. Every argument that the Hezbollah camp puts forward about standing against intervention by outsiders in Syria can be taken with a grain of salt, because it has been a leading “interventionist” in the uprising that broke out two-and-a-half years ago.
The turbulent times present a test for everyone, namely the sparing of no efforts to safeguard Lebanon. Over the past few years, a number of people have been martyred in defense of Lebanon and its sovereignty or have fallen victims to aggressive acts against the country. Losing one’s life in support of any other cause is neither patriotic nor justified. The blood of the Lebanese is precious, and all political parties, civil organizations, sects and regions of the country should dedicate themselves to preventing further bloodshed, by every possible means.
It is a time in which Lebanon desperately needs patriotic people and actions and not further attempts to alter regional developments and influence a global tug-of-war. History will record the names of those who acted on the basis of patriotic consideration and those who did not.

Russia, Syria urge U.S. not to launch military strikes
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and Syria urged the United States on Monday to focus on convening a peace conference to end more than two years of conflict instead of taking military action against Damascus.
After talks between the countries' foreign ministers in Moscow, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem suggested a chemical attack which Washington blames on President Bashar al-Assad was a pretext to encourage military intervention and asked whether President Barack Obama was backing terrorists. "We are in Moscow at a time when the war drums are being beaten, the war drums of the government of the United States," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said before talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. With Obama seeking support from the U.S. Congress for military action to punish Syria for the August 21 chemical weapons attack, Moualem said "the diplomatic channels to resolve this issue have not been exhausted". Lavrov, whose country says it believes the attack was carried out by rebels, warned that U.S. strikes on Syria could lead to the spread of terrorism. Moualem questioned U.S. motives in Syria and accused Obama of backing Islamist extremists, apparently drawing comparisons with the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
"We are asking ourselves how Obama can ... support those who in their time blew up the World Trade Center in New York," Moualem told the news conference with Lavrov after their talks.
At the start of the talks, Moualem conveyed President Bashar al-Assad's gratitude for support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who pressed Russia's case against military strikes on Syria at a G20 summit attended by Obama in Russia last week. Assad "ordered me to give President Putin his regards and express gratitude for the position taken before and after the G20," Moualem said.
Russia has been Assad's most powerful supporters during a civil conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people since 2011, supplying weapons and, with China, blocking three U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Assad. (Reporting by Thomas Grove Writing by Steve Gutterman, Editing by Timothy Heritage)

Obama, top aides try to sway war-weary public and Congress on Syria
By Philip Elliott, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is going all out to convince war-weary Americans that limited strikes against Syria are needed for the United States' long-term safety, while his national security team is attempting to reassure skeptical legislators that the United States is not heading toward another Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama on Monday planned to make his case for punishing Syrian President Bashar Assad for turning chemical weapons against his own people — a charge Assad denies in a new interview. Top administration officials are heading to Capitol Hill for more classified briefings. And White House national security adviser Susan Rice is scheduled for a speech at a Washington think-tank timed to the public relations blitz. Obama will meet with Senate Democrats on Tuesday to seek support for U.S. military action against the government of Syria, according to two Senate Democratic aides. The meeting at the Capitol would come just hours before Obama addresses the nation in a prime-time speech on Syria from the White House. With Congress set to have its first votes authorizing limited strikes into Syria as soon as Wednesday, Obama and his allies were arguing that the United States needs to remind hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea of American military might while working to reassure the nation that the lessons of the last decade were fresh in their minds.
"It is not Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya," White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said Sunday during one of his five network television interviews. "This is a very concerned, concentrated, limited effort that we can carry out and that can underscore and secure our interests." But McDonough conceded the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" that skeptical Americans, including lawmakers who will start voting on military action this week, are seeking. "It's an uphill slog," said Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who supports strikes on Assad.
"I think it's very clear he's lost support in the last week," Rogers added, speaking of the president.
