New Page 5

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.january20.16.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
So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, "We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!" ’
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 17/07-10: "‘Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from ploughing or tending sheep in the field, "Come here at once and take your place at the table"?Would you not rather say to him, "Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink"? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, "We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!" ’

All who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.
Second Letter to Timothy 03/10-17: "You have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness,
my persecutions, and my suffering the things that happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. What persecutions I endured! Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on january 20-21/16
Michel Aoun and the death of Lebanon's Taef accord/Middle East Eye/20 January 2016
As Hezbollah rocket arsenal grows, Israel creates new battalions/Jesrusalem Post/January 20/16
Hassan Nasrallah's son, Jawad directed West Bank terror cell/Yoav Zitun and Roi Kais/Ynetnews/January 20/16
Lebanon’s Christian foes become friends/Jean Aziz/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
ISIS is flying homemade drones, developing a missile-armed model/DEBKAfile/January 20/16
Palestinian intelligence chief: We've thwarted 200 attacks against Israel/Elior Levy/Ynetnews/January 20/16
Hating Americans Is Official Saudi and Qatari Policy/Raymond Ibrahim/January 20/16
Obama’s historic mistake has dire repercussions/Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya/January 20/16
Is lifting of Iran sanctions a double-edged sword for Russia/Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/January 20/16
Are we sleepwalking into geopolitical turmoil/Espen Barth Eide/Al Arabiya/January 20/16
US lets 2 Iran banks off UN sanctions list/Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
Khamenei questions US commitment to nuke deal/Arash Karami/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
Will Iran, Saudi Arabia patch things up/Ali Hashem/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
Why Sudan wants to stop the 'spread of Shiism'/A correspondent in Sudan/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
Kurdish leader warns of civil war in Turkey/Mahmut Bozarslan/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
Sweden's Afghan "Rapefugees"/Ingrid Carlqvist/Gatestone Institute/January 20, 2016

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on january 20-21/16
We had a free Lebanon..and they destroyed it.
The Sicilian alliance.
The Elie Hobeika doctrine is back, 20 years later...
Geagea reshapes Lebanese politics, backs rival Aoun
Michel Aoun and the death of Lebanon's Taef accord.
Ghassan Moukheiber: Hezbollah not embarrassed by Geagea's endorsement of Aoun.
Harb Meets Gemayel: We Reject Extortion over Presidential Polls.
As Hezbollah rocket arsenal grows, Israel creates new battalions.
Hassan Nasrallah's son, Jawad directed West Bank terror cell.
Berri Says Aoun's Endorsement 'Not Sufficient' to End Vacuum.
Samaha, Shaaban Use Ambiguous Terms in Leaked Phone Calls.
Global Cocaine Ring Busted after Lebanese-Swedish Cooperation.
General Security Arrests IS-Linked Terror Cell.
Bassil Calls for True Partnership amid Kataeb Criticism.
Salam in Brussels for EU Talks.
Will Franjieh Stay in Presidential Race?
Report: Riyadh Continues to Veto Aoun, Mustaqbal Says No Elections despite Candidacies.
Helou Holds onto Presidential Candidacy.
Lebanon’s Christian foes become friends.

Geagea Says Aoun Can Make a Better Centrist than Franjieh, Downplays Qatari Remarks
Naharnet/January 20/16/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea noted Wednesday that Change and Reform bloc chief MP Michel Aoun has the ability to endorse “centrist” policies if elected president more than rival nominee MP Suleiman Franjieh, the head of the Marada Movement.
“We chose Aoun for the presidency because Franjieh is a 'genuine' member of March 8 while the General is only allied with them and has the ability to move to the center more than Franjieh,” said Geagea during an interview on MTV.
“Aoun did not support Hizbullah's stance on (Michel) Samaha's case and he is moving to the middle,” Geagea pointed out, referring to the release of the ex-minister from jail under a controversial Military Court ruling.
Asked why he decided to declare his support for Aoun's nomination on Monday, Geagea refused to describe what happened as a “revolt” against al-Mustaqbal movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri's nomination of Franjieh for the country's top Christian post.
“It was prompted by the situations in the country, which have become unbearable, especially after the garbage crisis,” Geagea noted.
“I was not pleased by the nomination of Franjieh but my nomination of Aoun was not a reaction to Hariri's move. We are fully confident of our step,” he stressed.
“Hariri was the first one who considered nominating Aoun months ago,” he went on to say.
Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of successor.
Hariri launched late in 2015 a proposal to nominate Franjieh as president. Geagea, Hariri's ally in the March 14 camp, was a presidential nominee at the time and some observers have said that the LF leader's nomination of Aoun is a “reaction” to Hariri's proposal.
Geagea reiterated Wednesday that his endorsement of Aoun's presidential bid does not mean that he intends to leave the March 14 coalition.
“We were in March 14, we will remain in March 14 and we will not leave March 14, because it reflects our political beliefs … I was jailed over these principles and I will not change them for anyone,” he emphasized.
“We insist on March 14's project and on our alliances more than ever,” Geagea underlined.
“March 14 has not ended and its project is still present,” he insisted.
Geagea also pointed out that “if Hizbullah is serious about electing a president, Aoun can become president tomorrow,” referring to the strong influence that the party has over the decisions of its March 8 allies.
Asked about remarks by Qatar's foreign minister that supported his decision to nominate Aoun, Geagea played down the statement, describing it as “a response to a question during an interview.”
“We have been friends with the Qatari leadership since a long time and there is a personal relation with the Qatari foreign ministry and the Qatari stance was very normal,” he said.
“My relation is strong with both Qatar and Saudi Arabia,” he added, when asked whether the Qatari statement means that he has replaced Riyadh with Doha as his main regional ally.
Geagea also noted that Saudi Arabia will not take a stance on Aoun's nomination anytime soon “because it wants to stay aside and let things take their course.”

We had a free Lebanon..and they destroyed it
Thawrat Al Arz/January 20/16/Leaders can reconcile at will. That is their issue. But leaders who destroyed the free areas of East Beirut in 1990, lost thousands of young men in the Lebanese Forces and the Lebanese Army, ravaged everything between Sodeco and Madfoun, allowing the Syrians to invade and occupy for 15 years and Hezbollah to terrorise for another 10 years, cannot claim they represent the Christians in a new reckless partnership with Hezbollah. The Christian people of Lebanon should have them explain what they did in 1990 and for the past 25 years. They destroyed a quarter of century of Lebanon's history. Then as simple as that, they are asking for a unity to elect a President? We had presidents since 1990, what did they do? Before they walk towards a new catastrophe they need to address the Christian people in public and explain what happened in the last 25 years. The Lebanese Christians are not a bunch of sheep taken from one valley to another just to follow failed sheperds. And if the two co-leaders won't explain, someone else will. The Christians of Lebanon have changed. No more sheep no more zelm without brains..

The Sicilian alliance
Thawrat Al Arz/January 20/16/The Geagea Aoun alliance is a Sicilian alliance at the service of the political agendas of the political families, and has nothing to do with the interest of the Christian people and Lebanon in general.

The Elie Hobeika doctrine is back, 20 years later...
Thawrat Al Arz/In 1985 Elie Hobeika, the Commander of the Lebanese Forces then, told the Christian Leagues at a meeting in Kaslik, "trust me I know what I am doing. I fought the Syrians and therefore I know them. Let me sign that agreement, let me cut the deal, and I will make sure the rights of the Christians are guaranteed.."Elie Hobeika became the ally of the Assad regime, of the Iranians and of Hezbollah and was removed by force by an alliance of Dr Samir Geagea and General MIchel Aoun in 1986. But his doctrine is back twenty years later in 2006

Geagea reshapes Lebanese politics, backs rival Aoun
Posted 19 Jan 2016 /REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Lebanese Christian politician Samir Geagea backed his rival Michel Aoun for the presidency on Monday, reshaping Lebanese politics in an apparent break with his Saudi-backed allies that aligns him with a civil war era enemy supported by Hezbollah.
BEIRUT: Lebanese Christian politician Samir Geagea backed his rival Michel Aoun for the presidency on Monday, reshaping Lebanese politics in an apparent break with his Saudi-backed allies that aligns him with a civil war era enemy supported by Hezbollah.
The surprise announcement edges 80-year-old Aoun closer to the presidency, vacant for 20 months, and marks a rare show of unity in a Christian community riven by divisions for decades.
But he must still secure wider backing to secure the position reserved for a Maronite Christian in Lebanon's sectarian political system.
Geagea and Aoun, who fought each other in the 1975-90 civil war, have been on opposite sides of Lebanon's political divide since Syrian forces withdrew from Lebanon in 2005. Aoun is part of the March 8 alliance dominated by the Iranian-backed Shi'ite group Hezbollah. Geagea is part of the March 14 alliance led by Sunni politician Saad al-Hariri, who is in turn backed by Saudi Arabia. Sitting with Aoun at a news conference, Geagea said the move was intended to rescue Lebanon from political crisis. The government barely functions, paralysed by rivalries exacerbated by regional conflict. Geagea said the step "carried hope of getting out of the situation we are in, to a situation that is more secure, more stable - a normal life". Lebanon was on the verge of the abyss, requiring "an unusual rescue operation, regardless of the price", said Geagea, who himself covets the presidency. The rapprochement may kill off a proposal by Hariri that nominated another Maronite, Suleiman Franjieh, for the presidency in a power-sharing proposal that would have made him prime minister. Both Geagea and Aoun opposed that initiative which was backed by both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Geagea had been the official presidential candidate of the March 14 alliance until Hariri tabled Franjieh - part of March 8 - as an alternative. Though Franjieh has close ties to Hezbollah, the group has stuck by Aoun. Geagea called on his March 14 allies to back Aoun after reading a joint declaration that called for a new parliamentary election law and an "independent foreign policy" while declaring Israel an enemy - an important consideration for Hezbollah. Aoun said the "black page" of the past was over and "must be burnt". "We must leave the past in order to build a future," he said in the conference at Geagea's home in Maarab in mountains overlooking the Christian town of Jounieh.
"MARCH 14" TO BREAK UP ?
The Lebanese parliament elects the president, and a two-thirds quorum is required for the vote to go ahead. Even with Geagea's backing, Aoun and his existing allies do not have enough sway to secure his election. More importantly, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a powerful Shi'ite politician who heads the Amal Movement and is also part of March 8, has said he will not call parliament to elect a president unless all the main sectarian parties attend. That means Aoun must win Sunni backing in addition to the strong Shi'ite support he enjoys from Hezbollah. An MP in Hariri's Future Movement, Mohamed Kabara, signalled discord over the declaration, saying "partnership is not about arm twisting, or imposition". Nabil Boumonsef, a commentator in the an-Nahar newspaper said it marked a big change in the Christian and Lebanese political landscapes. "The biggest result will be the break up of March 14 as a result of this landscape," he said. The March 14 alliance was forged in 2005 from groups opposed to Syrian influence over Lebanon, and enjoyed great support from the U.S. administration of President George W. Bush, in addition to Hariri's backers in Saudi Arabia. Tensions between March 8 and March 14, particularly over the question of Hezbollah's arsenal, spilled into a brief civil war in 2008. Hezbollah has since deployed fighters to Syria where it is battling alongside President Bashar al-Assad's government. The Aoun-Geagea struggle in the civil war was known as "the war of elimination". Aoun's Lebanese army loyalists and Geagea's militiamen fought fierce battles in the Christian enclave in early 1990, months before Syrian-led forces drove Aoun into exile, ending the country's civil war. Both were forced out of public life in the period of Syrian dominance that followed the civil war. Aoun lived in exile in France, and Geagea was imprisoned, the only Lebanese civil war leader to pay a judicial price for his actions in the conflict. Geagea was released and Aoun returned in 2005, when Syria was forced to pull its troops out of Lebanon after the assassination of statesman Rafik al-Hariri.
(Additional reporting by Laila Bassam and Mariam Karouny; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

Michel Aoun and the death of Lebanon's Taef accord
Middle East Eye/Wednesday 20 January 2016
Geagea wants to assume the role of the new kingmaker, but meddling in the Taef accord might change Lebanon. The Lebanese have a saying which roughly translates into the following “if you get to live long enough you will see many strange things”. This was true of what many witnessed this week when the head of the Lebanese Forces (LF) Samir Geagea, himself a contender for the presidency, announced his full support of his arch nemesis General Michel Aoun. What might appear to some as a primordial feud dates back merely to the end of the civil war in 1990. Aoun as the head of the Lebanese Armed Forces and interim prime minister decided to wage a full-scale war against the LF militia at the time. The War of Elimination witnessed some of the fieriest Christian infighting which to many was a watershed moment leading to the eventual weakening and decline of the Lebanese Christians.
This strange, yet expected, nomination came as a response to Geagea allies’ recent nomination of Suleiman Frangieh, one of the four main contenders for the presidency, now vacant for 20 months. While this might be perceived as a mere manoeuvre on the part of Samir Geagea which includes short and long-term gains for him and his faction, the ramifications of this move are more problematic than they may appear.
After Geagea’s release from prison in 2005 and Aoun’s return from his Parisian exile, both these men diverged on their position vis-a-vis the Syrian regime and Hezbollah weapons. Aoun, initially an ardent opponent of both, would soon reposition and sign the Faustian MOU with Hezbollah, giving the latter the much needed Christian support they lacked especially after their 2006 war with Israel.
Another somewhat existential difference between the LF and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) is their stance on the 1989 Taef Accord and the new governance structure it introduced. While the Lebanese Forces endorsed the constitutional amendments and the new power-sharing formula while rejecting the Syrian tutelage that came along with it, Aoun and coincidently Hezbollah never embraced Taef nor respected the post-war redistribution of power that curbed the powers of the office of the Maronite president. This however did not prevent both these leaders from trying to hammer out their differences in order to elect a president. In June 2015, they signed a declaration of intent which included an elaborate list of topics to be addressed by the two sides. However, this remained merely a mental exercise which was never taken seriously by the other Lebanese factions, until today.
Taef under threat
The imperial and somewhat theatrical manner in which Geagea announced Aoun’s candidacy did not mask an essential fact which is that the former was breaking with the Taef consensus and adopting the strong president rhetoric his new ally Aoun popularly flaunts. Geagea's U-turn has virtually shattered two main concepts. The first obvious one is the long-ailing March 14 movement which has failed time and again to respond to the challenges of the March 8 coalition and its Iranian/Syrian patrons. By naming Aoun, Geagea has sent a clear message that a consensus president in line with the Taef accord is no longer an option, but rather a strong confrontational leader who can reclaim the lost rights of the Christians.
This challenge to the Sunni political establishment and the rest of the Muslims could reflect badly on the Christians at least in the long term.
By revoking the Taef, which gave the Christians disproportionate representation despite less favourable demographic realities, it removes a safety net for Christians in years to come.
Saad al-Hariri has resisted for years calls for a rebalancing to this formula and the adoption of a 1/3 quota that gives the Shiites constitutionally an equal share of the government. Hariri at least morally has no obligation to honour his alliance with Geagea, who has left the realm of Saudi political influence and decided to adopt Hezbollah’s main political ally. However, what does this translate to in practical terms? Naming Aoun as president and electing him are two different matters. As it stands, Aoun and Frangieh are set for a showdown, provided that both sides agree to go to the parliament to cast their votes. Moreover, the Lebanese Forces voting for Aoun won’t be sufficient even with the main Hezbollah bloc to secure his win. Suleiman Frangieh, if he continues to refuse to withdraw in favour of Aoun, should be able to secure enough votes, if not in the first round perhaps in the second, from the anti-Aoun front.
This front possibly will include the bloc behind speaker Nabih Berri, who harbours no real personal nor political sentiment for Aoun, a fact which the latter seems to realise perfectly well.
While Frangieh is burdened by his friendship with Bashar al-Assad and his unsophisticated character, Aoun’s aggressive and condescending attitude and his full Iranian backing makes him less likely to win this race. The anti-Aoun bloc seems to prefer a pro-Syrian president who can keep the last traces of the Taef to an ageing but supposedly strong president who threatens it. Geagea on the other hand wants to assume the role of the new kingmaker, something permissible and legitimate politically and personally, yet no one ought not to forget that meddling in the Taef might bring about a new king. At this stage, ensuring that this kingdom or Lebanon as we know it persists is something no sane person can promise. -Makram Rabah is a PhD candidate at Georgetown University’s history department. He is the author of A Campus at War: Student Politics at the American University of Beirut, 1967–1975 and a regular columnist for Now Lebanon.

