LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 22/16
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.april22.16.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to go to the LCCC Daily English/Arabic News Buletins Archieves Since 2006
Bible Quotations For Today
Jesus said to them, ‘It is I; do not
be afraid.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint John 06/16-21:"When evening came,
his disciples went down to the lake, got into a boat, and started across the
lake to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. The lake
became rough because a strong wind was blowing. When they had rowed about three
or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the lake and coming near the boat, and
they were terrified. But he said to them, ‘It is I; do not be afraid.’ Then they
wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the land
towards which they were going."
And may he so strengthen your
hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and Father at the
coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints."
First Letter to the Thessalonians 03/01-13: "Therefore when we could bear it no
longer, we decided to be left alone in Athens; and we sent Timothy, our brother
and co-worker for God in proclaiming the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and
encourage you for the sake of your faith, so that no one would be shaken by
these persecutions. Indeed, you yourselves know that this is what we are
destined for. In fact, when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we
were to suffer persecution; so it turned out, as you know. For this reason, when
I could bear it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith; I was afraid
that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labour had been in vain.
But Timothy has just now come to us from you, and has brought us the good news
of your faith and love. He has told us also that you always remember us kindly
and long to see us just as we long to see you. For this reason, brothers and
sisters, during all our distress and persecution we have been encouraged about
you through your faith. For we now live, if you continue to stand firm in the
Lord. How can we thank God enough for you in return for all the joy that we feel
before our God because of you? Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may
see you face to face and restore whatever is lacking in your faith. Now may our
God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you. And may the
Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, just as
we abound in love for you. And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that
you may be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus
with all his saints."
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources
published on April 22/16
From Our 2011 Archives/Crucifying
Dr. Walid Phares and the Facts/Elias Bejjani/November 03/11
Interview with Dr. Taufic Hindi from "Family Security Matters" Site Focusing on
Dr. Walid Phares's Activities before immigrating to the USA in 1990/Interview
with Dr. Toufic Hindi Conducted by Dorothy Logan/April 21/16
Accusations Against Dr. Walid Phares, Trump Advisor by Islamists Proven
False/Ryan Mauro/ClarionProject/April 21/16
Will the true culprits surface in Lebanon's infamous Internet racket/Esperance
Ghanem/Al-Monitor/April 20/16
Everybody’s wars/The similarities between Syria and Spain/Micheal Young/Now
Lebanon/April 21/16
Netanyahu tells Putin: The Golan is a red line for Israel/Ynetnews/Reuters/April
21/16
The Long Divorce/Simon Henderson/Washington Institute/April 21/16
The U.S. Role in Addressing New Threats to Israel: Progress and Pitfalls/David
Makovsky/Washington Institute/April 21/16
Limiting Incursions in Area A: The Next Step for Israeli-Palestinian Security
Coordination/Ghaith al-Omari/Washington Institute/April 21/16
Near-clash of Israeli-Russian planes over Syria/DEBKAfile /April 21/16
Preachers of hate/Turki Al-Dakhil/Al Arabiya/April 21/16
Obama visit shouldn’t be allowed to benefit Iran/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/April
21/16
Ceasefire falls apart as Assad holds latest sham election/Brooklyn Middleton/Al
Arabiya/April 21/16
How Russia is poisoning its ties with Egypt/Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/April
21/16
Titles For Latest Lebanese Related News published on April 22/16
From Our 2011 Archives/Crucifying Dr. Walid Phares and the Facts
Riyadh-U.S. Summit Accuses Iran of Destabilizing Region, Supporting 'Terror
Groups' Like Hizbullah
U.S. High Court Sides with Families of 1983 Beirut Bombing Victims
Salam in New York for Climate Pact
Top Israeli General Warns of 'Devastating War' with Hizbullah
Russian Sources: Circumstances not Apt for Presidential Elections
Australian TV Crew Arrive Home after Beirut Kidnap Deal
Franjieh Denies Competing with Aoun on Presidential Pos
Police Arrest Two Suspects in Attempted Kidnap
Man Stabbed to Death in Dbayeh
Majdalani: To adopt necessary legislations, discuss electoral law
One arrested in Baalback for link to terrorists
Shbib issues decree banning electoral ads and candidates pictures in public
places
Bou Saab, Barras tackle bilateral relations
ISF busts two money counterfeit men
Poultry Syndicate confirms abidance by measures to limit H5N1 bird flu outspread
Amin Gemayel receives Australian Labor Party's President
Pakradonian receives Jones
Lazzarini visits Safadi, wishes Tripoli eternal peace
Jaber: No agreement yet over electoral law
Interview with Dr. Taufic Hindi from "Family Security Matters" Site Focusing on
Dr. Walid Phares's Activities before immigrating to the USA in 1990.
Attacked by Radical Media: Adviser to Presidential Candidates Exonerated
Interview with Dr. Toufic Hindi Conducted by Dorothy Logan/April 20/16
Accusations Against Dr. Walid Phares, Trump Advisor by Islamists Proven False
Will the true culprits surface in Lebanon's infamous Internet racket?
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on April 22/16
Obama, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince
discuss Yemen, Libya conflicts
Obama defends Iran deal at Gulf summit
Hamas deploys forces on Egypt-Gaza border
Arab League chief calls for special court to try Israel
Syrian HNC opposition to leave Geneva by Friday
Pentagon sends legendary B-52 bomber into action against ISIS
MPs urge British government to recognize ISIS ‘genocide’
Kerry expresses support for Egypt in brief visit
Nato: Russia maintains ‘considerable military presence’ in Syria
Senior ISIS figure in Iraq targeted in US-led raid
Egyptian police detained Italian student before his murder: sources
Gulf states back Morocco on Sahara territory
Palestinian dies of wounds from Jerusalem bus bombing
Houthi delegation arrives in Kuwait for talks
Links From
Jihad Watch Site for
April 22/16
CAIR-linked Hamas claims jihad bombing of Jerusalem bus
Robert Spencer, PJM: Mideast Christian Victims of Muslim
Brotherhood Demand U.S. Call It a Terror Group.
Brussels jihad murderer worked at Zaventem airport for 5 years, 50 Islamic State
supporters still work there.
Germany: Muslim teens arrested over bomb attack on Sikh temple.
Brookings touts study claiming that “even a basic knowledge of Islam” can
“dampen support for Islamist militant groups”.
Afghanistan: 10 Muslims blown up while making a bomb inside a mosque.
Avoiding Rape is White Privilege — on The Glazov Gang.
Paris university asks women to participate in Hijab Day “if you think women
should have right to dress as they wish”.
Hugh Fitzgerald: Homo Kaplanensis: “Europe
Was Defined By Islam. And Islam Is Redefining It Now.”
From Our 2011
Archives/Crucifying Dr. Walid Phares and the Facts
Elias Bejjani
November 03/11
It was very sad, extremely annoying and so frustrating to myself as a proud
Lebanese Christian activist and to many, many of my own people all over the
globe to observe that our honest and genuinely "patriotic Lebanese Christian
Resistance Forces" (1975-1990) were unfairly blemished, and wrongly portrayed as
an organization of terrorism and massacres in the heated debate that has been
raging for weeks in the USA media between supporters and opponents of Dr. Walid
Phares, the renowned American Lebanese Christian intellectual who immigrated to
the USA in 1990. Phares's opponents are trying to crucify him on the basis that
he was a member in our resistance after he was appointed as the Middle East
Adviser for Mitt Romney.
While it is a given right and a legitimate practice for those who oppose or
support Dr. Phares's appointment to this very critical and influential position
to debate the issue and use all arguments, reason and defaults to advocate for
their own stances and views, we strongly believe that it is not ethical, fair,
legal or even humane in any way to falsely portray our Lebanese Christian
Resistance Forces as a terrorist group and tag its previous or current
supporters, members and leadership accordingly as terrorists or advocates for
terrorism.
The issue here is not if Dr. Phares was a member in this resistance or not
because basically there was no membership in this public resistance, but as far
as we are concerned the issue goes much further than that when unjustly and
viciously the Lebanese Christian Resistance is attacked in the USA media and
falsely portrayed as a bunch of brutal murderers who committed massacres. No,
No, these mere lies are actual atrocities against our people, and are not
acceptable and have no ground in reality whatsoever.
It is worth mentioning that the ongoing Lebanese crisis and dilemma since the
early seventies are so complicated even for the Lebanese intellectuals
themselves to understand and explain due to the sophisticated fact that it is so
interwoven and tied to the Israeli-Arab conflict, as well to regional,
sectarian, cultural, educational and religious historical enmities, difficulties
and contradictions. Also because of the expansionism and savage ambitions of
many Middle East dictators and fanatics spearheaded by the Syrian Baathist
regime, the mullahs of Iran, the terrorist group Hezbollah, the Palestinian
armed militias, and many others.
In this piece I will refute and strongly criticize the rhetoric of both
opponents and supporters of Dr. Phares's appointment for the superficial and
naive manner in which our resistance was portrayed and dealt. The opponents
tried to criminalize Phares for being a member in our resistance and the
supporters fell in this trap and tried stupidly to cosmetically justify his
involvement instead of explaining the reality of this great resistance.
Below are some facts that hopefully all those involved in the debate will grasp
and accordingly correct their fallacies and wrong information about our
resistance:
1- Our resistance was not an organization, a party, a militia or an army. It was
all our people; yes merely all our people, men, women, children and the clergy.
It was in every village and city where our people lived. The Lebanese Christians
were forced to defend their own lives, faith, freedom, entity and the core of
their existence after the PLO, Syria, the Arab regimes, many Muslim countries,
and 10th of Islamic and Arabic extremist organizations militarily invaded
Lebanon and waged a holy war against the Christians in a bid to erect a
substitute state for the Palestinians and then use it as a base to attack Israel
and fight the West.
2-The Lebanese army as well as the rest of the state institutions were either
controlled by the invaders or helpless and unable to execute their obligations.
Our people were faced with two choices: either to be killed and slaughtered like
sheep, or to defend themselves and stand tall like their Holy Cedars. They did
defend themselves and because of their faith, love for their country, dignity,
sacrifices and heroism, were able to hold and remain in their country. Our
resistance was always in the defensive and never ever in the offensive status.
3- Our people had to buy their own weapons and ammunition from their own
pockets; not even one country in the world came to their rescue. Up till 1990,
there was no membership in this resistance because all the residents of the
Christian villages and cities, including the clergymen and nuns, were the
resistance. Accordingly, every Christian residing in the regions that were not
conquered by the invaders was an active fighter and a resistance member, each
individual in his/her own capacity.
4- Due to a drastic lack of finances, Arab attacks on all levels, intimidation,
imprisonment, forced displacement and exodus, persecution and ethnic cleansing,
our resistance was not able to advocate for its holy and patriotic cause in any
country, while our enemies who are now officially recognized and listed as
terrorists in the Western and Free World and with their petrodollars (Wahabists,
Kaddafi, Sadam, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, PLO, etc.) were able to exert a tremendous
influence on world media facilities, governments and thinking tanks, especially
in the USA, Canada and many European countries. They distorted and falsified
facts and attributed to our resistance crimes and massacres like Sabra and
Chatila, while covering up the hundreds of brutal massacres that they inflicted
on our people and still do.
5- It is worth mentioning that the Sabra and Chatila massacre was not committed
by our resistance nor by the Israeli Army, but by Mr. Elie Hobeika, a Lebanese
forces military leader, and his men. Hobeika's stinking reality was unveiled
after the Syrian army invaded and conquered all of Lebanon in 1990. He was a top
notch Syrian agent, which simply means that the Syrian regime was fully
responsible for this terrible crime. Seeing what the Syria regime is inflicting
on its own people during the last months explains the identity of this butcher.
6- Christians in Lebanon are peace loving people, faithful, respect coexistence,
honor human rights, and are enriched with a deeply rooted history of 7,000
years. More than two million Americans are Christian Lebanese descendents while
12-14 million Lebanese Christians are living peacefully, productively and
honorably in almost every country in the world. Dr. Walid Phares is one of those
people who carry the Lebanese message of peace wherever they go or settle. We
honestly believe that he is a great asset to the position that is debated and
not the contrary.
In conclusion, if we can tag our troops in Afghanistan who are fighting
terrorism as dangerous to hold any position when they return home, than we can
crucify Phares for being a Lebanese Christian who with his people were forced to
defend themselves against all those who are now recognized worldwide as
terrorists and our troops are fighting them all over the world.
Hopefully this explanatory message will make some difference for those involved
in the Phares's appointment debate because our Lebanese Christian Resistance
Forces are as noble and genuine as was the patriotic French Resistance and even
more.
Riyadh-U.S. Summit
Accuses Iran of Destabilizing Region, Supporting 'Terror Groups' Like Hizbullah
Naharnet/April 21/16/The United States and leaders of the Gulf Cooperation
Council concluded on Thursday a summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh during which
they accused Iran of “destabilizing the region.”The Islamic Republic is
destabilizing the region and “supporting terrorist groups, including Hizbullah,”
said the leaders of the GCC in their concluding statement. The summit was also
attended by U.S. President Barack Obama, who remarked that neither the United
States nor Arab Gulf nations had an interest in conflict with Iran. "Even with
the nuclear deal we recognize collectively that we continue to have serious
concerns about Iranian behavior", Obama added. U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter stated on Wednesday that Hizbullah is a perfect example of “Iran's
malicious activity in the region.”Gulf states are concerned about what they see
as Obama's moves towards closer ties with their Shiite arch-rival, fearing that
Tehran will be emboldened to seek a bigger regional role after the lifting of
sanctions under its landmark nuclear deal with major powers led by the United
States. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbors accuse Iran of widespread
interference throughout the region, where they support opposite sides in
conflicts in Yemen and Syria.
U.S. High Court Sides with
Families of 1983 Beirut Bombing Victims
Associated Press/Agence France Presse/Naharnet/April 21/16/The U.S. Supreme
Court on Wednesday cleared the way for families of victims of the 1983 Marine
barracks bombing in Beirut and other attacks linked to Iran to collect nearly $2
billion in frozen Iranian funds. Iran said Thursday that the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision amounted to theft. "The ruling is considered stealing the
Islamic Republic of Iran's properties and naturally the onus of compensation of
damages to Iran ... falls on the US administration," foreign ministry spokesman
Hossein Jaber Ansari said. The spokesman said the decision went "against
international law". The court's 6-2 ruling directly affects more than 1,300
relatives of victims, some who have been seeking compensation for more than 30
years. They include families of the 241 U.S. service members who died in the
Beirut bombing.
Other families who are not covered by Wednesday's decision also could benefit
because they now stand to reap a larger share of a government-administered fund
intended for victims of state-sponsored terrorism. The decision, issued amid a
warming in relations with Iran, is important because it is the first time Iran
is being made to feel the sting of its past support for terrorism, said Notre
Dame law professor Jimmy Gurule, a former Treasury Department official.
"Hopefully, it's also going to have a deterrent effect, or least cause Iran to
think twice about supporting terrorist activity going forward," Gurule said. The
ruling also comes as controversy swirls over pending legislation in Congress
that would allow families of the Sept. 11 attacks to hold the government of
Saudi Arabia liable in U.S. court. The Obama administration, which supported the
families in the Supreme Court case, opposes the bill. President Barack Obama met
with King Salman in Riyadh on Wednesday at the start of a brief trip to the
country. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the court rejecting
efforts by Iran's central bank to try to stave off court orders that would allow
the relatives to be paid for their losses. The money is sitting in a federal
court trust account. Iran's Bank Markazi complained that Congress was intruding
into the business of federal courts when it passed a 2012 law that specifically
directs that the banks' assets in the United States be turned over to the
families. Obama issued an executive order earlier in 2012 freezing the Iranian
central bank's assets in the United States. The law, Ginsburg wrote, "does not
transgress restraints placed on Congress and the president by the
Constitution."Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
"The authority of the political branches is sufficient; they have no need to
seize ours," Roberts wrote. Congress has repeatedly changed the law in the past
20 years to make it easier for victims to sue over state-sponsored terrorism;
federal courts have awarded the victims billions of dollars. But Iran has
refused to comply with the judgments, leading lawyers to hunt for Iranian assets
in the United States. The Supreme Court case involved $1.75 billion in bonds,
plus accumulating interest, owned by the Iranian bank and held by Citibank in
New York. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit included relatives of the victims of the
Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in
Saudi Arabia which killed 19 service members, and other attacks that were
carried out by groups with links to Iran. The lead plaintiff is Deborah
Peterson, whose brother, Lance Cpl. James C. Knipple, was killed in Beirut. "We
are extremely pleased with the Supreme Court's decision, which will bring
long-overdue relief to more than 1,000 victims of Iranian terrorism and their
families, many of whom have waited decades for redress," said Theodore Olson,
the former Bush administration Justice Department official who argued on behalf
of the families at the Supreme Court.
Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans in Congress supported the
families in the case. "The court made the right decision today. Families of
Iranian terror victims have had to wait far too long to recoup these payments.