A survey by The Associated Press shows that House members who are staking out positions are either opposed to or leaning against Obama's plan for a military strike by more than a 6-1 margin.
"Lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles will not restore our credibility overseas," said Rep. Mike McCaul, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.
Added Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez: "For the president to say that this is just a very quick thing and we're out of there, that's how long wars start."
Despite public backing from leaders of both parties to strike, almost half of the 433 current members in the House and a third of the 100-member Senate remain undecided, the AP survey found. They will be the subject of intense lobbying from the administration — as well as outside groups that have formed coalitions that defy the traditional left-right divide.
Public opinion surveys show intense American skepticism about military intervention in Syria, even among those who believe Syria's government used chemical weapons on its people.
The United States, citing intelligence reports, says the lethal nerve agent sarin was used in an Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus, and that 1,429 people died, including 426 children. In an interview Sunday in Damascus, Assad told American journalist Charlie Rose there is no conclusive evidence about who is to blame for the chemical weapons attacks and again suggested the rebels were responsible. Rose said Assad also warned him previous U.S. military efforts in the region have proved disastrous.
Excerpts of Rose's interview are to be released Monday on the CBS morning program that he hosts. The full interview is set to air on Rose's prime-time program on PBS. Even before the interview was released, the White House criticized it. "It doesn't surprise us that someone who would kill thousands of his own people, including hundreds of children with poison gas, would also lie about it," spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said.
Top administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, planned to brief lawmakers ahead of the Wednesday vote on a resolution that would authorize the "limited and specified use" of U.S. armed forces against Syria for no more than 90 days. The measure bars American ground troops from combat. A final vote is expected at week's end and the House is expected to take up the issue the following week.
McDonough spoke with ABC's "This Week," CBS' "Face the Nation," NBC's "Meet the Press," CNN's "State of the Union" and "Fox News Sunday." Rogers spoke to CBS. McCaul and Sanchez were on NBC.
@YahooCanadaNews on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

Syria's Assad denies chemical weapons use; U.S. presses case for strike
By John Whitesides and Arshad Mohammed | Reuters – WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) - Syrian President Bashar al-Assad denied that he was behind a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people, as the White House on Sunday pressed ahead with the uphill effort of persuading Congress to approve a military strike to punish Assad.
The Obama administration faces a crucial test vote set for Wednesday in the U.S. Senate and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made the rounds of five Sunday talk shows to argue for a resolution authorizing a limited strike on Syria. In Paris, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry did not rule out France's suggestion that it go to the U.N. Security Council for an authorization of a possible military strike once U.N. inspectors complete their report on the August 21 attack near Damascus in which more than 1,400 people were killed.
Russia and China, veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, have blocked previous efforts to punish the Syrian government. The United States and France hold that Assad was behind the attack and should be deterred from using chemical weapons again. Assad denied involvement the attack and said if the United States has evidence, Washington should produce it, CBS reported on Sunday on its news program "Face the Nation.
"There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," CBS reported Assad said in an interview conducted in Damascus. The report was a summary of the interview and did not contain any audio or video of Assad. Assad said he feared an attack might degrade the Syrian military and tip the balance in the 2-1/2-year-old civil war, CBS reported.
The Syrian president also warned that if there was a military strike by the United States, there would be retaliation by those aligned with Syria, CBS said.
In London, Kerry countered Assad, saying "The evidence speaks for itself."
President Barack Obama faces an uphill climb to persuade U.S. lawmakers returning from a summer recess to vote for military action. During the break, their constituents voiced strong objections to the action, worrying that it would drag the country into another costly, and broader, Middle East conflict.
Opinion polls show most Americans oppose a strike. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll said 56 percent of Americans believed the United States should not intervene in Syria; 19 percent backed action.
McDonough, the White House chief of staff, led the administration's lobbying effort on Sunday, part of an intensive push for support that will continue on Monday when Obama sits for six network television interviews and culminate with an address to the country on Tuesday night.