Ghassan Moukheiber: Hezbollah not embarrassed by Geagea's endorsement of Aoun
The Daily Star/January 20/16/BEIRUT: Hezbollah is not "embarrassed" by its ally Michel Aoun receiving the endorsement for presidency of fierce rival Samir Geagea, a lawmaker close to Aoun said Wednesday. Hezbollah "is not embarrassed by the endorsement of [Lebanese Forces chief Geagea] of Aoun," Free Patriotic Movement MP Ghassan Moukheiber told Voice of Lebanon Radio station (93.3). "On the contrary, it is Hezbollah's endorsement of Aoun that has embarrassed many people," he added. Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah has in the past indirectly accused Geagea of collaboration with Israel during the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War. And Geagea for years has attacked Hezbollah over its ties to Iran and military involvement inside Syria. Hezbollah has not officially commented on Geagea's endorsement of Aoun, however its television station Al-Manar covered Geagea's news conference in which the announcement was made. It is very rare for that to happen. Moukheiber said that the FPM was in the stage of consultation with all sides to try to convince skeptics to get on board with Aoun's presidential candidacy. "We are just around the corner from the election Aoun to the presidency" thanks to Geagea's endorsement of Aoun two days ago, Moukheiber added. "Our ambition is [for Aoun] to be the next president made in Lebanon, without foreign interference," he said. Regarding Aoun's longtime political ally Sleiman Frangieh's declaration that he was still in the presidential race despite Aoun receiving Geagea's backing, Moukheiber expressed a belief that Frangieh would eventually return to support Aoun. "MP Sleiman Frangieh has on multiple occasions said he supported Aoun's arrival to the presidency," he noted. Geagea expressed the same belief Tuesday, saying that Frangieh was a man of his word. Frangieh is the Future Movement pick for the presidency.

Harb Meets Gemayel: We Reject Extortion over Presidential Polls
Naharnet/January 20/16/Telecommunications Minister Butros Harb stated on Wednesday that he will reveal his stance over Monday's Maarab meeting after carrying out the necessary consultations. He said after holding talks with Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel: “We reject political extortion over the presidential elections.” He also declared that given the choice between Change and Reform bloc chief MP Michel Aoun and Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh, he would opt for the latter. “It is normal to hold consultations to reach a suitable decision over the current situation and what happened in the past two days is a step towards ending” the political deadlock, added Harb. “We welcome any initiative aimed at ending the vacuum,” he stressed.“Lebanon's future however is based on principles, not political deals,” he remarked. “I hope the Maarab meeting was a sign that factions have realized the importance of resorting to democratic means to end the vacuum,” he said. “We hope the regional circumstances would allow us to elect a president,” stated the minister. A meeting was held at Maarab on Monday between Aoun and his rival Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea during which the latter nominated the MP for the presidency. The move was seen as a breakthrough in ending the vacuum that started in May 2014 when the term of President Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. The next electoral session is scheduled for February 2.

As Hezbollah rocket arsenal grows, Israel creates new battalions
Jesrusalem Post/January 20/16
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/01/20/jesrusalem-post-as-hezbollah-rocket-arsenal-grows-israel-creates-new-battalions/
The IDF Home Front Command's Galilee District has received two new search and rescue battalions, which have been converted from their original role as response units to unconventional (biological, chemical, and atomic) incidents. The move is a reflection of the decrease of the chemical threat to northern Israel, due to the dismantling of Syria's chemical weapons program, and the simultaneous increase in the threat posed by Hezbollah's ever-growing conventional rocket and missile arsenal in neighboring Lebanon. The Galilee District is responsible for civil defenses in Israeli communities situated within kilometers of the Lebanese border, and operates directly under IDF Northern Command. Col. Ron Lotaty, Commander of the Gaililee District, told The Jerusalem Post in recent days that "growing threats from the north" are behind the move. "We converted these two battalions and deployed them to civilian defense, to counter any threat to the home front. In Lebanon, we see Hezbollah advertising its will to ''conquer' the Galilee [through cross-border raids], and we see its projectile capabilities. We take this seriously. Hezbollah is gaining operational experience in Syria. We are preparing for all threats with our eyes open. We have to adapt ourselves to reality. As a result, we took this step," Lotaty said. Describing Hezbollah as "an Iranian arm," Lotaty said the search and rescue battalions will deploy near cities and towns, and provide rapid responses to civilians in built up areas in case conflict breaks out.
"We will have this available and professional force that can contain incidents. They rescue civilians and save lives in a very short time period. Civilians who see them deployed near cities wil have an added sense of security," Lotaly said, describing a policy of "making sure orange is visible to the public," in reference to the orange color of Home Front Command unit berets. The battalions will "retain their knowledge and training, and their abiity to deal with unconventional attacks," Lotaty added. Col. Eran Makov, Commander of Northern District in the Home Front Command, said the decrease of the chemical threat to Israeli civilians forms a central feature of the IDF's risk assessments. "There is a need to strengthen search and rescue units in the northern district, as part of a longer process. We will convert more battalions in this way," he added. The move was agreed upon by the IDF's Military Intelligence and Planning Directorate, Makov said. "Every civilian council has its own specific security scenario, and we build up our force accordingly," he said. A search and rescue battalion is slightly smaller than a standard infantry battalion. The last preparatory training program was held for the new battalions at the end of December.

Hassan Nasrallah's son, Jawad directed West Bank terror cell
Yoav Zitun and Roi Kais/Ynetnews/Published: 01.20.16,
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/01/20/ynetnewshassan-nasrallahs-son-jawad-directed-west-bank-terror-cell/
Shin Bet, IDF prevent attack by cell that was receiving instructions from Hezbollah leader's son; cell's orders included training suicide bombers and using explosive belts. The Shin Bet and IDF, in cooperation with police, foiled a terror shooting allegedly planned by a cell in the Tulkarm area led by Mahmoud Jalloul, who was directed by Hezbollah, the Shin Bet announced on Wednesday. Jawad Nasrallah, son of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, used social media networks to recruit Jalloul, a Palestinian resident of Tulkarm. In a statement, the Shin Bet said: "Jalloul was instructed to start an e-mail account, through which he received orders to recruit more members and collect advance information with the goal of committing terror attack. "Among other things, the cell was instructed to carry out the following:
"1. Using a secret communication channel to receive instructions to commit attacks using explosive belts, to train suicide bombers, to collect information on training camps," and more.
"2. Instructions to carry out surveillance and collect information about security forces active in the area. Cell members asked Hezbollah for help in attaining weapons and funds with the goal of carrying out the terror attack.
3". Hezbollah transferred $5,000 to the cell through money transfers from abroad for the purpose of committing the attack. "4. In addition, Mahmoud Masarwa and Ahmed Abu Al-Az purchased weapons from the cell's director, Mahmoud Jalloul, and were arrested before carrying out a shooting attack on IDF troops, and they were in possession of the weapon with which they intended to carry out the attack. The 'Carlo' type weapon was seized during the investigation."The statement went on to describe the uniqueness of the incident: "This is a highly unusual incident in which a terror cell which grew under the direction of Hezbollah planned on carrying out an attack. "Hezbollah is trying to ride the current wave of terror in Israel and is working diligently to fan the flames so as to increase the incitement by taking advantage of the Palestinian population and seducing its young people to carry out attacks in return for money.
"Hezbollah recruits and directs terrorist cells from abroad using the Internet secretly in order to carry out attacks.”

Berri Says Aoun's Endorsement 'Not Sufficient' to End Vacuum
Naharnet/January 20/16/Speaker Nabih Berri has said that he would not announce his stance from Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea's endorsement of Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun for the presidency before the picture becomes clear. In remarks to his visitors, Berri said: “As the head of Amal Movement, I will bring together the leadership council and the Politburo when the picture becomes clearer to take the final stance from the presidency.”Geagea withdrew from the presidential race on Monday and announced his support for Aoun in an attempt to end the 20-month presidential deadlock.
Asked about the rapprochement between the two men, Berri said: “What happened confirms my theory that there are no enmities among the Lebanese. They only have rivalries.”“It created a positive atmosphere on the Christian level,” he said. But the speaker stressed that the decision taken by Geagea “is not sufficient” to end the vacuum. The next session for parliament to elect a president is on February 8. But it is not yet clear whether Lebanon will have a head of state on that date and if Aoun can garner enough votes to be elected. Several parliamentary blocs have not yet announced their stance from Geagea's support for Aoun. Sources said that Berri is endorsing Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh. Both Aoun and Geagea were angered late last year when al-Mustaqbal Movement leader ex-PM Saad Hariri nominated Franjieh without consulting them. Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, who is Aoun's son-in-law, visited Berri in Ain el-Tineh on Tuesday in an attempt to clinch the speaker's support for the Change and Reform chief. “We are witnessing a breakthrough, which we hope will speed up the election of a president and we hope our allies will support us,” he said.

Samaha, Shaaban Use Ambiguous Terms in Leaked Phone Calls
Naharnet/January 20/16/Around three years after media reports said Lebanese investigators were probing phone calls between ex-minister Michel Samaha and Syrian President Bashar Assad's adviser Buthaina Shaaban, the recordings were leaked to local TV networks on Wednesday. The audio leaks follow several videos that were broadcast in the wake of Samaha's release on bail from prison under a controversial Military Court ruling that has sent shockwaves across the country. Both Samaha and Shaaban use ambiguous and suspicious terms in the two phone calls. “It would be great if we can finish and leave by the evening,” Samaha tells Shaaban in the first phone conversation. “I have something to do and I need to go do it in order to start the work … You got me, right?” Samaha adds to justify why he needed to leave Syria for Lebanon the next day. “Yes, I understand what you mean. May God give you strength … I need to give you the thing that I said I would give to you,” Shaaban answers him. In another phone call with Samaha, apparently initiated by Shaaban, the Syrian president's adviser asks about the whereabouts of the ex-minister and former General Security chief Jamil al-Sayyed who was apparently with him in Syria. “Tell me what is needed,” Samaha replies. “What is needed is that we go to the interior minister,” Shaaban tells him. “Can I ask you to come pick him (al-Sayyed) up from in front of the Sheraton Hotel, I'm not going,” Samaha says at that point. “I have another thing to do and I don't want to let him know of it. It has to do with the main issue that we had discussed,” Samaha tells Shaaban, again referring to al-Sayyed. On Friday, al-Sayyed announced the end of his friendship with Samaha, accusing him of betraying his trust.
“Michel Samaha betrayed my trust and erred against me when he accompanied me from Damascus with him knowing what he was hiding in his car,” al-Sayyed said, referring to the explosives that Samaha smuggled in his car's trunk from Syria to Lebanon. Both men are close to Syrian President Assad and to the Hizbullah-led March 8 camp in Lebanon. Samaha, who was information minister from 1992 to 1995, was released in exchange for a bail payment of 150 million Lebanese pounds ($100,000), according the text of the Military Court's judgment. Under his bail conditions, Samaha, 67, would be barred from leaving the country for at least one year, speaking to the press or using social media. The ex-minister was arrested in August 2012 and charged with attempting to carry out "terrorist acts" over allegations that he and Syrian security services chief Ali Mamluk transported explosives and planned attacks and assassinations of political and religious figures in Lebanon. Samaha was sentenced in May 2015 to four-and-half years in prison, but in June Lebanon's Cassation Court nullified the verdict and ordered a retrial. Samaha, a former adviser to Assad, admitted during his trial that he had transported the explosives from Syria for use in attacks in Lebanon. He, however, argued he should be acquitted because he was a victim of entrapment by a Lebanese security services informer – Milad Kfoury.

Global Cocaine Ring Busted after Lebanese-Swedish Cooperation
Naharnet/January 20/16/Cooperation between Lebanese and Swedish security authorities has resulted in the arrest of a major drug network that had been involved in smuggling cocaine between several countries, the Internal Security Forces announced Wednesday. It said a 43-year-old Swedish man of Lebanese descent was arrested on January 2 at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport upon his arrival from Brazil after he tried to smuggle 14 kilograms of pure cocaine into the country, noting that the quantity “would weigh 50 kilos after manufacturing.” “In the wake of the arrest, a special security operation was carried out in Sweden, following coordination and close follow-up between Lebanon's central anti-drug bureau and Swedish police,” the ISF added in a statement. Two Lebanese Swedes were arrested in the operation, the ISF said, describing them as the “masterminds” of the smuggling attempt that was foiled in Lebanon. “It turned out that they were members of an international cocaine smuggling ring that is active between Brazil, Lebanon, Sweden, Turkey and Georgia,” the ISF added, noting that “the identities of all members have become known.”A probe has since been launched under the supervision of the relevant judicial authorities.

General Security Arrests IS-Linked Terror Cell
Naharnet/January 20/16/General Security said on Wednesday that it has arrested a Lebanese and several Syrians on suspicion of belonging to a network linked to the Islamic State extremist group. The directorate-general of the agency said in a communique that general security officers arrested the Lebanese and four Syrian members of the network for belonging to a terrorist group. The detainees admitted that they had pledged allegiance to the IS and had formed an armed group under the leadership of another Lebanese man, said the communique. The suspects told investigators that the network smuggles militants, arms and ammunition to Syria and specializes in manufacturing explosives, suicide vests and booby-trapping cars for the purpose of carrying out attacks on Lebanese army bases, it said. The communique added that the detainees were referred to the judiciary to take the appropriate action against them. Later on Wednesday, state-run National News Agency said General Security arrested a Syrian man in the Mount Lebanon town of Hammana on charges of "communicating with terrorist groups."

