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/You cannot serve God and wealth
Luke 16/13-17: "No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.’The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they ridiculed him.
So he said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God. ‘The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped."

Bible Quotation For Today/Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God
Second Letter of John 01/01-13: "The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us for ever: Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, in truth and love. I was overjoyed to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father. But now, dear lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning you must walk in it. Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist! Be on your guard, so that you do not lose what we have worked for, but may receive a full reward. Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person. Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. The children of your elect sister send you their greetings."

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 27-28/15
By: Alberto M. Fernandez/MEMRI/August 27/15
The ISIS Caliphate and the Churches/By: Alberto M. Fernandez/MEMRI/August 27/15
From Yemen to Syria, counter-terrorism alone not the answer/Manuel Almeida/Al Arabiya/August 27/15/
Yemen, Mansour al-Nogaidan and Al-Islah/Joyce Karam/Al Arabiya/August 27/15
Justin Trudeau fundraiser picketed by Jewish group over Liberals’ support for Iran nuclear deal/Jake Edmiston/August 27/15
Europe's NGO Jihad Against Israel/Susan Warner/Gatestone Institute/August 27/15
The Alfred E. Neumann "What, Me Worry?" School of Nuclear Deterrence/Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/August 27/15
Analysis: Is ISIS here to stay in the Middle East/ROBERT SWIFT/ THE MEDIA LINE/J.Post/August 27/15
How to put some teeth into the nuclear deal with Iran/By Dennis Ross and David H. Petraeus /Washington Institute/August 27/15
Securing the Sinai MFO Without a U.S. Drawdown/Eric Trager/Washington Institute/August 27/15
Achieving Peace through Strength—A Good Lesson to Syria’s Revolt/Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/August 27/15
Quebec law would stifle free speech 203/By Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun/August 27/15
Why did it take Saudi Arabia 20 years to catch Khobar Towers bomber/Al Monitor/August 27/15
The ISIS Caliphate and the Churches/MEMRI/August 27/15

LCCC Bulletin titles for the Lebanese Related News published on August 27-28/15
Mercenaries & Trojans Can Not Lead Any Positive Reform
Lebanon's Hezbollah, Christian allies boycott government meeting
Bassil Wins FPM Presidency Uncontested, Says 'Consensus is a Form of Democracy'
Aoun Visits al-Rahi, Receives Phone Call from Jumblat
Al-Rahi Following up Controversy on Cabinet Decr
Report: Berri Seeking to Launch Consultations among Rival Leaders
Cautious Calm in Ain el-Hilweh, Night Clashes Kill Two
Asiri Says Latest Travel Warning Linked to Recent Developments
Young Lebanese Activists Challenge Old Political Class
Many Held for 'Hurling Firecrackers' at ISF in Riad al-Solh as Protesters March to Hamra

Mercenaries & Trojans Can Not Lead Any Positive Reform
Elias Bejjani/August 27/15
If the reform in Lebanon will come through mercenaries and Trojans like Najah. Wakim, Zaher. Al Katieb, Mustfa. Saad, Salim. Hoss, Micheal Aoun, Berri, Hezbollah, the pro Iranian and Syrian unions etc, butter not to come. The question is: How can any individual grant others what he does not own? Sadly all these rotten politician who are bragging and yelling in Beirut streets are hypocrites, liars and have no loyalty to Lebanon or the Lebanese people

Lebanon's Hezbollah, Christian allies boycott government meeting
Reuters/Mohamed Azakir/The Lebanese group Hezbollah and allied Christian politicians will boycott a cabinet meeting on Thursday, deepening a political crisis that has paralyzed Prime Minister Tammam Salam's national unity government. Media run by Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) of Christian politician Michel Aoun, the Shi'ite group's main Christian ally, reported that Salam had been informed of the decision, but did not immediately give a reason for it. Ministers from Hezbollah and Aoun's FPM walked out of a cabinet session on Tuesday. They are in dispute with other members of the government over issues including decrees passed without their approval. The political conflict has obstructed efforts to find a solution to a crisis over waste disposal that has fueled public anger and triggered anti-government protests that brought thousands of people into the streets at the weekend. The Salam government, formed last year, groups parties at opposite ends of the Lebanese political spectrum, including the Future Movement led by Sunni politician Saad al-Hariri, and Christian rivals to Aoun. With the presidency vacant for more than a year, the Salam government has spared Lebanon a vacuum in the executive arm. But it has struggled to take even the most basic decisions.
(Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Toby Chopra and Dominic Evans)

Bassil Wins FPM Presidency Uncontested, Says 'Consensus is a Form of Democracy'
Naharnet/August 27/15/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil won uncontested the presidency of the Free Patriotic Movement on Thursday, describing the “consensus” that contributed to his victory as a “form of democracy” aimed at keeping the FPM “strong.”Bassil will succeed his father-in-law and the movement's founder MP Michel Aoun. The FM's list won uncontested after the rival list was disqualified for “failing to submit all the required legal documents,” FPM secretary-general Elie Khoury announced. Accordingly, Bassil's allies Nicolas Sehnaoui and Rommel Saber won uncontested as deputy chief for political affairs and deputy chief for internal affairs respectively. The other list comprised Ziad al-Bayeh for the presidency and Elie Maalouf and Fares Louis for the posts of deputy chiefs. “We are the General's guarantee and he has never sought a guarantee except from his people,” said Bassil at a ceremony celebrating his win, referring to Aoun. “The General will remain the movement's temporal and eternal leader,” he stressed. Bassil described the FPM as “the salvation of Christians and the hope of the Lebanese and the people of the Levant.” “We're a movement that is smaller than Lebanon and bigger than the Levant,” he said. Commenting on the agreement that was reached over the withdrawal of MP Alain Aoun from the race, Bassil noted that “consensus is a form of democracy.”“We reached consensus so that our movement can be strong today,” he said.
“The movement is strong by its principles and regional decentralization in the implementation of its decisions,” he added. MP Michel Aoun had declared that “the agreement over the elections was based on the will of the majority.” “I bless this decision and encourage it,” he said. After the announcement, MP Alain Aoun issued a statement saying: “Based on MP Michel Aoun's wishes, my constant confidence in him, and my awareness of the impact on the unity of the FPM, given the major political pressure it is under, I urge all members to overcome this phase and continue to work together for the interest and future of the movement.” On Thursday, Bassil declared that the FPM wants the election of a “strong” president for the republic. Turning to the domestic political disputes, he added: “They won't be able to defeat our will. They will target us and try to isolate us with the 'takfiri sword' and the sword of politics.” “They will obstruct our projects and try to prevent us from making achievements. They will try to eliminate us in the squares, administrations, ministries and presidency, but we shall fall and rise because we are the sons of resurrection,” he added. The country has been without a president since Michel Suleiman's term ended in May 2014. MP Michel Aoun is one of the main presidential candidates. The presidential vacuum has been increasingly affecting the work of the government and the parliament.
Aoun and his ministers are accusing Prime Minister Tammam Salam of infringing on the jurisdiction of the Christian president, arguing that the cabinet's decrees and resolutions must enjoy the approval of all ministers, or blocs, in the event of a presidential vacuum. The FPM has also repeatedly announced that it is seeking to end what it calls the “marginalization” of Christians in Lebanon's state administrations.

Aoun Visits al-Rahi, Receives Phone Call from Jumblat
Naharnet/August 27/15/Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun held talks Thursday in Bkirki with Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi. The two-hour meeting tackled “the general situations in the country, especially the presidential election and the work of the government, in addition to the regional situations and their repercussions on Lebanon,” state-run National News Agency said. The two men stressed “the need to communicate with all parties to reach solutions that preserve national unity and the National Pact.”The National Pact is a 1943 unwritten agreement that set the foundations of modern Lebanon as a multi-confessional state. Later on Thursday, Aoun received a phone call from Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat. Jumblat stressed to Aoun that he is pinning hopes “on his wisdom in this critical period that Lebanon is going through,” the National News Agency said. He also underlined his keenness on “the continuation of communication and consultations” with the FPM chief. The country has been without a president since Michel Suleiman's term ended in May 2014. Aoun is one of the main presidential candidates. The presidential vacuum has been increasingly affecting the work of the government and the parliament.
Aoun and his ministers are accusing Prime Minister Tammam Salam of infringing on the jurisdiction of the Christian president, arguing that the cabinet's decrees and resolutions must enjoy the approval of all ministers, or blocs, in the event of a presidential vacuum.

Al-Rahi Following up Controversy on Cabinet Decrees
Naharnet/August 27/15/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi is closely following up the issue of decrees that have been signed without the approval of all cabinet members, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Thursday. The newspaper said that MP Ibrahim Kanaan from Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun's Change and Reform bloc met with al-Rahi in Bkirki on Tuesday and discussed the issue with him.
Around 70 decrees have been passed without the signatures of the FPM and its allies. This has prompted FPM, Hizbullah and Tashnag ministers to walk out of the cabinet session on Tuesday with the support of the Marada Movement whose minister was abroad. But a last minute settlement was made ahead of Thursday’s session for the decrees to be presented to them for signature. The FPM has been claiming that the signature of only 18 ministers violated the cabinet's working mechanism in the absence of a president. Lebanon's top Christian post has been vacant since May 2014. Kanaan told al-Joumhouria that “constitutional issues linked to coexistence cannot be tampered with.” “The infringement on the authorities of the president and the violation of his rights … cannot be justified,” he said. The lawmaker stressed that the signatures of all of the government’s 24 ministers are necessary to pass the decrees because usually they require a president’s signature. Al-Joumhouria also quoted Bkirki sources as saying that al-Rahi is discussing the issue with the rest of the Christian parties to resolve the problem.

Report: Berri Seeking to Launch Consultations among Rival Leaders
Naharnet/August 27/15/Speaker Nabih Berri has been holding contacts with Lebanese political parties to revive the all-party talks that he had launched in 2006, al-Akhbar newspaper reported on Thursday. Berri has been holding consultations to bring the rival politicians on the dialogue table either in Ain el-Tineh or in parliament, the daily said. The speaker first chaired the dialogue in the spring of 2006. But the talks were interrupted by the summer war between Israel and Hizbullah.
The dialogue resumed in the fall of that year. It was later chaired by former President Michel Suleiman, who in May last year oversaw a largely-boycotted national dialogue session at Baabda Palace before the end of his term. The session called for continued talks on the country's defense strategy and stressed the importance of the implementation of the Taef accord. The boycott came as a result of deteriorating ties between Suleiman and Hizbullah after the former president urged the party to avoid inflexible equations that hindered the birth of the government’s policy statement. Suleiman has been hailed for leaving a mark in history after overseeing the agreement between the March 8 and 14 camps on the Baabda Declaration, which stressed Lebanon's dissociation policy from the Syrian war. Despite its approval, Hizbullah has sent its fighters to Syria to help the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad against rebels seeking to topple him.

Cautious Calm in Ain el-Hilweh, Night Clashes Kill Two
Naharnet/August 27/15/A cautious calm prevailed early Thursday in the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain el-Hilweh after an exchange of fire overnight between armed rivals that left two dead, the state-run National News Agency reported. Clashes between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement and the Jund al-Sham Islamist group intensified overnight in the al-Fawqani street. Palestinian security members near the al-Barraq center came under fire by what a Fatah official described as “unidentified gunmen”. A Fatah official, Radwan Abdul Rahim, was seriously injured and later succumbed to his wounds. Another man, Fadi Khalil, an activist who was on efforts to reach a cease fire agreement between the clashing parting was also killed at dawn. A ceasefire in the camp which lies near the southern port city of Sidon was reached early Wednesday but was marred later on by the night sporadic battles. The breach threatened the ceasefire that ended several days of clashes. Palestinian officials said the ceasefire remained in place despite the breach and that high-level contacts were made during the night to ensure it would be respected. The impoverished Ain el-Hilweh camp has gained notoriety as a refuge for extremists and fugitives and for the settling of scores between factions. By long-standing convention, the army does not enter the Palestinian refugee camps, leaving the factions themselves to handle security. More than 61,000 Palestinian refugees live in Ain el-Hilweh, including 6,000 who recently fled the war in Syria, according to the U.N.'s agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

Asiri Says Latest Travel Warning Linked to Recent Developments
Naharnet/August 27/15/Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Awadh Asiri has said that the recent travel warning issued for Lebanon came out of Riyadh's keenness on the safety of its citizens. Asiri told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat published on Thursday that Saudi Arabia fears its citizens could be harmed in the latest events that shook the country. “The number of Saudis present in Lebanon is currently low due to the end of the school vacation and the return of tourists,” he said. “As for those currently present in Lebanon, they have enough knowledge of the areas (witnessing) tension and are far from them,” said the diplomat. They are also in contact with the embassy for security advice when needed, he added. Asiri's comments to al-Hayat came after the Saudi foreign ministry advised its citizens not to travel to Lebanon given the latest turmoil. It also urged Saudi nationals present in Lebanon to be cautious.Several Western and Arab countries have also issued similar travel warnings after mass protests calling for the government's resignation in downtown Beirut turned violent.

Young Lebanese Activists Challenge Old Political Class
Associated Press/Naharnet/August 27/15/First they egged the prime minister's building. Then they dumped some of the garbage piling up on Beirut's streets outside the home of the environment minister, furious the government couldn't get its act together to find a solution when Lebanon's main landfill shut down. But perhaps the most electrifying move by the young, tech-savvy group of activists was when they spread their catchy slogan "You Stink" across social media. It helped turn the trash crisis into a popular uprising against a political class that has dominated Lebanon since its civil war ended in 1990. The core founders of "You Stink" include one of the Middle East's most influential bloggers, as well as a creative media strategist, a rights lawyer, journalists and an actress whose film was banned by authorities for addressing touchy sexual issues. The group quickly picked up supporters from across the spectrum of Lebanon's divisive politics and sects. "We are the future of this country and the agents of change. If the youth didn't do this, no one will do it," said Nadyn Jouny, a 25-year-old freelance journalist who is among the group's founding members. She said the movement was a reflection of the growing frustration with an aging and corrupt political class that has failed to even show concern for people's woes. She called it "the regime of the warlords." "You Stink" claims to have set aside ideology in its effort to mobilize support for an uprising against the political establishment. It says it seeks to ditch a patronage system that divvies up power to each of Lebanon's multiple communities — Shiites, Sunnis, Christians, Druze and more — in favor of a non-sectarian culture. That system has been the center of Lebanese politics for decades and helped fuel the 15-year civil war — and critics say it leads politicians to spend more time cultivating their sectarian fiefdoms than actually governing."You Stink" is up against aging warlords and oligarchs who have passed power on to their sons and relatives for generations — and continue to hold the country's top positions with expansive business interests and powerful militias that helped them survive the war. Consecutive governments neglected to improve the country's infrastructure, leading to chronic water shortages and electricity cuts that continue 25 years after the war ended. "The corruption has been around for so long. But the people have also now smelled it," said Tarek Sarhan, a 17-year-old "You Stink" supporter. Jouny said the stench from the mounds of trash that blocked Beirut streets was a wake-up call to residents who took pride in their beautiful city. Two major rallies over the weekend brought some 20,000 people into the streets of the capital, numbers rarely seen in a country wary of the chaos in neighboring Syria.The last time large numbers took to the streets was a decade ago, after the 2005 assassination of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hundreds of thousands of people from all sects demonstrated in peaceful rallies that were dubbed the "Cedar Revolution." Those protests eventually led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after a decades-old presence — but sectarian politics quickly returned.
The idea for "You Stink" began on Facebook, and the group has tried to avoid the mistakes of other Arab protest movements by reaching out to existing youth organizations to help coordinate, Jouny said. Neamat Bader al-Deen is a leftist activist with a group that calls itself "We Want Accountability," one of several organizations collaborating with the movement. "We are asking the government to resign because it failed to resolve the crises," the 34-year-old Bader al-Deen said. "We will not let this pass. This is robbery."Sarhan said his father initially ridiculed the group's symbolic protests. But when thousands turned up at the allies last weekend, his father called to offer support. "Keep it up, son," he says his father said. At first the veteran politicians ignored the protesters. But after the crowds grew and turned violent over the weekend, the government erected a concrete wall Monday outside its main building to keep them at bay. Within hours, the wall was filled with anti-government grafitti. On Tuesday, authorities took it down, just 24 hours after it went up.
"The parties want to spoil the movement ... because it is becoming popular and that is scaring them," Jouny said.She said to ensure the group reflects the mood on the street it scans views on social media before making decisions. Several hundred volunteers have been prepped on strategies to ensure violent clashes don't erupt at Saturday's rally, which is being promoted with a video decrying Lebanon's endemic electricity shortages. Assad Thebian, one of the country's best-known bloggers and the winner of an Arab creative digital campaign award, said attempts to stymie the movement will fail. That's because young men and women fed up with the sectarian system are its backbone, he said.
"They are disgusted with the same political class robbing them, and sucking their blood all their lives, same as their fathers and their grandfathers," he said. "This is something we want to get rid of. We want to all become children of the state."