"Are there consequences for a dictator who would have used those weapons to gas to death hundreds of children? The answer to that question ... will be followed closely in Damascus, but will also be followed closely in Tehran, among Lebanese Hezbollah, and others. So this is a very important week," McDonough said on the "Fox News Sunday" program. While Mike Rogers, Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is a supporter of the strikes, he said Obama had made "a hash" of his argument to punish Assad. "It's very clear he's lost support in the last week," Rogers said on CBS' "Face the Nation." He said Obama should have called Congress back from its summer break for classified briefings on the proposed strikes, and the administration needed to "regroup." "The president hasn't made the case," Rogers said. Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said that "if I were the president, I would withdraw my request. I don't believe the support is there in Congress." He spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" Congressional surveys make it clear Obama has a difficult task. A Washington Post vote count showed 223 House members either against or leaning against authorizing the use of military force in Syria. That is more than the 217 needed to block the resolution.
The White House has said the president could go ahead with a military strike without congressional authorization, but has not said he would do so.
FRENCH SUGGESTION

French President Francois Hollande, increasingly under pressure at home and among European partners to seek a U.N. mandate before any military intervention in Syria, on Saturday suggested he could seek a U.N. resolution despite previous Russian and Chinese vetoes. U.N. inspectors are likely to hand in their report later this week roughly at the same time as the U.S. Congress votes on military action. The United Nations has said the inspectors will only determine whether gas was used, not who was responsible for its use. "On President Hollande's comments with respect to the U.N., the president (Obama), and all of us, are listening carefully to all of our friends," Kerry told a news conference in Paris earlier Sunday. "No decision has been made by the president." Later, a U.S. official said Washington was not seeking a U.N. vote at this time.
Kerry said key Arab countries were leaning towards supporting a G20 statement - already signed by 12 countries - that called for a strong international response.
The top U.S. diplomat met in Paris with Arab ministers, including from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, following talks in Lithuania with European foreign ministers, who blamed the attack in Syria on Assad but refused to endorse military action. Iran's new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, warned the United States that it would ignite a fire across the Middle East if it attacks Syria.
"We are concerned about warmongering in this region," Zarif told a news conference while on a visit to Iraq. "Those who are short-sighted and are beating the drums of war are starting a fire that will burn everyone."
Underscoring the dangers of the Syrian conflict spreading beyond its borders, an Israeli official said on Sunday the United States would notify Israel hours in advance of an attack on Syria.
While formally on the sidelines of the Syrian crisis, Israel fears coming under reprisals from its northern foe should the United States launch strikes to punish Damascus.
A German newspaper, citing German intelligence, reported that Assad may not have personally given permission for the August 21 attack.
Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last 4-1/2 months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the newspaper Bild am Sonntag said. This could mean Assad may not have personally approved the attack, intelligence officers suggested.
(Reporting by John Whitesides in Washington and Arshad Mohammed in Paris and London; additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai, David Brunnstrom and Jackie Frank in Washington; Dan Williams in Israel; Natalie Huet in Paris; Alexandra Hudson in Berlin; and Raheem Salman and Yeganeh Torbati in Baghdad; writing by Eric Beech; editing by Jackie Frank)

U.S. would notify Israel hours before Syria attack: Israeli official
By Dan Williams | –HERZLIYA, Israel (Reuters) - The United States would notify Israel hours in advance of an attack on Syria, an Israeli official said on Sunday. While formally on the sidelines of the Syrian crisis, Israel fears coming under reprisals from its northern foe should the United States launch strikes to punish Damascus for alleged use of chemical weaponry. Asked how much advance notice Israel would get from its U.S. ally about such attacks, an Israeli official briefed on contacts with Washington told Reuters: "Hours." But a senior strategist for the Defense Ministry said separately Israel was, like the rest of the world, in the dark at present.
"Will the United States attack? Will it not attack? What will the consequences be? All of these things are unknowns," Amos Gilad said in a speech at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism near Tel Aviv.
