LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

September 16/16

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletin16/english.september16.16.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

God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble
Peter’s First Letter 05/01-11/:"I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and who will also share in the glory that will be revealed. Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, not for dishonest gain, but willingly; neither as lording it over those entrusted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock. When the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the crown of glory that doesn’t fade away. Likewise, you younger ones, be subject to the elder. Yes, all of you clothe yourselves with humility, to subject yourselves to one another; for “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time; casting all your worries on him, because he cares for you. Be sober and self-controlled. Be watchful. Your adversary, the devil, walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Withstand him steadfast in your faith, knowing that your brothers who are in the world are undergoing the same sufferings. But may the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. To him be the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen"
 

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 15-16/16

Lebanon’s new leaders seek to secure power/Michael Young/The National/September 15/16

Syrian regime and the Golan Heights: A wakeup call/Mshari Al Thaydi/Al Arabiya/September 15/16
Aleppo beyond a ceasefire/Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya/September 15/16
What if the world adopted a ‘mind your own business’ policy/Mohammed Nosseir/Al Arabiya/September 15/16
Rise of Iran-backed militias jeopardizes US aid to Iraq/Julian Pecquet/Al-Monitor/September 15/16
‘We Misled You’: How the Saudis Are Coming Clean on Funding Terrorism/ Zalmay Khalilzad/ POLITICO/September 15/16
Iranian General Discusses Shi'ite Liberation Army Under Command Of Qassem Soleimani, Who Is Subordinate To Supreme Leader Khamenei/MEMRI/September 15/16
Labour Whitewashes its Anti-Semitism/Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/September 15/16
Calling Congress: The U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding/Shoshana Bryen/ Gatestone Institute/September 15/16
Impervious Hubris: How U.S. Intelligence Failures Led to ISIS/Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/September 15/16

Titles For Latest Lebanese Related News published on on September 15-16/16
Senior Hezbollah official met FPM leaders: report says
Hariri: Iranian regime is spreading terrorism in Islamic world
Western Ambassadors Meet Salam: To Convene a Parliamentary Session and Proceed With the Election of a President
Report: Mossad Plots Jumblat's Assassination
Report: FPM Wants to Embarrass LF into Street Rally Participation
General Security: Tarras Met in Turkey with Man behind Bekaa Bombs, Naameh Car
LF Rallies in Ashrafieh to Demand Govt. Action on Tripoli Blasts Suspects
Activists Cross Grand Serail Barrier in Warning to 'Corrupt' Authorities
Wahhab: Arab Tawhid Party Does Not Believe in Violence
Hariri Denounces Iran’s Role 'Spreading Terrorism' in Islamic World
Harb Lashes out at FPM without Naming
Several Hurt in Lebanese-Palestinian Clash in al-Beddawi
Lebanese Army Arrests 30 Palestinians over Beddawi Armed Clashes
Report: Nasrallah-Aoun Meeting 'Inevitable' as FPM Decides Escalation
Sami Gemayel, Shorter tackle current developments
Bou Saab kicks off Back to School academic year 2016 2017: Every child has right to education
New Patent for AUB with new drug for treating child disease
Environment Minister from Washington: To pay Lebanon due compensations after oil pollution
Zasypkin meets Communist Party delegation
Young man injured in shooting in Tyre
Salam receives Mokbel, Girard

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on on September 15-16/16
U.N. Pleads for Syria Aid Access after Truce Extended
Rebels preparing advance on Hama: reports
Russia Says Syrian Regime Forces Pulling Back from Key Aleppo Road
German, French FMs Make First Visit to War-Torn East Ukraine
Saudi official warns Iran: Attack us at your own risk
Trump adviser says GOP nominee won’t push Israel on peace deal if elected
Iran- UN High commissioner for human rights: “my Office has been given no access since 2013.”
Iran: Bereaved sister does not forgive criminal prosecutor
Creating a black market in Mashhad Prison by the prison officials

Links From Jihad Watch Site for on September 15-16/16
UK: David Cameron ‘ultimately responsible’ for Libya collapse and rise of the Islamic State, says House of Commons report
UK: Muslim teen plotted jihad massacres at Buckingham palace and Elton John concert
New York: Muslim woman set on fire not hate crime, attacker targeted non-Muslims also
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Why the War On Terror Has Taken 15 Years, and Will Take Much Longer
The Burkini Ban Protects Women — a Daniel Greenfield Moment
Raymond Ibrahim: Impervious Hubris: How U.S. Intelligence Failures Led to ISIS
Netherlands: Muslims film themselves terrorizing community, brag about lack of police response
Australia: Muslim accused of planning jihad terror attack from behind bars
Accused jihadi’s trial postponed until after election because of “virulent anti-Muslim rhetoric”
Gilles Kepel: Keep Those Muslims Satisfied, Keep Europe For Them A Big Rock Candy Mountain
Calais: Muslim migrants beat up local police
Free Afshin Sohrabzadeh!
Germany: Hijab fashion stores linked to Salafism
Hugh Fitzgerald: A Few Questions For Simon Collis

Links From Christian Today Site for on September 15-16/16
Human rights watchdog warns of worsening climate of Christian persecution in Egypt
Church becomes first Birmingham organisation to sponsor family of Syrian refugees
Church of England sets up new body on sexuality
Anglicans, Catholics and Muslims do battle... on the cricket field
Religion in the US is worth $1.2 trillion, new study shows
ISIS 'sows death' with mines on the Nineveh Plain as it runs from government forces
Rare gold coin with Nero's face found in Jerusalem
Church attendance has risen since Fr Jacques Hamel's murder, says Archbishop
MPs condemn 'scandal' of UK failure over FGM
Trump interrupted by pastor as he uses church address to attack Clinton
Merkel wants Germany to get refugees into workforce faster
Cardinal tipped to be pope warns of 'Islamic conquest of Europe'
Britain must be confident in Christian identity says top Muslim peer
Kenya pressuring refugees to leave against their will, claims human rights group

Latest Lebanese Related News published on on September 15-16/16

Senior Hezbollah official met FPM leaders: report says
The Daily Star/September 15/16/BEIRUT: A senior Hezbollah official met with the head of the Free Patriotic Movement last week to discuss the latter’s decision to boycott Cabinet sessions, a local newspaper said Thursday. According to Al-Joumhouria newspaper, meeting was between the head of Hezbollah’s Liaison Unit, Wafiq Safa. And FPM leader Gebran Bassil. Safa later headed to Rabieh on Friday to meet with Change and Reform bloc leader Michel Aoun, as well as Bassil again. As well as the FPM’s Cabinet boycott, they discussed a number of positions that the party has taken. The FPM announced Wednesday that it would stage protests on Sept. 28 and Oct. 13 in response to perceived slights in Cabinet and at national dialogue sessions. Bassil has expressed concerns over the implementation of the National Charter, particularly with regards to equal power sharing between Muslims and Christians. “If they do not elect Michel Aoun as president during [the parliamentary election session] on [Sept.] 28, then we will commence a series of escalatory measures. We will go down to the streets and we will not leave until we achieve our objectives,” FPM media spokesperson Habib Youness said. “We will be heading to all the ministries and the public institutions, not to cripple them and cause people discomfort, but to show our numbers and our strength.”

Hariri: Iranian regime is spreading terrorism in Islamic world
Thursday, 15 September 2016/NCRI - Former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri condemned the Iranian regime’s meddling in the region, saying that it plays a direct role in breeding and spreading terrorism in the Islamic world, Daily Star reported. The Iranian regime is “leading the widest operation to destroy the Arab societies, from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, Yemen and every country infiltrated by the Revolutionary Guards," the leader of Future Movement said. He said the regime in Tehran is responsible "for displacing the Syrian people, dividing Iraq, impairing Yemen’s unity and helping those accused of killing Rafic Hariri to escape."

Lebanon’s new leaders seek to secure power
Michael Young/The National/September 15/16

http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2016/09/15/michael-youngthe-national-lebanons-new-leaders-seek-to-secure-power/
In recent weeks, Lebanon has faced two crises, and both told us something about political succession. A new generation of leaders is emerging, and their preferred way of consolidating their hold on power is to heighten polarisation.
The first crisis came after the decision of the Free Patriotic Movement’s leader, Gebran Bassil, to boycott Lebanon’s national dialogue sessions, on the ground that he had not received adequate answers on equal power-sharing between Christians and Muslims.
The second crisis involved rubbish, and was provoked by Sami Gemayel, who heads the Kataeb Party. Mr Gemayel and his followers prevented the preparation of a landfill near Bourj Hammoud, in Beirut’s eastern suburb, arguing that dumping waste there would pollute the sea and was hazardous.
To an extent both protests were justified, and yet this was probably not the primary reason why they took place. The role of Christians in the state has indeed been reduced, a consequence of the demographic decline of the community. Lebanon’s politics today are largely defined by dynamics shaped by the Sunni and Shia communities.
As for Mr Gemayel, his beef against the Bourj Hammoud landfill was also fair, and the fact that environmental activists supported him tended to confirm this. The landfill is an abomination so near an urban area, and is testimony to the government’s unwillingness to resolve the refuse crisis of last summer through environmentally sound methods.
However, what was also obvious was that Mr Bassil, like Mr Gemayel, is in the process of consolidating his hold on a political party that was handed to him. Mr Bassil took control over the FPM thanks to the intervention of his father-in-law, Michel Aoun, who forced a rival competitor for the leadership post in elections last year to withdraw in his favour.
Since then Mr Bassil has been trying to strengthen himself in a party in which he is not especially popular. Last July, three prominent FPM officials were expelled for challenging the leadership’s decision to forge an alliance with Saad Hariri in municipal elections in Beirut.
However, in late July, in internal elections to select candidates for parliamentary elections, a significant number of members voted for Mr Bassil’s rivals in the party, including those who had been expelled.
Mr Bassil is well aware that one of the things facilitating his grip on the FPM today is the presence of Mr Aoun, who, without a son of his own, has shown an uncanny devotion to his son-in-law. But when Mr Aoun, who is 82, passes away, the trials facing Mr Bassil are certain to increase. That is why he would like to cement his authority now, before that happens.
His boycott of the national dialogue fits in perfectly with this strategy. By focusing on the hot-button issue of Christian under-representation, he sought to portray himself as a champion of communal interests.
This would allow him to reinforce his standing within the FPM and better face down any challenge from his right. Mr Bassil is not subtle, but his tactics may work, so great is the Christian sense of alienation.
Mr Gemayel was also given his Kataeb Party, this time from his father Amin Gemayel. The challenges to his authority are not as pronounced as those faced by Mr Bassil. However, there are party stalwarts who are not necessarily sympathetic to their young leader’s populism, or to his tendency to speechify.
But Sami Gemayel’s main problem is electoral. He is from a district in which his electoral ambitions are in the hands of both Mr Aoun and the Armenian Tashnag Party, who control large blocs of voters who can shut out Mr Gemayel if they so decide.
By picking a fight over an environmentally explosive issue for the large Armenian population of Bourj Hammoud, Mr Gemayel probably hoped to gain leverage in forth coming elections.
Mr Gemayel’s demands in the rubbish crisis were aimed at raising sympathy in several quarters. He has sought to break the monopoly of the main refuse-collection company Sukleen, which collects trash in Beirut and Mount Lebanon, by decentralising collection and placing it in the hands of municipalities. Sukleen is largely perceived as a Sunni-controlled company, so Mr Gemayel was also playing on Christian sectarian sensitivities.
Still, Mr Gemayel announced the suspension of his protests last week, with little having been achieved. This highlighted his inexperience, even if he was always more interested in the battle than in the results. Perhaps that said a great deal about the depth of the aspirations of Lebanon’s younger leadership.
Other leaders are also slowly handing power over to their sons, such as Walid Jumblatt and his son Taymour – who seems more sedate. The only problem is that it’s the Lebanese who have to pay for the manoeuvres by young leaders to overcome their political insecurities. But these leaders don’t much care.
**Michael Young is a writer and editor in Beirut

Western Ambassadors Meet Salam: To Convene a Parliamentary Session and Proceed With the Election of a President
Naharnet/September 15/16/The Ambassadors of France, the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon met on Thursday with Prime Minister Tammam Salam and reaffirmed their strong support for the continued stability and security of Lebanon, a joint statement said. “The ambassadors and the Special Coordinator commended the efforts of the Prime Minister to govern under increasingly difficult circumstances and conveyed their ongoing support for his work,” said the statement. “They called on all Lebanese parties to work responsibly in the national interest, to enable government institutions to function effectively, and to ensure that key decisions are taken, at a time when mounting security, economic, social and humanitarian challenges are facing Lebanon.”Recalling the Presidential Statement of the Security Council of 22 July, Ambassadors and the Special Coordinator expressed their “deepening concern over the twenty-seven-month vacancy in the presidency of Lebanon, which continues to cause blockages in the council of ministers and to render the parliament incapable of passing critical legislation. “They urged all Lebanese leaders to put aside their differences in the broader interest of Lebanon and its people, and to act with leadership and flexibility to convene urgently a parliamentary session and proceed with the election of a President.”Ambassadors and the Special Coordinator underscored the Security Council’s previous calls to all parties to recommit to Lebanon’s policy of disassociation, consistent with the ministerial declaration of the current Government and the Baabda Declaration of 12 June 2012. They discussed with Salam the question of the upcoming legislative elections. They looked forward to the timely holding of the 2017 elections, which will strengthen Lebanon’s stability and preserve and renew the democratic nature of the Lebanese Republic. They welcomed the intent of the government of Lebanon to take steps to ensure that elections be held on time.Ambassadors and the Special Coordinator looked forward to the upcoming summit meetings on migration and refugees on the 71st General assembly. Recognizing Lebanon’s unique role in hosting refugees, they encouraged the Government of Lebanon to show global leadership and put forward constructive proposals in this connection.