Many Held for 'Hurling Firecrackers' at ISF in Riad al-Solh as Protesters March to Hamra
Naharnet/August 27/15/The Internal Security Forces on Wednesday arrested a number of individuals who were “distributing powerful firecrackers in the Riad al-Solh Square and hurling some of them at security forces,” state-run National News Agency reported. Earlier in the evening, NNA said some young men had hurled several firecrackers across the barb wire that is installed outside the Grand Serail. The arrests come after scores were detained overnight Tuesday on charges of rioting and hurling objects at security forces. Most of the detainees were released on Wednesday, according to activists. The square has been witnessing daily protests since Saturday, when the You Stink anti-trash campaign organized a large demo that turned violent. Some activists as well as some politicians have accused politically-motivated “infiltrators” of sparking the confrontations with security forces. Earlier on Wednesday, protesters from the We Want Accountability campaign organized a solidarity march from Riad al-Solh to the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Hamra, where the young man Mohammed Qassir has been lying in critical condition since Sunday, when he was injured in clashes between security forces and protesters in central Beirut. The rally also voiced solidarity with all those who were injured in recent demos and demanded accountability over the use of excessive force. Meanwhile, activists from the You Stink campaign also held a candlelight vigil in Riad al-Solh to salute the wounded protesters. "You Stink” began as an online group which accuses politicians of wanting to get the bigger cut from waste management contracts. The trash crisis erupted when the Naameh landfill south of Beirut was closed on July 17 and when garbage began piling up on the streets of Beirut and Mount Lebanon.
At the weekend, Prime Minister Tammam Salam acknowledged protesters' frustrations and warned that his government risked becoming irrelevant if it could not address the public's concerns. "We're heading towards collapse if things continue as they are," he cautioned. But a cabinet meeting on Tuesday was unable to resolve the social issue that has united protesters for a rare display of non-sectarian anger. It was intended to discuss companies qualified to bid for new waste removal contracts. The list had drawn fire from activists who said the firms were linked to political figures and were seeking exorbitant fees.Lebanon already pays some of the world's highest per-ton waste collection rates, and media said the companies sought to raise prices even further.

Swiss envoy: Invest in Iran, Middle East's 'pole of stability'
Reuters/J.Post/August 27/15/ZURICH - Switzerland's ambassador to Iran on Thursday called Iran a "pole of stability" in the Middle East and urged companies to make the most of a lucrative market about to re-open after years of crippling sanctions. Ambassador Giulio Haas was addressing some 500 Swiss business people as Europeans race back to Iran, whose markets and oil will be much easier to tap once sanctions are lifted, under a global deal struck last month. "Iran seems still for a lot of people to be bearded, elderly gentlemen with turbans. You see them, but you see not a lot of them, especially when you're dealing with business," Haas said. Iran's adversaries in the Middle East, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, oppose the deal Tehran struck with world powers, limiting its nuclear work in return for sanctions relief.In the United States where Iran has long been seen as a regional menace, the US Congress has until Sept. 17 to vote on the deal backed by President Barack Obama but opposed by many Republicans. Haas said his nearly two years in Tehran had convinced him Western perceptions of Iran as the world's most-aggressive nation were about to change. "Iran at the moment is most probably the pole of stability in a very, very unsafe region," he told the conference. Britain reopened its embassy in Tehran on Sunday, catching up with rival European powers that have rushed to tell Iran their companies are ready to restart business. France's foreign minister visited Tehran just two weeks after the nuclear deal was agreed on July 14. Iran's financial sy stem should escape crippling restrictions next year, leaving foreign companies contemplating 80 million consumers, $35 trillion worth of petroleum reserves and deep infrastructure needs. Companies including engineering group ABB Ltd bank UBS and agriculture equipment maker Bucher Industries AG attended the event in a Zurich hotel hosted by a Swiss export-promotion group.
"BE BRAVE"
Swiss exports to Iran have fallen more than half to less than 400 million Swiss francs ($415 million)since 2008 as tightened UN and EU sanctions forced many companies to cut ties with the country. "It's very important for us that the stream of money in Iran reopens," said Christian Wuerzer, managing director at insurer SwissCare, whose products cover expatriates and diplomats. Marzban Mortaz, director of a Tehran-based juice and milk packager, said access to Swiss financiers is essential if the country's economy is to double or triple post sanctions. "With that size of economy, everyone has expansion plans," he told Reuters. "Companies in Iran are cash-strapped." Experts cautioned that Iran remains a difficult market, telling the conference that bureaucracy, nepotism and corruption were common, as were the threat from product piracy and legal unpredictability. "The corruption is still at unbelievable rates," said Sharif Nezam-Mafi, chairman of the Iran-Switzerland Chamber of Commerce and Eurasia region director of Swiss mill-maker Buehler AG. Nevertheless, speakers described Iran as a "virgin market" of sophisticated consumers ready for business with the West. "Be brave," urged Ali Amiri of ACL Asset Management, an Iran-focused investment firm. "You've been to wilder places: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, South Africa, Nigeria. If you can bear those places, Iran is a walk in the park."

Up to 50 Bodies Found Dead in Austria as Migrant Crisis Rages
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 27/15/The bodies of between 20 and 50 migrants were found in a truck in Austria on Thursday, highlighting the dark side of Europe's migrant crisis as regional leaders struggle to stem the massive flow of people desperately trying to reach the EU. The gruesome discovery on a motorway near the Slovakia and Hungary borders was thought to be the worst tragedy on land in Europe's worst migrant crisis since 1945. Police said the vehicle -- which had the markings of a Slovakian poultry company and bore Hungarian number plates -- contained between 20 and 50 bodies. It was not yet clear how they had died. "Today is a dark day... This tragedy affects us all deeply," Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner said at a press conference. She said Austria would tighten border controls and intensify police checks on international trains, and called on the other 27 EU member states to show "zero tolerance" for people smugglers. The deaths came a day after at least 55 migrants were found dead in stricken boats in the Mediterranean, adding to a toll of more than 2,300 people who have drowned while attempting to reach Europe by sea. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Balkan leaders, meeting in Vienna to discuss how to tackle the escalating crisis, reacted with shock to the Austrian tragedy. "We were all shaken by the horrible news that up to 50 people lost their lives because they were in a situation where people-smugglers did not care about their lives," Merkel said. "This is a warning to us to tackle this migrants issue quickly and in a European spirit, which means in a spirit of solidarity, and to find solutions." European leaders have come under fire for failing to tackle the arrival of several hundred thousand migrants this year, many fleeing hotspots such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The western Balkans has become a major route for migrants and refugees trying to cross over into EU member state Hungary. Most then try to make it to wealthier European countries like Germany and Sweden. Speaking at the Vienna meeting, Serbia's Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said outside money provided so far was insufficient to handle the large numbers. "This is a problem of the European Union and we (the transit countries) are expected to come up with an action plan," Dacic said. "I think the European Union has to come up with a plan first," he said. "I have to be very direct here. Please understand, we are bearing the brunt of the problem."This was echoed by his counterpart from Macedonia, which last week declared a state of emergency and shut its border with Greece for three days after being unable to cope. "Unless we have a European answer to this issue, none of us should be under any illusion that this will be solved," Nikola Poposki said. Reiterating his call for a reform of the Dublin Accords "to distribute refugees fairly within the EU", Germany's Foreign Minister Frank Steinmeier said Berlin would contribute one million euros to help the Balkans cope with the migrants, as well as food and other supplies.
But he also called on governments there "to help manage the xpectations of your citizens and provide them with a realistic picture of their virtually non-existent chances of being granted asylum in Germany."Almost 40 percent of asylum-seekers in Germany are from the western Balkan countries, Steinmeier said. The daily number of people crossing into Hungary hit a record 3,000, including nearly 700 children, latest police figures showed. Lawmakers are set to debate next week whether to deploy troops to stem the influx, after violence erupted briefly at a refugee processing center near the Hungarian border town of Rozke. Alarmed by the growing humanitarian disaster, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon has urged countries "in Europe and elsewhere to prove their compassion and do much more to bring an end to the crisis". UN refugee chief Antonio Guterres and French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve called for the urgent creation of more so-called "hotspots" -- processing centers to sort refugees fleeing war from economic migrants who are simply in search of a better life. Hamstrung by a lack of a coherent European response, governments have at times taken contradictory approaches to the problem. While Hungary's right-wing government is building a 175-kilometer (110-mile) razor-wire barrier to keep migrants out, a Czech minister has called for the passport-free Schengen zone to be closed with the help of NATO troops. Meanwhile Germany, which is preparing to receive a record 800,000 asylum-seekers this year, has eased the application procedure for Syrians fleeing the brutal civil war. But Berlin's largesse has not been welcomed by everyone at home, particularly in the east where a spate of attacks has targeted refugee centers. On a visit to a migrant shelter in the eastern town of Heidenau, Merkel was greeted by about 200 protesters, some booing and shouting "traitor, traitor" and "we are the mob".However, she vowed: "There will be no tolerance of those who question the dignity of other people."

ISIS Kills Two Generals in Iraq, Advances in Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 27/15/ A suicide attack claimed by the Islamic State group killed two Iraqi generals on Thursday in the key battleground province of Anbar, as the jihadists made gains in neighboring Syria. IS overran large areas of Iraq in 2014 and seized Anbar capital Ramadi earlier this year. It also controls major territory in Syria, where it has thrived amid a bloody civil war. Military spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Rasool said a suicide bomber in an explosives-rigged vehicle struck the Al-Jaraishi area north of Ramadi as Iraqi forces advanced. The attack killed the deputy head of the Anbar Operations Command, Abdulrahman Abu Raghif, and 10th Division commander Safin Abdulmajid, said Rasool. IS claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement online, but gave a different account of how it unfolded, saying it was carried out by four suicide bombers and two supporting gunmen who targeted the main command headquarters north of Ramadi. It said all six of the jihadists were killed. The Iraqi Joint Operations Command confirmed the deaths of the two officers along with an unspecified number of other "heroic martyrs". The death or injury of senior officers during battles against IS is a persistent problem for Iraq. Two heads of the Anbar Operations Command have been wounded this year, while the commanders of a division and a brigade were killed in Anbar in April. The province's governor was wounded in 2014. Senior army and police commanders have also been killed in other provinces since IS launched its devastating offensive in June 2014, sweeping security forces aside. Baghdad's forces have managed to regain significant territory in two provinces north of the capital, but much of western Iraq, including Anbar, remains outside government control. In Syria, IS seized five villages from rebel forces overnight in the northern province of Aleppo and deployed on three sides of a key opposition bastion there, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The jihadist group overran three villages near the town of Marea, cut the rebel bastion off from the north, east and south, and took two more villages further north in Aleppo province, it said. Those two villages were previously controlled by Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate, which withdrew from them after Turkey and the United States announced plans to cooperate on an IS-free zone in the area. Marea is one of the most significant rebel-held towns in northern Aleppo and lies on a key supply route running to the Turkish border. IS has targeted it for months, seeking to expand westwards from territory it holds in Aleppo province.
The Observatory said there were reports of dozens of rebel casualties in the fighting, but it had no immediate toll, while at least 18 IS members were killed in the fighting for Marea and the five villages. Mamoun al-Khatib, a journalist and activist from Marea, also said the town was cut off from three directions and said dozens of jihadists had been killed trying to storm it. He said some 5,000 civilians were inside the town, which was under IS mortar fire on Thursday afternoon. The IS advances come despite an agreement between Turkey and the United States to work on establishing the IS-free zone in northern Aleppo. The plan has backing from some rebel forces on the ground, including the powerful Islamist Ahrar al-Sham movement, which Washington does not work with. But Al-Nusra has rejected the proposal, despite its opposition to IS, and earlier this month withdrew from its front lines against its jihadist rival in Aleppo in order to avoid cooperating with the plan. Elsewhere in Syria, the Observatory said a new 48-hour truce between regime forces and rebels entered into force in three towns on Thursday. It follows a similar ceasefire this month for the towns that was intended to lead to a broad agreement to end the fighting in Zabadani and the blockade of Fuaa and Kafraya. Pro-regime forces, including Lebanon's Hizbullah, launched an offensive to seize Zabadani from rebel groups early last month. The town is the last rebel-held bastion in the area along the border with Lebanon and has been subjected to massive aerial bombardment since the operation began. More than 240,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in March 2011 with peaceful anti-government protests.

Saudi Executes Pakistani for Drug Trafficking
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 27/15/ Saudi Arabia on Thursday executed a Pakistani man convicted of smuggling drugs into the ultra-conservative kingdom, the interior ministry said. It brought to 128 the number of executions so far this year in Saudi Arabia, compared with 87 for the whole of 2014, according to AFP tallies compiled from interior ministry statements. Zulfiqar Ali Mohammed was caught while attempting to smuggle heroin found hidden in his stomach, the ministry said in a statement carried by SPA state news agency. Most people sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia are beheaded, but sometimes firing squads are used. Amnesty International on Tuesday appealed for a moratorium on executions in Saudi Arabia, criticizing the kingdom's "deeply flawed judicial system". Under Saudi Arabia's strict legal practices, murder, armed robbery, rape, drug trafficking and apostasy are all punishable by death. Amnesty says Saudi Arabia is one of the world's most prolific executioners, along with China, Iran, Iraq and the United States.

