New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/‘If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a sabbath day?’And they could not reply to this
Luke 14/01-06: "On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the sabbath, they were watching him closely. Just then, in front of him, there was a man who had dropsy. And Jesus asked the lawyers and Pharisees, ‘Is it lawful to cure people on the sabbath, or not?’But they were silent. So Jesus took him and healed him, and sent him away. Then he said to them, ‘If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a sabbath day?’And they could not reply to this."

Bible Quotation For Today/Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
First Letter of John 02/01-11: "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him’, but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, ‘I abide in him’, ought to walk just as he walked. Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word that you have heard. Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. Whoever says, ‘I am in the light’, while hating a brother or sister, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light, and in such a person there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates another believer is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness."

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 17-18/15
Who should go first, Assad or ISIS/Jamal Khashoggi/Al Arabiya/August 17/15
Ahmad al-Assir and the absence of justice in Lebanon/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/August 17/15
Putin is a man with a plan for Syria/Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/August 17/15
Al-Qaeda's emir strikes back/Gulf Pulse/Al Monitor/August 17/15
Canadian parliament candidate steps down after Israel 'ethnic cleansing' remark/By JPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS/August 17/15
Zarif presses diplomacy on Syria/Iran takes initiative in regional security/Al Monitor/August 17/15
How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam/Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/August 17/15
Looking Ahead at Middle East "Peace"/Shoshana Bryen/Gatestone Institute/August 17, 2015
The New Racists: Jew Hate/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/August 17/15
Iranian VP And Atomic Chief Salehi Reveals Details From Secret Iran-U.S. Nuclear Talks/MEMRI/August 17/15
The President Should Stop Questioning the Motivations of Opponents of the Iran Deal/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/August 17/15

LCCC Bulletin titles for the Lebanese Related News published on August 17-18/15
Salam Holds onto Consensus although 'Vacuum Threatens Serail'
Lebanese Army: Scores, Including Suspected Syrian Terrorists, Arrested
2 Militants Dead as Lebanese Army Stops Infiltration Attempt
Kaag: Lebanese Politicians Responsible for Situation, U.N. Following Up on Presidential Deadlock
Suspected al-Asir Supporter Arrested in Sidon
Abou Faour: Lebanon on Verge of Disaster because of Waste Crisis
Sami Gemayel Says Christian Rights Not Hinging on Aoun or Roukoz
2 Held as Army Seizes Truck of Gunmen who 'Threatened' Bishop

LCCC Bulletin Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 17-18/15
IDF Intelligence: Deal could help rein in Iran's terrorist activities
Iraq Lawmakers Refer Report on Mosul Fall to Judiciary
At Least 16 Dead as Bomb Rocks Central Bangkok
U.N. ‘horrified’ by attacks on Syrian civilians
Syria Strikes Toll Nears 100, U.N. Aid Chief 'Horrified'
Assad's Ouster 'Unacceptable' as Syria Peace Precondition, Says Russia
Palestinian Shot Dead Trying to Stab Israeli Policeman
More than 80 Dead in 24 Hours of Fighting for Key Yemen City
Hundreds of U.S. Rabbis Voice Support for Iran Nuclear Deal
Turkey's Embattled Lira Falls to New Low against Dollar
Turkey PM Says All Coalition Options Exhausted
Egypt adopts controversial anti-terror law

Salam Holds onto Consensus although 'Vacuum Threatens Serail'
Naharnet/August 17/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam has said that he was procrastinating on calling for a cabinet session to allow consultations taking place among officials to resolve the government crisis. “The state's prestige is at stakes amid a paralysis striking its institutions,” Salam told An Nahar daily published on Monday. The PM said that Defense Minister Samir Moqbel decided earlier this month to extend the terms of three top army officials to prevent a vacuum in the military institution. Moqbel's decision angered the Free Patriotic Movement of MP Michel Aoun whose supporters held protests calling for the appointment of new high-ranking military and security officials. “How would we provide the people's needs … if there is no consensus in the government?” wondered Salam. The premier reiterated that consensus is necessary when asked if he would go ahead with decisions taken by only 18 cabinet ministers. He said he rejected to be on anybody's side in the government. “The day I give up my consensual role, there is no need for me to continue in my position.”Salam vowed to continue to exercise his authorities and stop crises from striking the government.The cabinet failed last week to take any decision on the controversial decision-making mechanism or the waste crisis. Salam said he paved way for everyone to express their opinion “so that they know I don't manage sessions in a dictatorial way.” The PM's visitors also quoted him as saying on Monday that the parties paralyzing the cabinet would be held responsible for the repercussions of the standstill. “The presidential vacuum shut the parliament's doors and is threatening the Grand Serail, the last institution functioning” properly, Salam told the visitors in remarks published in al-Joumhouria daily. Lebanon has been without a president since May last year when Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended. The vacuum at Baabda Palace has left the parliament in paralysis and caused disputes among ministers.

Lebanese Army: Scores, Including Suspected Syrian Terrorists, Arrested
Naharnet/August 17/15/The Lebanese army said on Monday that it has arrested two Syrians on the main road of Labweh-Arsal in the eastern Bekaa Valley on suspicion of belonging to terrorist groups. A communique issued by the military command identified the two suspects as Mohammed Mustafa al-Jaour and Khaled Mohammed al-Ghawi. In the southern town of Alman, a military patrol arrested Palestinian Ayad Mohammed Salloum while Lebanese Ali Ghazi al-Assaad and Mohammed Ibrahim Fadel were apprehended in Beirut's Haret Hreik neighborhood for involvement in shootings and injuring citizens and a soldier. In the area of Karm al-Saddeh in the northern district of Zgharta, a patrol detained Elie Hanna al-Khoury on charges of opening fire. It seized a gun and ammunition during the raid. In the northern area of al-Ayrounieh, 14 Syrians were detained for entering the country illegally.The detainees were handed over the appropriate authorities.

2 Militants Dead as Lebanese Army Stops Infiltration Attempt
Naharnet/August 17/15/The Lebanese army has thwarted an attempt by gunmen to infiltrate Lebanese territories in the eastern Bekaa Valley, leaving two militants dead, the military and state-run National News Agency said on Monday. Two militants were killed and five injured in the areas of al-Misyada and Wadi Hmeid in an ambush on the outskirts of the northeastern border town of Arsal, they said. The army transported the two bodies to Hermel's state hospital. NNA identified the gunmen as Islamic State group militants Mohammed Kanj and Ali Mtaweh. Later, the military shelled the positions of gunmen on the outskirts of Arsal and Ras Baalbek. The militants from al-Nusra Front and the IS are taking the porous Lebanese-Syrian border as a hiding place. Their threat rose in August last year when they overran Arsal and took with them hostages from the military and police following deadly clashes. They have since executed four of them. The army regularly clashes with the militants and thwarts their attempts to infiltrate Arsal.

Kaag: Lebanese Politicians Responsible for Situation, U.N. Following Up on Presidential Deadlock
Naharnet/August 17/15/U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Sigrid Kaag emphasized that the Lebanese officials are primarily accountable for the political and economic situation, stressing that the long-term relations with regional countries might play a positive role in several pressing issues. “The primary responsibility lies on the Lebanese officials whether regarding the political or economic situations,” said Kaag in an interview with Iran's News Agency IRNA on Monday. She stressed that the “long-term relations between some Lebanese parties and neighboring countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and others could play a positive role in some files.”The diplomat stressed that “the International community hopes that the presidential deadlock is resolved. The U.N. and the international support group are following up closely on the issue.”She stressed that the delay in electing a president has “negative repercussions on the state institutions, the economic situation and the affairs of the state in general.”

Suspected al-Asir Supporter Arrested in Sidon
Naharnet/August 17/15/General Security officers arrested on Monday a supporter of Ahmed al-Asir during a raid in the southern city of Sidon. The state-run National News Agency said H.R. was apprehended by the Information Branch during an early morning raid on an electronics shop. Al-Asir was arrested on Saturday at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport. He was carrying with him a forged Palestinian passport and trying to flee to Nigeria via Cairo. General Prosecutor Judge Samir Hammoud later confirmed that said DNA samples taken from al-Asir match those of his parents The firebrand anti-Hizbullah cleric had been on the run since June 2013 after his armed supporters clashed with the Lebanese army in Sidon. Since Saturday, security forces have conducted several raids in and around Sidon in search of suspects linked to al-Asir. LBCI TV said his questioning has so far led to the arrest of three people.

Abou Faour: Lebanon on Verge of Disaster because of Waste Crisis
Naharnet/August 17/15/Health Minister Wael Abou Faour warned on Monday that Lebanon's air, food, and water are at risk from the ongoing waste disposal crisis, urging the state to take “immediate measures” to resolve the problem.
He said during a press conference: “Lebanon is on the verge of a health disaster because of the crisis.”The citizens are not responsible for ending the crisis, but the government is, he declared. “The state should take the necessary measures and officials should set aside their political calculations,” demanded Abou Faour. “The cycle of disputes and bickering among politicians has to come to an end as we do not have the luxury of time,” he stressed. Moreover, he remarked that the option of exporting the waste is not possible, which should prompt the cabinet to take matters into its own hands. “All options have reached a dead-end,” he noted, while hailing the efforts of Prime Minister Tammam Salam and Environment Minister Mohammed al-Mashnouq. “I will carry out arrangements with municipalities to manage the crisis,” he revealed. Regarding the garbage in Beirut, he demanded that it be removed near schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and the port, where it is being dumped by a nearby flour mill. “My proposals will be relayed to the prime minister and crisis cells will be set up to manage the problem. If we are not able to act as a complete state, we should at least work as a partial one. We should not keep the citizens' health at risk,” he stressed. He later headed to the Grand Serail for talks with Salam. Lebanon has been suffering from a waste disposal crisis since the closure of the Naameh landfill on July 17, with Beirut and the Mount Lebanon areas most affected. The cabinet's failure to find an alternative landfill and various municipalities' rejection of having waste from the capital and Mount Lebanon dumped in their areas have exacerbated the crisis and led to the establishment of arbitrary landfills. Abou Faour had previously held press conferences warning of the health dangers of the accumulating waste, which has overflowed in dumpsters.

Sami Gemayel Says Christian Rights Not Hinging on Aoun or Roukoz
Naharnet/August 17/15/Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel on Sunday rejected the “isolation” of any party in Lebanon while noting that the rights of Christians are not hinging on the election of MP Michel Aoun as president or the appointment of Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz as army chief. “There is no doubt that there is a problem in partnership in this country that started with the Taef Accord and everyone knows this,” Gemayel acknowledged during an interview on al-Jadeed television. “Amid this decaying situation, the presidential vacuum, the parliament's paralysis and the threats on the border, is this the time to tackle the minor issues? Will the rights of Christians be restored through this appointment?” Gemayel asked rhetorically. Pointing out that Aoun is “right in principle,” Gemayel noted that the chief of the Free Patriotic Movement is “mistaken in the topics that he is reducing the problem to.” “The rectification of the political situation must go first through a new electoral law,” he said. “We're not convinced that the Christian situation can only be rectified through Aoun's election as president,” Gemayel went on to say. But the Kataeb chief underlined that the election of a new president must precede the drafting of a new electoral law. “The future of Christians is not hinging on a single person,” Gemayel stressed. He also said the rights of Christians will not be “undermined” if Gen. Roukoz – commander of the Commando Regiment and Aoun's son-in-law – does not become army chief. Asked about Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's allegations that there is an attempt to “defeat” and “isolate” Aoun, Gemayel underscored that Kataeb rejects the isolation or defeat of any party in Lebanon. Aoun has recently mobilized his supporters to hold street protests against what he terms as the violation of the rights of Christians and Defense Minister Samir Moqbel's decision to extend the terms of top three military officers, including the army commander. The FPM has also accused Prime Minister Tammam Salam, who is close to al-Mustaqbal movement, of infringing on the rights of the Christian president in his absence. The movement's ministers want to amend the cabinet's working mechanism to have a say on its agenda. Prior to Moqbel's move, Aoun had been reportedly lobbying for political consensus on the appointment of Roukoz as army chief.

2 Held as Army Seizes Truck of Gunmen who 'Threatened' Bishop
Naharnet/August 17/15/An army force on Monday raided the town of Dar al-Wasaa, west of Baalbek, and seized a truck belonging to gunmen who last week “threatened” a bishop and a priest in the Bekaa region, state-run National News Agency reported. It said the red Tacoma pickup was used by the gunmen during last Monday's incident. Later on Monday, an army statement said troops arrested Hussein Mohammed Allam and Haitham Hammoud Nassereddine at a military checkpoint. “They were riding in a Tacoma pickup carrying no license plates and they tried to flee the checkpoint,” the statement said. “A Kalashnikov rifle, its ammo, and military gear were seized in the truck,” it added. Bishop Khalil Alwan and Father Elie Nasr were traveling in a convoy from Bkirki to Deir al-Ahmar when they were intercepted by gunmen riding in three vehicles. The armed men demanded that the bishop deliver a message to Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi to pressure authorities to release the wife of the detainee Mohammed Dora Jaafar. The woman was arrested at the Dahr al-Baidar checkpoint in connection with the abduction of Marc al-Hajj Moussa in early August. Moussa was abducted by armed men on a road in the Metn town of Mazraat Yashouh while on his way to his home in Bikfaya. He was released on Saturday after his family paid the captors a ransom of 350,000 dollars.