Report: Mossad Plots Jumblat's Assassination
Naharnet/September 15/16/A judicial source in the Military Court which received the preliminary investigation in the case of detained Youssef Fakhreddine, nicknamed the Cowboy, said that the suspect is involved in a Mossad planning of an assassination attempt against Druze leader MP Walid Jumblat, As Safir daily reported on Wednesday.Fakhreddine has been arrested by the General Security about a month and a half ago on suspicion of dealing with the Israeli enemy and for involvement in buying arms and forming armed groups, added the daily. The suspect is involved in an assassination attempt against head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Jumblat. He is also accused of fomenting sedition among the Druze and Lebanese communities as commissioned by the Mossad through a Syrian agent known as Mandi al-Safadi (born in the occupied Golan) who worked directly with the office of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. “Preliminary investigations with Youssef Fakhreddine have shown that during his two visits to Lebanon he was tasked with buying weapons and forming armed groups for the purpose of creating a specific environment among the Druze community to relate it to the Syrian situation and the Israeli plans on the southern front (of Syria),” said the judicial source on condition of anonymity. Early in September, assassination threats against Jumblat emerged and the security measures were upped around his place of residence in Beirut, media reports had said.

Report: FPM Wants to Embarrass LF into Street Rally Participation
Naharnet/September 15/16/The Free Patriotic Movement bloc chose to brand its planned street movements under the title of commitment to the National Pact in order to embarrass its allies into participation in the rally it called for on September 28 and October 7, media reports said on Thursday. Change and Reform ministerial sources said that the FPM decided to raise the slogan of the “National Pact” in its demonstration in an attempt to embarrass its allies mainly the Lebanese Forces to push them towards participation. The sources added that it has become clear for the FPM that the Lebanese Forces will not take part in street rallies in protest to a suggestion to extend the term of Army Commander General Jean Qahwaji and has therefore chose another title for its moves. The Lebanese Forces would be embarrassed if they chose to stay outside the circle of participation since commitment to the “National Pact” is a sensitive issue among the Christian community, analyzed the sources. “Taking to the streets is something agreed upon with the Lebanese Forces,” they stated “it is normal for the LF to involve in the popular movement even though the details of participation with regard to the areas and numbers have not been yet resolved.” On Wednesday, the Change and Reform announced that it has started mobilizing for street protests on September 28 and October 13 as part of its escalatory steps that are aimed at pressing the other parties in the country to “abide by the National Pact.” FPM chief Jebran Bassil has threatened that the FPM would “topple the government” through street protests if the other parties do not heed the movement's demand regarding “partnership” and the National Pact. The 1943 National Pact is an unwritten agreement that set the foundations of modern Lebanon as a multi-confessional state based on Christian-Muslim partnership. On the other hand, senior March 8 sources pointed out: “Hizbullah has no relation with the street movements of the FPM. The party has not yet decided if it will take part in future cabinet meetings or not.”

General Security: Tarras Met in Turkey with Man behind Bekaa Bombs, Naameh Car
Naharnet/September 15/16/The General Directorate of General Security wrapped up Thursday its investigations into the bombing that rocked Zahle's Ksara area in late August, noting that Sheikh Bassam al-Tarras was briefly held in the case for interrogation over a meeting in Turkey with the attack's mastermind.
“The case, the detainees and the seized items were referred to the army's intelligence directorate at the request of State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr,” General Security said in a statement.
“The busted terrorist cell that comprises Lebanese and Syrian nationals was receiving instructions and logistic support from the Turkey-based Lebanese fugitive Mohammed Qassem al-Ahmed, aka Abou al-Baraa,” the directorate added. It reiterated that Abou al-Baraa is wanted over the booby-trapped car that was discovered in the Naameh area in 2013. Abou al-Baraa's real identity was unveiled by Tarras during interrogation, General Security said, noting that Tarras' file has also been referred to the army's intelligence directorate. Tarras had met in “Turkey's Lares area with Abou al-Baraa, the Lebanese A. M. Gh. who is currently in custody, and the Turkey-based Lebanese national B. A. Kh.,” the directorate said. The four men held their meeting in an apartment owned by the Syrian M. H. R., aka Abou Alaa, who is wanted in several terror cases, General Security added. “This cell was also receiving technical support from the Syrian A. F. A., who entered Lebanon via the International Committee of the Red Cross through the town of Arsal after he was injured in the Syrian war in which he was fighting alongside Liwaa al-Islam,” the directorate said. “He appointed himself as an emir over the cell and its members pledged allegiance to him,” General Security added. The busted cell was operating in the Bekaa region and its activities involved recruiting members for Syria-based terrorist groups, providing bomb-making material, and surveilling Lebanese regions with the aim of staging bomb attacks, the directorate said. According to General Security, the cell was behind the August 31 Zahle bombing as well as the explosive device that was discovered on the Saadnayel-Zahle road on May 6. “Lebanese detainees A. M. Gh. and W. A. S. prepared the two explosive devices at the latter's house in Saadnayel. They then planted the first bomb at Abdullah al-Kurdi's showroom in collaboration with the Syrian M. A. B., who is a bomb-making expert, while the second bomb was placed on Zahle's Ksara road by A. M. Gh. and M. Sh. R.,” the directorate explained. According to An Nahar newspaper, Abdullah al-Kurdi, the son of the showroom's owner Jihad al-Kurdi, “has links to the Hizbullah-affiliated Resistance Brigades.”Quoting security sources, An Nahar said the bomb weighed 4.5 kilograms of explosives. The brief arrest of Tarras, a former mufti of the Rashaya area, had created an uproar in Lebanon's Sunni community, especially among the ranks of the influential Muslim Scholars Committee and some Islamic activists. The Ksara bomb attack left an elderly woman dead and at least ten people wounded. The explosive device that was placed at a busy roundabout was targeted against AMAL Movement convoys that were carrying supporters to a rally commemorating Imam Moussa al-Sadr in the southern city of Tyre, AMAL Movement leader and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said a day after the attack. Other vehicles were hit by the blast shortly after AMAL buses passed by the roundabout, reports have said.
 

LF Rallies in Ashrafieh to Demand Govt. Action on Tripoli Blasts Suspects
Naharnet/September 15/16/Lebanese Forces students staged a sit-in Thursday at Ashrafieh's Sassine Square to press the government to demand the handover of two Syrian officers indicted with involvement in the deadly 2013 blasts that rocked two Tripoli mosques.“The regime that assassinated (LF founder and president-elect) Bashir (Gemayel) is the same regime that kidnapped Butros Khawand and blew up the Our Lady of Salvation Church and the two Tripoli mosques,” Jad Demian, the head of the LF student department, said at the rally. He also revealed that the department has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Tammam Salam, hoping to receive an answer soon in order to hand the premier a memo regarding the demands. On September 2, Lebanon's judiciary indicted two Syrian intelligence officers it accused of masterminding the deadly blasts. The double bombing killed 45 people and wounded more than 500, and a series of indictments have already been handed down against Lebanese and Syrians accused of involvement. The indictment names Captain Mohamed Ali Ali, an official in the Palestine branch of Syria's intelligence services, and Nasser Jouban, an official in Syria's political security branch. The two men, neither of whom is in custody, are accused of helping to prepare the attack, placing explosives in cars and assigning a Lebanese cell to carry out the bombing. The attacks targeted two Sunni mosques in Tripoli, which has frequently experienced tensions between Sunnis and Alawites who belong to the same religious minority as Syrian President Bashar Assad and tend to support his government. The indictment alleges the attacks also involved other high-ranking Syrian officials, who are accused of directing Ali and Jouban to organize them. The blasts in the northern city were the deadliest attack in Lebanon since the country's 1975-1990 civil war and raised fears that the conflict in neighboring Syria could be inexorably seeping across the border.Lebanon's political landscape is largely divided between parties that back Assad and those who support the uprising against him that began in March 2011.

Activists Cross Grand Serail Barrier in Warning to 'Corrupt' Authorities
Naharnet/September 15/16/Activists from the We Want Accountability civil society campaign breached the security barb wire outside the Grand Serail on Thursday, describing their move as a “warning message.”“Civil society activists crossed the Grand Serail's barb wire, shouting slogans against the extension of the parliament's term, and security forces have encircled the area,” MTV reported. Other media reports said the activists also tried to block some roads around the Grand Serail. “We have returned to the street to confront the authorities' corruption, starting with the garbage crisis, and we will have escalatory steps,” We Want Accountability spokesman Wasef al-Harakeh told reporters. The activists also warned against any new extension of the parliament's term, demanding an electoral law based on proportional representation. Announcing that the new wave of protests will be held under the slogan of “popular legitimacy,” Harakeh called on citizens to “take to the streets to hold the officials accountable.”“Our confrontation with the ruling class is open-ended and we want to hold accountable those who robbing the state,” he said. Last year's unprecedented garbage crisis had sparked massive demos against the entire political class and We Want Accountability was one of the leading campaigns.

Wahhab: Arab Tawhid Party Does Not Believe in Violence
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 15/16/Former minister Wiam Wahhab stressed Thursday that his Arab Tawhid Party “does not believe in violence” as a way to settle political differences, after one of its members was arrested for hurling an explosive device in the Bekaa town of Majdal Anjar. “The Arab Tawhid Party does not believe in violence, although one of the party's members has made a reaction in response to certain provocations,” Wahhab said during a meeting at his residence for the Lebanese National and Islamic Parties and Forces grouping, which comprises most of the March 8 camp factions. The detained party member, Hisham Abou Diab, has confessed to hurling the explosive device that went off under the car of Mohammed Salim Abdul Khaleq in Majdal Anjar on September 6. Abou Diab told interrogators that he “acted on his own” after being “infuriated by the banner that insults the leader of the Arab Tawhid Party,” al-Akhbar newspaper has reported. Abdul Khaleq was behind hoisting the anti-Wahhab banner on the al-Masnaa international highway, according to media reports. Two Syrian refugee children were lightly wounded in the dawn bomb attack. Abdul Khaleq had slammed Wahhab as a “bastard” in the banner after the former minister accused a contractor from the Hammoud family of corruption during a TV show and in meetings with popular delegations at his residence, media reports said. Hammoud “has become stronger than the State and he is seeking to deprive citizens of ten hours of power supply because he has influence over some ministers and is seeking illegal financial gains,” Wahhab said.

Hariri Denounces Iran’s Role 'Spreading Terrorism' in Islamic World
Naharnet/September 15/16/Al-Mustaqbal Movement chief ex-PM Saad Hariri described the Iranian political and media war against Saudi Arabia as “an episode in a dangerous series that only aims at exacerbating discord and threatening stability in the region.”“After the irresponsible words of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on the eve of Eid al-Adha, his foreign minister came out with a text full of hatred against Saudi Arabia,” said Hariri on Twitter. “Zarif used an American media platform to incite the American administration and the American people against Saudi Arabia. The platforms of the “great Satan” are now considered suitable by the Iranian leadership to express satanic views,” he added. “Iran is leading the widest operation to destroy the Arab societies starting from Lebanon to Syria, Iraq, Yemen and every country infiltrated by the Revolutionary Guards.”“Iran is a direct partner in breeding terrorism and spreading it in the Islamic world, as can be seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria. Those responsible for displacing the Syrian people, dividing Iraq, impairing Yemen’s unity and helping those accused of killing Rafik Hariri to escape, have no rights to point the finger at Saudi Arabia and its history of protecting moderation,” remarked Hariri.

Harb Lashes out at FPM without Naming
Telecommunications Minister Boutros Harb stated on Thursday that parties claiming to be defending the rights of the Christians are the same ones hampering the election of a president and thus harming the Christians' right to have a Maronite head of state. “Those raising the slogan of defending the Christians' rights and the National Pact are deluding the people that the lingering conflict over positions is between Muslims and Christians,” said Harb in a press conference.“The competition is not between the Muslims and Christians but between the Christians themselves over the Christian positions in the authority and (state) administrations,” added the Minister.“It is unfortunate how obstructing the constitution, preventing the election of a president and paralyzing the state institutions have become a political tool used by a political party to blackmail the Lebanese,” he went on to say. Harb was referring to the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc that said on Wednesday that it has started mobilizing for street protests on September 28 and October 13 as part of its escalatory steps that are aimed at pressing the other parties in the country to “abide by the National Pact.”“Instead of launching threats to take to the streets, let us go to the parliament and elect a president instead,” Harb remarked. Free Patriotic Movement leader and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil has threatened that the FPM would “topple the government” through street protests if the other parties do not heed the movement's demand regarding “partnership” and the National Pact. The FPM, which has the biggest Christian bloc in parliament, has suspended its participation in cabinet sessions and national dialogue meetings over accusations that other parties in the country are not respecting the National Pact.