Egypt to Try Suspects in Foiled Attack on Temple Tourists
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 27/15/ Egypt has referred 12 men to military trial for alleged involvement in a cell behind a narrowly averted attack on tourists at a pharaonic temple in June, prosecutors said Thursday. The assailants had been recruited by the Islamic State group's Egyptian affiliate, along with two "foreigners" who were killed in the incident at the Karnak temple in Luxor, the prosecution said in a statement. Eight of the suspects had been arrested and four were still on the run, said a prosecution official. Their nationalities were not immediately clear. The June 10 attack was foiled by a suspicious taxi driver and police. One of the assailants blew himself up and police shot dead another before they could attack any tourists. A third, an Egyptian, was mistakenly wounded by a stray shot from another militant and arrested, the prosecution said. Militants have carried out dozens of attacks in Egypt since the army overthrew Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2013 and cracked down on his supporters.Most of the attacks have targeted soldiers on the Sinai Peninsula where the Islamic State group's affiliate is based. But the jihadists have also struck elsewhere, setting off car bombs in front of police headquarters in Cairo and the Nile Delta. The suspects involved in the failed June attack had been recruited by the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis group, the prosecution said. The Sinai-based group, which has killed hundreds of soldiers and policemen in attacks, pledged loyalty to IS in November. The group had attacked tourists before, in a suicide bombing in early 2014 that killed three South Koreans and their Egypt driver at a south Sinai resort town. The attacks revived fears of more attacks on tourists such as the one's the devastated the industry in Egypt in 1997 and between 2004 and 2006. In 1997, Islamist militants killed dozens of tourists at a Luxor temple during a militant insurgency against then president Hosni Mubarak. Between 2004 and 2006, militants set off bombs in three beach resorts in south Sinai, killing dozens.

Syria Pursuing Corruption Cases against Officials
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 27/15/Syrian courts are hearing a series of cases against officials accused of corruption and mismanagement, a judge told a newspaper close to the government on Thursday. "Numerous cases are currently underway against officials from government institutions accused of embezzling public funds, theft and mismanagement," Yassin Kahal, a high-ranking Damascus judge, told Al-Watan newspaper. "There are no exceptions made. The law is applied equally whether to high-ranking officials or ordinary bureaucrats, if the crime is proven," he said. Kahal said more than 15 cases concerning misuse of public funds were presented each month to the courts in Damascus. Syria's embattled President Bashar Assad has regularly insisted that corruption will not be tolerated and has backed an anti-graft drive. But Syria in 2014 ranked 159 out of 175 countries for corruption, according to Transparency International, with graft endemic at all levels. Anger at corruption and lack of accountability was one of the driving forces in the demonstrations that erupted against Assad's government in March 2011. The protests were met with a regime crackdown and descended into an armed conflict that has killed more than 240,000 people. Kahal said speculating on foreign currency and transferring money outside the country were considered among "the most serious crimes threatening the national economy".The Syria Report economic journal this week reported that the assets of one of Syria's most prominent businessmen Saeb Nahhas, who is close to the government, had been frozen by a court. Citing a document circulating in local media, the journal said a court had requested all local banks freeze any assets belonging to Nahhas and two of his sons. A business source told AFP Nahhas had run up debts of $1 billion (890 million euros) with Syrian banks and had failed to make repayments despite several warnings. Nahhas is considered closely linked to Syria's government and owns a group of companies that deal in cars, construction, tourism and pharmaceuticals.

Russia-Egypt ties on the rise
Maria Dubovikova/Al Arabiya/August 27/15
Russian-Egyptian ties have improved markedly since Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became president. His recent visit to Russia was the third since he was elected, and the second in one year. It was the third meeting between the two presidents in 2015, as Vladimir Putin was warmly welcomed in Cairo in February. Bilateral trade has skyrocketed, with both sides expressing their will to increase it further. Cooperation is rising in all fields, but military cooperation has been the most remarkable. In addition to previously signed contracts worth of billions dollars, another was signed days before Sisi’s arrival that was worth $2 billion and concerned delivery of 46 MiG-29 fighter jets to Egypt.
Putin and Sisi have called for a broader coalition to combat terrorism
The countries are set to develop energy ties. Russia is to build two nuclear reactors in Egypt to help fulfil the latter’s energy needs. During his visit, Sisi also discussed agricultural, educational and parliamentary cooperation. The speaker of Russia’s State Duma, Serguei Naryshkin, said Moscow was ready to send observers to Egypt’s forthcoming parliamentary elections, adding that bilateral cooperation was in the hands of their respective lawmakers.
Global implications
However, the key issue that was discussed, and which has global implications, was the fight against terrorism. Putin discussed the same topic with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan. Meetings between the three Arab leaders also took place in Moscow, and they discussed common challenges and problems they face due to the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Putin and Sisi have called for a broader coalition to combat terrorism. Jordan’s king said Russia was a crucial player in the Middle East, and had a “vital role” to play in finding a political solution to the Syrian conflict - a position shared by Sisi. These Middle Eastern countries are likely seeking a comfortable balance between the West and Russia, as both are needed to settle regional problems. They are also seeking more freedom of choice and independence in their decision-making. They want to listen to both sides and decide which vision is best for them. Sisi’s support for a broader coalition against ISIS could persuade other players to consider the idea. However, the inclusion of the Syrian government remains a stumbling block for most countries fighting ISIS as part of the U.S-led coalition. Russia knows that the key to its growing influence in the Middle East lies in its warmer relations with Egypt, which remains a major regional player.

Report: Russia-Iran disagreement holding up S-300 deal
ARIEL BEN SOLOMON/J.Post/08/27/2015 /Negotiations for Russia to supply Iran with the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system hit a snag over Russia’s demand that Iran end its lawsuit for failure to deliver the system under a previous contract. The talks over a new contract are ongoing, but the two countries are still unable to agree on how to proceed regarding Iran’s lawsuit, a source in the Russian military-technical cooperation establishment told the state-run TASS news agency in a report published on Wednesday evening. "Consultations are in progress. A final agreement has not been reached yet. Iran says it will revoke the lawsuit regarding the previous contract when it gets the first batch of products under the new one, while Russia insists the lawsuit should be revoked before it takes any action under the newly-concluded deal," the source said.
The source said, according to the report, that Russia was firm in its decision to supply Iran with the air defense system, adding that a compromise could be reached where delivery and cancellation of the lawsuit could occur simultaneously. Vyacheslav Davidenko, spokesman for Russia's state-owned arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport, declined to comment. Russia and its state media have made numerous statements regarding the sale or delay of the delivery of the S-300 system over the years. The often contradicting reports appear to be a propaganda operation that changes according to the country’s political interests. “It is a game two can play. From time to time Iranians are those who make declarations on the S-300. I guess to pressure the Russians and the US,” Yuri Teper, a Russian expert from Ariel University, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. Russians are known for making a lot of fuss about very little or unfinished deals, as happened with their energy deal with the Chinese,” Teper said on Wednesday. Iran said it would sign a contract with Russia this month to buy four S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, the Iranian defense minister said. Russian state arms producer Almaz-Antey in June said it would supply Iran with a modernized version of the S-300, among the world's most capable air defense systems, once a commercial agreement was reached. In 2010, under Western pressure, Russia suspended a 2007 agreement to sell five S-300 batteries to Iran under a contract then reported to be worth some $800 million. Reuters contributed to this report.

UN nuclear watchdog: Iran building extension at disputed military site
REUTERS/J.Post/08/27/2015/VIENNA - Iran appears to have built an extension to part of its Parchin military site since May, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a report on Thursday delving into a major part of its inquiry into possible military dimensions to Tehran's past atomic activity. A resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Parchin file, which includes a demand for IAEA access to the site, is a symbolically important issue that could help make or break Tehran's July 14 nuclear deal with six world powers.
The confidential IAEA report, obtained by Reuters, said: "Since (our) previous report (in May), at a particular location at the Parchin site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery, the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction materials. In addition, a small extension to an existing building appears to have [been] constructed." Diplomats say any activities Iran has undertaken at Parchin since 2012 are likely to have undermined the agency's ability to verify intelligence suggesting Tehran previously conducted tests there relevant to nuclear bomb detonations.Under a "roadmap" accord Iran reached with the IAEA parallel to its groundbreaking deal with the global powers, the Islamic Republic is required to give the Vienna-based watchdog enough information about its past nuclear activity to allow to write a report on the long-vexed issue by year end. "Full and timely implementation of the relevant parts of the road-map is essential to clarify issues relating to this location at Parchin," the new IAEA report said. Iran has for years been stonewalling the PMD investigation but delivered on a promise under the roadmap to provide more information by August 15. IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said on Tuesday that the agency had received substantive amounts of information from Iran although it was too early to say whether any of it is new.

Retired US generals to Congress: Vote 'No' on Iran nuclear deal
JPOST.COM STAFF/08/27/2015/An ad hoc group of retired US military officers is urging Congress to reject the Iran nuclear agreement. According to The Washington Post, almost 200 former commanders signed a letter saying that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action undermines American interests and threatens national security. The missive is a response to a letter sent last week by a few dozen generals and admirals who expressed support for the agreement. “The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the latest letter reads.The opponents of the Iran deal served in both Republican and Democratic administrations and they completed their military service in each branch of the US military. The letter was first drafted and circulated by Leon A. "Bud" Edney, a retired admiral. The lobbying is most likely going to grow even more intense as lawmakers ponder their vote on Sept. 17. That's when Congress will weigh a resolution of disapproval of the agreement. While a majority will likely oppose the deal, the only issue now is whether there are enough naysayers to override what is sure to be a veto by President Barack Obama. One of the letter's signatories, Thomas McInerney, is a retired air force lieutenant general who was vice commander of US Air Forces in Europe. McInerney told The Washington Post that he considers the agreement "the most dangerous nuclear accord in US history."“What I don’t like about this is, the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,” he said. “They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?”

ISIS drives toward Turkey in new offensive
Reuters/Ynetnews/08.27.15/Islamic State returns with new military gains, bringing group just miles from Turkey-Syria border; 2 Iraqi generals killed in attack near Ramadi. Islamic State has seized new territory from Syrian rebels in northern Syria, advancing in an area where Turkey and the United States are planning to open a new front against the group. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based group tracking the war, said it had seized five villages including two near the Turkish border from other Syrian insurgents. Islamic State announced it had captured three villages in the area and said its fighters had nearly encircled the rebel-held town of Marea, some 20 km (12 miles) south of the Turkish border. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told Reuters on Monday that the two NATO allies would soon launch "comprehensive" air operations to flush Islamic State fighters from the border region. The villages captured by Islamic State include two that the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front recently handed over to another Syrian rebel group. Islamic State has escalated attacks against Syrian rebels in the northern Aleppo countryside since Turkey announced plans to drive the group from the area. The Nusra Front, which is hostile to Islamic State, announced earlier this month that it would withdraw from the area where Turkey plans to establish a buffer zone.
Ineffective in Iraq
Meanwhile, two senior Iraqi military commanders were killed on Thursday in an Islamic State car bomb attack north of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province where pro-government forces are battling Islamic State, a military spokesman and police sources said.
The military and police, backed by Shi'ite militias, Sunni tribal fighters and US-led coalition air strikes, are fighting to retake the city, 100 kilometers (60 miles) west of Baghdad, from the radical Sunni insurgents. But progress has been slow. Deputy Commander of Anbar Operations Command Major-General Abdel Rahman Abu Ragheef and Brigadier Safeen Abdel Majeed, head of the tenth division, were killed in the attack in the Jerayshi area along with three other people, said joint operations spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Rasool. He told state TV the military had intercepted an explosives-laden vehicle targeting the forces, "but the resulting explosion led to (their) martyrdom." At least 10 others were wounded in the explosion, he said. Separately, three people were killed in a suicide car bomb targeting a police checkpoint in the town of Bajwa, 15 kilometers (10 miles) northwest of Kirkuk.

Palestinians Set Dates for First Congress in Two Decades
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 27/15/Palestinian leaders will hold their first congress in nearly 20 years on September 15-16, an official said Thursday, after President Mahmud Abbas announced his resignation as head of a top executive body. The meeting of the Palestine National Council (PNC), a congress representing those in the Palestinian territories and the diaspora, will take place in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. "It has been decided to ask the Palestine National Council to convene for a session on the upcoming 15th and 16th September in Ramallah," senior Palestinian official Azzam al-Ahmad told AFP. "The council's agenda includes electing a new executive committee for the (Palestine Liberation Organization)." Ahmad said the congress would also discuss the stalemate in peace talks with Israel, among other issues. Abbas's allies say his recent moves are part of efforts to inject new blood in the Palestinian leadership. Critics, however, argue that Abbas is manoeuvring to empower his allies and marginalize opponents ahead of the 80-year-old's eventual retirement. Abbas's Fatah party and Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, remain deeply divided. Separate, indirect contacts are said to have occurred recently between Israel and Hamas on a long-term truce. Abbas resigned last week as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee in a bid to force new elections for the top body.His resignation along with a number of others from the 18-member committee will only take effect with a meeting of the PNC. Hamas belongs to neither the PLO nor the 740-member PNC, the top legislative body of the Palestinians which has not met since 1996. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called on Palestinian factions to boycott the congress, which he labeled a "farce". He said in a statement that the congress represented "an insistence on acting unilaterally".