IDF Intelligence: Deal could help rein in Iran's terrorist activities
Yoav Zeitun/Ynetnews/Published: 08.17.15/ Israel News /Military intelligence estimates nuclear deal could include incentives to Iran not to attack Western targets, and notes continuous talks between Tehran and Washington could benefit Israel. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been leading a campaign against the Iran nuclear deal, IDF Intelligence has pointed to possible benefits to Israel as a result of the agreement. The IDF Military Intelligence Directorate's Research Department recently presented its stance on the deal to the political leadership, and along the risks and problems – which Israel has pointed out many times – it mentions a number of opportunities and positive possibilities that the deal can lead to. While noting that the risks are greater than the rewards, Military Intelligence emphasized the possible positives that could come of the deal. Primarily, that Iran will not have military nuclear capabilities in the coming few years. In addition, the United States is currently negotiating with Iran over different security issues relating to the Middle East. The Research Department went on to say that the deal might also rein in Iran and stop it from performing terrorist acts against Israel, such as bombing embassies. Alongside that, Military Intelligence also presented the risks involved in the deal, among them the fear of a nuclear arms race in the region, which could include countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Countries in the region have already began buying increased amounts of conventional weapons from the United States and France, and invested billions of dollars in anti-air defenses and purchases of F-16 fighter jets, as did Iraq. Another risk is the fact that the world now sees Iran as a legitimate, unblemished state. Earlier in the month it was revealed that the leader of Iran's elite Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, traveled to Russia in July, where he met high-ranking government officials. The Fox News Channel reported that he met with President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Iraq Lawmakers Refer Report on Mosul Fall to Judiciary
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/Iraqi lawmakers voted Monday to refer to the judiciary a report holding top officials, including ex-premier Nuri al-Maliki, responsible for the fall of second city Mosul, the parliament speaker said. But there were disagreements over the report, with MPs voting to send it without an official reading, and members of the investigative committee that compiled it complaining that there was no vote to approve the recommendations it contained. "Parliament voted to refer the (Mosul) file, including facts and evidence and names," to the judiciary, speaker Salim al-Juburi said in televised remarks. "None of the names mentioned in this report were deleted, and all of them will be sent to the judiciary. An investigation and follow up and accounting of all those who caused the fall of Mosul will be carried out," Juburi said. Former prime minister and current vice president Maliki was the most senior and controversial of those named responsible in the report for the Islamic State jihadist group's takeover of Nineveh province capital Mosul in 2014. Investigative committee members Hanin Qado and Ammar al-Shibli both said the committee did not vote on the recommendations within the report. Qado, a member of the Shabak minority, said the report was not read in parliament "due to differences on the recommendations, because there was no vote on the recommendations within the committee." "The committee is not neutral," said Shibli, from Maliki's State of Law alliance. IS launched a devastating offensive on June 9 last year, overrunning Mosul the next day and then sweeping through large areas north and west of Baghdad. Multiple Iraqi divisions collapsed during the initial assault in the north, in some cases abandoning weapons and other equipment which the jihadists then used to further their drive. While various top commanders and political leaders have long been blamed for the Mosul loss, the report is the first time that they have been named officially. Those named include defense minister Saadun al-Dulaimi, army chief of staff Babaker Zebari, his deputy Aboud Qanbar, ground forces commander Ali Ghaidan, Nineveh operations command chief Mahdi al-Gharawi and the province's governor, Atheel al-Nujaifi.

At Least 16 Dead as Bomb Rocks Central Bangkok
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/At least 16 people were killed, including foreigners, and dozens injured when a bomb exploded Monday outside a religious shrine popular with tourists in the Thai capital, scattering body parts and debris. The blast occurred about 6:30 pm when the streetside shrine was packed with worshipers and tourists -- with the Thai police chief confirming at least 10 Thais, one Chinese and one Filipino citizen were among the dead. "The death toll is now 16," police spokesman Prawut Thavornsiri told AFP, adding the blast was likely politically motivated and designed to bring "chaos" in a the junta-ruled kingdom. Glass was strewn across the street after the explosion outside the Erawan Shrine in the central Chidlom district, an AFP reporter witnessed. Charred and shattered motorcycles littered the scene, along with hunks of concrete from the shrine, with pools of blood on the pavement and two bodies crumpled on the steps of the shrine. "It was a bomb, I think it was inside a motorcycle... it was very big, look at the bodies," one visibly shocked rescue volunteer, who did not want to be named, told AFP. The city's medical emergency center said more than 80 people were wounded by the blast, which rattled windows several kilometers from the site. There were chaotic scenes at Chulakongkorn Hospital, one of a number of nearby medical facilities that received victims as nurses ferried the injured on gurneys. One man who was conscious had visibly burned hair and a number of cuts that were bandaged, an AFP reporter on the scene said.
"Some (of the victims) are Chinese," Minister for Tourism an Kobkarn Wattanavrangkul told AFP as she visited the hospital. A Chinese and a Filipino were among those confirmed dead, Thai police said. With rumors abounding in a city that is no stranger to major acts of violence, officials denied reports of more devices in an area, which is home to several high end hotels and major shopping malls. While there was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, suspicion swiftly fell on the kingdom's rival political factions. Thailand has been seared by a near-decade of political violence that has left the country deeply divided and seen repeated rounds of deadly street protests and bombings -- but none on Monday's scale. Many observers had predicted a fresh round of violence after the military seized power in a coup in May last year, toppling a civilian government led by Yingluck Shinawatra. Thailand's defense minister said the bombers had targeted "foreigners" to try to damage the tourist industry, which is a rare bright spot in an otherwise gloomy economy. "It was a TNT bomb... the people who did it targeted foreigners and to damage tourism and the economy," said Prawit Wongsuwong, a former general who is believed to have been one of the key coup-makers. Self-exiled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who is Yingluck's brother and who was toppled by a 2006 coup, sits at the heart of the political divide. Parties led by him or his sister or supporters have won every election since 2001 thanks to the votes of the rural north and northeast. But he is loathed by the Bangkok-based royalist elite. Thailand is also fighting a festering insurgency in its Muslim-majority southernmost provinces bordering Malaysia. More than 6,400 people -- mostly civilians -- have been killed there. In the so-called "Deep South", bombs are a near-daily reality alongside shootings and ambushes of security forces. Civilians are overwhelmingly the target. But the conflict, which sees local rebels calling for greater autonomy from the Thai state, has stayed highly localized. There has never been a confirmed attack by the insurgents outside the southern region despite the years of war. The Erawan is an enormously popular shrine to the Hindu god Brahma but is visited by thousands of Buddhist devotees every day. It is located on a traffic-choked intersection in Bangkok's commercial hub and surrounded by three major shopping malls.

U.N. ‘horrified’ by attacks on Syrian civilians
By AFP | Damascus/Monday, 17 August 2015/The U.N.'s humanitarian chief fiercely condemned attacks against civilians in Syria at a press conference in Damascus on Monday, a day after one of the bloodiest government raids in the four-year war. "I am horrified by the total disrespect for civilian life in this conflict," Stephen O'Brien said in a statement. He said he was "particularly appalled" by reports of civilian deaths in Sunday's air strikes on the rebel-held town of Douma, and said attacks on civilians "must stop". At least 96 people were killed on Sunday in 10 government raids on Douma, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. O'Brien's press conference concluded his three-day visit to Damascus, his first to the war-torn country since his appointment in May. In a statement released by the U.N.'s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, O'Brien appealed "to each and every party to this protracted conflict to protect civilians and respect international humanitarian law."The statement said O'Brien had discussed strengthening the U.N.'s humanitarian operations with Syrian officials, but remained "concerned" about 4.6 million Syrians stuck in hard-to-reach and besieged zones. At least four million Syrians have been forced to flee the country, and millions of others are internally displaced.

Syria Strikes Toll Nears 100, U.N. Aid Chief 'Horrified'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/The toll in Syrian government air strikes on a rebel-held town outside Damascus neared 100 Monday, as the U.N.'s humanitarian chief expressed horror and appealed for civilians to be protected. Sunday's series of raids on the town of Douma, in the rebel bastion of Eastern Ghouta, was one of the bloodiest regime attacks in Syria's four-year war. They came almost exactly two years after devastating chemical weapons attacks on the same region that much of the international community blamed on the Syrian government. The National Coalition, Syria's main opposition body in exile, condemned both the air strikes and the "lukewarm response" by the international community towards the war's civilian casualties. At least 96 people were killed in the 10 air strikes on a marketplace, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitor. Another 240 people were wounded, and the death toll continues to rise as some of those in a serious condition succumb to their injuries. Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said government aircraft carried out another four air strikes on Douma on Monday morning, but he had no immediate details on casualties. An AFP photographer on Sunday described the attack as the worst he had covered in the town. He saw dozens of bodies lined up on the bloodied floors of one of Douma's makeshift clinics, as medics struggled to treat waves of wounded. Two young boys with bloodied faces sat on a stretcher as they awaited treatment, one resting as though exhausted while the other cried. On Monday, the photographer said residents were burying victims of the previous day's attack. "They went early to the cemetery to begin the burials," he said. "After each massacre, they bury the dead one on top of each other. Gravediggers have had to create a mass grave that is four layers deep to accommodate the dead." Eastern Ghouta, a rebel bastion regularly targeted by government air strikes, has been under a suffocating siege for nearly two years. Amnesty International last week accused the government of committing war crimes there, saying its heavy aerial bombardment of the area was compounding the misery created by the blockade. On Monday, the U.N.'s humanitarian chief Stephen O'Brien, on his first trip to Syria since taking the post in May, fiercely condemned attacks on civilians. At a news conference in Damascus, he said he was "horrified by the total disrespect for civilian life in this conflict". "I am particularly appalled by reports of air strikes yesterday causing scores of civilian deaths and hundreds injured right in the center of Douma, a besieged area of Damascus," O'Brien said. "I appeal to each and every party to this protracted conflict to protect civilians and respect international humanitarian law."
The Observatory's Abdel Rahman described Sunday's Douma attacks as part of the regime's "scorched earth policy"."The regime wants to show that it can kill as many people as it wants, without caring about the international community," he said. At least 240,000 people have been killed in Syria's war, which began in March 2011 with protests against President Bashar Assad's regime. In a statement, the opposition National Coalition accused the government of "deliberately" targeting civilians in Douma. "The air strikes were deliberate in that Assad's jet fighters fired missiles on marketplaces at (a) busy time when they are densely crowded with the intention of inflicting as many civilian casualties as possible," the statement read. But it also said the international community's failure to respond to such atrocities contributed to the violence. "The U.N. Security Council and the international community's lukewarm response is a contributing factor in the escalation of massacres against Syrian civilians," the Coalition said. It criticized international bodies, including the Security Council, for failing to condemn the massacres or do more to protect civilians in Syria. And Coalition head Khaled Khoja said the Assad regime's "boldness in committing massacres against civilians for 53 consecutive months depends on international silence that amounts to complicity". Elsewhere, rebel fire on the provincial capital of Assad's coastal heartland Latakia killed six people and wounded 19 on Monday, Syrian state TV said. The Observatory confirmed the attack in Latakia city but said three had been killed.

Assad's Ouster 'Unacceptable' as Syria Peace Precondition, Says Russia
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday insisted Moscow did not accept the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad as a prerequisite for launching any peace process in the war-torn country. Russia -- one of Assad's few remaining allies along with Iran -- has launched a fresh diplomatic push to find a way out of the four-year civil war that has cost some 240,000 lives. Russia's top diplomat met his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif in Moscow on Monday to discuss Syria along with other issues including the July deal over Tehran's nuclear program. The visit came after Lavrov last week hosted Saudi Arabia's foreign minister and representatives of the Syrian opposition, who all insisted Assad must go. "While some of our partners believe that it is necessary to agree in advance that at the end of the transitional period the president will leave his post, this position is unacceptable for Russia," Lavrov said after meeting Zarif, without specifying who he was talking about. Lavrov said Russia's position "has not changed" on Syria and a solution to the conflict should come "without outside interference or any kinds of preconditions". Moscow is also pushing a plan for a broader grouping than the current U.S.-led coalition to fight the Islamic State (IS) group, to include Syria's government and its allies, but Assad's opponents have rejected the idea. The head of Syria's main opposition National Coalition group Khaled Khoja claimed Friday after meeting Lavrov that Moscow is "not clinging to Bashar Assad". Russian officials insisted Moscow's position all along was not to support him personally but back him as "the legitimately elected president."The opposition believes that Assad must step down immediately for there to be any hope of reconciliation. Amid the diplomatic flurry, the atrocious situation on the ground in Syria took a further grim turn over the weekend as regime airstrikes in a rebel-held town outside Damascus killed nearly 100. The United Nation's Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, on Monday condemned the bombings as "unacceptable".

Palestinian Shot Dead Trying to Stab Israeli Policeman
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/Israeli security forces shot dead a Palestinian who tried to stab a border police officer in the West Bank on Monday, authorities said, in the fourth such incident in a week. The Palestinian approached a checkpoint at the Tapuah Junction near Nablus claiming he was sick, then attempted to stab the officer, police spokeswoman Luba Samri said in a statement. "Another border policeman saw it and shot the assailant" who was killed on the spot, she said in a statement. The Israeli officer targeted with the knife was lightly injured, authorities said. The Palestinian Red Crescent confirmed the death and said an ambulance had been prevented from approaching the area, which the army cordoned off before handing over the body in a military ambulance.In two similar attacks Saturday, Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian who stabbed a border policeman in the northern West Bank, hours after another Palestinian who stabbed a soldier near a checkpoint in the occupied territory was shot and wounded. On August 9, Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian who stabbed and lightly injured an Israeli civilian at a petrol station. Tensions have soared in the West Bank in recent weeks in the wake of the deadly firebombing of a Palestinian home, attributed to Jewish extremists. An 18-month-old boy was killed in the July 31 arson attack in the West Bank village of Duma and days later his father died in hospital from horrific burns over 80 percent of his body.

More than 80 Dead in 24 Hours of Fighting for Key Yemen City
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/Heavy fighting between government loyalists and rebels for Yemen's third city Taez has left more than 80 people dead in the past 24 hours, military sources said on Monday. The dead bodies of 50 Shiite Huthi rebels and allied troops were retrieved from the city on Monday, the sources in Taez said, adding that 31 pro-government fighters were also killed. Military sources said Sunday that pro-government forces, supported by Gulf air strikes have made key gains against the Iran-backed rebels in Taez -- seen as a gateway to the rebel-held capital Sanaa. They have seized several strategic locations in the city, including intelligence headquarters, a fortress from which the rebels had been shelling Taez, as well as the highest peak overlooking the city, according to Rashad al-Sharaabi, spokesman of the pro-government militia there. Clashes were ongoing Monday with fierce fighting using heavy weaponry reported around the rebel-held presidential palace.The latest advance on Taez came after loyalist forces made sweeping gains in south Yemen, starting with their recapture of main city Aden in mid-July. Military sources say the coalition has provided exiled president Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi's supporters with modern heavy equipment, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, and Yemeni soldiers trained in Saudi Arabia. The conflict has cost nearly 4,300 lives since March, half of them civilians, according to U.N. figures, while 80 percent of Yemen's 21 million people have been left in need of aid and protection.