While we can only provide so much comfort to those who grieve, I hope this
ruling will help bring justice," said House Speaker Paul Ryan. Late last year,
Congress separately created a fund for terrorism victims who have been unable to
enforce court judgments against Iran and other countries. The money comes from
an $8.9 billion settlement agreed to by the French bank BNP Paribas for its role
in helping Iran and other countries evade international sanctions. The fund has
$1 billion that must be distributed by the end of the year, said Stuart
Newberger, a partner at the Crowell & Moring law firm in Washington who
represents roughly 500 people in claims against Iran for embassy bombings in
Kenya and Lebanon. Wednesday's Supreme Court decision will reduce the number of
people who are eligible to collect from the new fund, Newberger said.
Salam in New York for Climate
Pact
Naharnet/April 21/16/Prime Minister Tammam Salam traveled to New York on
Thursday to participate in the ceremony aimed at signing the climate-change pact
that the world adopted in principle in Paris last December. The state-run
National News Agency said Salam is expected to give a speech at Friday's
ceremony, which will be attended by leaders and envoys from more than 160
countries. U.N. officials say the signing ceremony will set a record for
international diplomacy: Never before have so many countries inked an agreement
on the first day of the signing period. That could help pave the way for the
pact to become effective long before the original 2020 deadline — possibly this
year— though countries must first formally approve it through their domestic
procedures. The U.S. and China, which together account for nearly 40 percent of
global emissions, have said they intend to formally join the agreement this
year. It will enter into force once 55 countries representing at least 55
percent of global emissions have done so. The agreement, the world's response to
hotter temperatures, rising seas and other impacts of climate change, was
hammered out in December outside Paris. The pact was a major breakthrough in
U.N. climate negotiations, which for years were bogged down with disputes
between rich and poor countries over who should do what to fight global warming.
Top Israeli General Warns of
'Devastating War' with Hizbullah
Associated Press/Naharnet/April 21/16/A top Israeli military leader has issued a
stern warning to Hizbullah, saying any future war between the two enemies will
unleash "devastating" damage on Lebanon. Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, Israel's deputy
chief of staff, told foreign journalists that Hizbullah has developed
capabilities that present "unprecedented" threats to Israel. Israel estimates
the group has over 100,000 rockets and missiles in its arsenal.Golan said on
Wednesday any future war will be "much harsher" than anything experienced in the
past 20 years. "In any future crisis, they are not going to see a small war in
Lebanon. It's going to be decisive. It's going to be full-scale war," he said.
"That could create devastating damage to Lebanon," including in civilian areas,
where he said Hizbullah hides and operates. "There is no other way to take out
this threat without ... creating large damage to the Lebanese infrastructure, to
Lebanese houses and other civilian facilities." Israel and Hizbullah fought a
monthlong war in the summer of 2006 that ended in a stalemate. The fighting
killed about 1,200 Lebanese, including hundreds of civilians, and about 160
Israelis. Israeli airstrikes caused heavy damage to Lebanon's infrastructure,
while Hizbullah fired several thousand rockets into Israel. Israeli officials
say Hizbullah's improved missile arsenal is now capable of striking virtually
anywhere in the country.
Russian Sources:
Circumstances not Apt for Presidential Elections
Naharnet/April 21/16/The circumstances required to hold an over two-year delayed
presidential elections are not appropriate yet and they are linked to a
political solution that could be brought on to Syria and the region, al-Joumhouria
daily said on Thursday. Al-Mustaqbal movement chief ex-PM Saad Hariri was
informed during his latest visit to Moscow and after a meeting with Russian
President Vladimir Putin that the “conditions required to hold the Lebanese
presidential elections are not ready yet,” Russian sources following up closely
on the Lebanese file told the daily. “Hariri was advised by the Russian
leadership, which considers him as an old friend, not to drain his political
energy in an attempt to achieve quorum at the parliament in the near future,”
the sources said on condition of anonymity. They advised him to take care of
other issues until the moment is right for conducting the presidential
elections, which she emphasized are “linked to a political solution in Syria and
the region.”Last week, Hariri concluded a trip to Russia where he held talks
with Putin before traveling to the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh. Lebanon has
been without a head of state since May 2014 when the term of President Michel
Suleiman ended. The presidential race is mainly confined to Change and Reform
bloc chief MP Michel Aoun and Marada leader MP Suleiman Franjieh. There is also
centrist candidate MP Henri Helou. However, not a single candidate is able to
garner the needed votes to be elected president. Sessions aimed at electing a
head of state are being adjourned over lack of the required two-thirds quorum of
the 128-member parliament.
Australian TV Crew Arrive
Home after Beirut Kidnap Deal
Associated Press/Naharnet/April 21/16/An Australian television crew accused of
aiding a mother in the botched kidnapping of her two children in Lebanon arrived
home Thursday, amid reports of a multi-million dollar deal struck with the
father to drop abduction charges. Brisbane mother Sally Faulkner and the Channel
Nine team were arrested and charged last week after Faulkner's son and daughter
were snatched in broad daylight on a Beirut street. But they were released on
bail Wednesday after the father, Ali al-Amin, decided not to pursue the charges
in court. Bailed star reporter Tara Brown led her producer Stephen Rice,
cameraman Ben Williamson and sound recordist David Ballment on to the earliest
flight out of Beirut after their release from custody. The Nine team arrived in
Sydney Thursday, touching down about 10 pm (1200 GMT) on an Emirates flight from
Dubai. They were mobbed by a large media scrum as they left the airport via a
private exit, and were whisked off in waiting black vans. "I'm just so glad to
be home," Brown said as she was escorted by Rice to a van. Ballment added that
he was looking forward to "a shower and seeing my wife". Faulkner, however,
remains in Beirut for a custody hearing with her estranged husband. It was a
disastrous end to the news story the crew had planned. Faulkner's lawyer Ghassan
Mughabghab earlier said a deal had been struck granting Amin full custody of the
children in line with Lebanese law. The commercial Nine network did not mention
any deal they were reportedly behind, but announced a full inquiry into the
bizarre episode. The Australian newspaper said "a multi-million dollar deal was
struck to drop abduction charges". "Nine pays dad to win freedom for crew and
mum," Sydney's Daily Telegraph headlined, adding that "a massive sum of cash"
had been paid in compensation. The Sydney Morning Herald said it had cost
several hundred thousand dollars, but that an exact figure could not be
confirmed. The crew and Faulkner still face potential charges by Lebanon's
public prosecutor, but they can be sentenced in absentia.
Amin's lawyer Hussein Berjawi told AFP he had not dropped charges against two
Britons and two Lebanese allegedly involved in the abduction through a child
recovery agency. "They intended to get away in a boat captained by a member of a
private child recovery agency," a Lebanese security source said. The crew were
arrested April 7, a day after the two children were grabbed. Video footage shows
them walking with an elderly person said to be their grandmother before several
figures jump out of a car, shove the adult aside and carry the children off in
the vehicle. Police later found Faulkner with the children, reportedly a
six-year-old girl and a four-year-old boy, at a home in Beirut. They were handed
back to their father through the courts. Faulkner accused him of taking them for
a holiday to Beirut and then refusing to return them to Australia. The channel's
handling of the coverage has proved controversial in Australia and Prime
Minister Malcolm Turnbull issued a warning. "We are very pleased they (the
television crew) are on their way home," he said, "and we want to thank the
Lebanese authorities for their cooperation". But he added: "All Australians,
regardless of what they do or who they work for, should recognize that when they
are outside of Australia, they must obey the laws of the country in which they
are visiting."Nine Network chief executive Hugh Marks pledged to "ascertain what
went wrong and why our systems, designed to protect staff, failed to do so in
this case". "What has happened to Sally happens all too often and affects
thousands of Australian families," he said. "It is a story that not only is
profoundly in the public interest but also one the public is interested in."
Franjieh Denies Competing
with Aoun on Presidential Post
Naharnet/April 21/16/Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh has denied that
he was in a rivalry with Change and Reform bloc chief lawmaker Michel Aoun over
the country's top Christian post. “His circumstances are different than mine,”
Franjieh told An Nahar daily during a meeting with its editor-in-chief and
several of its figures on Wednesday. His remarks were published in An Nahar on
Thursday. Franjieh rose to the forefront of the presidential polls late last
year when he was backed by al-Mustaqbal Movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri. The
Marada chief and Aoun, who are former allies, are the main contenders for the
presidential post which has been left vacant since the term of President Michel
Suleiman ended in May 2014. “The Christians have an essential role to improve
their conditions if they seize the opportunity and play their role in the right
manner,” said Franjieh. “If a specific person does not reach the presidency,
then this does not mean that their (Christians) role has become obsolete and
that Muslims don't want them,” he said about Aoun. Asked about the reasons for
the Baabda Palace vacuum, the Marada chief hinted that some officials in the
March 8 alliance, which he is part of, do not have an interest to elect a head
of state. “But this is not rightful,” stressed Franjieh, saying: “I don't know
what we are waiting for to elect a president.”In his meeting with An Nahar's
staff, Franjieh also asked whether “the paralysis of the parliament would speed
up the election of a president.”“What would Christians gain if legislation was
paralyzed?” he wondered. On Wednesday, Speaker Nabih Berri proposed during
all-party talks to hold a legislative session whose agenda would be set by
parliament’s secretariat. But the rival leaders remain split on the issue.
Police Arrest Two Suspects in
Attempted Kidnap
Naharnet/April 21/16/Police have arrested two people involved in the attempted
kidnapping of a Lebanese man in southern Lebanon, the state-run National News
Agency reported on Thursday. NNA said that three assailants in an SUV without
license plates tried to abduct Nabih Qousan on the main road of al-Tibeh in
Marjayoun district. However, the kidnappers escaped when Qousan's father stopped
them from forcing his son into their vehicle, said NNA. They later approached
his house in al-Tibeh and threatened him over the phone. Qousan had earlier
received a message on his phone from a man claiming to be a Liban Post mailman
wanting to know his address to deliver him a letter. But following a thorough
investigation, an Internal Security Forces Intelligence patrol arrested H. Nsour
from the town of Jebsheet for involvement in the attempted abduction, NNA said.
Another patrol also arrested Aa. Berjawi, who hails from Zebdine.The detainees
will be referred to the Marjayoun police station for questioning, the agency
added.
Man Stabbed to Death in
Dbayeh
Naharnet/April 21/16/A young man was stabbed six times Thursday night in the
area of Dbayeh north of Beirut, the state-run National News Agency reported. NNA
said that Joseph Qasouf was stabbed three times in his abdomen, twice in his
back and one time in the head. He was found dead in the St. George street in
Dbayeh at midnight. Security forces and the related authorities opened an
investigation in the case. Later during the day, the Voice of Lebanon Radio
(100.5) said that police have arrested a Syrian man A.A.A. on suspicion of
having links to the murder of Qasouf. NNA later reported that the Internal
Security Forces Intelligence Branch said it had arrested the killer, a Syrian
Ali Ahmed Ali.
Majdalani: To
adopt necessary legislations, discuss electoral law
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - "Future" bloc member, Deputy Atef Majdalani, hoped that
the "FPM and LF will accept Speaker of the House Nabih Berri's proposal to adopt
urgent legislations and discuss the electoral draft-law."The MP denied that his
bloc would withdraw from the legislative session in case of failure to tackle
the electoral draft-law. Regarding the illegal internet dossier, the Deputy told
the "Voice of Lebanon" radio that "this file is related to the judiciary, and
the future bloc does not cover anyone and stresses the need to stop discussing
these issue via media outlets."Majdalani ruled out that teachers' moves towards
the salary scale would disrupt the municipal election, asserting "it will be
held on time."
One arrested in Baalback for
link to terrorists
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - The Lebanese Army Intelligence arrested today Saleh Amer
in Masharii al-Qaa, over charges of links to terrorist groups in the region's
outskirts, National News Agency correspondent reported on Thursday.
Shbib issues decree banning
electoral ads and candidates pictures in public places
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - Beirut Governor Judge Ziad Shbib issued a decree
prohibiting to fix or place electoral campaign ads or candidates' pictures in
all public places and government buildings, as well as on fences, walls of
houses, trunks of trees, statues, telephone and electricity poles, and traffic
lights and signs. Electoral campaign ads and candidates' pictures are solely
allowed to be fixed on banners allocated for this purpose by Beirut municipality
and under its supervision, in accordance with the provisions of Article 70 of
Law No. 25, dated 8-10-2008. Shbib tasked Public Hygiene Authority of Beirut
Municipality to implement the content of this resolution and to remove all
irregularities, in particular the electoral ads and candidates' pictures, as
well as issuing tickets against violators.
Bou Saab, Barras tackle
bilateral relations
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - Minister of National Education and Higher Education, Elias
Bou Saab, received on Thursday Swiss Ambassador to Lebanon, Francois Barras, on
a top of a delegation, with talks reportedly touching on reinforcing cooperation
at the level of education, universities, vocational and technical realtions. The
Minister received an invitation to participate in a conference which will be
taking place in Switzerland on vocational and technical education and their
development in order to meet the renewable needs of the labor market.
ISF busts two money
counterfeit men
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - The Internal Security Forces (ISF) General Directorate
issued on Thursday a statement revealing that the information branch managed to
arrest, after intensive investigations and surveys, the two men, A.Z. and S.H.,
in the locality of Al-Abda in Akkar, in their possession 10 thousand dollars of
counterfeit money. Authorities also confiscated a counterfeit money detector and
a date stamps. It turned out that the first arrestee, A.Z., had antecedents and
was a wanted person. Both were referred to Money Laundering and Finanical Crimes
office in the judicial police unit for further investigation.
Poultry Syndicate confirms
abidance by measures to limit H5N1 bird flu outspread
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - The Lebanese Union of Poultry hailed in a statement the
swift actions by the concerned ministries- notably the Agriculture and Health-
on the subject of bird flu, underlining commitment to the adopted measures to
limit the outspread of H5N1 flu virus. The Union said that the concerned
ministries are applying in the infected Nabi Sheet border area the requisite
preventive measures adopted by the World Organization for Animal Health,
indicating that H6N1 virus poses a direct threat to birds and people who are in
direct contact with birds, yet not transmitted from one human to another. The
Union stressed that it shall "carefully monitor the viability of the applied
procedures with the concerned references and will be transparently briefing the
public on updates."
Amin Gemayel receives
Australian Labor Party's President
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - Former Lebanese President, Amine Gemayel, met on Thursday
with the President of the Australian Labor Party, on top of a delegation, over
bilateral relations and most recent developments in Lebanon and the region.
In the wake of the meeting, the Australian head said that "as you know there are
about two hundred thousand Lebanese in Sydney, including a large number of
supporters of the Phalange Party and Gemayel's family that sacrificed for
Lebanon and its independence."He also added that Australia opened its doors for
migrants and refugees, and was aware of the crisis' repercussions on Lebanon.
Pakradonian receives Jones
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - Charge d'Affaires of US Embassy in Beirut, Richard Jones,
on Thursday visited the headquarters of Tashnag party in Burj Hammoud whereupon
he met with secretary general of said party Agop Pakradonian.
According to a statement from the party, talks focused on overall developments
at the local and regional scenes, with Pakradonian voicing support for dialogue
to solve local differences.
Lazzarini visits Safadi,
wishes Tripoli eternal peace
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Philippe
Lazzarini, visited on Thursday Al-Safadi Foundation, where he met with
foundation president, Mohammad Safadi. Safadi deemed the UN diplomat's visit a
substantial expression of UN support to the city of Tripoli. "We hope to get
more support, especially in light of the simmering Syrian refugee crisis and its
effect on the Lebanese economy, including that of Tripoli," Safadi said. In
turn, Lazzarini was briefed by Safadi on Safadi Foundation projects in the
service of local communities, especially in resolving disputes in areas of
tension. "This is the main purpose of my visit to Tripoli. We hope this region
enjoys eternal peace, and the financial support that this northern city
deserves," Lazzarini said.
Jaber: No agreement yet over
electoral law
Thu 21 Apr 2016/NNA - MP Yassin Jaber hoped in an interview with the Voice of
Lebanon - 93.3 radio station "to make room for the parliamentary blocs to
respond to the proposal of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri about connecting the
election law to legislation, especially that there is no agreement within the
blocs on the electoral law," adding that 'urgent legislation' is necessary at
this stage. Tackling corruption files, Jaber stressed the role of the judiciary,
rejecting the call to pull the file from the media. These dossiers are very
serious and those behind them must be punished," he said. Jaber supported the
call of MP Ibrahim Kanaan to declassify the minutes of the parliamentary
committees.
Interview with Dr. Taufic Hindi from
"Family Security Matters" Site Focusing on Dr. Walid Phares's Activities before
immigrating to the USA in 1990.
Attacked by Radical
Media: Adviser to Presidential Candidates Exonerated
Interview with Dr. Toufic Hindi Conducted by Dorothy Logan/April 20/16
Dr. Toufic Hindi is a Lebanese politician, a university professor, and a
commentator. He was the political advisor to the Commander of the Lebanese
Forces, Dr. Samir Geagea, from 1986 to 1994 (when Dr. Geagea was jailed by the
pro-Syrian regime in Beirut). Hindi played a central role in the LF and in the
opposition to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon between 1994 and 2005. In that
period, he was arrested and jailed by the pro-Syrian regime of Lebanon before he
was released by the courts. Over the past 11 years, Dr. Hindi has been active in
Lebanon's political arena and a national commentator on local and regional
politics. We are conducting this interview with him to examine, in particular,
specific parts of the history of the Lebanese Forces during the 1980s.