From Yemen to Syria, counter-terrorism alone not the answer
Manuel Almeida/Al Arabiya/August 27/15/That al-Qaeda, and especially now ISIS, represent a threat to regional and global security is an elementary fact around which the governments of the Arab world, Iran, U.S., Russia, UK or France are in agreement. Yet beyond this basic understanding, they hold very different views on how to deal with the problem of militant jihadism and the various Middle Eastern crises that allow the jihadist propaganda to thrive. This continues to hinder the efforts to tackle the jihadist menace. Take Yemen. The presence of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been generally overshadowed by the ongoing conflict, which opposes pro-government and anti-Houthi forces supported by the Saudi-led coalition to the alliance between the Houthi rebels and military units still loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh. As it becomes clearer that ISIS cannot be defeated without a political solution in Syria and a renegotiated social contract, a basic understanding among the various regional and global powers about the need to negotiate Assad’s way out might not be that far away
However, whenever militants of AQAP or Ansar al-Sharia (a name that emerged as a local rebranding attempt by AQAP) take advantage of the chaos and lawlessness to make a threatening move, widespread demands magnified by regional and especially international press call for a change of priorities toward the fight against militant jihadism. This is what happened a few days ago when AQAP militants attempted to take control of the presidential palace located in Aden’s Tawahi neighbourhood and a military base in the city. A similar case took place in April in the coastal city of al-Mukalla, the capital of Hadhramaut province, when AQAP fighters seized government buildings, robbed the central bank and allegedly backed the formation of a local civilian council that AQAP backs financially.
Ignoring the threat
On both occasions, the Saudi-led coalition and Yemen’s government in exile were blamed for ignoring the threat posed by AQAP and, in the case of more conspiratorial or propagandistic regional media outlets, of actively supporting AQAP in the fight against the Zaydi Houthi rebels. The propaganda of the Houthi rebels themselves equates every mild Sunni Islamist within Yemen’s al-Islah party, which the Houthis turned into a primary target when they took over the capital Sanaa in September last year with AQAP.
What is widely missed in the views that call for the prioritization of counter-terrorism strategies is that the AQAP-first approach that drove U.S. policy toward Yemen during much of Ali Abdullah Saleh’s ruinous era has had limited effects in preventing the spread of AQAP’s tentacles in Yemen. In fact, this U.S. approach to Yemen seems not to have changed much even after Saleh agreed to step aside in 2011 in the context of the Gulf Initiative. The former president of Yemen often honoured a pact of non-aggression with AQAP’s leadership to capitalize on the financial and logistical support for counter-terrorism it received from the U.S., which was then channelled for other purposes. In the meanwhile, the U.S. overreliance on drone strikes to eliminate AQAP’s leaders and militants generated and continues to generate great resentment among local populations.
A comprehensive approach
Only a far more comprehensive approach would be able to eradicate or at least much diminish the presence of AQAP. This can only be achieved by a government with the willingness and capacity to actually rule Yemen, reform the military and security sectors, and manage a much strained economy with regional and international backing. The same stands for Syria. As the Syrian conflict dragged on and radical groups such as Jabaat al-Nusra and then ISIS begun to make their presence felt, the focus in Western capitals started to shift away from the brutalities committed by the pro-Assad camp and support for the moderate opposition to the pressing need to fight the ISIS. For too long, Western governments as well as Russia seem to have been influenced to a certain extent by the narrative, used by the Assad cohort and its main sponsor Iran, that the regime in Damascus was the last bulwark and only hope in Syria against ISIS.
Assad himself greatly contributed to the radicalization of the armed opposition, not only via extremely brutality that included and continues to include the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but by releasing hundreds of militant jihadists from the regime’s jails and avoiding to strike jihadist groups for a long period in the conflict. Nevertheless, the terrorism card that Assad desperately used to play with Western and Russian fears of militant jihadism may well be shifting against him. As it becomes clearer that ISIS cannot be defeated without a political solution in Syria and a renegotiated social contract, a basic understanding among the various regional and global powers about the need to negotiate Assad’s way out might not be that far away.

On Syria: Germany stands out, stands up
Joyce Karam/Al Arabiya/August 27/15
They’re calling her “Mama Merkel,” sending her love messages on twitter and showing gratitude unseen recently for a Syrian or Arab leader. Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel is being celebrated by many Syrians this week, for defying EU rules and showing compassion to a refugee population that’s been let down all too often in the last four years. With more than four million refugees since 2011 and with Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon reaching full capacity in hosting those fleeing the Syrian war, the international community is dragging its feet in the face of the largest humanitarian crisis since World War II. Discrimination, hate crimes, and sheer catastrophes in the Mediterranean are encountering Syrians escaping on foot or by water to European shores. Barbed wires, and refugee-profiling awaits across the continent while some countries like Poland and Slovakia have made no secret that they would only take Syrian Christian refugees.
Germany stands out
Merkel might not be the most charismatic leader or orator on the global stage, but this week, Germany’s Chancellor has shown both the audacity and the empathy in addressing the Syrian refugee problem. On Tuesday, Berlin announced its intention to welcome all Syrian asylum seekers to stay in the country, disregarding Europe’s Dublin protocol and enraging the far right groups in the process. Merkel called for restoring European values in tackling the humanitarian problem, for “sharing the burden” dismissing the far right attacks as “disgusting, how right-wing extremists and neo-Nazis are trying to preach dull hate messages.” Merkel also vowed ”there will be no tolerance of those who question the dignity of other people.”Merkel’s words are not to be dismissed as political posturing for the simple reason that they have been matched with superior record from Germany among Western countries in dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis
Merkel’s words are not to be dismissed as political posturing for the simple reason that they have been matched with superior record from Germany among Western countries in dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis in the last four years. According to Amnesty International, “Germany has pledged 30,000 places for Syrian refugees through its humanitarian admission program” that’s almost half the global total of resettlement and humanitarian admission program and 82 per cent of Europe’s total. Germany and Sweden rank highest among Western countries in receiving asylum cases for Syrian refugees. Germany also comes second after Turkey as a non-Arab with most number of refugees (over 100,000), and with more than 44,417 Syrians applying for asylum this year.
Comparing numbers
Germany’s embrace of thousands of Syrian asylum seekers exposes how little have other countries done on this issue. Amnesty points out that “excluding Germany and Sweden, the remaining 26 EU countries have pledged a mere 5,105 resettlement places, or 0.13 per cent of Syrian refugees in the main host countries.” Ironically, the countries that are most involved militarily in the Syrian war and with the exception of Turkey, are the ones doing the least on the refugee issue. In that regard, both France and the United States have accepted almost 1000 asylum seeker, while the United Kingdom taken few hundreds. Russia and Iran have not reported settling of Syrian refugees and their priorities have been in keeping Assad afloat before anything else. The GCC countries have also shied away from resettling Syrian refugees, leaving the Arab burden solely on Jordan and Lebanon (2.5 million almost) and to a lesser extent Egypt and Iraq (almost half a million).
Politically, unlike France, the UK and the United States, Germany has not been vocal in supporting or funding the rebel groups. And unlike Russia, and Iran, it has not bankrolled the Assad regime, which is at the heart of displacement and destruction of Syrians, followed by ISIS. Merkel’s focus has been humanitarian, while emphasizing Assad’s loss of legitimacy and the need for him to exit the political scene.
With no end in sight for the Syrian war, however, and with militias multiplying in numbers and nefariousness, the Syrian refugee crisis is only expected to intensify in the coming period. For Germany’s Chancellor who is being called by some activists as “Merkel of Abyssinia” in reference to the Muslim migration to Ethiopia in the seventh century, this will boost Berlin’s credibility in the Middle East as an impartial problem solver, helping alleviate the suffering as many who directly contribute to it choose to ignore it.

Yemen, Mansour al-Nogaidan and Al-Islah
Jamal Khashoggi/Al Arabiya/August 27/15
In an interesting article entitled “Yemen post-liberation: The dangers of division and the return of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Mansour al-Nogaidan drew attention to the future of Yemen from a Saudi-Emirati point of view very close to his own.
Whether there are one or two Yemens, the important thing is that they do not go to war with each other or become hostile to the Gulf states. It would be better not to deal with the issue of southern independence until the full liberation of Yemen. Then Yemenis can decide for themselves between unity, separation or federalism. They should do that without armed conflict as there has been enough war, hunger and misery. Whether there are one or two Yemens, the important thing is that they do not go to war with each other or become hostile to the Gulf states Nogaidan’s article highlights above all the danger of the Brotherhood’s return. According to him, it has returned to play a bigger and more dangerous political role than expected. The Brotherhood is taking part in Yemen’s governance. According to Nogaidan, who is a meticulous researcher, since the end of the civil war in 1970 and the 41 years of the Yemeni republic, the Brotherhood has sided with revolution, including the one in 2011.
Third alternative
Yemen’s Brotherhood was involved in the “third alternative” project in the civil war that was backed by the late Saudi King Faisal at the start of his struggle with then-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The project put forward the idea of an Islamic state instead of royal and republican systems. This movement was formed and led by the late Ibrahim al-Wazir, who was highly educated and part of a prominent Hashemite family. The Brotherhood participated directly in the 1948 reformist revolution from its headquarters in Cairo. This cross-border participation created the first rift between the Brotherhood and the Saudi kingdom, which started to grow suspicious of the movement and its aspirations. An insightful politician takes historical junctures into account and uses them for the benefit of his cause, as did King Faisal. The “third alternative” attracted a number of republican tribal elders to the kingdom’s ranks, even if it happened at the expense of its allies, the royal house and the Hamidaddin clan.
Moreover, one of the most prominent intellectuals Mohammed al-Zubairi was assassinated in northern Yemen while on his way to meet King Faisal in Saudi Arabia, after he broke away from the republicans and formed Hezbollah, which called for an Islamic government rather than a monarchy or republic.As such, the idea of a “third alternative” seeking wise governance in Yemen is old, was multi-faceted, and does not concern the Brotherhood alone. What happened in Yemen after the military took charge and almost forced out King Faisal’s favorite to rule Yemen, Judge Abdul Rahman al-Iryani, was illusion.
Solutions
The current multilateral struggle between the Houthis, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Joint Meeting Parties (JMP), intellectuals, the southern Herak movement and the Brotherhood serves the mother cause: searching for an appropriate formula of wise governance in an unhappy Yemen. Is the Brotherhood’s “return” a source of danger in Yemen? Of course not. The danger resides in the return of tyranny and the authority of a singular force over a country with different sects, orientations and tribes. Brotherhood monopolization of power in Yemen is as dangerous as the single-handed authority of the Houthis allied to Iran, which sparked the current war. The list goes on with Saleh, who wrongly monopolized power. The Brotherhood’s Al-Islah party will come back stronger in Yemen after the fall of its Houthi rivals and its former ally Saleh. It is the third force left in the north after the fall of the two other forces thanks to the Saudi-led coalition. It would be unwise to repress Al-Islah and consider it a terrorist group. This would make it turn to Al-Qaeda, though the differences between them are huge. Nogaidan proposes stopping “the support of Al-Islah and the strengthening of its influence,” and allowing it “to be weighted normally according to the rules of the new civil life, which prohibits the exploitation of religion and sectarianism, and embraces everyone.” This is the wisest thing to do.
Last Friday marked the second anniversary of the chemical weapons attacks perpetrated by the Syrian regime against the towns and villages of Eastern Ghouta near Syria’s capital, Damascus.
That day, according to reliable sources, the area covering the eastern and northeastern suburbs of the city—especially Zamalka, Ain Terma, Kfar Batna and ‘Arbeen, as well as the southern suburbs of Mu’aththamiyya and Darayya—was shelled in the early hours of the morning by rockets carrying Sarin gas – as well as other poisonous material – from army bases in the Qalamoun mountains, northwest of Damascus.The number of casualties—most of whom were women and children—varied between 1,300 dead (the Syrian National Coalition) and 1,729 (The Free Syrian Army); while a preliminary US government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children. The number of those injured was estimated to exceed 3,600.
That massacre took place after another “red line” was issued to Bashar Al-Assad regime by the US administration, as his government escalated its crackdown on the peaceful popular uprising, from shooting at demonstrations, to the use of heavy artillery, then resorting to the use of the air force and surface-to-surface missiles. The worse the suppression got, the faster American and Western condemnations, threats and “red lines” were issued, only to be proven empty and insincere.Consequently, Syrians’ anger and despair of international justice increased; and it was only natural that such a situation would destroy the case for moderation and give credence to extremism.
Indeed, as if this was the international community’s plan all along, moderates began to lose out, defections from the army, security services, and political bodies all but stopped, while extremists took over the revolt. This was the most natural outcome of the shameless betrayal of the popular revolt by the international community, and its refusal—time and time again—to genuinely support the Free Syrian Army, formed by honorable officers and soldiers who simply refused to murder their own people. Soon enough, foreign terrorists began flocking into Syria, from all over the world, with the declared aim of “supporting (Nusra) the Syrian people” and “fighting the infidel regime that is killing Sunni Muslims with Iran’s and Russia’s weapons”. Alas, as we all know now, the very chemistry of the revolt has changed, and the ugly international conspiracy has been exposed.
Those foreign extremists—particularly Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants, who have turned their weapons on the revolt and Assad’s opponents—have now become the excuse given to Assad’s regime to continue its genocide. Barack Obama’s reaction to the August 21st, 2013 chemical attacks erased all doubts as regards his position. It was the landmark that proved that, contrary to all previous announcements, Washington did not mind Assad continuing to rule Syria even over the dead bodies of the Syrians.
That year secret talks between the US and Iran were uncovered too; and since then everything in the Middle East has been snowballing.The Ghouta chemical massacre made it clear that regarding Syria the Obama administration was interested in only two things:
First, striking a regional deal with Iran, Assad’s protector, sponsor and lifeline; and second, protecting Israel against any weapon of mass destruction that may fall in the hands of groups that—unlike Assad—may truly threaten its existence.
Thus, since any deal with Iran necessitated going back on all calls for Assad to go, Washington ignored all its previous “red lines”. Furthermore, the only practical reaction to the Ghouta chemical massacre was convincing Assad to hand over “most of” his chemical arsenal. This step was helpful both in reassuring Israel, and giving the Syrian dictator the green light to commit as many massacres as he pleases, while the US was working with Russia, Iran and China, to rehabilitate him, and accept him as a partner in the global war against ISIS!
As the fight for votes on the Iran nuclear deal intensifies in the US Congress, President Obama is using all means available in tempting and pressuring US lawmakers. After making clear that he would stick to the deal even if Congress voted against it—surely his opponents would not muster the two-thirds majority needed to kill off the White House veto—Obama announced las week in a letter to a Congressional Democrat “that the United States would unilaterally maintain economic pressure and deploy military options if needed to deter Iranian aggression.” Such words in the present time sound very much like the “red lines” ridiculed and killed off by the Ghouta chemical attacks. They do not differ much from the White House’s futile attempts to reassure the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries while the dimensions of the Iranian regional aggression unfold day by day—even before international sanctions against Iran are lifted—and the plan for sectarian cleansing, ethnic partitioning, and redrawing of maps gathers pace in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
All this means that for the foreseeable future we must expect more maneuvering, cajoling, and threats. Even after the Congress vote, expected next month, the Iran deal will be part of the US presidential campaign, while unforeseen developments in Iraq and Syria may create new realities on the ground.
Still two interesting and important questions beg for answers:
First, will Washington be able to contain the repercussions of the regional chaos and disintegration if a deal-empowered Iran continues its expansionist war on its neighbours? Second, is it really true that Obama’s long-term strategy will eventually target Iran’s military capabilities and ambitions, as his defenders keep telling us?I believe we, Arabs, must pose these two questions; but until we have convincing answers Arab countries, more so the GCC states, need to plan their priorities, and raise the level of trust among each other instead of giving their enemies gratuitous political gifts.Surely no one at the moment is drumming up war, and no one will benefit from rejecting dialogue; however, a proper and meaningful dialogue cannot be conducted by means of arms, as the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani seems to envisage. Last week while attending Defence Industry Day in Tehran, Rouhani, said frankly “military might was necessary to achieve peace in the volatile Middle East”.
You got it absolutely right Mr. Rouhani… Thanks for the advice!

