LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 20/16
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.august20.16.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
‘Occasions for stumbling are bound
to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 17/01-04/:"Jesus said to his
disciples, ‘Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom
they come! It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck
and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones
to stumble.Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the
offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive. And if the same person
sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says,
"I repent", you must forgive.’"
Whoever does good is from
God; whoever does evil has not seen God
Third Letter of John 01/01-15/:"The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in
truth. Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good
health, just as it is well with your soul. I was overjoyed when some of the
friends arrived and testified to your faithfulness to the truth, namely, how you
walk in the truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear that my children are
walking in the truth. Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the
friends, even though they are strangers to you; they have testified to your love
before the church. You will do well to send them on in a manner worthy of God;
for they began their journey for the sake of Christ, accepting no support from
non-believers. Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we may become
co-workers with the truth. I have written something to the church; but
Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.
So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false
charges against us. And not content with those charges, he refuses to welcome
the friends, and even prevents those who want to do so and expels them from the
church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever
does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. Everyone has
testified favourably about Demetrius, and so has the truth itself. We also
testify for him, and you know that our testimony is true. I have much to write
to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; instead I hope to see you
soon, and we will talk together face to face. Peace to you. The friends send you
their greetings. Greet the friends there, each by name.
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials
from miscellaneous sources published on August 19-20/16
The Only Recipe/By Ahmad El-Assaad/August
19/16
Chaos, crime and suicide/Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/August 19/16
Iran Needs to Bury Khomeini’s Ghost/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/August 19/16
Pivot to the Middle East/What the Hmeimim announcement tells us about Russian
aims/Michael Young/Now Lebanon/August 19/16
New Christian Arab party seeks to change face of Israeli society/Dror Eydar/Israel
Today/August 19/16
Confirmed: Islam, Not ‘Grievances,’ Fuels Muslim Hate for the West/Raymond
Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/August 19/16
Montazeri’s revelations and Iran’s crime against humanity/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al
Arabiya/August 19/16
Support is our weapon in Syria/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/August 19/16
How many more Omrans will it take before we take action/Peter Harrison/Al
Arabiya/August 19/16
Southeast Asia could be a haven for displaced Islamic State fighters/David
Ignatius/Washington Post/August 18/16
The Shias are winning in the Middle East – and it's all thanks to Russia/Robert
Fisk/Independent/August 18/16
Russia and Iran: Historic Mistrust and Contemporary Partnership/Dmitri Trenin/Carnegie
Moscow Centre/August 19/16
The Temple Mount and UNESCO/Denis MacEoin/ Gatestone Institute/August 19/16
Titles For Latest Lebanese Related News published on on August 19-20/16
Nasrallah: Army Has Ability to Win
Arsal Outskirts Battle, Nusra Has Allies in Govt.
Hezbollah-Amal party leaders reportedly meet in secret
Bassil Raises Complaint on Israeli Incursions in Ghajar and Shebaa
Report: Following Latest Stances on Presidency, Berri-Nasrallah Meet
Berri: Parliamentary Polls to Be Held on Schedule
Mashnouq Slams Hizbullah-Linked Resistance Brigades as 'Occupation Brigades'
Clinton Says Her 'Heart Breaks' for Slain Lebanese Man's Family
Berri Calls for Joint Meeting to Study Implementation of Decentralization
Bomb Explodes in Ain el-Hilweh Refugee Camp
Chehayeb, Aoun thrash out three significant dossiers
Minister of Environment Mohammad Mashnouq urges Nazarian to reduce pressure over
Janna Dam project
Salhab rules out governmental crisis in near future
Major General Abbas Ibrahim, Beary hold talks
Salam, Kaag hold talks
Sami Gemayel, Mokbel discuss most recent developments
Derian calls on politicians to find breakthroughs to presidential crisis
The Only Recipe
Chaos, crime and suicide
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For
Miscellaneous Reports And News published on
on August 19-20/16
Iran regime arrests 11 Christians in
raid on house church
Iranian activists urge UN to prosecute mullahs’ regime for 1988 massacre
US calls dazed boy ‘the real face’ of Syria’s war
Syrian jets ‘bomb Kurdish-held area for first time’
US: Payment to Iran leveraged prisoners' release
German interior minister calls for partial burqa ban
Four dead as Palestinian police clash with gunmen
Yemeni govt: Sanaa ‘almost fallen militarily’
Saudi-led coalition wants urgent talks over MSF Yemen pullout
Thousands flee homes as wildfires burn California
Trump says he regrets comments made ‘in the heat of debate’
Clinton Foundation to bar foreign, corporate funding if Hillary Clinton elected
president
Links From Jihad Watch Site for
on August 19-20/16
Washington Post: Donald Trump should probably stop talking about
Muslims
France: Muslims vandalize church, leave photo of Nice jihad murderer on altar
AP claims ISIS recruits have little knowledge of Islam, ignores ISIS’ adherence
to Qur’an
Russia: Muslim cleric says “all women should be circumcised”
German asylum seekers refuse to work: ‘We are Merkel’s guests’
Italians reject plans for mosque next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa
Montreal: Muslima screaming “Allah” runs over two cops, authorities rule out
terrorism
France: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” stabs rabbi, has “psychiatric problems”
Raymond Ibrahim: Confirmed: Islam, Not ‘Grievances,’ Fuels Muslim Hate for the
West
Anni Cyrus’ “Unknown”: Devastating Coverage of a Hijab-Wearing
American Fencer
Video: Robert Spencer on the wave of jihad attacks by Muslim
migrants
on August 19-20/16
Nasrallah: Army Has Ability to Win
Arsal Outskirts Battle, Nusra Has Allies in Govt.
Naharnet/August 20/16/Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah noted in an
interview aired Friday that the Lebanese army has the ability to eradicate the
jihadist groups that are entrenched in the outskirts of the restive northeastern
border town of Arsal. “The Lebanese army has the ability to win the battle in
Arsal's outskirts but there is no political decision,” Nasrallah told
Hizbullah's al-Manar television. He even alleged that one of the groups
operating in Arsal's outskirts, which was formerly known as al-Nusra Front, has
“allies in the Lebanese government.” Al-Nusra has renamed itself Fateh al-Sham
Front after renouncing its status as al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate. Militants from
the group and its jihadist rival, Islamic State, are entrenched in rugged areas
along the undemarcated Lebanese-Syrian border and the army regularly shells
their posts while Hizbullah and the Syrian army have engaged in clashes with
them on the Syrian side of the border.The two groups briefly overran the town of
Arsal in August 2014 before being ousted by the army after days of deadly
battles. Separately, Nasrallah declared that he is “confident” that Hizbullah
“would emerge victorious from any new war with Israel.” He also revealed that he
has not been “living in a bunker in the past ten years” to avoid Israeli
assassination attempts and that he does not meet his visitors in a bomb shelter.
“The July war was aimed at eliminating the resistance in Lebanon, Syria and
Palestine, and eventually isolating Iran,” Nasrallah pointed out. “What's
happening in Syria is a form of revenge and a completion of the July war,” he
noted. “The Israelis knew that direct war would not lead to Hizbullah's defeat
and that a war with Iran was not useful, that's why the choice was to take out
Syria from the axis of resistance,” Hizbullah's leader explained. He also
disclosed that most rockets that Hizbullah fired at Israel in the July war were
“manufactured in Syria's military factories,” not in Iran.“The Arab states'
warming of ties with Syria after the July war was aimed at pulling Syria out of
the axis of resistance,” Nasrallah added.Turning to the situation in Lebanon
during the 2006 war, Nasrallah claimed that some parties “tried to confine the
Lebanese army.” “But it acted in line with its patriotic creed and with a spirit
of honor and loyalty, and within its capabilities it offered a lot of martyrs
and wounded and facilitated a lot of issues to the resistance,” Nasrallah added.
“Someone wanted to create a clash between the army and the resistance and the
then prime minister Fouad Saniora ordered the Army Command to seize a truck
carrying missiles from the Bekaa to the South during the July war,” Nasrallah
said.“But Speaker Nabih Berri and the then president Emile Lahoud interfered
back and we even launched a threat that we would take action that changes the
course of the country should someone try to put us in a confrontation with the
army,” Hizbullah's chief revealed.
Hezbollah-Amal party leaders
reportedly meet in secret
Joseph A. Kechichian/Gulf News/August 19/16/Beirut: Al Liwaa newspaper reported on Friday that Speaker Nabih Berri and
Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah met at a secret location in
Beirut’s southern suburbs. The meeting was apparently scheduled after the two
men made public declarations regarding the election of a president, the first
insisting that a full-package was necessary before the end of the year or
Lebanon would enter a dark period, and the second linking the election of its
candidate, General Michel Aoun, with due consideration for Future Movement
leader Saad Hariri reassuming the premiership.
Al Liwaa did not say when the meeting occurred or how long it lasted.
Nasrallah’s offer to “discuss” the issue of the premiership should an agreement
be reached over the presidency prompted Berri to add his voice to such a
designation, oblivious to the notion that it was up to the elected head-of-state
to settle on who would run the government after consultations with all political
factions represented in parliament. Where Berri and Nasrallah diverged, however,
was in the Speaker’s backing of Marada chief Sulaiman Franjieh for the top state
post, while Nasrallah reiterated once again that his party remained committed to
the Aoun nomination. Ironically, Nasrallah stressed that Speaker Berri was
Hezbollah’s sole candidate for the speakership post, unaware that such an
election was also the prerogative of parliament. According to Al Liwaa, sources
close to Berri and Nasrallah did not confirm the meeting, but they said that the
growing events might have pushed it forward, with one alleged Hezbollah senior
source informing the daily that: “As soon as Hariri goes down to the parliament
and elects Aoun, he will be immediately assigned as premier without any
preconditions.”
Bassil Raises Complaint on Israeli Incursions in Ghajar and Shebaa
Naharnet/August
19/16/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil asked Lebanon's mission to the United
Nations to file a complaint to the Security Council about Israel's incursions in
the southern towns of Ghajar and Shebaa Farms, the National News Agency reported
on Friday. Bassil sent a letter to the mission in New York about Israel's
violations which he said are “violating U.N. resolution 1701, the people's
rights and the Lebanese sovereignty.” “Since the Israeli occupation forces
persist to violate Lebanon's sovereignty and fail to comply with the
international resolutions particularly 1701, we hereby ask you to inform the
concerned authorities in the United Nations, particularly the UN Security
Council, of Israel's offenses in both the occupied Lebanese part of Ghajar and
the Shebaa Farms,” said the letter. Israeli forces have imposed new rules,
regulations and taxes in the occupied parts of the town and established new
settlements. In the occupied Shebaa Farms, Israel began construction works to
open new roads and other infrastructure activities. On Thursday, Hizbullah
condemned Israel's practices and called on the Lebanese state to “practice its
normal role of defending Lebanon's sovereignty” and to “take the necessary
measures in the face of the rejected Israeli moves.”“It reveals the unrestrained
Zionist ambitions regarding Lebanon's land and resources,” a Hizbullah statement
had said. Israel fought a devastating month-long war in 2006 against Hizbullah
that killed more than 1,200 people in Lebanon, mostly civilians, and 160
Israelis, most of them soldiers. The Lebanese group has targeted Israeli army
patrols in the Shebaa Farms in response to strikes against its members in Syria,
most recently on January 4.
Report: Following Latest
Stances on Presidency, Berri-Nasrallah Meet
Naharnet/August 19/16/Media reports said on Friday that Speaker Nabih Berri and
Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah have met in Beirut's southern suburb
and that the meeting came after the two men's latest stances as for the election
of a president, al-Liwaa daily said. The timing of the meeting was not
disclosed. Berri has last week voiced support for the re-designation of al-Mustaqbal
Movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri as prime minister, following remarks by
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah that his party is “open to discussing”
the issue of the premiership should an agreement be reached over the presidency.
Berri also stressed that he supports Hariri's nomination of Marada chief
Suleiman Franjieh for the top state post. Nasrallah has reiterated in a speech
on Saturday that his party is still committed to the presidential nomination of
Free Patriotic Movement founder MP Michel Aoun while stressing that Speaker
Nabih Berri is Hizbullah's only candidate for the parliament speaker post. He
had hinted in his speech that Hizbullah does not mind the appointment of Hariri
as premier in return for the election of Aoun as president and the re-election
of Berri as parliament speaker. Sources close to Berri and Nasrallah did not
confirm the meeting, but they said that the growing events might have pushed it
forward, al-Liwaa added. Hizbullah senior sources told the daily that: “As soon
as Hariri goes down to the parliament and elect Aoun, he will be immediately
assigned as premier without any preconditions.”
Berri: Parliamentary Polls to
Be Held on Schedule
Naharnet/August 19/16/Speaker Nabih Berri said the Lebanese face a crucial stage
until the year's end and must drive lessons from the regional happenings which
compel them to focus on their country's interest and end the political and
institutional crisis, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Friday. “A crucial stage
awaits us until the end of the year and it compels the Lebanese to prioritize an
overall solution and to drive lessons from the regional happenings obligating
them to turn their attention to their country's interest,” Berri told his
visitors. “A solution cannot be complete unless an agreement is reached on the
package deal starting with the election of a president,” added Berri. The
Speaker had launched an initiative earlier aimed at ending the political
impasse. He called for shortening the term of parliament and that the elections
be held based on the 1960 law should political forces fail to agree on a new
electoral one. He also called for staging the presidential elections after the
parliamentary polls and forming a national unity government. “The parliamentary
elections will be held on time. The parliament’s term will not be extended no
matter what,” remarked Berri. He pointed out to a worn out economic and
financial situation which he said “requires radical solutions especially that
Lebanon has a number of obligations in the coming year worth more than seven
billion dollars.”The parliamentary elections are due in May 2017. Lebanon has
been without a president since the term of Michel Suleiman ended in May 2014 and
Hizbullah, MP Michel Aoun's Change and Reform bloc and some of their allies have
been boycotting the parliament's electoral sessions, stripping them of the
needed quorum. The prolonged presidential vacuum has hampered the work of the
cabinet and rendered the parliament incapable of passing critical legislation.
Al-Mustaqbal Movement chief Saad Hariri, who is close to Saudi Arabia, launched
an initiative in late 2015 to nominate Marada Movement chief Suleiman Franjieh
for the presidency but his proposal was met with reservations from the country's
main Christian parties as well as Hizbullah. Hariri's move prompted Lebanese
Forces leader Samir Geagea to endorse the nomination of Aoun, his long-time
Christian rival. The supporters of Aoun's presidential bid argue that he is more
eligible than Franjieh to become president due to the size of his parliamentary
bloc and his bigger influence in the Christian community.
Mashnouq Slams Hizbullah-Linked
Resistance Brigades as 'Occupation Brigades'
Naharnet/August 19/16/Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq on Friday blasted the
Hizbullah-affiliated Resistance Brigades as “occupation brigades.”“The latest
show of force was what I read in a newspaper that the Resistance Brigades – whom
I call the strife brigades – have a 50,000-strong army as well as domestic
missions,” said Mashnouq in a speech during a ceremony honoring Grand Mufti
Sheikh Abdul Latif Daryan in Chbaniyeh. “After reading these words, I would like
to say that these are not strife brigades but rather occupation brigades, and we
will never tolerate this occupation under any circumstances,” the minister
added. “We were raised on the calls for resisting Israel but we will not accept
that this occupation be turned into a Lebanese occupation and we will resist it
with all peaceful and political means and ways. We will not tolerate it
anywhere, not only during the dialogue” sessions between Hizbullah and al-Mustaqbal
Movement, Mashnouq stressed. The decision to create the Resistance Brigades was
taken in 1997 by Hizbullah's leadership. The group comprised Lebanese young men
who wanted to fight the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon without having to
officially join Hizbullah. The group was not disbanded after Israel's withdrawal
from the South in the year 2000 and Hizbullah's rivals have in recent years
accused the Brigades of recruiting “thugs” and individuals who have criminal
records.