Question: Dr. Hindi, you have been the political advisor to the Commander of the
Lebanese Forces, Dr. Samir Geagea, between 1986 and 1994. These were critical
years, where significant areas of Lebanon (such as East Beirut and Mount
Lebanon) were defended by this coalition. Might you explain to our readers who
and what the Lebanese Forces were during that period-perhaps by providing a
quick history lesson?
Dr. Hindi: Unlike what you often read in the international media, the Lebanese
Forces were not a militia per se; they emanated initially from a coalition of
political parties, most of whom predated the war of Lebanon in 1975, and created
a unified force to defend the Lebanese Republic by defending the Christian areas
of Lebanon when they came under attack by Palestinian armed groups and later by
the Syrian regime army and their proxies. The political parties early on,
between 1975 and 1980, had each formed their own militias to defend the "free
areas" of Lebanon-along with the Lebanese Army. But in July 1980, the militias
were replaced with a regular military corps, named "Lebanese Forces," and
supervised by a political coalition named "Lebanese Front." As Americans, you
can think of it as similar to the "Continental American Army" facing the
British. In Lebanon, the "continentals" were the Lebanese Forces. So it is
correct that so-called militias were formed by the main political parties in the
Christian community in 1975, and these militias were disbanded and merged with a
National Guard type of force in 1980. For the following decade, the LF were
organized militarily but under a political structure representative of the
political parties of the so called "free areas." There were two political levels
that oversaw this "National Guard." One level was the representative council
headed by the LF commanders, and the higher level was the Lebanese Front, which
included the parties' leaders, intellectuals, and prominent public
personalities. The LF acted, practically, as a local government with departments
dealing with education, social security, finances, defense, foreign affairs and
diaspora. Technically, this was a de facto cabinet managing the "free areas"
until the national government's return to life. It was disbanded at the end of
the war in 1990, and the political parties returned to normal political life.
Question: The Lebanese Forces are often accused of having committed massacres
and violence against civilians throughout the war. Was that indeed true of the
war?
Dr. Hindi: First, one has to understand during which part of the war who did
what. The LF was not a single body from 1975 to 1990. That would be like saying
that the US Administration in 2016 committed violations in Abu Ghraib in 2004 or
the White House in 2012 was responsible for what some rogue soldiers did in
Vietnam in 1968. As far as I know, there were never institutional decisions by
the leadership of the LF to take a collective violent action against
collectivities of civilians anywhere in Lebanon-at least, not since it was
formed as unified body in July 1980. Like in all wars and even in any country,
there were and are thugs who commit individual crimes. On the other hand, the
Syrian Army and the pro Assad factions of the PLO committed many massacres
ordered by the leadership of the institutions while there were certainly
exactions by members of the LF as there were by members of the US, French or
other Western armed forces. So to be very precise, while there were acts of
violence during the war, including within the free areas, I have never seen nor
heard nor learned about orders given to the hierarchy by the command to
perpetrate any violence against a whole community because of religion or
ethnicity between 1980 and 1990.
Question: But many among its foes, including Islamists, Jihadists and pro
Iranians, accuse the Lebanese Forces of being responsible for the so-called
Sabra and Shatila massacres in September 1982. Was that not the case?
Dr. Hindi: No, that was not the case. It was established-by Lebanese
authorities-that rogue elements "wearing the uniforms of Lebanese Forces"
perpetrated collective killings of civilians on September 16 to 18 of 1982. The
armed elements belonged to a security unit whose commander, though part of the
LF hierarchy, was actually in contact with the Syrian regime. There is a book
about that written by one of that commander's assistants, Robert Hatem. These
rogue elements acted on their own and for years caused more moral and political
harm to the LF than any other faction. What is essential is that, according to
the minutes of the LF Council of Command of September 1982, there was no
official meeting of the LF command with the political parties represented that
gave such an order as was the case when the pro-Syrian Baathist Saika
organization planned the mass killing of civilians in Damour in 1975 or when the
Syrian command ordered the elimination of many citizens in the Bekaa in 1978.
The Sabra and Shatila shootings were disgusting, but they were the work of
Christian rogue elements in a late response to the massacres by Saika forces of
Christian towns in the years before, including in Damour and Aishiye. Some
believe the Sabra and Shatila shootings were most likely manipulated by the
Hafez Assad intelligence services, via their penetration within the LF, to
crumble the Israeli-Lebanese talks and were done immediately after
President-Elect Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by a pro-Assad terror group on
September 14, 1982. Had Gemayel been alive, there would not have been those
incidents in Sabra and Shatila. These and other Palestinian camps were taken by
the Israelis weeks earlier, and the LF were circulating in those areas without
committing similar shootings. In fact, Bashir Gemayel addressed his officers a
few weeks earlier and specifically told them not to hurt anyone after the
Israelis invaded Lebanon. It is an important speech and can be found in
Lebanon's press archives. At that time, nothing happened. It was only after
Bashir was killed and the LF chain of command was adrift that these incidents
occurred. The Israeli-LF relations in effect started to collapse after that
episode. But since then, the propaganda machine of the adversaries of the
Lebanese Christians kept using the Sabra-Shatila incidents, as an isolated
bloody incident-with no explanation-in order to harm the image of the community
and of its public figures in the following years and decades, even though this
understanding was completely baseless.
Question: Recently, during the current U.S. Presidential campaign, there have
been hit articles initiated by an Islamist group and later by far left and pro
Iranian bloggers circulating across the internet, leading to controversy over
one of Mr. Trump's foreign policy advisors, Dr. Walid Phares, who also happened
to be an advisor to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2011-2012. Some of
these criticisms allege that before his emigration to the United States in the
1990s, Phares had links to or was a member of the Lebanese Forces' military, and
thus some went as far as implying that he was somehow tied to violence against
civilians perpetrated by the group because of his ties to the Lebanese Forces.
Does that make sense to you?
Dr. Hindi: First of all, as a Lebanese citizen, I don't permit myself to
interfere in domestic American politics, but it happens that I got to know Dr.
Phares well, and my answer to your question concerning him is: No it doesn't
make any sense at all. Those imputations are false, and the people who are
making them either don't have any knowledge about Lebanon's history and politics
or they are making them with the goal of smearing a public figure in US
politics. Here is why: Walid Phares was a young lawyer, an author, and a
publisher between 1979 and 1986. Prior to that, he was a student in law and
political sciences at St. Joseph University. His public career started very
early at the age of 23 in 1979 when he published his first book in Arabic
Pluralism in Lebanon while he was still a student, a book in which he portrayed
the country as being multiethnic and argued the best form of solution to the
internal conflict was a mutual recognition among its communities and a federal
system. He then published a series of books and essays focusing on pluralism and
on the necessity of democratization within the free areas where he lived. In
1982, he launched a weekly dedicated to minorities in the Middle East, Sawt el
Mashreq (Voice of the Orient). The publication had versions in French and
English. He was opposed to the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. During this period
he practiced law as a defense attorney and offered lectures to communities and
institutions, including to the Lebanese Forces, led then by Bashir Gemayel and
his successors, from 1980 to 1986. His published material is very large and
available in the archives of the Lebanese press, which also covered his lectures
and interviews in Arabic and French.
In 1982 and 1983, Phares was a critic of the policies of the Government and was
calling for a political opposition in the Christian areas. In June 1983, he was
pressured to not pursue this opposition. Walid widened his publishing records
and talks regardless. He even formed a small social democratic party, a workers
union, a student group and a minorities committee. He was acting as a center
left young politician opposing Syrian occupation and calling for a federal
Lebanon, but within the limits of who controlled the Christian areas, the
Lebanese Forces. We met in 1984 and had a long series of discussions pertaining
to the situation and the future of the country. It was only in 1986 that Phares
was invited to join the political representative council overseeing the Lebanese
Forces as a representative of his own party, the PSDC. The LF then was led by
Dr. Samir Geagea. Phares served for two years, resigned and concentrated on his
own party and civil society groups until he emigrated in 1990.
Question: He had been labeled as a Phalangist. Is that accurate?
Dr. Hindi: Walid Phares has never been member of the Kataeb Party (Phalanges) as
far as I know. In the Arab world at that time, many would call someone "Phalangist"
just because he is a Lebanese Christian who opposed the PLO or the Syrian
occupation. Phares and his brother had launched their own small political group
which was on the one hand patriotic in terms of Lebanese identity, and on the
other hand socially democratic. His party was often suppressed by the dominant
parties and militias, but as a member of the political council he had to have
cordial relations with all political parties, including the Kataeb. To
understand this, you need to realize that the Lebanese Front/Lebanese Forces
were a sort of a local government with many political parties represented in
their political structures. For example, the LF consisted of the Kataeb, the
Liberal Party which was in the center, Tanzim, Guardians of the Cedars, Syriac
League-and Phares' Social Democratic group, the only one left of center. The LF
were not a militia per se in the sense understood in the United States or the
West. It was more of a local government overseeing the defense of the free
areas, which were mostly Christian.
Question: Mother Jones claims Phares was the advisor of Samir Geagea, the head
of the Lebanese Forces. Was he his advisor?
Dr. Hindi: No, he was not Geagea's advisor, for the simple reason that I myself
was the one and only political advisor in title of Dr. Geagea from 1986 until
1994. Walid was appointed as director of the Department of International
Relations from 1986 to 1987 before he was appointed to another department for
the émigrés in 1987. He used to meet diplomats or visit Lebanese communities
around the world. He quit his positions in 1988 to consecrate his time to his
social democratic party and the workers union. During these years Phares kept
offering lectures and was elected as Secretary General of the Maronite Diaspora
organization and attended conferences in several countries. I don't know where
Mother Jones got its information, but both I and Walid Phares were in the news
and our titles were very clear. A simple research in the press archives would
clearly outline our activities to anyone looking. It was all public and common
knowledge. I did not, however, see any reference to the Lebanese press between
1979 and 1990 in Mother Jones' two articles about Walid.
Question: Some blogs, though questionable, claim Walid Phares was a member of
the group called "Guardians of the Cedars" and go on to ascribe extreme slogans
used by this group to Phares. Was he a member of this faction?
Dr. Hindi: Of course not. I really don't understand who is circulating these
false facts. Dr. Phares was not a member of the Hurras El Arz, or "Guardians of
the Cedars," a political party led by Mr. Etienne Sacr, who is still alive. This
party was represented in the council but had nothing to do with Phares' Social
Democratic party. Moreover, the Lebanese-Phoenician strictly nationalistic
ideology of the "Guardians of the Cedars" was the antithesis of the pluralistic
ideology of Walid. Again, it seems to me that those who are circulating this
false information are abusing the fact that the public in the United States has
no way to check any of this very basic information available aplenty in
Lebanon's archives.
Question: Some blogs and extremist lobby groups have connected Phares to very
troubling terms, such as "war crimes" and "Sabra and Shatila" links. We know
they are smearing him for political reasons, but how can such accusations even
stand? Can he sue them?
Answer: These seem to me as hallucinations, and of course he can sue them for
defamation. First of all, Walid was not even in the military. He was a human
rights lawyer and a political public figure. How anyone labels him as violent is
beyond me. As much as I know, in September 1982 during the days when Sabra and
Shatila shootings took place, he was practicing as a young defense lawyer and a
publisher. In the days and weeks after, he and his law offices got many
Palestinians and other citizens out of jail and defended them. Besides, if you
read his book about pluralism, he dedicates it to, among others, the Muslim and
Arab peoples. And in his booklet "Democratic Dialogue," he engages in
intellectual debates with all contemporaries, including Muslim Arab nationalists
and Lebanese Christian nationalists. Phares had zero connection to military and
violence. He only joined the LF political council as his party representative
four years later, in 1986, while the mentioned events were half a decade before.
It seems to me that his critics are bothered by his writings and speeches and
have no way to counter except by these misrepresentations.
But the larger picture is more important. The accusation against the Lebanese
Forces as being responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacres is false. These
terrible incidents, part of the larger war in Lebanon, were perpetrated by rogue
elements. The other factions did worse. The command of the LF during September
1982 should have been questioned about the circumstances of these incidents
because the political command has never been named by anyone or any court as
directly responsible. So why would the next few "cabinets" of the LF,
particularly that in 1986, even be hinted at as responsible? It would be as if
Secretary Clinton was made responsible for rogue US soldiers' shootings in
Vietnam! So the entire notion of responsibility of the LF-even as a local
government-does not stand to begin with.
Question: What was the relationship between the US and the LF for all these
years? I mean, officially?
Dr. Hindi: Well, that's the great question. Washington has partnered with the
Lebanese Forces since at least 1981 as an ally against terrorism. Bashir Gemayel
was received in the United States, and a US defense secretary visited the LF
leader in Lebanon in 1982. The US engaged with the LF throughout the 1980s, and
their diplomats were in touch with the LF under different leaderships in Beirut
and successive administrations in Washington. They were partners until the end
of the conflict in 1990. Furthermore, the LF had a representative office in
Washington from the late 1970s and it was in touch with the State Department.
The office existed for decades, until the early 1990s. The office worked with
many US lawmakers from both parties for many years. Even after the war was over
and the national defense organization was dismantled, the LF Party members and
supporters in the US have been involved in support for members of Congress and
remained very close to the Democratic and Republican administrations-and they
continue this practice. The LF groups, associated entities and individuals
helped in campaigns and fundraisers, including under both the Bush and Obama
administrations. Government representatives at high level attend the meetings
and celebrations held in Congress. In recent years, we've seen members of the
Obama administration, the Clinton State Department, and the Republican
leadership speaking at LF events. Would US government officials speak at their
events if they were what the slanderers of Phares claim they are? So to describe
it a "Christian militia tied to violence" is not only insulting, but it shows
that the description is not an American one, and instead most probably one
created by pro Iranian and pro Jihadist propaganda.
Question: Another related question is about Samir Geagea's relations to the
Palestinians. In the attacks against Professor Phares, pro-Iranian propaganda
says Phares was an advisor to Geagea, a claim you just identified as false. But
then they argue that Geagea was the head of the LF and in previous years the LF
were at war with the Palestinians. They appear to be trying to make a long shot
connection between Dr. Phares and enmity with the Palestinians. Does this theory
even have wings, let alone fly?
Dr. Hindi: Another calumny and slander. Yes, the LF and the PLO, FPLP, Saika,
and other factions were at war from 1976 till 1982: Two fighting camps. But
after 1976, the main foe of the LF was the Syrian occupation army, not the
Palestinian forces. In the late 1970s and just before 1982, the PLO was at war
with the Syrian forces of Hafez Assad. The LF and the Palestinians of PLO did
not engage much on the battlefield. More interestingly is the fact that under
Samir Geagea, the LF and the PLO engaged in a dialogue and the Israelis actually
accused Geagea of helping Arafat. Years later, the rapprochement between Geagea
and the Palestinian Authority became public with Geagea and Mahmoud Abbas
meeting openly. A more controversial episode was when LF Party lawmaker visited
Gaza and met with Hamas few years ago. How on earth can this propaganda slam
Phares in the US for having been in an organization headed by a politician who
entertained at that time and is actually entertaining friendly relations with
the Palestinians now and accuse Phares of being anti Palestinian?
Question: A woman by the name of Regina Sneifer, who allegedly said she served
in the Lebanese Forces, told Adam Serwer of Mother Jones that Phares gave
lectures to officers of the LF in which Phares said that Lebanon should be
partitioned and the militia should become a "Christian army."
This took place before I joined the LF. Most likely in 1980 or 1981 after Walid
Phares had published his first book Pluralism in Lebanon when he had been
offering lectures to the community and to many audiences. He was invited to give
a series of lectures on the history of Lebanon and of the Christian community.
Over the years, thousands of people listened to his lectures on the evolution of
the Middle East and of Lebanon. He had dozens of articles and was interviewed by
radio stations many times. All of what he lectured about was in his books. So,
the fact that he lectured to LF officers was very normal in East Beirut. It is
like a scholar lecturing at West Point or the War College in the US. Phares
traveled and presented at conferences around the world. I don't know what Ms.
Sneifer has heard from him, but none of his ideas were hidden. It was all
public. His central theme was that there are ethnic and religious minorities in
the Middle East, including the Christians of Lebanon, the Copts, Druze,
Assyrians, Nubians, and others who were under suppression and threat by
extremists, and these minorities needed to be recognized. His vision was three
decades prescient as we have seen what happened to these minorities in recent
years at the hands of ISIS. He spoke about them and created, as I remember, an
NGO federation in 1981 known as MECHRIC to raise their issues internationally.
Last year I learned that Dr. Phares led these NGOs to the UN Security Council
for that purpose, thirty five years later. I am not aware of what Ms. Sneifer
has said or written.
Question: Another source cited by Serwer in the Mother Jones article of 2011 was
an activist in Beirut by the name of Toni Nissi. He was a member of an NGO part
of an international federation of NGOs existing under the name "Cedars
Revolution." Nissi claimed he was an associate of Phares and was quoted on the
substance of the latter's advising to Geagea and the content of his lectures in
the LF. Was Nissi a major player in the LF or in the public debate?