Justin Trudeau fundraiser picketed by Jewish group over Liberals’ support for Iran nuclear deal
Jake Edmiston | August 26, 2015 9:37 /National Post
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-fundraiser-picketed-by-jewish-group-over-liberals-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal
TORONTO — A Toronto Jewish group made the rare move of protesting one of its own community leaders on Wednesday evening, staging a picket outside billionaire Barry Sherman’s house during his cocktail fundraiser for the Liberal party.
About 30 protesters from the Jewish Defence League lined the street out front of Sherman’s lavish north Toronto home, holding Israeli and Canadian flags. “Enjoy the food,” a man holding an Israeli flag yelled as guests walked up the driveway, past a line of valets. Tickets for the party and opportunity to meet leader Justin Trudeau reportedly went for $1,500 each. One guest stopped and smiled at a protester in the picket line. “Joel? What are you doing here?” The protester, Joel Goldman, said he was there because he didn’t support the Liberals’ position on the Iran nuclear deal. “They’re just coming to see Mick Jagger tonight,” Goldman said after his friend went inside. “They’re coming to see a rock star.”J.P. Moczulski for NP. J.P. Moczulski for NPProtesters with the Jewish Defence League picket a Justin Trudeau fundraiser in Toronto, Aug. 26, 2015.
Defence League leader Meir Weinstein, who organized the protest, emphasized that his group wasn’t “looking to get into any shouting matches or anything like that.”But the disruption nonetheless “unnerved” some of his counterparts, as he put it. “We don’t picket Jewish leaders in our community,” Weinstein said. But “when it comes to Iran, that’s the red line.”The Liberals have pledged to reopen diplomatic ties with Iran and have welcomed the new Iranian nuclear deal. “If there was disagreement (on the Iran deal), that would be one thing. But there is unanimity: The deal is horrible for Israel.”But Michael Levitt, Liberal candidate in York Centre who attended the fundraiser, said his party has been “adamant that we’re going to take a wait-and-see approach and make sure the actions match the words.”
Ahead of the protest, the Liberals issued a statement from foreign affairs critic Marc Garneau, saying, “Iran must comply with the terms of this agreement and match its words with concrete deeds.”As Trudeau pulled up in a black van at about 7:15 p.m., the crowd started chanting, “No Iran deal.” Trudeau stopped on the stoop of Sherman’s house for a moment, then slipped inside. Sherman, CEO of Canadian pharmaceutical giant Apotex, is hailed as a major philanthropist in the Toronto Jewish community. Last year, Canadian Business listed him as the 14th richest person in Canada. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs defended Sherman and his wife, Honey. The centre’s chief executive Shimon Fogel scolded the Defence League for “disparaging, personal attacks.”“We do not support the JDL’s decision,” Fogel told the Post in an email. “We raised the issue with them directly and are deeply disappointed that they chose not to heed our counsel.”Weinstein said he had a “respectful” conversation on the phone with Sherman Wednesday, and apologized for any inconvenience.But he said he wasn’t trying to “win a popularity contest.”On a Facebook page for the protest, organizers posted one invitee’s emailed response to Sherman. In the email, Gabriel Erem told Sherman he was “tragically misinformed, and perhaps misguided regarding the political agenda of the handsome young man whom you will be toasting.”

Europe's NGO Jihad Against Israel
Susan Warner/Gatestone Institute/August 27, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6266/europe-ngo-israel
Beneath a vexing tangle of funding operations -- most hiding under a pretense of "good works," "humanitarian aid," and "public interest" -- there is at work a sophisticated, multi-faceted, well-oiled propaganda machine against Israel.
A chief concern in the Knesset is how to curb the influx of millions of foreign dollars used to fund anti-Israel hate-groups operating as NGOs. These organizations are accused of using their "human rights" designation to mask a deceptive advocacy agenda to undermine, and even to destroy, Israel.
When Israel works to build "bridges for peace," such as SodaStream, where Arabs and Jews worked peacefully together, these organizations then knock them down.
Apparently, no one at World Vision asks the obvious question: Why are there even refugee camps in territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, such as Gaza, Jenin and Ramallah? Not only have those areas been under exclusive PA or Hamas civilian administration since 1994, but Israel totally evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005.
There is a European "jihad" against Israel. A significant number of activist groups -- presenting themselves as international humanitarian aid and charitable projects designed to benefit the Palestinian people -- are actually "directly or indirectly active in Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions(BDS) campaigns, lawfare, delegitimization and lobbying against Israel," according to a detailed report by NGO Monitor.
Every year, European governments send hundreds of millions of dollars for humanitarian aid projects in Palestinian territories. Ostensibly, the money is intended for projects such as improving medical care, alleviating poverty, improving schools, or enhancing infrastructure.
But beneath the surface lurk more venomous political advocacy agendas apparently designed to undermine Israel as a nation-state.
Some of these European governments give money directly to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Others funnel it through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are present themselves as charitable groups.
These governments and European-funded NGOs, however, often seem more dedicated to propaganda, political activism and undermining Israel, and less aimed at helping the Palestinians. Between 2012 -2014, for instance, more than $27 million in foreign funds have flowed into the bank accounts of radical left-wing NGOs in Israel, all in some way involved in anti-Israel advocacy activities.
A 2008 conference on "Impunity and Prosecution of Israeli War Criminals," held in Egypt in 2008, was sponsored by the European Union. (Image source: NGO Monitor)
Israeli leaders are finally beginning to raise serious doubts about the real motives behind some of these politically-motivated efforts.
Recently, for example, a controversial exhibit by "Breaking the Silence" (BtS) opened in Zurich, Switzerland. The BtS exhibit accuses the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) of human rights violations. It incorporates anecdotal, unverifiable, anonymous testimonies of 60 soldiers who accuse the IDF of wrongdoing during Operation Protective Edge in Gaza last summer.
The exhibit, scheduled for a world tour, caused a stir in Switzerland when it became known that it was funded in part by the governments of Switzerland, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark -- as well as many private charitable foundations. Its main donors include: the European Union, Misereor (Germany), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), Norway, AECID (Spain), Dan Church Aid (Denmark), ICCO (Netherlands), CCFD (France), Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK), SIVMO (Netherlands), Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Open Society Institute, and the New Israel Fund among others.
The BtS exhibit spins a narrative that seems deliberately distorted and lopsided against the IDF. The exhibit's critics suggest that these soldiers may have been selected precisely because they had some axe to grind against the IDF.
It even turns out that funders of the exhibit demanded "a minimum number of negative testimonies," according research by NGO Monitor.
The exhibit never mentions any context surrounding the Gaza operation: nothing about the rockets raining down on Israel from the terrorist groups in Gaza; nothing about Hamas-built tunnels that opened near schools and private homes inside Israel; nothing about Hamas's common practice of hiding terrorists and weapons among its own women and children for propaganda purposes.
Israel's government, understandably, cried foul. Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked have been leading the charge to remedy this diplomatic jihad against the State of Israel at its source.
Hotovely alleged that the use of Swiss government money -- to demonize, delegitimize, and basically to try to destroy Israel -- is illegitimate. "We cannot," Hotovely said, "accept a situation whereby an organization, whose entire purpose is to sully the names and reputations of IDF soldiers, is operating internationally in order to cause serious damage to the State of Israel's image."
Loyal IDF reservists, also outraged by the exhibit, have mounted their own campaign against what they claim is a false and unfair assault on the military and the nation.
According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, ten Swiss MPs from the Swiss-Israel Parliamentary Group issued a statement on June 2, opposing using taxpayer money to fund the exhibit:
"We condemn sharply the sponsorship of Breaking the Silence, with public monies through the EDA [Swiss Foreign Ministry] and the Zurich Finance Department, and expect in future a careful examination of projects and those organizations standing behind such projects before Swiss taxpayer money is misused."
In the wake of the international stir over the legitimacy of the travelling exhibit, the mayor of Cologne, Germany, first cancelled, but then reinstated its scheduled appearance there.
Beyond this single inflammatory exhibit against the IDF, however, lies a much more complex and malignant problem -- one that brings to the forefront some disturbing concerns and questions about the nature and purpose of foreign government funding of NGOs in Israel : What is their real agenda? How and where are they getting their money? Are they using their funds for purposes consistent with their stated goals?
According to a recent Reuters report, of the 30,000 NGOs operating in Israel, "the focus of frustration for [Justice Minister] Shaked and her supporters are around 70 whose work focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which receive funds either from the European Union as a whole, or individual governments, including Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Norway."
A chief concern in Israel's Knesset is how to curb the influx of millions of foreign dollars used to fund anti-Israel hate-groups operating as NGOs. These organizations are accused of using their "human rights" designation to mask a deceptive advocacy agenda to undermine, and even to destroy, Israel.
Beneath a vexing tangle of funding operations -- most hiding under a pretense of "good works," "humanitarian aid," and "public interest" -- there is at work a sophisticated, multi-faceted, well-oiled propaganda machine against Israel.
Breaking the Silence is one of the smallest. Founded in 2004, BtS is registered as "a company for the benefit of the public" with a budget of roughly 3 million shekels ($770,000 USD), according to 2015 figures.
According to a recent report by the Israeli organization Im Tirtzu, partial funding for Breaking the Silence ($300,000), B'Tselem ($700,000) and other pro-Palestinian NGOs in Israel -- totaling $11,000,000 in 2014 alone -- comes from The Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat (HRIHL), an Arab foundation based in Ramallah and Gaza. HRIHL, in turn, is funded predominantly by the governments of four European countries: Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and The Netherlands.
Matan Peleg, the Chief Operating Officer of Im Tirtzu, has coined the word "Political Terrorism" to describe the murky mix of anti-Israel NGO activist groups, their destructive agendas and deceptive funding sources:
"When we use the concept 'political terrorism' we wish to indicate various actions which are not actually physically violent, but which are intended to spread terror and fear ... for the achievement of political aims.
"The State of Israel and the IDF in particular are suffering from political terrorism because various political entities in Israel and abroad (such as states, organizations, foundations, etc.) are carrying out political actions with the aim of paralyzing Israel's ability to defend itself."
Two of the wealthiest international human rights NGOs at work in Israel are OXFAM and World Vision.
Oxfam, which operates an international confederation of networked organizations in 92 countries, had a total income in 2012-2013 of $955.9 million, of which $18.7 million was spent in "Occupied Palestinian Territory" in 2013.
OXFAM states clearly that it does not participate in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, yet affirmed its boycott of goods made in the "Israeli settlements in the West Bank". We are clearly not hearing the truth.
Pressure from OXFAM and BDS groups contributed to a recent decision by SodaStream to close its factory in Mishor Adumim, where it had employed hundreds of Arabs and Israelis working peacefully side by side.
Arab wages and working conditions at SodaStream were reported to be significantly better than their equivalents in the neighboring Arab-controlled territories in Judea and Samaria. When the plant moved, hundreds of Arabs were thrown out of work -- a result that apparently did not bother proponents of BDS such as OXFAM. When Israel works to build "bridges for peace," such as SodaStream, where Arabs and Jews worked peacefully together, these organizations promptly knock them down.
World Vision International, a Christian charity that operates in approximately 100 countries, with a 2012 budget of $2.67 billion, defines the region it serves as Jerusalem/West Bank and Gaza.[1] World Vision makes no bones about its exclusive ministry in the area on behalf of poor Arab children. Conversely, it specifically does not serve the needs of poor Israeli-Jewish children. An estimated 14.1% of Jewish Israeli families live below the poverty line.
On the World Vision web site, there is a brief pro-Arab version of the "history, people and geography" of the region, which distorts or omits all history that might put the Arabs in a bad light. The web site mentions nothing of Hamas bombs, rockets or general Arab violence against Israel. The narrative singles out only the plight of "displaced Arab refugees."
No one at World Vision asks the obvious question: Why are there even refugee camps in territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, such as Gaza, Jenin and Ramallah? Not only have those areas been under exclusive PA or Hamas civilian administration since 1994, but Israel totally evacuated the Gaza Strip in 2005. Both OXFAM and World Vision receive large sums of money from the United Nations, various government and non-government sources, foundations and other institutions.
NGO Monitor issued a report calling attention to the public debate on massive foreign government funding of highly political NGOs. Various media, government and legislative concerns about the manipulation of Israeli democracy by foreign governments through NGO activity triggered the debate that resulted in Israel's NGO Transparency Law (February 2011). In 2013, there were several failed attempts to pass bills in the Knesset to reduce the influx of foreign government money. Now in the wake of the Breaking the Silence exhibit, Hotovely, Shaked and others are mounting a renewed effort to remedy at least this one source of diplomatic jihad against the State of Israel. Susan Warner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute and co-founder of a Christian group, Olive Tree Ministries in Wilmington, DE, USA. She has been writing and teaching about Israel and the Middle East for over 15 years. Contact her at israelolivetree@yahoo.com.
[1] Through various partners, World Vision operates 14 programs in Bethlehem, West Ramallah, East and South Hebron, Northeast, West, and South Jenin, Southeast Salfit, East, Central, North, and South Nablus, as well as North and South Gaza.

The Alfred E. Neumann "What, Me Worry?" School of Nuclear Deterrence
Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/August 27, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6396/nuclear-deterrence
Jeffrey Lewis argues that, whatever China's motives are for deploying such weapons, "there is no arguing that China's nuclear force is small." Unless, of course, you happen to live in Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Nepal, Tibet, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia -- all of which collectively have zero nuclear weapons.
Lewis also assures us China has no interest in a "large" number of missiles. He argues that China's nuclear posture has been driven "by an enthusiasm for reaching technological milestones" -- as if China is simply engaging in a high school science project.
In the nuclear deterrent business, U.S. commanders both civilian and military are paid to take things seriously.
Getting the nuclear deterrent business wrong would, after all, be bad for America, bad for civilization and bad for the world.
Recently, China tested a missile with multiple warheads. Up to that time, all of China's nuclear-armed missiles were assumed to have only single warheads. Many of those were liquid-fueled and required considerable time to load and launch.
It is true that China's increased economic and military clout is seen by conventional thinking largely as a "peaceful rise" -- a term taken directly from the Chinese communist party description of its overarching goal of "pursuing a peaceful rise."
Ahh, a "peaceful rise!" So what's the worry?
According to one arms control analyst, Jeffrey Lewis, China's recent missile test merely demonstrates Chinese prowess in developing missile technology -- not any danger to the United States or our allies.
According to Lewis, the Chinese have in fact not changed their strategy on nuclear weaponry. The test was simply the result of a "decision taken a long time ago," which Peking just now got around to implementing. Lewis is implying, of course, that the deployment of many new warheads in the Chinese nuclear arsenal is not a big deal.
Chinese road-mobile ballistic missiles.
"China," Lewis continues, "has a fairly small arsenal of nuclear-armed ballistic weapons," but with significant technological "drawbacks." A recent PBS television documentary approvingly cited a claim that China has only twenty warheads capable of reaching the USA. So what's the problem?
Lewis also reassures us that only some of the 18 Chinese "bad boy" multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles can reach "all" of the United States, and a second series of missiles -- the DF-31A -- probably cannot reach "much" of the United States. China's missiles, writes Lewis, can mostly "only" target Hawaii, Alaska and the West Coast.
Lewis also argues that in examining "What else would one do with all that space" on top of a rocket, the Chinese would not necessarily put a lot of warheads in it. He further explains that the Chinese will probably also deploy some warhead "decoys" in the same space to "defeat missile defenses." Oh, so it's our fault: we made the Chinese do it!
Lewis then chastises Americans for thinking there is something "morally compromised" about China placing multiple warheads on its ballistic missiles. After all, writes Lewis, the U.S. has multiple warheads on the D-5 missiles aboard its submarines, so why can the Chinese not do so as well?
Lewis's position is ironic. Throughout the Reagan defense build-up of America's nuclear deterrent, the "arms control community" roundly condemned the U.S. deployment of the multiple-warhead Peacekeeper land-based missile as highly destabilizing and even immoral.[1] But now that China is poised to deploy such multiple warheads on both its land- and sea-based nuclear forces, Lewis argues precisely the opposite -- that it is no cause for concern.
In addition, Lewis notes, whatever China's motives are for deploying such weapons, "there is no arguing that China's nuclear force is small." Unless, of course, you happen to live in Taiwan, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Nepal, Tibet, the Philippines, Indonesia, or Malaysia -- all of which have collectively zero nuclear weapons.
Lewis also assures us China has no interest in a "large" number of missiles. He argues that China's nuclear posture has been driven "by an enthusiasm for reaching technological milestones" -- as if China is simply engaging in a high school science project and not seeking nuclear weaponry as a means of achieving hegemonic ambitions.[2]
And just so we don't get the wrong idea, Lewis reminds us that it was America's nuclear deterrent "posture," and not China's, that inspired the movie "Dr. Strangelove."
Lewis also claims that with a multiple warhead missile, the Chinese can better survive a "sneak attack" because its missile force is small. However, according to Philip Karber, a retired senior Pentagon official, a number of top-level sources believe China has 3000 warheads, or 200% of America's deployed strategic arsenal.[3]
Finally, Lewis argues that while China might "stumble" unthinkingly into an arms race, America already chases "unthinking new missile defense and conventional strike capabilities."
Because China's is only a "peaceful rise," right?
Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis.
[1] MX Prescription for Disaster, by Herbert Scoville Jr. Illustrated. 231 pp. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
[2] "Strategic Implications of China's Great Underground Wall," Philip Karber, September 26, 2011. The Chinese nuclear arsenal probably is now, or soon will be, in the 400-800 warhead range; but all numbers are estimates by U.S. and other China experts, not numbers published by any official Chinese government or military sources. No such data is available. For further information, see Mark Schneider of NIPP, Dan Cheng of the Heritage Foundation, and Richard Fischer of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, all of whom are experts on the issue.
[3] Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower, Henry Holt and Company 2015; and "China's Missiles and the Implications for the United States," Conference at the Hudson Institute, August 19, 2015, hosted by national security expert Rebeccah Heinrichs.