Clinton Says Her 'Heart
Breaks' for Slain Lebanese Man's Family
Associated Press/Naharnet/August 19/16/Democratic White House candidate Hillary
Clinton has said that her "heart breaks" for the family of a man from Lebanon
living in Oklahoma who police say was fatally shot by his neighbor. Khalid
Jabara's family says the neighbor, Stanley Majors, called them "dirty Arabs,"
''filthy Lebanese," ''Aye-rabs," and "Mooslems," even though they are Christian.
Jabara was shot to death on his front porch Aug. 12. Police have arrested Majors
on a first-degree murder complaint but prosecutors have yet to file formal
charges in the case. Clinton shared a Facebook post Thursday from Jabara's
family. The presidential candidate wrote on Facebook that the United States must
unite "to ensure that no other family loses a beloved son or daughter because of
prejudice and bigotry."
Berri Calls for Joint Meeting
to Study Implementation of Decentralization
Naharnet/August 19/16/Speaker Nabih Berri called for a joint meeting between the
Administration and Justice Committee, the National Defense Committee and the
Interior and Municipalities Committee to study a suggestion to implement
administrative decentralization in the country, the National News Agency
reported on Friday. Berri said the meeting will be held on Tuesday at 10:30 am
and if the needed quorum was not achieved, then the committees will congregate
at 11:00 am with one third of the members. Berri had suggested during three
consecutive dialogue sessions that were held early in August to create a senate
and implement administrative decentralization as called for by the Taef accord.
A new dialogue meeting will be held on September 5 to continue discussions.
Bomb Explodes in Ain el-Hilweh
Refugee Camp
Naharnet/August 19/16/An unknown assailant tossed a hand grenade in the southern
Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh, the National News Agency reported on
Friday. The grenade exploded in the al-Fawqani street without causing any
casualties, NNA added. A similar incident took place on Thursday when a hand
grenade exploded at dawn at the intersection of al-Fawqani street's vegetable
market but no causalities were reported. Such incidents have become frequent in
recent years in Ain el-Hilweh, the largest of Lebanon's 12 Palestinian refugee
camps. By long-standing convention, the Lebanese army does not enter the
Palestinian camps in the country, leaving the Palestinian factions themselves to
handle security. That has created lawless areas in many camps, and Ain el-Hilweh
has gained notoriety as a refuge for extremists and fugitives.
Chehayeb, Aoun thrash out three significant dossiers
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA -
Change and Reform Parliamentary bloc MP, Michel Aoun, on Friday met at his
Rabieh residence with Agriculture Minister, Akram Chehayeb. Talks between the
pair featured high on the simmering trash dossier and other standing issues that
have to do with the agricultural sector.
"My visit to General Aoun is as fruitful as ever," Chehayeb said on emerging,
explaining that he had the opportunity to hold a mini-political tour with Aoun
and delve deeply into three main dossiers. "The first dossier is of interest to
the Ministry of Agriculture as it has been suffering many problems with the
export of apples. The second dossier is the "death" factory in Ain Dara, which
involves all the people of Ain Dara and the mountain in general, who are
unitedly standing against the establishment of an industrial factory in the
region," the Minister said, explaining that the destiny of Ain Dara reserves and
water remains unknown in case the aforementioned factory is established. "The
Free Patriotic Movement's stance in this regard is more than evident in support
of the people of Ain Dara," Chehayeb said as quoting Aoun. The pair also
broached the heatedly debated trash dossier, especially in light of recent
decisions to stop activity in Burj Hammoud landfill. For his part, Chehayeb
deemed Burj Hammoud landfill the most feasible temporary solution amid the
prevailing situation."It is not a final solution, but a possible one in light of
refusal of other options, such as trash exportation. The government found itself
with this only remaining option instead of having trash be scattered in
residential areas," the Minister said, hoping that trash won't occupy the
streets of Lebanon again. He expressed willingness to debate the aforementioned
issue with concerned sides, such as environmental organizations, away from all
sorts of political tension and polemic. He also ruled out claims about
disagreements with Kataeb Party. "The solution is clear. It's either that
garbage goes back to the streets, or we stick to this four-year temporary plan,"
he added.
Minister of Environment
Mohammad Mashnouq urges Nazarian to reduce pressure over Janna Dam project
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA - Minister of Environment Mohammad Mashnouq addressed a book
today to the Minister of Energy, Arthur Nazarian, asking him to take action so
as to "reduce the risks and pressures in the Janna Dam project," proposing "to
decide on the alleged issue of water linkage between Ibrahim and Jeita Rivers,
and the risk of earthquakes, and the design of the dam and the equipment needed
to cope with emergencies."
Salhab rules out governmental
crisis in near future
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA - Member of Parliament, Salim Salhab, ruled out on Friday a
governmental crisis looming in the horizon. Interviewed by the Voice of Lebanon
radio station, the Change and Reform Parliamentary bloc MP made clear that his
political party fully rejected the extension of Major General Mohammad Kheir's
mandate, as well as that of Lebanese Army Commander, General Jean Khawaji.
"Escalatory steps against extension might be taking place in September at the
political and popular levels," the lawmaker added.
Major General Abbas Ibrahim,
Beary hold talks
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA - Director General of General Security, Major General Abbas
Ibrahim visited on Friday noon UNIFIL's headquarters in the south in light of
the repeated Israeli violations along the Blue Line and the opening of a Israeli
military road in Shebaa Farms. Major-General Michael Beary, Commander and Head
of Mission of the United Nations Interim Force received Ibrahim and held a
meeting with him. Both sides evaluated the security situation along the southern
borders. They also touched on the ongoing cooperation between the General
Security and UNIFIL.
Salam, Kaag hold talks
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA - Prime Minister, Tammam Salam met on Friday noon at the
Grand Serail Special Coordinator for the Secretary-General of the United Nations
in Lebanon, Sigrid Kaag. Discussions focused on the situation in Lebanon and the
region.Separately, Salam met Minister of State for External Affairs of India M.
J. Akbar and tackled bilateral ties. Salam met at noon with Trade and Economy
Minister, Alain Hakim and tackled the situation in the country.
Sami Gemayel, Mokbel discuss
most recent developments
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA - Kataeb party chief, Sami Gemayel, received on Friday in
Bikfaya Vice Premier and Minister of National Defense, Samir Mokbel, in the
presence of Economy and Trade Minister Alain Hakim with talks reportedly
touching on the most recent developments. "We are going through an exceptional
situation, whether at the level of policy disagreements or terrorist threats,"
Mokbel said. Regarding the extension of the Army Commander’s mandate, the
Minister pointed out that all the decisions would be consistent with the
Constitution and the law and will not put the government in danger. For his
part, Gemayel said that the Defense Minister should suggest names of candidates
for military appointments.
Derian calls on politicians
to find breakthroughs to presidential crisis
Fri 19 Aug 2016/NNA - Mufti of the Republic, Abdel Latif Derian called on the
Lebanese factions to find "new breakthroughs to resolve the Lebanese crisis and
elect a president". "All the political factions should hold serious and honest
dialogue to reach understanding and hold the presidential elections," the mufti
stressed. Derian's words came during a ceremony in Shbaniyeh held by the
businessman Ahmad Naji Fares to honor Derian, in the presence of dignitaries. He
stressed the need to elect a consensual president to end the ongoing stalemate
in the presidency post. "Electing a president is a priority to end the impasse
and resolve all pending issues in the country," Derian asserted. He hailed the
dialogue sessions among the leaders which aimed at easing tension in the street
and preventing Sunni-Shiite strife. For his part, Interior and Municipalities
Minister Nuhad Mashnouk praised the Mufti, describing him "the Mufti of national
moderation". On the other hand, he said the so called Serail of Resistance has
become the Serail of Occupation. "We haven't accepted it and won't accept it
under any circumstances".
"We will resist this occupation in political and peaceful means," he stressed.
He confirmed that his bloc is a bloc of decision.
The Only Recipe
By Ahmad El-Assaad/August 19/16
In an appreciated attempt to solve the presidential crisis, Egypt came across as
completely aware of the keys to the way out of the problem, through the
statements made by its Chief of Diplomacy Sameh Shoukry, in Beirut.
Unfortunately, the different Lebanese parties did not express any true readiness
to provide said keys, i.e. concessions in return of guarantees. Contrary to the
claims of some, saying that the presidential elections are a foreign matter, the
Egyptian minister of Foreign Affairs has thrown the ball in the court of the
Lebanese political parties. The latter are the only ones capable of making these
elections a priority, and the international and regional positions will support
this accord, if it were to happen. Shoukry drew the road map to the Lebanese
solution, whereas it needs a Lebanese will first and foremost, which would be
translated by the concessions and guarantees – a balancing point among the
different parties.
This Egyptian recipe is the only way to break the vicious cycle in which the
country has been trapped for almost two years. However, its execution needs to
be free of obstinacy, and away from individualism when considering the options
available – which are not many. It needs to be done with an open mind, with the
sole objective of sparing the country from the worse options. This time around,
Lebanon needs some concessions. And those concessions will be at the right place
this time, because they can save the country. It also needs constitutional
guarantees, so the margin of risk would be tight, limited in the face of the
dangers to be incurred by Lebanon in case the presidential void persists.*LOP
General Chancellor
Chaos, crime and suicide
Nayla Tueni/Al Arabiya/August 19/16
Apart from Lebanon’s political vacuum, there is a dangerous social phenomenon
that we cannot overlook. Not a single day passes without news of at least one
crime in several areas, with various motives and under different circumstances.
This phenomenon threatens social and moral chaos. Lebanese society has adapted
to decades of wars and crises, yet somehow maintained minimal strength. The
current chaos is unprecedented. There were several crimes last week with
different circumstances and motives. One was related to domestic violence and a
woman was killed. Another was related to a dispute over a real estate deal, and
ended with the murder of a former judge. A third crime involved a man suffering
from a nervous breakdown who killed his sister then committed suicide. Suicide
has become as normal as murders. In confronting the destructive social
repercussions of these major crises, we need social and psychological experts
more than anything else. Society is left on its own to deal with its suffering
and problems, while the state gives minimal concern to citizens’ affairs and
crises. The state’s absence due to political division and institutional
paralysis does not justify leaving people to face individual or collective
despair
Festival time
The irony is that for two months now we have witnessed a different phenomenon,
represented in heavy turnout to dozens of festivals. This reflects people’s
vitality and hope. So how come we are facing these contradictory phenomena? I do
not claim to have an interpretation of the crime-related phenomenon, as this is
the work of sociologists and experts. However, this does not prevent us from
speaking out to those concerned, particularly to the government, which is
struggling to remain in power. We must speak out to the Interior Ministry and
civil society so they can launch campaigns to resolve this spreading phenomenon.
The state’s absence due to political division and institutional paralysis does
not justify leaving people to face individual or collective despair.
**This article was first published in an-Nahar on Aug. 15, 2016.
Latest LCCC
Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on
on August 19-20/16
النظام الإيراني يعقتل 11 مسيحياً وهم يصلون في كنيسة هي عبارة عن منزل
Iran regime arrests 11 Christians in raid on house church
NCRI/19 August 2016/16
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/08/19/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%8A%D8%B9%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84-11-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%88%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%8A%D8%B5%D9%84/
NCRI - Iran's fundamentalist regime
arrested a group of practicing Iranian Christians last week at an in-house
church in the city of Isfahan, central Iran.
In total 11 Christians were arrested during the raid on their congregation last
Friday, August 12. The raid was carried out by armed plain clothes intelligence
agents, according to eye-witnesses.
Ten of those arrested have been identified as Amin Ahanin, Mohammad Alyasi,
Fatemeh Amini, Edmund Khachaturian, Mohammad Malek Khatai, Mohsen Khoobyari,
Arash Qodsi, Hamed Sepidkar, Samaneh Shahbazi-Far and Maryam Zonubi. An eleventh
person arrested at the mass has not yet been identified.
They were taken away in vans by security agents armed with pistols and carrying
walkie-talkies.
Books and other Christian literature were confiscated from the in-house church.
There is no information about the current status of the detainees.
The mullahs’ regime has stepped up its suppression of Iran’s minority Christian
population.
The regime arrested a number of Iranian Christians on Christmas Day last year at
an in-house church in the city of Shiraz, southern Iran.
The group of Iranian Christians had gathered together on December 25 to
celebrate Christmas when plain-clothes agents of the Iranian regime's notorious
Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) raided the in-house church.
Armed MOIS agents ransacked much of the place and confiscated personal items and
satellite dishes, according to eye-witness reports, which also said that the
agents behaved 'offensively' towards those detained.
Last month, in the run-up the Iranian Resistance’s annual “Free Iran” rally in
Paris, nearly 80 church leaders from the United Kingdom and United States signed
a declaration expressing deep concern over the suppression of Christians in Iran
and urging Western governments to condition any improvement of relations with
the Iranian regime to an improvement of the human rights situation including the
situation of Christians in Iran.
The Bishops, including John Pritchard, former Bishop of Oxford; the Bishop of
Stepney, Adrian Newman; the Bishop of Selby, John Thomson; and Rachel Treweek,
the Bishop of Gloucester who is the Church of England's first diocesan bishop,
and priests reiterated that the suppression of Christians in Iran has increased
during Hassan Rouhani’s tenure.
They added: “Iran’s ruling theocracy is rightly a source of grave concern for
human rights organizations and institutions with a particular interest in the
protection of the rights of Christians. … Reports by the UN Secretary General,
the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, and the U.S.
State Department all indicate that the repression of Christians has not only
continued but intensified during the presidency of Hassan Rouhani.”
These Christian leaders reiterated: “In such circumstances, we call on all
Western countries to consider the deplorable situation of human rights in Iran,
particularly the painful situation of Christians and the intensification of
their oppression, in navigating their relations with Iran. We call upon them to
precondition improvement of those relations on the cessation of oppression of
Christians and on a halt in executions.”
Iranian activists urge UN to
prosecute mullahs’ regime for 1988 massacre
Friday, 19 August 2016/NCRI - A group of Iranian activists from south-east Iran
have penned a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon,
imploring him to seek criminal charges against the mullahs’ regime for their
part in the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. The activists from
Sistan and Baluchistan Province wrote an open letter to the UN Secretary General
on August 13, declaring that the regime “takes pleasure” in the murder of
opposition activists, and if the international community does not hold them to
account, the bloodshed will only multiply. Their statement read: “The mullahs’
regime has been condemned 62 times for the violation of human rights, and its
President [Hassan Rouhani] with his so-called slogan of moderation and prospect
rules as the ‘president of executions.’”They state that Rouhani and the regime’s
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei are dictators whose crimes can be seen across the
Middle East including in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. They argue that with the regime
in charge, the world will never see peace. The 1988 massacre, the terrorism
exported throughout the Middle East, and the ongoing executions are just some of
the reasons why the regime should be brought to justice by the UN Security
Council. More than 30,000 political prisoners, primarily affiliated to the main
Iranian opposition group People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI or MEK),
were massacred in the summer of 1988. The political and civil rights activists
from Sistan and Baluchistan argue that with every single one of them
slaughtered, it just adds fuel to the fire of resistance. They ended their
statement with the battle cry, “Long live freedom.”
US calls dazed boy ‘the real face’
of Syria’s war
AFP, Washington Friday, 19 August 2016/The United States Thursday expressed
shock at a photo circulating worldwide on social media that shows a dazed Syrian
boy covered in blood and dust, calling him “the real face” of the country’s war.
“That little boy has never had a day in his life where there hasn’t been war,
death, destruction, poverty in his own country,” State Department spokesman John
Kirby told reporters during his daily press briefing. Departing from his usual
diplomatic talking points, Kirby asked the reporters how many among them had
seen photos of the child.
The shocked boy, a four-year-old named Omran, is pictured sitting in an
ambulance covered in blood and dust after an air strike Wednesday in the
rebel-held district of Qaterji in the southeast of Aleppo, which has been
devastated by the five-year war.
“You don’t have to be a dad, but I am. You can’t but help look at that and see
that that’s the real face of what’s going on in Syria,” Kirby said.