Dr Hindi: Throughout the 1980s I never personally heard of him in any public
debate or any written material, probably because he was very young then. Fifteen
years later I learned that he was a member of an NGO in Beirut which was part of
an international NGO advised by Dr. Phares. One could wonder why Serwer would
call him an associate from the 1980s. He wasn't then. But later on, according to
press releases, we learned that Mr. Nissi was indeed an active part of an NGO
backing the "Cedars Revolution" and UNSCR 1559. But that was as of 2005. From my
point of view, neither Sneifer nor Nissi could be considered as valid sources on
major events in the 1980s, events which were well covered by the press. The
Mother Jones journalistic method needs to be more professional. If they wish to
criticize Phares' ideas, the sky is the limit. If they want to criticize his
positions in the 1980s, the press archive is large. They haven't cited any
credible media sources in Lebanon.
Question: Assuming Nissi isn't a serious source for the specific period of the
1980s, could his assertion still be valid? Was Phares an ideologue of the LF?
Dr. Hindi: Here again, the LF had an ideologue in charge of ideological
education. His name is Antoine Najm, and he is still alive. He has written the
official doctrine of the LF under Samir Geagea. It is documented, published and
available. Walid Phares was a historian and political scientist. He lectured to
the public and to all institutions in the area. He developed the ideological and
political platform of his own party, the PSDC (Social Democratic Christian
Party) and the booklet is available. Many in the LF have read Phares' books and
some subscribed to his historical analysis and his call for federation. That is
all.
Question: Is it known and do you know why Phares left Lebanon in 1990? Is it
because he opposed the Syrians and he felt insecure?
Answer: It is not a simple answer. Many of his colleagues who adopted his same
positions stayed in Lebanon and many among them are politicians or businessmen
today. However, some of them had to follow a different narrative in public
policy. The Syrian occupation was heavy handed. Walid has never been in the
military to fear repercussions. Is it ideology? Well, the actual ideologue of
the LF stayed in Lebanon. My assessment is that Dr. Phares wanted to be in a
very free country where he could continue to write and act without having to
self-censor. Besides, he has decided to enter a new American life, with a wider
intellectual scope than Lebanese politics. He emigrated fully.
Question: Had Mother Jones and the other attackers against Walid Phares done a
better job by researching Lebanon's media archives, would they have found
information contrary to the picture they painted of Phares?
Dr. Hindi: Of course. He was a young public person in that part of Lebanon. From
the year he published his first book in 1979 until the year he left in 1990, he
left many intellectual and political traces behind him. He published many books,
articles and essays. He lectured and taught at universities. He practiced as a
lawyer and engaged in public policy. It seems to me that the lobbies smearing
him in the US have a clear political agenda unrelated to his life in Lebanon,
and instead related to those years spent in public service in the United States.
Americans aren't interested in how many books and articles Walid Phares
published in his twenties in his motherland. They are interested in his many
books and professional successes in his new homeland, America. I think that in
order to stop him from becoming an influential public figure in the US, his
political enemies have tried to build an imaginary history of Walid Phares in
Lebanon. None of what they claimed is accurate. That's why we know they haven't
done a professional job-of reading his books or his articles or inquiring of his
real colleagues. All they had to do was watch his television appearances or
quote his books. They didn't. People in Lebanon would laugh at such US-based
media who report like journalists from the third world. How ironic that those
who criticize Phares in Lebanon do not use the same ridiculous material
published by his critics in America. They go to his abundant public record and
use what they disagree with. For example, Hezbollah and other radicals refer to
his influence in the US or his views on Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran. No one
creates an imaginary story like his critics in America.
**Dorothy Logan is a program coordinator for the Catherine T. MacArthur School
of Leadership at Palm Beach Atlantic University where she also teaches political
science and cultural history.
Accusations Against Dr. Walid Phares,
Trump Advisor by Islamists Proven False
Ryan Mauro/ClarionProject/April 20/16
The 'case' against Walid Phares has been shattered, as has been the credibility
of the media outlets who put their political agenda ahead of the truth.
Islamists and their hyper-partisan media allies have been waging a smear
campaign against foreign policy expert Dr. Walid Phares, who is advising Donald
Trump and previously advised Mitt Romney. Now, the so-called "case" against
Phares is in flames, burning the credibility of the media outlets and
commentators who chose to put their political motivations ahead of the truth.
The character assassination campaign against Phares uncoincidentally pops up
around presidential election time. It has two main pillars: That Phares is
somehow responsible for massacres by Lebanese Christian militias and that he's
an "Islamophobe," despite his close working relationships with many Muslims
including one who wrote an article titled "Walid Phares: A Hero to Muslim
Liberals."
False Claims that Phares' Hands are Covered with the Blood of the Innocent
The first absurd line of attack is simply a regurgitation of a Mother Jones
article by Adam Serwer that claims Phares was linked to a Christian extremist
militia in Lebanon before he emigrated to the U.S. in 1990 and taught extremism
that is responsible for its massacres. In Lebanon, Phares became known for his
advocacy of democratic pluralism, writing his first book about it age 22 in
1979. He also led a small political party in East Beirut named the Social
Democratic Party. The Christians of Lebanon—the good, the bad and the
ugly—united in the face of the brutal civil war. The political parties formed a
coalition under the name of the Lebanese Front that included his small party and
he served as its foreign affairs chief for two years in 1986.
Phares' colleague in the coalition was Dr. Charles Malik, a former president of
the U.N. General Assembly and co-author of the International Charter of Human
Rights. The military component—the militias—were collectively known as the
Lebanese Forces. Phares did not issue even one order to them. He did not join
one battle. He did not provide one gun. And there's no record that he ever
justified the massacres or urged human rights abuses by anyone.Just the
opposite, he called for a federal secular system and launched a workers’ union,
a student group and a minorities federation. His push for democracy within the
community where he was born and raised resulted in him being kidnapped by
militiamen upset with his articles. He says he was often threatened by these
militias until the day he left the country.
Unable to connect him to the massacres by actually connecting him to the
massacres, the author of the piece says he provoked the bloodshed by supporting
the creation of a Lebanese Christian state, as most Lebanese Christians wanted.
By that standard, any supporter of an independent Israeli, Palestinian or
Kurdish state is responsible for massacres committed in the name of the
cause.And now here's the kicker: The article partially relies on the words of
Toni Nissi, who has just published a letter expressing that he is "appalled and
totally disgusted" at how his words were manipulated. He says the author, Adam
Serwer, interviewed him for four hours, supposedly for a "documentary" about
Lebanon. Three sentences then showed up in his article that—according to Nissi—"maliciously
distorted the form and core of what was discussed in a cheap and repulsive
attempt to attack Professor Walid Phares."
When you examine the original Mother Jones article, you don't have a
well-researched informative article. You have about 2,500 words of throwing
enough crap at the wall in the hopes that some of it sticks (to put it a bit
more politely).
Phares isn't to blame for the massacres of innocent Muslims in Lebanon—so what
about all the repetitious chants of "Islamophobe?"A So-Called "Islamophobe" Who
Advocates for Muslim Human Rights and Freedom. "Islamophobe" is the favored slur
favored slur of Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
and apologists for the Iranian regime and their media allies to whom they feed
biased stories. Phares criticizes CAIR's leaders for things like being linked to
the Muslim Brotherhood and discussing how to use deception when they didn't know
the FBI was recording them. CAIR responds by calling him an "Islamophobe."
CAIR was even once caught teaching an audience to take advantage of how the
"media in the United States is very gullible" and "especially, as a Muslim, if
you have something to say, they will come running to you." CAIR said to exploit
the fact that the media "does little primary research" and "they will expect you
to do their work. Let them." Dr. Phares' rolodex is filled with the contact
information for liberal Muslims who oppose Islamism and communicate with him
regularly. A central pillar of his worldview is that there's an intersection
between U.S. national security interests and human rights in the Muslim world —
where the West must align with Muslims who seek genuine democratic reform and
peace. His message of empowering Muslims is the polar opposite of bigotry or "Islamophobia"
— in fact, it is part of the antidote.
Facts and fair-mindedness are of no concern to Islamists who have long used "Islamophobia"
as a political weapon, even against Muslims who stand in their way. Nor are
facts and fair-mindedness of much concern to hyper-partisans who facilitate
their agenda by deceptively carving the country into categories of ally and
enemy.If those shouting "Islamophobia" actually were concerned about anti-Muslim
sentiment, they'd exhale a sigh of relief that he has the ears of GOP
presidential candidates.
The vindication of Dr. Walid Phares is a sad testament to the state of today's
politics. An influential ally for many Muslims, at home and abroad, had his
named tarred by Islamists and hyper-partisans whose excitement over political
dynamite subsumes any impulse to do responsible fact-checking and critical
thinking. The campaign against Phares is a microcosm of a broader growing
problem in America where hyper-partisanship and political correctness have made
it extremely difficult to have a meaningful, nuanced conversation about the
Islamist threat. Those who try put themselves at professional risk. And the
Islamists and their allies are exploiting these weaknesses in the West's
political discourse every step of the way.
**Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with
Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is
frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or
arrange a speaking engagement.
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/accusations-against-trump-advisor-islamists-proven-false#
Will the true culprits surface
in Lebanon's infamous Internet racket?
Esperance Ghanem/Al-Monitor/April 20/16
BEIRUT — Lebanon's illegal Internet scandal has been a hot topic since it fell
under the public spotlight last month. Illegal transmission stations have been
dismantled and legal and judicial investigations are ongoing. But what remains
to be seen is whether the investigations will be completed to ensure the
prosecution of everyone involved. The Ministry of Telecommunication had informed
the parliamentary Communications and Media Committee of legal, financial and
security dangers related to companies illegally providing Internet services
through fiber optic transmission stations and receivers not subject to state
supervision. Following the committee's March 8 meeting, committee head Hassan
Fadlallah of the Shiite Hezbollah party announced the information during a joint
press conference. Owners of an estimated seven stations have been buying
bandwidth at a low price from outside the Lebanese network, specifically from
Cyprus and Turkey, and then selling it to Lebanese subscribers at prices lower
than the official rate, officials say. Lebanon's Internet sector is run by the
state-owned company Ogero, whose director general and general manager Abdel
Moneim Youssef has more than 52 complaints, lawsuits, warrants and warnings
issued against him. The Progressive Socialist Party has called for an April 20
protest against his alleged corruption.
The Communications and Media Committee has been holding weekly meetings in
parallel with other security meetings to follow up on the issue. The latest
meeting was held April 11 with concerned ministers and officials representing
the main security services. Following that meeting, Telecommunications Minister
Boutros Harb announced that four people had been arrested with the help of
Cyprus on the grounds of having illegally brought communication hardware into
Lebanon from Turkey. A warrant was issued for a fifth person. Also, the public
prosecutor for financial cases, Ali Ibrahim, has filed legal actions against 22
people implicated on counts of illegal installation, sale and investment,
embezzlement, wasting public money and tax evasion. Investigations are underway
to find the owners of the illegal stations and all involved parties. So far,
Cyprus has not issued an official position on the issue.
Four huge illegal stations that were inspected and uninstalled were equipped
with the latest technology devices and set up in Faqra and Eioun al-Siman.
Security sources following up on the case confirmed to Al-Monitor that ongoing
investigations show a much higher number of illegal stations, some dating back
to 2009, but that their owners managed to uninstall them immediately after the
scandal was revealed. The scandal came to light when a group of licensed
Internet service providers (ISPs) filed a complaint Jan. 25 with the
Telecommunications Ministry against 12 companies, licensed by the ministry, for
allegedly selling Internet services illegally. Finance Minister Ali Hassan
Khalil said during a Communications and Media Committee meeting March 30 that
30% of activity in the Lebanese Internet market is illegal, causing the treasury
to lose of as much as $200 million a year. A technical investigation by Ogero
concurs with those figures. Fadlallah warned that the situation exposes the
Lebanese people to piracy and espionage, especially since numerous state
institutions and security services —- most notably the president's palace, the
parliament and Lebanese army departments — have been unknowingly using the
illegal systems. The ISPs they have dealt with are licensed by the Ministry of
Telecommunications. However, the most dangerous implication is that these
Lebanese official headquarters may have been using Internet connected to Israel,
which represents a breach of state sovereignty and an act of espionage.
Many questions came up during one of the meetings about how the illegal Internet
companies managed to bring in the large equipment for their stations through
legitimate border crossings, airports or ports without being caught by customs
officials, especially since such imports usually require Telecommunications
Ministry authorization. Other questions were also raised about how people or
entities managed to install equipment to receive the Internet illegally under
the nose of the security forces — hinting at a major corruption scenario.
Security sources told Al-Monitor that “most of the equipment that entered
Lebanon was imported into Syria, and then smuggled over land to Lebanon, and the
remaining part passed customs inspection by being labeled as computer devices,
which unlike communication equipment, do not require an inspection by the
Ministry of Telecommunications.”
The sources said that data service providers (DSPs) provide global Internet
gateways, while ISPs connect their clients, whether companies or individuals, to
the Internet through the DSPs licensed by Ogero that operate the landlines in
Lebanon. “38 ISPs operated in Lebanon before 2014, but when Minister Boutros
Harb assumed the communications portfolio this number rose to 115, since he
licensed 67 new companies,” the sources added. “The problem is that a number of
ISPs sought to get Internet services illegally through companies in Cyprus and
Turkey, at a lower cost. These licensed ISPs were thus operating through legal
and illegal channels at the same time.”
Ogero is entrusted with leasing access to international capacity on behalf of
the government. However, the companies in question get their access lines
through Cyprus and Turkey at the giveaway price of $30 each, and then resell the
service in Lebanon for $100 to $150.
“Who are the companies that offered discounted prices? What is their interest in
all this?” the sources asked before continuing, “This is the security dimension
of the Internet scandal. Fingers are pointed toward Israel, the enemy state of
Lebanon, which of course may benefit from this and is always seeking to breach
Lebanon's security and strengthen its espionage capacities over its territories.
This won’t be Israel’s first espionage attempt; back in 2009 an illegal Internet
transmitting station was discovered in the mountainous Tallat al-Barouk region,
and it turned out to be connected to Israel.”
The latest chapter of this scandal involves an underwater cable spotted at the
mouths of two rivers, Nahr al-Kalb and Nahr Ibrahim, which are roughly about 17
kilometers (10 miles) apart; Youssef revealed the presence of the cable and
indicated during a parliamentary meeting that the line is used for illegally
distributing Internet access. On April 12, the Lebanese army inspected the cable
in the presence of Ogero technical units. The Telecommunications Ministry issued
a statement saying, “The underwater cable connecting Nahr Ibrahim and Nahr el-Kalb
is a fiber optic cable of a large capacity that allowed the transmission of
different communication services: sound, data, Internet and images."However, the
statement added that 40 days passed between the time the news hit the media and
when the cable was inspected — enough time for the violators to cover up their
activity.
Ziad Aswad, a member of the Communications and Media Committee, told Al-Monitor,
“What is happening is wrong [on many levels], since no progress has been made on
the issue.” Aswad fears the corruption will not receive appropriate judicial
treatment and will be covered up to hide the real culprits, whose identities are
yet to be revealed.
He said the crime would only be properly dealt with “before the judiciary and
not the parliament, which is not performing its duties as it should.”
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/lebanon-internet-scandal-israel-corruption-illegal-stations.html#ixzz46HcluVPW
Obama, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince
discuss Yemen, Libya conflicts
Reuters, Riyadh Wednesday, 20 April 2016/President Barack Obama and Abu Dhabi’s
crown prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahayan discussed a series of regional
conflicts in the Middle East in a private meeting ahead of a summit with Gulf
leaders on Thursday, the White House said.Obama and the Crown Prince agreed on
the need for a political settlement for the Yemen conflict, and the need to
rally international support for Libya’s nascent government and to head off the
“actions of potential spoilers” there, the White House said.
Obama defends Iran deal at
Gulf summit
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English Thursday, 21 April 2016/US President Barack
Obama on Wednesday defended the Iran nuclear deal his administration had long
lobbied for, but also pledged vigilance against Tehran at a summit attended by
Gulf leaders in the Saudi capital Riyadh. “We will remain vigilant to make sure
Iran fulfills its commitments, just as we fulfill ours,” Obama said at the close
of the meeting with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Obama’s
administration lent its weight for the deal, signed in July last year with the
Islamic republic and six world powers, to use diplomacy in order to block
pathways for Iran to develop a nuclear arm, an allegation Tehran has long
rejected. Gulf states have long expressed concerns over Iran’s interference and
meddling in the region, a worry Obama has tackled in his Riyadh visit when he
said Iran must be held “accountable” and that the US is going to work to stop
Iran from backing the Houthi militia group in Yemen.
Need for talks
However, he said there is a need for a “dialogue” as well, highlighting his
administration’s keenness for diplomacy. Citing Iran’s “destabilizing
activities” in the region, he said: “Even with the nuclear deal we recognize
collectively that we continue to have serious concerns about Iranian behavior.”