Analysis: Is ISIS here to stay in the Middle East?
ROBERT SWIFT/ THE MEDIA LINE/J.Post/08/27/2015
The Islamic State (ISIS) has already outlived predictions of its early demise offered by some US military officials. The Islamist group has survived the near fatal assassination of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi by airstrike earlier this year and has continued its voracious march across Iraq and Syria virtually unimpeded, holding on to territory roughly equal to the size of Belgium, despite the reported deaths of some 15,000 of its fighters who were killed by US-led air strikes.
That the group has been targeted by the coalition of more than a dozen militaries including the US, France, the UK, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, has led some commentators to suggest that a possible future exists in which the Islamic State is a permanent part of the geography of the Middle East.
“First, the pressure is from the air, and air campaigns never succeed,” James M. Dorsey, a senior fellow at Nanyang University in Singapore, with a focus on ethnic and religious conflicts, told The Media Line. “(Secondly), the pressure is economic and the effects of economic embargoes are limited – look at Iran,” Dorsey added. The well-financed Islamic State is likely to be able to float itself on funds from black market oil and antiques sales despite international isolation. If airstrikes and financial blockades are not enough to end the radical Sunni group, then the unpalatable and unlikely option of ground forces remains.
But while a return of US troops to Iraq would be the scenario most threatening to ISIS, any gains from this would be short lived and could lead to a backlash, Dorsey said. And since this is not likely to happen, then it must be concluded that ISIS could persevere, Dorsey argued. “They have lost a little territory but expanded elsewhere. Personnel losses (from airstrikes) have not put a dent in them, they are able to take it,” he opined.
The increasing reality of an established (read permanent) ISIS is a growing topic of discussion in Israel, where security and defense experts postulate Israel’s position in a changed Middle East.
Israel’s borders have been identified as potential weak points in the defense of the nation. Yoram Schweitzer, head of the Program on Terrorism and Low Intensity Conflict at the Institute for National Security Studies, told The Media Line that in the North, although ISIS is not directly on Israel’s border, the Al-Nusra Front, whom Schweitzer described as being “cut from the same cloth as ISIS” – are. In the South, the Sinai Province, a particularly dangerous and effective terrorist group responsible for killing hundreds of Egyptian police officers and soldiers, has previously targeted Israel.
But it is the threat posed to Jordan that Schweitzer viewed as being of greatest concern to the Jewish state. If the Jordanian government’s survival is threatened, Israel would risk losing a strategic ally, Schweitzer said, adding the caveat that for the time being the Hashemite Kingdom’s security apparatus seems up to its task.
Such a scenario might keep Israel alert, but appeared unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, said Schweitzer, who argued that ISIS is unlikely to be able to maintain its territorial hold and would “almost definitely not” become a functioning state. Iran would never let the group take Baghdad, and even if Assad falls, at least one of the super powers would step in to prevent a caliphate in Syria, he explained. “There are simply too many different groups opposed to the radical Sunni organization for it to last.”
“People are (already) discovering that it is only an ideology of dictatorship and totalitarianism, I don’t think ISIS will remain for a long time,” Abdul Ibrahim, of the political science department at Birzeit University in the West Bank, told The Media Line. “People are moving back to the idea of an Iraqi state and putting aside sectarianism as a direct result of the actions of ISIS,” Ibrahim said. Similar events are happening in Lebanon following protests over trash collection, he added.
For the time being, the presence of the Islamic State has benefited Israel, the political scientist argued. “They can say that ‘we are angels’ and that ISIS is the alternative – that ‘we do nothing to the Palestinians in comparison to what happens under ISIS,’” Ibrahim said.
But even if the Islamic State were not to emerge as a functioning state, or if it were to be effectively destroyed, the Middle East’s woes could continue. ISIS is a symptom, not the problem in the Middle East, according to James M. Dorsey. “Destroying them is not a solution, it is a short term fix.”He explained that the region has been in transition since 2011 and this is continuing, with the Islamic State just one single expression of this. Regimes that placed their own survival over the needs of their citizens used sectarianism to divide opposition while violently quashing peaceful calls for reform, leading to the emergence of groups like ISIS, Dorsey explained. If Islamic State is to be vanquished, people might prefer to have it around again after they see what replaces it, Dorsey explained.
The Israeli Defense Ministry declined to comment on the topics addressed in this article.

How to put some teeth into the nuclear deal with Iran
By Dennis Ross and David H. Petraeus /Washington Institute/August 27/15
Dennis Ross, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, was special assistant to President Obama for the Middle East and South Asia from 2009 to 2011. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who retired from the Army in 2011 after commanding U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, was director of the CIA from September 2011 to November 2012.
Many members of Congress continue to grapple with the nuclear deal with Iran — and so do we. Like us, the undecideds see its benefits: The deal would block the uranium enrichment, plutonium separation and covert paths to a nuclear bomb for the next 15 years. Compared with today, with an Iran that is three months from break-out capability and with a stockpile of 10 bombs’ worth of low-enriched uranium, there can be little doubt that a deal leaves us far better off , producing a one-year break-out time and permitting the Iranians less than one bomb’s worth of material for the next 15 years . We also don’t believe that if Congress blocks the deal, a better one is going to be negotiated. Will the other members of the P5+1 be ready to return to the table because Congress says no? Will they even know who defines the U.S. position and what it is? We doubt it.
So if the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has clear benefits and there is no obvious negotiated alternative , why are we still undecided? Put simply, because the deal places no limits on how much the Iranians can build or expand their nuclear infrastructure after 15 years. Even the monitoring provisions that would continue beyond 15 years may prove insufficient as the Iranian nuclear program grows. And Iran’s ability to dramatically increase its output of enriched material after year 15 would be significant, as Iran deploys five advanced models of centrifuges starting in year 10 of the agreement.
In terms of the size of its nuclear program, Iran will be treated like Japan or the Netherlands — but Iran is not Japan or the Netherlands when it comes to its behavior. It is, after all, one of three countries designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism. Perhaps in 15 years we will see a very different Iran — not a sponsor of terrorism, not a threat to its neighbors, not led by those who declare that Israel, another U.N.-member state, should be eliminated. But, while we hope that Iran may change, we cannot count on it.
The fact that President Obama emphasizes that the plan depends on verification — not trust — also means that he is not assuming Iran will change. But verification means only that we can catch the Iranians if they cheat; what matters even more is that the Iranians recognize that they will pay a meaningful price when we catch them.
In other words, deterrence is the key to ensuring not just that the Iranians live up to the agreement but also to preventing them from developing nuclear weapons. Iran must know that we will not permit it to become a nuclear weapons state ever.
Now is the time to make it clear that there will be a firewall between Iran’s threshold status and its having a nuclear weapon. Now is the time for the Iranians and the world to know that if Iran dashes toward a weapon , especially after year 15, that it will trigger the use of force. At that point, it would be too late for sanctions to preempt an Iranian nuclear fait accompli.
It is critically important for the president to state this clearly, particularly given his perceived hesitancy to use force. Indeed, were Obama to be unequivocal about the use of force should Iran violate its commitment not to seek nuclear weapons, the international community would accept the legitimacy of military strikes in response.
In a letter to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Obama takes account of the importance of deterring Iran “from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Even more significantly, he says that his administration “will take whatever means are necessary . . . including military means” to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That is an important statement, but it is followed by devaluing language: “Should Iran seek to dash toward a nuclear weapon, all of the options available to the United States — including the military option — will remain available through the life of the deal and beyond.”
Surely if the Iranians are dashing toward a weapon, especially after year 15, there is a need not to speak of our options but of our readiness to use force. The threat of force is far more likely to deter the Iranians.
The Iranians also should know that if they produce highly enriched uranium — for which there is no legitimate civilian purpose — that we would see that as an intention to make a weapon and would act accordingly. There is no mention of highly enriched uranium in the president’s letter. Although Obama speaks in the letter of providing the Israelis with the BLU-113, a 4,400-pound “bunker buster” bomb, it would not be sufficient to penetrate Fordow, the Iranian enrichment site built into a mountain. For that, the Israelis would need the 30,000-pound massive ordnance penetrator (MOP) and the means to carry it. While some may question whether we would act militarily if the Iranians were to dash to a bomb, no one questions whether the Israelis would do so.
Bolstering deterrence is essential in addressing key vulnerabilities we see in the deal. A blunter statement on the consequences of Iran moving toward a weapon and of producing highly enriched uranium would allay some of our concerns. Providing the Israelis the MOP and the means to carry it would surely enhance deterrence — and so would developing options now in advance with the Israelis and key Arab partners to counter Iran’s likely surge of support for Hezbollah and other Shiite militias after it gets sanctions relief.
Deterrence would be more effective — and full implementation of the agreement more likely — if the Iranians understand that there will be a price for every transgression, no matter how small, and that we will raise the cost to them of de-stabilizing behavior in the region. The president’s letter to Nadler was useful but fell short of addressing our concerns. It is still possible for the administration to do so.
**Daoud Kuttab: The Iran nuclear deal may be a boon for politics in the Middle East
**Fareed Zakaria: Sen. Schumer’s illogical case against the Iran deal
**Harold Brown: Why accepting the Iran nuclear deal is a no-brainer
**Brent Scowcroft: The Iran deal: An epochal moment that Congress shouldn’t squander

Securing the Sinai MFO Without a U.S. Drawdown
Eric Trager/Washington Institute/August 26, 2015
The Obama administration should dispel the current uncertainty over the MFO's future by conferring with Egypt and Israel about how best to secure the peacekeepers, and by improving counterterrorism coordination in the Sinai.
In the wake of a June 9 jihadist rocket attack on the Multinational Force of Observers (MFO) and other dangerous incidents, the U.S. government is reviewing the future of its military deployment in the Sinai Peninsula. While Washington does not appear to have any near-term plans to substantially alter, let alone end, its MFO deployment, the ongoing deliberations about force protection have led some outside the government -- including the New York Times -- to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal. Whether or not these calls are answered, the current situation bolsters the narrative that America is withdrawing from the Middle East and undermines Washington's ongoing efforts to reassure regional allies about the Iran nuclear deal.
BACKGROUND
The MFO, which consists of military and civilian personnel from twelve nations, was founded in 1981 to supervise the security arrangements established by the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. Specifically, it verifies that both countries observe the limitations on military forces and equipment within the four zones demarcated in Article II of Annex I, and also monitors freedom of navigation through the Straits of Tiran. The MFO carries out this mission by operating checkpoints and observation posts in Sinai and along the international boundary, and by conducting periodic verifications of the treaty's enforcement. The force has thus been critical to ensuring the durability of Egyptian-Israeli peace for more than three decades, and in recent years it has facilitated unprecedented security cooperation between the two countries despite their notoriously "cold peace."Yet the MFO's success is now raising questions in Washington about the mission's long-term future. While Egypt and Israel strongly support keeping the MFO at its current strength -- 1,667 personnel, including 692 Americans -- some U.S. officials argue that this force size is no longer necessary given the depth of Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation.
NEW DANGERS
The primary reason for the latest deliberations about the MFO's future, however, is the deteriorating security situation in Sinai. In recent months, Wilayat Sinai -- a jihadist faction that was known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis until it declared itself a "province" of the so-called "Islamic State"/ISIS in November -- has increasingly threatened peacekeeping forces. The most significant incident occurred on June 9, when it fired a rocket at the MFO's al-Gorah air base. It has also fired mortars and planted improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on roads that the MFO uses. Meanwhile, the group has demonstrated improved capabilities against Egyptian security forces, deploying vehicle-borne IEDs, suicide bombers, and antitank missiles against police and military targets, and even hitting a navy patrol boat. For this reason, some U.S. officials believe it might only be a matter of time before Wilayat Sinai executes a major attack on the MFO.
Cairo's outdated approach to fighting the northeastern Sinai jihadists has exacerbated these concerns. Two years into its current operation, the Egyptian military still relies on tactics that are more suitable to conventional combat than to a counterinsurgency campaign. According to U.S. officials, the military has alienated the local population by entering villages in large formations, targeted the enemy imprecisely by relying on standoff firepower (artillery and airstrikes), and failed to support its special forces operations with targeted intelligence. To be sure, the Egyptian military has often been responsive to MFO security requests. It has increased patrols, reinforced some of its checkpoints, and -- after the MFO threatened to abandon certain outposts -- established a protective presence in the most dangerous areas where peacekeepers operate. But there is still ample concern about the force's longer-term security: whenever MFO units have faced potential attacks, the Egyptian military has not moved out of its hardened positions to engage Wilayat Sinai, leading U.S. officials to question whether Cairo is merely trying to contain rather than defeat the jihadists.
NEW DELIBERATIONS
As a result of the bleak security outlook in Sinai, MFO officials have urged Washington to alter its deployments for more than a year, and some U.S. officials have advocated concluding the force's mission in the long run. In the immediate term, Washington and the MFO have responded by hardening the MFO's positions and focusing on force protection. Improved sensors and barriers as well as additional guard towers have been erected around MFO outposts over the past two years, and peacekeepers have received weapons upgrades in recent weeks. Yet Washington is now deliberating more significant changes. These include the MFO's proposal for closing isolated manned outposts (e.g., on an island in the Straits of Tiran) that are more vulnerable to attack and more costly to operate, and replacing them with mobile surveillance. U.S. officials are also considering a multiyear drawdown that would reduce the MFO to a fraction of its current size or close it down altogether. As part of this process, the MFO would rely more on unmanned remote sensors while continuing to build confidence between Egypt and Israel. The Egyptian and Israeli governments have responded negatively to these deliberations, however. Both sides view the MFO as an important mechanism for facilitating bilateral cooperation, and they argue that "now is not the time" for considering changes given the region's political uncertainty.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
This is not the first time that Washington has considered drawing down the MFO. During the previous two administrations, the Pentagon briefly advocated this approach because it wanted to direct personnel elsewhere. Yet the Obama administration's deliberations are driven by entirely different -- and quite valid -- concerns about ensuring the security of MFO personnel. The jihadists' increased sophistication, coupled with the Egyptian military's outdated strategy, significantly endangers a peacekeeping operation that was previously considered very low-risk. Despite these concerns, however, the administration should keep in mind the dangers of changing the MFO's deployment anytime soon. First, any decrease in the MFO's strength risks weakening a multinational institution that has not only verified the 1979 treaty's enforcement, but also encouraged the unprecedented Egyptian-Israeli strategic coordination that exists today. This coordination is not inevitable: bilateral relations nearly collapsed in September 2011, when an Egyptian mob attacked the Israeli embassy in Giza three weeks after Israeli forces accidentally killed six Egyptian soldiers while chasing jihadists back across the border. Later, Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel during his year in office. Throughout this uncertain period, the MFO facilitated bilateral cooperation and, in the face of a burgeoning Sinai insurgency, even secured Israel's permission for Egyptian troop deployments that exceeded the treaty's limitations. If anything, today's robust strategic coordination is an argument for the MFO's importance, not its superfluousness.
Second, given that the MFO is among the few U.S. policy successes in the Middle East, any plans to draw it down would further trouble those allies who are concerned about America's perceived departure from the region, and undermine the Obama administration's efforts to reassure these allies following the Iran deal. For this reason, if the administration is serious about altering the U.S. MFO deployment, it should coordinate these changes with Egypt and Israel to show that it is fully engaged with its allies in pursuit of mutual interests. Unilateral deliberations send the exact opposite message and indicate that Washington just wants out.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration should continue encouraging the Egyptian military to update its strategy against Sinai jihadists. While Cairo previously refused U.S. offers of counterterrorism training, Egyptian military officials signaled their interest following this month's U.S.-Egypt Strategic Dialogue. Washington should therefore explore opportunities for better counterterrorism coordination, since a more effective Egyptian strategy would mean better security for MFO personnel and millions of Egyptians alike.
**Eric Trager is the Wagner Fellow at The Washington Institute.