Hundreds of U.S. Rabbis Voice Support for Iran Nuclear Deal
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/More than 300 American rabbis wrote members of Congress Monday urging them to support the international nuclear deal with Iran, signalling the U.S. Jewish community is split over the historic but controversial accord. The religious leaders come from across the spectrum, but hail overwhelmingly from Judaism's Conservative and Reform streams as well as other progressive Jewish movements, a spokesperson said. "We encourage the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to endorse this agreement," the 340 rabbis wrote in a letter to Congress distributed by Ameinu, a progressive charitable Jewish organization. "We are deeply concerned with the impression that the leadership of the American Jewish community is united in opposition to the agreement," the rabbis added. "We, along with many other Jewish leaders, fully support this historic nuclear accord."The agreement, finalized last month after more than a year of intense negotiations, would roll back Iran's nuclear program in exchange for an easing of crippling economic sanctions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is strongly opposed to the deal. He argues it will fail to block Iran's path to nuclear weapons that could be used to target the Jewish state. Two weeks ago Netanyahu personally called on U.S. Jewish groups to thwart the White House-backed deal. He made his appeal on a webcast hosted by Jewish American groups, which said it reached some 10,000 people. The Jewish community is split over whether to back the landmark accord. Progressive group J Street supports it. The American Jewish Committee, a leading Jewish advocacy organization, has come out opposed, as has the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is reportedly spending more than $20 million in efforts to rally opposition to the deal. Among the rabbis who signed the congressional letter, 49 are from New York, the state represented by senior Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer, who earlier this month announced he will oppose the accord when it comes up in Congress in September. On Tuesday another influential Democrat, Senator Robert Menendez, gives a speech on the Iran nuclear accord and will announce whether he will vote for or against it. Congress is expected to pass a resolution opposing the deal in September. President Barack Obama will veto that measure, but Congress could override such a veto -- and kill the Iran deal -- with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Turkey's Embattled Lira Falls to New Low against Dollar
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/Turkey's embattled lira hit a new historic low in value against the dollar Monday as investors took fright at ongoing political uncertainty and the prospect of early elections.
The lira slid to a new low of 2.862 to the dollar, losing 1.06 percent on the day. The Turkish currency has now declined 7.62 percent against the dollar over the last month, and 22.62 percent since the start of the year. The current pressure was prompted by the collapse of coalition talks between the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), paving the way for early elections. The government is also waging an unprecedented two-pronged "anti-terror" operation against jihadists in Syria and Kurdish militants in southeast Turkey and northern Iraq, further rattling investors. But Turkish Economy Minister Nihat Zeybekci said on Monday that there was no need for panic or any major intervention to buttress the lira. "For the moment we don't see such an eventuality as necessary. An equilibrium will be found on the markets," he said.

Turkey PM Says All Coalition Options Exhausted
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 17/15/Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Monday said he had exhausted all options to form a coalition government, leaving the country facing snap elections just months after the June 7 polls. The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost its overall majority in the June 7 legislative polls for the first time since it came to power in 2002, in a major setback for its co-founder President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. AKP leader Davutoglu met Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) chief Devlet Bahceli in Ankara, in what was seen as a last ditch chance to agree a coalition government. But Davutoglu said afterwards that there could be no agreement with the MHP, which by share of the vote came third in the polls. "Mr. Bahceli told me clearly that he saw no possibility to form a government with the AKP," he told reporters in Ankara. "I did everything and tried all the possible formulae. But there is no path possible for a coalition," he added. Bahceli also made clear he did not support propping up any minority AKP government, Davutoglu said. Davutoglu had on Thursday announced the collapse of several weeks of coalition talks with the second placed Republican People's Party (CHP), saying early elections now looked like the "only option" for Turkey. It remains unclear when the polls could take place, with some analysts indicating November 22 as a possible date. New polls will come at a time when Turkey is fighting a cross-border offensive against Islamic State (IS) jihadists in Syria and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) militants in northern Iraq and risk causing further political and economic uncertainty. The prospect of early elections again unnerved markets, with the Turkish lira losing 1.16 percent in value against the dollar to hit a new record low of 1.865 lira to the dollar. Some analysts have suggested Erdogan all along wanted to see a re-run of the election so the AKP could regain an overall majority and realize his dream of creating a presidential system in Turkey.

Egypt adopts controversial anti-terror law
By AFP | Cairo/Monday, 17 August 2015/Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi ratified on Sunday an anti-terrorism law which stipulates exorbitant fines, and possible suspension from employment, for “false” reporting on militant attacks. The government had sped up the passage of the law after the state prosecutor was assassinated in a car bombing in late June, followed by a large-scale militant attack in the Sinai Peninsula days later. The military was infuriated after media, quoting security officials, reported that dozens of troops had been killed in the Sinai attack. The military’s official death toll was 21 soldiers and scores of militants. The controversial law, published in the government’s official gazette, sets a minimum fine of 200,000 pounds (about $25,000) and a maximum of 500,000 pounds for for anyone who strays from government statements in publishing or spreading “false” reports on attacks or security operations against militants. Critics say the steep fines may shut down smaller newspapers, and deter larger ones from independently reporting on attacks and operations against militants. The government had initially proposed a jail sentence for offenders, but backed down after a backlash from Egyptian media. The ratified law, however, added another clause allowing courts to “prevent the convicted from practising the profession for a period of no more than one year, if the crime violates the principles of the profession.” It did not specifically mention journalism. The law also lays out the death penalty for those convicted of leading “terrorist groups” or financing attacks. Hundreds of Islamists have been sentenced to death in mass trials since Sisi, a former army chief, overthrew Islamist president Mohammad Mursi in July 2013. Many of them have won retrials, and Mursi himself, sentenced to death last June, has appealed his verdict.

Who should go first, Assad or ISIS?
Jamal Khashoggi/Al Arabiya/Monday, 17 August 2015
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir put an end to suspicious rumors in many Arab capitals that Riyadh is now willing to approve of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In Berlin then in Moscow during a few consecutive days, Jubeir made assurances that Riyadh did not accept any future role for Assad, not even in a Syrian interim government. However, the Russians and Americans are promoting the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS] first” theory, which is wrong politically and practically. The Americans should have admitted that well before the Russians, after they saw how difficult it was to form special Syrian forces to fight ISIS despite all the temptations of money, training and arms. As soon as a Syrian volunteer hears that his job is to only fight ISIS instead of the regime, he withdraws from the program. Whoever is left of them has entered Syria heavily armed and is suspected of robbing other factions. However, if the U.S. government accepts the Saudi and Turkish call for “Bashar first,” those people will become heroes in the eyes of their societies and will attract more volunteers. Amid these events, Saudi Arabia will be directly and closely affected by the collapsing situation in Syria and its consequences such as the war on ISIS, chaos, smuggling, and human and arms trafficking. Riyadh is also fully aware of the reality of the situation there, so it is necessary to listen when it says “Assad first.”
Stopping ISIS
No one will fight ISIS in situ other than Syrians. Neither the Saudis nor the Russians will do that. The Syrians are the greatest beneficiary of getting rid of ISIS. They have had enough of this organization, and they know that it will stand between them and their dream of building a free Syria for all Syrians. They do not want to replace Assad’s tyranny with ISIS. Russia’s argument that Syria will gradually fall into the hands of ISIS if the Assad regime falls is not true. Assad’s regime is one of the reasons behind the spread of ISIS
The Syrian opposition, with its nationalists and Islamists, is the one fighting the spread of ISIS in their country, not regime forces, which collapsed in front of the terrorist organization a few weeks ago in Palmyra. During the meeting between Saudi and Russian ministers in Moscow, the Army of Islam - an Islamist faction said to be backed by Riyadh - launched a vicious attack on ISIS in eastern Damascus. The Army of Islam, one of the biggest factions in the south, is unwilling to accept ISIS even if they seem to be fighting the same enemy, and it is not alone. In Aleppo, there is a coalition of courageous opposition factions halting the advance of ISIS and at the same time fighting the regime. In return, the latter receives internationally-prohibited barrel-bombs without anyone raising a finger to stop it!
In short, the group fighting ISIS today is the Syrian opposition, not Assad’s army. Why is Riyadh the only one aware of that? Why can Moscow and Washington not recognize that? If the Russians and Americans succeed in convincing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar of the “ISIS first” theory, who will fight this organization in situ and complete the coalition forces’ aerial campaign other than the Syrians?
The results of such a tactic were illustrated last Tuesday, when the coalition bombed the site of an opposition faction that had nothing to do with ISIS or even Al-Nusra, and led to the deaths of many, leaving Syrians angrier than ever. This will make them reluctant to support such an alliance, and will increase the popularity of ISIS and spread extremism among them. Certainly, neither the Americans nor the Russians will send men to the Syrian swamp, nor will the Saudis and Jordanians. Even the Egyptian army, eager to join “unified Arab forces” to fight terrorism and maintain Assad’s regime, will most likely not participate. Who will then fight on Syrian ground other than Assad’s army, his Iranian allies and Hezbollah? Does that mean anything other than the suppression of the Syrian revolution and allowing Assad and his sectarian allies to massacre the Syrian people? Only a national Syrian force that can even include what is left of the army is capable of fighting ISIS, as Jubeir proposed in Moscow. This will not happen until after Assad’s fall.
There is no doubt that ISIS is an ugly entity representing a threat to both Russia and Saudi Arabia, as Moscow’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last Tuesday. However, Assad’s threat is no less dangerous. Statistics indicate that the number of Syrians killed by his forces is three times that of ISIS.
Assad’s regime is one of the reasons behind the spread of ISIS. The idea of ISIS would have remained forever repressed by us, but an unsuccessful authoritarian system came and lost control over its country, allowing ISIS to spread like bacteria. This bacteria, if neglected, will contaminate neighboring regions too. This is why I choose “Assad first.”

Ahmad al-Assir and the absence of justice in Lebanon
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/Monday, 17 August 2015
It’s ironic to celebrate the arrest of fugitive radical preacher Ahmad al-Assir in Lebanon when at least three men wanted by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon are hanging out in Beirut’s southern suburb sipping coffee. Lebanese authorities on Saturday arrested Assir on charges of incitement and perverting the course of justice, however they have not arrested the three men wanted for the murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.
Assir deserves to be arrested because of his extremism, incitement to violence and attempts to challenge the state; however the Lebanese justice system is now mocked by the world as authorities ignore to arrest those charged with a worse crime, the murder of Hariri, in order to avoid upsetting Hezbollah.
The majority of Sunnis don’t care about much about Assir’s detention; however double standards and this clear injustice against them has angered them.
Assir’s emergence on the Lebanese scene has threatened the old socio-political structure of his Sunni sect. He has actually embarrassed the country’s traditional Sunni leaders by announcing that he represents and defends Sunnis against Hezbollah. The truth is, Assir was all about words as he was incapable of establishing a Sunni militia, and even when he tried, he failed. Sunni leaders in Lebanon are always civil. This civil structure that opposes armament has strengthened Sunni stances – despite what some may believe – and protected the sect as well as Lebanon from a second civil war.
Hezbollah, Assir and the Syrian conflict
The short success of Assir’s popularity was down to him speaking out against injustice towards Sunnis. He tried to make gains by pitting himself against Hezbollah over the Syrian cause, which is one of the biggest wounds for Sunnis. When Assir found himself at the center of Lebanese and regional attention, he exposed his demagogy against the leaders of his Sunni sect. He tried to exploit local contradictions and he first criticized Saad Hariri and incited violence against him under the excuse that he did not defend Sunnis against Hezbollah. He then stood with extremists against Saudi Arabia – although it was a major supporter of the Syrian revolution – perhaps in order for his stance to harmonize with his funders. These many contradictory stances have hence exposed the character of an opportunist leader.
Assir’s emergence on the Lebanese scene has threatened the old socio-political structure of his Sunni sect
Assir sees in Shiite leader Hassan Nasrallah a model he wants to become. He wanted to become a religious and political leader of Sunnis; however this is not possible to achieve in Lebanon without massive foreign support. Nasrallah and his party would not have existed if it hadn’t been for Iran, which for three decades has been committed to funding, training and managing Hezbollah to serve its own higher interests in the region. All this has come at the expense of the Lebanese Shiite community, whose moderate and civil leaders were marginalized. Extremist conservative men thus became in control of Shiite lives, as Hezbollah ideologically and militarily hijacked the entire sect and became a militia that serves its Iranian-Syrian funders. Therefore, Hezbollah fought Israel alone for decades and it is currently fighting to defend the Assad regime in Syria.
This is not accepted by the Sunnis, and there are no regional Sunni governments who are willing to establish militias affiliated with them as they do not have plans to expand or clash with others. Even governments who exploited Assir and supported him were quick to abandon him. Although Assir deserves to be detained and tried, the Lebanese justice seems to be in its worst days as authorities arrest a religious preacher for his demagogy and inciting violence but allows murderers to remain at large because they are protected by Hezbollah! Anyone witnessing this embarrassing and shameful stance of the Lebanese state must conclude that the latter systematically discriminates against its citizens, with imposed laws that seemingly do not apply to Hezbollah.