But he added: “None of our nations have an interest in conflict with Iran.”While
concerns remain over Iran and economic issues, including the collapsed oil
prices, he also described the GCC monarchies as united in their commitment to
defeating ISIS and soothing other regional conflicts. “We remain united in our
fight to destroy ISIL,” he said, using another acronym for ISIS, at the close of
the summit. Obama, finishing his brief trip to the kingdom, said he and the Gulf
leaders had agreed about ways to move forward in campaign against ISIS, with
members of the GCC states agreeing to “increase their contributions to the
fight.”He also said “the United States and the GCC will launch a new high-level
economic dialogue with a focus on adjusting to lower oil prices, increasing our
economic ties and supporting GCC reforms as they work to provide jobs and
opportunities to their young people and all of their citizens.”Watch: What’s on
the Obama GCC summit's agenda
Iraq, Syria
He said the nations had also agreed to help Iraq. That was a nod to Obama’s
request to Gulf countries to step up their financial and political support for
rebuilding Iraq after years of war. Obama’s comments in the Saudi capital came
after talks aimed at reassuring and coordinating with Mideast allies that harbor
serious doubts about Obama’s outreach to Iran and about US policy toward Syria,
where a civil war rages on. Obama said the fragile cessation of hostilities
there was under “tremendous strain” and he decried continued violations, but
made the case for sticking to the US strategy of using diplomatic talks to
pursuing a political transition for Syria. “This violence is yet another
reminder that there’s just one way to end this civil war,” Obama said, adding
that the Gulf leaders had agreed. The summit followed bilateral talks that Obama
held with Saudi King Salman on Wednesday shortly after arriving in the kingdom.
Besides Saudi Arabia, the GCC includes the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait,
Oman and Bahrain. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf countries share the US
view that ISIS militants pose a threat, and have joined the US-led bombing
campaign against the group. But they want the US to do more to attempt to remove
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power. (With AP)
Hamas deploys forces on
Egypt-Gaza border
AP, Gaza City Thursday, 21 April 2016/The militant Hamas group deployed forces
on Thursday along the Egypt-Gaza border to counter Cairo’s concerns that it is
aiding ISIS extremists in Egypt’s lawless Sinai Peninsula. Egypt accuses Hamas,
which rules the Gaza Strip, of providing a safe haven for the ISIS affiliate in
Sinai through a network of smuggling tunnels. Hamas denies the charge. Hamas and
a high-ranking Egyptian security official said the deployment is part of an
agreement reached with Egyptian officials last month. “This emphasizes the
Palestinian stand to tighten security on the border and nothing that harms Egypt
will come out of Gaza,” said Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri. The Egyptian
security official said the deployment is part of the new deal with Egypt that
sees Hamas halt tunnel construction in return for opening the Rafah border
crossing, Gaza’ s main gateway to the outside world. The official spoke on
condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the media. On
Thursday, armed Hamas men took up positions along the 13-kilometer (8-mile)
border, with fighters in pick-up trucks patrolling back and forth. Relations
between Hamas and Egypt soured after the 2013 military ouster of Islamist
President Mohammed Morsi. Hamas is an offshoot of Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood
movement. Egypt has been battling ISIS militants and in 2014 launched a fierce
campaign on the underground tunnels with Gaza, destroying many of them. It has
also kept the Rafah crossing largely sealed. Abu Zuhri said he hopes that the
deal will lead to the crossing’s reopening.
Arab League chief calls for
special court to try Israel
AFP, Cairo Thursday, 21 April 2016/Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi called
Thursday for a special criminal court to be set up for Israel, at a meeting to
condemn an announcement that it will never return the Golan Heights. Delegates
to the 22-member Arab bloc based in Cairo are expected to pass a resolution
denouncing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pledge Sunday that the occupied
Golan Heights would remain Israeli “forever.”Israel occupied the Golan during
the 1967 Middle East war with Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and annexed it in 1981,
in a move never recognized by the international community. Israeli media have
reported that Netanyahu organized a cabinet meeting in the Golan -- where he
made the pledge -- amid fears Israel could come under pressure to return the
area as part of a future peace deal for its war-torn neighbor. Israel was acting
like “a country that is above the law and accountability,” Arabi told delegates
at the start of the Arab League meeting. He demanded “a special criminal court
for the Palestinian cause,” along the lines of international tribunals set up to
try ex-officials of “the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Sierra Leone.”
Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Cairo and delegate to the Arab League, Ahmed Qattan,
accused Israel of trying to profit from the conflict in Syria. “The Zionist
entity is exploiting the years of crisis in Syria,” he said. With Syria
suspended from the League, its 21 other members on Thursday unanimously approved
a resolution condemning Israel and asking the UN Security Council to force
Israel to submit to international law and UN resolutions. The text of the
resolution referred to Netanyahu’s “aggressive statements” on Sunday and
“Israel’s repeated attempts to impose the status quo in order to annex” the
Golan.
Syrian HNC opposition to
leave Geneva by Friday
By Staff writer, Al Arabiya English Thursday, 21 April 2016/All members of the
main Western-backed opposition will leave peace talks in Geneva by Friday, a
source close to the High Negotiations Committee (HNC) said on Thursday. “All
members of the HNC will be leaving today and tomorrow,” the source told Reuters
on Thursday, declining to be identified. On Thursday, Syrian opposition
negotiator Mohammad Alloush, representing Jaish al-Islam, a major rebel group,
also said peace talks in Geneva could only resume if the government stopped
massacres and released thousands of prisoners. “We say to (government negotiator
Bashar) Ja’afari if he wants a real national unity government, first he must
release the 10,000 women in his prisons, and the tens of thousands more there,”
Alloush said before leaving the Geneva talks. “And (he must) stop the massacres
he is committing everyday, so he can be a human with an ounce of nationalism.
Then maybe the negotiations will resume,” he added. The Syrian opposition
started feeling uneasy about the peace talks when the fragile truce – currently
taking place in Syria – started further crumbling. On Tuesday, Syria’s main
opposition chief lamented the fragile truce, calling for major powers to meet on
the crisis, as his group left Geneva in protest against the escalating violence.
Head of the US and Saudi-backed opposition group, HNC, called on Tuesday for the
UN Security Council to take firm actions against violators of the truce, which
had been in place for about a month. UN peace envoy Staffan de Mistura said
Monday he had been informed by HNC that it would suspend its “formal
participation” in the talks. A Kremlin spokesman also said on Thursday President
Vladimir Putin had held a domestic Security Council meeting at which he
expressed concern over a “serious degrading of the situation” at Syrian peace
talks in Geneva, TASS news agency reported. Meanwhile, Syrian Prime Minister
Wael al-Halaki said on Thursday that Damascus will hold a referendum on the
constitution after the formation of a new government, Russian RIA news agency
quoted him saying in an interview.
Syria accuses Europe, regional powers
In a defiant tone from Damascus after a halt to peace talks this week, Syria’s
prime minister and foreign minister on Thursday accused European and regional
powers of supporting terrorists and fueling fighting in the country. Halaki said
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Britain and France did not want a political
solution to the conflict. “These regimes are working to escalate terrorist
actions, support terrorists and destroy the cessation of hostilities agreement
agreed by Russia and the United States,” state news agency SANA quoted him as
saying. Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said earlier that states including
Turkey continued to supply rebels in Syria with advanced weapons, and that the
Syrian government would press on with its fight against terrorists. The partial
truce, brokered by Washington and Moscow in February, initially reduced violence
in the west, but fighting has picked up again in recent weeks, leaving the
ceasefire in tatters. The statements from Damascus suggested it still felt it
was in a position of strength, bolstered by a six-month-old Russian military
intervention on President Bashar al-Assad’s side. A top adviser to Assad said
that “dialogue, local agreements and destroying terrorism” were the way to
ensure a political solution to the conflict. “We are trying to exploit every
possible opportunity for the success of the political solution to the Syrian
crisis,” Bouthaina Shaaban said. (With Reuters)
Pentagon sends legendary B-52
bomber into action against ISIS
AFP, Washington Thursday, 21 April 2016/ The US Air Force for the first time
deployed a B-52 bomber against the ISIS, the Pentagon said Wednesday as it ramps
up a 20-month campaign to smash the extremists. The bombing mission, in which a
hulking B-52 destroyed a weapons storage facility south of Mosul, comes the same
week that Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited Baghdad and announced extra US
troops, cash and equipment for the anti-ISIS campaign in Iraq. In other signs of
an increasing tempo, US commandos working with Kurdish troops conducted a raid
targeting a senior ISIS group figure and the Pentagon said it has changed how
air strikes risking civilian deaths are approved. Under the new rules, authority
now comes from the commanding three-star US general in Baghdad, instead of going
through a four-star at the US Central Command’s headquarters in Florida.
Baghdad-based military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren insisted the changes do
not lessen oversight standards in determining when civilian losses are an
acceptable risk. “This does not translate to more civilian casualties, this
translates to a more rapid execution of strikes,” Warren said. The Pentagon has
acknowledged 26 civilian deaths due to US-led coalition strikes since the
campaign began in August 2014 in Iraq, and credits the use of guided missiles in
keeping the number relatively low - though independent observers say the figure
is far higher.
More US troops
Carter this week announced an additional 217 US forces would be deployed to Iraq
as advisors, pushing the official count there past 4,000. The Pentagon has also
offered Apache attack helicopters for use in an eventual push on Mosul, Iraq’s
second city and which is under control of the ISIS group. Separately, Danish
lawmakers have approved a plan to commit seven F-16 warplanes, a transport
aircraft and 400 military personnel to expand its fight against the extremists.
Monday’s strike by a B-52 Stratofortress blew up an ISIS weapons storage
facility in the town of Qayyarah, about 35 miles (60 kilometers) south of Mosul.
The enormous planes, originally designed in the 1950s, became a symbol of US
might during the Cold War and the aircraft was used to conduct carpet bombing in
Vietnam. Warren said the B-52s are only being armed with guided bombs. Watch: US
preps action plan to use against ISIS this quarter
“There are memories in the collective unconscious of B-52s, decades ago,
doing... arguably indiscriminate bombing,” Warren said. “Those days are long
gone. The B-52 is a precision-strike weapons platform and it will conduct the
same type of precision strikes that we have seen for the last 20 months.”
Several B-52s arrived in Qatar earlier this month to replace a contingent of
newer B-1 bombers that had been working in Iraq and Syria for about a year.
Warren also announced that US commandos in northern Iraq had targeted Suleiman
Abd Shabib al-Jabouri, “one of ISIS’s military emirs and an ISIS war council
member.” The Kurdish regional security council said Jabouri was killed in the
raid, conducted jointly with Kurdish fighters.
‘Shoving match’
The US military has since 2014 led an international coalition against the ISIS
group in Iraq and Syria after the militants captured vast areas of territory
across the two countries. Despite major gains, including the recapture of the
Iraqi city of Ramadi, the coalition has still not chased ISIS fighters from Raqa
in Syria or Mosul, as well as several other important towns. In Syria, vetted
Syrian opposition fighters are clashing with ISIS fighters in the north,
especially around the Manbij region, but have recently lost some ground to the
extremists. It “has developed into a shoving match,” Warren said. “We will
continue to pressure ISIS but we expect them to fight hard to hold their
ground.”Additionally, the ISIS group has tightened the noose on a regime-held
enclave in eastern Syria, overrunning part of the city of Deir Ezzor, the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights said. Elsewhere in Syria, a Russian- and
US-brokered ceasefire grew ever more fragile as violence continued to flare up
around Aleppo. ISIS and other militant groups are not party to the February
“cessation of hostilities.”
MPs urge British government
to recognize ISIS ‘genocide’
AFP, London Thursday, 21 April 2016/British lawmakers voted Wednesday to urge
the government to recognize ISIS attacks on minorities in Iraq and Syria as
genocide. Members of parliament unanimously approved the motion - which is not
binding on the government - by 278 votes to zero. The vote in the 650-seat lower
House of Commons calls on ministers to accept formally that ISIS actions against
Christian, Yazidi and other religious and ethnic minorities in Syria and Iraq
constitute genocide. But Foreign Office junior minister Tobias Ellwood, who has
specific responsibility for the Middle East, said it was up to the courts rather
than the government to make such a judgement. “I believe genocide has taken
place, but as the Prime Minister (David Cameron) has said, genocide is a matter
of legal rather than political opinion,” Ellwood said. MPs from all parties
urged Britain to use its position as one of the five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council to get the situation referred to the
International Criminal Court. Ellwood said any referral to the ICC by the UNSC
“will only be possible with a united council and ideally with the cooperation of
countries in which alleged crimes have been committed. “But I draw the house’s
attention when efforts were made to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC in
2014 it was vetoed by Russia and China and we expect any Security Council
resolution seeking to refer the situations in Iraq or Syria to the ICC against
these countries could very well be blocked again. “But further discussions are
taking place. We are now in a different place than in 2014.”He added: “It is not
for governments to be the prosecutor, the judge or indeed the jury.”
Kerry expresses support for
Egypt in brief visit
APF, Cairo Wednesday, 20 April 2016/US Secretary of State John Kerry expressed
support for Egypt during a brief stop in Cairo on Wednesday before he attends a
summit of Gulf states in Saudi Arabia. Ties between Washington and Cairo have
improved since the United States lifted a freeze on military aid that it had
imposed on Egypt following the ouster of Islamist president Mohamed Mursi in
2013 and crackdown on his supporters. Kerry met President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi,
the former military chief who overthrew Mursi, at his palace. “The United States
understands the importance of Egypt to this region,” Kerry said after the
meeting, according a transcript from the State Department.“And we are deeply
committed -- contrary to some things that occasionally get written or some
suggestions that people make -- we are deeply committed to the stability of
Egypt,” he said. Egypt is facing a deadly insurgency by ISIS militants based in
the Sinai Peninsula, which has killed hundreds of soldiers and policemen since
Mursi’s overthrow. Kerry said he would return to Egypt to discuss “ways that we
can work together in order to deal with Daesh (ISIS) particularly and to help
Egypt in terms of the security concerns that it has today.”Washington still has
concerns about human rights violations in Egypt, including a crackdown on some
civil society groups. “We also talked about ways in which we can hopefully
resolve some of the differences and questions that have arisen about the
internal politics and choices for the people of Egypt,” Kerry said.
Nato: Russia maintains
‘considerable military presence’ in Syria
AFP, Ankara Thursday, 21 April 2016/Russia has kept a considerable military
presence in conflict-torn Syria to bolster the regime of President Bashar
al-Assad, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday. “Despite the announced
partial withdrawal we see that Russia maintains a considerable military presence
in support of the Assad regime in Syria,” he said at a press conference in
Turkey. A month ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the West by
ordering the “main part” of his forces to pull out. Despite Moscow having signed
on to efforts to promote a political settlement in Syria, US officials have
complained that Russian warplanes appear to be flying in support of Syrian
forces attacking rebel positions in Aleppo. Since the Kremlin said it was
scaling down its air presence in the country, regime forces -- backed up
crucially by Russian firepower - have scored some of their most dramatic
successes in areas not covered by a February ceasefire. The landmark partial
ceasefire, which was negotiated by the US and Russia, had dramatically curtailed
violence across much of Syria and raised hopes that a lasting deal could be
struck to end the bloodshed. But a new round of fierce fighting last week around
Aleppo overshadowed peace talks in Geneva aimed at ending the country’s
five-year civil war. Stoltenberg said the Syrian ceasefire “is under strain” but
“remains the best basis for a negotiated peaceful solution to the crisis”.
Senior ISIS figure in Iraq
targeted in US-led raid
AFP, Washington Wednesday, 20 April 2016/A senior ISIS figure in Iraq has been
targeted in a US-led commando raid, the Pentagon said Wednesday, as Kurdish
officials claimed he had been killed. The assault late Sunday, the latest raid
by US special operators on a mission to kill or capture ISIS leaders, occurred
at an undisclosed location in northern Iraq and targeted Suleiman Abd Shabib al-Jabouri,
Baghdad-based US military spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said. He worked as “one
of ISIL’s military emirs and an ISIL war council member,” Warren told Pentagon
reporters in a phone call, using an acronym for the ISIS group. “Al-Jabouri’s
removal will degrade ISIL’s leadership network and impact their ability to
coordinate attacks and defend ISIL strongholds,” he added. Warren declined to
comment on whether Jabouri was killed, but in a statement to AFP on Wednesday
the Kurdish regional Security Council said he died. “Al-Jabouri, also known as
Abu Saif, was a member ISIL’s military council, supervising the group’s
activities in South Mosul and Makhmour. In the joint operation, two of his aides
were also killed,” the statement read. Watch also: How to counter terrorism
after Obama era. The raid was conducted by Kurdish fighters and elite US special
operations troops deployed to Iraq as an “Expeditionary Targeting Force,” or ETF.
Military officials keep the ETF’s whereabouts secret, saying that discussing
missions puts the elite fighters at risk. The group works extensively alongside
local Kurdish fighters. Last month, Pentagon officials announced the ETF had
captured a “significant” ISIS operative whose detention was expected to yield
intelligence leading to the apprehension of other ISIS targets. The United
States has for the past 20 months led an international coalition against ISIS
fighters in Iraq and Syria. Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Monday announced
several measures to help Iraqi security forces as they try to retake territory
from the militants, including extra cash for the Kurds, additional US advisors
and attack helicopters that could be used in an eventual battle for Mosul.
Egyptian police detained
Italian student before his murder: sources
Reuters Thursday, 21 April 2016/An Italian student who was tortured and murdered
in Egypt had been detained by police and then transferred to a compound run by
Homeland Security the day he vanished, intelligence and police sources say. The
claims contradict the official Egyptian account that security services had not
arrested him. Giulio Regeni, a 28-year-old postgraduate student, disappeared on
Jan. 25, friends say. His body was found on Feb. 3, dumped on the side of a road
outside Cairo. It showed signs of torture, according to forensic and prosecution
officials in Egypt. Egyptian officials have strongly denied any involvement in
Regeni’s death. Soon after his body was found, police suggested he was the
victim of a car accident. Weeks later they said he might have been killed by a
criminal gang impersonating policemen.