Achieving Peace through Strength—A Good Lesson to Syria’s Revolt
Eyad Abu Shakra/Asharq Al Awsat/August 27/15
Last Friday marked the second anniversary of the chemical weapons attacks perpetrated by the Syrian regime against the towns and villages of Eastern Ghouta near Syria’s capital, Damascus. That day, according to reliable sources, the area covering the eastern and northeastern suburbs of the city—especially Zamalka, Ain Terma, Kfar Batna and ‘Arbeen, as well as the southern suburbs of Mu’aththamiyya and Darayya—was shelled in the early hours of the morning by rockets carrying Sarin gas – as well as other poisonous material – from army bases in the Qalamoun mountains, northwest of Damascus. The number of casualties—most of whom were women and children—varied between 1,300 dead (the Syrian National Coalition) and 1,729 (The Free Syrian Army); while a preliminary US government assessment determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children. The number of those injured was estimated to exceed 3,600.
That massacre took place after another “red line” was issued to Bashar Al-Assad regime by the US administration, as his government escalated its crackdown on the peaceful popular uprising, from shooting at demonstrations, to the use of heavy artillery, then resorting to the use of the air force and surface-to-surface missiles. The worse the suppression got, the faster American and Western condemnations, threats and “red lines” were issued, only to be proven empty and insincere. Consequently, Syrians’ anger and despair of international justice increased; and it was only natural that such a situation would destroy the case for moderation and give credence to extremism. Indeed, as if this was the international community’s plan all along, moderates began to lose out, defections from the army, security services, and political bodies all but stopped, while extremists took over the revolt. This was the most natural outcome of the shameless betrayal of the popular revolt by the international community, and its refusal—time and time again—to genuinely support the Free Syrian Army, formed by honorable officers and soldiers who simply refused to murder their own people.
Soon enough, foreign terrorists began flocking into Syria, from all over the world, with the declared aim of “supporting (Nusra) the Syrian people” and “fighting the infidel regime that is killing Sunni Muslims with Iran’s and Russia’s weapons”. Alas, as we all know now, the very chemistry of the revolt has changed, and the ugly international conspiracy has been exposed. Those foreign extremists—particularly Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants, who have turned their weapons on the revolt and Assad’s opponents—have now become the excuse given to Assad’s regime to continue its genocide. Barack Obama’s reaction to the August 21st, 2013 chemical attacks erased all doubts as regards his position. It was the landmark that proved that, contrary to all previous announcements, Washington did not mind Assad continuing to rule Syria even over the dead bodies of the Syrians.That year secret talks between the US and Iran were uncovered too; and since then everything in the Middle East has been snowballing.
The Ghouta chemical massacre made it clear that regarding Syria the Obama administration was interested in only two things:
First, striking a regional deal with Iran, Assad’s protector, sponsor and lifeline; and second, protecting Israel against any weapon of mass destruction that may fall in the hands of groups that—unlike Assad—may truly threaten its existence.
Thus, since any deal with Iran necessitated going back on all calls for Assad to go, Washington ignored all its previous “red lines”. Furthermore, the only practical reaction to the Ghouta chemical massacre was convincing Assad to hand over “most of” his chemical arsenal. This step was helpful both in reassuring Israel, and giving the Syrian dictator the green light to commit as many massacres as he pleases, while the US was working with Russia, Iran and China, to rehabilitate him, and accept him as a partner in the global war against ISIS!
As the fight for votes on the Iran nuclear deal intensifies in the US Congress, President Obama is using all means available in tempting and pressuring US lawmakers. After making clear that he would stick to the deal even if Congress voted against it—surely his opponents would not muster the two-thirds majority needed to kill off the White House veto—Obama announced las week in a letter to a Congressional Democrat “that the United States would unilaterally maintain economic pressure and deploy military options if needed to deter Iranian aggression.”
Such words in the present time sound very much like the “red lines” ridiculed and killed off by the Ghouta chemical attacks. They do not differ much from the White House’s futile attempts to reassure the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries while the dimensions of the Iranian regional aggression unfold day by day—even before international sanctions against Iran are lifted—and the plan for sectarian cleansing, ethnic partitioning, and redrawing of maps gathers pace in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
All this means that for the foreseeable future we must expect more maneuvering, cajoling, and threats. Even after the Congress vote, expected next month, the Iran deal will be part of the US presidential campaign, while unforeseen developments in Iraq and Syria may create new realities on the ground.
Still two interesting and important questions beg for answers:
First, will Washington be able to contain the repercussions of the regional chaos and disintegration if a deal-empowered Iran continues its expansionist war on its neighbours? Second, is it really true that Obama’s long-term strategy will eventually target Iran’s military capabilities and ambitions, as his defenders keep telling us?I believe we, Arabs, must pose these two questions; but until we have convincing answers Arab countries, more so the GCC states, need to plan their priorities, and raise the level of trust among each other instead of giving their enemies gratuitous political gifts. Surely no one at the moment is drumming up war, and no one will benefit from rejecting dialogue; however, a proper and meaningful dialogue cannot be conducted by means of arms, as the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani seems to envisage. Last week while attending Defence Industry Day in Tehran, Rouhani, said frankly “military might was necessary to achieve peace in the volatile Middle East”.
You got it absolutely right Mr. Rouhani… Thanks for the advice!

Quebec law would stifle free speech 203
By Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun/August 27, 2015/While the rest of Canada is being force-fed the Duffy Senate “scandal”, in Quebec a proposed law that will label any criticism of Islam or Islamism as “hate speech” is being quietly pushed through the National Assembly. Bill 59 will permit Muslims to make complaints to the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC) against anyone critiquing Islam or Islamism, triggering lawsuits for hate speech. As if that wasn’t enough of an attempt to silence Muslims like me, who have struggled all of our adult lives to expose the perils of Islamism, Article 6 of Bill 59 would, “give the QHRC the power to initiate legal proceedings before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal without having to wait for complaints from the public.”While this serious encroachment on freedom of expression and speech is being pushed through the legislative process in Quebec, none of the leaders of Canada’s political parties have uttered a word on the issue.
Not Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who still has not disclosed what he discussed in his recent closed-door meeting with Islamic leaders in Regina,. Not NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, whose party has a strong base in Quebec and who has acted as if the implications of Bill 59 are of no concern to him. Even Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has identified Islamism as a threat to Canada, has so far kept mum on the proposed law. Muslims in Quebec are divided on its merits, with some in favour and some against.
But ironically, some Islamist-promoting organizations and mosques have welcomed Bill 59, notwithstanding the fact they violate it every week when they start their Friday prayers with a ritual invocation that asks, “Allah to give Muslims victory over the ‘kufaar’ (Christians, Jews and Hindus).”The hypocrisy of Islamists invoking victimhood when it comes to hate speech is laughable. Multiple times every day, Islamists have no problem depicting Jews as “those who have earned Allah’s anger”, and Christians as “those who have gone astray” in their prayers, both at home and in the mosque. Then they cry foul when their man-made sharia laws written in the eighth and ninth centuries are critiqued, sometimes by their fellow Muslims. Here is how the online Islamic site “SunnahOnLine” explains the opening verse of the Qur’an that is part of the mandatory Islamic prayers in mosques across Quebec and Canada, and which define the characteristics of Christians and Jews as essentially untrustworthy. Sunnah OnLine (The practice of the Prophet) quotes the 14th century Islamic scholar At-Tirmidhi explaining the opening verse of the Qur’an this way: “The Jews and the Christians even though both of them are misguided and both of them have Allah's Anger on them -- the Anger is specified to the Jews, even though the Christians share this with them, because the Jews knew the truth and rejected it and deliberately came with falsehood It seems the Islamists want to have their halal cake and eat it too. The trouble for them is that Canada still has Muslims who have the courage to expose their double standards. Let me assure them, we will do everything we can to make sure Quebec’s Bill 59 does not pass. But if it does become law, the first complaint to the QHRC will be against Islamist mosques for spreading hatred against Jews and Christians.

Why did it take Saudi Arabia 20 years to catch Khobar Towers bomber?
Al Monitor/August27/15
After a 20-year manhunt, the Saudis have captured the man behind a deadly 1996 terrorist attack on American airmen in the kingdom. The case will raise questions about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's role in the murder of 19 US service members.
Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil is a Saudi Shiite who masterminded the June 25, 1996, attack on an American military barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. According to Saudi and Pakistani press accounts, Mughassil was found in Beirut and has been transferred to the kingdom. Nineteen US Air Force personnel were killed at Khobar and 372 were wounded in the attack. The FBI put a $5 million bounty for information leading to his arrest years ago. The press accounts do not provide details on when and how the Saudis apprehended Mughassil, and the Saudi government has provided no comment or confirmation as yet. Some Lebanese accounts say Mughassil was caught just two weeks ago in Beirut. Saudi authorities have been unwilling to comment publicly on the Khobar attack since it occurred in 1996, but they privately have long pointed to Mughassil and his Iranian handlers as the perpetrators.
Born in 1967 in Qatif in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, Mughassil joined Saudi Hezbollah and became its military commander. Saudi Hezbollah, also called Hezbollah al-Hejaz, was very close to Lebanon's Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the 1990s. Saudi Hezbollah operatives recruited in Eastern Province around Qatif were trained in camps in Lebanon and Iran by Hezbollah and IRGC experts. In the 1990s, Mughassil operated from the Sayyida Zeinab mosque in Damascus, Syria. A Shiite pilgrimage site, the mosque was and still is a stronghold of the Iranian presence in Syria. Beginning in 1994, Mughassil began surveilling the Khobar Towers facility and the Dhahran air base nearby. It was then the main US Air Force base for no-fly zone operations over Iraq. According to a 2001 Department of Justice indictment, Mughassil made periodic visits to Dhahran to oversee the surveillance and recruit local Saudi Shiites for the attack. The Iranians instructed him to identify US facilities in the kingdom, according to the indictment.
As deputy assistant secretary of defense at the time, I arrived at the Khobar bomb site a few hours after the attack. The scene was devastating. Mughassil had driven a truck containing the bomb up to a protective wall near the barracks. He then remotely detonated the bomb. It was the equivalent of 20,000 pounds of TNT, larger than the bomb used to blow up the Marine barracks in Beirut. In addition to the Americans killed and wounded, dozens of Saudis and South Asian guest workers were injured. Mughassil allegedly fled to Iran immediately after the attack.
In my meetings with senior Saudi officials in Dhahran in the days immediately after the attack, they pointed the blame at Saudi Hezbollah. It became clear the Saudis had a great deal of information on the group and had probably foiled an earlier bomb attack without telling Washington. The Saudis were certain it was not the work of Osama bin Laden. They knew Mughassil was the mastermind from the start. Throughout the investigation of the plot, the Saudis were worried Washington would use the incident to attack Iran. Then-Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, who was the de facto regent with King Fahd incapacitated by a stroke, did not want to start another Gulf war and face Iranian retaliation against the kingdom. Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud was even more determined not to cooperate with the American investigation. It would expose weaknesses in Saudi security and his ministry.
President Bill Clinton chose a different means of retaliation. IRGC and Iranian intelligence officers serving around the world under cover were "outed" by American intelligence. Clinton's counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke later wrote that the outing operation probably convinced Iran not to target American facilities for the rest of the 1990s. In June 1999, the Clinton administration informed Tehran that it had credible information that the IRGC and Lebanese Hezbollah were involved in the attack. The sultan of Oman delivered the message to the Iranians at Clinton's request. The Iranians denied any involvement. They also promised no further attacks would occur. The 2001 Department of Justice indictment indicates the bomb was built by a member of Lebanese Hezbollah. The indictment also says Mughassil was in close contact with Iranian officials throughout the planning and execution of the attack. The officials were not indicted nor named.
In 2006, a federal court awarded $254 million in damages to the families of some of the airmen killed in Khobar. The court ruled Iran had been responsible for the attack, that the bomb was built in an IRGC camp in Lebanon and that Khamenei had approved the operation.
Mughassil was the senior Saudi Hezbollah official interacting with the Iranians. He would know exactly who was involved in the plot in Tehran. If he cooperated (a huge and unlikely if) he could establish the chain of command. In the more likely case that Mughassil's interrogation is selectively leaked to the media, it could still pose embarrassing and dangerous questions about Khamenei's role.
The news of Mughassil's apprehension will also raise questions about how the 20-year-old manhunt broke now. The timing is certain to strike many as suspicious. Is the news intended to remind Americans about Iran's long history of involvement in terrorism just as the congressional debate on the Iran nuclear deal reaches its peak? The Saudis are very concerned that the deal will end Iran's isolation and strengthen its capacity for regional mischief. Riyadh has been fairly quiet about its concerns, but it is deeply engaged in a proxy war with Iran in Yemen. Even if the timing of Mughassil's arrest is a coincidence, the decision to leak the news is probably intended to influence the debate. Saudi sources also say King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud will visit Washington early next month. Mughassil's arrest is certain to be a major issue for the visit and prompt questions about US access to his interrogation in the kingdom and possible extradition to the United States. The king's visit may be the denouement of the Iran debate.