Bassil Calls for True Partnership amid Kataeb Criticism
Naharnet/January 20/16/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil held talks with Kataeb Party leader MP Sami Gemayel on Wednesday as part of his meetings with the country's different factions to garner support for the candidacy of his father-in-law Change and Reform bloc chief MP Michel Aoun for the presidency. After meeting with Gemayel at Kataeb's headquarters in Beirut's Saifi district, Bassil hoped there would be “real partnership” among the Lebanese factions following Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea's endorsement of Aoun's candidacy on Monday. But Gemayel did not promise Bassil, who leads the FPM, that the Kataeb MPs would vote for Aoun. “We will study our decision today and announce our stance later,” said the young lawmaker. Economy Minister Alain Hakim, who attended the talks between Bassil and Gemayel, criticized Geagea's support for Aoun. “We talked with Bassil about the rapprochement among Christians. He did not ask us to head to parliament to elect a president,” he said. “But we neither saw standards nor a basis in Geagea's endorsement for Aoun,” Hakim added. Later on Wednesday, Bassil held talks with Lebanese Democratic Party leader Talal Arslan to address Monday's meeting. “Bolstering national unity lies in having strong representatives of sects,” stated the minister. “Those banking on differences emerging with our allies will be disappointed,” he added. For his part, Arslan said: “As a political alliance, we positively approach any rapprochement.” “Aoun is a central figure in our political policy and in the country, as is Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh,” he remarked.Bassil visited on Tuesday Speaker Nabih Berri and former Minister Faisal Karami. He is expected to head to Bnashii later Wednesday for talks with Franjieh. Franjieh's candidacy is endorsed by al-Mustaqbal Movement chief ex-PM Saad Hariri.

Salam in Brussels for EU Talks
Naharnet/January 20/16/Prime Minister Tammam Salam traveled to Brussels on Wednesday to hold talks with European Union President Donald Tusk and other top EU officials. Salam's one day visit to the Belgian capital is aimed at discussing ways to improve cooperation between Lebanon and the EU and to set the stage for the Syria donors conference that is scheduled to be held in London next month. The Lebanese authorities are hoping that the international community would provide additional funding to help Lebanon confront the Syrian refugee crisis. The February 4 conference mainly aims to raise new funding to meet the needs of all those affected by the Syria crisis within the country itself and by supporting neighboring countries. It also aims to help create the right conditions inside Syria, including in education, so the refugees can resume normal lives when they return home. Following his visit to Brussels, Salam will travel to Switzerland on Thursday to attend the annual gathering of business and political elites at the ski resort of Davos. During his two-day stay in Davos, Salam is expected to hold a series of meetings with world and Arab leaders and economists.

Will Franjieh Stay in Presidential Race?
Naharnet/January 20/16/Although Hizbullah has kicked of efforts to persuade Marada chief MP Suleiman Franjieh to withdraw from the presidential race following the Maarab rapprochement, reports said that the MP is adamant now to remain a candidate, al-Akhbar daily reported on Wednesday. Sources close to Franjieh said the Marada leader does not intend to take a “free withdrawal” from the presidential elections, and that he believes that the Maarab rapprochement is not a reason enough to make him believe that his chances are thinning, added the daily. On Monday, Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea officially endorsed from Maarab the candidacy of his long-time rival Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun. He pulled out of the presidential race in favor of Aoun, in an attempt to close Christian ranks and resolve the country's 20-month political deadlock. Observers saw the nomination as a response to al-Mustaqbal Movement leader MP Saad Hariri's nomination of Franjieh as president. On the other hand, Christian sources supporting Franjieh told As Safir daily that Aoun's stakes to win have not practically improved following Geagea's support because “Speaker Nabih Berri, Hariri and Democratic Gathering bloc head MP Walid Jumblat still support Franjieh and refuse to vote for Aoun.” The sources added that Franjieh might be ready to withdraw in favor of Aoun if the latter was able to garner the support of the majority of political forces. They considered what happened in Maarab as a political “Ehden massacre” that targets the nomination of the Marada chief. “Why has not Geagea nominated Aoun before the Paris meeting that brought forward the nomination of Franjieh?” they asked. The Aoun-Geagea agreement does not represent the majority of the Christians, they stressed. Geagea was a presidential candidate of the March 14 camp, which Hariri is a member of. Lebanon's top post has been vacant since May 2014 as Lebanese politicians failed to agree on a consensus president. Aoun and Geagea were angered along with other Christian politicians late last year when Hariri nominated Franjieh for president during the meeting in Paris without consulting them.

Report: Riyadh Continues to Veto Aoun, Mustaqbal Says No Elections despite Candidacies
Naharnet/January 20/16/Al-Mustaqbal chief ex-PM Saad Hariri has informed his movement's officials that Saudi Arabia continues to veto the candidacy of Free Patriotic Movement founder MP Michel Aoun for the presidency, al-Akhbar daily reported on Wednesday. Several officials, including al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc leader MP Fouad Saniora, traveled to Saudi Arabia on Monday following Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea's endorsement of Aoun. The Mustaqbal bloc issued a statement on Tuesday, hailing the reconciliation between the LF and the FPM. But the bloc did not take a stance from Geagea's move. Despite al-Mustaqbal bloc's vague statement, Hariri was clear to announce to his movement's officials that he will continue to hold onto the candidacy of Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh, March 14 alliance sources told al-Akhbar. “Today, we have candidates but no elections,” Hariri reportedly said, ruling out their ability to garner enough votes to be elected. According to al-Akhbar, the officials who met with Hariri described the rapprochement between Geagea and Aoun as an “uncalculated risk.”Hariri struck a deal with Franjieh late last year to back him for the presidency in return form the Mustaqbal leader to become prime minister. Geagea's support for Aoun in an attempt to end the 20-month presidential deadlock is not seen sufficient to end the Baaaba Palace vacuum that was caused over lack of quorum at the parliament. President Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May 2014.

Helou Holds onto Presidential Candidacy
Naharnet/January 20/16/MP Henri Helou, who is the nominee of Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat, has said he would not withdraw his candidacy for the presidency following the deal struck between the Lebanese Forces and the Free Patriotic Movement. In remarks to As Safir daily published on Wednesday, Helou said he is still a presidential candidate. He said he backs any rapprochement between different Lebanese parties. The lawmaker added that the Democratic Gathering bloc will on Thursday announce its stance from LF chief Samir Geagea's endorsement of FPM founder MP Michel Aoun for the presidency. Sources have said that Speaker Nabih Berri, al-Mustaqbal Movement chief ex-PM Saad Hariri and Jumblat are rejecting Aoun as a consensual candidate. The three officials will likely officially announce their support for Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh’s candidacy. Hariri has already nominated Franjieh late last year. Their support for Franjieh will likely prolong the vacuum that was caused over lack of quorum at the parliament. President Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May 2014.

Lebanon’s Christian foes become friends
Jean Aziz/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
The meeting Jan. 18 between the leaders of the two largest Christian parties and parliamentary blocs in Lebanon — Gen. Michel Aoun, former leader of the Free Patriotic Movement and the Change and Reform bloc, and Samir Geagea, the head of the Lebanese Forces — can be described as a miracle.
After more than a year and half of negotiations, Aoun visited Geagea at the latter's headquarters in the village of Maarab, in Keserwan, Mount Lebanon. During a press conference following the meeting, Geagea announced his support as well as his party’s support for Aoun’s candidacy for the vacant presidential seat — a seat that was left empty after the term of President Michel Suleiman ended on May 24, 2014. Aoun and Geagea waged a bitter struggle against each other and were fierce rivals for nearly 30 years. When Geagea presided over the Lebanese Forces during the Lebanese civil war in 1986, he entered into a tense relationship with Aoun, who was then the Lebanese army commander. The multiple factors in this struggle included the quest to become the top Christian leader and the ambitious project to become president. The struggle was also influenced by the position and alliances with other Lebanese forces, and even with external forces that had a special influence on the Lebanese arena. The rivalry reached its climax following the vacancy of the presidential office between 1988 and 1990, when an open military civil war was waged between the two men. The civil war only ended when the Syrian army invaded Lebanon on Oct. 13, 1990, at which time Aoun was militarily defeated and was exiled to France. But after nearly four years, and in light of the Syrian tutelage over Lebanon, Geagea was put behind bars on April 21, 1994, on charges of committing several crimes during the military war. Thus, the first phase of the struggle between the two leaders ended with their mutual defeat that lingered on until the Syrian army's pullout from Lebanon on April 26, 2005. On May 7, 2005, Aoun returned to Beirut and Geagea was released in July 2005 in the wake of the Cedar Revolution. But suddenly, the men’s old feud was rekindled as another presidential election loomed on the horizon, at the end of the term of President Emile Lahoud, who served for an extended mandate engineered by the Syrians.
In this context, the UN Security Council issued, on Sept. 2, 2004, Resolution 1559 stipulating the holding of presidential elections in Lebanon and the withdrawal of all foreign — that is, Syrian — armed forces from the country. Once again, the relationship between the two men turned ice-cold; they chose to ally themselves with opposing political camps. During the first parliamentary elections, held after the Syrian withdrawal from the country, in the spring of 2005, Geagea allied with the Sunni majority team led by former Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Meanwhile, on Feb. 6, 2006, Aoun concluded a memorandum of understanding with the Shiite majority team led by Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah. The divide between the largest Christian poles once again led to their mutual defeat.
Lahoud’s presidential term ended on Nov. 24, 2007, and the presidential elections were postponed several times. Thus, Lebanon entered a new phase of being without a president that lasted until May 25, 2008, when Suleiman was elected to the post. During this period, tensions escalated to the point of direct military confrontations between Hariri and Hezbollah on May 7, 2008. This clash paved the way for a Qatari-Turkish settlement that ended with the election of Suleiman, who was commander of the armed forces and not affiliated with either Geagea or Aoun. As Suleiman’s tenure came to term, questions were raised whether Aoun and Geagea would reignite their struggle for the third time in a row. Indeed, this has been the case for a year and a half now. Geagea announced his candidacy for the presidency in 2014, supported by Hariri as his ally, while Aoun, supported by his Shiite allies, refused to accept Geagea’s candidacy. These two intransigent positions crippled the presidential election since the first session to elect a president on April 23, 2014. The paralysis eventually led the country — after the end of Suleiman’s tenure — into a new vacuum. Since January 2015, two new strange channels of communications were secretly opened in Beirut. Contacts were made behind the scenes between one of Aoun’s allies, member of parliament Suleiman Franjieh, and Hariri. Other contacts were also underway between Aoun and Geagea, through their mutual representatives, member of parliament Ibrahim Kanaan and Geagea media official Melhem Riachy.
For over a year now, these two developments paved the way for two major occurrences. Following Franjieh’s meeting with Hariri in Paris on Nov. 17, 2015, an agreement was orchestrated to back Franjieh as the new president. Aoun and Geagea rejected the agreement and a mutual rapprochement was engineered that ended Jan. 18 with Geagea backing Aoun’s candidacy. Thus, the hidden stitches in this ironic miracle would have been clarified. Aoun and Geagea’s relationship is marred by their previous bitter political struggle and their war over the presidential seat; their current positions reek of divergence on all levels. Aoun is Hezbollah’s ally and Geagea is Hariri’s ally. Aoun maintains a good relationship with Iran. Geagea has a close relationship with Saudi Arabia. Aoun was a presidential candidate supported by Geagea's opponents. Up until the historical meeting between the two leaders, Geagea remained a presidential candidate backed by Aoun’s opponent Hariri, who suddenly turned against both leaders and nominated Franjieh as president. Yet, or rather consequently, Aoun finally met Geagea and the two reconciled. Kanaan — one of the architects of this reconciliation — told Al-Monitor after the Jan. 18 meeting, “The agreement between the two leaders is comprehensive and goes beyond the presidency issue. More importantly, this breakthrough agreement aspires to attract all of the Lebanese forces.”
His counterpart, Riachy, also told Al-Monitor that this agreement is not directed against any particular party. He stated that it is an irreversible process.
But what are its direct consequences on the presidential elections? Is the Aoun-Geagea agreement enough to secure Aoun’s seat in the presidential palace? The first reaction of presidential candidate Franjieh seemed negative. He was quoted as confirming that he maintains his candidacy, after having repeatedly declared that he would withdraw in favor of Aoun, if supported by Geagea. It seems that the other parties are reluctant to take a stance. But a Christian minister who helped orchestrate the Geagea-Aoun meeting told Al-Monitor that what happened Jan. 18 reflects an almost unanimous Christian support of Aoun as president. The minister told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “More than 85% of the Christian public opinion is now with Aoun, after Geagea and his party granted him full support. If this quasi-Christian consensus proves to be unable to lead to the election of a president, things may then move toward radical developments. It will then be clear that the entire Lebanese political regime is no longer viable.”In other words, the miracle of Jan. 18 raised the following ultimatum: either Aoun is elected as president, or the Lebanese Republic will no longer be the same and will no longer have a president unless under a different political and constitutional system. It seems clear that what pushed Geagea to support Aoun’s candidacy is the fact that his ally, Hariri, backed his foe, Franjieh, without consulting him. But the recent rapprochement between the West and Tehran may have repercussions on the Lebanese political scene, as Hezbollah has supported the Geagea-Aoun meeting and is excited about Aoun’s chances of being elected president of Lebanon.

ISIS is flying homemade drones, developing a missile-armed model
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report January 20, 2016/The first ISIS unmanned aerial vehicles were seen this week flying over the battlefields of the western Iraqi province of Anbar. Two were shot down by Iraqi Sunni militias, who had been trained and were supported by American military instructors at the big Iraqi Ayn al-Asad airbase in the province. The downed craft when tested at the base facilities showed they were fitted with cameras for spying on the militias and capable of transmitting surveillance images to the jihadists’ rear commands. Their first appearance over Fallujah and Haditha, both of which are in ISIS hands, were a shock to the ground forces. debkafile’s military sources report that some weeks ago, US intelligence had discovered that ISIS had begun manufacturing UAVs at a military industrial plant located outside their Iraqi capital of Mosul. Production was not considered advanced enough for putting the drones in the air so soon. This substantial upgrade of ISIS resources at extremely short notice is assumed to have been enabled by the skills of the former Iraqi army officers who are part of the terrorist group’s command structure, and fighters from Russia and western Europe who have joined the Islamists and are contributing their experience in making unmanned aerial vehicles operational. Initial tests of the downed vehicles showed them capable of covering the 69 kilometer distance from Falujjah to Baghdad. ISIS is now busy working on the design of a drone model capable of carrying arms, debkafile’s intelligence sources disclose. This was first revealed at a closed meeting of senior officers at Central Command Headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. The conference was called for a briefing on the state of the war against ISIS and a discussion of new tactics for combating the Islamists.They were informed that the jihadi terrorists were in the final stages of preparations for testing drones armed with missiles or bombs, having hired the services of experts in a number of Muslim countries to work on their development at top speed for exceptionally high pay.