But three Egyptian intelligence officials and three police sources independently
told Reuters the police had custody of Regeni at some point before he died.
Asked if Regeni had been taken to the Izbakiya police station in Cairo, as some
of the sources asserted, an official in the Interior Ministry said: “We did not
issue a statement on this matter.”Mohamed Ibrahim, an official in the media
department of Homeland Security, said: “There is no connection whatsoever
between Regeni and the police or Interior Ministry or Homeland Security. He has
never been held in any police station or here. The only time he came into
contact with police was when the police officials stamped his passport when he
landed in Egypt.
“If we had any suspicions concerning his activities the solution would have been
simple: Expel him.”Regeni’s fate has re-focused attention on broader allegations
of police brutality in Egypt and created tensions between Cairo and Italy, one
of Egypt’s most important trading partners.
A senior forensic official told Reuters that Regeni had seven broken ribs, signs
of electrocution on his penis, traumatic injuries all over his body, and a brain
haemorrhage. He had been killed by a sharp blow to the head. Pointing to the
signs of torture, human rights groups such as the Egyptian Commission for Rights
and Freedoms and Amnesty International have suggested Regeni may have been
killed by Egyptian security services. Rome is demanding Egypt find Regeni’s
murderers. All six intelligence and police sources told Reuters that Regeni was
picked up by plainclothes police near the Gamal Abdel Nasser metro station in
Cairo on the evening of Jan. 25. Security had been heightened that day because
it was the anniversary of the beginning of the 2011 Arab Spring uprising that
toppled President Hosni Mubarak.
An Egyptian man was picked up at the same time. Three sources gave his name but
Reuters was unable to verify the man’s identity. His connection to Regeni, if
any, is unclear. It is also unclear why the men were picked up, though all the
sources said the two had not been specifically targeted but were detained as
part of a general security sweep. One of the intelligence officials said the two
men were taken to the Izbakiya police station, a fortress-like compound located
beneath a flyover near downtown Cairo. “They were transported in a white minibus
with police licence plates,” he said. The three police sources said officers on
patrol in the area that night confirmed to them that Regeni had been taken to
Izbakiya. “We were told that an Italian was arrested and he was taken to
Izbakiya police station,” said one of the police officers, who confirmed the
detainee was Regeni.
A senior police official in the Izbakiya station told Reuters that he recalled
an Italian being brought in and said he would check the records to confirm the
name. He subsequently declined to comment. “I don’t know anything about it,” he
said. “I checked the books. Regeni’s name was not there.” One of the
intelligence sources said that Regeni was held at Izbakiya for 30 minutes before
he was transferred to Lazoughli, a state security compound run by Egyptian
Homeland Security. The sources did not say what happened to the Italian after
that. Reuters was unable to obtain information on the whereabouts of the
Egyptian.Regeni killing.. Italy prosecutor in Egypt
“THIS IS OUR WORK”
On March 24, Egyptian police said they had discovered Regeni’s bag and passport
following a shootout with a criminal gang whose members had in the past posed as
policemen. Police suggested he might have been a victim of this gang. Italian
officials have dismissed the story. Regeni’s family have said they believe the
student was not killed for criminal gain. The family declined to comment.
Regeni’s parents have said that if Egypt fails to uncover the truth behind their
son’s murder they want Rome to respond strongly. Paola Regeni, his mother, said
she might release a photograph – held by the family’s lawyer – to show the world
what had happened to him. Italy has significant economic interests in Egypt,
including the giant offshore Zohr gas field, which is being developed by Italy’s
state energy producer Eni. A delegation of Italian businessmen led by
then-Industry Minister Federica Guidi cut short a visit to Cairo and returned
home when Regeni’s body was recovered in February. On April 8, Italy recalled
its ambassador to Egypt for consultations because, the Italian foreign ministry
said, Egyptian investigators in Rome had failed to hand over all their evidence
to the Italians. Italian prosecutors said they still wanted details from Cairo
mobile phone towers that had connected to Regeni’s mobile phone. Egypt said this
would violate Egyptian laws and the constitution. Ahmed Essam, a Vodafone
official in Egypt, told Reuters that security officials had asked him about “a
technical issue related to an investigation that is still ongoing about
something secretive.” He would not elaborate. Police sources said security
officials had asked Essam for telephone recordings but added they could not
elaborate.
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has said Egypt deeply regretted Regeni’s death
and intended to continue its “full cooperation” with Italy to resolve the case
and bring the culprits to justice. Regeni, who studied at Cambridge University,
was researching trade unions in Egypt, focusing on street vendors. In the
aftermath of the 2011 uprising, vendors were often used by police to attack
protesters or acted as informers. Some vendors were also targeted by the police
for blocking roads. His obituary on the Cambridge University website said Regeni
“sought to understand how the labour sector was changing in the country, in the
context of economic globalisation and greater international institutional
linkages.”A colleague at Cambridge said Regeni had not flagged any concerns
about his safety. But Regeni’s research had raised the suspicions of police, a
security source told Reuters. The trade union movement is seen as the origin of
the 2011 uprising and the last bastion of dissent under Sisi’s crackdown.
Egypt’s interior and foreign ministers both dismissed the allegation that
security forces were behind Regeni’s murder. “Any foreigner who does this kind
of research is followed by the security services,” a mid-ranking Homeland
Security official told Reuters. “This does not mean that we suspect him. This is
our work.”
Gulf states back Morocco on
Sahara territory
AFP, Riyadh Thursday, 21 April 2016/Gulf monarchies on Wednesday voiced support
for Morocco’s claim over the Sahara during a joint summit in Riyadh, where
Moroccan King Mohammed VI spoke of a “dangerous” situation. “We stress our
support to all political and security causes that are important for your
brotherly country, mainly the Sahara,” Saudi King Salman said at the opening of
the summit of leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council and the North African
nation. In addition to Saudi Arabia, the GCC includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman,
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. King Salman stressed the GCC’s “categorical
rejection of any harm to the interests of Morocco” over the disputed territory,
where the Algiers-backed Polisario Front demands independence. Morocco’s monarch
urged Gulf monarchies to stand by his country to protect it from “plots against
its territorial integrity,” adding that the UN Security Council’s annual Sahara
discussions in April were being used “to blackmail Morocco”. Moroccan king: Firm
belief in common destiny with Gulf. He accused UN chief Ban Ki-moon of being
used in a “war by proxy” against Morocco through his “biased statements”. “The
situation is dangerous this time. It is unprecedented in the dispute” over the
desert territory, he said. Morocco was infuriated when Ban last month referred
to the “occupation” of the Sahara during a visit to a Sahrawi refugee camp in
Algeria. Morocco rejected an explanation from Ban’s office that his remarks were
not deliberate and that he regretted the “misunderstandings.”
Palestinian dies of wounds
from Jerusalem bus bombing
AFP, Jerusalem Thursday, 21 April 2016/A young Palestinian died of his wounds
from a Jerusalem bus bombing this week, an Israeli hospital said Wednesday. The
Palestinian health ministry named him as Abdel Hamid Abu Sorur, 19, from Aida
refugee camp outside Bethlehem in the West Bank. Mourners were paying condolence
to his family in the camp where posters put up by Islamist movement Hamas hailed
him as a "martyr". Israeli authorities have been investigating Tuesday's bombing
that wounded 21 people, for which there has been no claim of responsibility.
Houthi delegation arrives in
Kuwait for talks
AFP, Sanaa Thursday, 21 April 2016/A Houthi militia delegation arrived in Kuwait
from Yemen on Thursday for UN-sponsored peace talks that had been delayed for
several days, a UN spokesman said. “They have arrived in Kuwait just a few
minutes ago,” Charbel Raji, spokesman for UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed,
told AFP. The talks were originally supposed to start on Monday but were
delayed. The Houthis have agreed to join the delayed negotiations following
assurances pro-government forces would respect a fragile ceasefire, which has
been in effect since April 11. The talks are the most important attempt yet to
resolve Yemen’s devastating conflict which enters its second year.“The Yemeni
peace negotiations will start tomorrow in Kuwait under the auspices of the
United Nations,” said UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric. A delegation of militias
left Yemen’s capital on Wednesday to join the talks saying the UN had assured
them over the ceasefire. Representatives of Houthis and their allies boarded an
Omani plane bound for Kuwait via Muscat, said a Sanaa airport official. The
UN-brokered talks had been set to open in Kuwait on Monday but were put off
after the Iran-backed insurgents failed to show up. In remarks at a Gulf summit
in Riyadh, Saudi King Salman expressed “hope that the talks in Kuwait will
result in positive progress”. The government delegation which arrived in Kuwait
at the weekend, had threatened to pull out if the talks did not start on
Thursday morning. The delegation, in a statement, also accused the Houthi
militias of violating the ceasefire in many areas. A Saudi-led coalition
launched air strikes in Yemen 13 months ago after the militias, who had seized
control of Sanaa in 2014, advanced in other parts of the country.
Everybody’s wars
The similarities between Syria and Spain
Micheal Young/Now Lebanon/April 21/16
Paul Preston’s monumental biography of the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco
provides very useful insights into the Spanish civil war, and by extension into
the current war in Syria. It has often been observed that the Syrian conflict,
like the one in Spain between 1936 and 1939, began as an internal struggle
before expanding into a regional proxy war. Franco, who had been one of the top
generals revolting against the Republic, led by President Manuel Azana, was
supported by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, while the Republican side was
backed, most prominently, by the Soviet Union.
While the Syrian and Spanish civil wars were different in many regards, the
similarities are instructive. For one thing, Franco, like Bashar al-Assad, was
not particularly liked by his foreign allies, who nevertheless viewed his
triumph as of vital interest to them. Indeed, the war began as Germany and Italy
were preparing to expand their power in Europe through war, so a Franco defeat
would have represented a major reversal. While Franco could hardly be compared
to those who rose up against Assad rule, like them he became highly dependent on
outside supporters. Franco, no less than the foes of the Syrian president,
showed that uprisings can begin as impulses only partly thought through,
requiring rapid outside assistance to stay on track. The Syrians, in contrast to
Franco, had to rely on themselves at the start of their rebellion, but as the
regime hit back hard, their dependence on regional actors grew.
This soon gave the foreign actors great leverage over the Syrian participants,
as it had in Spain. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler sent their military
specialists to assist Franco, just as Vladimir Putin and the Iranian regime have
done theirs. With help comes arrogance, and just as the Italians and Germans
were soon dismissive of Franco’s plodding tactics, better for a war of
attrition, Assad’s allies were soon mocking his army. But at the same time both
Assad and Franco showed that there is much strength in weakness. Because the two
enjoyed decisive patronage from outside states, their loss simply became
unacceptable. Franco’s forces were doubtless stronger for a longer time than
were Assad’s, but early on the Spanish general feared that his forces would bog
down, and he redoubled his request for military aid from Germany and Italy.
The aid came, just as Russia and Iran made sure that Assad always had what he
needed to remain in power. It’s true that Franco was looking to triumph, while
Assad has mainly hoped to survive, but for all practical purposes the
calculations of the allies were the same: to prevent the defeat of their man.
The Spanish civil war has often been called a prelude to World War II. It’s not
clear whether Syria is a prelude to anything, but so destructive has the war
been that one can only hope that it will usher in a long period of peace born of
fear. In light of this, Spain proved that whoever wins, war is often the
anteroom to a long period of retrenchment. An important theme developed by
Preston is that Franco, despite Spain’s civil war, would have liked to
participate in World War II on the side of the Axis powers. His ambition was to
sit at the table of the victors, or so he thought, and gain territory in North
Africa from France. But because the Spain that emerged from the civil war was
devastated and its people starving, this proved impossible. When Franco tried to
get a German commitment to hand over territory in Morocco, as well as supply him
with needed food and weapons, the Germans dithered, leaving the dictator
increasingly disillusioned. He and his army soon admitted that Spain was in no
real condition to go to war. Ultimately the vulnerabilities of their state
served the dual purpose of making the Germans hesitate to commit to Franco so he
would enter the war, persuading Franco to maintain Spanish neutrality.
That may not have a great deal to do with Syria today, but it does, perhaps,
tell us something about its future. Civil war kills the life of a country, as
does dictatorship. So what can it mean when a dictator wins a war against his
own people, particularly an exceptionally savage one? Franco surely had his
supporters, but he will forever be remembered for the violence he unleashed on
his countrymen. When King Juan Carlos took Spain toward democracy in 1976, he
was only removing it from the sordid time warp in which Franco had placed .
Assad may survive politically, but it’s hard to imagine him ever putting Syria
back together again. Like Franco he committed an original sin, and for as long
as he’s around he will represent an indelible stain on his country. Few look
back with longing on the Spanish caudillo, on that stain in Spain’s modern
history. There’s no reason why Assad should fare any better.
**Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut. He tweets @BeirutCalling
Netanyahu tells Putin: The
Golan is a red line for Israel
Ynetnews/Reuters/Published: 04.21.16/Israel News
'We are doing everything to prevent the emergence of an additional front of
terror against us at the Golan Heights,' the prime minister tells the Russian
president during quick visit to Moscow. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told
Russian President Vladimir Putin at the beginning of their meeting on Thursday
that the Golan Heights is a "red line" for Israel and it must remain a part of
it. "We are doing everything to prevent the emergence of an additional front of
terror against us at the Golan Heights," he added. Netanyahu arrived to Moscow
to discuss closer military coordination to avoid incidents between Israel and
Russia, which launched a military operation in support of Syrian President
Bashar Assad last year. The issue of the Golan Heights has become a contentious
issue over the past week after Netanyahu declared at a special government
meeting held in the Golan that the area will forever remain part of Israel and
urged the international community "to recognize finally that the Golan will
remain permanently under Israeli sovereignty." Israel captured the Golan Heights
in the 1967 Six-Day War and officially annexed it in 1981, in a move that has
not won international recognition. Now, Israel is worried that it will be asked
to return the Golan to Syria as part of an effort led by world powers to bring
the civil war in the country to an end. "In the 19 years the Golan was under
Syrian occupation, it was used for bunkers, barbed wire fences, landmines, and
aggression. It was used for war. In the 49 years it has been under Israeli rule,
it has been used for agriculture, tourism, economic initiatives, construction.
It is being used for peace," Netanyahu said. The prime minister's
declaration received condemnation from the Arab League and from Syria, as well
as from the United States and European Union. "Every administration on both
sides of the aisle since 1967 has maintained that those territories are not part
of Israel," US State Department Spokesman John Kirby told reporters this week.
Kirby went on to say that the conditions under which the Golan Heights should be
returned must be decided through negotiations between the respective parties.
"And obviously, the current situation in Syria makes it difficult to continue
those efforts at this time," Kirby said. A day later, EU foreign policy
chief Federica Mogherini reiterated that "The EU recognizes Israel within its
pre-1967 boundaries, regardless of the (Israeli) government's claims on other
areas, until a final settlement is reached."
The Long Divorce
Simon Henderson/Washington Institute/April 21/16
The Obama administration may have launched a new era in U.S. ties with Saudi
Arabia, one marred by suspicion over Iran, anti-American radicalization, and
lingering questions about the September 11 attacks. The initial defining moment
of President Barack Obama's attitude toward Saudi Arabia, for many people, was
when he bowed to King Abdullah as he shook his hand at the London G-20 summit
meeting in April 2009. The gesture, which the White House vehemently denied was
a bow at all, was variously interpreted as the new president groveling toward an
important ally, or an early sign of Obama's capacity to charm. The Saudis
themselves probably weren't fooled. They would have known of Obama's 2002 speech
in Chicago, just over a year after the terror attacks of 9/11. That speech is
most famous for Obama's opposition to President George W. Bush's planned
invasion of Iraq, which he referred to as a "dumb war." But the then-state
senator also had a pointed message about the two countries that formed the
pillars of U.S. influence in the Middle East.
"You want a fight, President Bush?" Obama asked. "Let's fight to make sure our
so-called allies in the Middle East -- the Saudis and the Egyptians -- stop
oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption
and inequality."
So much has changed in the world since that awkward bow in 2009, never mind
since 2002, and the nature of the U.S.-Saudi relationship has changed along with
it. As the eight years of George W. Bush came to an end, the oil price was less
than $50 per barrel, and would climb to well over $100 in 2014. Few people had
heard of shale oil -- mention of the possibility of U.S. energy independence,
which the oil could soon make possible, would have been met with derisive
laughter. In the Middle East, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was very much in
power, as was Syria's Bashar al-Assad. It would be two more years before
uprisings would seize those countries, and Washington's response in both cases
would dismay Saudi officials.
Obama will meet King Salman in Riyadh on April 20, during what will likely be
his final trip to Saudi Arabia during his presidency. Such meetings between
national leaders are usually used for discussions about common interests rather
than detailed agendas. The common question is: Are the allies on the same
metaphorical page? But with the United States and Saudi Arabia today, it will be
more interesting to see whether they can plausibly suggest they are still
reading from the same book. Although the upcoming visit is being touted as an
effort in alliance-building, it will just as likely highlight how far Washington
and Riyadh have drifted apart in the past eight years. For Obama, the key issue
in the Middle East is the fight against the Islamic State: He wants to be able
to continue to operate with the cover of a broad Islamic coalition, of which
Saudi Arabia is a prominent member. For the House of Saud, the issue is Iran.