Putin is a man with a plan for Syria
Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/Monday, 17 August 2015
Russia is very sceptical about the effectiveness of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), not least because it is not U.N.-approved, so it lacks an overall vision and communication between the various ground forces.
The decision to carry out airstrikes against anyone who attacks rebels trained by Washington to fight ISIS is considered provocative, as it automatically puts Syrian government forces at risk, and could further escalate the situation.
Tired of numerous attempts by global powers to involve it in the coalition, Russia has proposed its own vision of what the “right” coalition should look like. This vision was shared by Russian President Vladimir Putin with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud during the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum. Details were not revealed until Russia’s foreign minister visited Qatar earlier this month.
At its core, the “Putin Plan” adds nothing new to what Russia has already revealed about its position on the conflict, which has remained unchanged despite global and regional developments.
The plan calls for a broader coalition to fight ISIS, including Syrian government forces, the Iraqi army and the Kurds. What is remarkable is that Iran was not mentioned, apparently in order not to upset Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Tehran will soon present its own plan to resolve the Syrian conflict.
Assad’s fate
Russia is trying to convince others that the only way to fight ISIS effectively is to “forgive” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, it has failed to convince the Americans or the Saudis. Turkey has also strongly criticized the Russian plan, as Ankara opposes Assad remaining in power and his involvement in any effort to counter ISIS. Turkey also opposes Kurdish involvement.
The need to unite against ISIS is less powerful than most countries’ common hatred of him.
Russia insists on Assad staying in power and continuing to fight ISIS. Moscow believes that if he steps down, no one will be able to keep the Syrian army united, thus enabling ISIS to spread further.
However, this does not mean that Russia insists on him staying in power indefinitely - on the contrary. This has been demonstrated by the Moscow-I and Moscow-II meetings. Russia believes in transition in post-war Syria, but its priority now is to fight ISIS as a step to resolving the conflict.
Russian diplomacy
Moscow’s contribution in reaching the Iran nuclear deal was enormous, and made the West speak positively about Russia practically for the first time since the start of the Ukraine crisis. This has inspired Moscow to further persuade the West that it is a needed and peaceful partner in conflict-resolution.
Putin’s attempts to resolve the Syrian conflict puts him at the center of a total mess, but he feels confident. He already has one positive experience in the crisis, when his initiative to remove all chemical weapons from Syria saved the country from becoming like Libya, and saved the world from catastrophe. However, that was easier than fighting ISIS.
Putin’s involvement comes not only from rising great-power ambitions, but from greater threats to Russia. More than 2,000 of its citizens are fighting for ISIS, and this number is rising. However, involvement in the coalition it proposes does not imply Russian boots on the ground or warplanes over Syria and Iraq. Moscow is only willing to be involved diplomatically.
Most likely, the “Putin Plan” will not be accepted because of its stance on the fate of Assad. The need to unite against ISIS is less powerful than most countries’ common hatred of him.

Al-Qaeda's emir strikes back
Gulf Pulse/Al Monitor/August 17/15
After almost a year of silence, Ayman al-Zawahri, the 64-year-old emir of al-Qaeda, late this week issued two audio messages. In one he proclaimed his loyalty to the new head of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor. In the second, he introduced a longer message from Osama bin Laden's favorite son Hamza urging attacks on America, England, France and Israel. Zawahri is back in the game.
Summary
After 11 months of silence, Ayman al-Zawahri issues audio messages calling for terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.
Author Bruce Riedel Posted August 16, 2015
Zawahri's last message to the public was in September 2014, when he announced the creation of a new al-Qaeda franchise in India (private covert messages to his followers giving instructions never ceased). The 2014 audio message was followed almost immediately by al-Qaeda's most audacious terror plot in over a decade — an attempt to hijack a Chinese built Pakistani navy frigate named the Zulfiqar. The plan was to seize the frigate with al-Qaeda recruited members of the Pakistani navy, take the ship into the Arabian Sea and attack an American aircraft carrier or other suitable target. The goal was to spark a war between the United States and Pakistan, a history-changing terror attack even bigger than 9/11. Bold and dangerous, it was a vintage Zawahri plot.
The two new videos were released by al-Qaeda's media arm As-Sahab, literally meaning "in the clouds," an allusion to the jihadi symbolism that al-Qaeda's core base operates in the mountains of the Hindu Kush. According to the Pakistan newspaper Dawn, As-Sahab recently relocated its real ground game from Pakistan (where it has been operating since 2002) back to Afghanistan in Helmand province. The Afghan Taliban supported the move and provides safe haven for al-Qaeda, which means that 14 years after Operation Enduring Freedom began, al-Qaeda is again running operations out of Afghanistan.
Zawahri's message underscores that al-Qaeda remains close to the Taliban. Three al-Qaeda franchises in Syria, Yemen and the Maghreb jointly eulogized the late Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar in an earlier message. According to Dawn, senior As-Sahab official Qari Abu Bakr said, "The bond between us and our Taliban brothers is a solid ideological bond. The Taliban opted to lose their government and family members just to protect us. There is no question of us moving apart now after going through this war together." In a warning to the United States, he said, "Our common enemy does not know what is coming its way."
In Zawahri's new message, Osama bin Laden appears first in old footage promising his loyalty to Omar as the commander of the faithful. Then Zawahri eulogizes Omar, the founder of the Taliban, as a hero of the global jihad along with bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi. Omar is lauded by Zawahri for creating the first true Islamic emirate since the fall of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. He makes no mention of reports Omar died two years ago in a Pakistan hospital in Karachi under the protection of the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI.
Then Zawahri promises that global jihad will continue until all Muslim lands are freed from Islam's enemies, especially Jerusalem. Zawahri calls for the recovery of lost lands such as Kashmir and Spain (Al-Andalusia). He makes no mention of the Islamic State or his rival Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, who has proclaimed himself Caliph Ibrahim. Mansoor is the rightful leader of the global jihad for Zawahri, while Baghdadi is an upstart not worthy of comment.
Al-Qaeda has always been much more vocal about its ties to the Afghan Taliban than the Taliban is about its ties to al-Qaeda. The Taliban focuses its attention on Afghanistan and enjoys close support from the ISI. It has engaged in a furious offensive this year to defeat the Kabul government, an offensive Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has recently said is backed by the ISI. The Haqqani network of the Afghan Taliban which has gained influence in the movement with the ascension of Mansoor is very close to both al-Qaeda and the ISI. For tactical reasons, the Taliban does not advertise its partnerships with al-Qaeda and the ISI, which would undermine its claim to be Afghan nationalists.
The second message is introduced by Zawahri, but most of the almost hourlong monologue comes from Hamza bin Laden. Hamza bin Laden was with Osama bin Laden in his hide-outs in Pakistan before the SEALs found his Abbottabad lair in 2011. This is Hamza bin Laden's first message for al-Qaeda. He calls upon al-Qaeda franchises to attack their enemies, specifically urging followers in Kabul, Baghdad and Gaza to attack Washington, London, Paris and Tel Aviv.
The message dates from sometime in May or June but was only released this month. A statement of support and thus loyalty from the son of bin Laden, who is in his early 20s, is a powerful endorsement for the aging Zawahri in his struggle with Baghdadi. Both Baghdadi and Zawahri claim to be the true successor to bin Laden, but Zawahri can now say he has the backing of his predecessor's favorite offspring.
Zawahri's 11-month silence probably was due to concerns about his security after the Zulfiqar operation was foiled. The Egyptian terrorist has survived in his business for 35 years since he first played a small part in the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He is the ultimate survivor who has outlasted his enemies.

Canadian parliament candidate steps down after Israel 'ethnic cleansing' remark
By JPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS/08/17/2015
Morgan Wheeldon, a candidate in the Nova Scotia riding of Kings-Hants for the left-wing NDP party, dropped out of the federal election race after the surfacing of controversial comments he made about Israel, The Canadian Jewish News reported last week.
The parliamentary election in Canada is set for October 19.
The rival Conservative Party published comments Wheeldon made in an August 2014 Facebook post in the context of a discussion about British MP George Galloway who had been physically attacked in London for alleged anti-Israel views.
“One could argue that Israel’s intention was always to ethnically cleanse the region – there are direct quotations proving this to be the case. Guess we just swept that under the rug. A minority of Palestinians are bombing buses in response to what appears to be a calculated effort to commit a war crime,” Wheeldon wrote.
The NDP’s senior campaign adviser Brad Lavigne told the CJN that the party's "position on the conflict in the Middle East is clear, as [leader] Tom Mulcair expressed clearly in debate. Mr. Wheeldon’s comments are not in line with that policy, and he is no longer our candidate. We were made aware of some information that had not previously been disclosed. When we approached Mr. Wheeldon with this information, he submitted his resignation.”
In a televised debate earlier this month between the leading candidates for prime minister, Thomas Mulclair, leader of the NDP party, said his party wanted "a safe state for Palestinians, and a safe state for Israelis."
The former candidate Wheeldon told the CJN that his statement on Israel“referred to how information sources affect framing of the conflict. I also attacked terrorism and said neither side was solely at fault, but pointed out the alternate perspective. I said ‘one could argue…’ I’ve been called an anti-Semite, and it’s pretty upsetting for me and my family.”
The CJN report quoted Michael Mostyn, CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, who said that it was appropriate for Wheeldon to offer his resignation following his “libelous smears against the Jewish state.”
“Israel is a democracy where all its citizens enjoy rights and freedoms unimaginable anywhere else in the Middle East. Mr. Wheeldon should use some of his newfound free time to advocate against actual ethnic cleansing taking place on a daily basis in the terrorist Islamic State, which continues to massacre Christians, Yazidis, gays and other minorities,” Mostyn was quoted as saying.
Hans Marotte, the NDP candidate in Quebec’s Saint-Jean riding and David McLaren, running in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, both NDP candidates for federal office, have also come under fire for comments made about Israel, the Jewish newspaper reported.
“When a Palestinian comes to ask me to sign his declaration of support for the Intifada, and tells me how happy he is to have my name on his list, I see how important it is that we not close in on ourselves,” Marotte wrote in 1990. McLaren is quoted as saying that it isn’t principled to take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it is like picking a side in “a telephone booth packed with dynamite.”
The Canadian election
Earlier this month Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, known as a staunch supporter of Israel, called the October parliamentary election, kicking off a marathon 11-week campaign likely to focus on a stubbornly sluggish economy and his decade in power.
Polls indicate Harper's right-of-center Conservative Party, which has been in office since 2006, could well lose its majority in the House of Commons.
That would leave him at the mercy of the two main center-left opposition parties, which could unite to bring him down. Minority governments in Canada rarely last more than 18 months.
Harper, 56, says only he can be trusted to manage an economy struggling to cope with the after-effects of a global economic slowdown and a plunge in the price of oil, a major Canadian export. Opposition parties favored "disastrous" policies such as higher spending and more debt, he said.
Most recent polls show the Conservatives slightly trailing the left-leaning New Democrats (NDP), who have never governed Canada. The Liberals of Justin Trudeau trail in third.
The NDP said the early call was a cynical ploy that would do nothing for the economy. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair said Harper had presided over the worst economic growth record of any prime minister since 1960.
"Clearly, Mr. Harper, your plan isn't working ... we will kick-start the economy and get Canadians back to work," he said.
The NDP and the Liberals say Canada needs a change from Harper, who has cut taxes, increased military spending, toughened criminal laws and streamlined regulations governing the energy industry.
Ipsos Public Affairs pollster John Wright said the race was "very competitive" and chances of the Conservatives winning any kind of government were 50 percent, down from 88 percent last year.

Zarif presses diplomacy on Syria
Iran takes initiative in regional security/Al Monitor/August 17/15
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif discussed an Iranian peace plan for Syria in visits last week to regional capitals, including Damascus, where he met with President Bashar al-Assad, and Beirut, where he met with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Ali Hashem writes that Zarif’s meetings have been focused on preparing a revised four-point plan for a political transition in Syria in the context of a new diplomatic opening to address regional security. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian told Hashem that Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf Bin Alawi had proposed, and the emir of Qatar endorsed, a meeting between Iran and the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which may take place as soon as next month. The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran’s diplomatic flurry had already led to humanitarian truces between the Syrian government and Ahrar al-Sham opposition forces in suburbs around Damascus.
Zarif’s assertiveness in regional diplomacy appears linked to the agreement between Iran and the world powers on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Hashem observes that “with a deal in hand, Iran’s Middle East policy appears to be going through some changes.”Kayhan Barzegar writes that: “the implementation of the JCPOA will give Iran new potential to play its regional role, also providing space within domestic Iranian politics for the assumption of a more active and balanced posture toward the region.”
Hashem cautions that Zarif’s efforts are likely to be challenged by hard-liners in Tehran and critics in the US and the region of any diplomacy with Iran. “Some politicians in Tehran suggest that Zarif’s quest to handle Middle East policy his own way won’t be easy. They believe that given the regional circumstances, it will be hard to craft a new approach. And with Zarif bent on forging ahead with his own style, some internal controversy is certain. However, Zarif has already jumped to the forefront by publishing articles, adopting savvier discourse and trying not to mix revolutionary manners with acts of state. For example, many were surprised that Zarif did not visit the tomb of Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah’s slain military commander, as he has done previously. Of note, Hezbollah said the Iranian foreign minister’s tight schedule prevented him from making the trip, though no Iranian official has missed the stop since 2008, when Mughniyeh was assassinated. Despite all this, some critics cast doubt over Iran’s seriousness about a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis. They believe Tehran is buying time to secure more gains on the ground, and that its only aim is to preserve Assad's rule.”
Mohammad Ali Shabani dismisses the argument that Zarif’s diplomatic push should be a surprise, or that Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not have command of the regional accounts. “A key argument of those brushing off the utility of regional collaboration with Iran is that Middle East policy falls under the purview of the Quds Force, the foreign operations branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and not the Foreign Ministry. While this has been the case in past years, domestic and international developments — including the JCPOA — are changing dynamics. Iranian sources have repeatedly conveyed to Al-Monitor that Tehran’s four-point plans for Yemen and Syria are not solely the work of the Foreign Ministry, but the result of coordination with the Quds Force."
Shabani wrote that if there were doubts about the extent of Zarif’s portfolio, US Secretary of State John Kerry on July 31 told The Atlantic, “Zarif specifically said to me … 'If we get this [JCPOA] finished, I am now empowered to work with and talk to you about regional issues.'”Laura Rozen, who broke the story on the back channel US diplomacy with Iran led by former US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, writes that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had approved of the secret talks in 2011, two years before the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
Anne Barnard of The New York Times reported Aug. 11 that “Russian and Iranian officials suggest that Saudi Arabia, the United States and allies like Turkey are coming to realize that fighting terrorism is more important than ousting Mr. Assad, though Mr. Jubeir [Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir] insisted after his meeting with Mr. Lavrov [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov] that “there is no place for Assad in the future of Syria.”
Despite the tough stance on Assad, there may be signs of a shift, or at least a reconsideration, of some aspects of the kingdom’s position on Syria. A Syrian official told Jean Aziz in Damascus that “the path of the Saudi-Russian negotiations [on Syria] has completely changed.” If Iran has indeed engaged with Ahrar al-Sham, a Salafist group, in brokering the cease-fires around Damascus, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, it is probable that Saudi Arabia may have facilitated or, at a minimum, sanctioned such contacts.
As we wrote here last month, “Al-Monitor's first Week in Review, in December 2012, noted that Iran was essential to either a diplomatic solution or continued conflict across the region’s fault lines. In September 2014, one year into the talks, we wrote that the negotiations with Iran were facilitating a tentative trend toward the “emergence of what may be a truly regional counterterrorism coalition, with potential for a transformation in regional security, if managed carefully.”
Israel’s Sancho Panza?
Akiva Eldar reports on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu’s lobbying of a visiting US congressional delegation, and the complications that the Iran deal has caused Labor Party Chairman Isaac Herzog: “It’s hard to find an international agreement in which all sides got everything they wanted. Iran is not a weakened and downtrodden Palestinian organization that 22 years ago signed an agreement that did not include even a day’s freeze of construction in the settlements that are the focal point of the conflict. Netanyahu was never interested in a compromise with Iran, nor with the Palestinians. He wants to bring them to their knees. Netanyahu does not want to reach an understanding with President Barack Obama. He wants to defeat him. If Herzog wants to differentiate himself from Netanyahu, he has to stop going on about the 'bad agreement' and reconcile himself to the fact that the alternative to this agreement is worse. A Sancho Panza type who carries Netanyahu’s water in the war against the world is not an alternative to his bad government.”
In an exclusive interview with Mazal Mualem, Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid explains how he believes Netanyahu has mishandled US-Israel relations: “The question is what will be the degree of cooperation between Israel and the United States. The Americans have a very limited attention span for us right now. We have to restore their attention span and it’s possible. I don’t know whether Netanyahu is the right person to do so. From the moment Netanyahu took sides in the American elections and gambled on [Republican candidate Mitt] Romney, something was damaged that hasn’t been repaired since. It wasn’t even connected to the Iranians. It was a dreadful gamble that also didn’t read America correctly. Out of all the things I’ve said about Netanyahu, what angered him the most was that I said that he no longer knows America, because it has changed.”
Turkey’s Stone Age Temple
**Tulay Cetingulec reports this week on Turkey’s efforts to have the ruins of a Stone Age temple in Gobeklitepe, which may predate “Stonehenge by 7,000 years, the Egyptian pyramids by 7,500 years and the first Mesopotamian cities by 5,500 years,” listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site, as part of Al-Monitor’s series this month on the Middle East’s cultural heritage.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/zarif-syria-lapid-peace-syria-netanyahu-turkey-temple.html?utm_source=Al-Monitor+Newsletter+[English]&utm_campaign=d2b4cd58be-Week_in_review_August_17_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_28264b27a0-d2b4cd58be-102494681