Story of little Syrian boy moves CNN anchor to tears
Since the image’s release, the photo has reverberated around the globe, much
like that of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, whose body washed ashore on a Turkish
beach last year. Kirby, whose boss John Kerry has for months attempted to forge
a pathway with Russia to end the war, said Thursday that “we all have to pull
together to try to reach a better outcome.”Kerry “continues to urge Russia to
work with him on a set of proposals that we agreed to in Moscow and teams are
still trying to work out, try to get the cessation of hostilities to be more
enforceable across the wide expanse of Syria in an enduring way,” Kirby said. In
July, Washington and Moscow reached an agreement to cooperate more closely in an
attempt to salvage a failing truce and focus on battling the Islamic State
jihadists. The American roadmap to end the war includes a national ceasefire,
opening up of humanitarian aid, and the resumption of political negotiations
between the Syrian regime and opposition in Geneva. Under a cessation of
hostilities, Kirby said, people would hopefully be spared “any more images like
the one of that young boy today in Aleppo.”
Syrian jets ‘bomb
Kurdish-held area for first time’
Reuters Friday, 19 August 2016/Syrian government warplanes bombed Kurdish-held
areas of the northeastern city of Hasaka on Thursday for the first time in the
country’s five-year-old civil war, killing at least 13 people, the Syrian
Kurdish YPG militia and a monitoring group said. The powerful YPG, a crucial
partner in the US-led war against ISIS, said it would “not be silent” over what
it called it an act of flagrant aggression. There was no immediate comment from
the Syrian government. People’s Protection Units (YPG) spokesman Redur Xelil
said the air strikes had hit Kurdish districts of the city, which is mostly
controlled by Kurdish groups, and positions held by a Kurdish security force
known as the Asayish. “There are martyrs and wounded,” he told Reuters.
Government forces were also bombarding Kurdish districts of Hasaka with
artillery, and there were fierce clashes in the city. “Every hand spattered with
the blood of our people will be held to account through all possible and
available means,” the YPG said in a statement. The YPG and Syrian government
forces have mostly left each other to their own devices in the conflict, during
which Kurdish groups have exploited the collapse of state control to establish
autonomy across much of the country’s north. The government, which routinely
uses its air force against rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in
western Syria, still has footholds in the cities of Qamishli and Hasaka, both in
the Hasaka governorate. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks
the war using a network of activists, said warplanes had targeted Kurdish
security forces’ positions in the northwest and northeast of Hasaka city. It
said clashes were also taking place in a number of places around Hasaka. At
least thirteen people, including children and women, were killed as a result of
shelling by the army on Kurdish-controlled areas in the city, the monitor said.
US: Payment to Iran leveraged
prisoners' release
Reuters, Washington Friday, 19 August 2016/The US State Department said on
Thursday it released $400 million in cash to Iran under a tribunal settlement
only once it was assured that American prisoners had been freed and had boarded
a plane. “The payment of the $400 million was not done until after the prisoners
were released,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters. “We took
advantage of that to make sure we had the maximum leverage possible to get our
people out and get them out safely,” Kirby added. It was the first time the
administration has said publicly that it used the payment as leverage to ensure
the prisoners were released by Iran. Three of the five prisoners, including
Jason Rezaian, the Washington Posts’s Tehran bureau chief; Saeed Abedini, a
pastor from Idaho and Amir Hekmati, a former US Marine from Flint, Michigan, as
well as some family members, were part of a prisoner exchange that followed the
lifting of most international sanctions against Iran following a nuclear deal in
2015. One more prisoner, Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, chose to remain in Iran,
while a fifth prisoner, American student Matthew Trevithick, was released
separately. Both US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
have denied that the payment was ransom for the release of the prisoners or tied
to the Iran nuclear deal. The White House announced on Jan. 17 it was releasing
$400 million in funds frozen since 1981, plus $1.3 billion in interest owed to
Iran, as part of a settlement of a long-standing Iranian claim at the Iran-US
Claims Tribunal in The Hague. The funds were part of a trust fund Iran used
before its 1979 Islamic Revolution to buy US military equipment that was tied up
for decades in litigation at the tribunal.
The payment was made by the United States in cash due to international sanctions
against Iran. The administration has maintained that negotiations over the funds
and the prisoners were conducted on separate tracks and were in no way linked.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has asked Kerry to appear at a
future committee hearing to discuss the payment.
German interior minister
calls for partial burqa ban
AFP, Berlin Friday, 19 August 2016/German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere
came out Friday in favor of a partial burqa ban amid a fierce national debate on
integration. “We agree that we reject the burqa, we agree that we want to
introduce a legal requirement to show one’s face in places where it is necessary
for our society’s coexistence – at the wheel, at public offices, at the registry
office, in schools and universities, in the civil service, in court,” he said
after a meeting with regional counterparts from his conservative party. De
Maiziere told public television that the full face veil “does not belong in our
cosmopolitan country”. “We want to show our faces to each other and that is why
we agree that we reject this -- the question is how we put this into law,” he
said. De Maiziere indicated that outlawing the burqa only under certain
circumstances -- as opposed the blanket ban favored by the hard right of
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Union bloc – would be “likely to win
approval” in parliament. Merkel’s right-left “grand coalition” holds an
overwhelming majority in the Bundestag lower house. De Maiziere’s position
represents a compromise with hardliners ahead of two key state elections next
month in which the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party looks
set to make strong gains. Just last week he had rejected a call from
conservative state interior ministers for a burqa ban, saying: “We can’t ban
everything that we reject, and I reject the wearing of the burqa.” He made the
comments on August 11 as he unveiled tough new anti-terror measures after two
attacks in Germany last month claimed by the Islamic State group. The measures
included a controversial proposal to strip jihadist fighters of their German
nationality. The security package also calls for deportations of convicted
criminal migrants to be sped up and police resources to be boosted. The AfD in
particular has attempted to link the record influx of migrants and refugees,
many from the Middle East, to Germany last year with an increased threat of
terrorism – an argument Merkel sharply rejected this week on the campaign trail
in her home district.
Four dead as Palestinian
police clash with gunmen
AFP, Nablus Friday, 19 August 2016/Palestinian police searching for weapons
clashed with gunmen in the West Bank city of Nablus into Friday morning, leaving
four people dead, Palestinian officials said. The firefight erupted on Thursday
evening after officers entered Nablus’s Old City, a densely populated warren of
alleyways that was one of the flashpoints of the second Palestinian uprising
between 2000 and 2005. The shooting was still continuing on Friday morning,
security forces spokesman Adnan al-Damiri said. Nablus governor Akram Rajub said
that two police had been killed in the operation as well as two gunmen, both of
whom he said were on a police wanted list. Under the 1993 Oslo accords with
Israel, Palestinian police are only authorized to operate in 18 percent of the
occupied West Bank, encompassing most of the major Palestinian towns, including
Nablus. The northern West Bank has seen a number of Palestinian police raids in
recent months. The area has witnessed factional infighting within the ruling
Fatah movement of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas.
Yemeni govt: Sanaa ‘almost
fallen militarily’
Staff writer, AlArabiya.net Friday, 19 August 2016/The state of Yemen’s capital
Sanaa, which Houthi militias overtook in a 2014 coup, has fallen militarily,
Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs and Shura Council Othman Majli told
Al Arabiya News Channel. Majli said tribal elders and local leaders have started
siding with the legitimate government amid ongoing battles between Houthi
militias and forces loyal to former ousted Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh
and the Arab-back Saudi-led coalition forces.Coalition forces have stepped up
targeted strikes on Houthi military sites in Sanaa and in other areas of
rebel-held Yemen.
Saudi-led coalition wants
urgent talks over MSF Yemen pullout
AFP, Riyadh Friday, 19 August 2016/The Saudi-led coalition fighting rebels in
Yemen said Friday it wanted urgent talks with Doctors Without Borders (MSF) over
the charity’s withdrawal of staff from six hospitals in the war-torn country.
Paris-based MSF on Thursday accused the coalition of “indiscriminate bombings”
and said it had lost confidence in the alliance's ability to prevent fatal
attacks on its facilities. “We very much regret MSF’s decision to evacuate staff
from six hospitals in northern Yemen,” the coalition said. “We are seeking
urgent discussions with MSF to understand how we can work together to resolve
this situation.”The coalition added that it values greatly MSF’s work “under
difficult circumstances” in Yemen. Coalition has said it uses highly accurate
laser and GPS-guided weapons, and it verifies targets many times in order to
avoid civilian casualties. A coalition investigative team is conducting
“independent” probes into the hospital strike and an air raid last Saturday on a
traditional school. “The coalition is committed to full respect for
international humanitarian law in the conduct of our operations in Yemen,” the
alliance statement said.
Thousands flee homes as
wildfires burn California
AFP, Los Angeles Friday, 19 August 2016/Firefighters battled Thursday to douse a
series of wildfires fueled by high winds, scorching temperatures and dry
vegetation, which have forced tens of thousands of Californians to flee their
homes. A blaze scorching sections of the Angeles National Forest, in southern
California, two huge infernos in the central part of the state and another fire
further north have displaced entire towns. “Our fire activity has definitely
picked up in past weeks in number and severity,” said Daniel Berlant, a
spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The
Angeles forest fire – dubbed “Blue Cut” – has devoured 31,000 acres (12,545
hectares), an area more than twice the size of Bermuda, and is just four percent
contained. The fire has been spreading at such an alarming pace that it appears
as if it were “running at you,” according to Michael Lopez, a spokesman for fire
information website Inciweb. More than 82,500 people potentially in Blue Cut’s
path are under evacuation orders, including the entire populations of Wrightwood
and Lytle Creek, towns of a few thousand people, and most of those in nearby
Phelan. On Thursday evening some people in the towns of Hesperia, Oak Hills and
Phelan will be allowed to return home, the San Bernardino sheriff’s office said.
Many had sought refuge with family or friends but motels in the area are full.
Many businesses have doubled their prices, leading to a warning from the
authorities that “price gouging” is against the law. Colette Martinez, 50, fled
with her husband and son to a Red Cross center hastily installed at a school in
Hesperia. “We don't know if we'll have a home to go back to,” she told AFP, in
tears. No deaths have been reported, although two firefighters surrounded by
flames on Tuesday sustained minor injuries.
Trump says he regrets
comments made ‘in the heat of debate’
The Associated Press, Charlotte, N.C. Friday, 19 August 2016/For the first time
since declaring his presidential run, Republican Donald Trump acknowledged that
his caustic comments may have caused people pain, saying that he regrets some of
what he’s said “in the heat of debate.”A day after announcing a campaign
shake-up and as he trails in the polls, the GOP nominee said that he recognized
that his comments – which have angered minorities and alienated large swaths of
the general election electorate - may have been ill-advised. “Sometimes in the
heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right
words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that,” the GOP nominee, reading
from prepared text, said at a rally in Charlotte, N.C. “And believe it or not, I
regret it - and I do regret it - particularly where it may have caused personal
pain.”
He added that, “Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.”
As the crowd cheered, Trump pledged to “always tell you the truth.”The remarks
came as Trump was trying to rescue a campaign that has struggled since the
Democratic and Republican nominating conventions from a series of self-created
distractions. Early Wednesday, Trump announced that he was overhauling his
operation, bringing in a new chief executive and appointing a new campaign
manager.Rarely do presidential campaigns wait to advertise, or undergo such
leadership tumult, at such a late stage of the general election. Yet Trump has
struggled badly in recent weeks to offer voters a consistent message,
overshadowing formal policy speeches with a steady stream of self-created
controversies, including a public feud with an American Muslim family whose son
was killed while serving in the US military in Iraq.
Trump’s decision to tap Stephen Bannon, a combative conservative media
executive, as his new campaign chief, suggested to some that he planned to
double down on the playbook he used in the primary, playing to his angry rally
crowds and bouncing from one controversy to the next. Instead, a new Trump
emerged on Thursday: a less combative, more inclusive candidate who said he was
running to be the “voice for every forgotten part of this country that has been
waiting and hoping for a better future” and for those who “don’t hear anyone
speaking for them.”
Earlier Thursday, Trump moved to invest nearly $5 million in battleground state
advertising to address daunting challenges in the states that will make or break
his White House ambitions. The New York businessman’s campaign reserved
television ad space over the coming 10 days in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and
Pennsylvania, according to Kantar Media’s political ad tracker. While Democrat
Hillary Clinton has spent more than $75 million on advertising in 10 states
since locking up her party’s nomination, Trump’s new investment marks his first
of the general election season.
“I will not rest until children of every color in this country are fully
included in the American Dream,” Trump told his audience, again accusing
Democratic Hillary Clinton of “bigotry.”
Clinton, he claimed, “sees communities of color only as votes and not as human
beings worthy of a better future.” He urged African-American voters to give him
a chance, saying: “What do you have to lose by trying something new?”Clinton’s
campaign, meanwhile, brushed the speech off as just words he read from a
teleprompter. “Donald Trump literally started his campaign by insulting people.
He has continued to do so through each of the 428 days from then until now,
without shame or regret,” said spokeswoman Christina Reynolds in a statement.
“We learned tonight that his speechwriter and teleprompter knows he has much for
which he should apologize. But that apology tonight is simply a well-written
phrase until he tells us which of his many offensive, bullying and divisive
comments he regrets and changes his tune altogether,” she said.
Trump now trails Clinton in preference polls of most key battleground states.
And his party leaders, even at the Republican National Committee, have already
conceded they may divert resources away from the presidential contest in favor
of vulnerable Senate and House candidates if things don’t improve.
Clinton Foundation to bar
foreign, corporate funding if Hillary Clinton elected president
Reuters Friday, 19 August 2016/The Clinton Foundation will stop accepting
foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president and will
stop holding the annual Clinton Global Initiative meetings whatever the outcome
of the November election, a foundation spokesman said on Thursday. Former
President Bill Clinton told staff members on Thursday he would resign from the
foundation’s board and that it would only accept donations from US citizens and
independent charities. The former president also said he would hold the 12th and
final Clinton Global Initiative in September. The annual meetings have included
current and former heads of state, corporate leaders and celebrities who
discussed poverty, healthcare, development and other issues. Foundation
spokesman Craig Minassian confirmed the moves, which were first reported by the
Associated Press.
The foundation has come under fire during Hillary Clinton’s Democratic
presidential campaign, with Republicans charging that donors were rewarded with
access to her and her aides as well as her husband while she was secretary of
state from 2009 to 2013.
Other critics have said the foundation’s reliance on millions of dollars from
foreign governments created conflicts of interest for a would-be US president.
Clinton resigned from the foundation’s board after launching her successful bid
for the Democratic presidential nomination. She will face Republican Donald
Trump in the Nov. 8 election. The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,
founded in 2001, has raised more than $2 billion for causes that focus on health
and environmental issues, mainly in the developing world.
August 19-20/16
Iran Needs to Bury Khomeini’s Ghost
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/August
19/16
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/08/19/amir-taheriiran-needs-to-bury-khomeinis-ghost-%d8%a3%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1-%d8%b7%d8%a7%d9%87%d8%b1%d9%8a-%d8%a2%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%84%d8%af%d9%81%d9%86-%d8%b4/
More than 17 years after his death, the
man who led the mullahs to power in Iran, Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini, is still
at the center of the post-revolution debate that has divided Iranians to the
point of inciting some to violence against each other.Last week the debate over
Khomeini’s decade in power reached a new flash-point with the publication of the
secret recording of remarks made in 1988 by the ayatollah’s closest aide, and
designated heir at the time, the late Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri.
The audio-file was made public by Ahmad, Montazeri’s surviving son, with the
claim that it had been recorded in August 1988 during a meeting between his
father and a delegation of mullahs sent to seek permission to carry out
thousands of summary executions within a couple of days.
The background to the fateful meeting was dramatic. Khomeini had just accepted a
ceasefire with Iraq, ending an eight-year war, without achieving his declared
aim of going to “Jerusalem via Baghdad.”
The war had claimed over a million lives, at least two-thirds of them Iranians,
without the “Army of the Imam” making a single inch of conquest. In fact, in
August 1988 when Khomeini announced his unconditional surrender, Saddam
Hussein’s troops occupied a chunk of Iranian territory in Zaynal-Kosh which was
later recovered by Iran when the Americans toppled the Iraqi despot.
In other words, Khomeini had ended up with egg on his face by prolonging a war
at the end of which five Iranian provinces were in ruins, thousands of Iranian
troops, mostly teenagers, were captured as war prisoners or were missing in
action, and the nation’s economy was in meltdown mode with nothing positive to
show for the folly.