For them, last year's nuclear deal does not block Iran's nascent nuclear status
-- instead, it confirms it. Worse than that, Washington sees Iran as a potential
ally in the fight against the Islamic State. In the words of one longtime
Washington-based observer: "Saudi Arabia wanted a boyfriend called the United
States. The United States instead chose Iran. Saudi Arabia is beyond jealousy."
Despite the possible pitfalls, both sides will have assembled lists of "asks"
for the visit. These will probably be expressed in side meetings, given the
king's increasing delegation of his powers to Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef,
known as MbN, and particularly his son, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman,
aka MbS. Besides the Islamic State and Iran, the topics are likely to include
Yemen, where the kingdom is increasingly bogged down, though there is hope for
peace talks. The crucial interlocutor will be MbS, the 30-year-old who is
increasingly expected to become king sooner rather than later -- though the
notional succession currently in place would first hand the crown to his cousin,
MbN. MbS is known for touting his vision of a modernized Saudi Arabia with an
economy that has moved beyond oil. Obama's attitude toward Saudi Arabia does not
seem to have changed since his 2002 speech, and his comments about the kingdom's
rulers will be an elephant in the room during these talks. The president's
criticism of America's "so-called allies" is a recurring theme in Jeffrey
Goldberg's cover story for the Atlantic, "The Obama Doctrine." The 19,000-word
article begins with Obama's retreat from his "red line" after Bashar al-Assad's
forces used sarin gas against civilians in 2013 -- an event that shocked U.S.
allies in the Middle East and forced them to reconsider what U.S. security
guarantees actually meant, but which the president described as a decision that
made him "very proud."
Why Obama decided to give the interview now -- rather than, say, in April 2017
-- is a mystery to many, who see it as damaging his diplomatic credibility. The
profile will cast a dark cloud over Obama's meetings in Riyadh and make the
platitudes of his public statements less convincing. Counterterrorism
cooperation, for instance, will be a key element in the talks -- but in the
Atlantic, Obama questioned "the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in
fomenting anti-American terrorism," Goldberg wrote, and "is clearly irritated
that foreign-policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally."
When Malcolm Turnbull, the new Australian prime minister, last year asked Obama,
"Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Goldberg writes: "Obama smiled. 'It's
complicated,' he said."
Obama's skepticism appears to have permeated his entire administration. It's
gotten to the point where Saudi officials fear that the administration prefers
their rivals in Tehran to their longstanding ally. "In the White House these
days, one occasionally hears Obama's National Security Council officials
pointedly reminding visitors that the large majority of 9/11 hijackers were not
Iranian, but Saudi," Goldberg wrote. When the author observed to Obama that he
wasn't as likely as his predecessors to instinctively back Saudi Arabia in a
dispute with Iran, Goldberg continued, Obama "didn't disagree."
Obama simply doesn't seem to share the view of many Middle East leaders that the
Islamic Republic of Iran wants to diminish U.S. influence and change the balance
of power in the region. Saudi leaders increasingly fear the president has no
interest in constraining Iran's regional ambitions. The single line that
probably generated the most apoplexy in Riyadh when the Atlantic profile was
published was when the president implored Iran and its rivals "to find an
effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace."
Saudi Arabia has no interest in sharing the Arab world with its archrival. It
sees Iran as challenging its leadership of the Islamic world and undermining its
standing in the Arab world. Given Iran's nuclear agreement and its revival in
oil production, Riyadh's status as a leader of the energy world is also
threatened -- even if it will be years, if ever, that Iran can rival its
standing as the world's largest oil exporter.
These fundamentally different perspectives on the Middle East may be the cause
of the tensions between Riyadh and Washington, but Obama and King Salman will
face other problems when they come face-to-face this week. Meetings with the
80-year-old Saudi monarch are carefully choreographed to obscure, at least to
the public gaze, Salman's increasing infirmity. Obama has already encountered
this. When he came to Riyadh early last year to offer condolences on the death
of King Abdullah, he had a conversation with Salman during which the king simply
walked away without warning. Aides attempted to excuse him, saying he needed to
break for prayers. Last September, when King Salman visited the Oval Office, he
brought his favorite son, Muhammad bin Salman, to do the talking. For most
meetings, King Salman has a computer screen, often obscured by flowers, in front
of him, serving as a teleprompter. With a recent U.S. delegation, the royal
court devised another stratagem -- the king spent the meeting looking beyond the
group at a widescreen television suspended from the ceiling. An aide off to one
side furiously hammered talking points into a keyboard.
The two heads of state will not be able to avoid discussing their rival
interpretations of the events of 9/11, when 15 out of the 19 hijackers were
Saudi. The issue has been revived by the calls in Congress for the publication
of the missing 28 pages from the 9/11 Report, which have remained classified,
supposedly to spare the Saudi government embarrassment because of possible
connections between the hijackers and Saudi officials. Riyadh's continuing
sensitivity on this point was underscored over the weekend, when the kingdom
warned that it would sell off U.S. assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars
if Congress passes a bill allowing the Saudi government to be held responsible
in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
How this issue will play out is hard to predict. But as I first wrote in an
August 2002 Wall Street Journal op-ed, there is much more to the links between
the hijackers and the House of Saud than many are willing to admit. That article
cited a Jan. 9 story in U.S. News & World Report, titled "Princely Payments," in
which senior intelligence officials and a former Clinton administration official
said that two senior Saudi princes had been paying off al Qaeda chief Osama bin
Laden since a 1995 bombing in Riyadh, which killed five U.S. military advisors.
Saudi officials vehemently denied the claim, with current Foreign Minister Adel
al-Jubeir quoted as saying: "Where's the evidence? Nobody offers proof. There's
no paper trail."
As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2002: "I followed the lead and quickly
found U.S. and British officials to tell me the names of the two senior princes.
They were using Saudi official money -- not their own -- to pay off bin Laden to
cause trouble elsewhere but not in the kingdom. The amounts involved were
'hundreds of millions of dollars,' and it continued after Sept. 11. I asked a
British official recently whether the payments had stopped. He said he hoped
they had, but was not sure."
If the Saudi leadership hopes to repair its relationship with the United States,
it must find a way to put questions like this to bed. But the starkness of the
president's criticisms in the Atlantic probably make rapprochement to the former
levels of diplomatic and economic intimacy between the United States and Saudi
Arabia impossible, in any case. The president certainly doesn't intend to travel
to Riyadh to sign the death certificate of the relationship. Nevertheless, the
Obama administration may have ushered in a new era in ties between Washington
and Riyadh -- one more distant and marred by suspicion than in years past. One
way or another, it will be a historic trip.
**Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy
Program at The Washington Institute.
The U.S. Role in Addressing
New Threats to Israel: Progress and Pitfalls
David Makovsky/Washington Institute/April 21/16
Israel's deterrent power is largely a reflection of how its adversaries view the
strength of its strategic relationship with the United States, so actively
addressing the issues that have caused recent fissures is paramount.
Download PDF
The following is an excerpt from Mr. Makovsky's prepared remarks, as submitted
for the hearing "Israel Imperiled: Threats to the Jewish State," a joint meeting
held by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade and the
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. To read his full testimony,
download the PDF. Between 1948 and 1973, the Arab-Israel conflict witnessed
several state-to-state wars between neighbors. At least in those wars, states
had rules of warfare. In contrast, today Israel is encircled largely by nonstate
actors, which have no rules. They do not accept that Israel has a right to exist
within any boundaries and, critically, they aim to set the front line inside
Israel's urban areas. They have no problem with embedding themselves in the
heart of urban areas, firing rockets into Israeli cities, and, in so doing,
challenging Israel to retaliate in terrain that could lead to greater civilian
casualties on the Palestinian side. On five of Israel's borders, Israel is
facing nonstate actors. First, in Lebanon, the dominant nonstate actor is
Hezbollah, which is believed to have 150,000 rockets. Second, along the Syrian
border, where Syrian soldiers and UN peacekeepers once stood, there is now
Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of al-Qaeda. This does not even count the Islamic
State, which is in eastern Syria and has openly threatened Jordan, a key Israeli
ally. Third, on the Egyptian front in the south, an ISIS affiliate has wreaked
havoc in the Sinai, territory ostensibly under Egyptian control since the 1979
Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. This group is also trying to make inroads with
Hamas in Gaza.
Fourth, there is Hamas in Gaza, which has fought three wars with Israel in the
last seven-plus years, using the same formula of firing rockets at Israeli urban
areas. The most recent war in 2014 lasted a full 51 days, and civilians on both
sides were impacted. Israelis had mere seconds to head for cover, hoping that
Iron Dome missile defense debris would not land on their heads. Palestinian
civilians also suffered tragic losses in relatively larger numbers due to Hamas'
strategy of embedding fighters and weaponry in urban areas. And while today
there is relative quiet along this front, it is only a matter of time before a
fourth war begins in Gaza. Moreover, Hamas has resisted uniting Gaza under the
Palestinian Authority. Needless to say, without U.S. military assistance writ
large and without Iron Dome specifically, Israel's security predicament would be
far worse.
A fifth border is a power-sharing arrangement with the Palestinian Authority in
the West Bank, which I will discuss below. The only border that resembles a
classic state-to-state security relationship is that between Israel and Jordan.
These are two states that have drawn much closer to each other in recent years
amid shared threats and common interests.
Of course, beyond the challenges of its immediate neighbors, there is also Iran.
Israel may not like the Iran deal, as we all know, but it understands it must
now turn toward enhancing the U.S.-Israel bilateral security relationship. At a
joint conference with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter in October, Israeli
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said, "The Iran deal is a given...Our disputes are
over. And now we have to look to the future." Israel's military chief of staff,
Gadi Eizenkot, even argued recently that in the short term Israel is safer,
given that the nuclear deal forces the Iranians to ship out their stockpile of
enriched uranium and cut down many of their centrifuges.
Yet two sets of questions remain. One is about what will happen when the
restrictions on Iranian enrichment and deployment of advanced centrifuges are
lifted under the terms of the deal over the next 10-15 years. Israel questions
Washington's resoluteness to address the myriad of implementation issues that
could arise. It also questions U.S. willingness to ensure that Iran understands
the consequences of dashing for the bomb, either during the agreement or after
its main components expire. Second, in the more immediate sense, Israel worries
that Iran is shedding its pariah status and will use access to post-sanctions
capital to gain greater regional influence. This rather sober assessment is
punctuated by two rather unusual rays of light. First, despite the political
impasse on peace negotiations since the collapse of Secretary of State John
Kerry's initiative in 2014, Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation in the West
Bank has, for the most part, been strong. Of course, nothing is ever easy and
Palestinians control or partially control only 40 percent of the West Bank.
There have been over 200 stabbings by Palestinians since October, many of them
perpetuated by teenagers. While it is true that inflammatory statements by
Mahmoud Abbas in the early days of this "lone wolf" stabbing wave exacerbated
tensions, Israeli officials say PA security cooperation with Israel has been
essential in ultimately reducing the violence. Israeli officials corroborate a
statement by Palestinian intelligence chief Majid Faraj to Defense News in
January that the Palestinian security services have stopped 200 additional
attacks. They also corroborate a recent statement by Abbas that the Palestinian
security services have gone into Palestinian schools and confiscated knives. It
is also known that Palestinian plainclothes police have stayed on the
Palestinian side of key checkpoints to confiscate more knives and stop even more
attacks...
Limiting Incursions in Area
A: The Next Step for Israeli-Palestinian Security Coordination
Ghaith al-Omari/Washington Institute/April 21/16
Ongoing bilateral security discussions aim to decrease controversial Israeli
operations in parts of the West Bank, and their chances for success largely
depend on avoiding the political obstacles associated with a formal agreement.
According to media reports, Palestinian and Israeli security officials are
inching toward new security understandings that would limit Israel Defense
Forces (IDF) operations in portions of "Area A" in the West Bank. The
discussions are significant not only because they shed light on one of the few
remaining spheres of active bilateral cooperation, but also because they
indicate a new approach that holds promise in the absence of official political
negotiations.
BACKGROUND
The 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (commonly known as
Oslo II) divided the West Bank into three areas. Area C, which constitutes
around 60 percent of the territory, was to remain under full Israeli civil and
military control. In Area B -- which covers approximately 20 percent of the West
Bank and is composed largely of Palestinian-populated rural areas -- civil
affairs and public order were to be under the Palestinian Authority's control
while Israel maintained overriding security responsibility. The remaining 20
percent was designated as Area A, comprising Palestinian cities and placed under
the PA's civil and security control. The Oslo Accords also stipulated mechanisms
for security cooperation, including high-level bilateral committees and joint
patrols.
These arrangements remained in effect until the breakout of the second intifada
in 2000, when Palestinian and Israeli security forces ceased cooperation and
regularly clashed. During Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, the IDF entered
almost all of Area A. It has since largely redeployed outside the area, but it
continues to conduct frequent operations into Palestinian cities, often referred
to as "incursions." Palestinians regard these operations as an unwarranted
breach of the Oslo Accords, while Israel maintains that they have specific,
pressing, and sensitive security objectives.
REVIVAL OF SECURITY COOPERATION
As the second intifada wound down, the PA embarked on rebuilding and reforming
its security agencies. These efforts picked up steam when Prime Minister Salam
Fayyad took office in 2007 after the violent Hamas takeover of Gaza. A central
tenet of the new PA security sector was to deepen and professionalize
cooperation with the IDF. To bolster this process, Washington established the
Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian
Authority. In addition to helping with the training of new Palestinian forces,
the USSC facilitated the resumption of their cooperation with Israel. Initially
skeptical, the IDF later embraced the cooperation and now regularly acknowledges
its utility.
While the reimposition of law and order that resulted from security reform was
popular among the Palestinian public, the cooperative aspect was less so.
Security personnel were accused of acting as collaborators and subcontractors
for Israel, and images of Palestinian officers standing down as Israeli forces
entered their cities were one of the most visible symbols of this powerlessness.
Yet even as political meetings came to an almost complete halt after the
collapse of direct negotiations in 2014, security cooperation was intensified
because it served both parties' interests. Israel has since been able to reduce
its activities in the West Bank as the PA increased its own -- during a cabinet
briefing on April 6, IDF Central Command chief Maj. Gen. Roni Numa reportedly
noted that Palestinian forces are now handling around 35 percent of security
cases there, up from 15 percent a few months prior. Israel also has more
incentive to limit its on-the-ground reaction to various problems (e.g., ongoing
diplomatic tensions and the current wave of stabbings), as well as to support
measures that facilitate Palestinian economic projects, increase the number of
Palestinian workers in Israel, and broaden the sphere of operations for
Palestinian forces. For its part, the PA has no interest in allowing the
security situation to deteriorate, since widespread instability could threaten
its very survival.
Despite these considerations, the Palestine Liberation Organization's Central
Council decided in March 2015 that security cooperation should be severed due to
growing public opposition. While the PA has not implemented this decision, it
faces tremendous political pressure to do so. In particular, President Mahmoud
Abbas and his security chiefs have long identified incursions as one of the key
factors eroding their forces' domestic credibility. The current proposal for
limiting this practice originated within the Israeli security establishment,
initially focusing on a potential pilot phase in Ramallah and Jericho that would
gradually extend to the rest of Area A. The scope of the proposed measures has
evolved as the talks continue, but the parties must contend with a number of
challenges before the understandings can become policy.
THE NEXUS OF POLITICS AND SECURITY
The proposal to progressively limit Israeli operations is rooted in the IDF's
professional assessment that Palestinian forces can dependably undertake full
responsibility in some parts of Area A -- though Israeli security officials
maintain that the PA is not yet capable of controlling the entire area. The
decision is also motivated by the IDF's understanding that their Palestinian
counterparts need some sign of progress in order to bolster their domestic
standing and counter their critics. Implementing the proposed measures would
address one of the main issues eroding Palestinian public support for security
cooperation.
Despite originating from the professional security echelon, the ongoing talks
could not have been initiated without the blessing of the political leadership,
including the Israeli prime minister and defense minister. Likewise on the
Palestinian side, while talks are conducted by security officials, they could
not have proceeded without the blessing of President Abbas. Yet formalizing the
proposed measures in a negotiated agreement would raise political challenges.
In Israel, for example, some members of the current governing coalition would
likely argue that such an agreement "outsources Israel's security" (as Minister
Naftali Bennett recently charged) or makes "concessions" without a quid pro quo.
On the Palestinian side, the PA's political weakness makes it vulnerable to
domestic accusations of excessive concessions to Israel. Additionally,
Palestinians are gearing up for the post-Abbas era, with potential presidential
aspirants likely trying to prove their hardline credentials. In this charged
environment, Palestinian officials would be loath to formally accept any
arrangements that do not mandate full implementation of the Area A security
regime spelled out in the Oslo Accords, since anything short of that would be
seen as accepting the IDF's right to operate there. The challenge, then, is how
to insulate security issues from political considerations as much as possible.