How Nazism Explains ‘Moderate’ and ‘Radical’ Islam
Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/August 17/15
If Islamic doctrines are inherently violent, why isn’t every single Muslim in the world—that is, approximately 1.5 billion people—violent? This question represents one of Islam’s most popular apologetics: because not all Muslims are violent, intolerant, or sponsor terrorism—a true statement—Islam itself must be innocent.
Let’s briefly consider this logic.First, there are, in fact, many people who identify themselves as Muslims but who do not necessarily adhere to or support Islam’s more supremacist and intolerant doctrines. If you have lived in a Muslim majority nation, you would know this to be true. The all-important question is, what do such Muslims represent? Are they following a legitimate, “moderate,” version of Islam—one more authentic than the terrorist variety? That’s what the media, politicians, and academics would have us believe.
The best way to answer this question is by analogy: German Nazism is a widely condemned ideology, due to its (“Aryan/white”) supremacist element . But the fact is, many Germans who were members or supporters of the Nazi party were “good” people. They did not believe in persecuting Jews and other “non-Aryans,” and some even helped such “undesirables” escape, at no small risk to themselves. Consider Oskar Schindler. An ethnic German and formal member of the Nazi party, he went to great lengths to save Jews from slaughter.
How do we reconcile his good deed with his bad creed? Was Schindler practicing a legitimate, “moderate,” form of Nazism? Or is it more reasonable to say that he subscribed to some tenets of National Socialism, but when it came to killing fellow humans in the name of racial supremacy, his humanity rose above his allegiance to Nazism? Indeed, many Germans joined or supported the National Socialist Party more because it was the “winning” party, one that offered hope, and less because of its racial theories.
That said, other Germans joined the Nazi party precisely because of its racial supremacist theories and were only too happy to see “sub-humans” incinerated. Now consider how this analogy applies to Islam and Muslims: first, unlike most Germans who chose to join or support the Nazi party, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world were simply born into Islam; they had no choice. Many of these Muslims know the bare minimum about Islam—the Five Pillars—and are ignorant of Islam’s supremacist theories.
Add Islam’s apostasy law to the mix—leaving Islam can earn the death penalty—and it becomes clear that there are many nominal “Muslims” who seek not to rock the boat. That said, there are also a great many Muslims who know exactly what Islam teaches—including violence, plunder, and enslavement of the kafir, or infidel—and who happily follow it precisely because of its supremacism. In both Nazism and Islam, we have a supremacist ideology on the one hand, and people who find themselves associated with this ideology for a number of reasons on the other hand: from those born into it, to those who join it for its temporal boons, to those who are sincere and ardent believers.
The all-important difference is this: when it comes to Nazism, the world is agreed that it is a supremacist ideology. Those who followed it to the core were “bad guys”—such as Adolf Hitler. As for the “good Nazis,” who helped shelter persecuted Jews and performed other altruistic deeds, the world acknowledges that they were not following a “moderate” form of Nazism, but that their commitment to Nazism was nonchalant at best. This is the correct paradigm to view Islam and Muslims with: Islam does contain violent and supremacist doctrines. This is a simple fact. Those who follow it to the core were and are “bad guys”—for example, Osama bin Laden. Still, there are “good Muslims.” Yet they are good not because they follow a good, or “moderate,” Islam, but because they are not thoroughly committed to Islam in the first place. Put differently, was Schindler’s altruism a product of “moderate Nazism” or was it done in spite of Nazism altogether? Clearly the latter. In the same manner, if a Muslim treats a non-Muslim with dignity and equality, is he doing so because he follows a legitimate brand of “moderate Islam,” or is he doing so in spite of Islam, because his own sense of decency compels him? Considering that Islamic law is unequivocally clear that non-Muslims are to be subjugated and live as third-class “citizens”—the Islamic State’s many human rights abuses vis-à-vis non-Muslims are a direct byproduct of these teachings—clearly any Muslim who treats “infidels” with equality is behaving against Islam.
So why is the West unable to apply the Nazi paradigm to the question of Islam and Muslims? Why is it unable to acknowledge that Islamic teachings are inherently supremacist, though obviously not all Muslims are literally following these teachings—just like not all members of any religion are literally following the teachings of their faith? This question becomes more pressing when one realizes that, for over a millennium, the West deemed Islam an inherently violent and intolerant cult. Peruse the writings of non-Muslims from the dawn of Islam up until recently—from Theophanes the Confessor (d. 818) to Winston Churchill (d. 1965)—and witness how they all depicted Islam as a violent creed that thrives on conquering, plundering, and subjugating the “other.” (Here are Marco Polo’s thoughts).
The problem today is that the politically correct establishment—academia, mainstream media, politicians, and all other talking heads—not ones to be bothered with reality or history, have made it an established “fact” that Islam is “one of the world’s great religions.” Therefore, the religion itself—not just some of its practitioners —is inviolable to criticism. The point here is that identifying the negative elements of an ideology and condemning it accordingly is not so difficult. We have already done so, with Nazism and other ideologies and cults. And we know the difference between those who follow such supremacist ideologies (“bad” people), and those who find themselves as casual, uncommitted members (good or neutral people).
In saner times when common sense could vent and breathe, this analogy would have been deemed superfluous. In our times, however, where lots of nonsensical noise is disseminated far and wide by the media—and tragically treated as serious “analysis”—common sense must be methodically spelled out: Yes, an ideology/religion can be accepted as violent or even evil, and no, many of its adherents need not be violent or evil—they can even be good—for the reasons discussed above.
This is the most objective way to understand the relationship between Islam as a body of teachings and Muslims as individual people.

Looking Ahead at Middle East "Peace"
Shoshana Bryen/Gatestone Institute/August 17, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6342/middle-east-peace
The U.S. has provided approximately $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral aid since the mid-1990s and about $540 million this year. The EU added more than €500 million ($558 million), making it the largest single-year donor. Why should Palestinian Authority (PA) not have to pay the bill for its own savage behavior? And why is the U.S. so determined to protect it?
According to the deputy head of UNRWA, the organization needs $101 million in order to open schools on time. Why does the Hamas government not pay for its own children to go to school? And why does the Hamas government not pay for the repair of its own people's houses? UNRWA and the U.S. government seem to believe that the PA and Hamas cannot be expected to spend their own funds -- or donated funds -- on the needs of their own people. Hamas can therefore use all its funds to make war.
As long as Hamas and the PA are permitted both to spend sponsors' money on terrorism and warfare while escaping responsibility for the needs of their people, and as long as Iran is a key donor -- with all the temptations, means and opportunity to "wipe Israel," as it repeatedly threatens to do -- the idea of a U.S.-led "peace process" is fantasy.
The Obama Administration has made it clear that it will not pursue Israeli-Palestinian "peace talks" while the Iran deal remains fluid. But as the President heads into his last year in office, the "two state solution" apparently remains an important political aspiration. The Iran deal and the "peace process" are linked by concerns over Iranian behavior on the non-nuclear front, and concerns about American willingness to remain the sort of ally Israel has found it to be in the past.
The following stories -- all involving money and how it is spent -- should be understood together:
U.S. requests lower bond for Palestinian appeal of terror case
Infant mortality in Gaza
Schools in Gaza may not open
Iranian assistance to Hamas
First, the U.S. Department of Justice this week asked a judge to "carefully consider" the size of the bond he requires from the Palestinian Authority (PA) as it appeals the award of damages to the victims of six terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans in Israel. Concerned about the possible bankruptcy of the PA, Deputy Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken added a statement to the Justice Department filing, saying, "A P.A. insolvency and collapse would harm current and future U.S.-led efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
The Palestinian Authority was proven in a U.S. court to have organized and paid for terrorist attacks that killed Americans and Israelis. The U.S. has provided approximately $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral aid since the mid-1990s and about $540 million this year. The EU added more than €500 million ($558 million), making it the largest single-year donor. Why should PA not have to pay the bill for its own savage behavior?
And why is the U.S. so determined to protect it?
Second, UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), which maintains camps for Palestinians in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and parts of the West Bank, released a broadside last week entitled, "Infant Mortality Rises in Gaza for the First Time in 50 Years." Subhead: "UNRWA's Health Director says the [Israeli and Egyptian] blockade may be contributing to the trend."
Such a rise would be a terrible thing, and Israeli culpability would be terrible also. But is it true? It takes only a few clicks of the computer keys to find out.
Palestinian infant mortality in the West Bank and Gaza has been on a straight downward slope since 1968. Using CIA Factbook figures, infant mortality was 158 per 1000 from 1950-55; 87 per 1000 in 1968 (using an Israeli government publication); 25 per 1000 in 1985-90; and is at 14 per 1000 today in Gaza. Where is the rising trend? The UNRWA release came from an article entitled "Increasing Neonatal Mortality among Palestine Refugees in the Gaza Strip," published by PLOS ONE, an "open access" online journal.
The study itself notes, "These estimates are based on small numbers of deaths, and the confidence intervals are wide, so the infant mortality rate could in fact be stable or continuing to decline" (emphasis added). Yet its conclusion reads, "In conclusion, we have estimated that, for the first time in five decades, the mortality rate has increased among Palestine refugee newborns in Gaza, and this may reflect inadequate neo-natal care in hospitals."
An Israeli website that evaluated the entire study caught the inherent contradiction. "They didn't have enough data to reach the conclusion they did... Those two statements have no place in a serious scientific paper and would merit its immediate rejection."
Third, having dispensed with scare mongering about infant mortality, let us turn to the other UNRWA broadside of the week: "Without New Cash, UNRWA Schools Won't Open." According to the deputy head of the organization, UNRWA needs $101 million in order to open schools on time.
Why does the Hamas government not pay for its own children to go to school?
This is similar to a story last January, in which UNRWA suspended the repair of Palestinian houses in Gaza because of a shortage of international donor money, and it raises the question: Why does the Hamas government not pay for the repair of its own peoples' houses?
It is UNRWA's belief -- like that of the U.S. government, apparently -- that Palestinian governments, including the one on the U.S. list of sponsors of terrorism, have to be protected from the consequences of their own war-making, support for terrorism, and thievery. UNRWA and the U.S. government seem to believe that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas cannot be expected to spend their own funds -- or donated funds -- on the needs of their own people.
Which brings us to Iran; the only country working assiduously to ensure that its client, Hamas in Gaza, gets the assistance it needs to meet its goals, and then meets those goals.
According to Israeli government sources, Iran's most recent assistance includes "cash, military training for Hamas fighters, weaponry, and electronics equipment including for use against Israeli drones... Hamas has also been training fighters in the use of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and is training recruits to fly paragliders across the border."
Bridging the Sunni-Shia divide, for the goal of genocide: Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (left) confers with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in 2010. (Image source: Office of the Supreme Leader)
UNRWA and Iran, with a supporting role played by the United States, have long made it possible for Hamas and the PA to spend other people's money building more tunnels, arming multiple militias, paying "salaries" to convicted terrorists in Israeli jails, and improving the quality of their rockets and missiles. They know -- and Israel knows -- that between the Israeli government and the international aid agencies including, but not limited to, UNRWA, no Palestinians will starve, no one will go without medical care, no one will go homeless (except those homeless because Hamas confiscated about 20% of the cement and steel meant to restore Gaza houses damaged in last year's war). Hamas can therefore use all its funds to make war.
As long as Hamas and the PA are permitted both to spend sponsors' money on terrorism and warfare while escaping responsibility for the needs of their people, and as long as Iran is a key donor -- with all the temptations, means and opportunity to "wipe Israel," as it repeatedly threatens to do -- the idea of a U.S.-led "peace process" is fantasy.