President Barack Obama has run into formidable U.S. domestic opposition to military action. Wary of appearing to meddle in American affairs, most Israeli officials have not publicly commented on the debate.
Israel plans to deploy anti-missile systems and troop reinforcements on its Syrian and Lebanese fronts if Obama green-lights strikes against Syria.
MISSILE INTERCEPTORS
Reuters television filmed what looked like an Iron Dome missile interceptor battery being positioned on the outskirts of Jerusalem on Sunday. "We don't comment on our aerial defenses," a military spokeswoman said.
An Israeli military magazine, Bamahane, said a month ago there were six such batteries deployed around the country and occasionally rotated geographically. Obama has asked Congress to approve strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government in response to a chemical weapons attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 Syrians. Next week in Washington, hundreds of activists of the influential pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee will lobby Congress for military action in Syria. Some Israeli officials have privately voiced concern U.S. failure to attack Syria would embolden Iran, an ally of Damascus, in its defiance of international calls to curb a nuclear program which the West fears is aimed at developing nuclear arms - a charge Tehran denies. Gilad disagreed with those assessments, however, saying in his speech: "Whether or not this is popular, I don't recommend drawing conclusions about Iran from Syria." Gilad noted Obama's declarations that he would not allow Iran to get the bomb, backed by U.S.-led diplomatic and economic pressure as well as military mobilization in the Gulf. "I recommend attributing a high level of credibility to his statements (on Iran)," Gilad said. (Reporting by Dan Williams; Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Andrew Roche)

Pro-Israel groups (AIPAC) face rare resistance in lobbying for Syrian force authorization
By Matthew Lee, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press –WASHINGTON - Of all the interests backing President Barack Obama's call for Congress to authorize military strikes on Syria, perhaps none is more concerned about the prospect of a "no" vote than America's pro-Israel lobby, which is finding it difficult to overcome widespread opposition to the use of force.
Considered to be some of the most influential lobbyists on Capitol Hill, officials with several pro-Israel groups say they are running into rare resistance from lawmakers, even among staunch Israel advocates on whose support they could almost unquestionably count in the past. The administration has sought and won support for the vote from most of the major pro-Israel groups that traditionally have been most effective in promoting legislation to enhance Israel's security. Among those that have released public statements and made private calls to lawmakers to urge them to vote "yes" are The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. "There is no question that it is very challenging," said an official from one, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the organization. "It is an extremely challenging environment right now." The crux of their argument is that inaction will undermine American credibility in limiting the development and use of weapons of mass destruction with a direct impact on Israel's security, particularly as it relates to Iran and its nuclear program. Israel regards Iran as an existential threat, and preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons is its primary national security concern. Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes. Lobbyists also acknowledge that a U.S. military strike could risk Israel becoming a retaliatory target of Syrian-backed Hezbollah or other groups acting on Assad's behalf. But they say that risk is smaller than the risk of letting Assad go unpunished.
"This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability," AIPAC said in its statement. "Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country's credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country's security and interests and those of our regional allies."
"AIPAC maintains that it is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force and take a firm stand that the world's most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons," it said.
The Anti-Defamation League urged Congress to "act swiftly to add its voice to hold (Assad) accountable for the wanton slaughter of his own citizens." "Any nation that violates international norms and obligations which threaten the peace and security of the world must face the consequences of those dangerous acts," it said. In making their case for military action to punish Syria for using chemical weapons, Obama and his aides have gone out of their way to court the support of the American Jews by drawing parallels between Syrian President Bashar Assad's use of poison gas and the gas chambers of Nazi Germany.
Visiting the Great Synagogue of Stockholm on a trip to Sweden last week, Obama alluded to the connection while paying tribute to Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat credited with saving at least 20,000 Jews during the Holocaust. "Because he refused to stand by, Wallenberg reminds us of our power when we choose not simply to bear witness, but also to act," Obama said.