Palestinian intelligence chief: We've thwarted 200 attacks against Israel
Elior Levy/Ynetnews/Published: 01.20.16,/Majid Faraj, the head of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service, says that security cooperation with Israel will continue in order to prevent extremists such as Islamic State from getting in. Head of the Palestinian General Intelligence Service Majid Faraj has said that Palestinian security agents have thwarted 200 potential terror attacks against Israel.Speaking in a rare interview with Defense News – the first interview he has given since assuming his role – Faraj also said that they have confiscated weapons and arrested over 100 Palestinians. He confirmed that security cooperation between PA security services and Israel will continue, in order to prevent further chaos and to stop extremists such as Islamic State members from entering the country. Faraj also warned that extremist religious groups are a clear danger, not just for the Palestinian Authority itself but also to Jordan and, ultimately, Israel. Nonetheless, Faraj estimated that 90 percent of the Palestinian public is opposed to organizations such as the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and others. This opposition, according to Faraj, can be credited to the president of the PA: "The number of Palestinians supporting them is very marginal, and this is a success of Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas)," he said. "He changed the culture. But if Daesh (Islamic State) or other extremist groups decide to fight Israel, they will find sympathy in the Arab street. "(Islamic State) is on our border, and they are looking to find a suitable platform to establish their base," Faraj continued. "Therefore, we must prevent a collapse here, because the alternative is anarchy, violence and terrorism. "We, together with our counterparts in the Israeli security establishment, with the Americans and others, are all trying to prevent that collapse. They’re already in Iraq, Syria, Sinai, Lebanon and Jordan, but Ramallah, Amman and Tel Aviv must remain immune from them.”

Khamenei condemns Saudi embassy attack
By Reuters Dubai Wednesday, 20 January 2016/Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday condemned the attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran this month, saying it was “really bad.”In remarks published on his website, he also thanked Revolutionary Guards for detaining a group of U.S. sailors in the Gulf last week, adding they had done the right thing.

Turkish teacher to serve year in prison for insulting President Erdogan
Reuters | Ankara Wednesday, 20 January 2016/A Turkish court on Wednesday sentenced a female teacher to almost a year in prison for making a rude gesture at President Tayyip Erdogan at a political rally in 2014, local media reports said on Wednesday. Insulting public officials is a crime in Turkey, and Erdogan, the country’s most popular but most divisive politician, is seen by his critics as intolerant of dissent and quick to take legal action over perceived slurs. After a rally in the Aegean city of Izmir in 2014 when he was prime minister, Erdogan lashed out at the female teacher and said she made a gesture at him that typified the rudeness of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP). “Today as I was arriving (there was) a woman on a balcony,” he said. “She made such an ugly gesture with her hand. There you go, that is the CHP. I mean the country’s prime minister is passing by and you make that gesture with your hand and arm.” The teacher, who pleaded not guilty at the hearing, will serve 11 months and 20 days in jail, the Dogan news agency said. Earlier this week, lawyers for Erdogan filed a lawsuit against the main opposition leader for saying that Erdogan was a dictator, presidential sources and the opposition party said. Last week he urged prosecutors to investigate scores of academics for signing a declaration criticizing military action in the mainly Kurdish southeast of Turkey. Last Friday Turkish security forces briefly detained 27 academics accused of terrorist propaganda. Erdogan denounced the more than 1,000 signatories of the petition, who include U.S. academic Noam Chomsky, as “dark, nefarious and brutal”.

IS Releases 270 of 400 Civilians Abducted in East Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/The Islamic State group late Tuesday released 270 of more than 400 civilians it had abducted during its assault on the eastern Syrian city of Deir Ezzor, a monitor said. Those released included women, children under 14 years old, and the elderly, said Rami Abdel Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. He said they had been freed after undergoing questioning by IS jihadists to determine whether they had ties to Syria's regime. "They will not go back into Deir Ezzor city, but will be spread out among local tribes in the province," Abdel Rahman told Agence France Presse. IS still holds 130 civilians, mostly teenage and adult men, whom Abdel Rahman said were being questioned. "If IS sees that they have no ties to the Syrian government, they will take a religious course and will be released," he said. IS launched a multi-pronged assault on Deir Ezzor city on Saturday, with dozens of its fighters carrying out suicide bomb attacks as they stormed government positions. The group is now in control of 60 percent of the city and has tightened its siege around it by capturing surrounding towns. As IS overran Al-Baghaliyeh, an agricultural area northwest of the city, it abducted another 50 people, mostly men, Abdel Rahman said, but it was not immediately clear whether they were civilians or pro-regime fighters.

Russian Air Force Strikes Besieged Syrian City, Delivers Aid
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/The Russian military said Wednesday it had bombed the Syrian province of Deir Ezzor after a deadly Islamic State assault saw jihadists tighten their siege in the region. "The Russian operation conducted military operations only in the provinces of Latakia and Deir Ezzor in light of unfavorable weather conditions and to avoid risks for the civilian population," Russian news agencies quoted military spokesman Igor Konashenkov as saying. Konashenkov added that Russian warplanes had struck 57 targets in 16 combat sorties in these two provinces in the last day. The military spokesman also said Russia had delivered 50 tons of humanitarian aid to the besieged city of Deir Ezzor on January 15. More than 40 tonnes of humanitarian cargo were delivered earlier this week to the blockaded eastern Syrian city, the defense ministry said on Tuesday. IS launched a bloody offensive on Deir Ezzor on Saturday, with dozens of its fighters carrying out suicide bomb attacks as they stormed government positions. The assault came as the regime sought to advance in northern Aleppo province, capitalizing on a Russian air campaign that began on September 30. The jihadists now control 60 percent of the city of Deir Ezzor, intensifying a siege that had already caused fear and hardship for the roughly 200,000 people still living there.Around 70 percent of the city's remaining residents are women and children, according to the United Nations. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said late on Tuesday that IS had released 270 of more than 400 civilians it had abducted during its assault on Deir Ezzor. The Russian military said Tuesday its jets had struck 579 "terrorist targets" in 157 combat sorties in the Aleppo, Raqa, Latakia, Homs, Hama and Deir Ezzor provinces.

Syria Peace Talks Expected to Start 'in next Few Days', Says Lavrov
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/Syria peace talks are expected to begin within a few days, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday, adding that Moscow was ready to cooperate closer with the United States on Syria aid supplies. Lavrov, who met his U.S. counterpart John Kerry in Zurich Wednesday in a bid to create momentum for Syria peace talks to kick off as planned on January 25, rejected suggestions the negotiations might be delayed until February amid disagreements over who will represent the opposition. "We are sure that in the next few days, in January, these talks should begin," he told reporters. He stressed though that the United Nations was leading the process and the start date would ultimately be determined by U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and his envoy on Syria Staffan De Mistura. The planned negotiations are meant to help end a conflict that has claimed more than 260,000 lives since it began nearly five years ago. But disagreement over who will represent the opposition has cast a shadow of doubt over whether the U.N.-brokered talks will begin on schedule. Lavrov meanwhile said Wednesday that he and Kerry had discussed the thorny issue of Russia's air strikes in Syria.
He said Moscow was ready to coordinate more closely with the US-led coalition to help facilitate aid deliveries inside the war-torn country. "We spoke about how the Russian airforce, when planning its actions, takes into account the programs that the U.N. humanitarian organizations, the Red Cross and other NGOs carry out," Lavrov said. "We said that we will be ready to more closely coordinate our actions with the American coalition in this direction," he stressed. Earlier Wednesday, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the Russian air strikes had killed more than 1,000 civilians, including more than 200 children, in Syria since they began in September. Russia is a staunch ally of the Syrian government and has coordinated its strikes with Damascus, saying it is targeting IS and other "terrorist" groups. But activists and rebels accuse Moscow of focusing more on moderate and Islamist opposition fighters than IS. A coalition led by Washington has also been carrying out strikes against IS in Syria since September 2014, but it does not coordinate its raids with Damascus. Those strikes have killed 4,256 people since they began, among them 322 civilians, including over 90 children, according to the Observatory.

Syria Opposition Names Saudi-backed Islamist Top Negotiator
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/Syria's largest opposition coalition on Wednesday named an Islamist rebel chief backed by Riyadh as its chief negotiator for peace talks slated to open on January 25 in Geneva. The coalition of political and armed opposition groups demanded the exclusion of other parties from the talks and a halt to the Syrian army's bombardment and sieges of populated areas. It has appointed Mohammed Alloush, a political leader of the Saudi-backed armed group Jaish al-Islam, as its chief negotiator, the coalition's general coordinator, Riad Hijab, announced at a news conference in Riyadh. He said Asaad al-Zoabi, a general who defected from the army, will serve as head of the delegation, with Syrian National Council chief George Sabra as his deputy. A 33-member opposition "supreme committee" was formed at a landmark meeting last month of Syrian opposition groups in the Saudi capital. Hijab insisted the committee's delegation should be the only opposition representative at the talks, aimed at bringing an end to a five-year-conflict that has cost more than 260,000 lives. "We will not go to negotiations if a third party or person is added," he warned. Hijab also said that "we cannot go to negotiations with our people dying of hunger and under shelling" by pro-regime forces. Countries pushing for a peace deal for Syria, including the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have struggled to agree on the list of opposition delegates. Russia and Iran, Saudi Arabia's regional rival, are the main supporters of President Bashar Assad. Moscow wants the participation of Damascus-tolerated opposition groups. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said Tuesday that the Riyadh-based committee was "the concerned body, and nobody else can impose on them who should represent them" in negotiations. Riyadh in December brought together about 100 representatives at the meeting of Syria's main political opposition and armed factions. They agreed to negotiate with the regime but insisted Assad step down at the start of any political transition. The Islamic State jihadist group, which has seized large parts of Syria and Iraq, and the Al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra Front were excluded from the Riyadh meeting.Kurdish fighters were also left out.A newly formed secular Kurdish-Arab alliance, the Syrian Democratic Council, last week demanded its own seat at the negotiating table and said it would not be grouped with the Riyadh body. Syria's tolerated domestic opposition, the National Coordinating Committee for Democratic Change, belongs to the Riyadh grouping but on Wednesday slammed Alloush and Zoabi's appointments.It said it was "not acceptable for the head of the delegation and the chief negotiator to be affiliated with the armed opposition" and urged the make-up of the delegation be changed. "This sends the wrong political message to the Syrian people," the NCCDC added in a statement from Damascus.

U.S., France Condemn Russia's Role in Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/The U.S. and French defense ministers on Wednesday condemned Moscow's role in the Syria conflict, saying Russian jets should stop targeting the opposition forces fighting the Islamic State group. "The Russians are on the wrong track strategically and also in some cases tactically," said U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter after a meeting in Paris of seven defense ministers in the coalition fighting IS. "We don't have a basis for broader cooperation (with Russia)," Carter said. His French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian said, for his part: "We hope that Russia will concentrate its efforts against Daesh (the Arabic acronym for IS) and stop bombing the groups of the uprising (against Syrian President Bashar Assad) who themselves are fighting Daesh." At the same time on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was ready to work more closely with the U.S.-led coalition to help facilitate aid deliveries inside Syria. Speaking after talks with his U.S. counterpart John Kerry in Zurich, Switzerland, he said: "We spoke about how the Russian air force, when planning its actions, takes into account the programs that the U.N. humanitarian organizations, the Red Cross and other NGOs carry out. "We said that we will be ready to more closely coordinate our actions with the American coalition in this direction." He also said U.N.-brokered Syria peace talks would begin "in the next few days" in Geneva. Lavrov rejected suggestions that the negotiations, tentatively set for January 25, might be delayed until February amid disagreements over who will represent the Syrian opposition. "We are sure that in the next few days, in January, these talks should begin," he told reporters.

Jewish Teens Arrested for Hate Graffiti at Iconic Jerusalem Church
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/Two Jewish teenagers have been arrested for anti-Christian graffiti sprayed on a wall of a Jerusalem abbey built where tradition says the mother of Jesus died, police said Wednesday. The graffiti, discovered Sunday, was written in Hebrew on an outside wall of the Dormition Abbey and included phrases such as "kill the pagans" and "death to the Christian unbelievers, enemies of Israel."It was similar to previous acts blamed on Jewish extremists, including arson and vandalism attacks on the same church. The suspects aged 15 and 16 were to appear in court on Wednesday, a day after being arrested, police said. The Benedictine abbey is located on Mount Zion across from east Jerusalem's Old City and next to the site where Christians believe Jesus' Last Supper occurred. Vatican efforts to negotiate greater rights at the neighboring Upper Room, where the Last Supper is believed to have occurred, have sparked opposition from nationalist and Orthodox Jews, who revere part of the building as the tomb of King David. Pope Francis celebrated a mass at the Upper Room during a visit in 2014.Jewish extremists have targeted Palestinians, Christians and even Israeli military property in "price-tag" attacks -- a term that indicates there is a price to be paid for moves against Jewish settlers.

Israel Begins Construction on Jordan Border Fence
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/Israel has begun construction on a security fence along its border with Jordan, the defense ministry announced Wednesday, its latest such barrier intended to keep out illegal migrants and militants. It will be the latest "security fence" built by Israel, including one separating it from the West Bank and another in the Golan Heights near Syria. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said when it was approved in June that the new fence was a continuation of a 240-kilometer (150-mile) barrier built along the Egyptian border which "blocked the entry of illegal migrants into Israel and the various terrorist movements.""This barrier is intended to protect Israeli citizens against any security threat coming from Jordan," Arielle Heffez, a spokesman for the ministry, told AFP on Wednesday. In 2013, Israel erected a 240-kilometer electronic fence along its southern border with Egypt. The Jordanian fence will be "based on the models erected along the Egyptian border and the Golan Heights," the defense ministry said. It will include "roads, observation towers, operations rooms and other advanced means."The barrier will be 30 kilometers (19 miles) long between the resort city of Eilat and the site of the Sands of Samar and will cost 300 million shekels ($75 million, 70 million euros), according to the statement.