COORDINATION, NOT NEGOTIATIONS
So far, the parties have maneuvered these challenges by limiting the talks to
interactions between security officials over technical issues that fall under
their operational mandate. Instead of a traditional negotiation, they are
approaching the talks as "coordination." Under this heading, security officials
can finalize modalities for limiting IDF operations in some parts of Area A and
start implementing them by presenting them as operational decisions akin to
other choices made in the normal course of security cooperation.
Meanwhile, political leaders can maintain their rhetorical positions even as
security discussions proceed. Israeli politicians can accurately state that the
IDF maintains freedom of action throughout Area A so long as negotiators do not
formally agree otherwise, and they can continue to make a slew of diplomatic
demands from the PA. Likewise, Palestinian officials can accurately claim that
they still reject any Israeli action in Area A and keep making their own
diplomatic demands.
Ultimately, then, the outcome of this process rests on the extent to which it
can be kept in the security realm: the less political demands are inserted into
the process, the more likely it is to succeed. Requiring a formal agreement
would encourage both sides to overload the negotiators with political demands
that would preclude actual implementation. In contrast, approaching the issue as
a set of coordinated operational understandings would allow them to maintain
their current posture of technical cooperation, fending off any accusations of
excessive concessions by accurately pointing out that no formal concessions have
been made.
Despite the best efforts to keep security away from politics, however,
Palestinian and Israeli political leaders will continue to face domestic
pressure to use the current talks as a means of extracting diplomatic
concessions. To help buffer the process from these political winds, the United
States could assume a greater role in moving the discussions forward. The USSC
has already been active in facilitating the process by virtue of his extensive
relations with the Palestinian and Israeli security establishments and the trust
he enjoys therein, but strengthening his unique role could greatly increase the
prospects for success. In addition to the USSC's efforts on the ground,
Washington may need to urge both sides to continue buffering the security talks
from political interference. Yet the specific content of the talks -- including
the pace and initial scope of the proposed arrangements -- should be left to the
parties.
CONCLUSION
Establishing a process whereby the IDF limits its operations in Area A and the
PA maintains security there could empower the Palestinian security forces
domestically while meeting Israel's security needs. This could in turn enable
further coordinated steps in the West Bank in the future. While such steps
cannot bring about a two-state solution on their own, they can bring the parties
closer to that goal.
**Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute, previously
served in various advisory positions with the Palestinian Authority.
Near-clash of Israeli-Russian
planes over Syria
DEBKAfile Special Report April 21, 2016/
Western and Middle Eastern military sources monitoring the war in Syria, and
networks monitoring Russian air force flights in the country, reported Wednesday
afternoon that there was almost a clash earlier in the day between four Israeli
F-15 fighters and two Russian Su-30 jets. The sources report that the Israeli
warplanes, flying from the direction of the Mediterranean, approached Russia’s
Hmeimim airbase near the Syrian city of Latakia. The Russian command, which
apparently feared that the Israeli planes would fly over the base, scrambled two
of their fighters that specialize in dogfights. debkafile’s military sources
point out that Russia has deployed its advanced S-300 and S-400 antiaircraft
missile batteries at the base. The sources report that after a short time in
which there was concern that a confrontation between the Russian and Israeli air
forces was about to occur, both groups of jets turned back. The Su-30s returned
to the base, and the F-15s continued their flight. Operators of networks
monitoring air traffic in Syrian airspace and in the eastern Mediterranean say
that according to the messages sent out by both sides there was serious concern
over an exchange of fire between the Russians and the Israelis.
debkafile’s sources point out that the incident was apparently the reason that
the commander of Israel’s air force, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, joined the delegation
of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu make a one-day visit to Moscow on
Thursday for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The sources add that according to the agreement between Russia and Israel on
coordination of flights in Syrian airspace, planes from both sides can fly in an
unimpeded manner as long as they do not interfere with the operations of those
of the other side. Also, each side agreed to inform the other side of the
location of its jets to prevent inadvertent clashes. But recently, as the
Russians have replaced a large part of their air power in Syria with advanced
attack helicopters, it has become clear that the understandings between
Jerusalem and Moscow are not in line with the new situation. The understandings
are concerning flights by fighters, but the attack helicopters fly at different
heights and speeds, and under completely different conditions. On April 4th, the
Russian military’s deputy chief of staff, Gen. Nikolai Bogdanovsky, met with his
Israeli counterpart, Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, in Tel Aviv to discuss the topic. The
incident on Wednesday and Maj. Gen. Eshel’s trip to Moscow show that the air
forces of the two sides have not resolved the problem, and that a new framework
is needed to coordinate Russian and Israeli military flights in Syrian airspace.
Preachers of hate
Turki Al-Dakhil/Al Arabiya/April 21/16
European laws that are meant to help ordinary people find refuge contain
loopholes that are exploited by criminals who are wanted in their countries, and
who want to kill. However, laws will not remain as they are. For example,
France’s state of alert has resulted in it taking certain measures at a quicker
pace than other countries such as Britain. The Paris attacks in Nov. 2015, and
the Brussels attacks in March 2016, awakened Europe’s sense of security.
Watch: Countering al-Qaeda
Some European organizations ridiculed Arab and Gulf countries, and alleged that
our war on terrorism was actually against freedom of expression. It later turned
out that a number of bombers in mosques found their way in under the cover of
campaigns with slogans such as “aid the sufferer,” and under the cover of
provocative Twitter hashtags. Europe is now talking about stripping citizenship,
and is implementing deportation measures. Yes, it finally realized the threat!
Taking action
Europe is now talking about stripping citizenship, and is implementing
deportation measures. Yes, it finally realized the threat! “We’ve expelled about
80 preachers of hate, and we’ll confront the phenomenon of French youths
embracing extremist ideology and joining the ranks of ISIS in Syria and Iraq,”
French President Francois Hollande said last Thursday. About 600 French people
are fighting alongside ISIS. The free environment in Europe has been exploited
by evil men. Nations will not be blamed if they want to maintain their security.
Europe will say this louder with time: “There’s no place for hate here!”
Obama visit shouldn’t be
allowed to benefit Iran
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/April 21/16
President Obama met with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to project that the US is
ready for a joint action on regional security threats including Iran and ISIS.
The White House said in a statement: “The two leaders reaffirmed the historic
friendship and deep strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi
Arabia...More broadly, the President and King discussed the challenges posed by
Iran’s provocative activities in the region, agreeing on the importance of an
inclusive approach to de-escalating regional conflicts”. “Reassuring” Saudi
Arabia and other Gulf nations about Iran’s increasing presence is on the top of
Obama’s agenda visiting Saudi Arabia. Aside from the rhetoric, it is crucial to
point out the Barack Obama’s administration is going to tilt toward Iran behind
closed doors, as it has done since the nuclear negotiations were initiated
several years ago. The White House statement is mostly a collection of words,
rather than actions, aimed at showing that President Obama has succeeded at
maintaining the balance between Saudi Arabia and other countries. This is not
the first time that President Obama is attempting to reassure Saudi Arabia and
other countries in the region about Iran’s behavior. In order to sell his
nuclear deal to Middle Eastern countries, Obama made every country in the region
believe that the nuclear deal is not going to endanger the security, stability,
and national interests of gulf nations. His efforts were convincing as several
countries including Saudi Arabia were happy about Obama’s assurances.
Déjà Vu: Collections of words
The previous reassurances to sell his nuclear deal were a collections of words
rather than actions, as Iran’s aggressive, interventionist, militaristic and
provocative policies and actions have currently reached an unprecedented level
while, in every case, Obama’s administration has shown a green light to Tehran,
justified Iran’s actions, or minimized Iran’s militaristic behaviors and
destabilizing threats. The current promises are also déjà vu. With his visit,
Obama is attempting to preserve his nuclear deal with Iran, keep his alliance
with Saudi Arabia while removing the possibility of gulf nations taking
collective action against Iran. This is not a balancing act between Iran and
other nations as the mainstream media contend, but it is a clear tilt towards
Tehran. Iranian leaders are cognizant that Obama’s visit is going to soothe
other countries’ concerns about Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions and will
minimize the perception of Iran’s aggressive and interventionist behavior. In
the last few months, every action from Iran - which breached United Nations
Security Council resolutions (such as the launching of ballistic missiles),
violated the international norms (such as the burning of Saudi embassy), or
imperiled the security of Gulf nations (such as showing off about the delivery
S-300, sending more arms to the Houthis, financing and training more Shiite
militias to fight in the region, publicly supporting Bashar al-Assad, and
employing Hezbollah to exacerbate sectarian conflicts)- were all either ignored
by the Obama administration, or justified by the White House arguing that
Iranian leaders were taking actions to address those issues. But on the other
hand, the White House has been very quick and forceful in condemning and
criticizing other countries in the region for taking the matters into their own
hands and confronting Iran or its proxies; the Shiite militias.
How will Iran benefit? Obama’s visit is not only going to fail to reduce Iran’s
growing militaristic influence in the region, but it will benefit Iran by giving
the Iranian leaders more room to maneuver in the region.
First of all, Iranian leaders are cognizant that Obama’s visit is going to
soothe other countries’ concerns about Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions, it
will minimize the perception of Iran’s aggressive and interventionist behavior,
and it will eliminate the possibility of Gulf nations coalescing to confront
Iran’s threat independent of the US. It follows that those who have the final
say in Iran’s foreign policy- the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei and senior
officials of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) - will continue to build
their military empire, reach their ideological objectives, and pursue their
agenda for superiority and regional pre-eminence, all while they have less
concerns of any regional reaction due to “Obama’s reassurance”. Secondly,
Iranian leaders are cognizant of the fact that they have confined the Obama
administration with the nuclear deal.
Gulf nations counterbalance
An Iranian diplomat once told me that President Obama is trying “to have the
date and the donkey”, a Persian proverb, which means that Obama is attempting
“to have the cake and eat it too”; or, to have both Iran and Saudi Arabia. But
he argued that, at the end of the day, Obama will choose Iran because he is
dedicated to preserving his legacy, the nuclear pact. In order to preserve the
nuclear deal, President Obama will continue with his appeasement policies
towards the Islamic Republic, ignore their aggression and interventions in the
region, give them more carrots so they do not pull out of the nuclear deal, as
well as minimize and brush-off the IRGC’s threat.
In other words, from the perspective of Iranian leaders, Obama’s visit is
absolutely beneficial for Iran’s interests because this visit will be nothing
but a collection of words and it will alleviate the concerns of the nations in
the region about the IRGC's belligérant actions. In reality, the Islamic
republic will find it much easier to ratchet up its militaristic agenda. We
should also remember that over the last three decades, regardless of US
rhetoric, or military threats, Khamenei and the IRGC did not abandon their
ideological objectives, as well as their pursuit for superiority and regional
pre-eminence. In fact, if we look at the latest developments in Iran ahead of
Obama’s visit, the Islamic Republic is not only not restraining its provocative
behavior in the region, but is also showing off its military power, deploying
more hard power, and more forcefully drawing red lines for other countries in
regards with Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen.
Even President Rowhani, the so-called moderate, has credited Iran’s economic,
technological and scientific advancements after the nuclear deal to the IRGC’s
increasing influence in the region. Rowhani pointed out that "Had it not been
for the mighty army, it would have been impossible to achieve this”.
In closing, Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia will benefit Iran geopolitically,
strategically and economically. Iran is aware that Obama’s cosmetic
“reassurances” to the gulf nations- that everything is going to be fine- will
grant the IRGC and Khamenei more room to maneuver, increase their influence in
the region and let them pursue their hegemonic ambitions. This is due to the
notion that Obama’s reassurances will prevent other countries in the region from
taking serious and collective action against Iran (which is Iran’s major
concern), while Obama’s reassurances is releasing Iran to do what it desires
without any fear of regional or global repercussions.
Ceasefire falls apart as
Assad holds latest sham election
Brooklyn Middleton/Al Arabiya/April 21/16
Predictable issues have derailed ongoing negotiations over the Syrian conflict,
with the opposition resuming fighting against the Syrian regime, which has
repeatedly broken the cessation of hostilities agreement that was implemented in
February. In addition to the continued Assad regime bombardment of forces
ostensibly included in the ceasefire agreement, the primary issue that continues
to sabotage the latest efforts to bring some semblance of calm to the war-torn
country and resolution to the never-ending conflict, remains unchanged: fierce
disagreement over the future of Bashar al-Assad’s criminal regime. Sincere
efforts to bring the conflict to an end, or carve out a path that will lead to
such a reality, will continue to fail so long as they involve negotiating with
parties that demand Assad remain in power. Such a proposal dismisses the fact
that the Assad regime’s failure to step down years ago remains the chief reason
why Syria has spiralled into hell and allowed barbaric actors, including ISIS,
to flourish.
Syrian talks doomed, Air strike kills dozens in market
Reuters reported that only three delegates from the opposition met UN special
envoy Steffan de Mistura on 18 April, when typically 15 delegates do so. It is
understandable that the opposition is considering completely pulling out of
talks; the Syrian regime’s history of pretending to be interested in
negotiations while stepping up their military campaign on the ground is
well-documented. There is no reason to assess the regime has moved away from
that strategy at this stage. And with the Syrian military preparing a major
offensive to attempt to seize all of Aleppo, a return to all out fighting
appears inevitable in the near-term. Assad’s latest signal that he has no
immediate interest in stepping down was sent to Syrians and the international
community when he held parliamentary elections in government-controlled areas
this week. Assad’s latest signal that he has no immediate interest in stepping
down was sent to Syrians and the international community when he held
parliamentary elections in government-controlled areas this week. The latest
election - as was the presidential vote held in 2014 – was of course a total
sham. As thousands of Palestinians face starvation in Yarmouk and the women of
Daraya beg the government to lift the siege on their community, the AP reported
that the government extended voting hours until midnight due to what Syrian
state news indicated was “massive turnout.”
Advancing military
The Syrian regime has repeatedly vowed that it will not cede an inch of land to
the opposition nor relinquish a bit of political power; it is critical that
negotiators start listening and planning accordingly. While the West appears to
operate under the assumption Assad will ultimately prove willing to depart, his
regime continues signaling the precise opposite. Meanwhile, Russia’s public and
sudden announcement that its forces would withdraw from Syria has yet to be
illustrated on the ground. The notion that Russia made such an announcement - in
an effort to pressure the Assad regime into negotiations with the West – is an
assessment that appear weaker with the Syrian military’s every advance. The US
should fully back the opposition’s decision to pull away from talks with the
Syrian regime until their basic demands are seriously addressed. The basis for a
longer term agreement will not be built on fresh ruin and bloodshed amid
attempts by the regime to award itself political legitimacy with sham elections.
How Russia is poisoning its
ties with Egypt
Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/April 21/16
The Paris attacks claimed 130 lives and revealed a broad terrorist network
operating in the heart of Europe, with Belgium appearing to be its stronghold.
The death toll from the terrorist attacks in Brussels was 32. French and Belgian
security services caught one suspect after another. However, given how long
Europe did not react to growing challenges properly, such as the refugee influx
that has been infiltrated by terrorists and extremists, the continent is doomed
to face extremism and inevitable terrorist acts on its soil. Europe is unsafe,
but Russia does not consider it unsafe for its citizens. The only country
considered unsafe for Russians is Egypt, so much so that since Nov. 2015 there
have been no direct flights between the two countries. This did not happen with
Tunisia, where tourist resorts were attacked twice. With Turkey only chartered
flights are banned, primarily due to the downing of the Russian jet over the
Turkish border, not due to safety concerns. Explaining the stance on Egypt,
Russian President Vladimir Putin has referred to the failure to resolve concerns
over airport security, as well as radicals and hostilities in the Sinai
Peninsula. He also mentioned unrest by supporters of the former government,
“which was removed from power by the current president.” However, Sinai
hostilities are only happening in a limited area and pose very little threat to
tourists. ‘Criminal activity’ behind Russian plane’s crash in Sinai
Filling a vacuum
It is as if Russia is awaiting a new coup or revolution. Moscow follows
developments in Egypt closely, and there are signs that President Abdel Fattah
al-Sisi is losing popularity. The political system is shaken by scandals and
insane declarations. Egyptians are frustrated and lost, their hopes and
aspirations dashed. However, Russia would be making a huge strategic mistake by
turning its back on Cairo. Egypt has lost over $1.3 billion since Moscow imposed
its ban - a huge loss given the general state of the economy. The current crisis
with Russia is making Egypt more open to its Western partners. On Tuesday, Egypt
signed $2 billion deals with France that included military satellite
communications and energy. Furthermore, mistrust in Egypt toward Russia allows
other countries in the region and beyond to influence the political course in
Egypt. Russia is losing its partner due to misperceptions and wrong
expectations. Egyptian politics has been purged of any alternative to Sisi, and
there is no impetus for another revolution. This is good for Egypt as a new
uprising would be bloody. The country needs evolution, not revolution. It needs
reliable friends and help. It expected support from Russia but in vain.
Tourism
Tourism provides major income for Egypt, and much of it was from Russians. The
country has lost over $1.3 billion since Moscow imposed its ban - a huge loss
given the general state of the economy. Apparently Russia does not care about
this, continuously finding reasons to postpone lifting the ban. This is also
happening because Russia wants to keep its citizens’ money inside the country,
and is intensively promoting domestic tourism. Egypt - being cheaper, with a
better tourist infrastructure, and ready to satisfy all tourist demands - poses
a threat to this. Bilateral cooperation and communication continues, but the
friendship has been poisoned and mistrust will continue to grow.