The New Racists: Jew Hate
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/August 17, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6355/spain-jew-hate
If you had thought that the only qualification needed is to excel at your chosen art form and then see if you can gather audiences, you were wrong. That is not enough anymore -- certainly not if you are Jewish.
The treatment of the reggae star Matisyahu is something new. For Matisyahu is not an Israeli -- he is an American. For a while, only Israeli Jews were made pariahs among the nations because of an unresolved border dispute involving their country. Now it is Jews born anywhere else in the world who can be targeted in the same way. They are singling out Jews -- Jews and only Jews.
Habima performers were insulted and vilified while on stage at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, trying to perform "The Merchant of Venice." None of the protesters seemed to see the irony of vilifying Jews on stage during that of all plays.
Spain has its own border issues. Perhaps Spanish performers should henceforth be quizzed about their political attitudes before they are allowed to perform abroad? Maybe the rest of the world should demand that all artists from Spain sign a statement or make a video supporting Catalan independence if they are to be allowed to perform in public?
Only one country and one geopolitical question is addressed in this way. Turkish artists are nowhere in the world asked to condemn their country's illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus -- an occupation, lasting more than four decades, of half an EU member state.
Their singling out of Jews, wherever they are from, makes their racist motivation abundantly clear. If the Rototom Sunsplash festival wants to take part in this racist BDS fever then it is them -- and not Jews -- whom the world must make into pariahs.
Are you a performer who wishes to appear in public at any point in the future? If so, you might have to bone up on geopolitical affairs -- and then ensure that you have all the "correct" views. If you had thought that the only qualification you would need would be to excel at your chosen art form and then see if you can gather audiences, you were wrong. That is not enough anymore -- certainly not if you are Jewish.
This week the news came in that a Spanish music festival had cancelled a planned performance by Matisyahu, an American reggae star. Matisyahu became famous as the "hassidic reggae star," although he left Orthodox Judaism in 2011. He no longer has a beard of wears a skullcap, but he does remain proud of his Jewish identity. Next weekend, on August 22, he was due to perform at the Rototom Sunsplash festival in Benicassim, north of Valencia.
Unfortunately for anyone simply interested in music, a group of local Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists found out about Matisyahu's upcoming performance. They claimed that Matisyahu is a supporter of "an apartheid state that practices ethnic cleansing," and demanded that the festival cancel the performance.
Matisyahu is of course not the first Jew to suffer this type of pressure. In Europe, and increasingly in America too, any and all performers who come from Israel can be abused and vilified in the name of "progressive" values. In London, the Jerusalem String Quartet and Israel Philharmonic Orchestra have been the targets of attempts to cancel their performances. When the performances have gone ahead, they have had to suffer obscene and threatening performance interruptions by protesters. The same has happened to Israeli theatre companies such as Habima – whose performers were insulted and vilified while on stage at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, trying to perform "The Merchant of Venice." None of the protesters seemed to see the irony of vilifying Jews on stage during that of all plays.
Anti-Israel activists of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in Spain demanded that the Rototom Sunsplash music festival cancel a performance by American reggae star Matisyahu, claiming that he is a supporter of "an apartheid state that practices ethnic cleansing." Festival organizers cancelled Matisyahu's performance.
Jewish Israeli artists have become used to being targeted and vilified in this way. But the treatment of Matisyahu is something new. For Matisyahu is not an Israeli -- he is an American. Yet after the intervention of the BDS protestors, the festival's director tried what he presumably thought was a perfectly reasonable request: Filippo Giunta asked Matisyahu to produce a "signed statement or video" stating "in a very clear way" that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state. This was made a precondition of performing. "If you sign these conditions, you can continue the performance," the festival's director told the artist.
Understandably, Matisyahu refused to respond to this ultimatum, and festival organisers cancelled his performance, which was due to be just one of a number of performance stops Matisyahu is making in Europe and America.
It is to be hoped that everybody who believes in artistic freedom and rejects political intimidation can now make for the nearest performance by Matisyahu, whether they like reggae or not. Personally, the actions of the Spanish festival organizers have created the only inclination I have ever felt to attend such a concert.
But perhaps we could also initiate some other geostrategic questions that might be demanded of all other performers in the future. Spain has its own border issues, as nearly every country in the world does. Perhaps Spanish performers in the classical and pop world should henceforth be quizzed about their political attitudes before they are allowed to perform abroad? The whole question of Catalonia, for instance, is deeply fraught and fought over in Spain, with exceedingly strong views over independence on all sides. Maybe the rest of the world should demand that all musicians from Spain sign a statement or make a video supporting Catalan independence if they are to be allowed to perform in public? We could go back and forth in our allegiances of course -- and make the Spanish artistic community jump to our every whim and U-turn. Perhaps then we could decide that citizens of other countries could be made to jump through our whims on the Spanish border questions too?
Of course, such a course of action would be obscene, as it would be with any other country. But it is always instructive that only one country and one geopolitical question is addressed in this way. To my knowledge Turkish artists are nowhere in the world asked to condemn their country's illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus -- an occupation, lasting more than four decades, of half an EU member state. Such a demand would be far more appropriate in Spain or any other EU country. And it has certainly never been demanded of people of non-Turkish nationality that they call for the withdrawal of Turkish forces and Turkish people from Cypriot territory before they be allowed to perform in public.
Nor do demands on the tortuous Western Sahara question come up in this way. Both of these issues -- to seize just two -- are far closer to home for Spanish citizens. One lies only a few miles south, while the other involves a fellow EU member state. But to demand such an action or statement from an artist as a prerequisite to perform would be not just outrageous, it would be regarded as surreal. Why then is the BDS campaign able to normalize such a demand, and for a festival to cancel a performance based on non-compliance with such grotesque demands?
The answer is the fever of our time. For a while, only Israeli Jews were made pariahs among the nations because of an unresolved border dispute involving their country. Now it is Jews born anywhere else in the world who can be targeted in the same way. They are singling out Jews -- Jews and only Jews. And their singling out of Jews, wherever they are from, makes their racist motivation abundantly clear. If the Rototom Sunsplash festival wants to take part in this racist BDS fever then it is them -- and not Jews -- whom the world must make into global pariahs.