At Least 21 Dead in Taliban Attack on Pakistan University
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 20/16/At least 21 people died when gunmen armed with grenades and Kalashnikovs attacked a university in Pakistan Wednesday, with all four attackers killed by security forces who moved in under thick fog to halt the bloodshed. The assault was claimed by a Pakistani Taliban faction but branded "un-Islamic" by the umbrella group's leadership, who vowed to hunt down those responsible. Police, soldiers and special forces swarmed the Bacha Khan university in the northwestern town of Charsadda from the ground and the air to try to shut down the assault. Television images showed female students running for their lives and witnesses reported at least two explosions. Pir Shahab, superintendent of investigations in Charsadda, said the 21 dead included one professor, two gardeners, one caretaker, and 17 students.Four attackers killed by security forces were not included in the toll, he said. Regional police chief Saeed Wazir, who also put the toll at 21, told AFP that most of the student victims were shot dead at a hostel for male students. An AFP reporter saw pools of blood and overturned furniture at the hostel, where security forces cornered the four gunmen. "More than 30 others including students, staff and security guards were wounded," Wazir added. He said the attackers had "taken advantage of the fog", adding that visibility was less than 10 meters (30 feet) at the time. Umar Mansoor, a commander of the Hakimullah Mehsud faction of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistani (TTP), claimed responsibility for the attack. Security forces believe he was the mastermind behind a similar attack on an army-run school in nearby Peshawar in 2014 that left more than 150 people dead. The TTP's central leadership denied any involvement. "TTP strongly condemns today's attack and disassociates itself completely from this un-Islamic attack," spokesman Muhammad Khurasani said on Twitter, vowing that the group would bring those behind it to justice. The denial appeared to indicate continued infighting in the Pakistani Taliban, as the Islamic State group seeks to recruit its disaffected fighters.
A senior security official said the faces of the attackers were recognizable and their fingerprints had been taken, adding: "We hope we will soon identify them." One had a mobile phone in his hand connected to Mansoor's faction, he said. The official said two of the attackers were teenagers while the others were in their early 20s. They were armed with hand grenades and Kalashnikovs. Wednesday's attack spurred widespread outrage from social media users in Pakistan, with a candlelight vigil for the victims held in the southwestern city of Quetta and dozens of people protesting in the port mega-city of Karachi.
Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declared a national day of mourning for Thursday and directed the country's security agencies to hunt those responsible for the attack, his office said. The assault, which Amnesty International said could be branded a war crime, was also condemned globally, including by India, the EU and the U.S. It had chilling echoes of the Taliban assault on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014, Pakistan's deadliest-ever attack. Most of the victims were children. After a public outcry, the military intensified an offensive in the tribal areas where extremists had previously operated with impunity, and the government launched a crackdown. Mansoor, the alleged mastermind behind the attack who also claimed Wednesday's assault, vowed in 2014 to continue his "revenge" for the military crackdown.

Hating Americans Is Official Saudi and Qatari Policy
Raymond Ibrahim/January 20, 2016
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/01/20/raymond-ibrahim-hating-americans-is-official-saudi-and-qatari-policy/
As American talking heads continue to express their “moral outrage” at Donald Trump’s call “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” perhaps they should first consider what is the official position of foreign Muslim governments on Americans—beginning with U.S. “friends and allies.”
As it happens, jihadi hate for non-Muslim “infidels” is not limited to the Islamic State, which U.S. leadership dismisses as neither a real state nor representative of Islam. Rather, it’s the official position of, among others, Saudi Arabia — a very real state, birthplace of Islam, and, of course, “friend and ally” of America.
Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas[1]—which issues religious decrees that become law—issued a fatwa, or decree, titled, “Duty to Hate Jews, Polytheists, and Other Infidels.” Written by Sheikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (d. 1999), former grand mufti and highest religious authority in the government, it still appears on the website.
According to this governmentally-supported fatwa, Muslims—that is, the entire Saudi citizenry—must “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”
To prove this, Baz quotes a number of Koran verses that form the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity—the same doctrine every Sunni jihadi organization evokes to the point of concluding that Muslim men must hate their Christian or Jewish wives (though they may enjoy them sexually).
These Koran verses include: “Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your friends and allies” (5:51) and “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger [i.e., non-Muslims]—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred” (58:22; see also 3:28, 60:4, 2:120).
After quoting the verses, Baz reiterates:
Such verses are many and offer clear proofs concerning the obligation to despise infidels from the Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslims, as well as the obligation to oppose them until they believe in Allah alone.
Despite documenting its official hatred for all non-Muslims (albeit on a website virtually unknown in the West), in the international arena, Saudi Arabia claims “to support the principles of justice, humanity, promotion of values and the principles of tolerance in the world,” and sometimes accuses the West for its supposed “discrimination based on religion.”
Such hypocrisy is manifest everywhere and explains how the Saudi government’s official policy can be to hate Christians and Jews—children are taught to ritually curse them in grade school—while its leading men fund things like Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (the real purpose of which appears to be to fund influential “Christian” academics to whitewash Islam before the public).
Our other “good friend and ally,” Qatar, also officially documents its hate for every non-Muslim—or practically 100% of America’s population. A website owned by the Qatari Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs published a fatwa titled “The Obligation of Hating Infidels, Being Clean of Them, and Not Befriending Them.”
Along with citing the usual Loyalty and Enmity verses, the fatwa adds that Christians should be especially hated because they believe that God is one of three (Trinity), that Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified and resurrected for the sins of mankind—all cardinal doctrines of Christianity that are vehemently lambasted in the Koran (see 5:72-81).
Incidentally, this same Qatari government-owned website once published a fatwa legitimizing the burning of “infidels”—only to remove it soon after the Islamic State justified its burning of a Jordanian pilot by citing several arguments from the fatwa.
In short, it’s not this or that “radical,” who “doesn’t represent Islam,” or isn’t a “real state,” that hates non-Muslim “infidels.” Rather, it’s the official position of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are presented to the American public as “friends and allies.”
This little discussed fact might explain why the majority of terrorism in America is committed by Muslims and why the majority of Americans support Trump’s measures.

Obama’s historic mistake has dire repercussions
Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya/January 20/16
The deed has been done. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed Iran’s compliance with its obligations under the nuclear deal, the key to the lifting of sanctions against the country. Iran’s parliamentarians are hugging each other; most U.S. Republican lawmakers are highly skeptical if not downright enraged at what they perceive to be a deal with the devil. President Hassan Rowhani says Iran “has opened a new chapter” in its relations with the world while hailing the sanctions-lifting “a glorious victory”.It certainly is a victory for Iran, especially when the IAEA stated that its nuclear weapons ambitions were shelved nine years ago. Not only does it stand to receive its frozen assets worth around $100 billion, global corporations, including major oil giants, are queuing up to negotiate lucrative deals. Moreover, Iran has reportedly been stockpiling oil to flood the market; this at a time when a glut has driven down prices. President Barack Obama has sought to silence the deal’s critics asserting Iran’s implementation of the agreement “marks a fundamental shift in circumstances with respect to Iran’s nuclear program”. This is nothing but a red herring. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry were pushing for a U.S.-Iranian detente long before they took office.
Saudi Arabia has woken up to the danger following Iran’s direct interference in its internal affairs and its use of proxies in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. In fact, I predicted this dark day – so detrimental to Arab interests and security – would come years ago. At its core, this has little to do with nuclear weapons and all to do with facilitating Iran becoming a regional power in league with Washington to exert control over Arab states, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states in particular, and to rebalance regional power in America’s favour. Iranian-born American academic and author Vali Nasr warned of an upcoming showdown between Iran and Saudi Arabia in his book "The Shia Revival" claiming that Iran’s growing strength and reach makes it a preferred U.S. partner because it is too strong to destroy and should be brought onside with engagement rather than confrontation.
Obama’s former Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel was quoted saying, “the United States must find a new regional diplomatic strategy to deal with Iran that integrates our regional allies, military power and economic leverage.”
‘Grand Bargain’
I am convinced there is much more to this narrow deal than meets the eye. I shared my concerns of a potential ‘Grand Bargain’ in a report to Gulf leaderships during June 2013 and I have laid out my fears in numerous columns since. If I was concerned then, I am deeply disturbed now. This is one time I hate to be right. However, faced with this fait accompli the Arab world must join forces to shore up its defences. Thankfully, there are concrete moves in that direction. Saudi Arabia has woken up to the dangers following Iran’s direct interference in its internal affairs not to mention its use of proxies in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. I am somewhat relieved that a Joint Arab Force is on the table and a Muslim anti-terrorism coalition has been formed with the participation of 34 predominately Muslim states. Sad to say that among our sister nations there are those enjoying close relationships with Iran in a less than transparent way. We know that behind the scenes they have been furthering Iranian interests during its years of virtual isolation. Now they are no longer needed, it is only a matter of time before Iran turns on them too. They need to be cautioned by the GCC and if they continue their pro-Iranian policies, then we have no choice but to build a Trump-style wall between us and them. Most importantly, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states can no longer rely on mere verbal assurances from their U.S. ally purporting to be their protector when President Obama and his Secretary of State celebrate the release of billions of dollars to the biggest supporter of terrorism in our times. Obama has admitted that there are no guarantees that a portion of those billions will not go to advance Iran’s ideological and territorial ambitions within the region. Hezbollah, which the U.S. has generously removed from its terrorist blacklist, will continue its killing spree in Syria and Iraq with impunity and will be free to transform Lebanon into an Iranian province. Iran’s efforts to grab control of Yemen and Bahrain, upon which it has made successive territorial claims, will be strengthened by mega sums of cash.
Friends’ concerns
Obama is aware the money will be spent on terrorism and the further destabilisation of the Middle East and in particular the Gulf, but has ignored the concerns of America’s friends in his rush to seal a narrow agreement, which fails to take Iran’s crimes into account. Obama has tried to placate GCC countries with an invitation to heads of states to meet with him at his Camp David retreat. Just last week, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir to persuade him there is nothing to worry about. According to press reports he is not buying this argument especially since the Obama administration expressed its “dismay” over the execution of convicted terrorist Nimr al-Nimr while seeming less dismayed over the torching of the Kingdom’s embassy and consulate by rabble suspected of being in the regime’s pay. The U.S. must put its money where its mouth is. Sweet words partnered with yet more offers of weapon sales will not provide us with a good night’s sleep. Basically, our governments must receive clarification from Mr. Obama whether the U.S. is with us or with Iran. We must demand that the White House proves it genuinely has our interests at heart by leaning on Tehran to comply with the following measures:
• The official severing of Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah, which is strangling Lebanon and has chosen the wrong sides in both Syria and Iraq.
• An end to Iran’s arming and financial support of Houthis in Yemen.
• A commitment from Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei to dismantle its terrorist cells within Gulf states and to quit their infiltration with spies.
• Tehran’s agreement to negotiate the independence of Arabistan, renamed Khuzestan following Iran’s seizure, so that the Ahwazi Arab population, which has been reduced to third-class citizens, can regain their independence, natural resources and dignity.
• Iran’s acceptance that the body of water it refers to as the “Persian Gulf” is henceforth known as the “Arabian Gulf” given that 85 percent of the population of countries surrounding the Gulf (including Ahwazi Arabs) are Arab.
I must point out that I have nothing against the Iranian people of whatever faith or sect. They have all been oppressed socially, economically and politically since 1979 when the Ayatollah Khomeini turned up to send the country back to the Middle Ages. Despite its wealth, up to 55 percent of urban Iranians live under the poverty line. People there live in fear in a country where women are stoned, men hung from cranes in public places and even poets and song writers are jailed and lashed.
Given that the U.S., which fought hard for the deal, is now Iran’s prime benefactor, the Obama administration should find ways to ensure the billions of dollars released are used to build the economy, improve infrastructure and create jobs. It must tie any future rapprochement to an improvement in Iran’s miserable human rights record.
I look forward to the day when the Iranian people reject their fanatical regime and reclaim freedom and prosperity they enjoyed under the Shah. Only then should Iran be welcomed into the community of nations – and in that event I will be celebrating too.

Is lifting of Iran sanctions a double-edged sword for Russia?
Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/January 20/16
A sanctions-free Iran marks a new beginning for the country as well as the international community. Europe and the United States lifted sanctions against the country on Saturday following the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announcement of the fulfillment of Iranian obligations required under the nuclear deal. The deal could be reached due to the political will of the Iranian government but, at the same time, would have been hardly possible without Russian participation. Through the prism of Russia’s domestic situation though, the nuclear agreement, and the lifting of sanctions, can be counted as its success as well as failure. For Russia sustained rock bottom oil prices means more or less inevitable economic collapse. Russia, which has itself been under sanctions, played a major role in liberating Iran from the burden of sanctions, often calming down the hotheads in Tehran. Russia continued its normal ties with Iran, sometimes yielding to international pressure, as was in the case of terms of delivery for S-300 missiles. It largely maintained balance between both sides during the negotiation process. It criticized Iran when its maneuvers became unacceptable for the international community and criticized the West when its policy threatened the negotiation process. Russia assumed the position of the unprejudiced arbiter during the process. It remained a flexible and a desirable partner both for the West as well as Iran. Western partners to the negotiations have repeatedly stressed the crucial role Russian negotiators played in the entire process. The lifting of sanctions against Iran is indeed an important achievement for Russia’s diplomacy. It has strengthened the country’s position of a reliable mediator, partner and a powerful player on the world stage; which can effectively tackle the most complex challenges and intrastate dialog through diplomacy.
Prospects of cooperation
The lifting of sanctions allows Russia to extend its partnership with Iran. After imposing embargo on goods from Europe and fruits and vegetables from Turkey, following the recent crisis with Ankara, Russia has failed to substitute import with domestically produced goods. Under these circumstances, Iran may prove to be a good alternative. On the other hand, Iran has more or less successfully survived the sanctions owing to its inner capacities, manufacturing capabilities and technology. The lifting of sanctions is likely to further boost Iran’s economy. For Russia, import from Iran can save its consumers and provide them with a choice of good quality fruits, vegetables, and dairy products etc. It goes without saying that this development will lead to enhanced bilateral trade and it will not be limited to foodstuff alone. Russia and Iran will improve technological and humanitarian cooperation as well. Abolition of visas for Russians entering Iran can provide tourists with a new destination in the absence of Egypt and Turkey.
Counterproductive
However, things could also prove to be counterproductive for Russia as Iran possesses significant oil reserves. The supply of large volumes of cheap Iranian oil may lead to further decline in the commodity’s price and may hamper its return to higher levels. For Russia sustained rock bottom oil prices means more or less inevitable economic collapse as it is heavily dependent on oil export as a key source of revenue. The end of sanctions is bound to enhance Iran’s presence on the world stage. Growing cooperation with the world and integration in the international economic system will boost its economy. This will lead to greater involvement in the affairs of the region and even increase its interference in domestic affairs of its neighbors. This interference may not be direct but through other means, including exploiting the sectarian divide in the Arab world and through extending support to its proxies. Yemen has already witnessed signs of this even though Tehran continues to refute the claim. Iran has also actively gained influence in Iraq and is playing a major role in Syria. On the whole, Russia is in a win-some loose-some situation as far as Iranian affair is concerned where the advantages of the breakthrough are as noticeable and strong as its disadvantages. The only winner from the lifting of sanctions is Iran itself, which can now play the role it likes, taking into account its inherent capacities.