The ayatollah must have spent sleepless nights seeking a way to change the
narrative of a humiliating climb-down. As always, he came up with his favorite
solution: killing large numbers of people to divert attention from the failures
of his inhuman regime.
According to a study by Zaynab Mansouri, at least 10 Iranians or Iraqis died for
every single hour of Khomeini’s rule. We have already noted the lives claimed by
the senseless 8-year war. But Khomeini also killed thousands in the notorious
massacre of Kurds in Naqadeh and the slaughter of Turkomans in Gonbad. He also
killed thousands of demonstrators, including many women and children, who defied
his satanic rule in the streets.
Having practically abolished the rule of law in the country, Khomeini had set up
his Islamic Revolutionary Tribunals with a single mullah as judge, often
clerical students in their twenties, and with no legal representation for the
accused, no witnesses and no cross-examination of the evidence.
According to estimates by Amnesty International and other human rights groups
over 100,000 Iranians were executed during Khomeini’s 10-year rule.
This compares to 317 executions during the late Shah’s 37-year reign, according
to a report established by the late Ayatollah Muhammad-Reza Mahdawi Kani who
briefly served as Khomeini’s Prime Minister.
Under Khomeini Iran suffered the kind of mass bloodshed and violence it had not
experienced since the medieval times. It was against such a background that
Khomeini ordered the mass executions of 1988. These mostly concerned members of
an Islamist group, Mujahidin-e-Khalq (Combatants of the People), who had helped
Khomeini come to power, but broke with him after 18 months.
Most of those executed had been sentenced to prison and there was no legal
basis, even in Khomeini’s system, for their execution. (There are conflicting
reports on the numbers involved, between 2000 and 4000.)
In the audio-file made public last week, Montazeri opposes the executions and
advises caution. He warns that were the executions to be carried out Khomeini
would be remembered as “a blood-sucker” (saffah) and that the revolution, indeed
Islam itself, would be harmed. To nail in his point, the heir-apparent even
wrote a letter to Khomeini begging him to be merciful.
The “Supreme Guide” who had promoted himself to the position of “Imam” with the
help of sycophants, reacted by ordering Montazeri to be divested of all his
positions, including that of successor, and put under house arrest. Khomeini
simply forgot that he had repeatedly called Montazeri, who had been his student
three decades earlier, “the pupil of my eye” and “fruit of my life.”
Montazeri’s position at the time was not dictated by liberal sentiments on his
part. In fact, for nine years he had endorsed thousands of other illegal
executions. By 1988, however, he had become sore with Khomeini because the
ayatollah had ordered the execution of a brother of his son-in-law Hadi Hashemi
and the mass arrest of people close to him in the wake of the Irangate scandal
in 1985-87.
The “secret” audio-file does not transform Montazeri into a choirboy. Nor does
it sweeten the image of those massacred by Khomeini. It does, however, highlight
the necessity for Iran to re-examine the blood-soaked Khomeini era in the hope
of embarking on a rational, calm and non-revanchist process of de-Khomeinization.
To be sure, Khomeini wasn’t alone in his crimes. Many of the men who met
Montazeri are still alive and in positions of power.
Over the years, many commentators have speculated on who would be Iran’s
Gorbachev, with former President Muhammad Khatami cast in that role for a while
and which is now played by President Hassan Rouhani. Others, looking to China’s
experience rather than that of the Soviet Union, have tried to find the Iranian
Deng Xiaoping with former President Hashemi Rafsanjani trying to cast himself in
that role. However, before Iran can have either a Gorbachev or a Deng, it must
first find either a Khrushchev or a Chou En-lai.
In 1956, addressing the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, Nikita Seregyvich Khrushchev exposed Stalin’s crimes, rehabilitated some
of the victims of Stalinism, and led the USSR towards a totalitarianism which
obeyed at least its own laws. The same happened with de-Maoization in China
thanks to Chou En-lai and Deng Xiaoping, starting in 1971.
Without serious de-Khomeinization, the Islamic Republic in Iran would have no
chance of achieving a reasonable measure of political, economic and legal
stability. De-Khomeinization would not transform a bad regime into a good one,
far from it. But it might make it bearable for at least those within it.
Unless Iran definitely breaks with the lawlessness that Khomeini introduced, it
won’t be able to tackle any of its numerous problems in a serious way. Without
de-Khomeinziation no one will ever be safe in Iran, not even the current
“Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei. Maybe especially not him!
***Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran
from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications,
published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.
Mr. Taheri has won several prizes for his journalism, and in 2012 was named
International Journalist of the Year by the British Society of Editors and the
Foreign Press Association in the annual British Media Awards.
Pivot to the Middle East/What the Hmeimim announcement tells us about Russian
aims
Michael Young/Now
Lebanon/August 19/16
The announcement this month that President Vladimir Putin had submitted to the
Duma an agreement to deploy a Russian Air Force group for an indefinite period
of time at Syria’s Hmeimim airbase provoked little reaction abroad. And yet it
told us much about Moscow’s aims in the country.
The deputy chairman of the defense committee of Russia’s upper house, the
Federation Council, was quoted as saying, “After the legal status is agreed
upon, Hmeimim will become a Russian Armed Forces Base, appropriate
infrastructure will be built, and our servicemen will live in proper
conditions.”
Hmeimim, which is located southeast of the city of Latakia, is already being
used by Russia to launch bombing operations. What the Russian announcement
signaled, however, was that the base would play a more long-term role in
Russia’s strategy in Syria, one not solely related to the ongoing military
campaign in the country. In other words, Hmeimim’s purpose is intimately linked
to the fate of President Bashar al-Assad.
This should be taken into consideration when speculating about Russian
intentions toward the Syrian president. The long-held assumption that Moscow is
not wedded to Assad remaining in power may well be true. But that actually means
nothing. As Russia accumulates the strategic advantages of maintaining a
permanent military presence in Syria, its outlook toward Assad will be largely
shaped by these advantages, not by any need to achieve a political solution that
satisfies all sides.
In this context, Russia’s relations with Iran would seem to be of prime
importance as well. The announcement this week that Russian bombers were using
an Iranian base to launch bombing runs in Syria showed that the Russian-Iranian
relationship in Syria is considerably more complex than many assumed. Where some
have seen competition between the two over influence in Damascus, the reality is
far more nuanced.
The Russians appear to realize that eliminating Iran’s sway in Syria is not
possible, certainly not when an insecure Assad can swing his relationships back
and forth in such a way as to play the Russians and Iranians off against one
another. Instead, both Moscow and Tehran recognize the advantages of
collaborating, even if there is disagreement over aspects of their respective
agendas in Syria. But as the battle for Aleppo has shown, their agreement is
more pronounced than their differences.
A bolstered Russian military presence offers Iran definite advantages. It helps
secure a friendly Syrian regime, with or without Assad. In so doing it preserves
the strategic depth that Hezbollah enjoys in Syria. And, though Iran will not
admit this, Russia offers a useful line of communication to Israel in the event
of a confrontation between Iran’s surrogates and the Israelis--a line that does
not pass through Washington.
The recent announcement by Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif that
Iran and Turkey agreed over the need to maintain Syria’s “territorial integrity”
did away with speculation that Tehran is willing to accept Syria’s fragmentation
if it means it can protect its stakes in the country—above all keeping open
supply lines to Hezbollah. By hinting that Iran favored the reconstitution of
the Syrian state, Zarif not only echoed Assad’s past statements on the issue,
but also affirmed that Russia and Iran were on the same page.
Zarif’s remarks were interpreted as Iran’s way of reassuring Turkey that it
shared its goal of preventing the emergence of a Kurdish entity. The Russians,
through their deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, had initially declared
that a federal structure in Syria was possible, but Moscow may have to alter
course as it improves ties with Turkey. Moreover, Assad, too, is hostile to
Kurdish aspirations. As a consequence, it is difficult to imagine the Russians
resisting Assad, Turkey and the Iranians over the Kurds when its aim is
preserving the Syrian state.
Which brings us back to Hmeimim. As Vladimir Putin takes the long view on
Russia’s presence in Syria, this will determine what his moves in the country
are likely to be. Ultimately, his desire is to rebuild a Syrian state in which
Russia has a strong say, even through a partnership with Iran. At the same time
Putin has maintained open channels to Israel, while reconciling with Turkey and
preserving relations with the Gulf states.
In other words Russia is now closer than ever to playing an axial role in a
region from which President Barack Obama has insisted the United States must
rotate away. Obama’s successor may not agree, but Putin is now ensuring that any
American reversal on the Middle East becomes that much more difficult. There was
more symbolism than substance in the Hmeimim announcement. But that was enough.
It was Putin’s way of saying that Russia is filling the void left by the
Americans.
Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut. He tweets @BeirutCalling.
New Christian Arab party seeks to
change face of Israeli society
Dror Eydar/Israel Today/August 19/16
"The New Alliance" supports national service, including in the military, and
recognizes Israel as the home of the Jewish people • "We are completely Israeli,
and then comes religion," says party founder Bashara Shlayan of Nazareth.
Bashara Shlayan: "Israel's first demand, which I support -- and which needs to
be understood -- is that Israel is the home of the Jewish people."
The events in the Middle East have unleashed deep sociological and ideological
processes, of which we are only seeing the beginning. It is not only political
Islam in the eye of the media storm. Throughout the various Arab countries in
the region, the bruised and battered Christian community is raising its voice.
Israel appears to be the only country in the region whose Christian community
does not have a negative emigration ratio as its members flee West in pursuit of
a more promising life.
Recent newspaper headlines involve Christian Israelis who are setting themselves
apart from their Muslim counterparts, disproving the traditional perception of
Israel's Arab population as homogenous. They want to join the Israel Defense
Forces.
Against the backdrop of hysteria expressed by Arab MKs who object to national
service of any kind, but particularly in the army, the comments emanating from
Israel's Christian Arab community sound like a cultural and social declaration
of independence.
Now comes the next phase in the independence process: forming a political party.
As of today, the Arab Christian party will be named Habrit Hahadashah (The New
Alliance -- the word "brit," which also means covenant, references the New
Testament).
This is a historic turning point with profound and far-reaching consequences for
Israeli society. If the party is successful, it will provide an alternative for
that sector of Israel's Arab population that seeks full partnership in Israeli
society, and which sees a Jewish democratic Israel as its home.
Israel Hayom sat down with the leader of the initiative, professional ship
captain Bashara Shlayan (58) from Nazareth.
"The entire thing started from the fact that I wanted to get my nephew into the
army and there were difficulties, they really didn't want him to integrate.
Today he is a major in a combat unit," Shlayan says.
"When I wanted my son to join the army we decided to create a forum for
Christian enlistment. We also invited priests from the church to a conference we
held in Nazareth Illit. One of them is the Church patriarch, Father Gabriel
Nadaf [who has drawn the ire of Arab MKs recently for encouraging Christian Arab
youth to join the IDF], who preferred [our way] and said we were right."
Shlayan is proud that the forum was able to get a representative from the
community assigned to work at the IDF's enlistment offices.
"We saw that we needed to create a political party," he says. "There were
articles about us published in the Arab newspapers and it sparked interest
throughout the region that there is an Arab Christian in Israel who recognizes
the land of Israel as belonging to the Jews."
How do you define yourselves?
"Firstly we are completely Israeli, and then comes religion."
Shlayan is not fooling himself. In fact, he gives the impression that he was
pushed into this position for lack of an alternative. He says he has also been
met with skepticism that anything can actually be changed.
"People see what is happening now in Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. They understand
where we are living. I tell them, 'For 65 years we have given to the Arab
communist parties; 65 years and they have done nothing!' Give me three years, I
will manage and solve their problems."
They haven't done anything?
"Look at what the Arab parties have done. Just talking nonsense about nothing
but communism; [MK Dov] Khenin and [MK Mohammad] Barakeh (Hadash), what have
they done for us? They want us to disappear and are not acting according to the
integrity of their country's citizens."
What integrity?
"The integrity is very simple. A person belongs to his country. This is the
integrity. You need to be like any citizen. If you were in America, you wouldn't
be an American? At least in Israel, those who stayed here have been given the
right to be a citizen and to integrate. But Israel's first demand, which I
support -- and which needs to be understood -- is that Israel is the home of the
Jewish people."
What is your opinion about the automatic position taken by the Arab parties
against Israel and in support of the Palestinians?
"It's stupidity. You can be against something pertaining to a certain matter,
but the state does a lot of things, so be a partner! Don't always be against.
They think being against Israel is Arab nationalism, that it is the manly thing.
But if you oppose this way of thinking, you are a traitor. This is what needs to
be changed. It's stupidity. So I demand that we, the Christians, be recognized
as loyal citizens of the state."
Confirmed: Islam, Not ‘Grievances,’
Fuels Muslim Hate for the West
Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/August 19/16
An old (and tiresome) debate appears to have been settled by those best
positioned to settle it. According to Andrew Gripp, a former political science
professor:
Since 9/11, one of the defining fault lines in American and Western politics has
concerned whether jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS are motivated by
their religion or by politics – or more specifically, by grievances against
Western foreign policy. Some insist that Islamic doctrine is the basis of their
violence, while others insist that such groups are not truly Islamic, but are
instead using the guise of religion to lash out against Western influence and
intervention.
After indicating how “jihadist groups’ political behavior is consistently
traceable to their beliefs about what the Quran, hadith, and respected
commentaries say they have a divine injunction to do,” Gripp writes:
For years, however, making this case has been a challenge. This is in part
because al-Qaeda was intentionally speaking to both sides in this debate. As the
scholar Raymond Ibrahim demonstrates in The Al Qaeda Reader, the terrorist group
would regularly frame its grievances in political terms when broadcasting its
message to the West (so as to insinuate that once the West withdrew, peace would
come). Yet when speaking to the Muslim world, the group would make highly
sophisticated religious arguments, explaining why its actions, however
reprehensible on their face, were in fact justified by a close reading of the
holy texts.
This was indeed the main reason I sought to translate and publish al-Qaeda’s
internal communiques to fellow Muslims side-by-side with al-Qaeda’s communiques
to the West: to show the stark differences in tone and purpose. As I wrote in
the book’s preface ten years ago:
This volume of translations [The Al Qaeda Reader], taken as a whole, proves once
and for all that, despite the propaganda of al-Qaeda and its sympathizers,
radical Islam’s war with the West is not finite and limited to political
grievances—real or imagined—but is existential, transcending time and space and
deeply rooted in faith.
Now, however, the world need not rely on my translations and can get it straight
from the horse’s mouth. In a recent article titled “Why We Hate You & Why We
Fight You,” the Islamic State gives six reasons. Reason number one says it all:
We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the
oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in
worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you
fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all
manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to
openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already
been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said
to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you
worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us
and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah
4 [i.e., Koran 60:4]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason
we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been
commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam,
either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option
[“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims
[per Koran 9:29].
This is as plain as it gets, not to mention wholly grounded in Islam’s
traditional worldview. As has been repeatedly pointed out, if Muslims are
persecuting people who share their nationality, ethnicity, culture, and
language—on the simple basis that they are Christians—why should there be any
surprise, or excuses of “grievances,” when Muslims terrorize the “infidels” of
the West?
Reasons two and three of why ISIS hates and fights the West are essentially the
same as reason one: Western secularists and atheists are hated and attacked for
disbelieving in and living against Allah. Although reason four cites “crimes
against Islam,” this is a reference to the “crime” of refusing to submit to
Islam’s authority and sensibilities, also known as “Islam’s How Dare You?!”
phenomenon.
It is only in reasons five and six that ISIS finally mentions “grievances”
against Western foreign policies—only to quickly clarify:
What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your
foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular
reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end
of the above list. […] The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us,
imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would
continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to
exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the
authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis
added].
It is this unrelenting hatred that Westerners cannot comprehend; a hate that
compels Muslim husbands to hate their non-Muslim wives, that compels America’s
great “friends and allies,” such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to publish
government sanctioned decrees proclaiming their hate for America.