Several Hurt in Lebanese-Palestinian Clash in al-Beddawi
Naharnet/September 15/16/Several people were wounded Wednesday when a personal dispute erupted into an armed clash between Lebanese and Palestinian young men in the northern area of al-Beddawi, media reports said. According to state-run National News Agency, the dispute between the young men started “inside a sports complex and amusement park.” “It then escalated into gunfire and a hand grenade was also hurled,” NNA said. “The army intervened immediately and contained the clash while those involved are being pursued,” the agency added. LBCI television said the clash erupted in the vicinity of the al-Beddawi Palestinian refugee camp, pitting young men from the Zeid and Shabban families. “When the army intervened, one of the young men hurled a hand grenade at the troops, which prompted them to fire in the air and towards the man who threw the grenade,” LBCI added.

Lebanese Army Arrests 30 Palestinians over Beddawi Armed Clashes
Naharnet/September 15/16/The Lebanese army arrested thirty Palestinians on Thursday against the backdrop of a clash that erupted a day earlier in the northern refugee camp of al-Beddawi, the state-run National News Agency reported. The army cordoned off the camp setting checkpoints and taking strict security measures that led to the arrest of the detainees. On Wednesday, several people were wounded in a personal dispute that erupted into an armed clash between Lebanese and Palestinian young men in Beddawi. The dispute between the young men started “inside a sports complex and amusement park,” and then “escalated into gunfire and a hand grenade was also hurled,” media reports had said. The army intervened immediately and contained the clash. LBCI television said the clash erupted in the vicinity of the al-Beddawi Palestinian refugee camp, pitting young men from the Zeid and Shabban families. “When the army intervened, one of the young men hurled a hand grenade at the troops, which prompted them to fire in the air and towards the man who threw the grenade,” LBCI added.

Report: Nasrallah-Aoun Meeting 'Inevitable' as FPM Decides Escalation
Naharnet/September 15/16/A meeting between Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and his ally founder of the Free Patriotic Movement MP Michel Aoun is expected to take place soon, as the FPM vow to escalate measures and launch street rallies should their demand to bring Aoun to the top Christian post fail, As Safir daily reported on Thursday. Sources told the daily on condition of anonymity that the meeting between Aoun and Nasrallah is “inevitable”. It will take place either before the cabinet meets on September 28, if it guarantees to bring Aoun to the seat of the presidency, or after the cabinet meeting in order to put the leadership of Hizbullah in the picture as for the escalation planned by the FPM after the last chance to bring Aoun as president fails. FPM senior figures said that the outcome of the cabinet session on September 28 will be a turning point. It is either that an agreement is reached during the meeting to elect Aoun as head of state or resort to the plan of escalating measures as vowed by the FPM. On the other hand, al-Joumhouria daily said that Wafik Safa, the person responsible for the Liaison Committee and Coordination in Hizbullah, met Aoun last week and met with FPM leader Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil twice. Discussion focused on the FPM decision to escalate measures and boycott the cabinet meetings. The Change and Reform parliamentary bloc announced Wednesday that it has started mobilizing for street protests on September 28 and October 13 as part of its escalatory steps that are aimed at pressing the other parties in the country to “abide by the National Pact.” Bassil has threatened that the FPM would “topple the government” through street protests if the other parties do not heed the movement's demand regarding “partnership” and the National Pact. The FPM, which has the biggest Christian bloc in parliament, has suspended its participation in cabinet sessions and national dialogue meetings over accusations that other parties in the country are not respecting the National Pact

Sami Gemayel, Shorter tackle current developments
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel met on Thursday at the Central Kataeb House in Saifi with British Ambassador to Lebanon, Hugo Shorter, with talks between the pair reportedly touching on most recent developments on the local arena. The meeting took place in the presence of Kataeb politburo members Mira Wakim and Shadi Mearbes.

Bou Saab kicks off Back to School academic year 2016 2017: Every child has right to education
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - National Education and Higher Education Minister, Elias Bou Saab, launched on Thursday 'Back to School' academic year 2016/2017 under the headline of "Ana 7ader" at a press conference at his ministerial office. The press conference was attended by the ambassadors of donor countries and representatives of the United Nations organizations, notably UNICEF, UNHCR, World Bank, UNESCO and media representatives. The Ministry revealed "greater partnership held in Lebanon in support of education under the slogan of 'Ana 7ader' to confirm commitment to providing education for all children in Lebanon for free- Lebanese and non-Lebanese- for the current academic year in public schools. The Ministry aims with its partners this year to "register more than 469 thousand children in schools to benefit from the opportunities of formal and informal education, which means providing free formal education to more than 45 thousand children of refugees and non-Lebanese (additional) compared to last year. The Ministry shall cover- through the support of donor countries and UN organizations- the registration fees, Parents' Fund, textbooks and stationery for all learners in public schools.
Speaking at the press conference, Minister Bou Saab said all schools in Lebanon shall receive all Lebanese and non-Lebanese students on Lebanese territories, stressing the right of every child to have education. Bou Saab stressed the paramount importance of partnership and cooperation with the international community in this regard.

New Patent for AUB with new drug for treating child disease
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - The American University of Beirut (AUB) has added another achievement to its formidable history in medical research, with the invention of Galactosylceramide, the new drug to treat the CLN3 gene disease, one of the most dangerous diseases of children. The invention of Galactosylceramide was the result of intensive efforts by AUBMC's Chief of the Pediatric Neurology Division and Director of Neurogenetics Program and Special Kids Clinic Rose-Mary Boustany, and her team. Dr. Boustany commented: "It is hard not to be able to give an anxious family an accurate diagnosis for their child. It is harder to make a diagnosis and tell the family there is no treatment. It is every physician-scientist's hope to develop a cure for the ills that afflict their patients".She added: "To bring a treatment to the public we must partner with the pharmacological industry to move discoveries into the clinic and market place".Rose-Mary Boustany, MD, is Professor of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine and Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics. She is also a Duke Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics

Environment Minister from Washington: To pay Lebanon due compensations after oil pollution
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - Environment Minister, Mohammad Machnouk, stressed the necessity to help displaced Syrians return to their homeland and to pay Lebanon the due compensations after the pollution affecting the oil zone of the Lebanese shores. Minister Machnouk responded to the invitation made by head of 21COP conference, French Environment Minister, Segolene Royal, to attend a conference over holding a plan to save the mediterranean. Machnouk also participated in the third environmental conference hosted by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, in Washington on September 15, 16, 2016 and tackled environmental issues relevant to the climate, biological diversity and blue economy.

Zasypkin meets Communist Party delegation
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - Russian Ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin met on Thursday with a delegation of the Lebanese Communist Party, with talks featuring high on the political vision of the said party regarding the events taking place on the international, Arab and local arenas. Zasypkin emphasized the role played by Russia in the region, particularly with regard to conflict resolution, through the search for political solutions. He also stressed the importance of the independence of the Russian role in the world and the relations of his country with emerging forces in order to defend international stability and sovereignty of States.

Young man injured in shooting in Tyre
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - Young man Ibrahim Badawi has been injured by gunshots he received in Tyre city, the NNA correspondent said. Army Intelligence, a rescue team and security forces elements rushed to the shooting scene.

Salam receives Mokbel, Girard
Thu 15 Sep 2016/NNA - Prime Minister, Tammam Salam, received on Thursday at the Grand Serail Vice-Premier National Defense Minister, Samir Mokbel, with talks touching on the general situation in the country. Salam also met with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Representative in Lebanon, Mireille Girard, over the situation of refugees in Lebanon and the agenda of the 71st Regular Session of UN General Assembly.
 

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on on September 15-16/16

U.N. Pleads for Syria Aid Access after Truce Extended
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 15/16/The United Nations urged Syria's government Thursday to allow immediate aid deliveries to hunger-stricken civilians after a fragile ceasefire was extended for 48 hours by Russia and the United States. In a sign of renewed tensions between the two powers, who back opposing sides in the conflict, key regime ally Moscow accused Washington of failing to meet its obligations under the truce. The U.N. said 20 trucks loaded with aid had crossed into a buffer zone between Turkey and Syria, voicing hope the supplies could be delivered to besieged rebel-held districts of Aleppo city on Friday. "They've been waiting and sleeping at the border now for 48 hours. So they could go on a minute's notice," said Jan Egeland, head of the U.N. humanitarian taskforce for Syria. The ceasefire deal calls for the demilitarization of the key Castello Road into the city, and Russia said on Thursday afternoon that Syrian armed forces were "fulfilling their obligations and have started a gradual withdrawal" from the route. Washington said late Wednesday that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov had spoken and agreed to prolong the ceasefire which began on Monday. But hours later Russian military spokesman Igor Konashenkov slammed the U.S. for what he called "rhetorical fog" intended "to hide the fact that it is not fulfilling its part of the obligations." "As of the third day (of the truce), only the Syrian army is observing the regime of silence. At the same time, the 'moderate opposition' led by the U.S. is increasing the amount of attacks on residential districts," Konashenkov said.
'The clock is ticking'
The truce, agreed after marathon US-Russia talks in Geneva last week, is part of the latest bid to end a five-year conflict that has killed more than 300,000 people. It aims to halt fighting between Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces and rebel factions, but does not include jihadists like the Islamic State group (IS). The U.N.'s Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said Thursday that the truce was holding "by and large." But promised authorization from Damascus for large-scale humanitarian convoys had not yet been received. "This is something that is required to happen immediately," de Mistura told reporters in Geneva.
East Aleppo, where around 250,000 civilians are besieged by government forces, is a major concern for humanitarian organizations. The ceasefire extension "provides us a critical window of opportunity to assist the people in need in east Aleppo," said David Swanson, a spokesman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. "That being said, the clock is ticking and time is of the essence."Forty trucks carrying food for 80,000 people were at the Syrian-Turkish border waiting for the green light to go to Aleppo about 70 kilometers (44 miles) away, said Swanson. We're going to starve'
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitor, had said earlier on Thursday that government and rebel fighters were still on the Castello Road and the army was unwilling to pull back until the opposition forces did so. Eastern Aleppo is in desperate need of humanitarian aid after weeks of heavy fighting, and a government siege that has lasted most of the past two months, with no aid entering since early July. Markets in east Aleppo have little to sell besides locally grown aubergines, parsley and other herbs."We were dying from shelling before, and now we're going to starve to death," said Abu Ibrahim, 53. The deal calls for the truce to be renewed every 48 hours, and for Washington and Moscow to begin unprecedented joint targeting of jihadists like IS and former al-Qaida affiliate Fateh al-Sham Front if it lasts a week. There remains deep skepticism about whether the truce will hold. The opposition has yet to officially sign on, and hours before the ceasefire began Assad said he was committed to recovering all of Syria. France on Thursday called for Washington to disclose details of the truce deal to its allies bombing jihadists in the war-torn country. If the deal does hold, it could open the door to new peace talks to resolve the conflict, with Russia saying the U.N. envoy could invite government and opposition representatives to new talks "at the very beginning of October."

Rebels preparing advance on Hama: reports
Now Lebanon/September 15/16/The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that rebels were massing troops north of the city in “preparation for a wide-scale offensive.”Jund al-Aqsa fighters driving toward northern Hama
BEIRUT – Syrian rebels are allegedly preparing for an offensive aimed at driving toward the “gates of Hama” weeks after rolling back regime lines north of the city, according to an activist media outlet.Enab Balad reported Wednesday that opposition forces will soon launch the “second stage” of their Hama operation, after rebels advanced within 15 kilometers of the regime-held city following the launch of a blistering offensive on August 29. A well-informed source, who refused to disclose his name, told the online magazine that the upcoming offensive will bring rebels “to the gates of the city,” while forecasting that the operation “will lead to the collapse of [regime] force’s fortifications” along the northern and northwestern entrances of Hama. The source also ruled out the idea that the campaign would be halted by the cessation of hostilities brokered by Russia and the US that went into effect on Monday, which has seen a relative lull in fighting settle over Syria. “Rebel factions in the province will not stop until they enter the city,” the source boasted, while calling the cessation of hostilities “fragile” and “illogical.”While the insurgent factions involved in Hama fighting have not issued any statements regarding an upcoming offensive, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Thursday that they were massing troops outside key points north of the city. “The northwestern and northeastern outskirts of Hama have witnessed [rebel] military mobilization,” the NGO tracking developments in the war-torn country said. The Observatory claimed that Jund al-Aqsa—which has spearheaded recent battles north of Hama—as well other Islamist groups, including Junoud al-Sham, Faylaq al-Sham and Ajnad al-Sham, in addition to Free Syrian Army-affiliated factions were all mobilizing their troops. According to the report, the factions were preparing “for the commencement of a wide-scale offensive targeting Maan, Qomhaneh and Jabal Zayn al-Abidin,” the latter two locations representing the regime’s last defensive lines directly north of Hama. “The factions have summoned military reinforcements, including armored vehicles and ammunition, in preparation for launching the battle at any moment,” it added.
NOW's English news desk editor Albin Szakola (@AlbinSzakola) wrote this report.