Iranian VP And Atomic Chief Salehi Reveals Details From Secret Iran-U.S. Nuclear Talks: Khamenei Made Direct Talks Conditional Upon Achieving Immediate Results; U.S. Conveyed Its Recognition Of Iran’s Enrichment Rights To Omani Sultan, Who Relayed The Message To Then-President Ahmadinejad
MEMRI/August 17, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6134
In an interview published in the daily Iran on August 4, 2015 under the title “The Black Box of the Secret Negotiations between Iran and America,” Iranian vice president and Atomic Energy Organization head Ali Akbar Salehi, who is a senior member of Iran’s negotiation team and was foreign minister under president Ahmadinejad, revealed new details on the secret bilateral talks between Iran and the U.S. that started during Ahmadinejad’s second presidential term. According to Salehi, U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest Moniz, whom Salehi knew from his period as a doctoral student at MIT, was appointed to the American negotiation team at Salehi’s request, a request which the Americans met within hours.
Salehi added that Khamenei agreed to open a direct channel of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. on the condition that the talks would yield results from the start and would not deal with any other issue, especially not with U.S.-Iran relations. Following this, Salehi demanded, via the Omani mediator Sultan Qaboos, that the U.S. recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium, and received a letter from Qaboos expressing such American recognition, which he relayed to Ahmadinejad.
The following are excerpts from the interview:[1]
Ali Akbar Salehi (image: Tehrantimes.com)
“Q: As part of the negotiations, top diplomatic officials from Iran and America held bilateral meetings, while the first spark of the bilateral talks, which were secret, was lit late in the term of [president] Ahmadinejad. At that time you were at the Foreign Ministry [i.e. foreign minister], and prior to that it was reported that negotiations with America had begun in 1390 [2011-2012]. Could you explain briefly how and why two countries that had had no diplomatic relations for nearly 33 years began to negotiate?
“A: Since the creation of the artificial [Iranian] nuclear dossier, I have been involved in all the details of this challenge, and as a former Iranian representative to the IAEA, I focused on the nuclear issue. Thus, for example, I was interviewed numerous times by international media on this issue, and wrote articles. Later I came to the Atomic Energy Organization [of Iran, AEOI], and after that to the Foreign Ministry. In light of my cumulative experience, I noticed that the members of the P5+1 seemed to not want to arrive at an outcome. In every [round of the] talks, they placed new obstacles for Iran… The other side accused Iran of not being serious in the talks, and said that [then-negotiating team leader Saeed] Jalili was raising unrelated issues and slogans at the talks, instead of negotiating. [However,] since I was knowledgeable on these matters, [I knew] that Iran was serious. Jalili was not acting on his own. There were many committees at the Supreme National Security Council, whose members were from various [Iranian] institutions and organizations, including the AEOI and the Foreign Ministry, which examined all issues. It was in this framework that Jalili was operating.
“Q: Do you believe that the Iranian [negotiating] team had the will necessary to conduct and advance the negotiations?
“A: Yes. Iran aspired to arrive at an outcome, but at this stage I deduced that simultaneous talks with the P5+1 were problematic, because this group does not negotiate under a single head of state. [Catherine] Ashton participated in the talks as representative of the EU, and the three European countries at the talks – Britain, France, and Germany (i.e., the EU3) – saw themselves as a group that was separate from America, China, and Russia.
“Q: According to your description, it seems as though the talks with the P5+1 were more difficult than those with the EU3.
“A: Yes. The nuclear negotiations first began with the three European countries, Britain, France, and Germany, when Rohani headed [Iran's] Supreme National Security Council. They were later joined by the other three countries – America, China, and Russia. That is, the negotiations were with America, China, and Russia + the EU3, and no country was the leader, and it was not clear which [of them] was steering the negotiation. Therefore it was decided that Ashton, and [Javier] Solana before her, would negotiate on their behalf, but actually we saw that the same problems persisted. Thus, for example, when Ashton intended to be flexible and to capitulate on a certain issue in the talks, all it took was one country’s objection [to block the move].
“In this situation, things were complicated. In effect, new obstacles were added, instead of removed, at each new round of talks, in accordance with the countries’ wishes and intentions…Then I came up with the idea that we should promote a different style [of talks]. At that time (2010-2012), when I was at the Foreign Ministry, [Hassan] Qashqavi, who was deputy foreign minister, went to Oman to deal with the issue of Iranians incarcerated abroad, because we wanted Omani assistance in obtaining the release of Iranians held in Britain and America.[2]
“Q: Why was Oman chosen as a mediator?
“A: We have very good relations with Oman. When [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei referred recently to a distinguished head of state in the region, he was of course referring to the Omani ruler. Oman is respected by the West as well, and has already mediated between America and Iran, such as in the matter of the American hikers arrested in Iran… When [Deputy Foreign Minister] Qashqavi was there, an Omani official gave him a letter stating that the Americans were prepared to negotiate with Iran and were very interested in resolving this Tehran-Washington challenge. We were also willing to assist in order to facilitate the process, and it looked like this was a good opportunity. At that time, the election in America had not yet begun, but Obama had launched his reelection campaign. The Omani message came during the [Obama-Romney] election rivalry, but there was still time before the election itself. At that time, I did not take this letter seriously.
“Q: Why didn’t you take it seriously? Was it because the letter came from a mid[-level] Omani official?[3]
“A: Yes. We were [concerned about] this, because the letter was handwritten and at that time I was not acquainted with the official [who had written it]. Some time later, Mr. [Mohammad] Suri, who was director of an Iranian shipping [company – the National Iranian Tanker Company], visited Oman to promote issues related to shipping and to speak to Omani officials.
“Q: How long after the first letter [did Suri arrive in Tehran]?
“A: He came to me about a month or two after the first letter was sent, and said: ‘Mr. Salehi, I was in Oman promoting shipping matters, and an Omani official told me that the Americans were prepared to conduct bilateral secret talks on the nuclear dossier.’ It was clear that they were interested in negotiating.
“Q: What exactly was the position of the Omani official whom Mr. Suri quoted?
“A: It was a man named [Salem bin Nasser Al-]Ismaily, who at the time was an advisor for the Omani ruler[4] and who still works for the Omani Foreign Ministry. He had good relations with the Americans and was trusted by Omani officials. I told Suri: ‘I am not sure how serious the Americans are, but I will give you a note. Tell them that these are our demands. Deliver it on your next visit to Oman.’ I wrote down four clear issues, one of which was official recognition of rights to [uranium] enrichment. I figured that if the Americans were sincere in their offer, then they must agree to these four demands. Mr. Suri gave this short letter to the mediator, and stressed that these were Iran’s demands. [He added that]if the Americans wished to solve this issue, they were welcome to, otherwise dealing with White House proposals would be useless and unwarranted…
“All the demands in the letter were related to the nuclear challenge. These were issues we have always come against, such as closing the nuclear dossier [in the Security Council], official recognition of [Iran's] right to enrich [uranium], and resolving the issue of Iran’s actions under the PMD [Possible Military Dimensions]. After receiving the letter, the Americans said: ‘We are certainly willing and able to easily solve the issues Iran has brought up.’
“Q: With whom was the American side in contact?
“A: They were in contact with Omani officials, including the relevant functionary in the Omani regime. He was a friend of the U.S. secretary of state [John Kerry]. At that time, Kerry was not secretary of state, but head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In any case, after I received an affirmative answer from the Americans, I deduced that the ground was prepared for further steps in this direction. That is why I asked the Omanis to send an official letter to Iran so I could present it to Iranian officials. I assessed that this was a good opportunity and that we could derive benefit from it.
“Q: Up to this point, you hadn’t consulted with anyone? You were acting solely on your own authority?
“A: Yes. I sent a message to Omani officials saying, ‘Write your letter in an official manner so that our officials will know that it is serious.’ That was because up to that point, all discussions had been strictly oral. I told our Omani friends: ‘Present these demands officially.’ They did so, and I presented the letter to [Iranian] regime officials and went to the leader [Khamenei] to explain the process in detail.
“Q: Did you also give the letter to the president [Ahmadinejad]?
“A: I informed regime officials that such a letter had been received. After the letter [was received], I went to the leader and told him, ‘It is unlikely that talks between Iran and the P5+1 will achieve the results we desire. If you permit it, I can promote another path [meaning a secret bilateral channel with the U.S.].’ I later informed him that Oman was officially willing to act as official mediator.
“Q: Which Omani officials signed that letter?
“A: The Omani ruler did. I told the leader, ‘In light of the successful cooperation we have had with Oman, who has always tried to positively cooperate with us and has solved several issues for us in the past – such as the release of Iranians held abroad – then if you permit me to, I will also promote this issue with the Omani friends.’ We spoke at length on this issue. The leader presented several points and also said, ‘We cannot trust the Americans. We have a bitter experience with them following their violation of promises. They have never adhered to commitments and alliances.’
“Later I told him: ‘If you permit it, I will work on this issue to give [them] an ultimatum. We have nothing to lose in any case. We either achieve results or not. Also, these talks will be secret, and we will try to prevent them from abusing them.’ Eventually he said: ‘It is the right course of action to present an ultimatum. I do not object to this but I have a few conditions. First, the talks can only be on the nuclear issue, meaning that no bilateral relations will be discussed. Second, be vigilant so that the talks do not become a game of negotiating for the sake of negotiating, as happens with the P5+1. You will be able to deduce [whether this is the case] in the first or second meeting.’ In any case, the leader generally agreed to talks and said ‘go advance this issue.’
“At that time there were disagreements in Iran, with each member having his own specific opinion. These disagreements posed a problem. In fact, the leader was my only supporter, but I did not want to trouble him with the minutia if this problem. I received his permission to negotiate and told the Omani side we were prepared to talk. The Americans also insisted that these talks be secret. Later I began to try and coordinate between the relevant domestic institutions but due to the disagreements, I ran into problems trying to advance the issue.
“Q: Did the Supreme National Security Council play a part in these [secret] talks?
“A: No. I was authorized to advance these talks but I had to coordinate with the other bodies, which is exactly what caused problems. Eventually, after receiving the leader’s approval, eight months after the necessary coordination was achieved with the head of the Supreme National Security Council [Saeed Jalili], the first meeting with the Americans was held. We sent a team to Oman that included the deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, Mr. [Ali Asghar] Khaji, as well as several CEOs. The Americans were surprised in the first meeting and said, ‘We cannot believe this is happening. We thought Oman was joking. We aren’t even prepared for these talks with you.’
“Q: What was the level of the team that the Americans dispatched?
“A: It included Assistant Secretary of State William Burns. They said: ‘We only came to see if Iran was truly willing to negotiate.’ Our representative gave them the required response and eventually there were talks on this issue. The initial result was achieved and the ground was prepared for further coordination.
“Q: How were the Americans convinced that the Iranian diplomats who were dispatched had the necessary authority?
“A: [Until] that phase, Iran and America had not been allowed to sit opposite each other at the negotiating table. The fact that Iran had sent a deputy foreign minister to the talks indicated its seriousness. The Americans also noticed how seriously [Iran was taking] the issue. At that meeting, Khaji pressed the Americans to set up a roadmap for the negotiations, and eventually the talks of a roadmap were postponed to the second meeting. At the second meeting, Khaji warned the Americans: ‘We did not come here for lengthy negotiations. If you are serious, you must officially recognize enrichment, otherwise we cannot enter into bilateral talks. But if you officially recognize enrichment, then we too are serious and willing to meet your concerns on the nuclear matter as part of international regulations.’
“Q: What [Iranian] body backed this demand?
“A: The Foreign Ministry, since the leader gave me guidelines [as foreign minister] and stressed, ‘First you must promote important demands such as official recognition of enrichment rights.’ We determined that this issue would be a criterion [for determining whether the talks would continue]. We told ourselves that if they postponed recognition of enrichment to the final stage [of the talks], they would turn out to be unserious and these talks would be fruitless.
“Q: When you presented the results of the first meeting to Iranian officials, what did those who opposed the talks say?
“A: They said that the negotiations were useless and that the Americans were unserious in promoting official recognition of Iran’s rights.
“Q: You have said that the negotiations started during Obama’s first term. Did you consider the possibility that Obama’s rival would be elected president and would reject Obama’s reassessment of Iran, and that the White House would continue the same inflexible hostility?
“A: No, on the contrary, [although] at that time the race between Obama and Romney was very close, [and] in some polls Romney was even ahead of Obama. [But] the Americans intended to push for good terms in the negotiations with all possible speed. In fact, there was a good atmosphere for talks. This was while I was dealing in Iran [with the issue of] dispatching our representatives to Oman, because I did not want to make any moves without coordinating with other [regime] bodies. Eventually there were many obstacles in Iran [created by opponents to the negotiation], and [then] the American elections came about, and the American negotiating team said: ‘We are postponing the talks due to the elections so that we can see the results.’ Thus, we lost our chance.
“Of course, at that time we were [still] exchanging various information with the Americans via the [Omani] mediation, and this is documented at the Foreign Ministry. We did not do it in the form of official letters, but rather unofficially and not on paper. The Omani mediator later came to Iran, held talks with us, and then later spoke to the Americans and told them our positions, so that the ties were not severed. But there was no possibility for direct talks.
“Thus, a real opportunity was squandered because, at the time, the Americans were genuinely prepared to make real concessions to Iran. Perhaps it was God’s will that the process progressed like that and the results were [eventually]in our favor. In any case, several months passed and Obama was reelected in America [in November 2012]. I thought that, unlike the first time, we must not waste time in coordinating [within regime bodies], so with the leader’s backing and according to my personal decision, I dispatched our representatives to negotiate with the Americans in Oman.
“Q: Didn’t you have another meeting with the leader about the process and content of the talks?
“A: No. Obviously during the process I wrote a letter to the leader detailing the problems. He said ‘try to solve them.’ He was always supportive but told me to ‘act in a manner that includes necessary coordination [within the regime]. In this situation, I dispatched Khaji to the second meeting in Oman (around March 2013) and it was a positive meeting. Both sides stayed in Oman for two or three days and the result was that the Omani ruler sent a letter to Ahmadinejad saying that the American representative had announced official recognition of Iran’s enrichment rights. Sultan Qaboos sent the same letter to the American president. When Ahmadinejad received the letter, several friends said that this move would be fruitless and that the Americans do not keep [their] commitments. [But] we had advanced to this stage.
“We had received [this] letter from Sultan Qaboos that stated the Americans had committed to recognizing Iran’s enrichment rights. We [then ] prepared ourselves for the third meeting with the Americans in order to set up the roadmap and detail the mutual commitments. All this happened while Iran was nearing the presidential elections [in June 2013]. At that time, the leader’s office told me that I had to cease negotiations and let the next government handle the talks after the results of the elections were known.
“Q: How did the Americans respond to this postponement?
“A: The Americans accepted it. We had also postponed the talks because of the elections in America. Eventually Rohani won the elections. There was a gap between his election [in June 2013] and his inauguration [in August 2013]. Rohani established political, social and other committees. [Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad] Zarif and [another official,] Zamani-Nia, participated in them. At the time, Deputy Foreign Minister [Abbas] Araghchi attended talks with the P5+1 alongside [then-negotiating team leader Saeed] Jalili. I appointed Araghchi as the coordinator and the Foreign Ministry’s representative to the committees established by Rohani, so we could update the friends in the Rohani government on the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. Additionally, I appointed Khaji as the person in charge of reporting on the secret talks between Iran and America [and] presenting papers and documents [about this]. I personally wrote a letter to Rohani and went to him. I said to him: ‘We have had these talks with America and we stopped them on the recommendation of the leader. So you can continue this track.’
“When Rohani was updated on these talks, he could not believe it. I said to him: ‘You must expedite this issue after your inauguration. Do not abandons this, heaven forbid, so that we do not lose eight months of meetings [with the Americans], as happened in the past.’ Things in Iran changed after the elections. President [Rohani], Foreign Minister [Zarif], and the Supreme National Security Council were all coordinated and of the same mind. Therefore, the negotiations sped up and a new chapter in solving the nuclear dossier issue began.
“Q: Why didn’t American officials send their message [directly] to the Iranian president [meaning Ahmadinejad]? Politically speaking, his status was higher [than that of the officials who handled the talks] and he could have played a more influential role.
“A: They preferred to enter into talks with Iran via the foreign [ministry] channel. At that time there were good ties between the foreign ministers of Iran and Oman, which led to Oman relaying the American message to launch talks.
“Q: Was it only Oman’s positive view of the [Iranian] Foreign Ministry that led to this channel being opened?
“A: The Foreign Ministry was just the most accessible Iranian channel for Omani officials.
“Q: You mentioned the pressure applied to you at that time. Considering that atmosphere and the opposition you spoke of, what was your main motivation in seriously dealing with this issue?
“A: That is what all [my] friends ask too. I had dealt with the nuclear dossier since its onset, some 12 years ago. I knew how this challenge began and what problems and issues it created. I had fulfilled roles in various bodies, including the AEOI, the Foreign Ministry, the ministry of science, research, and technology, as well as roles outside Iran. I saw the situation of the [Iranian] people, who were being unjustly subjected to hardship and unnecessary pressure. I thought [to myself]: What is the foreign minister’s job in this situation? His job is to push back Iran’s enemies, increase [the number of] its friends, and turn enemies into friends so that the international standing of his country could become such that the people would have greater access to international societies and ties. I also wanted to eliminate evil so that I could resolve this issue by any means necessary.
“Q: In fact, you combined a sense of national and ministerial duty with your personal considerations?
“A: Yes. Without [such a sense of duty] no one could have continued [advancing] this issue under this [kind of] pressure. The issue of talks with America was very sensitive. Due to the disagreements, the job became much harder, but I did not let go of this matter until the last minute. Praise God, I am thrilled that we can [now] say that the main part of the task has been accomplished and we have reached the goal. The people are happy and feel assured. It will take a year or two until the agreement [begins] visibly affecting the lives of the people, but the fact that the people are happy that this issue has been resolved and there is calm – this in itself is invaluable for us. It means that a psychological obstacle has been removed, and this was very important.
“Q: What issues were raised in your first meeting with Rohani after he was appointed president?
“A: I gave Rohani a written and verbal report on the talks, as well as several documents I had written. I explained how the talks were conducted and said that the leader had said that, from now on, Rohani would fulfill this responsibility, and once a new foreign minister was appointed, the matter would be promoted as [Rohani] saw fit. Initially he was amazed. He could not believe it. I recommended that he take these talks seriously and promote them, as he indeed did.
“Q: It seems that your view of the negotiations was the same as Rohani’s in terms of how to promote them. At that first meeting, did the president give you any new recommendations on cooperating with the new government?
“A: Not at that meeting, but in our next meeting he offered me three roles and gave me a list of priorities, which I accepted. I had no desire to accept an appointment. I must say that I have never aspired to any roles. It is by the grace of God that I was asked to fulfill roles, whether during the terms of Ahmadinejad [2005-2013], [Mohammad] Khatami [1997-2005], [Hashemi] Rafsanjani [1989-1997], and the leader’s presidency [1982-1989]. Since the onset of the [Islamic] Revolution and until today, I have fulfilled a series of roles and was never without one. But I never aspired to offer myself for any role.
“Q: What were the three offers that Rohani made?
“A: During [the term of] the ninth government [meaning the first Ahmadinejad government 2005-2009], the ground was set for me to go to Qatar and become the secretary-general of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, a role currently held by Dr. [Mohammad-Hossein] Adeli. Another offer was from an Arab country in the Gulf, asking that I advise its president and be responsible for establishing a science complex in that country.
“Q: Is this the UAE?
“A: I don’t want to name it. The officials of that country said: ‘We want to establish a science complex. You should be in charge of it.’ I asked Rohani for permission not to be appointed to any office in his government. I was tired. Rohani’s offers pertained to the AEOI and the science ministry. The third offer was to continue serving in another capacity.
“Q: What were the priorities? Could you say where the head of the AEOI stood?
“A: Being the head of the AEOI was the third priority. The science ministry was the second priority, and another role was the first priority.[5]
“Q: What was the extent of your previous acquaintance with Rohani and Zarif?
“A:Previously, in 2002, when the affair of Iran’s nuclear dossier began, Rohani was in charge of the nuclear negotiations as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and I was Iran’s representative to the IAEA and part of the negotiation [team]. Afterwards, when the three European countries – France, Britain and Germany – came to Iran for the negotiations, Zarif [who was Iran's ambassador to the U.N. in 2002-2007,] took part in those talks. So from that time onward we were in constant touch.
“Q: During the time that Rohani and Zarif were marginalized, did relations between you continue?
“A:Yes. When I was in the Foreign Ministry I asked Zarif to return, but he retired and threw himself into studies at the Foreign Ministry university. In response to my request that he return [to public office] he told me ‘I’m retired.’ Being in the Foreign Ministry, I would meet with Rohani in the Supreme National Security Council, and we were in touch.
“Q: What was the Americans’ position in the first meetings between Iran and the P5+1 held during the Rohani government [era]?
“A:After the Rohani government began to operate – along with the second term of President Obama – the new negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 were started. By then, Kerry was no longer an American senator but had been appointed secretary of state. As a senator, Kerry had been appointed by Obama to be in charge of handling the nuclear dossier, and then [in December 2012] he was appointed secretary of state.
“Before that, the Omani mediator, who had close relations with Kerry, told us that Kerry would soon be appointed [U.S.] secretary of state. During the period when the secret negotiations with the Americans were underway in Oman, there was a situation in which it was easier to obtain concessions from the Americans. After the Rohani government and the American administration [of Obama's second term] took power, and Kerry become secretary of state, the Americans spoke from a more assertive position. They no longer showed the same degree of eagerness to advance the negotiations. Their position became harder, and the threshold of their demands rose. At the same time, on the Iranian side, the situation [also] changed, and a most professional negotiating team took responsibility for negotiating with the P5+1.
“Another positive point was that [President] Rohani oversaw the dossier, knew its limits, and as a result succeeded in producing a good strategy to advance the nuclear dossier. At the same time, Rohani took responsibility for everything. Many may have reservations and ask why we were putting ourselves in danger, but Rohani’s willingness to take responsibility was very high. There are those who say, from a political standpoint, that he was willing to take a very great risk, because, had the negotiations not achieved certain results, and had the best results not been achieved, he would have faced waves of criticism. But he took upon himself the risk of [such] criticism. In any event, he agreed to take this responsibility, and, God be praised, even God helped him, and he emerged [from the negotiations] with his head held high.”
Asked whether Rohani had said anything to bolster Salehi against Rohani’s critics, he replied that there were two kinds of critics. One were those with honest and fair criticism that was aimed at improving how Iran operated in the negotiations. The other were those with superficial, politically biased criticism that was motivated by personal ambition and that caused the public to feel concern that the negotiating team was making mistakes in the nuclear negotiations, when the fact was that Rohani was being very careful to abide by the red lines of the regime.
Salehi continued: “There are those who think that the negotiation team made its own decisions in the nuclear issues, while this is not the case at all. [The team] consulted on the issue with the various relevant institutions [in Iran]. Khamenei was involved, both on the general level and in the details. Rohani discussed the details and thus the negotiating team’s limits and authority was clarified, and at the next stage the negotiating team attempted to operate in a way that would rake in the maximum concessions [from the Americans] within the framework set [by Khamenei]. They read the terrain. This did not mean settling for the minimum. Sometimes during the negotiations unexpected issues come up, and here Zarif’s experience as an experienced diplomat with an extensive diplomatic record can be seen. He oversaw all the international issues closely, and was involved in the smallest details of the nuclear dossier from its very beginning. Therefore, during the negotiations, when unexpected proposals came up, he oversaw [the proceedings] from close up [and] to the best of his ability in order to obtain the outcomes demanded by Iran.
“Q: All right, if a certain issue came up and the negotiating team was unable to make a decision about it on its own, how did the decision-making process go?
“A: There were instances when we were in contact with Iran [i.e., with the leadership]. That was one of the tasks of [President Rohani's brother] Hossein Fereydoun. I would tell him, ‘Ask Rohani whether we should do this thing or not.’ I remember, for example, about Fordo, the issue of the number of centrifuges there came up. I told Fereydoun to ask Tehran how many they wanted. I consulted on issues like these. I had up-close familiarity with the technical issues, because I had participated in the nuclear dossier from the very start. I was also familiar with its political dimensions, so I could make decisions. An expert cannot make decisions; experts are constantly challenging each other and never manage to make a final decision, and this is natural.
“Q: There are two views about your presence in the nuclear negotiations. According to one, the political [disagreements] in the negotiations were already solved, and that you were there to solve any remaining technical issues. According to the other, the talks reached a dead end on the technical issues [even before the political issues were addressed], and it was essential for you to participate in them. What happened that caused you to join the talks?
“A: I did not participate in the negotiations until January 2015. One day, at one of the sessions with the nuclear council [sic], where Zarif was present, after he’d returned from the Munich conference, he announced that Iran and the P5+1 had reached an impasse on the technical issues. Until they were resolved, [he said] the legal and political issues would not be resolved.
“Q: The main obstacle was technical?
“A: Yes. We had to solve technical problems so that we could [proceed] to seeking a solution to the political issues.
“Q: If the main obstacles were in the technical negotiations, why did you join the talks [only] later?
“A: I joined the negotiations after these [technical] issues came to a head. In late January [2015] I was invited to a meeting, where Zarif presented a report, and said that no progress was being made. [Majlis speaker Ali] Larijani said: ‘Salehi, you have to go [to the negotiations].’ I didn’t say yes, so Larijani and many other friends insisted, and pleaded with me to go. I thought that if I kept refusing, they would think that it was because of egotism and lack of desire to cooperate. I said ‘let me think.’ There were 48 hours until the next meeting, and I didn’t have much of a chance to think. I consulted with members of the [Iranian Atomic Energy] Organization. The main obstacle that had brought the negotiations to a dead end was connected to Natanz – Khamenei opposed [the P5+1's position]. I had to set aside the proposal that was on the table and that had brought the negotiations to this dead end, and present a new plan, but according to outsiders this was an impossible mission. I said, ‘I’m willing to go on three conditions. One of them is that my American counterpart must also join the negotiations.’
“Q: So your proposal was essentially that [U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest] Moniz join [the negotiations]?
“A:Yes, and an additional condition was that if my first demand was not met, I would quit the [Iranian] Atomic Energy Organization and participate in the negotiations as Zarif’s scientific advisor. A third condition was that American experts would come to Iran and talk to me. I said that as vice president I would not enter into a discussion with their experts, because as far as the protocol was concerned, this would create a bad situation and they would say that Iran would capitulate in any situation. This was not good for Iran, but I was willing to quit and to come to the talks not as vice president but as the foreign minister’s scientific advisor. Larijani said ‘he’s right.’ The next day, Fereydoun asked me to come to his office and asked me who my [American] counterpart was. I said, the [U.S.] Department of Energy. Fereydoun called Araghchi and said, ‘Tell [U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs] Ms. [Wendy] Sherman that Salehi is joining the negotiations provided that the American secretary of energy also joins the negotiators.’ Araghchi and Sherman were the liaison between Iran and America. Araghchi said in this conversation with Fereydoun that on such short notice it was unlikely that they [i.e. the Americans] would send their secretary of energy. I heard [Fereydoun's conversation with Araghchi]. In short, Fereydoun asked and Araghchi contacted Sherman and a few hours later a report that they welcomed Iran’s proposal arrived.
“Q: How many hours did it take before they [the Americans] said yes?
“A: It didn’t take long. I went to see Fereydoun in the evening and the next day they responded. This was because of the time difference [between Tehran and Washington].
“Q: The general perception was that because Moniz was brought into the negotiating team, you were brought into the Iranian team?
“A: [On the contrary,] Moniz came because of me. In any case, in February [2015] I joined [the negotiations], and praise God, matters moved forward with Moniz.
“Q: Did you and Moniz study together?
“A: Moniz knew me more than I knew him. I saw him at the annual IAEA meeting. When I was a doctoral student at MIT, he had just been accepted as a staff member. He is five years older than me.
“Q: Did you take one of his classes?
“A: No. He knew me because my doctoral studies advisor was his close friend and right hand man in scientific fields. Even now he is an advisor on many of Moniz’s scientific programs. Many of my fellow students are now experts for Moniz. One of them was Mujid Kazimi, who is of Palestinian origin. He recently died. He was two years older than me but we were friends in college. After graduating, he became the head of the MIT Department of Nuclear Science and was a prominent figure who carried out many programs with Moniz.
“Q: How did Moniz treat you initially?
“A: In light of our prior acquaintance, he was excited. We’ve known each other for years and he treated [me] very well. Our first meeting was in public.
“Q: How did you feel when you heard Moniz was coming [to the talks]?
“A: I was very happy. I was assured. I said that the prestige of the Islamic Republic remained intact [because] an Iranian official would not speak to an American expert but rather would negotiate with a high-ranking American official. This was very important. Second, as I said before, he could make a decision [while] an expert could not. We had a very interesting group meeting. The American experts were same ones who had dealt with disarmament vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.
“I said [to Moniz]: ‘I cannot accept your offer for various reasons.’ One American expert said, ‘We do not accept the basic assumption of your calculations.’ I said, ‘Tell us what is the basic assumption of [your] calculations so we can work from there.’ He said ‘we can’t do that.’ I said to them, ‘If you don’t accept our estimation, then tell us [yours]. You say that you cannot because this [exposes] your process. If we show [our] calculation, you will know our working secrets.’ So then I said ‘ok, what do we do now?’ The meeting stagnated.
“Later I thought about it… and said ‘Mr. Moniz, I am here with full authority from my country. Anything I sign will be acceptable to my country. Do you have full authority as well, or does any result achieved here need to be asked and clarified with officials from other countries?’ He said ‘no, I have full authority.’
“Q: Did you have full authority?
“A: Yes. In the scientific discussions, I knew the level of [Iran's] demands. I said, ‘Mr. Moniz, you made an offer to Iran, and Iran rejects it. I want to ask you a question. If you can answer it [then] I will have no problem with your offer.’ I continued and said: ‘Show me one place on earth where enrichment is taking place using the method you are demanding of us. If you can give me even a single example then I will sign on the spot and we will become the second country to enrich in this method.’ He looked [at me] and then announced that the meeting was over, and we spoke. We had the first private meeting that lasted two or three hours. He said: ‘Mr. Salehi, when I was called [out of the negotiating room, it was because] Obama wanted to speak to me. Now I am free [to continue]. What you said is acceptable [but] there are practical problems with your offer.’ I said, ‘Do you agree? Then I relinquish that proposal.’ Eventually we reached mutual understandings on this issue. I said ‘let’s start from the top.’ This diplomatic challenge should be published in a memoir so that everyone can understand how we reached 6,000 centrifuges. It is a very nice story…
“Q: Can we assume that in addition to changing the government, changing the negotiating tactics was one of the keys to unsticking the talks and reaching the final agreement?
“A: This is undoubtedly exactly the case. If the ‘second track’ [meaning the secret Tehran-Washington channel] hadn’t happened, it is unclear how Zarif could have negotiated with the P5+1. Would it have been possible? Each foreign minister [in the P5+1] had his own position and the matter was at a dead end. The ‘first track’ [with the P5+1] was stuck. Rohani believed in the second track and it was even proven that without it, we would have negotiated for years with no result…
“Q: Do you have [particular] memories of your American counterpart in the talks? I heard that Moniz gave you a gift for the birth of your granddaughter.
“A: To be accurate, I gave him a gift first. The first time I gave Moniz some good honey with nuts. My granddaughter was born on March 3 [2015], when I was at the talks. In the morning I came to continue the talks and didn’t know who had told the Americans [of the birth]. They congratulated [me] and asked her name. I said Sara. One American team member said ‘my daughter is named Sara too.’
“In the next meeting, Moniz gave me baby clothes and a doll with the MIT logo and said ‘raise her so she is accepted to MIT.’ I said ‘God willing.’ You know that MIT is one of the finest American universities – one of the leading universities – and it is hard to get accepted there, and harder for foreigners, especially if you want a scholarship because tuition is very expensive. When I studied for my doctorate 43 years ago at that school (1972), tuition was 5,000 dollars (currently it is 60,000-70,000 dollars), which was a lot of money. Of course I received a scholarship from MIT as part of the ERDA program.”
Endnotes:
[1] Iran (Iran), August 4, 2015. Recently, Iranian officials have been giving many interviews on the secret nuclear negotiations with the U.S., in what seems like a competition over the credit for the Iranian achievement, and disclosing details about the talks from their beginning. See MEMRI Special Dispatch No.6131, “Iranian Senior Officials Disclose Confidential Details From Nuclear Negotiations: Already In 2011 We Received Letter From U.S. Administration Recognizing Iran’s Right To Enrich Uranium,” August 10, 2015.
[2] Obama administration officials have denied that the release of the Iranians was related to the negotiations. Wall Street Journal (U.S.), December 29, 2013.
[3] The Farsi word also means “mediator.”
[4] This is confirmed in a report in the Wall Street Journal (U.S.), December 29, 2013.
[5] It should be noted that Salehi was eventually appointed head of the AEOI.
TWITTER FACEBOOK GOOGLE + PINTEREST