And it was always this hate that fueled al-Qaeda’s jihad—not grievances. All of
the Koran verses that call for enmity against non-Muslims have been repeatedly
cited by al-Qaeda in its Arabic writings to Muslims. Ayman Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s
current leader, wrote a 60 page treatise devoted to delineating how Islam
commands Muslims to hate non-Muslims (see “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda
Reader, p. 63-115.)
Osama bin Laden once wrote:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the
Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between
us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Qur’an 60:4 referenced above in ISIS’s
recent publication]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from
the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel
submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed
[i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in
which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before
the infidels by, say, insisting the conflict is about “foreign policy,” nothing
more]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great
apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between
the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the
Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. (The Al Qaeda Reader,
p. 43).
Yet, in every communique he issued to the West, bin Laden stressed that
al-Qaeda’s war was entirely based on Western foreign policies detrimental to
Islam: if the West were to eliminate these, terrorism would cease. This rhetoric
was accepted at face value by many so-called “experts” (such as ex-CIA agent
Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris) and became the default answer to the
tired question, “why do they hate us?” As late as 2014 U.S. President Obama
invoked the “grievance” meme concerning ISIS.
Of course, it was one thing for Western leaders to accept and disseminate
al-Qaeda’s lies concerning “grievances,” and another thing for them to continue
doing so now, in light of ISIS’ open confessions concerning the true nature of
the jihad. Any Western leader, analyst, or “expert” who at this late hour
continues peddling the “grievance” narrative falls within the ever growing ranks
of fools and liars.
Montazeri’s revelations and
Iran’s crime against humanityجرائم نظام إيران ضد الإنسانية لا
سابق لها في تاريخ بلاد الفرس
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/August 19/16
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/08/19/dr-majid-rafizadehal-arabiya-montazeris-revelations-and-irans-crime-against-humanity/
“You [Iranian officials] will be in the
future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime
committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until
now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions]
committed by you.” Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri warns the Islamic Republic –
the Judiciary, intelligence, the IRGC and all other officials involved, in an
audio disclosed recently.
Montazeri’s son, Ahmad, a moderate cleric, posted the audio on his website but
was ordered by the intelligence to remove it.
Born in Esfahan, Iran, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was one of the founding
fathers of the Islamic Republic, a human rights activist, Islamic theologian and
the designated successor to the Islamic revolution’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Rooh Allah Khomeini, until the very last moments of Khomeini’s life. His
pictures were posted next to Khomeini’s in the streets.
Many believed that he could have stayed silent, acquiesced, and followed the
agenda of the ruling leaders – including Khomeini, Rafsanjani, Khamenei, and the
senior cadre of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – in order to receive
the highest religious and political position in the Islamic Republic. But
Montazeri felt that he did “not have a response on the Day of Judgment” and that
he felt that it as his duty to speak up and “warn Imam [Rouh Allah Khomeini].”
Montazeri’s fate changed dramatically. He always felt compelled to speak up; he
thought the Islamic Republic had significantly diverted from the ideals of the
revolution, he believed religion was intervening in the political affairs of the
state, the image of Islam was being tarnished by the Islamic Republic, and he
thought people should be given more power over the government.
Montazeri’s falling out with the ruling establishment reached its high point in
1989 right before Khomeini’s death. Montazeri – the Grand Marja’ and one of the
most knowledgeable Islamic theologians – was replaced by a junior cleric Ali
Khamenei. The IRGC, which had grown from being the child into the father of the
revolution most likely needed a low risk Supreme Leader who would not challenge
the military and primarily act as the institution’s puppet.
One of the core tensions between Montazeri and the ruling elite was his
criticism that the government’s policy is violating the inalienable rights of
the people and restricting their freedom. The surfacing of this audio by
Montazri has shed light on underlying pillars of the Islamic Republic in
consolidating its power and governing.
One of the core tensions between Montazeri and the ruling elite was his
criticism that the government’s policy is violating the inalienable rights of
the people and restricting their freedom
Crime against humanity
In reference to one of the worst mass executions in the modern history of the
Middle East, being carried by the government officials, Montazri stated that “I
am a straight-talking person. I don’t hold back what is in my heart. In contrast
to some gentlemen who do what is politically expedient…Believe me, I haven’t
been able to sleep and this issue (executions) occupies my mind 2-3 hours every
night … how will you respond to the families? how much Shah executed? Compare
our executions to his!”
When he was asked by an official for his permission to execute 200 people, he
retorted fiercely “I don’t give permission at all. I am even against a single
person being executed.”
Many members of those who were executed were from the opposition group, MEK
which is led currently by Maryam Rajavi. Amnesty International estimates that in
the summer of 1988, the overall number of people executed were 4,500. Some
estimates reach as high as over 30,000 people. Many of them belonged to the MEK.
“In my opinion, this (the mass executions) is something that intelligence was
after, and had invested in, and Ahmad Agha, Mr. Khomieini’s son, has been saying
for three or four years.
“The Mojahedin, even the ones who read their newspaper, to the ones who read
their magazine, to the ones who read their statements – all of them must be
executed” and then people chant during the Friday prayers that the monafeqin
(Mujahedin) prisoners must be executed… And when [the Iranian officials of the
Judiciary system] want to ask the Imam, instead of telling him that [executions]
on such vast scale do not serve our interests and would be damaging, they ask
whether we should execute them in the provinces or in the cities!!” Montazeri
said.
Montazeri points to the un-Islamic, illegal and unjust elements of these
executions which also included executions of children and pregnant women. “So,
now, without their having carried out any new activities (the prisoners), we go
and execute them. This means that all of us screwed up, our entire judicial
system is wrong. Isn’t that what it means? We are among ourselves here. I mean,
we want to take stock… This one guy, his brother was in prison. Eventually when,
you know, he got caught up in this, they said his sister was also suspect. So
they went and brought the sister. They executed the guy. The sister – it was
only two days since they had brought her – when they told her (of the brother’s
death), she said, I liked these people. They said the sister was 15 or 16 years
old. They said, now that her brother has been executed, and after what she said,
execute her too, and they did.
“In Esfahan, a pregnant woman was among them [those massacred]. In Esfahan they
executed a pregnant woman…. [In clerical jurisprudence] one must not execute a
woman even if she is a mohareb (enemy of God). I reminded [Khomeini] of this,
but he said they must be executed. In the month of Moharram, at least in the
month of Moharram, the month of God and the Prophet, it shouldn’t be like this.
At least feel some shame before Imam Hussein. Cutting off all meetings and
suddenly engaging in such butchery, dragging them out and Bang! Bang!!! Does
this happen anywhere in the world? …”
Montzaeri recognized the Bahai faith and argued that they should be treated
equally. He argued that opposition should not be addressed by executions but by
challenging their ideology.
“Executing them without (their having committed) any new activities brings into
question all prior judges and judgments. How do you justify executing someone
who was sentenced to something less than execution? Now we have cut off all
meetings and telephone calls. But tomorrow what answer can we give to their
families? ... Ultimately, the Mujahedin-e Khalq are not simply individuals. They
represent an ideology and a school of thought. They represent a line of logic.
One must respond to the wrong logic by presenting the right logic. One cannot
resolve this through killing; killing will only propagate and spread it”.
The government could not eliminate Montazri the way it did with other opposition
leaders due to his religious authority and the large number of followers he had.
He was put under house arrest and his speeches and activities were heavily
controlled.
Power and positions
Ironically, all those people to whom Montazri is addressing and warning in the
audio, all of those who were involved in these crimes, appear to enjoy high
positions currently. Mostafa Pourmohammadi was a representative of the
intelligence ministry to the notorious Evin prison, and he was recently
appointed by the so-called moderate president Hassan Rowhani to be justice
minister. Ebrahim Raeisi was a public prosecutor and is currently the head of
Astan Quds Razavi, which has billions of dollars in revenues.
Hussein Ali Nayeri was a judge and is now the deputy of the Supreme Court of
Iran. In his memoir, Montzari writes that he told Nayeri to stop the executions
at least in the month of Moharram, but Nayeri said: “We have executed so far 750
people in Tehran… we get the job done with [execute] other 200 people and then
we will listen to whatever you say”. Montazeri wrote several letters to Khomeini
as well warning him.
What is crucial to point out is that realistically speaking, these people are
only few of those who would be involved in such large scale crimes against
humanity. They have been awarded higher positions, power, and money.
Montazeri advised the ruling politicians that “Beware of 50 years from now, when
people will pass judgment on the leader (Khomeini) and will say he was a
bloodthirsty, brutal and murderous leader…. I do not want history to remember
him like that…”
The writings, messages and audio from Iran’s ex-heir Supreme Leader highlight
the systematic method that the officials of the Islamic Republic used to address
opposition. Executions or brutal punishments to opposition has become the
cornerstone of Iran’s political establishment. Iran ranks top in the world when
it comes to executions per capita.
Montazeri’s audio points to one of the worst crimes against humanity committed
in modern history and it continues to occur. It points to the means that the
government uses to control the population and silence opposition. It points to
the interconnectedness of Shiite Islam, power and authoritarianism, and it
points to the dominance of the IRGC, intelligence, Khamenei and their loyalists.
Its worth noting that the revelation of this mass execution was pointing to only
one summer of the 37-year history of the Islamic Republic. What else is hidden
there that we are not aware of?
Finally, it is incumbent on the human rights organizations, the United Nations,
and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct rigorous investigations
and bring those who have committed and continue to commit these crimes – and
more likely who currently serve in high positions in Iran – to justice. Calls to
bring these people to justice are increasing.
International organizations and the international community have done that
before, such as for members of the Nazis. No individual or institution that
commits crimes against humanity should live comfortably without being held
accountable.
Support is our weapon in
Syria
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/August 19/16
The video of Syrian child Omran Daqneesh, pulled alive from rubble in Aleppo, is
a reminder of the crimes committed in Syria every day, including deliberate acts
of extermination by the regime and Iran, which are supported by Russia and
militias such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah.
When we watch the video and see photos of other tragedies every day, we remember
these criminals against humanity and our duty to the victims, who are the Syrian
people in all its components. The tragedy has been ongoing for five years,
Daqneesh’s age. Five years of murder, displacement and broken promises. The
least we can do is support those in need by offering, delivering and financing
aid, whether from individuals, governments or humanitarian centers. This does
not mean we must open the door to traders of tragedies and war thieves,
including ideological groups, fake institutions and governments that confiscate
refugees’ food, blankets and medicines. Such governments turn a blind eye to
their own people, who exploit the refugees in their camps or when crossing
borders, impose taxes on them and on aid. Supporting the Syrian people is a
great job that will defeat the genocide project, save millions of displaced
people and heal thousands of injured individuals
Humanitarian relief
Millions of Syrians inside their country, as well as millions of refugees, are
living in deplorable conditions. Relief operations are the source of life for
most Syrians. Some Arab and foreign relief organizations have done a lot and
will always be appreciated, but their number is limited compared to the size of
the need and tragedy.
Unfortunately, some organizations came to profit and trade, and others to take
advantage of people’s need by forcing them to become extremists who hate their
families and society, and are pawns in the hands of terrorist leaders.
Daqneesh, his face covered in blood and dirt, is one of thousands, but their
photos and stories are not publicized. This is the life of an oppressed
population living in a state of war launched by the most violent regimes in the
world, in front other forces that have ignored the destiny of a whole nation
being murdered and displaced.
The war started several years ago and may last many more. Our duty is to support
the people or at least help them, even if slightly, to stay alive and ease their
suffering. We urge governments sympathetic to the Syrian people to grant them
more exceptions and offer them job opportunities so they can support their
families, buy products, and have a chance at a decent life until the gloom is
dispelled.
Supporting the Syrian people is a great job that will defeat the genocide
project, save millions of displaced people and heal thousands of injured
individuals. Their resistance will win against all the forces that stand against
them and will do the same against the region’s other populations.
**This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on Aug. 19, 2016.
How many more Omrans will it
take before we take action?
Peter Harrison/Al Arabiya/August 19/16
It is unlikely that anyone missed the images on Thursday of five-year-old Syrian
boy, Omran, being led into an ambulance, his little face covered in dust and
blood.
Social media carried countless messages of outrage and upset at the image of the
little boy with his floppy hair hanging over his expressionless face, as he
wiped his forehead with the palm of his hand before realizing it was covered in
blood which he then smeared on the orange seat. It’s of course completely right
that people should be outraged by these images – this little boy – and others
like him – should not be exposed to the atrocities being dished out on a daily
basis by all sides of the now five-year war in Syria.
It is also right people should be left speechless, angry – even tearful when
they see this small child looking so utterly hopeless – I know I was. But will
the concerns last? In September last year the world was confronted with the
photograph of the lifeless body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi, the Syrian
refugee washed up on a Turkish beach.
Arguably it was this image that finally pushed the EU to agree on quotas of
refugees each country would take in. But months later the European Union was
forced to threaten fines for those countries that have since indicated they will
not honor the commitment.
Most people remember the harrowing image of Aylan, but ultimately did anything
change for refugees? Campaigners in the UK cited concerns over immigration
numbers when half the country voted in favor of Brexit.
In Hungary they went a step further, erecting a fence spanning its border – with
the clear message – Hungary is closed to refugees. And according to aid
representatives there are migrants left deserted across the Balkans and on into
Greece.
Throughout modern times there have been images that have become iconic –
arguably some, like the image of the Vietnamese girl running naked from a
village that had just been hit in a Napalm strike, helped change the course of
history
In the case of AP photographer Nick Ut’s powerful image that became known as
‘Napalm girl,’ the reaction was so strong that it sparked the eventual
withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. On Thursday as the image of Omran went
viral, there were demands splashed across Facebook timelines everywhere, for an
end to the violence that has left 6 million children impacted by the war inside
Syria and a further 2.2 million displaced in other countries – that’s 80 percent
of Syria’s children and young people aged 18 and younger according to UNICEF.
Mindset change?
But in order for anything to change people need to change their mindset. Ending
the war is essential if the Syrian’s have any hope of returning to any sense of
normality.
But there also needs to be change in the way people think right around the
world. Last week the UN revealed in a global poll that 60 percent of those asked
believed Islamic extremists were posing as refugees.
People are scared. So much so that about 40 percent of those polled said they
wanted their borders shut to refugees, with support for such a move highest in
Turkey, India and Hungary. It’s quite a representative poll, they spoke to more
than 16,000 people in 22 countries including Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and
Russia.
In response the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said while security threats were a
concern, people fleeing persecution or conflict needed to be protected.
“Like in any population, there are people who are criminals and the law should
be applied to them. Nobody is above the law, whether you are a refugee or not,”
Reuters quoted UNHCR spokesman William Spindler.
“But we should not forget that the vast majority of refugees are law-abiding and
we should not demonize them or see them all as criminals and terrorists because
that's not the case.”
The sad thing is that historically Syrians were not backward in their thinking.
The country was rich in history and culture, it was a nation that placed a great
deal of importance in education and training. But that seems to have been
forgotten. All we see from there now are fighters and barrel bombs, ISIS
strongholds and helpless children like Omran standing in the street surrounded
by the debris of bombs dropped earlier.
With the event of the Internet, 24 hour rolling news and social media is it
possible that we have become desensitized to such imagery? Do we feel we have
done our bit when we have posted our tearful emoji next to the video our friend
posted of Omran? When you write “this is not okay” on your Facebook friend’s
timeline ask yourself are you doing anything about it?
Southeast Asia could be a haven for displaced Islamic State fighters
David Ignatius/Washington Post/August 18/16
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/southeast-asia-could-be-a-haven-for-displaced-islamic-state-fighters/2016/08/18/c2213b28-6566-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.0a813918e7e3
The Islamic State hasn’t had much success in recruiting militants among the vast
Muslim populations in Southeast Asia. But what happens when the caliphate’s
capitals in Syria and Iraq are destroyed, and hundreds of foreign fighters from
Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines try to go home?
Experts here in Australia see the counterterrorism challenge as a regional
problem, rather than simply an affliction of the Middle East and North Africa.
They fear that a potentially dangerous new phase may lie ahead, as the jihadists
look for new sanctuaries.
Governments in Southeast Asia have been working quietly with the United States,
some for more than a decade, to monitor and try to disrupt radical Islamist
groups, and they’ve had considerable success. The United States helped train an
Indonesian police unit known as Detachment 88, which has largely destroyed
Jemaah Islamiah, the al-Qaeda affiliate responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing
that killed more than 200 people.