Are we sleepwalking into geopolitical turmoil?
Espen Barth Eide/Al Arabiya/January 20/16
Without a concerted effort to properly address current trends, the world is at risk of sleepwalking into a future of widening chaos with growing danger of interstate conflict. This is the conclusion of a year-long review of global risks, The Global Risks Report 2016, being presented today in London. Geopolitical risk is among the top concerns, but it is the convergence of drivers at different levels – national, regional and global – that threatens to overwhelm existing institutions, and should push us to engage a wider range of stakeholders. Economic and technological change is happening at a pace that leaves most political and regulatory systems unable to cope. This spurs dissatisfaction with leaders and increasing polarization in society, already weakened by a steep fall in social cohesion and trust. Trust is a fundamental element of social capital, and when it wanes, it negatively affects all aspects of society. Loss of trust results in part from a steady increase in inequality, undermining the feeling essential to the fabric of society of citizens being “in the same boat”. Downbeat perception of future economic opportunity aggravates grievances, now also in many of the economies that only recently were labelled as “emerging”. Polarization and growing populism forces leaders to take rather ill-advised, short term measures that may give the appearance of “doing something” without really tackling protracted crises at their roots.
Individuals increasingly feel disengaged from traditional structures of power, but strongly engaged through new forms of participation and voice, but in ways that do not necessarily foster shared understanding in society.
The conflicts in Syria and Iraq show how today’s wars are not confined to the battlefront itself. They are “glocal” in the sense that while most of the fighting takes place in a specific region, accompanying terrorist attacks can happen anywhere. Sophisticated recruitment campaigns and social media based information warfare has become genuinely global, with fighters from over 100 countries involved in Syria and Iraq. The allure of joining the battle, for ideological or personal reasons, is just a click away from a teenager’s computer somewhere in a European city. Intelligence services around the world are struggling to cope with a new reality, challenged by everything from well-organized, stealthy groups to self-radicalized “lone wolves”. Three years after the Snowden revelations, the debate on privacy vs. security has been slow to move on from recriminations to the search for practical solutions that command broad-based support. Cohesion and trust between countries and societies are also under threat. In its most extreme form, this trend may lead to successful calls for withdrawal from an integrated and interlinked world, creating the 21st Century equivalent of medieval “walled cities” that offer the few a sense of security and order, protecting them from the “sea of disorder” on the outside. For instance, the disjointed political debacle over how to manage the reality of people on the move, while not primarily a European phenomenon, has led to strong demands to undo some of Europe’s primary successes of integration, like the Schengen open borders agreement. A gradual dis-integration of Europe would not only be a regional drama, it would, if it happened, have severe implications for global norms and joint aspirations.
This lack of trust and cohesion is also a factor in the development of “hybrid” war. Adversaries – be they states or non-state actors – exploit popular mistrust of government in the design of information operations deployed through conventional media channels as well as more sophisticated campaigns to influence individuals directly via social media. Asymmetric, ambiguous, grey zone, non-linear – these have become the default mode of conflict between major powers seeking to keep their rivalry below the threshold of what is legally defined as "war". With nuclear powers upgrading their delivery systems, confirming their continued emphasis on the ultimate tool of deterrence, such deniable or indirect ways to influence events, including the use of proxy forces, are gradually becoming the norm. The face of warfare itself is changing. Aversion to outright conflict is also a factor in the rise of geo-economics, or the use of economic relations, sanctions, trade regimes and potentially even means of payment for the purpose of geopolitical rivalry. The implications for the infrastructure of the global economy are highlighted by the fact that every conflict today is also a cyber-conflict. Cyberspace has become a domain of warfare, on pair with land, sea, air and space. In cyberspace, however, the attacker gets an advantage that he would not have in the physical world, as distance and early warning becomes largely irrelevant. Possibly, globalization has contributed to new modes of conflict that, if left unchecked, could bear the seeds of its destruction.
Economic and technological change is happening at a pace that leaves most political and regulatory systems unable to cope
For some time, the World Economic Forum has warned against globalization going into reverse. The sense of the first post-Cold War decades was that economy finally was becoming open and global, free of the geopolitical lid imposed by great powers. This assumption is again challenged. We see new institutions emerge, driven by new actors, at times complementing, at times challenging the established order. Only time will tell if this is a good or a bad development.
We could see it as a trend towards a net of interlinked regional systems coalescing around regional hegemons, displacing a unified, global economic order, but still sustained by some form of overall agreement. But it could also be read as an early indication that we are transiting into a future global system not so much built on a shared set of values, but rather on tacit understanding of each other’s interests and consensus on the lowest common denominators. Last year's edition of the Global Risk Report featured the increase of fragility and disintegration on the one hand, and the return of strategic competition between strong and well-organized states on the other. Both trends strengthened in 2015, at times merging into a perfect storm like the one we are now observing in the Middle East: the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, to name a few, have local, regional and global dimensions. Regional players, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, compete over the future order of the region. Major global players are simultaneously competing and cooperating, at times engaged on opposing sides in the battle but also at times seeking to forge diplomatic compromises.
This gloomy picture, however, is not a given. The array of technological advances that, when combined, takes us into the Forth Industrial Revolution – a main theme of this year’s Annual Meeting in Davos – hold out the promise of new solutions to old problems. In principle, we are living in a world of almost endless opportunity; with phenomenal advances in health, sustainable energy and economic possibilities. Without effective governance and direction, however, the Fourth Industrial Revolution could also enhance the sense of deprivation and societal alienation. Existing modes of governance seem largely unable to deal with the complex challenges or to fully reap the opportunities available with dedication, foresight and mutually beneficial solutions.
A broad, shared understanding of global trends, across societal sectors, and a will to collectively think through how to deal with them is urgently needed in order to prevent further deterioration and to stake out a better course. Putting these issues on top of the agenda of the Annual Meeting in Davos next week is one attempt to contribute to this global conversation and to inspire collective action.

US lets 2 Iran banks off UN sanctions list
Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
WASHINGTON — Amid a flurry of diplomatic activity with Iran over the weekend that saw US prisoners freed, the nuclear deal go into effect and sanctions lifted, the United States permitted the removal of two Iranian banks from a United Nations sanctions list, US officials said Jan. 19.The delisting of the Iranian banks — Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International — occurred at the UN Security Council on Jan. 17 at the request of Venezuela. The United States decided not to block the request, US officials said. “We saw this as something we could do as a confidence-building measure and a goodwill gesture,” a US administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Al-Monitor Jan. 19. In the course of two separate tracks of negotiations with the Iranians — on the nuclear issue and the humanitarian release of detained citizens — Iran had sought the delisting of the banks from UN Security Council sanctions. But the issue was not resolved by the time negotiations for the final Iran nuclear deal reached agreement in July 2014. The United States had already determined that it would remove secondary sanctions on the banks, the US official said. “We already made the decision to delist this bank as part of US secondary sanctions as part of the nuclear deal,” the official said. The United States would “agree not to oppose the delisting at the UN, which Iran very much wanted.” This little-noticed action at the United Nations came as five Americans were freed from Iranian detention Jan. 16, and US Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini gathered in Vienna to announce implementation day of the landmark Iran nuclear deal. As part of the agreement to free the Americans detained in Iran, the United States would grant clemency to seven Iranians charged with export violations and drop Interpol red notices seeking the extradition of 14 other Iranians abroad charged with similar offenses. A tense night ensued overnight Jan. 16-17, during which, behind the scenes, Iranian authorities reportedly tried to block the wife and mother of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian from boarding the Swiss plane with him and two other freed Iranian-Americans to leave Iran. Brett McGurk, President Barack Obama’s envoy to combat the Islamic State and his point man in the secret talks on the detained citizens, told Iranian counterparts in Geneva that the whole prisoner release was off if Rezaian’s wife, Yaganeh Salehi, and his mother, Mary Rezaian, were not on the plane. Swiss authorities eventually found the women at a hotel and got them on the plane Jan. 17, and it took off for Switzerland. Obama then granted seven Iranians and Iranian-Americans in US prisons commutations or pardons. Rezaian, former US Marine Amir Hekmati and Pastor Saeed Abedini have been recovering at Landstuhl Hospital in Germany since their arrival. Photos of their joyful families meeting with Hekmati and Rezaian on Jan. 18 have been posted to Twitter. Abedini’s wife was due to arrive in Germany on Jan. 20. To date, all of the seven Iranian-Americans and Iranians who received pardons or commutations from the United States have apparently decided to stay in the United States or have not decided to return to Iran. In addition, US officials refuted Iranian claims that an additional seven Iranian men were granted any special favors in the swap deal. Only 21 Iranians received benefits under the arrangement, they said. Some Iranians finishing US prison terms shortly were not granted special terms upon their release, since they would already have been permitted to, for instance, travel to Iran when they finish their sentences, officials said.

Khamenei questions US commitment to nuke deal
Arash Karami/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
While most Iranian officials are praising the implementation of the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers that required Iran to reduce its nuclear capabilities for sanctions relief, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has expressed concern that the United States may fall short on its obligations in the nuclear deal.In response to a letter from President Hassan Rouhani, Khamenei’s website published a response thanking the president, the nuclear negotiators and specifically Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for their efforts in the negotiations and removing the sanctions. However, Khamenei added five points of concern. Khamenei wrote that Rouhani should be “careful that the opposing side completely fulfills its commitments,” and that “statements by some American politicians in the last two, three days have caused suspicions.”Khamenei's second point was that “all the officials should be warned that the solution to the country’s economic problems are tied to uninterrupted and wise efforts toward the resistance economy. Lifting the sanctions alone is not enough to open up the economy and [improve] people’s livelihood.” Iran's “resistance economy” calls for building its own domestic capacities to make the country less vulnerable to foreign economic turmoil and sanctions.
Khamenei also wrote, “Attention must be paid, in the advertising of what was obtained in this deal, that a heavy price was paid.” He continued, “The writings and statements that try to ignore this reality and thank the West are not behaving truthfully toward public opinion.” Khamenei was not specific here, but in order to receive sanctions relief, Iran drastically reduced its nuclear program, making some parts of it completely inoperable. Iran had endured nearly 10 years of UN Security Council resolutions that eventually led to "crippling sanctions," the assassination of nuclear scientists and cyberattacks on its nuclear program.
“These achievements that have been reached against the arrogance and bullying front are due to resistance and endurance,” Khamenei wrote. “This has to be a great lesson for all of us in all of the issues and events of the Islamic Republic.”
In his fifth point, Khamenei reiterated, “Once again, I emphasize to not ignore the deceit and violation of commitments by the arrogant governments, especially America.”
The letter, published on Khamenei’s website and by Iranian news agencies Jan. 19, is not surprising. Khamenei has typically had lukewarm responses to all the steps and milestones of the nuclear deal. His distrust of the United States has been one of the hallmarks of his leadership.
Officials from the Rouhani administration, hoping for a favorable outcome in next month’s parliamentary elections, have been touting the achievements of the nuclear deal, which ended a decadelong crisis between Iran and Western countries.
During a Jan. 19 speech at a commemoration for the implementation of the nuclear deal, Rouhani said that Iran is the only country to have Chapter 7 sanctions removed without being invaded and the government toppled. Rouhani thanked Khamenei for accepting his proposal when he took office to move the responsibility for nuclear negotiations from the Supreme National Security Council to the Foreign Ministry.
Zarif, the lead nuclear negotiator, told Iranian television that the “most important achievement in the nuclear deal is the end of the environment of Iranophobia in the world, and that no one can claim that Iran is a threat to the region.” Zarif also added that there were no negotiations on Iran’s defensive capabilities.

Will Iran, Saudi Arabia patch things up?
Ali Hashem/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
With the proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia taking place across the region, the two countries’ recent head-on collision did not come as a surprise. Neither did the execution of Saudi Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr appear as the only milestone in a long path of tensions. This collision isn’t merely about the governments in Riyadh and Tehran. Their clashes of interests in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon and other arenas have transformed hostility between many ordinary Iranians and Saudis into a state of outright enmity. As this struggle has mounted, it has sharpened various differences, from sectarian to ethnic, and has even entered the sports arena. In Tehran and Riyadh alike, many ordinary people exchange political jokes with negative depictions of the other side. Meanwhile, on state-backed media and on social networks, the Iranian and Saudi governments are waging an unprecedented war of words against each other. “Saudi Arabia is trying to find a way out of its current dire straits and unsuitable situation,” said Alireza Miryousefi, head of Middle East Studies at the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Institute for Political and International Studies. Miryousefi told Al-Monitor that Saudi Arabia is seeking to deflect attention from its domestic and regional challenges. “Saudi Arabia has made consistent efforts to fan the flames of sectarian differences between Shiites and Sunnis, and … it tries to use Iran as an excuse to divert attention from its iron-fist policies, in particular after 2011,” said Miryousefi.
From Iran’s perspective, Riyadh has been looking to draw it into a confrontation that could force international powers to side with Saudi Arabia. “Today, some in Riyadh not only continue to impede normalization but are determined to drag the entire region into confrontation,” wrote Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a Jan. 10 op-ed in The New York Times. Zarif elaborated, “Saudi Arabia seems to fear that the removal of the smoke screen of the nuclear issue will expose the real global threat: its active sponsorship of violent extremism.”
This might be what Zarif really thinks — but it’s not what some Saudis believe. Former senior Saudi diplomat Abdullah al-Shammari told Al-Monitor that his country has not and will never start a clash with Iran. “As Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said to The Economist, war with Iran is a big disaster that we won’t allow to ignite,” said Shammari, who has a special interest in Iran and Turkey. “There were no planned or direct intentions to raise the stakes of tension with Iran; on the contrary, Iran is the one who started [the recent collision] and Saudi Arabia was only responding.” This veteran Saudi diplomat said the kingdom was intimidated by “Iran’s barefaced intervention in our internal affairs. This showed Iran as a sectarian entity. The real reason behind the severing of ties wasn’t only the burning of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran and the looting of it. It was the last straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Saudi Arabia has not been alone in severing diplomatic ties with Iran. Several Arab countries, including Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Sudan and Somalia, have made the same decision. Other Arab countries have taken other measures to convey their dismay to the Iranians. The United Arab Emirates has downgraded diplomatic relations to the level of charge d’affaires, while Kuwait, Oman and Qatar — all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — summoned the respective Iranian ambassadors. An Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity said, “The Saudis wanted to show Iran as isolated, but the best they could do was to ask countries whom we respect, but are less effective, to boycott us. They weren’t even capable of convincing other Gulf countries to take such a decision.”
Bahrain’s relations with Saudi Arabia have been very close, while Manama’s ties with Iran have always been problematic. The latter has particularly been the case after the 2011 Bahraini uprising, which was inspired by other Arab Spring protests. Bahraini authorities have blamed the protests on Iran and its influence on the Shiite majority in the country, which largely took to the streets. Of note, Bahrain has on numerous occasions accused Iran of being behind terrorist plots within its borders.
Sudan was a close ally of Iran for decades, until September 2014, when Sudanese authorities surprisingly ordered the closure of the Iranian cultural center in the capital Khartoum. Relations have since then gradually been deteriorating, until Jan. 4, when Sudan finally followed Saudi Arabia in outright cutting diplomatic ties with Iran. “The kingdom succeeded in proving to the world that this is not a Saudi-Iranian problem,” Shammari told Al-Monitor. “It was capable of mobilizing allies in the GCC, Arab League and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, and the UN Security Council issued a statement.”
Iranian officials believe the Saudi government is trying to tackle the implications of the July 14, 2015, nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers. “The fundaments of the Saudi policy that are based on enhancing Iranophobia faces serious obstacles, mainly with the achievement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by Iran, which boosted the regional and international standing of Iran,” said Miryousefi from Tehran. He added, “On the other hand, the sharp reduction in global oil prices has also left Saudi Arabia faced with major problems — both inside and outside the country — which has made Riyadh’s pursuit of adventurous policies in Yemen and Syria more difficult.” Miryousefi also spoke of what he called “the four-sided coalition formed by Syria, Iran, Iraq and Russia,” arguing that it has “changed the balance of power in Syria to the detriment of Saudi Arabia, undermining Riyadh’s standing in the Arab country [Syria].” He further suggested to Al-Monitor that “domestic challenges have been exacerbated in Saudi Arabia following the demise of King Abdullah, after which a bunch of inexperienced youths have taken charge of the country’s affairs and have caused the savage aspect of the country’s policies to overcome its outward prudence and pretenses, and this situation will certainly work to their detriment.”
Now the key question in the minds of many analysts and observers is “What next?” Some are making efforts to try to bridge the growing divide between Iran and Saudi Arabia, such as Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Yet according to Shammari, such efforts appear to be a bit premature. Shammari told Al-Monitor, “Going back to before Jan. 2 [when Saudi Arabia cut relations with Iran] isn’t expected in the near future, especially after Iran’s Supreme Leader [Ayatollah] Ali Khamenei said that the blood of Nimr will show its effects rapidly and divine vengeance will seize Saudi politicians.” Shammari thus concluded that while “a restoration of ties isn’t expected soon, but let’s say we hope we can manage the limits of differences between the two countries.”
The fact of the matter is that not only direct factors play into the strife between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The former twin pillars of US Middle East policy back in the 1970s are today competing for monopoly of power in the Middle East, the hearts of global powers, pockets of investors around the world and also the hearts of Muslims wherever they are. This struggle is great enough to be given different masks to wear — sometimes cloaked as Sunni-Shiite strife and sometimes as an Arab-Persian conflict. On certain occasions, it’s even about who has the most influence in the Gulf. However, despite all analysis referring to the latter, the Iranian-Saudi tension has been ongoing for decades. It stretches back until before Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 and before the oil boom in the 1960s. This tension is very unlikely to end for good — whatever the circumstances are or were — because while the two rivals may agree on some terms, they have never become friends.