The President Should Stop Questioning the Motivations of Opponents of the Iran Deal
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/August 17/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6362/obama-opponents-iran-deal
A number of prominent Jewish organizations and publications, as well as some media outlets, have sharply criticized the manner in which the Obama administration has gone about defending the Iran nuclear agreement by attacking its critics.
Tablet Magazine accused certain proponents of the agreement of using "Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice" such as "[a]ccusing senators and congressmen... of being agents of a foreign power..." to smear their opponents. Similarly, Abraham Foxman, the former director of the Anti-Defamation League, attacked President Obama for fueling the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as warmongers. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center also attacked the administration for bullying opponents of the deal with the "crock of dual loyalty."
The New York Post went a step further, and railed that "Anti-Semitism is all over the drive to make Chuck Schumer shut up about his opposition to the Iran nuke deal." Others have attacked President Obama directly. Lee Smith, also writing in Tablet, claims that "Obama is using a dog whistle. He is hinting at broadly at anti-Semitic conceits."
President Obama and his administration are not anti-Israel, nor are they anti-Semitic. There is little doubt, however, that as the debate over the Iran deal has grown increasingly heated, President Obama, members of his administration, and various supporters of the deal have impugned the integrity of their opponents, sometimes using language that some see as code words.
They have suggested that those members of Congress who have come out against the deal are in the pockets of billionaires and lobbyists. They have also sought to conflate opposition to the Iran deal with support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Finally, President Obama has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the pro-Israel lobby of exercising an inappropriate level of pressure on American politicians in attempting to influence the course of the debate over the Iran agreement.
The notion that foreign leaders do not seek to influence American political discourse is patently false. More to the point, however, the cumulative thrust of the attacks leveled by the administration has engendered disturbing arguments from some quarters.
The Daily Kos, for example, recently published a cartoon questioning whether Senator Chuck Schumer opposes the agreement out of loyalty to the United States or to Israel. Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Institute, commented: "shame on Chuck Schumer for putting Israel's interests ahead of America's interests." Such suggestions of dual loyalty have been echoed in more respectable publications such as the New York Times, whose editorial board commented on the "unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander in chief..." as if members of Congress -- an independent branch of our government -- should always kowtow to the President (who is not the Commander in Chief of Congress).
Certainly, it is clear at this point that President Obama and supporters of the agreement are doing themselves no favors by attacking the motivations of those who oppose the deal. So too Republicans who have used deliberately loaded language in their effort to score political points against a president who they deeply dislike. The only result of such invective has been to inject unnecessary vitriol into a debate whose result will have far-reaching consequences for the United States, for Israel, and for the Middle East.
Rather than doubling down on his misguided and misleading accusations, President Obama should be seeking to elevate the tone of the national discussion. He should directly address concerns regarding the strength of the inspections regime envisioned by the deal, and he should insist on the release of the content of the side agreements between the IAEA and Iran regarding access to Iranian nuclear sites.
Regardless of what Congress and the President decide to do, these are issues that demand serious and substantive debate, and all interested parties should be encouraged to contribute their opinions. The arguments made in recent weeks by supporters of the deal have been completely counterproductive in that regard. We might expect such attacks by partisans on both sides of the aisle. However, we should demand that the President elevate the tone of the discussion.
** Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer, constitutional scholar, commentator and author. His new book is The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes? (Rosetta Books, August 11, 2015).

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

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