But the prisons, slums and youth gangs of Southeast Asia provide an ecosystem
where terrorism could fester anew, experts say. Islamic State operatives in
Syria have tried to reach out to these potential jihadists, as in the bombing in
January in Jakarta that killed eight people, for which the Islamic State claimed
credit.
Most Southeast Asian Muslims reject such violence, but to plot mass-casualty
attacks, it takes only a tiny fringe. “We have more activity among jihadi groups
than at any time in the last 10 years,” said Sidney Jones, director of the
Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, in a speech in April in
Australia.
The would-be catalysts for violence are the jihadists who traveled from
Southeast Asia to Syria and Iraq. Experts estimate that this foreign-fighter
network includes as many as 500 to 600 Indonesians, 110 Australians, about 100
Malaysians and a small number of Filipinos. This Southeast Asian contingent is
far larger than the number who traveled to Afghanistan to join al-Qaeda before
Sept. 11, 2001. And in Iraq and Syria, the volunteers have fought and killed.
“We haven’t yet seen the worst” in Southeast Asia, said Aaron Connelly, a
research fellow at the Lowy Institute, a foreign policy think tank in Sydney
that arranged my visit to Australia.
Experts worry about three risk factors that could expand the currently small
terrorist network in Southeast Asia: declaration of an Islamic State affiliate
in the lawless jungles of the southern Philippines, recruitment of new Islamic
State volunteers in the Malaysian army and a jihadist push by released prisoners
in Indonesia.
Islamic State fighters from Southeast Asia proposed a Philippines caliphate in a
video that was released in June. This region could be a haven for jihadists; a
Muslim revolt against the Catholic-dominated government has been simmering there
for a century.
“Kill the disbelievers where you find them and do not have mercy on them,” Abu
Abdul Rahman al-Filipini urged in the video, which was recorded in Raqqa and
translated by SITE Intelligence Group .
In Malaysia, the army has been a worrying source of recruits. The country’s
defense minister told parliament last year that at least 70 former members of
the military volunteered for the Islamic State. Malaysian authorities long wary
of Western help have been working closely with the United States and Australia
since last year to contain such jihadist activities.
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
In Indonesia, police have campaigned aggressively against jihadists, killing or
imprisoning many leaders. But as in Iraq and Syria, the prisons have been a
breeding ground for extremism. Based on her research in Jakarta, Jones argued in
a recent study: “The prison system — where plots are hatched, travel arranged
and [Islamic State] supporters recruited — needs urgent attention.” Experts
worry that as many as 200 former jihadists are due to be released from
Indonesian prisons soon.
For nearly 15 years, the United States has been quietly funding counterterrorism
efforts in Southeast Asia. A study published last year by the Combating
Terrorism Center at West Point noted that the United States had provided $441
million in security assistance to the Philippines, mostly for its military, and
$262 million to Indonesia, mostly for its police. Police efforts appear to be a
better bet: Terrorist attacks increased in the Philippines by 13-fold between
2002 and 2013; attacks declined 26 percent over that period in Indonesia.
The Islamic State may lose its caliphate in Syria and Iraq. But there could be a
boomerang effect — a bigger jihadist threat in countries to which the fleeing
fighters return.
The
Shias are winning in the Middle East – and it's all thanks to Russia
Robert Fisk/Independent/August 18/16
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-shiites-are-winning-in-the-middle-east-and-its-all-thanks-to-russia-a7197081.html
Just as Erdogan has become pals with Putin, the Turkish and Iranian foreign
ministers have been embracing in Ankara with many a promise that their own talks
will produce new alliances
The Shias are winning. Two pictures prove it. The US-Iranian photo op that
followed the signing of the nuclear deal with Iran last year and the footage
just released – by the Russian defence ministry, no less – showing Moscow’s
Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers flying out of the Iranian air base at Hamadan and
bombing the enemies of Shia Iran and of the Shia (Alawite) regime of Syria and
of the Shia Hezbollah.
And what can the Sunni Kingdom of Saudi Arabia match against this? Only its
wretched war to kill the miserable Shia Houthis of Yemen – with British arms.
Poor, luckless Turkey — whose Sultan Erdogan makes Theresa May’s political
U-turns look like a straight path – is at the centre of this realignment. Having
shot down a Russian jet and lost much of his Russian tourist trade, the Turkish
president was quickly off to St Petersburg to proclaim his undying friendship
for Tsar Vladimir. The price? An offer from Erdogan to stage Russian-Turkish
“joint operations” against the Sunni enemies of Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Turkey
is now in the odd position of assisting US jets to bomb Isis while ready to help
Russian jets do exactly the same.
In pictures: Russian air strikes in Syria
And Jabhat al-Nusrah? Let’s remember the story so far. Al-Qaeda, the creature of
the almost forgotten Osama bin Laden, sprang up in both Iraq and Syria where it
changed its name to the Nusrah Front and then, just a few days ago, to “Fatah
al-Sham”. Sometimes allied to Isis, sometimes at war with Isis, the
Qatari-funded legion is now the pre-eminent guerrilla army in Syria – far
eclipsing the black-costumed lads of Raqqa whose gruesome head-chopping videos
have awed the West in direct proportion to their military defeats. We are still
obsessed with Isis and its genocidal creed. We are not paying nearly enough
attention to Nusrah.
But the Russians are. That’s why they are sprinkling their bombs across eastern
Aleppo and Idlib province. Nusrah forces hold almost all the rebel areas of
Syria’s second city and much of the province. It was Nusrah that fought back
against its own encirclement by the Syrian regime in Aleppo. The regime kicked
Isis out of Palmyra in a short and bloody battle in which Syrian soldiers, most
of whom are in fact Sunnis, died by the dozen after stepping on hidden land
mines.
But Nusrah is a more powerful enemy, partly because it has more Syrians among
its ranks than Isis. It’s one thing to be told that your country is to be
‘liberated’ by a Sunni Syrian outfit, quite another to be instructed by the
purists of Isis that your future is in the hands of Sunni Chechens, Pakistanis,
Iraqis, Saudis, Qataris, Egyptians, Turks, Frenchmen, Belgians, Kosovars and
British. Isis has Sunni Saudi interests (and money) behind it. Nusrah has Sunni
Qatar.
As for Turkey – Sunni as well, of course, but not Arab – it’s now being squeezed
between giants, the fate of all arms smuggling nations as Pakistan learned to
its cost. Not only has it been pushed into joining Moscow as well as the US in
waging war on Isis, it’s being politically attacked from within Germany, where a
leaked state intelligence summary – part of a reply to a parliamentary question
by the interior ministry – speaks of Turkey as a “central platform for Islamist
and other terrorist organisations”. State interior secretary Ole Schroder’s
remarks, understandably stamped “confidential”, are flawed since he lumps
Erdogan’s support for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas with armed
Islamist groups in Syria.
The Sunni Brotherhood, prior to its savaging by Egypt’s President-Field Marshal
al-Sissi, did indeed give verbal approval to Assad’s Sunni armed opponents in
Syria, and Sunni Hamas operatives in Gaza must have cooperated with Isis in its
struggle against Sissi’s army in Sinai. But to suggest that Turkey is in some
way organising this odd triumvirate is going too far. To claim that “the
countless expressions of solidarity and supportive actions of the ruling AKP
(Justice and Development Party) and President Erdogan” for the three “underline
their ideological [affinity] to their Muslim brothers” is going too far.
“Ideological affinity” should not provide a building block for intelligence
reports, but the damage was done. In the report, the Turkish president’s name
was written ERDOGAN, in full capital letters.
Someone in the German intelligence service – which regularly acts as a
negotiator between Israel and the Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon, usually to exchange
bodies between the two sides – obviously decided that its erring Sunni NATO
partner in Ankara should get fingered in the infamous “war on terror” in which
we are all supposed to be participants. So Erdogan offers help to Russia in the
anti-Isis war, continues to give the US airbases in Turkey – and gets dissed by
the German federal interior ministry, all at the same time. And the only Muslim
state in Nato, which just happens to be Sunni Muslim, is now being wrapped up in
the Sunni-Shia war. What future Turkey?
Well, we better not write it off. Just as Erdogan has become pals with Putin,
the Turkish and Iranian foreign ministers have been embracing in Ankara with
many a promise that their own talks will produce new alliances.
Russia-Turkey-Iran. In the Middle East, it’s widely believed that Tehran as well
as Moscow tipped Erdogan off about the impending coup. And Erdogan himself has
spoken of his emotion when Putin called after the coup was crushed to express
his support.
The mortar to build this triple alliance could well turn out to be the Kurds.
Neither Russia nor Iran want independent Kurdish states – Putin doesn’t like
small minorities in nation-states and Iran’s unity depends on the compliance of
its own Kurdish people. Neither are going to protect the Kurds of Syria – loyal
foot-soldiers of the Americans right now – in a “new” Syria. Erdogan wants to
see them crushed along with the dreams of a “Kurdistan” in south-east Turkey.
Any restored Syrian state will insist on national unity. When Assad praised the
Kurds of Kobane for their resistance at the start of the war, he called their
town by its Arab name of Ein al-Arab.
It is, of course, a paradox to talk of the Middle East’s agony as part of an
inter-Muslim war when one side talks of its enemies as terrorists and the other
calls its antagonists apostates. Arab Muslims do not deserve to have their
religious division held out by Westerners as a cause of war.
But Saudis and Qataris have a lot to answer for. It is they who are supporting
the insurgents in Syria. Syria – dictatorial regime though it is – is not
supporting any revolutions in Riyadh or Doha. The Sunni Gulf Arabs gave their
backing to the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan, just as they favour Sunni Isis and
Sunni Nusrah in Syria. Russia and America are aligned against both and growing
closer in their own weird cooperation. And for the first time in history, the
Shia Iranians have both the Russians and the Americans on their side – and
Turkey tagging along.
Russia and Iran: Historic
Mistrust and Contemporary Partnership
Dmitri Trenin/Carnegie Moscow Centre/August 19/16
Moscow’s relations with Tehran are currently much more cooperative than
competitive, although the two countries’ foreign policy goals don’t always
align.
Russia’s recent use of an Iranian air base to bomb targets across Syria marks a
striking new development in the history of Russian-Iranian relations. Throughout
the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, Iran had unsuccessfully
resisted Russian designs to control its land and influence its politics. Iran’s
1979 revolution was meant, among other things, to restore the country’s
sovereignty against great powers such as the United States and the United
Kingdom, and to stand up to the atheist Soviet Union. Yet in contrast with the
past, Russia now is no longer an uninvited imperial power, but a welcome
strategic partner—the first time since 1979 that Iran has allowed foreign
military personnel to operate from its territory.
As Moscow reenters the Middle East after a quarter-century break, it understands
the importance of Iran, one of the most important countries along Russia’s
southern periphery. Russia is fully ready to engage with Iran on a wide range of
bilateral, regional, and international issues involving trade, energy, and
security. Yet although the two countries share many goals and cooperation looks
promising, the relationship is still relatively fragile and policy disagreements
between them must be handled deftly.
Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, has been with the center since
its inception. He also chairs the research council and the Foreign and Security
Policy Program.
Russian and Iranian foreign policy goals converge or diverge depending on the
issue. Despite the ongoing U.S.-Russian confrontation, Moscow partnered with
Washington and other world capitals to achieve the recent nuclear agreement with
Iran. Russians and Iranians are close military allies in Syria. However, their
political strategies in that country may diverge. In the wider Middle East,
Moscow and Tehran pursue very different objectives, but in the greater Eurasian
context, Russia looks forward to Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), a political forum of non-Western countries co-chaired by
China and Russia.
What, then, are the drivers behind Russia’s policy toward Iran? It is worthwhile
to examine Moscow’s long-term goals and short-term objectives, as well as how
they fit in with Russia’s other important relationships, both regionally and
globally.
Iran’s Regional Importance
Even after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Iran has remained Russia’s
neighbor across the Caspian Sea. With over 2,500 years of mostly unbroken
statehood, Iran is virtually a permanent fixture in the otherwise highly
volatile environment south of the Russian border. Whatever the regime in Tehran,
Russia needs a relationship with it.
Iran is no longer a sphere of influence for Russia and Great Britain, as it was
during the nineteenth century, nor is it a junior ally of the United States as
it was between the 1950s and 1970s. It is an independent regional power wielding
influence from the Mediterranean Sea in the west to Afghanistan in the east, and
from the South Caucasus in the north to the Yemeni port of Aden in the south. In
its decades-long confrontation with the United States since 1979, Iran has
proven its resilience. A Shiite, non-Arab Iran is a loner in a Middle East
characterized by countries largely populated with Sunni Arabs, but Moscow
recognizes that there can be few lasting outcomes in the region without Tehran’s
participation or consent.
Key Issues for Russian-Iranian Relations
Generally, Russia wants Iran to be a stable and friendly neighbor. Moscow might
have a preference for more pragmatic Iranian leaders, but is basically prepared
to deal with anyone who is in charge in Tehran, unless, of course, they
challenge Russian interests.
There is little ideological affinity between present-day Russian and Iranian
leaders. Iran is an Islamic theocracy, whereas Russia is a secular authoritarian
state, with the Orthodox Church traditionally serving as a junior partner of the
Kremlin. Both leaderships and societies are highly nationalistic, sensitive to
their previous glory, and determined to regain their status in global and
regional terms. There is not much trust between them either. Iranians remember
czarist conquests and Soviet attempts at domination, and Russians complain about
Persian evasiveness and duplicity.
Both leaderships are currently motivated by strong animus toward the United
States, which has imposed sanctions on both countries, and this shapes their
prevailing worldviews. Like Russia, Iran rejects U.S. dominance in the global
system, and seeks to reduce that dominance in its own region. Moscow and Tehran
are partners in opposing the existing world order.
Russia’s outreach to Iran—a major Muslim country—is important in bolstering
Moscow’s image as friendly to Islam and open to a “dialogue of civilizations.”
This concept was favored by former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami and is
supported by the Kremlin as part of its efforts to make the global order more
multipolar. Such cultural solidarity has a pragmatic side. Russians appreciate
that Tehran did not criticize Moscow’s military campaigns in Chechnya and backed
Russia’s observer status in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now
called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) in 2005.
As Russia seeks to build economic ties to the countries in the Middle East,
North Africa, and South Asia along a north-south axis, Iran is a key transit
country. At a trilateral summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, in August 2016, Presidents
Vladimir Putin of Russia, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan
pledged to work hard to develop a 7,200-kilometer-long trading corridor linking
their countries, mostly by rail. For Russia, Iran provides economic
opportunities given its population size and potential for technological,
educational, and cultural growth.
Yet, so far, economic relations between the two countries have usually taken a
backseat to geopolitics. Iran’s principal export, oil, is not something that
Russia is interested in buying, and Iranians mostly prefer more advanced Western
technology to that of Russia. At present, Russia’s trade with Iran is small in
scale—approximately $1.2 billion in 2015, down from $3.5 billion each year in
2010 and 2011, after which Russia joined UN-mandated sanctions against Iran. But
Moscow hopes to expand its exports to Iran now that major economic sanctions
against Tehran have been lifted.
In anticipation of this, there was talk in 2015 of potential investment deals
amounting to $40 billion. Achieving this will not be easy. Cash-strapped Moscow
is finding it hard to provide Tehran with substantial credit to stimulate
Iranian imports from Russia. In the summer of 2016, the Russian government
released two loans to Iran totaling 2.2 billion euros (about $2.5 billion), but
a promised $5 billion loan to Tehran has yet to materialize.
Major Russian civilian stakeholders are exploring opportunities in Iran. Rosatom,
the nuclear energy corporation, is looking for new orders to complete after it
finishes constructing reactors at Bushehr. Lukoil, Russia’s largest privately
owned oil company, is seeking to move into Iran’s oil and gas sector, and the
Russian aerospace industry is looking for export markets as it is recovers from
its post–Soviet era nadir. In the current post-sanctions environment, however,
these companies face competition from European firms that have reentered the
Iranian market.