Russia Says Syrian Regime Forces Pulling Back from Key Aleppo Road
Naharnet/September 15/16/Russia on Thursday said Syrian regime forces have begun pulling back from around a key road into the ravaged city of Aleppo, freeing up the way for aid deliveries. "The Syrian armed forces are fulfilling their obligations and have started a gradual withdrawal of military hardware and all personnel from the Castello Road, which will allow for the unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid to the eastern part of Aleppo," senior Russian officer Vladimir Savchenko said in a televised briefing. Savchenko said that rebel groups close to the crucial route did not appear to be carrying out a simultaneous pullback as agreed. A ceasefire deal agreed by Washington and Moscow that went into force at sundown on Monday calls for the demilitarization of the Castello Road, and Moscow had earlier said the Syrian army would start pulling back at 0600 GMT on Thursday. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitor, said that government forces and rebel fighters remained on the road after that time and the army was not willing to pull back before opposition forces did so. The truce deal has calmed much of the fighting in Syria but desperately needed humanitarian aid has not yet been allowed to reach civilian areas as planned under the agreement. Twenty trucks loaded with aid for eastern Aleppo on Thursday crossed into a buffer zone between Turkey and Syria, high-level U.N. official Jan Egeland said. U.N. Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura warned that the aid could not move into Syria's second city before the Castello Road supply route had been fully secured. Russia -- which is flying a bombing campaign in support of President Bashar Assad -- insists that Syrian regime forces are fully respecting the truce, but U.S.-backed rebels are violating it. "The cessation of hostilities is not being fulfilled by the opposition units controlled by the U.S. Shelling continues, people are dying and houses are being destroyed," senior commander Viktor Poznikhir said. If the truce holds then Russia and the United States could start coordinating strikes against jihadists. But Moscow insists that Washington is failing to get rebels to separate on the ground from radical jihadists.

German, French FMs Make First Visit to War-Torn East Ukraine
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 15/16/The German and French foreign ministers on Thursday made their first visit to Ukraine's war-torn east since the beginning of the conflict between government forces and pro-Russian rebels in April 2014. Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault arrived in Kramatorsk, a city controlled by the Ukrainian army, an AFP correspondent reported from the scene. Both Ayrault and Steinmeier have urged Kiev's pro-Western leaders to commit themselves more fully to a 13-point plan agreed in February 2015 under which the rebels would get partial autonomy within a unified Ukraine, an initiative unpopular among many Ukrainians. The ministers were met by some 40 demonstrators in front of the office of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission who were protesting against the prospect of giving partial autonomy to the rebel-held regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. Protestors brandished signs that said "We are Ukraine" and "No to a special status for Donbass," referring to eastern Ukraine's industrial heartland. In a meeting with OSCE monitors, the ministers were briefed about ceasefire violations and shown fragments of mines, grenades and other explosive devices found in the area. The visit comes after one of the bloodiest days in weeks saw government forces and the separatists lose three fighters each. The two European powers last year helped negotiate the February 2015 deal that was meant to end the bloodshed and decide the status of the rebel-run regions by the end of last year. But the so-called Minsk Agreements and a subsequent series of ceasefires have done little to halt daily battles that have killed nearly 9,600 people and destroyed much of Ukraine's eastern industrial heartland.

Saudi official warns Iran: Attack us at your own risk
Reuters/September 15/16/ DUBAI - A senior Saudi official, responding to Iranian criticism of Riyadh's management of the haj pilgrimage, urged Iran to end what he called wrong attitudes towards Arabs and warned it against any use of force in its rivalry with the kingdom. Mecca province governor Prince Khaled al-Faisal, in remarks likely to be seen as a reference to Iran, added that the orderly conduct of the pilgrimage this year "is a response to all the lies and slanders made against the kingdom."The remarks carried by the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) on Wednesday evening follow an escalating war of words between Shi'ite Muslim Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia since a crush at the annual haj pilgrimage a year ago in which hundreds of pilgrims, many of them Iranians, died. SPA quoted Prince Khaled as telling journalists his message to the Iranian leadership was "I pray to God Almighty to guide them and to deter them from their transgression and their wrong attitudes toward their fellow Muslim among the Arabs in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and around the world". "But if they are preparing an army to invade us, we are not easily taken by someone who would make war on us.""When we desire, and with the help of God Almighty, we will deter every aggressor and will never relent in protecting this holy land and our dear country. No one can defile any part from our country if any one of us remains on the face of the earth."No top Iranian leader has called for war with Saudi Arabia, something neither country wants. But last year's haj disaster, and the execution in January of dissident Saudi Shi'ite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, triggered months of scathing Iranian criticism of the kingdom. Riyadh broke off relations with Tehran after its embassy there was attacked by Iranians protesting against Nimr's death. Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards promised "harsh revenge" for Nimr's death. Iran blamed the 2015 haj disaster on Saudi incompetence, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sept. 5 said some of the Iranians who died had been "murdered" by Saudi Arabia. He said Muslims should not let Saudi rulers escape responsibility for "crimes" he said they had committed in Arab conflicts.
 

Trump adviser says GOP nominee won’t push Israel on peace deal if elected
BY TAMAR PILEGGI, TOI/Israpundit/September 15/16
T. Belman. This is what the GOP platform provides and what Israel wants. Equally important Trump has said that Israel should build in Judea and Samaria. David Friedman claims Trump not ‘for or against per say a two-state solution,’ but will leave it up to the Israelis friedmanDonald Trump will not propose a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if elected US president this November, a senior adviser to the Republican presidential nominee said Wednesday on Israeli television. But Trump will back Israel in any path it chooses, said David Friedman who advises Trump on Israel-American affairs. “He is not for or against per say a two-state solution,” Friedman told Channel 10 on Wednesday. “What he’s for, is respecting the independence of the Israeli government and their democratically elected leadership to reach — without pressure from the United States — their own vision on how the Israelis and Palestinians should live side by side,” he said. “Mr. Trump is not going to have his finger on the scale trying to push Israel in a particular direction,” Friedman added. “He has great confidence in the Israeli government and the Israeli people.”“They’re in a difficult situation in a tough neighborhood, and they’re doing the best they can to balance their desire to achieve human rights, democracy and their need for security against a very treacherous enemy,” he said. “I think they’re doing an amazing job, and he thinks they’re doing an amazing job.”“And unless they come to him seeking help, I think he’s going to respect their views,” he claimed.
Asked whether Trump would “support the Israeli government in any path they choose,” Friedman responded: “That’s correct.”Though Trump has previously claimed he would be “neutral” and not choose sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he has also endorsed Israel’s settlement enterprise, a partial Israeli annexation of the West Bank, and claimed that US President Barack Obama “has been extremely bad” for Israel. Earlier this month, Trump said the Iranian nuclear deal was “going to destroy Israel — unless I get elected,” the Columbus Dispatch reported at the time. “Then Israel will be just fine.”
Days later, Friedman walked back Trump’s remarks in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 TV, saying they were “a bit of hyperbole,” but that his boss had made “a point that was legitimate.” “We have to elect a president who will scrupulously protect Israel,” he said at the time.

Iran- UN High commissioner for human rights: “my Office has been given no access since 2013.”
Wednesday, 14 September 2016/NCRI - Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in his opening statement at 33rd Session of Human Rights Council, which was held in Geneva on 13 September 2016, by referring to Iranian regime's behaviour of disregard and disrespect for international law stated: “Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, my Office has been given no access since 2013 – despite several years of good technical cooperation prior to that date. Our offers to begin a technical dialogue on the death penalty have been systematically overlooked, as have all other proposals of engagement. This is particularly regrettable given the reports we continue to receive of fundamental problems with the administration of criminal justice; continued execution of large numbers of people, including juveniles; allegations of discrimination and prosecution of religious and ethnic minorities; harsh restrictions on human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists; and discrimination against women both in law and practice.”

Iran: Bereaved sister does not forgive criminal prosecutor
Thursday, 15 September 2016/NCRI - The apology of one of the regime's criminal officials aroused much outrage among families of the victims. Asefeh Kamrani, the bereaved sister of one of the victims of the 2009 killings, reacted strongly to the apology of the Butcher of Kahrizak, Saeid Mortazavi. She said, "Your apology cannot soothe the burning pain and sobbing of my parents."Ms. Kamrani's brother, Mohammad, was killed under torture in Kahrizak Prison in 2009. In the wake of the mounting movement to bring justice to the perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Iran, Saeid Mortazavi apologized on September 11, 2016, for the crimes taken place in 2009 in Kahrizak detention center but claimed that they were not deliberate! Asefeh Kamrani replied to this, "If nothing was deliberate, why they were sexually assaulted? How could it be possible that the tortures were not premeditated? The catastrophes are not something that we can ever forgive.""The nightmare of Kahrizak is endless, and its stain can never be cleaned, even with your apology after seven years, Mr. Mortazavi," Ms. Kamrani declared. Saeid Mortazavi was Tehran's Prosecutor in 2009. He ordered transfer of those arrested in the anti-government demonstrations to Kahrizak Prison where they were detained under inhuman conditions, sexually assaulted, and killed under torture.

Creating a black market in Mashhad Prison by the prison officials
Wednesday, 14 September 2016/NCRI - According to reports, to put the pressure on the prisoners, prison officials in north western city of Mashhad have significantly reduced the number of phone cards. It’s now nearly two weeks that no phone card has been distributed among prisoners. The prisoners are now in serious trouble since they can only call their families by using these phone cards. Two weeks ago, a limited number of phone cards were distributed among prisoners, all of which sold at a higher price than usual. For instance in some cases a $020 phone card was sold at $180.There is a phone card black market in the prison and currently each phone card is sold at $40. This has left the prisoners with no possibility to call their families due to poverty and financial problems. It is worth mentioning that there are many prisoners who are sentenced to death and kept on death row in this prison. Considering the increasing number of executions in recent weeks, their families are too concerned about not being able to have a phone conversation with them.
 

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on on September 15-16/16

Syrian regime and the Golan Heights: A wakeup call
Mshari Al Thaydi/Al Arabiya/September 15/16
The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) suddenly remembered that the Syrian Golan Heights are under Israeli occupation, and the Syrian army suddenly remembered that Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace and territories during the era of the glorious Assad family. SANA reported that the Syrian army downed an Israeli warplane in Saasaa in the province of Damascus, and a drone in the Golan province of Quneitra. Israel denied this, and said a shell or surface-to-air missile had fallen by mistake in the Israeli-held part of the Golan due to the Syrian civil war. “The Israeli army considers the Syrian regime responsible for what happens inside its territories, and it will not tolerate any attempt to harm the sovereignty of its state and the safety of its citizens,” said Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Avichay Adraee. An IDF spokeswoman said this was the fourth such incident since Sept. 4. Some are asking if this is a play by the Syrian regime’s sponsors, particularly Russia - despite Moscow calling on both parties to remain calm - to rehabilitate its popularity. After all, any deceitful leader who harasses Israel via exaggerated propaganda gains legitimacy and support from Arabs regardless of the crimes he has committed against his own people. Any deceitful leader who harasses Israel via exaggerated propaganda gains legitimacy and support from Arabs regardless of the crimes he has committed against his own people
Red line
However, even if this is true, to Israel its security is a real red line, not like US President Barack Obama’s fragile one. Israel deals quickly and decisively with issues related to borders and military capabilities that threaten it. Let us recall two recent incidents. In Jan. 2015, the Lebanese party Hezbollah said six of its members were killed by an Israeli strike that targeted one of its posts in Al-Amal Farms in Quneitra. Among those killed was the son of Hezbollah strongman Imad Mughaniyeh, other Hezbollah commanders, and a brigadier-general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Iran condemned Israel, and IRGC commander Mohammed Ali Jafari said Israel must await a “destructive storm.”In May 2013, in an attempt to seek legitimacy, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad reportedly decided to open a “resistance” front in the Golan. Members of Ahmad Jibril’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP - GC) protested at the border, and that was it. Israel occupied around 12,000 square meters of the Golan in 1981. Ever since, it has been considered one of the securest Israeli borders. This is what the Syrian regime’s spoiled son Rami Makhlouf reminded the West of at the start of the Syrian uprising in order to make deals. There is a famous comic Syrian series starring regime supporter Ghawar al-Toche called “Sah al-Nom” (Good Morning).**This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on Sept. 14, 2016.