Why Sudan wants to stop the 'spread of Shiism'
A correspondent in Sudan/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
KHARTOUM, Sudan — ‪Increasingly, Sudan appears to be assuming greater space in Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy. Last year, Sudanese warplanes and troops joined the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Moreover, Sudan is the only country, besides Bahrain, which has joined Saudi Arabia in recently cutting diplomatic relations with Iran. This followed the attacks on Saudi diplomatic compounds in Iran after the execution of Saudi Shiite Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. Of further note, Riyad's announcement‪ of a 34-member coalition against the Islamic State includes Sudan, which as recently as 2013 saw its President Omar al-Bashir banned from flying over Saudi airspace en route to Iran. While the “Islamic Coalition” is not a military alliance, Khartoum’s involvement in Yemen effectively makes it a military partner of Riyadh, cooperation for which it has reportedly received $2.2 billon.Mindful of the above, has Sudan really gone pro-Saudi? Or is it just increasingly anti-Shiite?
Sudan’s acceptance of Saudi Arabia’s “cold hard cash,” as one report describes it, does not in itself signal a fundamental change in Sudan’s political orientation. Indeed, while the sensational political shift toward Riyadh is new, Saudi investment in Sudan is not. The Saudis have long been the biggest single investors in Sudan, having pumped an estimated $11 billion into the country — and particularly in agriculture. For instance, almost all of Sudan’s sheep and mutton exports go to Saudi Arabia, one of the reasons why sheep is exorbitantly expensive for Sudanese — even in rural areas, where an animal goes for some $200.
Sudanese moves against Shiite political power in the region also suggest that there is more to Khartoum’s repositioning in its foreign policy than just the lure of petrodollars from abroad. The Islamic Coalition initiative has already been criticized for ignoring the Shiite and Shiite-related elements of the regional political structure — for instance, excluding both Iraq and Syria apparently due to their close ties to Iran. In this vein, it should be borne in mind that the Saudi-led war in Yemen is also widely seen as a proxy war against Shiite Iran and its allies. For Sudan, this endorsement of — and participation in — efforts to freeze out Iran is new. Until recently, Tehran and Khartoum had maintained good relations for decades, particularly in the field of weapons trade and the exchange of armaments more generally. Commenting on this, and the Sudanese government’s simultaneous closure of Iranian centers and cultural institutes, Yassin Ibrahim of the University of Al-Nileen in Khartoum told Al-Monitor, “[The government] wants to stop the spread of Shiism.”
Indeed, Sudan now appears to be more than ever before focused on countering the “spread of Shiism,” as some put it. Yet, its current pro-Saudi posture is in essence ambiguous. On the one hand, it is clear that the Saudis and the Sudanese are consciously crafting a mutually convenient financial and political alliance. However, the relationship is perplexing from a sectarian angle. Riyadh has long since championed Wahhabism, the predominant brand of Islam within its borders. And indeed, as one UK-based Sudanese academic told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, due to the sensitivity of Sudan’s sectarian makeup, “In recent years Salafism has increasingly taken root.” However, Salafists in Sudan have failed to attain a strong political platform. They have instead continuously had a tense relationship with the central government, and also with adherents of Sufism, another branch of Islam that is predominant in Sudan.
The most prominent Salafist group is known as Ansar al-Sunnah, which literally means "followers of the tradition of Prophet Muhammad." Naturally, its emergence has been seen as a direct result of Sudan’s links with Saudi Arabia. Indeed, a high-ranking member of the group who also serves as a government official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “Ansar al-Sunnah has widespread relations with Saudi Arabia, and it has taken the approach of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab [the founder of Wahhabism].” Ansar al-Sunnah, through its members, is vocal at universities and in fraternities, and builds at a prolific rate, particularly when it comes to the construction of religious schools and mosques.
Apparently now joined by a strong common interest in fighting Shiism, Sudan’s government and Ansar al-Sunnah should in theory be in agreement with each other. The Saudi version of Salafism is widely known for its vitriol against Shiism and other branches of Islam, including Sufi and Sunni schools of thought. The Sudanese brand of Salafism appears to be no exception to this rule. Sheikh Mustafa al-Mukhtar, an Ansar al-Sunnah imam based in northern Sudan, told Al-Monitor that Sufism and Shiism have “nothing to do with Islam.” The UK-based academic, who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, agrees, “They do not speak against them [Sufis] publicly, though privately, they would like the demise of all Sufi orders in Sudan and elsewhere among Muslims.” The Sudanese official also displayed the same attitude, saying that “the execution of the Shiite rejectionist Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr is satisfying and necessary for [Saudi Arabia], because he was destabilizing the[ir] security … and the Holy Mosques.”
However, things are more complex than that in Sudan. The Sudanese official who is also a member of Ansar al-Sunnah told Al-Monitor, “Ansar Al-Sunnah is a group [that has] deviated from the path of teaching people the religion. They became involved in politics and started to think about ruling the country.” This link between the spread of Salafism and related Salafist political influence has been witnessed elsewhere in the past: In a 2013 study of Egypt, Tunisia, Bosnia, Pakistan and Indonesia, the European Parliament concluded, “Financial aid granted by Salafists/Wahhabists, whether by institutional or private [donors], systematically pursues a goal of political influence.” Ansar al-Sunnah sternly rejects accusations of its intentions to seize power — especially after its official entry into the Cabinet last June, when Mohammed Abu Zaid Mustaf, one of the group’s members, was appointed minister of tourism. Ansar al-Sunnah Imam Mukhtar used the political trajectory of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood as an example to be avoided in his conversation with Al-Monitor. “This is not about changing the government. We want the middle path — it’s not about force, it’s about belief,” he said.
Unsurprisingly, the relationship between the central government and Ansar al-Sunnah has been and — despite the group’s recent inclusion in the Cabinet — continues to be, tense. The authorities have tried to contain the Salafist group’s activities, and in return Ansar al-Sunnah has accused the government of harassment, criticizing the latter on a regular basis. Yet, for Sudanese such as Ibrahim of Karthoum's University of Al-Nileen, on balance, it is “a good thing that Salafists are allowed to be in Sudan, as they provide the money to construct public services that the government does not.” Thus, in the grander scheme of things, it seems that Bashir appears to be resorting to accommodation rather than confrontation in his efforts to contain the group.
In sum, while Sudan’s shift to Saudi Arabia may appear surprising, the reality is that the relationship between the two countries is complex — and far from new. If anything, the future of the new partnership between the two countries will likely be told from the future of groups, such as Ansar al-Sunnah, and the development of their alleged ties with Saudi Arabia.

Kurdish leader warns of civil war in Turkey
Mahmut Bozarslan/Al-Monitor/January 20/16
DIYARBAKIR, Turkey — Turkey’s ongoing security operations in the Kurdish-majority southeast are aimed at crushing Kurdish demands for self-rule and the grounds for any democratic discussion on the issue, the co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party (DBP) said in an interview with Al-Monitor.
Kamuran Yuksek argued that the entrenchment of armed Kurdish militants behind ditches and barricades in residential neighborhoods was a “reaction” to Ankara’s policies rather than a cause of the current clashes. He warned the conflict could grow into a civil war.
Yuksek studied electronic communications at Ankara University from 1997 to 2000, but dropped out to join the Kurdish political movement. In 2009, he was arrested in a massive crackdown on Kurdish activists accused of collaborating with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), and served five years in prison. After his release, he was elected co-chair of the DBP, the second pro-Kurdish party after the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). More than 100 Kurdish mayors in the southeast belong to the DBP, whose main objective is to steer political preparations for eventual self-rule in the region.
The text of the Jan. 12 interview follows:
Al-Monitor: What does the DBP’s autonomy demand entail?
Yuksek: The HDP, too, has the issue of autonomy on its program but we are the ones who are working more actively on the issue. There is almost no democracy in the world today without some kind of a decentralized governance model like autonomy, self-rule, federation or federal states. In all countries with an advanced level of democracy, power has been decentralized, and this is how economic and social problems have been resolved. We are asking for decentralization of power and the creation of local governance models. We call this “democratic self-rule” and envisage the creation of [self-governed] regions.
Al-Monitor: Have you mustered enough public support for that?
Yuksek: The Justice and Development Party (AKP) has greatly criminalized the issue, preventing it from being discussed as a political project. It has portrayed it as a terrorist activity and shifted the problem to a confrontational ground to prevent the emergence of sufficient public support. We are faced with a government that portrays anyone supporting local democracy as a traitor and immediately launches judicial processes against them.
Al-Monitor: How did the issue of self-rule transform into a problem of clashes in the trenches?
Yuksek: This is a problem created by the government. Our party has been closely following the issue from the very beginning. The self-rule demands were not raised after the trenches or the clashes. The popular neighborhood councils created had begun advocating transition to an autonomous model. They said the central authority could no longer be accepted in its current form and that power should be transferred to local administrations. The government reacted very harshly, launching a campaign of oppression. Violence was heavily used against those who resisted. That’s how the problem started. Then the government moved quickly to portray the problem as a problem of terrorism and Turkey’s partition. This was meant to delegitimize the self-rule demands and portray them as terrorist demands to the public in Turkey. I can say that people were unlikely to resort to violent means if the government had not reacted that harshly. The government worried that the project would garner popular support and shifted the problem to a confrontational one.
Al-Monitor: Why would the government do that?
Yuksek: The [settlement] process was impaired with attitudes that President [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and the government adopted after the Feb. 28, 2015, agreement on a road map for settlement. Self-rule, local democracy, all those issues were off the table. The government resorted to policies aimed at preventing the Kurds — both in Syria and Turkey — from acquiring any status. It chose the confrontational approach because it wanted to bury the issue. A decision of war on the Kurds was made at the National Security Council’s meeting on Oct. 30, 2014. They began making up pretexts to shelve the settlement process, and eventually succeeded. Their project envisages a presidential system, seeking to shift local powers into the hands of a single person in the center. The AKP is seeking to centralize all power, while our project is just the opposite. So this is a clash between the presidential system and the self-rule model.
Al-Monitor: Do you believe self-rule could be achieved by digging trenches?
Yuksek: No, this is not the way to achieve self-rule and resolve problems. Yet one could understand the trenches in the context of a cause-and-effect relationship. I mean, for years, everybody tended to accuse the Kurds of quarreling. But when you go to the origin of the problem, you see that the Kurds have faced denial ever since the creation of the republic [in 1923], and that their identity and rights have not been recognized. Certain Kurds have risen up against this. You cannot resolve the problem if you only see its results but not its causes. So, the trenches today are a result of the government’s rejection of the Kurdish demand for self-rule, an outcome of the problem. The trenches or the barricades is a form of defense that is seen as a reaction. One has to ask, why are the trenches there? Why have people suddenly resorted to trenches? As you know, the president recently said there is no Kurdish problem. So there is a state of denial. The means of democratic discussion have been ruled out. When we bring the issue up as a party, they take us to court. They want to lift the parliamentary immunity of [HDP] deputies. What for? Because they advocate democratic self-rule. Because there is no democratic discussion, the issue remains on the agenda in the context of trenches and barricades.
Al-Monitor: Some say the PKK resorted to this method in order to keep Turkey busy, away from meddling in Syria. What would you say on that?
Yuksek: The whole process has become intertwined. A regional process is underway. Yet this is not a situation where internal unrest has been stirred in a bid to stop Turkey from further obstructing the Kurds in Rojava [Syrian Kurdistan] in their quest to obtain status: Rojava is on the international agenda, while the Kurdish problem is not a problem of the Kurds in Syria alone but of the Kurds in Turkey as well. The solution of the problem in Rojava does not resolve the problem of the Kurds in Turkey. If the whole region is to be redesigned, if the Middle East is to be restructured, the situation of the Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran should be taken up together.
Al-Monitor: Where do you think the current clashes could lead?
Yuksek: If the government refuses to change its policies and continues like this, the country could descend into a civil war. We are already in such a situation, more or less. A part of Diyarbakir’s population has been unable to go out for 41 days because of curfews, besieged by tens of thousands of soldiers and police. The people are unable to meet their basic needs. What are we supposed to call this? Tanks have moved to streets in cities. If this goes on like this, the country could be gradually dragged into a civil war. The responsibility lies with the AKP government.
Al-Monitor: Do you think the conflict could spill over to western Turkey?
Yuksek: Unfortunately, I do. The Kurds are being killed in the streets and they feel humiliated. The number of civilian deaths has reached 230, all killed by the army or the police. This has been greatly disturbing the Kurds in western Turkey, and the accumulation of anger could soon explode.
Al-Monitor: How could this trend be stopped?
Yuksek: We don’t want the problem to grow into a civil war, we want a settlement through democratic means. What we are asking for is not something impossible for Turkey. We want that universal norms of democracy be implemented here as well.
Al-Monitor: What should be done to stop the clashes in the immediate term?
Yuksek: We think that international and domestic public pressure are necessary. The government has rejected everything we have proposed to end the clashes. As a first step, curfews should be lifted. This could create an atmosphere to sit down and talk. The government, however, is currently far from such a move because there is no pressure on it. It has legitimized the situation, portraying its war as a struggle against terrorism.
Al-Monitor: You went to Russia in December as part of a Kurdish delegation. Did you discuss this issue there as well?
Yuksek: Turkey’s internal problems were not part of the discussions there. But Russia is following the developments. We made no request to Russia to put pressure on Turkey. The expectations we expressed vis-a-vis Russia were along the following lines: Russia is an influential power in the region, especially in Syria, and the Kurds want to live in freedom in their homelands in this region. So, the Russians, too, need to refresh their point of view on the issue and acknowledge the status of the Kurds. We made no request concerning specifically the Kurds in Turkey. We are watching the Russia-China-Iran bloc, but we have no intention to be part of this bloc or to seek the settlement of problems via this bloc.