With regard to energy relations, although Iran is a potential rival to Russia as
a producer, Russians are taking the long view. The 2015 resumption of Iranian
oil exports to Europe, predictably, has come at some cost to Russia, in terms of
market share and oil prices, but this did not deter Moscow from actively
pursuing the P5+1 nuclear deal with Tehran, which lifted the embargo. In March
2016, Iran did not agree to cap its oil production to support oil prices, as
Moscow had advocated doing; yet the Russians professed understanding of Iran’s
situation. When Iran finally begins exporting its natural gas to Europe, the
principal market for Russia’s Gazprom, Moscow will not like it but will probably
take this in stride. Rather than opposing something it cannot prevent, Russia
has been demonstrating its sangfroid, while seeking to limit the damage to its
interests and cementing important relationships.
Russia’s defense industry is one of the principal beneficiaries of the country’s
relationship with Iran. Even when the last of the economic sanctions are
removed, Iran will still be denied access to Western military technologies and
hardware. Russia’s Rosoboronexport, which sells weapons systems, views Iran as
an important market. Iran’s increasing oil revenues make it a more credible
customer. In early 2016, Russia finally delivered to Iran the S-300 air defense
system, which it had previously not done to put pressure on Tehran during the
nuclear talks. Meanwhile, Tehran has been considering purchasing the more
advanced S-400 system from Moscow. Russia has stated that there are no
restrictions on selling Iran the T-90 main battle tank or the Su-30 fighter
aircraft.
Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out
Russia acknowledges Iran’s ambition to be a major Middle Eastern player, but it
wants it to stay a non-nuclear-weapons state. Moscow’s stance on the Iranian
nuclear issue has been driven mainly by Russian national interests, and was thus
unaffected by the U.S.-Russian confrontation in 2014. The Russians certainly
want the nuclear deal with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—to
hold, the alternatives being either a nuclear-armed Iran or a major war on
Russia’s doorstep. However, with the agreement under attack from influential
quarters in Washington and opposed by the more hardline elements in Tehran, its
implementation cannot be taken for granted.
Moscow, which throughout the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program was
generally more understanding of Iran’s position than the Western members of the
P5+1 group, will have an important role to play, for example, in terms of
reprocessing spent fuel. If, however, the JCPOA falters and U.S.-Iranian
tensions spike again, Russia will have to make some hard choices. It might try
to play the role of good cop, or act as a mediator. However, it should not be
expected to automatically follow the United States. Depending on the level and
intensity of the U.S.-Russian confrontation, the isolated pocket of cooperation
between the two countries on Iran may not always remain a protected area. Moscow
also has been looking with concern at the development of Iran’s medium-range
missile program, but this concern is now rarely made public.
Cooperation and Competition in Syria
To Russia, Iran has been a valuable geopolitical ally in a number of areas,
including Afghanistan, Syria, and the southern areas of the former Soviet Union.
In Syria, Iran and its Hezbollah allies have provided forces on the ground in
support of the government in Damascus, along with significant financial support,
while Russia provides Damascus with air support, artillery, and intelligence, as
well as arms, matériel, and diplomatic cover. Since the start of the Russian
military intervention in Syria in September 2015, Moscow has been coordinating
its operations there with both Damascus and Tehran, and also has worked closely
with the Tehran-friendly government of Iraq. Russia obtained permission from
Iran and Iraq to use their airspace for cruise missile strikes in Syria. Such
coordination, it should be stressed, does not restrict Russia’s freedom of
action. Moscow notified Iran about both the September 2015 decision to engage
militarily in Syria and the March 2016 partial drawdown of the air campaign, and
consulted about coordination both times; however, this was not made part of a
joint decisionmaking process. Russia’s use of an Iranian air base beginning in
August 2016 for its bombing missions in Syria marked an upgrade in the quality
of military cooperation between Moscow and Tehran. It was the first time since
1979 that Iran has allowed foreign military personnel to operate from its
territory.
While Moscow, like Tehran, seeks to prevent the toppling of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the triumph of the Islamist extremists, there is a
fundamental divergence between the two governments’ goals. The Russians want to
preserve some kind of a Syrian state, under a regime reformed with their active
participation—such a regime would continue to be friends with Moscow. Their end
goal, however, is not to preserve Assad, over whom they have limited influence,
or to maintain Alawite rule. While Russia’s ongoing direct intervention in Syria
has prevented the defeat of Assad’s forces, it also has resulted in the relative
reduction of Iran’s influence in Damascus. Moscow also has been paying attention
to Israel’s security needs, in Syria and elsewhere—something which is clearly at
odds with Tehran’s use of Hezbollah as its geopolitical tool on Israel’s
borders. Moreover, despite the de facto alliance over Syria, Moscow has insisted
on Iran paying full price for the armaments it purchases from Russia.
The Iranians, by contrast, are fighting to keep the Assad regime in power, to
preserve crucial supply links to Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and to shore up their
influence in so-called useful Syria— a reference to Syrian territory that the
Assad regime still controls. These goals can only be achieved with the help of
Iran’s Shiite and Alawite allies. Thus, while the Russians are aiming for an
outcome that might eventually include some sort of a political compromise that
involves Syria’s disparate warring factions and key regional players, the
Iranians are focused on achieving military victory for their party. The Iranians
are unhappy that the Russians are not giving enough support to Hezbollah and
other Shiite forces on the ground and that they have not been active enough on
some key battlefronts, such as Aleppo last June.
A major goal of the Russian intervention in Syria has been winning U.S.
recognition of Moscow’s great-power role. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov, and the U.S. secretary of state, John Kerry, have acted as informal
co-chairs of the intra-Syrian negotiations process that aims to achieve a
political settlement. In February 2016, they brokered an agreement on the
cessation of hostilities in Syria which has since been violated. The United
States and Russia, however, also have had a record of success. In 2013, they
reached a landmark accord to rid Syria of chemical weapons, which has since been
implemented despite the ongoing civil war.
Iran has watched U.S.-Russian collaboration on Syria with suspicion, fearful
that they may collude at the expense of Tehran’s interests. There is also
distrust on the U.S. side. One reason for Washington’s refusal to share
information with Russia on the Syrian opposition forces is its concern that such
information could be leaked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. Moscow, for its
part, has been weighing the implications of Iran’s rapprochement with European
Union countries following the signing of the JCPOA. However, the Russians are
much more relaxed about the possibility that Tehran might tilt toward the United
States. They see the obstacles to radical improvement in the U.S.-Iranian
relationship as fundamental ones, and such an outcome as highly unlikely.
Russian-Iranian Relations in Other Regional Settings
In Afghanistan, Iran and Russia have been allies since the Taliban gained power
in Kabul in 1996. The two countries actively collaborated with the United States
to defeat the Taliban in 2001. Since then, the U.S.-led operation in Afghanistan
has been both a relief in security terms and a source of geopolitical anxiety
for Moscow and Tehran. On the one hand, U.S. forces in the Hindu Kush mountains
took on al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists who also posed a threat to Russia and
Iran; on the other, the U.S. military presence in the region greatly increased
Washington’s influence in Russia’s and Iran’s backyards. Now, as the Western
military presence in Afghanistan progressively wanes, the Iranians and the
Russians will need to collaborate more closely again to prevent instability in
Afghanistan from threatening their own security interests. Another source of
worry for Iran and Russia is drug trafficking from Afghanistan, for which the
two countries are both transit territories and growing markets.
In the future, Moscow and Tehran may also find common cause in Central Asia, if
the security environment in that former Soviet region seriously deteriorates.
They have a history of cooperation there. In 1997, Moscow and Tehran joined
forces to end the brutal civil war in Persian-speaking Tajikistan. In the South
Caucasus, Iran has stayed on the sidelines of the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh, allowing Moscow and the other Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group co-chairs, the United States and
France, to mediate between the warring parties. It was in large part thanks to
Iran that landlocked Christian Armenia, a Russian ally, could keep a lifeline to
the outside world.
In a number of other areas, however, Russia and Iran remain apart. Moscow views
Hezbollah as a sectarian politico-military grouping that warrants engagement,
but it has reservations about its more violent activities. Russia also takes a
more neutral stance toward the civil war in Yemen, where Iran supports the
Houthi tribes. Crucially, Russia does not support Iran’s agenda in the Persian
Gulf. While Tehran reaches out to various Shiite forces as it seeks to bolster
its regional position in the bitter rivalry with the Sunni Arab powers led by
Saudi Arabia, Moscow has carefully steered clear of the Sunni-Shia conflict.
The Dogma of Flexibility
Moscow is reentering the Middle East as a very different kind of player than it
was during the Soviet period. The salient feature of its engagement today is its
largely nonpartisan approach, by which Russia promotes its interests while
remaining on speaking terms with all players in the region. The only exception
to this has been Turkey, which in November 2015 shot down a Russian warplane
near the Turkish-Syrian border—an act that impaired Russian-Turkish relations
until Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized to President Putin seven
months later. After the meeting of the two presidents in St. Petersburg in
August 2016, Russian-Turkish ties are being restored. They may even grow tighter
than before, given President Erdogan’s complaints about U.S. and EU behavior at
the time of the attempted military coup in Turkey in July 2016. As an overall
rule, then, Russia retains flexibility in the region, maintaining a margin for
maneuvering in both its alliances and conflicts, except for the Islamic State
and al-Qaeda, against which its commitment is complete.
Russia’s close relations with Iran have had a bearing on Moscow’s ties to
Israel, as well as its links to a number of Arab countries, above all in the
Persian Gulf. Russia’s ability to stay close to both Iran and Israel is a
testament to the degree of Moscow’s foreign policy flexibility, the quality of
its diplomatic skills, and the inherent limits on Russian-Iranian cooperation.
As perhaps the only world leader who has met with both Iran’s supreme leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Putin has
demonstrated his pragmatic, transactional, and realpolitik-based approach to
foreign policy. Consistently, Russians have been less worried than the Israelis
about Iran’s technical capabilities and its leadership’s political rationality,
while at the same time warning about the dangers of an Israeli preemptive strike
against Iran.
The Russians have been careful not to be drawn into a Sunni-Shia conflict,
whether in Syria or in the Persian Gulf. To Moscow, the coalition it has formed
with Baghdad, Damascus, and Tehran does not represent a Russia-Shia axis but
only a meeting of interests. In Syria, the Russians have been reaching out, with
limited success, to a range of Syrian opposition groups, in an effort to reach
an acceptable peace settlement—something unthinkable for Iran. At the same time,
Moscow repeatedly has made the point that no political settlement in Syria could
be sustainable unless it is backed by Iran—a fact that many Syrian Sunnis have
had difficulty swallowing.
Putin has also cultivated relations with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of
Egypt, the most populous Arab country, and a Sunni one at that. The Kremlin’s
relations with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan are traditionally close. Leaders
of all the smaller members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have recently
traveled to Russia to confer with Putin. Moscow’s economic interests have pushed
it to embrace the GCC states, but its strategic objectives make it a situational
ally of Iran.
In this context, the biggest challenge for Moscow is to manage ties with Iran
even as it deepens its dialogue with Saudi Arabia. Becoming partners with the
Saudi kingdom and cementing friendships with other rich Gulf monarchies while
maintaining and expanding relations with Iran could prove even more difficult
than the feat of simultaneously dealing with Iran and Israel. Russia has no
appetite for taking sides in the Iranian-Saudi dispute, but pursuing parallel
relationships with countries that are bitter regional rivals is a test of its
resourcefulness and litheness.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and before the Ukraine crisis,
Russia’s relations with Iran were highly susceptible to the ups and downs in
Moscow’s relationship with Washington. When pressed hard by the United States,
Russia would often make concessions at the expense of their Iranian connection.
In Tehran, such practices destroyed Russia’s credibility and made Iranian
leaders even more cynical toward their colleagues in the Kremlin, whom they had
never fully trusted to begin with. In the post-Ukraine era, this no longer
applies because the severity of Moscow’s confrontation with Washington rules out
such maneuvering, for now. Russia did not withhold its cooperation with the
United States on Iran during the P5+1 talks, as many in the West had feared, but
once the JCPOA was signed, Moscow proceeded with arms sales to and military
cooperation with Iran without any regard for the U.S. attitude toward these
moves.
Moscow is eager to have Iran join the SCO, which it has co-led with Beijing
since its founding in 2001. The SCO’s forthcoming expansion in 2017, to include
India and Pakistan, will serve Russia’s interest in diluting China’s weight in
the organization. If Iran also joins as a full member following the lifting of
sanctions that were imposed by the UN Security Council, China will be even more
embedded within a group of its continental Asian partners. Russia, with its vast
foreign policy expertise and diplomatic experience, would be able to benefit
from such an arrangement. Tehran, however, has become more cautious toward that
prospect, concerned about limiting its options precisely when the West,
particularly Europe, is opening up to it.
Conclusion
For the time being, Russian-Iranian cooperation is much more pronounced than
competition between the two countries. Disagreements between them—for example on
how to divide the resource-rich Caspian Sea, which strategy to follow in Syria,
and whether to cap oil production—are being managed more or less successfully,
and are on the way to some sort of resolution.
However, the foundation of the relationship between Russia and Iran is
relatively weak and imbalanced. Economic ties are underperforming and
unimpressive. Mutual trust at the government level is largely lacking. Societal
ties are virtually nonexistent. As Iran opens up due to the lifting of
sanctions, Iranians are looking west not north. Iran is unlikely to become
Russia’s soul mate, and the most Moscow and Tehran can hope for is a pragmatic
relationship based on the two countries’ interests, as defined by their
respective leaderships. Their international weight and connectivity differ
greatly, creating a glaring asymmetry. While Russia is one of Iran’s two most
important strategic partners (the other being China), Iran is much lower on the
list of Russia’s priorities.
The potential for discord between Iran and Russia exists in a number of
domains—including Middle Eastern geopolitics, the Caspian Sea divisions, and
natural gas exports—even if neither side at the moment regards it as in its
interest to push hard against the other. For the foreseeable future, Moscow and
Tehran need each other in order to accomplish their wider goals and objectives,
even if they know that their cooperation has clear limits and can only decrease
their competition rather than fully abolish it. This understanding, in turn, can
make the relationship sustainable and even moderately successful, despite its
shallow roots, sordid history (particularly for the Iranians), and deep and
lingering distrust.
The Temple Mount and UNESCO
Denis MacEoin/ Gatestone Institute/August 19/16
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8548/temple-mount-unesco
The attempts to deny any ancient and ongoing Jewish presence in Jerusalem, to
say there was never a first let alone a second Temple and that only Muslims have
any right to the whole city, its shrines and historical monuments, have reached
insane proportions.
Is this really what it boils down to? The Islamic State rules the international
community? Including UNESCO?
The world is outraged when it sees the stones of Palmyra tumble, or other great
monuments of human civilization turn to dust. But that same world is silent when
the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters Islamise everything by calling into
question the very presence of the Jewish people in the Holy Land.
UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is
known throughout the world for the many places it designates as World Heritage
Sites. There are more than one thousand of these, distributed unequally in many
countries, with Italy at the top, followed by China.
The largest single category of sites consists of religious sites, categorized
under the heading of cultural locations (as distinct from natural ones). Within
this category, UNESCO has carried out many dialogues with communities in order
to ensure that religious sensitivities are acknowledged and guaranteed. UNESCO
has undertaken many measures in this field.
In 2010, the organization held a seminar on the "Role of Religious Communities
in the Management of World Heritage Properties."
"The main objective of the [seminar] was to explore ways of establishing a
dialogue between all stakeholders, and to explore possible ways of encouraging
and generating mutual understanding and collaboration amongst them in the
protection of religious World Heritage properties."
The notion of dialogue in this context was clearly meant to avoid unilateral
decisions by one nation or community to claim exclusive ownership of a religious
site.
Alleged or actual claims to multiple ownership of religious sites are not
uncommon. A collection of essays entitled, Choreographies of Shared Sacred
Sites: Religion, Politics, and Conflict Resolution, examines such disputes over
shared religious sites in Turkey, the Balkans, Palestine/Israel, Cyprus, and
Algeria, providing powerful analyses of how communities come to blows or work
reconcile themselves in a willingness to share shrines and other centres.