Aleppo beyond a ceasefire
Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya/September 15/16
The first days of the cessation of hostilities in Aleppo has witnessed the rare signs of genuine life in this once great Syrian city. Children are even playing in the streets. A relieved hospital worker smiles: “We used to have blood stained sheets every morning before the ceasefire. It felt like we had to change them a thousand times a day. But thank God, today all our beds are clean…”Leaving understandable mass skepticism aside, what happens if this latest US-Russia ceasefire deal actually starts working, if the barrel bombs do stop, if the snipers’ rifles are out away. At the moment, most parties are preparing for its failure, using the lull to recuperate and resupply forces; whilst aid agencies try to restock depleted vital supplies above all in Aleppo. Naturally if you prepare for failure, you will not be disappointed. It is this city, the trophy of the north, which may become the yardstick of success or failure. The futility of this conflict is never clearer than here in this city where the regime and a host of armed opposition and hardline Islamist groups have fought over since 2012. Let us also be clear. Four years ago it was Turkish pressure that in large part led to the armed opposition attacking Aleppo, a city that was largely reluctant in joining the public demonstrations against the regime that spread over many parts of Syria. It was a sign of the acute regional interest that continues to this day. Many in Aleppo, whilst despising the regime, did not want an opposition attack knowing the calamitous destructive regime response that would follow. Yet, it is this regional element that has to be addressed at once if Aleppo is not to return to fighting where neither side appears capable of winning. So, having seen the US and Russia reach a raft of shaky understandings, will anyone dare to mediate amongst the regional powers? Turkey, Iran, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the principle actors who have to change tack and de-escalate. One Syrian armed opposition figure lamented that Syrians in Aleppo only negotiated over vital essentials of life – water, electricity, and fuel, but their futures were determined by outside powers, and Syrians saw no hope in even trying to get involved. We still have not got to a stage where Syrians are allowed to talk to Syrians about Syria. A city that for centuries had hosted communities from a raft of ethnicities and sects, the western end of the Silk Road, faces coming to terms with the consequences of a bitter civil, regional and proxy war
Civic amenities
Diverse Syrian actors on the ground have worked out understandings about water and fuel. Ahali Halab (the people of Aleppo initiative) works across city lines to repair water pipes and pumping stations. This is a civil society project, whose workers are respected both by the regime and the armed opposition groups because without their work, life could not continue. It is the same logic that sees ISIS providing water for regime controlled Aleppo in return for electricity for ISIS controlled countryside. To buttress any possible sign that a ceasefire might last, change on the ground must start and soon. Only if civilians see the genuine possibility of improvements can there be a hope of sticking. Security clearly is the top factor. Any end of bombing is a start but a local deal for Aleppo to support a national ceasefire is a necessity. This should include a mechanism for undoing the divisions and allowing safe access across lines for civilians. Further down the line perhaps, displaced Aleppans still inside the city may want to return to their homes in other areas but only in a secure setting. Above all there must be a proper monitoring mechanism. Back during the last ceasefire in February Syrians were expected to contact the US or Russia. Infamously the US State Department could not even find proper Arabic speakers to service the calls. Yet this is of course a nonsense. Any complainant from regime or opposition held areas would never be deemed independent. The other past failure was only having 276 UN monitors in the first major ceasefire in Syria in 2012, a truly inadequate number for a country of that size. Following that will be economic security. The war economy in Syria including Aleppo is rife. How can young men drawn to armed militias be weaned away from them in the absence of any traditional employment opportunities? Traditional economic activity should be encouraged to stimulate a peace economy. The physical reconstruction will take years – over half the listed sites in Aleppo has been destroyed or gravely damaged by 2015. The priority here must though be infrastructure before heritage. Burst sewage pipes have already contaminated the water system for example. But the toughest challenge by far will always remain the psychological devastation. A city that for centuries had hosted communities from a raft of ethnicities and sects, the western end of the Silk Road, faces coming to terms with the consequences of a bitter civil, regional and proxy war. Can these communities once again throng the streets of this ancient metropolis? To have a chance, this ceasefire has not just to take hold but lead to genuine change. All eyes will be on Aleppo to see if this might be possible.

What if the world adopted a ‘mind your own business’ policy?
Mohammed Nosseir/Al Arabiya/September 15/16
“Don’t interfere in our national affairs” is the customary reaction of most nations to any negative remark by other countries, or to unflattering reports by independent Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). All rulers claim to understand the welfare of their countries and citizens best, and are never happy if the international community voices even the tiniest criticism of their conduct. The fact that almost all nations dismiss international criticism prompts us to consider the likely effects of a universal application of a “mind your own business” policy. Each country would only worry about its own affairs, expressing no concern about, or criticism of, other nations, and the media in every country would only be entitled to discuss national issues. Adopting such a policy would necessitate the dismantling of international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), such as the UN and human rights groups, as their missions would no longer have any justifiable foundation. Would these new measures make the world a better place, or lead to the decline of humanity? Many citizens worldwide say states’ “concerns” about other nations (the term used by those adopting a more congenial attitude), or “international interference” (according to the perception of most nations) is not always authentic. Nations often make observations to this effect, using them to exert political pressure on their opponents. Similarly, CSOs are accused of operating unfairly, making biased statements and issuing deceptive country-status reports. Citizens worldwide should not leave what we commonly define as “universal values” to a few nations, which then use them as pressure tools
Authoritarianism
“Closing the borders” between nations will disassociate countries from universal values and over-empower rulers at the expense of the common citizen, regardless of whether a country is democratic or authoritarian. Rulers would love to be able to exercise exclusive control over their nations without having to listen to a single critical remark, however small. However, I cannot think of a single case where an autocratic government became democratic due to international pressure. On the contrary, countries that receive international criticism tend to become more defensive and autocratic. Authoritarian leaders by definition apply repressive policies on their citizens. These leaders justify their misconduct by claiming that repressive measures are meant to better serve the interests of their countries and citizens. Sadly, Western democratic leaders capitalize on these dictatorial policies to serve their own national interests. They are quick to pressure autocratic leaders when a conflict occurs between their respective countries, but when they are on good terms they ignore the improper conduct of these leaders.
Privilege
Nations need to revisit the mechanism that enables a handful of countries to pressure the rest of the world, even when it serves a righteous cause. Citizens worldwide should not leave what we commonly define as “universal values” to a few nations, which then use them as pressure tools. We should either all work together to abide by universal values that measure the performance of each country fairly, or apply a “mind your own business” policy that will further complicate international relations. We should revise CSO bylaws to make the work of these organizations more authentic, and to preclude its use for political purposes. Most CSOs are doing an excellent job in this regard, with the notable exception of the UN Security Council, whose structure and rules of procedure privilege a number of nations at the expense of the majority. We must attempt to make the implementation of CSO reports obligatory for all nations, not just for selected countries. Applying these steps would create true momentum toward just and well-structured international relations.
 

Rise of Iran-backed militias jeopardizes US aid to Iraq
Julian Pecquet/Al-Monitor/September 15/16
Iran-backed majority-Shiite militias known as the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have been gaining influence as they have helped the Iraqi army kick the Islamic State (IS) out of Anbar province. Iraq's National Security Council recently blessed their participation in the upcoming battle to retake the IS stronghold of Mosul, while Baghdad announced at the end of July plans to incorporate the militias as an "independent" military formation "affiliated" with the Iraqi armed forces.
The militias have also begun to make diplomatic overtures in a bid to attain international legitimacy. Several militia leaders met with European, Canadian and Australian diplomats in Beirut early last month, Al-Monitor reported at the time, hoping to create a back channel with Washington.
All those efforts now risk running into a congressional buzz saw. Current and pending defense authorization legislation prohibits US military assistance for Iraq if it risks falling into the hands of Iran-backed groups, and lawmakers are keeping a close eye on Baghdad's next move.
"This is an issue," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "We haven't seen the complicity of the Iraqi government to encourage this, but we want to see a stronger effort to discourage it [...]. As a general principle, the Shia militias as currently constituted — and there are some exceptions to this — are not interested in the Iraqi security blueprint and are counterproductive to the security of the areas that we've taken back or want to take back from [IS]."
The resurgence of the militias has concerned US policymakers since June 2014, when Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a call to arms to his followers as IS rampaged through the country. Since then, Iraq has seen a proliferation of loosely affiliated PMU, most of them directed by or otherwise supported by Tehran, including some reconstituted militias that battled US forces in the early years of the invasion.
One of the main militias, the Hezbollah Brigades (Kataib Hizballah), was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department in 2009. Its leader, Jamal al-Ibrahimi — aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis — was designated as a threat to Iraqi peace and stability by the Treasury Department that same year and is now the deputy chairman of all PMU operations.
In December 2014, Congress for the first time authorized through the end of 2016 a $1.6 billion “train and equip” fund requested by the Barack Obama administration for “military and other security services" for Iraq. Lawmakers, however, added the caveat that aid recipients be vetted for links to “groups associated with the government of Iran.” The Department of Defense could waive aid restrictions but had to inform Congress.
Last year, Congress reauthorized the program but added a prohibition on aid to the government of Iraq unless Baghdad “has taken such actions as may be reasonably necessary to safeguard” such assistance falling into the hands of organizations “under the command and control of, or associated with” Tehran. That law also requires that the Pentagon provide quarterly reports on the “forces or elements of forces” prohibited from receiving US aid.
Now lawmakers are debating whether to go one step further.
The Senate version of this year’s annual Defense bill merely extends last year’s authorization through the end of 2019. The House, however, passed a bill requiring that the Pentagon provide $50 million to Kurdish peshmerga and Sunni tribal forces unless Baghdad ends its “support for Shia militias under the command and control of, or associated with” Tehran and acts to stop “abuses of elements of the Iraqi population by such militias.”
The House bill gives voice to rising concerns among lawmakers that the Shiite militias not only strengthen Iran's hand in Iraq but make it more difficult to defeat IS because they often victimize Sunnis. Speaking at the nonprofit Stimson Center in April, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said he had recently met with Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in Baghdad and urged him to rein in the PMU.
"The Sunni tribal leaders that we met with want to take their own villages back," said Royce. "Their people want to go back to their villages. They don't want to hand it over to some Shiite militia headed up by a Quds Force leader like [Qasem] Soleimani.”
Further complicating matters, a number of the militias are represented in parliament. A PMU leader at last month's Beirut meeting told Al-Monitor that the PMU have launched preparations to run in next year's parliamentary elections. The source made it clear that their model is Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which holds considerable political and economic sway.
"We will be a military force that is part of the Iraqi state, but not part of the Iraqi army," the PMU leader said. "This is due to many reasons that we explained to them, namely the corruption spread within the Iraqi government institutions."
The administration has also sent mixed messages as it has found itself fighting alongside the militias.
In its April 2015 update to its Travel Warning for Iraq, the State Department for the first time warned that “several anti-US sectarian militia groups, such as the Shia KH [Hezbollah Brigades] and Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) [League of the Righteous] are operating throughout Iraq and may present a threat to US citizens.” By September 2015, however, those warnings had been replaced with a generic warning that “anti-US sectarian militias may threaten US citizens and Western companies throughout Iraq.” The change coincided with reports that US forces and Iran-backed militias were sharing a base in Anbar.
At a briefing in March this year, State Department spokesman John Kirby rebutted rumors that the administration had asked Abadi to disband the militias. He went on to praise them for joining in the fight against IS.
"This idea that every Shia militia, or Popular Mobilization Force that is another way they’re talked about, is controlled by Tehran and is therefore nefarious in nature is just false," Kirby insisted. "In fact, the vast majority of them have no connections to Tehran or to the IRGC."
The agency’s 2015 terror report, released in early June, by contrast faulted Baghdad for allowing Ibrahimi's group to join the fight. The report said Iran-backed groups such as KH "exacerbated sectarian tensions in Iraq" and "contributed to human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians."
"The inclusion of KH, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, in the Popular Mobilization Forces enlisted by the Iraqi government in the effort against [IS], threatens to undermine counterterrorism objectives,” the report concluded.
Cardin said he would welcome a move by Abadi to incorporate the PMU under the military's control. But there are exceptions.
"I think there are some militias that he will not be able to control," Cardin said. "Ultimately you have to disband them or weed them out. It's not in the central government's interest to have entities that are not really loyal to [its] security blueprint."
Iran appears to have others plans in mind.
Late last month, a leader in Iran's IRGC announced the creation of a United Shia Liberation Army to fight in Arab countries, notably Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Lawrence Haas, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, said the announcement was "basically declaring war on your Arab neighbors." He questioned what the White House can do about it after removing most US troops from the country.
"I think Iran and Iranian influence in Iraq and other nations in the region is going to be pretty close to the top of the agenda for US foreign policy," Haas told Al-Monitor. “We don’t have much leverage, so I don’t have high hopes that we can reverse this.”