Sweden's Afghan "Rapefugees"
Ingrid Carlqvist/Gatestone Institute/January 20, 2016
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7260/sweden-rape-afghan-migrants
Translation of the original text: Sveriges afghanska "rapefugees"
Translated by Maria Celander
Some 90 young men -- "mostly Afghan refugee kids," according to police -- were apprehended in connection with the mass sexual assaults at the concert.
A recurring theme in recent articles by prominent feminists is the assertion that ethnic Swedish men act exactly the same as migrant gang-rapists.
One can draw only one conclusion: Feminists would rather protect Muslim men from criticism than protect Swedish women from sexual assaults.
None of the women's shelters would admit that the mass sexual abuse of Swedish women might have anything to do with the perpetrators' ethnicity or religion. They did not wish to "generalize," they said -- then hung up.
What Swedish politicians intend to do about the "Rapefugees" that are now in the country is anyone's guess.
On New Year's Eve, the same kind of mass sexual assaults that happened to women in Cologne -- in Arabic called the "Taharrush" game -- also took place in Sweden, but the police and the media have chosen to bury the information. The men, it turned out, were mainly Afghan, and claiming to be "unaccompanied refugee children."
In reality, many of them are much older than 18, and are now commonly referred to with the recently coined name, "Rapefugees," rather than "refugee children."
It recently emerged that the Immigration Service urged its administrators to accept as a "child" everyone who looked under the age of 40 -- apparently without any thought as to how inappropriate it is to place grown men in elementary and secondary schools with teenage girls. As Sweden -- until December -- kept its doors wide open to the migrants of the world, the country has accepted vastly more asylum seekers than its Nordic neighbors. Statistics for 2012-2015 are available via Eurostat, and provide the following statistics on the number of migrant arrivals:
Sweden: 342,635
Norway: 63,370
Denmark: 41,290
Finland: 40,470
Iceland: 675
Many who seek asylum in Sweden come from war-torn Syria: 51,338 in 2015. Afghanistan comes in at second place with 41,564 for the last year -- an increase of a staggering 1,239% compared to 2014. Most of the Afghans seeking asylum claim to be children, and are therefore fast-tracked to being admitted within six months of the asylum application.
A few days after the story broke on the "Circle of Hell" attacks in Cologne, the alternative media website Nyheter Idag revealed that the respected daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, had known about similar attacks at a music festival in Stockholm in August 2015, but had declined to write about it.
Possibly to defend itself against accusations of a cover-up, Dagens Nyheter furiously attacked the Stockholm police. The newspaper claimed that the police had refused to corroborate reports of the attacks, thus tying the publishers' hands and preventing the newspaper from running the story. Dagens Nyheter even claimed that a high-ranking police officer said, "This is a sore spot. Sometimes we are afraid to tell the truth because that might benefit the Sweden Democrats. The police do need to take responsibility for this."
The police have accepted the blame -- partly. The National Police Chief, Dan Eliasson, has now been tasked with investigating why the information was withheld.
Political decisions are not supposed to be made by the police. The leader of the Sweden Democrats Party, Jimmie Åkesson, reacted strongly to his party even being mentioned in this context, and demanded that National Police Chief Eliasson immediately be removed from office. Eliasson has long been a controversial figure. He started his career as a bass player in the punk rock band Bad Boo Band, best known for the radio hit song "Knulla i Bangkok" (F**king in Bangkok"), released in 1979. After his music career faded, Eliasson pursued a career in politics and public administration, and worked closely with several government ministers of the Social Democrat Party. When the Social Democrats lost the election in 2006, he was appointed Director General of the Immigration Service (2007-2011); then became Director General of the Social Security Service. In January 2015, he was appointed National Police Chief.
Despite such a roaring career, Eliasson has, on several occasions, made a spectacle of himself. In June 2007, the former Chancellor of Justice, Göran Lambertz, revealed that Eliasson, then State Secretary with the Justice Department, tried to get Lambertz to stop criticizing flaws in the Swedish judicial system. Eliasson's request came after the Chancellor of Justice had initiated a report on the many Swedish men who had been wrongly convicted, mainly of sex crimes.
"I particularly remember meeting Bodström's [then Minister of Justice] State Secretary in May 2006," Lambertz said in a radio interview. "Eliasson made it clear that the minister would publicly renounce me if I did not tone down my criticism. I perceived this as undue influence."
As head of Social Services, Eliasson tweeted in February 2014 that the mere sight on TV of the Sweden Democrats' party leader, Jimmie Åkesson, made him physically sick. And now Eliasson is supposed to head an investigation into why the police withheld information on how "Rapefugees" attacked Swedish girls at the music festival "We Are Sthlm" [short for Stockholm] in August 2015?
When the news of the mass sexual assaults finally broke in early January, it was clear that the men involved had been so-called "unaccompanied refugee children." Some 90 young men were apprehended by the police in connection with the sexual assaults. "According to an internal police report," Dagens Nyheter wrote, "there was a large group of young people, 'most.
In a similar scandal, it was also recently revealed that Swedish girls were sexually assaulted by groups of young men "of foreign background" in the summer of 2015, during a music festival in Malmö's Pildammsparken park. The photographer Freddy Mardell told internet radio station Granskning Sverige that he witnessed the chaos, with crying, hysterical girls. Mardell took photographs and offered them to local daily newspaper, Kvällsposten. The newspaper declined to publish them.
Scenes from a Malmö summer music festival... Left: Four young men surround and sexually assault a young woman. Right: Police arrest a suspect, as sexual assault victims cry in the background. The photographer reported that Swedish girls were sexually assaulted by groups of young men "of foreign background."
It is also now clear that girls were attacked by large groups of Muslim men on New Year's Eve in the Swedish cities of Kalmar and Malmö as well. The daily newspaper Kvällsposten reported that "gangs of young men surrounded inebriated girls on New Year's Eve in Malmö." Incidents happened in several locations in Malmö city, around the King's Park and Central Station.
One police report read: "Something that stood out compared to earlier years was that a couple of hundred that I perceive as 'unaccompanieds from Afghanistan' drifted around the city, causing mayhem. There were several cases of large gangs surrounding mostly intoxicated girls/women and molesting them." In Kalmar, where people had gathered in the square, Larmtorget, to celebrate, several girls were subjected to sexual molestation. So far, 16-17 complaints have been filed to the police.
"Lisa" told the local paper, Barometern:
"We stood at the edge of the square at first, but we noticed immediately how many men were in the square and when we went out there, things got really unpleasant. These were men who did not speak Swedish, men of all ages. They surrounded us and started groping; they also took hold of people's heads and forcibly kissed their cheeks and foreheads. When we told them to leave or stop, they just laughed at us and asked 'What have I done?' We have all reported this to the police. It is outrageous that one should have to be afraid to go out at night or ride a bus alone in the evening. And we are not the only ones who have had this experience; I have girlfriends in Kalmar who say that they would rather not go out by themselves after dark. One thing is for sure, I will never celebrate New Year's in Kalmar again, I would rather stay with my parents at home."
Swedish feminists appear to be the group least upset by the "Rapefugee" attacks. They turn their backs on the victims by refusing to acknowledge that mass sexual abuse such as Taharrush is part of Sweden's new reality.
During the past week, newspapers have been overflowing with opinion pieces in which various feminists claim that these attacks have nothing to do with religion or ethnicity, but with the bare fact that the perpetrators are men. One can draw only one conclusion: Feminists would rather protect Muslim men from criticism than protect Swedish women from sexual assaults. A recurring theme in the articles is the assertion that ethnic Swedish men act exactly the same as migrant gang-rapists.
Remarks by feminists go:
The common denominator in sexual abuse is gender, not ethnicity.
Swedish men's views on women is no better.
Criticism of sexual assaults by migrants is racism, disguised as concern for women.
Closed borders are not the answer to sexual harassment.
The last article was written by Gudrun Schyman, an ex-communist and current leader of the Feminist Initiative Party. In an interview with the podcast, "The Feminist Inspection," Schyman said that mass sexual assaults are "nothing new" but "have been around for a very long time in all of our countries. "That is just how it is," Schyman claimed, "men take liberties when anonymity and proximity enable them. I do not think it has accelerated, it is just that the propensity to report it has increased."
Viktor Banke, a (male) feminist and lawyer, lamented in the free daily, Metro, that the attacks "play right into the hands of the Sweden Democrats... If necessary," he wrote, "we should be able to talk about a perpetrator's background. But we cannot afford to let the debate on the vulnerability of women be hijacked by people who take an interest in women's rights only when they smell a perpetrator of another skin color."
Gatestone Institute called a large number of women's shelters and asked them what they thought about the mass sexual abuse of Swedish women. None would admit that the abuse might have anything to do with ethnicity or religion. They did not wish to "generalize," they said; then, as soon as the question of ethnicity or religion was mentioned, they hung up.
In Norway, however, the police are well aware of the differences between Western and Islamic views of women. Eivind Borge, head of the Tactical Intelligence Department of the National Criminal Investigation Service (Kripos), told the daily newspaper Aftenposten that attacks like those in Sweden and Germany have, to his knowledge, not yet taken place in Norway, but that the police are prepared: "A lot of asylum seekers who have come to Norway during the last few months come from countries where the culture is quite different from ours. Many have grown up in cultures where there is a higher acceptance of various kinds of sexual harassment of women in public places."
Benedicte Bjørnland, Chief of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST), recently spoke at the "People and Defense" ("Folk och Försvar") conference in Sweden. "You cannot assume," she said, "that new arrivals will automatically adapt to the values and rules of Norwegian society. Rapidly increasing immigration, especially from Muslim countries, can also bring other challenges in the long run. When a large number of asylum seekers descend on a local community, it can lead to unfortunate consequences."
In Denmark, the state is permitted to compile statistics on the ethnicity of criminals, something Sweden stopped doing years ago. During the last ten years in Denmark, 615 people have been convicted of rape -- of these, 212 were first- or second-generation immigrants. That number equals more than one third (34.5%) of all convicts, three times higher than the immigrants' share of the population.
Gatestone Institute contacted one of Sweden's best known criminologists, Professor Jerzy Sarnecki of Stockholm University. When asked if it were possible to get statistics that show if Muslims were over-represented in Sweden's rape convictions, Professor Sarnecki replied: "We do not maintain statistics like that in Sweden."
Sarnecki was asked then if the failure to have reliable statistics did not fuel rumors and prejudice.
"Yes," he replied, "or it confirms them. I do not mind such knowledge coming to light. You cannot do something about a problem if you do not have the facts. It is of course possible to do studies by going in and reviewing the criminals, and asking them about their religion, but that has not been done in Sweden as far as I know."
Professor Sarnecki confirmed that immigrants in Sweden convicted for virtually all types of crimes -- sex crimes most of all -- are represented in a proportion greater than their percentage of the population, as shown in 25 studies conducted between 1974 and 2005. The latest report was called "Crime among persons born in Sweden and abroad" ("Brottslighet bland personer födda i Sverige och i utlandet"). Sarnecki says that because the statistics are unequivocal, he believes further studies would be pointless.
Swedish men are outraged by the current debate. On social media, many say that they have been unfairly singled out -- and most definitely do not want to be associated with men who commit gang rape.
From a sampling of social media posts and comments:
Conrad: "It makes me furious that feminists claim that I would behave like these barbarians, simply because we belong to the same gender."
Fredrik: "I am not easily offended, but I am pissed off, sad and insulted that I am being lumped together with other men as a potential gang rapist. I have almost had a falling out with some of my female friends, after they have urged men on Facebook to 'talk to each other' to prevent rapes in the future. WTF? Do women believe that normal men talk to their friends about this? If I knew someone who had committed a rape, that bastard would immediately be reported to the police and then be left without a social network."
Jan: "I do not want to be compared to these uncivilized ogres. Very offensive that feminist writers point the finger at an entire group for something very few have done. It is called collective punishment..."
Willy: "If one is to believe the arguments of feminist debaters about the rape attacks, there is only one solution: Exterminate all men."
Lorentz: "The comparison with Swedish men is base and grotesque."
Johan: "Swedish feminists live in one of the most gender-equal countries in the world. That balance is now tipping over, and Swedish women are no longer safe in the streets. So what are the feminists fighting for? The view of women? No, they are trying to kick the timid, equal Swedish men. Talk about denial and cowardice."
Tommy: "This is obviously a problem we have had in the past, that good upbringing and gender equality have freed us from. But increased immigration, mostly by Muslim men, puts us back not to square one, but to square -500."
Mathias: "I have been brought up to respect women. I would never ever lay hand on a woman or rape her. It is ingrained in my soul. It is our task as men to protect our women against the threat that they face."

What Swedish politicians intend to do about the "Rapefugees" that are now in the country is anyone's guess. Prime Minister Stefan Löfven's only comment so far was:
"First, I want to say that I am very angry that young women cannot go to a music festival without being violated, sexually harassed and attacked. This is a very big problem to those affected, but also a democratic problem for our entire country and we should therefore not budge an inch. We should not close our eyes and look away. We should address such a serious problem."
The Swedish people are still waiting to see where the Prime Minister will look.
***Ingrid Carlqvist is a journalist and author based in Sweden, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute.

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.january20.16.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006 Click Here to go to the LCCC Daily English/Arabic News Buletins Archieves Since 2006

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to go to the LCCC Daily English/Arabic News Buletins Archieves Since 2006