Sometimes people come to blows over these sites, and sometimes one religion can
cause immense pain to the followers of another, as happened in 1988 when
Carmelite nuns erected a 26-foot-high cross outside Auschwitz II (Birkenau)
extermination camp in order to commemorate a papal mass held there in 1979.
A more famous example of an unreconciled dispute is the conflict over the Babri
Masjid in Ayodhya, India, a mosque originally built in 1528-29 on the orders of
Babur, the first of the Mughal emperors. According to Hindu accounts, the Mughal
builders destroyed a temple on the birthplace of the deity Rama in order to
build the mosque -- a claim denied by many Muslims.[1] The importance of the
site is clear from a Hindu text which declares that Ayodhya is one of seven
sacred places where a final release from the cycle of death and rebirth may be
obtained.
These conflicting claims were fatefully resolved when an extremist Hindu mob
demolished the mosque in 1992, planning to build a new temple on the site. The
demolition has been cited as justification for terrorist attacks by radical
Muslim groups.[2] The massacres at Wandhama (1998) and the Amarnath pilgrimage
(2000) are both attributed to the demolition. Communal riots occurred in New
Delhi, Bombay and elsewhere, as well as many cases of stabbing, arson, and
attacks on private homes and government officers.[3]
Muslim invaders did indeed destroy or modify thousands of "idolatrous" temples
and sacred sites in India, just as they did elsewhere on a lesser scale, and
just as the Islamic State has been doing for several years in modern Iraq and
Syria. This is not simply the sort of destruction normally associated with wars,
invasions, or civil disputes. For Muslims, it has a theological basis. Islam, as
it has existed since the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632, is predicated on
three things: the belief that there is one God without partners or associates;
the belief that Muhammad is the messenger of that one God; and the belief that
Islam is the greatest and last religion revealed to mankind, authorized by God
to destroy all other religions and their artefacts:
"He (God) has sent his prophet with guidance and the religion of the truth in
order to make it prevail over all religion" (Qur'an 9:33; 61:9).
It is this last belief that has, for over 1400 years, instilled a deep sense of
supremacism within the Muslim world.
As many Muslims believe that Islam is the final revelation and Muhammad is the
last prophet, so they believe that they cannot possibly live on equal terms with
the followers of any other faith. Jews and Christians may live in an Islamic
state, but only if they submit to deep humiliation and abasement and in return
for the payment of protection money (the jizya tax). Churches and synagogues may
not be repaired or, should they collapse, be rebuilt. Islam trumps everything.
This last doctrine is used repeatedly in the works of modern Salafi ideologues
such as the Pakistani Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi and the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. Here is a
fairly typical statement by Qutb, from his best-known publication, Ma'alim
fi'l-tariq, ("Milestones"):
"Islam, then, is the only Divine way of life which brings out the noblest human
characteristics, developing and using them for the construction of human
society. Islam has remained unique in this respect to this day. Those who
deviate from this system and want some other system, whether it be based on
nationalism, color and race, class struggle, or similar corrupt theories, are
truly enemies of mankind!"[4]
Here is a recent comment by a modern Salafi writer:
"this worldwide domination of Islam which has been promised by Allah does not
necessarily mean that every single person on earth will become Muslim. When we
say that Islam will dominate the world, we mean as a political system, as the
messenger Muhammad prophesied that the authority on earth will belong to the
Muslims, i.e. the believers will be in power and the Sharee'ah [Shari'a] of
Islam will be implemented in every corner of the earth".
Under Islamic jihad law, any territory once captured for Islam must remain an
integral and inviolable possession of the Muslim authorities.[5] In other words,
even entire countries like Spain, Portugal, India, Greece or the Balkan nations
that had been colonies under Ottoman rule, should be reclaimed for Islam, either
by re-conquest or through the current "cultural jihad."
It is through mass immigration, separatism, gradual introduction of Islamic law,
and ghettoization that many countries in Europe have grown to be victims of a
more determined Islam. But one territory remains under the threat of a violent
takeover: the state of Israel.
Although there are revanchist and irredentist movements in many countries,
Muslim effort to re-possess Israel has served to spark off and maintain the
longest-lasting and most intractable physical conflict in modern history.
Demands and counter-demands, attacks and counter attacks, wars and defensive
responses taking place in Israel are in the media every single day.
The dispute is not primarily political. After the First World War, a system of
international law was created, and that mutually agreed system was expanded
after World War II to all countries joining the United Nations. Israel was
created, not to displace the Arab inhabitants of what the British named
Palestine, but to provide a homeland for the Jews alongside an Arab state. But
all the Arab countries turned down this proposal. The Palestinians today still
refuse to accept a state of their own, even while clamouring loudly for one.
Their deepest motive lies in a religiously-determined rejection of the nation
state,[6] combined with the conviction that the Holy Land is an Islamic
territory that cannot ever be awarded to the Jews.
That denial of international law and ethics allows many Muslims to claim the
city of Jerusalem as an Islamic city, a city that can never be treated as the
capital of a Jewish state, a holy place that has meaning for Muslims and Muslims
alone.
You do not have to be a historian to know that Jerusalem was originally a Jewish
city with, later, Christian connections and, later still, weak Islamic
connections. More than that, it is the holiest city in the world for Jews, and
it contains the most sacred site in the Jewish religion, the Temple Mount -- the
area on which not one but two Jewish temples were built.
There, Jews worshipped until the temples were destroyed, first by the Babylonian
monarch Nebuchadnezzar (in 586 BCE), and again by the Romans in 70 CE. Jews have
always turned toward the Temple Mount in their prayers.
Muslims, too, faced the Temple Mount when they prayed for several years while
Muhammad and his small band of followers lived in Mecca. They continued to do so
for many months after they emigrated to the oasis town of Yathrib (now Medina)
in 622. They originally prayed facing Jerusalem because Muhammad was at first a
great admirer of the Jews, from whom he learnt most of what he knew. But in
Medina, he found he did not get on so well with the Jews of the city, who
refused to convert to his new religion.
So, sixteen or seventeen months after the emigration, a revelation came to
Muhammad that the Believers had to turn round about 180 degrees to face the city
from which most of them had come, Mecca. In mid-prayer, the entire congregation
turned their backs on Jerusalem. The holy city of the Jews was no longer of the
least interest to them.[7]
The Qur'an could not be more explicit in this matter. Muhammad does not follow
the direction of prayer used by the Jews. The Ka'ba in Mecca has erased all
thought of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. At that point in time, there was not
a single rock or stone or tree or building in Jerusalem that was Islamic in any
way.
But for today's Muslims, the opposite is true. There is nothing in Jerusalem
that belongs to the Jews, and every part of it -- especially the Temple Mount
and the Western Wall -- is and always has been Islamic. It is seen as the one of
the holiest cities for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina.
The Muslim claim to Jerusalem is tenuous to say the least. One Qur'anic verse
(17:1) talks of a night journey made by Muhammad from the Sacred Mosque (in
Mecca) to the Farthest Mosque (al-masjid al-aqsa). Later commentators identify
this Farthest Mosque with Jerusalem. But there were no mosques and no Muslims in
Jerusalem at this time -- in fact, not that many even in Arabia. The current
Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount was first built in the year 705, seventy-three
years after Muhammad's death in 632, and rebuilt several times after
earthquakes. By the 20th century, it was severely neglected. A film of the
mosque in 1954 shows serious deterioration. It was clearly neither cared for nor
much valued by the Muslim community.
You do not have to be a historian to know that Jerusalem was originally a Jewish
city with, later, Christian connections and, later still, weak Islamic
connections. The second Jewish Temple, completed by King Herod in 19 BCE, was
destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE (depicted at left in a 1626 painting by Nicolas
Poussin). The current Aqsa Mosque (right) on the Temple Mount was first built in
the year 705, seventy-three years after Muhammad's death in 632, and rebuilt
several times after earthquakes. (Images' source: Wikimedia Commons)
And there is more. For centuries, Muslim writers (not to mention Jewish and
Christian historians and archaeologists) agreed that the Kotel, the Western or
"Wailing" Wall, was the remaining section of the second Jewish Temple, the
temple built by Herod and visited by Jesus. As far back as 1924, the Supreme
Muslim Council in the British Palestine Mandate published a pamphlet entitled, A
Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif – Temple Mount Guide. This document confirmed
the Jewishness of the site: on the fourth page, the historical sketch of the
Mount declares:
"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the
earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond
dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David
built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace
offerings (2 Samuel 24:25)"
According to the Jewish Virtual Library:
Early Muslims regarded the building and destruction of the Temple of Solomon as
a major historical and religious event, and accounts of the Temple are offered
by many of the early Muslim historians and geographers (including Ibn Qutayba,
Ibn al-Faqih, Mas'udi, Muhallabi, and Biruni). Fantastic tales of Solomon's
construction of the Temple also appear in the Qisas al-anbiya' [Tales of the
Prophets], the medieval compendia [sic] of Muslim legends about the pre-Islamic
prophets. As the historian Rashid Khalidi wrote in 1998 (albeit in a footnote),
while there is no "scientific evidence" that Solomon's Temple existed, "all
believers in any of the Abrahamic faiths perforce must accept that it did."
For some time now, however, Muslim individuals and institutions have started to
claim that the Mount has nothing to do with a Jewish Temple, that no such temple
ever existed, and that the Western Wall is in fact the wall at which Muhammad
tethered his fabled winged-horse, Buraq. For example, with enormous effrontery,
Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, the leading religious figure in the Palestinian
Authority, stated in 2009: "Jerusalem is an Arab and Islamic city and it always
has been so." Tamimi claimed that all excavation work conducted by Israel after
1967 had "failed to prove that Jews had a history or presence in Jerusalem or
that their ostensible temple had ever existed." He condemned Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu and "all Jewish rabbis and extremist organizations" as liars,
because of their assertion that Jerusalem was a Jewish city. Tamimi accused
Israel of distorting the facts and forging history "with the aim of erasing the
Arab and Islamic character of Jerusalem."
There is no reason why Muslims should not venerate the spot, whether from afar
or while living in Jerusalem itself. In that way, the Temple Mount would be
another religious site with connections to more than one religion -- in this
case to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Unfortunately, that sense of dominance
over all other religions, as described above, means that Muslims are having none
of that.
For them the Temple Mount and its surroundings are Muslim and nothing else. In
the modern period, this is an offshoot of the wider view that all Israel is
Islamic territory.
The Islamic concept of supremacy has overtaken UNESCO in direct contradiction to
its acceptance of multi-religious sites.
In October 2015, six Arab states, on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA)
and others, proposed to UNESCO that it should change its designation of the
site, turning it from a Jewish holy place to a Muslim one, as part of the al-Aqsa
Mosque. A vote was set for October 20, but was postponed following an indignant
protest by UNESCO's head, Irina Bokova, who said she "deplored" the proposal.
But that vote may still go through in favour of the PA and its supporters. One
day later, it was announced that UNESCO had voted to designate two other
important Jewish holy sites as Muslim -- the "Cave of the Patriarchs" in Hebron,
and the Tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem.
The "Cave of the Patriarchs" is where tradition says the bodies of Abraham and
Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah are buried. It is the most ancient
of Jewish holy places, second in importance only to the Mount on which the two
temples were built. It will now be known as al-Haram al-Ibrahimi, the Sanctuary
of Abraham, so named because Abraham is described in the Qur'an as the first
Muslim. Bizarrely, that is enough to make it a "Muslim" site.
The Tomb of Rachel, situated toward the northern entrance to Bethlehem, is
regarded as the resting place of the matriarch Rachel, the wife of Jacob and
mother of Joseph and Benjamin. Considered the third holiest Jewish site and a
place of pilgrimage for Jews since ancient times, it has been holy to both Jews
and Christians for centuries. Since the tomb fell under Muslim hands in the
seventh century, it has also been a place venerated by Muslims, because Jacob
and Joseph are Qur'anic figures, although Rachel herself is not mentioned by
name in the book.
Muslim authorities and leaders such as the head of the radical Northern Islamic
Movement, Shaykh Raed Salah, do not want a little here and a little there. They
want all of Jerusalem to be enshrined internationally as an entirely Muslim city
and, as happened when Jordan occupied the city, to expel the Jews and destroy
all the synagogues there.
The attempts to deny any ancient and ongoing Jewish presence in Jerusalem, to
say there was never a first let alone a second Temple and that only Muslims have
any right to the whole city, its shrines and historical monuments, have reached
insane proportions. The most extreme expressions of this gamut of ahistorical
claims, supremacist assertions and conspiracies are the many speeches and
comments of the above-mentioned Shaykh Raed Salah. Here is part of a speech he
made at a rally in 1999:
"We will say openly to the Jewish society, you do not have a right even to one
stone of the blessed Al-Aksa Mosque. You do not have a right even to one tiny
particle of the blessed Al-Aksa Mosque. Therefore we will say openly, the
western wall of blessed Al-Aksa is part of blessed Al-Aksa. It can never be a
small Western Wall. It can never be a large Western Wall... We will say openly
to the political and religious leadership in Israel: the demand to keep blessed
Al-Aksa under Israeli sovereignty is also a declaration of war on the Islamic
world."
Salah is far from alone. The current head of the Supreme Muslim Council, Ekrima
Sabri, has for many years done his best to invalidate Jewish claims to the area.
He claims that Solomon's Temple is an "unproven allegation" -- something that
the Jews dreamed up out of "hatred and envy." He claims the Western Wall, too,
is "a Muslim religious property" to which Jews "have no relation."
In a recent statement, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that,
"The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours... and they [the Jews] have no right to defile it
with their filthy feet."
According to UN Watch,
"Ambassador Shama Hohen [Carmel Shama Hacohen, Israeli ambassador to UNESCO]
asked Palestinian delegate Mounir Anastas why Palestinians are not prepared to
recognize the Jewish right to the Temple Mount and include the term 'Temple
Mount' in the resolution, alongside the Arab term, Haram al-Sharif. Anastas
replied... that if the Palestinians were to recognize the Temple Mount, then
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan's King Abdullah would become
number one targets of ISIS."
Is this really what it boils down to? The Islamic State rules the international
community? Including UNESCO?
On April 15 this year, the Executive Board of UNESCO's Programme and External
Relations Commission convened for its 199th session. The earlier Temple Mount
resolution was moved by Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan
-- all members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That vote then passed
to the 21 members of the World Heritage Committee during its 40th session in
Istanbul, which had been scheduled to run from July 10 to July 20.
By mere chance, July's military coup attempt in Turkey disrupted the event, and
the vote has now been scheduled for an autumn meeting. That may be based on a
draft resolution created by the European Union, which is, in fact, just another
denial of the historical Jewish connection to the Temple Mount. But, considering
the one-sidedness of this resolution, just where is UNESCO's above-stated
commitment to bring about "a dialogue between all stakeholders"?
Turning the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, Rachel's Tomb, the Cave of the
Patriarchs, and other sites into exclusively Muslim holy places is directly
linked to the growth of Islamisation in the modern era. By destroying churches,
shrines, tombs, whole sites of antiquity deemed idolatrous, and even mosques
deemed heretical, the Islamic State seeks to wipe out all traces of what is
termed the era of Jahiliyya, the "Age of Ignorance" that held the world in its
grip before the advent of Islam.
The world is outraged when it sees the stones of Palmyra tumble, or other great
monuments of human civilization turn to dust. But that same world is silent when
the Palestinian Arabs and their supporters Islamise everything by calling into
question the very presence of the Jewish people in the Holy Land.
**Denis MacEoin PhD has studied and taught Islam at several universities and is
currently working on a book dealing with concerns about the religion. He is a
Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
[1] Modern archaeological research shows that there was indeed an original
temple or, rather, large Hindu complex there.
[2] See "Attack[s] on Hindus post Babri demolition," ShankhNaad, 13 April, 2015.
[3] For full details, see ibid.
[4] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, New Delhi, 2002, p. 51.
[5] See, for example, Amikam Nachmani, Europe and Its Muslim Minorities: Aspects
of Conflict, Attempts at Accord, Sussex Academic Press, 2010, p. 106.
[6] A European concept, opposed to the imperial project of the all-embracing
Islamic umma.
[7] See Qur'an 2: 143-46.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.