‘We Misled You’: How the Saudis Are Coming Clean on Funding Terrorism
On his latest trip, a former senior U.S. official finds a new attitude in Riyadh. But will it stick?
By Zalmay Khalilzad/ POLITICO/September 15/16
On my most recent trip to Saudi Arabia, I was greeted with a startling confession. In the past, when we raised the issue of funding Islamic extremists with the Saudis, all we got were denials. This time, in the course of meetings with King Salman, Crown Prince Nayef, Deputy Crown Mohammad Bin Salman and several ministers, one top Saudi official admitted to me, “We misled you.” He explained that Saudi support for Islamic extremism started in the early 1960s as a counter to Nasserism—the socialist political ideology that came out of the thinking of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser—which threatened Saudi Arabia and led to war between the two countries along the Yemen border. This tactic allowed them to successfully contain Nasserism, and the Saudis concluded that Islamism could be a powerful tool with broader utility.
Under their new and unprecedented policy of honesty, the Saudi leadership also explained to me that their support for extremism was a way of resisting the Soviet Union, often in cooperation with the United States, in places like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In this application too, they argued, it proved successful. Later it was deployed against Iranian-supported Shiite movements in the geopolitical competition between the two countries.
But over time, the Saudis say, their support for extremism turned on them, metastasizing into a serious threat to the Kingdom and to the West. They had created a monster that had begun to devour them. “We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official conceded. “And we were in denial.”
Why this new frankness? First, it’s fair to ask how far the new policy really goes. Clearly, there are some questions about whether some extremist Sunni groups, such as al-Nusra in Syria, are still getting Saudi money. But as the Saudis described it to me, this new approach to grappling with their past is part of the leadership’s effort to make a new future for their country, including a broad-based economic reform program.
In their current thinking, the Saudis see Islamic extremism as one of the two major threats facing the kingdom—the other threat being Iran. On Iran, there is continuity. I remember when King Abdullah asked me to pass on to President George W. Bush in 2006 that he needed to cut the “serpent’s head” and attack Iran and overthrow the regime. The new leadership, like their predecessors, blames Iran for regional instability and the many conflicts going on.
The new Saudi leadership, in other words, appears to be downgrading ideology in favor of modernization. In fact, one senior Saudi official explicitly said that the Kingdom was pursuing a “revolution under the cover of modernization”—meaning that modernization was now the driver of Saudi policy.
Can it succeed, when so little has changed politically in a country still run autocratically by the House of Saud? The biggest unknowns are the temptations of the past—whether the Saudi leadership is united behind the new program and whether those who benefited from the old order will attempt to derail the reform agenda and thus destabilize the country. The opposition could come from the powerful religious establishment, which might oppose the opening of entertainment centers, the reform of religious institutions, even limited co-education and increased female participation in the workforce.
There have been many reform programs announced before in Saudi Arabia, only to fade into insignificance. Also, modernization undermines two pillars of Saudi political legitimacy, the endorsement of the Wahhabi clerical establishment and the traditionalism that undergirds any monarchical government. As modernization creates economic uncertainty for those benefiting from the present inefficient order, the result could be political turmoil. And it is an open question as to whether the Saudi people have been sufficiently prepared at all relevant levels in terms of education and skills to compete in the world economy, as they will need to do in a modernized economy.
If not, social tensions and unrest may arise among those who are not prepared to compete.
This was not my first trip to Saudi Arabia. I have been going there since the 1980s, when I was working at the State Department. I became even better acquainted with the Saudi leadership during my ambassadorship to Iraq from 2005 to 2007. I visited the kingdom often and developed cordial relationships with King Abdullah and other senior officials.
For many years, I was accustomed to Saudi officials being vague and ambiguous. Now, our interlocutors were straightforward and business-like in discussing their past and their future plans. In past decades, my impression had been that the Saudis did not work hard. Now a team of highly educated, young ministers works 16- to 18-hour days on refining and implementing a plan to transform the country. The plan is the brainchild of Mohammad bin Salman and focuses both on domestic and regional fronts. Salman and his ministers exude commitment and energy.
Across the Islamic-majority countries there has been an ongoing struggle between modernization and Islamism. Riyadh views modernization as the vehicle through which the Saudi state, at long last, can confront and defeat extremism, foster a dynamic private sector and master the looming economic challenges.
The Saudi program includes:
New limits on the ability of the religious police to arrest dissidents.
Purges of extremists from the government and greater efforts to monitor their influence in security institutions.
The appointment of new religious leaders to counter Islamic extremism on theological grounds.
The transformation of the world Muslim League—a key Saudi arm for supporting Islamic movements abroad—by the appointment of a new leader and a decision to stop supporting Islamist madrassas abroad.
On the economic front, the new leaders have developed plans for economic transformation and reduced dependence on oil. Their Vision 2030 and National Transformation Program 2020 focus on shrinking the country’s enormous bureaucracy, reducing and ultimately removing subsidies, expanding the private sector including attracting investment from abroad by becoming more transparent and accountable and by removing red tape.
It plans to transform its giant oil company Aramco, including the public listing of it and raising perhaps as much as 2 trillion dollars for its investment fund, with the thought that income from its investments can reduce dependence on revenue from oil. To encourage more Saudi money being spent at home, the government is opening entertainment facilities in the kingdom and intends to attract big names from the U.S. An agreement has already been signed with Six Flags. It plans to increase the number of women in the workforce. I visited King Abdullah city, a new city planned and being built by private sector. Here, men and women will attend college classes together, and facilities important for foreign companies are being constructed to the specifications of interested international companies.
One byproduct of the Saudi focus on ISIL and Iran seems to be a more enlightened view by Riyadh toward Israel. Israel and Saudi Arabia share a similar threat perception regarding Iran and ISIL, and that old hostility need not preclude greater cooperation between the two states going forward. The Saudis stated with unusual directness that they do not regard Israel as an enemy and that the kingdom is making no military contingency plans directed against Israel. They did emphasize the need for progress on the Palestinian issue, but the tone on this subject was noticeably less emotional than in the past. The clear priority was on defeating ISIL and balancing Iran from a position of strength.
On some levels, the prospects for planned reforms are more promising in Saudi Arabia than they are in most other parts of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has oil reserves and is not roiled in conflict: two important advantages. My visit left me convinced that key segments of the Saudi leadership are serious about their modernization plans and are pursuing it with vigor and professionalism.
There are, as I said, plenty of reasons to be skeptical of ultimate success. However, if the reform effort does work, Saudi Arabia is poised to become more powerful than before, enabling it to play a bigger role in regional dynamics including in balancing Iran and perhaps negotiating about ending the civil wars in the region. A true change in Saudi Arabia’s policy of supporting Islamist extremists would be a turning point in the effort to defeat them. Given the kingdom’s role, Saudi success can provide a model for the rest of the Sunni Arab and Islamic world on how to pursue reform and succeed. That could, in turn, help launch the reformation that is so badly needed. The region and the world have a stake in Saudi success, and should do what we can to encourage and support them on this new path.
**Zalmay Khalilzad is a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations. He is the author of “The Envoy: From Kabul to the White House, My Journey Through a Turbulent World,” from St. Martin’s Press. This trip was arranged by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Iranian General Discusses Shi'ite Liberation Army Under Command Of Qassem Soleimani, Who Is Subordinate To Supreme Leader Khamenei
MEMRI/September 15/16/September 15, 2016 Special Dispatch No.6611
On August 18, 2016, Ali Falaki, a retired general in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who commanded a brigade in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and claims to have volunteered to fight in Syria, gave an interview to the Iranian website Mashregh, which is close to the IRGC. In it, he spoke of the "Shi'ite Liberation Army" that Iran has deployed it on its three battlefronts in the Middle East – in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen – stating that it comprises divisions based on ethnicity that Iran has established for this purpose. These divisions, he said, are the Afghan division (Fatemiyoun), the Pakistani division (Zaynabiyoun) and the Iraqi division (Hayderiyoun), in addition to the Lebanese Hizbullah division that is operating in Lebanon and Syria. Falaki explained that these divisions comprise the Shi'ite Liberation Army that operates according to the ethnic model adopted by Iran did in the Iran-Iraq war.[1]
Falaki stressed that while the Shi'ite Liberation Army forces on the various fronts are divided by ethnicity, their command structure is Iranian, and is headed by IRGC officers under the command of Qassem Soleimani, head of the IRGC's elite Qods Force, which operates outside Iran’s borders. He added that Soleimani answers directly to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Falaki, who said that he maintains direct contact with the top echelons of the Iranian Army and IRGC, proudly reported that he had commanded, as part of the Afghan division, many Iranian Army soldiers who had volunteered to fight in Syria since February 2016. He said that it had been decided that they would be incorporated into the Afghan division of the Shi'ite Liberation Army as commanders. Falaki appears to be referring to February reports that Iran had replaced IRGC officers in Syria with Iranian Army soldiers and to relations between the IRGC and the Iranian Army, which have had their ups and downs.
Like other Iranian spokesmen, Falaki stressed that Iran is not sending Iranian forces to directly fight on the various fronts in the Middle East, but is creating local fighting forces that it provides with "guidance, organization, and management" by means of IRGC officers, and, when necessary also reinforces with the ethnic divisions of the Shi’ite Liberation Army. Wherever "there is a need for this army, the people in that region will be organized and supplied with the necessary forces," he said. He added that the Shi'ite Liberation Army was established "because of the existence of Israel," which Khamenei has vowed will cease to exist in about 20 years, though in practice the Shi'ite Liberation Army is fighting against Sunnis in the Middle East.
It should be mentioned that Falaki uses the term "Shi'ite Liberation Army" to mean two things: one, that its mission is to liberate Shi'ites, and two, that it is itself distinctly Shi'ite.
Following are excerpts from Falaki's interview on the Mashregh website:[2]
"The First Seed Of The Shi'ite And Muslim Liberation Army Was Germinated In Syria"
"We have certain weaknesses in Syria that I do not wish to currently discuss, but some of them stem from a weakness we have in Iran. From here [in Iran], we come to South Lebanon and support the Shi'ites there; we come to Bahrain and Yemen at great expense and support the Shi'ites there.
"In Lebanon, we found [Hizbullah secretary-general] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, but here [in Iran], we could find no leader among all the active revolutionary [Afghan] clerics willing to be on the frontlines [like he is], nor could we organize such large forces [as Hizbullah]. We were not able to properly support the three million Shi'ite Afghans [living in Iran as refugees], and it is very unfortunate that for 30 years we ignored Afghan Shi'ites who, despite their oppression, resisted the arrogance of the east [Russia] and the West [the U.S.] in Afghanistan. We saw them as mere laborers waiting [for work] at intersections or as criminals. This generation [of Afghans in Iran] stepped up and showed heroism, altruism, courage, and daring in Syria. They shone under the command of the Iranian forces...
"Under the command of [Qods Force head] Haj Qassem [Soleimani], the Afghans prevented Zaynabiyya, Damascus, and the airport from falling [to the Syrian rebels]... We must not think that we [Iranians] are fighting in Syria, [but rather that] the Afghans are being courageous there under our command…
"The name 'Fatemiyoun' refers to explicit aid from God. The name 'Fatemiyoun' produced two great events... [for Iran] in the world of Islam. First, during the [Iran-Iraq] War, we were tasked with creating unity among [ethnic] sects [in Iran] – Lors, Kurds, Baluchis, Persians, and Arabs – [albeit] in separate frameworks, [which all fought] the Ba'ath Party [in Iraq]. We transformed all the [ethnic] sects into military divisions, and during the war never dared to say that some of the brothers were Sunnis and some were [Shi'ite] Afghans.
"The Fatemiyoun banner was raised, and thus the first seed of the liberation army of Shi'ites and Muslims was germinated in Syria. Today we have the privilege [of forming the Shi’ite Liberation Army] because back then, we created the unity among the [ethnic] sects; now, we have created international [Shi’ite] unity. The [Pakistani] Zaynabiyoun division comprises Pakistanis under the command of IRGC officers. The [Afghan] Fatemiyoun division has several brigades comprising Afghans, and even has some Sunni members. IRGC [officers] guide this division. These divisions include IRGC commanders and [Afghani] commanders, from squad commanders to staff officers. These divisions have a single uniform and a single banner. They come under a single umbrella organization and fight on a single battlefront. We also have the Hayderiyoun division, which comprises Iraqis. We also have a Hizbullah division, which is divided into two: one part is Hizbullah in Lebanon and the other is Hizbullah in Syria, which comprises the people of Damascus, Nubl, and Al-Zahraa.
"The [Shi'ite] Liberation Army was formed because, with God's help, in 23 years there should be no such thing as Israel. These divisions are on the Israeli border. The Fatemiyoun have laid the groundwork for this fight.
"The second thing, that we are happy to see is spreading to everyone, is that our previous [patronizing] view of these [Afghan] brothers has changed..."
"Wherever There Is A Need For This Army, The People In That Region Will Be Organized And Supplied With Necessary Forces"
"The Shi'ite Liberation Army was established, and it is currently under the command of [Qods Force head] Haj Qassem Soleimani, who obeys the leader [Khamenei]. One of this army's fronts is in Syria, another is in Iraq, and yet another is in Yemen. The forces in this army are not meant to be only Iranian; [instead], wherever there is a need for this army, the people in that region will be organized [to form it] and supplied with the necessary forces...
"We [Iranians] are not meant to come [to Syria] as forces operating [on the ground]. We want [Iranian] elements who know how to teach, organize, and manage to come to Syria. This way, the forces in that region can spring into action...
"Some of the commanders of the army [of the Syrian regime] fled abroad, and some of its bases were captured. The crushed Syrian army units have today regrouped with renewed strength. Therefore, there is no need for us [in Iran] to send an army there. We can stand alongside the Syrian army, organize Syrian forces, and prepare them for battle. [In the future] we can remove the enemy occupation of Syria, just as we did in [Iranian] Kurdistan, which took a year or two – but controlling foreign incursions into Syria is up to the Syrians themselves and we cannot prevent it.
"Regime change and changes of president can happen only when the enemy is no longer [in Syria]… For example, we succeeded, within two years, to expel the enemy presence in Kurdistan in western [Iran], but it took us years to impose law and order there... Today, this region is considered one of the safest in Iran... even though 20 years ago, they were beheading IRGC personnel with pottery shards..."
The Iranian Army Felt It Had A Roll To Fulfill In Syria
"The Iranian army felt that it had to fulfill a role in this [Syrian] arena. According to my knowledge, the army told Qassem Soleimani that it wants to fulfill its duty in this matter [i.e. fighting in Syria]. Qassem Soleimani told this to the leader [Khamenei], and the leader gave his blessing... Some volunteers from various military units, who were mostly experts in aerial combat, were sent to Syria in mid-February 2016.
"These [Iranian army] forces were competent enough to operate independently, but we decided that they would operate as part of the [Afghan] Fatemiyoun [division]. God rewarded me by placing me in command of them as part of the Fatemiyoun [division]. I placed them in charge of the area and transferred means to them, and after a short period, the [Afghan] unit was placed under their command. Neither their rank nor their weapons in Iran were the same as they were [after they joined] the Fatemiyoun [in Syria]. But due to their presence in Syria and after a short time fighting alongside the [Afghan] Fatemiyoun brothers, they became one organization, wore the same uniform, and fought in the same trenches. They became fast friends.
"I also told [Iranian ground forces commander] Amir Pourdastan that I was proud to fight along with the brothers from the [Iranian] army on one of the global battlefronts outside of Iran, just like during the sacred defense period [the Iran-Iraq War]. [Back then] there was no difference [between us and them] and they were like the Basij boys [of the IRGC].
"I spoke with the commander who was tasked with sending [Iranian soldiers to Syria] and he said: 'One of my concerns is to curb the wave of volunteers who want to be sent [to Syria]. According to the needs of the [Iranian] General Staff, we only send the necessary amount of forces [to Syria]. Had I allowed it, we would have had several divisions of [Iranian] volunteers [in Syria].'
"The presence of these forces has been hugely beneficial [in the Syrian arena]. They also suffered martyrdoms and injuries, but this did not damage their morale or make them less determined. They were experienced, brave, and passionate...
"The [volunteers] coming from Iran to Syria are given a monthly stipend of $100."
"We Do Not Wish To Produce An Atomic Bomb... [But Rather] Prove... That [We] Can Reach Higher Than France [And] England... In All Fields... Even On The Military Level"
"Until our power grows, the world of the arrogance [the U.S.] will never let us be. Some wonder why there is a need for tension between us and the Western world. I must say that if we tolerate this tension for a while, we will be a match for [the enemy] and then they will no longer dare fight us. We do not wish to produce an atomic bomb. We only want to prove that our people and country can reach higher than France, England, Austria, and Denmark in all fields – humanities, science, economy, technology, as well as human rights, and even on the military level.
"If we destroy the enemy that is currently mobilizing against us, there will be no room for any other country [to mobilize against us]. When we show our true might, they will no longer be able to do anything against us..."
Endnotes:
[1] In the first part of the interview Falaki refers to the problem of the Afghan refugees in Iran, who number some 3,000,000. The Iranian regime recruits young men from among these refugees to fight in Syria as part of the Afghan division. The fighters receive a monthly stipend and, if they fall in battle, their families’ social status is enhanced.
[2] Fars (Iran), August 18, 2016. It should be mentioned that the interview was deleted from the Mashregh website shortly after publication.