He later added: "I cannot think of a better tribute to Raoul Wallenberg than for each of us, as individuals and as nations, to reaffirm our determination to live the values that defined his life and to make the same choice in our time."Secretary of State John Kerry has invoked the phrase "never again," a direct reference to international vows to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust, and even compared Assad to Adolf Hitler, something that even the pro-Israel groups backing the administration have shied away from, at least so far.
Despite winning universal condemnation of Assad for using chemical weapons, the administration has found its arguments are not convincing skeptical lawmakers and their war-weary constituents that military action is a moral imperative. "I think Israel has a strong natural defence and I think they can do well in any battle. But I don't want to involve Israel in a battle because they have so many enemies around them that I'm fearful it can spin out of control," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Sean Hannity of Fox News last week.
Officials with several pro-Israel groups say they are encountering the same problem, which is compounded by pure political motivations, especially among Republicans, for opposing Obama's request.
They said they will continue to lobby in the days ahead — AIPAC is bringing some 250 pro-Israel activists to Washington next week to push for the authorization — but they have also told the White House that only a powerful and direct personal appeal from Obama himself is likely to have an impact. "The idea that the pro-Israel community is a magic wand that can make this vote happen is a conspiracy theory," said Josh Block, a former AIPAC spokesman who now heads The Israel Project. "It's not born out of reality." "But, certainly when supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship and experts in the region who have real credibility join with the president and other voices in the foreign policy and human rights community, it matters," he said. Of course, Republicans are not the only ones opposing the authorization.
Many of the president's Democratic supporters are deeply conflicted over the use of force.
"I think every member of Congress' perception is colored by what happened in Iraq," said Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who is seeking a Senate seat in 2014 and is leaning against authorizing force. "If Iran responds to our sending cruise missiles into Syria by launching an attack into Israel, and then Israel retaliates, and Hezbollah retaliates against Israel, I have a hard time seeing how the United States avoids getting drawn into a broader regional conflict." This divide also is apparent among Israel-centric organizations.
J Street, the relatively recent arrival to the Israel-related lobbying scene that has promoted peace with the Palestinians as its major issue, condemned the use of chemical weapons but stopped far short of the other groups in offering explicit support for Obama's call. "As President Obama and world leaders contemplate the appropriate course of action, we are cognizant that there are no easy or clear-cut solutions," it said. "Any action taken should aim to minimize the loss of civilian life, deter the further use of chemical weapons and avoid regional spillover."

Kerry: Syrian handover of all chemical arms could prevent attack
LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a military strike by turning over all his chemical weapons within a week but immediately made clear he was sure that would never happen. When asked by a reporter whether there was anything Assad's government could do or offer to stop any attack, Kerry said:
"Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done." It did not appear that Kerry was making a serious offer to the Syrian government, which the United States accuses of using chemical weapons in an August 21 attack.
Kerry said the control of chemical weapons in Syria was limited to Assad, Assad's brother Maher and an unnamed general.
Kerry said he was confident of the evidence that the United States and its allies have presented to support their case that Assad's forces used chemical weapons, though he said he understood concerns, given the discord over the 2003 Iraq war. Speaking at a news briefing in London with British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Kerry said that doing nothing in the face of such evidence would come back to haunt the United States and its allies.
"If you want to send Iran and Hezbollah and Assad a congratulatory message: 'You guys can do what you want,' you'd say: 'Don't do anything.'
"We believe that is dangerous and we will face this down the road in some more significant way if we're not prepared to take ... a stand now," Kerry said.
He also stressed the relationship between Britain and the United States was as strong as ever despite the British parliament having decided not to join military action against Syria.
"The relationship between the United States and the UK has often been described as special, essential and it has been described thus because it is," Kerry said. "The bond .. is bigger than one vote."
Kerry said while in London he had held talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas which were "productive and information" but did not give any further details.
(Reporting by Arshad Mohammed, Andrew Osborn and Belinda Goldsmith, editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Stephen Addison)