Labour Whitewashes its Anti-Semitism
Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/September 15/16
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8799/labour-antisemitism-whitewash
When the inquiry's report was published on June 30, it turned out to be what most Jews and pro-Israel activists had suspected it would be from the beginning: a whitewash. It opens with the words: "The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism". But nobody had ever suggested that it was.
The report is vague and waffly, 28 pages saying almost nothing about the subject under question, anti-Semitism, which is throughout subsumed under general issues of racism.
The working definitions of anti-Semitism for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and the US State Department, along with others, agree that exaggerated, mendacious, or malicious criticism of the Jewish state, or the setting of double standards for Israel that are used for no other nation, is anti-Semitic. It is precisely accusations of this kind that make up the bulk of the Labour Party's anti-Semitic comments, including statements still being made by some party members, including Jeremy Corbyn himself.
Britain's Labour Party, out of power since 2010, more or less cut its own throat when its members (plus fresh recruits who, instead of taking out membership, paid £3 to vote in the leadership election in 2015) chose Jeremy Corbyn, a formerly marginalized far left socialist, as the new head of the party. Ordinary Labour voters were horrified, knowing from day one that Corbyn could never lead the party to government and was not either remotely Prime Ministerial material. But vast numbers of young extreme left-wingers, flushed with victory and dedicated to an idealistic coming revolution and led by a new Corbyn-worshipping movement called Momentum, were determined to take traditional working- and middle-class voters in a direction that had little or no appeal to them at all.
From the outset, Labour was split almost down the centre. That divide proved dangerous for the political system in Britain, where government has been unevenly but broadly shared between the Tory and Labour parties in what was effectively a two-party arrangement. With the almost total collapse of the centrist Liberal Democrats, who had just been in an ill-judged coalition with the Tories in government from 2010 to 2014, Britain faced the possibility that the two-party system would founder after many decades, should Labour split and leave the country with three unbalanced parties and the real threat of a one-party state emerging, so long as neither Labour group remained unelectable.
That something has gone wrong within the Labour party is clear. After the referendum vote to leave the European Union, Corbyn came under severe pressure to resign as leader, and a battle ensued with loyal Corbynites both in and outside Momentum backing him to the hilt, but with the parliamentary Labour Party, made up of members of parliament, urging him to bow to the inevitable and go.
So great was the despair of the radicals that in the seven days up to July 1, another 60,000 people joined the party, apparently a large number of whom did so to back Corbyn's refusal to stand down. If he does not go, pundits predict, the party will split between hardline socialists (backed by most trades unions) and moderates. This split will create two parties out of one, with unguessable results for future elections and British governance in a period of political and economic insecurity following Brexit. A second leadership contest has opened, with Welsh candidate Owen Smith challenging Corbyn and supported by a majority of Labour MPs, but the polls predict another win for Corbyn and greater likelihood of a split.
With the reputation of a sincere and well-liked man, Corbyn seemed to many a decent bloke who could take Labour's helm and steer it back to government in a future election. Corbyn, however, was a man with a radical political agenda and some extremely unsavoury connections.
Corbyn had called terrorist organizations Hamas and Hizbullah his "friends"; associated with and funded Holocaust deniers such as Paul Eisen; donated to Deir Yassin Remembered, an openly anti-Semitic group, and regularly appeared at their annual conference; chaired the Stop the War coalition, a leading sponsor of the annual al-Quds Day rallies that bear anti-Semitic posters and banners alongside Hizbullah flags in abundance, and expressed a very dim view of the state of Israel, preferring instead to lend his support to the Palestinian cause.
In one radio interview, given after he acquired the leadership, Corbyn was asked five times to condemn the violence of the Irish Republican Army (IRA); each time he refused to do so. Leo McKinstry wrote in The Telegraph:
"This is the man who sympathised with violent Irish Republicanism in the 1980s, invited IRA representatives to the Commons a fortnight after the Brighton bombing in 1984 and, at a Troops Out meeting in 1987, stood for a minute's silence to 'honour' eight IRA terrorists killed in an SAS ambush."
It was not, therefore, much of a surprise to anyone when a major scandal wracked the Labour Party in April this year. Almost daily, party members, including some MPs, were suspended from their membership because of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel comments made on social media. Corbyn himself, rather weakly, denied that he was an anti-Semite. Given his credentials as an "anti-racist" activist, he may well have thought this true in anti-racist terms, by defining Jews as a race (which is what the Nazis did). However, it could not be doubted that his rise from obscurity to the leadership had allowed something unsavoury to surface.
It could scarcely be denied that anti-Zionist anti-Semitism has always been around, and that Corbyn shared such views. In a scathing piece written before Corbyn became leader, Leo McKinstry identified his politics thus:
"Corbyn is not a serious politician. On the contrary, he is an unreconstructed Trotskyite whose views have remain frozen ever since he attended his first demonstration in the late 1960s. If Ed Miliband was the eternal student union activist, Corbyn is the permanent rebellious adolescent."
Under Corbyn, revelations about anti-Semitism in the party were bound to have emerged sooner or later. Given the flurry of news reports about the suspensions in the Labour Party, it was clearly not enough to argue that those who had offended were just rotten apples in a pure and racially neutral basket. In an attempt to prove Labour's innocence in such matters, on April 29, Corbyn set up an "independent" inquiry to investigate the extent of anti-Semitism in the party. He appointed a well-known figure, Shami Chakrabarti, to head it.
Chakrabarti is a British barrister and public figure renowned as the director of Liberty, Britain's leading human rights campaigning group. After twelve years in office, she had stepped down in February. David Aaronovitch, writing in The Times, has described her as "the most effective public affairs lobbyist of the past 20 years". Her political views are reflected in Liberty's major work to challenge anti-terrorism legislation in the UK.
It was not a good augury for the inquiry when, on April 29, the day of her appointment, Chakrabarti officially joined the Labour Party, of which she had not previously been a member. From that moment, it was clear that this could no longer be regarded as an "independent inquiry". To make things worse, on the day Chakrabarti was announced as chair of the inquiry, it was expanded to include "other forms of racism including islamophobia [sic], within the party". Overnight, anti-Semitism was all but sidelined. A major political inquiry, with a limited period, now covered so many topics that it should, in all justice, have taken years and cost many millions.
In fact, the inquiry did not take long to complete -- a mere nine weeks, from April 29 to June 30, when it was finally presented. During that time, submissions were made from a wide range of people. Some important submissions were made by Jews and Jewish organizations such as the British Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust (CST) jointly with the Jewish Leadership Council, as well as Israel-linked bodies such as Labour Friends of Israel, the British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), and left-orientated Engage.
When the report, entitled The Shami Chakrabarti Inquiry, was published as promised on June 30, it turned out to be what most Jews and pro-Israel activists had suspected it would be from the beginning: a whitewash. It opens with the words: "The Labour Party is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism." But nobody had ever suggested that it was. Further, given the overarching definition of "Islamophobia" on the left, together with long-standing Labour campaigns against the injustices of racism in the broadest sense, it seems pointless to include those topics in the first place.
It is, in fact, a remarkable document. It is vague and waffly, 28 pages saying almost nothing about the subject under question, anti-Semitism, which is throughout subsumed under general issues of racism. Although there is a two-page list of organizations that had sent submissions to the inquiry, none of the specific points made by any of them appears in the document. This is very weird. Had there not been time to consider them all? Or no time at least to study the many submissions from the mainstream and left-sympathizing Jewish and pro-Israel organizations? If not, why was the period for the inquiry not extended?
Here are some of the side-issues Chakrabarti addresses.
The use of acceptable language.
Avoidance of stereotyping.
Careful use of the term Zionist. (As if we never knew.)
We should not condemn people who share platforms with bigots and others (a clear defence of Corbyn, who has appeared with a string of anti-Semites and terrorist sympathizers).
The text then passes to matters such as "procedural rules", "complaint procedures", "publicity", "the use of suspension", "advice on disciplinary action", "training", and "action to make Labour a welcoming environment for all and sundry".
Chakrabarti is a lawyer and a bureaucrat, and these facets of her experience are made clear in this document. It concentrates as much on Muslims, Afro-Caribbeans and Sikhs as it does on Jews (which is not very much anyway). There is a seven-page Appendix which offers nothing more than suggested changes for the Labour Rule Book (2016). Before that appears the list of organizations who had submitted information and ideas to the inquiry -- a list that includes anti-Israel bodies like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Palestine BDSS National Committee, Jews for Justice in Palestine, and Free Speech on Israel -- all groups whom many consider anti-Semitic.
There are twenty recommendations of little substance, including (No. 20) "The Party should increase the ethnic diversity of its staff". How startling! You mean the Labour Party, the party responsible for all the anti-racist legislation in the UK, had never thought of that before?
There was one very major gap in the proceedings - a gap that signals just how far removed the party is from any understanding of modern anti-Semitism - and that was a mere passing reference to Israel. Hatred for Israel is the dominant form of neo-anti-Semitism, as any article or book on the subject will tell you. The original European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) working definition of anti-Semitism, the US State Department definition, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, along with others, agree that exaggerated, mendacious, or malicious criticism of the Jewish state, or the setting of double standards for Israel that are used for no other nation, is anti-Semitic. Here is part of the definition:
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
It is precisely accusations of this kind that make up the bulk of the Labour Party's anti-Semitic comments, including statements still being made by some party members, including Jeremy Corbyn himself. To leave that aspect of anti-Semitism unaddressed while making polite noises about how wonderfully anti-racist Labour is, amounts to nothing more than evasion of the most serious kind.
A few days after the publication of the report, on July 4, Jeremy Corbyn was summoned to appear as a witness to a question and answer session with MPs from the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. This small inquisition went on for well over an hour and was televised on Parliament TV, where readers may watch it in full. It was something of a gruelling session for Corbyn, as marked from the beginning when the chairman of the committee, Keith Vaz (the longest-serving Asian Labour MP) introduced the report as follows:
"Many regard this inquiry as a whitewash because it doesn't contain any facts or figures, it doesn't take evidence from some of the principal people accused of anti-Semitism. Why did you think that this inquiry was relevant when it doesn't reach any conclusions?"
Vaz later stated that "it was hardly an independent report" because Chakrabarti had allied herself to the Labour Party on undertaking the job of inquiry chairperson.
Jeremy Corbyn (center) is questioned by a House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on the Labour party's anti-Semitism inquiry, while the inquiry's author, Shami Chakrabarti (left) scribbles a note to him, July 4, 2016. (Image source: UK Parliament)
A range of questions, some meandering, others (notably those of Chuka Umuna) penetrating, followed. Corbyn proceeded to duck and weave, giving loose answers to well-defined questions, and defending Labour against accusations of racism, relying on his definition of Jewishness as an ethnic matter, slipping past quotations from Labour party anti-Semites by shrugging them aside. His Director of Communications, Seamus Milne, a Trotskyite and former Guardian journalist, was pointedly described by one MP as having openly expressed his admiration for Hamas and its violent struggle against Israel. Corbyn evaded the issue, simply stating that Milne had done sterling work for the party. In a later answer about whether he supported Israel's right to exist, he agreed it had that right but at once started to pronounce a very negative judgement against the country, a judgement that came very close to precisely the sort of anti-Semitism defined above.
Nor was that all. Not long after the report was made public, Jeremy Corbyn nominated Chakrabarti for a peerage, the only one offered by the Labour Party this year. She has refused to answer whether the offer was made before or after she agreed to chair the inquiry, and many on both sides of the Commons, including Tom Watson, Corbyn's own deputy, have expressed outrage about what appears to be a blatant reward for services rendered. Ephraim Mirvis, Britain's Chief Rabbi, said the "credibility of her report lies in tatters" after accepting the peerage.
Neither the inquiry report nor Corbyn's performance before the home affairs committee will have reassured Jews and supporters of Israel in the least. The problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party remains unaddressed and likely to remain a thorn in the party's flesh for a long time to come.
As the battle rages over whether Corbyn should remain leader of Britain's second party, with a large majority of Labour MPs calling for him to resign and vast numbers of party members saying he should do no such thing, it is not at all impossible that the party will split, with a moderate membership dumping the far left activists and reforming a Labour Party more in keeping with the humanitarian and electable institution it once was. We have to hope that the anti-Semitism, mainly in its anti-Israel form, will hang on among the communists and Trotskyites, and vanish among the decent people who have rejected Corbyn as a millstone around their necks.
*Dr. Denis MacEoin is Chairman of the UK's North-East Friends of Israel and a Distinguished Senior Fellow with the Gatestone Institute.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Calling Congress: The U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding
Shoshana Bryen/ Gatestone Institute/September 15/16
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8938/us-israel-memorandum'
The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) plans to change a fundamental part of the U.S.-Israel security relationship -- missile defense.
President Obama is tying Israel's hands for the future by extracting a promise that it will not approach Congress for funds in excess of those in the MOU "unless it is at war."
What does that mean? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria still maintain a state of war with Israel, as does Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and sometimes the Palestinian Authority. Did the Obama Administration leave Israel a loophole for Congressional assistance? Or is it denying that Israel lives in a perpetual and evolving state of threat and often fights "wars" that are essential to the protection of its population, but are not formally declared?
"Over the next decade, [Israel] is going to need to spend more on domestic defense, research and development, because the IDF is going to be under more threat, not less. This MOU sends the wrong signal to the Ayatollahs. I am appalled that the administration would (give) the largest state sponsor of terrorism access to $150 billion in sanctions relief without any requirement that they change their behavior. Instead, it is nickeling and diming Israel." – Senator Lindsay Graham.
Yes. It is a lot of money.
Yes. A ten-year deal provides a stable base for Israeli planning.
Yes. With the unsettled American political situation and the unsettled military situation in Israel's neighborhood, stability counts.
No. Israel's military industries will not collapse without the use of 25% of its American aid internally.
Yes. Israel remains a close and respected ally of the American military establishment.
So why does the new U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) feel oddly coercive on the part of President Obama? True, the current U.S. president finds the current prime minister of Israel to be a strategic liability regarding his plans for Iran as well as a general pain in the neck. So there is the "punishment" angle. But at least as important is the ongoing power play between the president and Congress. This encompasses missile defense, an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMA) for Iraq and Syria, climate change, the Iran deal, "no first use" nuclear policy, Israel, and more.
Israel is the target of both direct and indirect presidential fire as the MOU sets out to change fundamental security relations between Israel and the Congress, which, for the past eight years, have been most valuable in the area that President Obama finds least acceptable -- missile defense.
In 2012, Defense News wrote that not only had the administration requested a funding cut for jointly developed missile defense programs, but that "this marks the third consecutive year that the administration has requested less funding and it will not be the last, according to its own budget projections." And, indeed, from the 2010 request (Obama's first) to the 2017 request (his last) the Administration has shortchanged Israel's missile defense requirements with the sure knowledge that Congress would put the money back. That way, the president could claim to be a friend of Israel's defense -- by citing the total figure -- without actually acknowledging Israel's needs by putting the money in the Executive Branch request to Congress.
Now President Obama is tying Israel's hands for the future by extracting a promise that it will not approach Congress for funds in excess of those in the MOU "unless it is at war." What does that mean? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria still maintain a state of war with Israel, as does Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and sometimes the Palestinian Authority. Did the Obama Administration leave Israel a loophole for Congressional assistance? Or is it denying that Israel lives in a perpetual and evolving state of threat and often fights "wars" that are essential to the protection of its population, but are not formally declared?
Would the administration agree that the 2014 Gaza operation, launched in response to the launching of more than 4,000 Hamas rockets against Israel, was a "war?" Congress added $42.7 million this year for technology to detect and destroy Hamas cross-border tunnels -- in a year in which Israel is no more, or less, "at war" than last year, but in which the number and sophistication of tunnels is growing.
Israel is the target of both direct and indirect presidential fire as the MOU sets out to change fundamental security relations between Israel and the Congress. Above, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets President Barack Obama at the White House, May 20, 2011. (Image source: Israel PM office)
It should be noted that Congress is not going quietly into the night.
Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is both a staunch supporter of Israel and an opponent of the White House on many issues, from the AUMA to the Iran deal to the climate change agreement the president signed in China. Part of it is protective of the constitutional prerogatives of Congress -- on treaties and appropriations -- and part is simply about Israel. In an upcoming interview with inFOCUS Quarterly, Sen. Graham said:
"[The MOU] is an Executive Agreement between the Executive Branch of the United States government and the Prime Minister of Israel. It is not binding on Congress. That [would be] inappropriate... if I'm not part of negotiating the agreement. I wish I had that much say over the Iran deal... Congress has an independent obligation, duty, and responsibility.
"Over the next decade, [Israel] is going to need to spend more on domestic defense, research and development, because the IDF is going to be under more threat, not less. This MOU sends the wrong signal to the Ayatollahs. I am appalled that the administration would (give) the largest state sponsor of terrorism access to $150 billion in sanctions relief without any requirement that they change their behavior. Instead, it is nickeling and diming Israel, and... that's the wrong ship to sail.
"I am going to introduce a stand-alone supplemental of $1.5 billion dollars. In light of the Iran nuclear deal and the provocative behavior coming out of Iran... I believe the proper response is for Congress to increase assistance to Israel. I'm asking Congress to give Israel 1% of what the $150 billion the Ayatollahs will receive."
Now, that does not sound like too much to ask. Israel's choice to sign the MOU is born of internal and external factors. The president's determination to restrict Israel's relations with Congress is similarly born. Congress itself is the wild card, and it will have to step up to ensure the security of America's friend and ally, Israel.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute

Impervious Hubris: How U.S. Intelligence Failures Led to ISIS
Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/September 15/16
Over a decade after U.S. leadership declared a “war on terror,” all it has to show for it is the creation of the Islamic State—an Islamic body that has taken terror and atrocities to a whole new level.
How did this happen?
A key factor often overlooked is the intelligence community’s failures concerning what fuels the jihadis.
Consider Michael Scheuer, author of the 2004 national bestseller Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. Scheuer’s credentials as described in that book are impressive: “For the past seventeen years, my career has focused exclusively on terrorism, Islamic insurgencies, militant Islam… I have earned my keep and am able to speak with some authority and confidence about Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, [and] the dangers they pose and symbolize for the Unites States…” Indeed, Scheuer also served as Senior Adviser for the Osama Bin Laden Department and Chief of the Sunni Militant Unit.
The fundamental thesis of his book was that al-Qaeda’s terrorism is a reaction to U.S. foreign policies: “Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world,” wrote Scheuer.
As proof, he regularly quoted bin Laden’s messages to the West, which did in fact validate Scheuer’s assessment. He went on to compare bin Laden, that jihadi terrorist, to heroes like Robin Hood and even Saint Francis of Assisi, and concluded that al-Qaeda’s war revolves around “love”:
Bin Laden and most militant Islamists, therefore, can be said to be motivated by their love for Allah and their hatred for a few, specific, U.S. policies and actions they believe are damaging—and threatening to destroy—the things they love. Theirs is a war against a specific target, and for specific, limited purposes. While they will use whatever weapon comes to hand—including weapons of mass destruction—their goal is not to wipe out our secular democracy, but to deter us by military means from attacking the things they love. Bin Laden et al are not eternal warriors.
American liberals, academics, politically correct media, politicians, and government—in a word, the establishment—willingly embraced and regurgitated this Muslim grievance thesis which, while not original to Scheuer, certainly received a boost thanks to his book.
It was in this context that I sought to translate al-Qaeda’s Arabic writings that I discovered in 2004 while working at the Library of Congress. As opposed to the carefully crafted communiques al-Qaeda was sending to the West—which were presented without context and accepted hook, line, and sinker by many so-called “experts”—these arcane writings were directed to fellow Muslims. They made perfectly clear al-Qaeda’s ultimate motive in attacking the West: Islam’s commands for Muslims to hate and subjugate the non-Muslim, or “infidel.”
Here’s a sampling of what bin Laden was writing to fellow Muslims, even as he was duping Western analysts with talk of “grievances”:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone.” So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, portraying their violence as a product of “grievances”]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Bin Laden also asked and answered the pivotal question:
Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.
How does one square such clear assertions with Scheuer’s claims that “None of the reasons [for al-Qaeda’s antipathy] have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy”? I raised this question in a 2008 article criticizing Scheuer’s claims about al-Qaeda’s motivations.
In response, Scheuer lashed out in the comments section of the article (see my full response to him here). Instead of acknowledging that al-Qaeda’s own words damned his thesis, the man who insisted Islamic terrorism was a product of “imperial hubris” exhibited a sort of impervious hubris—impervious to facts and reality, that is. He sarcastically wrote:
Mr. Ibrahim’s Al Qaeda Reader is an excellent example of what passes for solid analysis and intellectual honesty among Neo-conservatives…. In this highly selective collection, Mr. Ibrahim picks and chooses from the enormous corpus of writings, statements, and interviews by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to produce a slim volume which he claims will once and for all prove that Al Qaeda and its allies are bent on imposing a worldwide Caliphate to be governed by what the Necons are pleased to call Islamo-fascism… [T]he book deliberately misleads an America public…
For the record, my “slim volume” is 320 pages long. As for it being a “highly selective collection,” the book is actually the most balanced of its kind, as it presents al-Qaeda’s releases to the West and its exhortations to its Muslim followers. For example, whereas Bruce Lawrence’s Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (2005), complemented Scheuer’s grievance paradigm by only presenting al-Qaeda’s propaganda communiques to the West, The Al Qaeda Reader juxtaposes both the terrorist group’s doctrinal writings to fellow Muslims (as quoted above) and its grievance claims to the West, giving the reader a more complete picture.
At any rate, now, a decade later, the “why do they hate us” question has been settled by those best positioned to settle it: the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda 2.0. In a recent article titled “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight You,” the Islamic State gives six reasons. Reason number one says it all:
We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son [Christ], you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4 [i.e., Koran 60:4, the same verse bin Laden quoted above]). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option [“People of the Book”] – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims [per Koran 9:29].
It is only in reasons five and six that ISIS finally mentions “grievances” against Western foreign policies—only to quickly clarify:
What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. […] The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you [emphasis added].
It is this unrelenting hatred that many Westerners cannot comprehend; a hate that compels Muslim husbands to hate their non-Muslim wives and America’s “friends and allies,” such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to publish government sanctioned decrees openly proclaiming their hate for America, because it is not Islamic.
And it was always this hate that fueled al-Qaeda’s jihad—not grievances.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that in Scheuer’s response to me, he mocked the idea that the caliphate would be resurrected (which I had predicted) claiming that “the Islamists know that it is as unlikely to appear in their or their grandsons’ lifetimes as Christians know that a uniform world of turning-of-the-cheek or loving-thy-neighbor is at best light years over the horizon.” Likewise in Imperial Hubris he wrote: “At this point in history, we need worry little about the threat of an offensive and expansionist jihad meant to conquer new lands for Islam and convert new peoples to the faith” (page 7).
Really? Tell that to the many non-Muslims and non-Sunnis—Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Shia—who have been enslaved, raped, slaughtered, burned and buried alive, as the caliphate expanded into their territories over the last couple of years.
All of this was enabled by the West’s embrace of the “grievance” theory, championed not created by the likes of Scheuer. It ran its course and was behind abysmal policies meant to pacify supposedly aggrieved Muslims—such as wholesale support for the “Arab Spring,” which saw the Obama administration turn its back on 30-year-long allies such as Egypt’s secular Mubarak in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. The grievance theory is partially responsible for why, a decade after the U.S. started bringing “freedom and democracy” to this and that Muslim nation—Iraq, Egypt, Libya, ongoing in Syria—specifically by ousting secular dictators long experienced at suppressing jihadis, all that the most powerful and freedom loving nation in the world has to show for it is the creation of the Islamic State.
Even so, the impervious hubris continues. Instead of accepting the hard facts—Islamic hostility is a product of Islamic teachings—the Obama administration, including the CIA, continue invoking the “grievance” and related memes concerning ISIS. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that it’s important to be “showing respect even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view,” that is, empathize with their grievances?
Clinton said this at Georgetown University, which is fitting. For, you may ask, where is Michael Scheuer now—this man who didn’t have to wait till our “grandsons’ lifetimes” to see just how much he got wrong? He’s where all who excel at denying Islam has any connection to violence for the other: teaching a future generation of “terrorism experts” at Georgetown University.