The ISIS Caliphate and the Churches
By: Alberto M. Fernandez/MEMRI/August 27/15
Armenian Orthodox church in Raqqa, before and after ISIS takeover
The destruction by the entity known as the Islamic State (ISIS) in August 2015, of the over-1,500-year-old Syrian Catholic Monastery of Mar Elian, in Qaryatain, Syria – and of the even older ruins of the Temple of Ba'al Shameen at Palmyra – attracted worldwide condemnation and, as ISIS probably intended, considerable media attention.[1]
Churches, monasteries, and synagogues existed from the very first caliphate of Abu Bakr in 632 all the way through to the abolishment of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924. Sometimes favored, often persecuted, Christian communities existed and even flourished all throughout that period from the time of the Righteously Guided Caliphs[2] that ISIS claims to follow and revere.
The relationship between Salafi jihadists groups and local Christian populations has been a complicated one. While Al-Qaeda has always exhorted jihadis to keep their focus on their main enemy in the U.S., local groups have often targeted religious minorities. Some of the Egyptian jihadist groups of the 1970s which eventually became part of Al-Qaeda focused particularly on killing and robbing Coptic Christians, and gave justifications for doing so that were very similar to those that ISIS would later use.[3]
Still, as recently as September 2013, Al-Qaeda's Al-Sahab Media issued a document titled "General Guidelines for Jihad," in English, Arabic, and Urdu, which called for focusing on terrorism against the Crusader West but also for avoiding "meddling with Christian, Sikh and Hindu communities living in Muslim lands."[4] Interestingly, it also called for avoiding "fighting the deviant sects such as Rawafidh [pejorative term for Shi'a], Ismailis, Qadianis, and deviant Sufis, except if they fight the Ahl Al-Sunnah." Of course, these guidelines were often ignored by Al-Qaeda franchises, and by September 2013, Al-Qaeda and ISIS had broken off relations and gone their separate ways.
Islamic State "Abolishes" Pact of Omar
Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its successor the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) directed most of their sectarian focus on the Shi'a; however, as early as March 2007, the State's proto-caliph, "Commander of the Faithful" Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi (Hamid Al-Zawi) described Christians as fair game:
"We find that the sects of the People of the Book and others from the Sabians and so in the State of Islam today are people of war who qualify for no protection, for they have transgressed against whatever they agreed to in many countless ways, and if they want peace and security then they must start a new era with the State of Islam according to (Caliph) Omar's stipulations [the historic "Covenant" of Caliph Omar with Christians] that they have annulled."[5]
As Iraq scholar Nibras Kazimi has noted, this first Al-Baghdadi laid claim to authority based on the implementation of an aggressive Salafi agenda which claimed to have transformed Iraq, in 2007, into "one of the greatest nations on the face of the earth in maintaining monotheism, for there is no polytheistic Sufism being propagated, or shrines being visited, or innovated festivals being celebrated, or candles being lit, or a pilgrimage being made to a pagan totem, for the people of Iraq have destroyed these shrines with their own hands so that Allah will be worshiped alone."[6] Here then is the vividly illustrated Salafi agenda that ISIS would implement in Syria and Iraq as it took advantage of anarchy and dysfunction in large parts of both states.
Islamic State statements also blamed Arab Christians for promoting the concept of Arabism at the expense of Islam, an ironic charge given the claims about the role of Iraqi Baathists in the organization.[7] Arab nationalism is, of course, a principle tenet of Ba'athism. Some months after that announcement, gunmen killed Chaldean Catholic priest Ragheed Aziz Ghanni and three of his deacons in Mosul after they refused to either close their church or convert to Islam. In February 2008, the Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul Msgr. Paulos Faraj Rahho was kidnapped and killed by Islamic State gunmen.[8]
The general atmosphere of violence and insecurity in Iraq after the 2003 invasion meant that individuals of all faiths were kidnapped and killed, sometimes for motives that seemed less than clear. But Iraqi Christian sites were targeted early on, with six churches in Baghdad and Mosul attacked with car bombs in August 2004.[9]
ISI suffered major personnel losses in April 2010, which led to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi (Ibrahim Al-Badri) taking over in May 2010. The new leader had an even more extensive Salafi pedigree than his predecessor, with an extended family with deep regional Salafi ties extending into Saudi Arabia's own Salafi religious elite.[10]
Mourners march during a funeral for victims of an attack on the Our Lady of Salvation church in Baghdad, November 2, 2010/Thaier Al-Sudani.
On October 31, 2010, the Islamic State of Iraq launched its bloodiest, highest-profile attack on a Christian target to date, killing at least 50 worshippers during a Mass at the Syrian Catholic Cathedral of Sayyidat Al-Nejat (Our Lady of Salvation) in Baghdad. According to eyewitnesses, the gunmen made at least four claims for the killings, two general and two specific: all of the Christians were infidels; it is permitted to kill them; the killing was in retaliation for the burning of a Koran by an American pastor, and was also in retaliation for the alleged imprisonment of two supposed Muslim women converts in Egypt.[11]
The ISI statement issued a few days later by the Ansar Al-Mujahideen forum, in the name of ISI's Al-Furqan Media Foundation, tied the attack, which may have been intended initially to be a hostage taking, not to the U.S. military presence in Iraq, nor even to the Koran burning – but to an Islamist-generated controversy involving two Coptic women in Egypt, Kamilia Shahada and Wafaa Constantine.[12] ISI promised death to Christians in Iraq, Egypt, and Syria and throughout the region in return for this perceived wrong. Why Iraqi Uniate Catholics should deserve death for the actions of Egyptian Coptic Orthodox – actions which did not result in death of anyone – is never explained.
In the Egyptian Islamist narrative, these two were women who left Christianity for Islam, and who were then forcibly handed back to the Coptic Orthodox Church and their Christian husbands. The fact that both women eventually made public statements noting that they had never converted to Islam and that they wished to remain Christians seemed immaterial to an Egyptian and regional Islamist blogosphere that bitterly thought otherwise.[13] The narrative feeds into a long-standing rich vein of anti-Coptic hysteria among Islamists, often involving women and sex, that has frequently led to violence in Egypt.[14] With advances in media outreach, such hatred has gone viral.
Raqqa and Mosul as Test Cases
The Islamic State of Iraq now went through of period of seeming eclipse and startling revival, which saw it gain strength through Iraq and eventually expand into Syria, taking the major city of Raqqa from other Syrian rebel factions and its rivals in Al-Qaeda's Jabhat Al-Nusra (JN) in May 2013. Raqqa traditionally had a small Christian community and they had been cowed by the rebel presence. While churches had been closed, Nusra and company had essentially left the remaining Christians alone. This changed, with the much more rigorous ISIS (the "S" having been added in 2013) defacing churches and burning Bibles.[15] Long-term Syria resident Father Paolo Dall'Oglio, the Jesuit priest associated with Mar Musa al-Habashi Monastery in Eastern Homs, was also kidnapped in ISIS-ruled Raqqa and remains missing to this day.[16]
After burning Christian books, destroying churches, and kidnapping priests in Raqqa in 2013, ISIS then publicized, in February 2014, a new dhimmi pact with Christians in Raqqa State. The announcement received considerable attention in international media, but there is little evidence that there was much of a Christian community to form the pact with. Although the agreement includes the standard language of "not building a church, monastery or monk's hermitage," there is no evidence that any existing churches actually remained open or in Christian hands, much less that anyone would want to build any. Indeed, there are no images whatsoever of what could be described as normal Christian life in ISIS-controlled territory – no functioning churches, no monasteries or working priests, and no Christian families or Christian schools – all of which had existed throughout Islamic history.
The pact seems more aspirational, and more about preparing the stage for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's assuming the mantle of the Caliph, which happened only four months later, than a real document regulating the life of an actual community.[17] Just as the Caliph Omar in the 7th century produced an agreement to regulate the life of a protected minority, so would the Caliph-in-Waiting do the same. The only thing missing were actual Christians.
The next milestone in ISIS-Christian relations is a well-known one: the extinction of the ancient Christian presence in the city of Mosul after its fall in June 2014. In what ISIS supporters would portray as an act of great mercy, the remaining Christian population was graciously allowed to depart with only the clothes on their backs, on July 19, 2014. Although Saudi ISIS cleric Abu Malik Anas Al-Nashwan would contrast the foolish actions of the Mosul Christians to the right choice of those of Raqqa, any reasonable observer would say that subsequent events have proved the Mosulis right. The extinguishing of Christian Mosul would be followed by an ISIS military advance in early August 2014 against the historic Christian villages of the Nineveh plain, with the entire population fleeing deeper into Kurdish-held territory.[18] As in Mosul and Raqqa, churches and Christian symbols in this area, some of them dating back to before the rise of Islam, were defaced or destroyed as representations of polytheism (shirk).
Improvising in Libya, Taking Hostages in Syria
The anarchy in still another Arab state, Libya, would give ISIS a new front for actions against Christians and, again, with justifications that seem to be only loosely tied to those usually drawn by ISIS Salafis from the formative period of Islam. Twenty-one hostages, 20 of them Coptic Christians, are beheaded on a Libyan beach in a highly orchestrated media production. As far as religious reasoning, there seemed to be none. It was done "in revenge for Kamilia and her sisters," without explaining how killing 21 unconnected men is revenge for a woman who is still alive.[19]
The ISIS spokesman in the video also reminds viewers that "recently you've seen us on the hills of Al-Sham [Greater Syria] and on Dabeq's Plain, chopping off the heads that had been carrying the cross delusion for a long time." This would seem to be a reference to a series of much-publicized beheadings from August 2014 to January 2015, of three Americans, two Britons, and two Japanese, many of whom if not all, according to ISIS supporters, had converted to Islam in captivity. Certainly, none of these foreigners were presented as being beheaded because they had remained Christians and refused to convert to Islam.
Certainly ISIS has killed many Muslims, even beheaded them, but the Salafi justification for beheading Western captives who convert seems to be missing.[20] The standard narrative would be that if they converted, they would be seen as joining the ranks of Islam and their lives would have been spared. In terms of coverage, certainly, ISIS media is rife with Western converts to Islam and their stories. Middle East Christian captives who convert seem to be far rarer.[21] One could say that in the eyes of ISIS there are different types of "unbelief" and the rules, if there are any, that apply to some local Christians do not apply to some citizens of the "Crusader" countries.
An ISIS offensive in neighboring Syria added a new dimension to ISIS's confessional relations, when some 230 Assyrian Christian civilians were taken hostage in late February 2015, when several of their villages on the Khabour River in Al-Hasakeh were overrun. Over the next six months, a handful of the hostages, all elderly or sick, were released in dribs and drabs. About 190 are still being held, many of them women and children. Given the ISIS propensity for media coverage, this particular issue has been surprisingly muted, being treated more like a traditional hostage-taking for money than another triumph of jihad.
The next ISIS action was very much a media operation intended to attract attention. On March 19, 2015, ISIS released images showing them blowing up the ancient Syrian Catholic Monastery of Mar Behnam, near Mosul. The destruction of Mar Behnam and, in August 2015, of Mar Elian Monastery in Syria show how ISIS glibly adjusts its rhetoric to suit its goals. Both monasteries were so old and established as to have been in place before the arrival of the first Muslims, which means that they had been spared by every Caliph who had ever ruled over these lands. Both monasteries had been in use. The Mar Behnam monks were expelled at gunpoint.[22] The two at Mar Elian were kidnapped in May 2015 and are still unaccounted for.[23]
The history of Islam's interaction with Christian monks is a complex one, from the Koran on, but it is certainly not one of unrelieved hostility.[24] It would have been easy for ISIS to spare the monasteries and even the monks, thereby emulating traditions dating back to the Salaf and the Sahaba. But they chose to follow a more recent Salafi tradition, one especially put into practice by the Wahhabis of the late 18th and early 19th century, who zealously went about demolishing any semblance of shirk, such as the shrines of Sufi saints, or destroying the Islamic holy sites and indeed, many of the inhabitants, of the city of Kerbala.[25]
Sincerely Salafi But Looking for Clickbait
The next ISIS action involving Christians is perhaps the clearest demonstration of the essential nature of the organization: deeply and self-consciously Salafi in orientation but also ready to ruthlessly innovate for the sake of its own internal logic and for the sake of publicity. On April 19, 2015, ISIS released a video showing the killing of 30 Ethiopian Christians in Libya. While media outlets focused on the final two minutes which showed the killings, most of the video was a detailed exposition by a senior ISIS cleric, the Saudi Abu Malik Al-Tamimi, on how Christians are to be treated – jizya poll tax, conversion to Islam, or death – and the detailed rules for paying the jizya.[26] The video also fleetingly shows a handful of old men, supposedly in Raqqa, supposedly living as dhimmis, "protected" Christians who pay the jizya as part of a pact with the Islamic State.
The dissonance comes in with the killings at the end. Given the subject matter of most of the video and ISIS's own internal logic, did the Ethiopians actually refuse to pay jizya? Wouldn't they, as poor people, actually be exempt from paying, as traditionally women, children, slaves, the blind, the insane, monks and the destitute were exempt?[27] And why were they killed, except that they belong to the "hostile Ethiopian Church?" And given the historic practice of jizya, aren't the ISIS actions themselves an abhorrent innovation (bid'ah) of the practice rather than a slavish Salafi following of early Islamic tradition?
The idea that ISIS are takfiri Salafi jihadists who are also making things up as they go along was underscored by their actions in an early August 2015 offensive in Eastern Homs, Syria. Overrunning the town of Al-Qaryatain, the organization seems to have taken hundreds of hostages with at least 60 Christians.[28] The Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese suggested the number of Christian hostages could be as high as 227.[29] In contrast to the very public expulsion and despoiling of the Mosul Christians, ISIS now seems to have decided, as in the case of the Khabour hostages, that there is value in holding on to these people as hostages and perhaps using them as bargaining chips or sources of income. Again, as in the case of the Khabour Christians, the ISIS media is surprisingly silent on the matter to date.
This overview of ISIS relations with local Christians from the time of the declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq to today shows a variety of public stances by the group. The specious justifications of ISI, the 2006-2010 Iraqi terrorist group, have given way to a more expansive vision, as the group truly became a terrorist "state." ISIS is not the first entity to declare itself a Caliphate, but it seems to be the first Salafi Caliphate, and most of its actions fall within the scope of that worldview. This is why some of its actions – such as the destruction of churches and monasteries, and for that matter destroying surviving ruins from antiquity – make perfect sense within the Salafi context, even if they are actually not consistent with actual practice during the formative period of Islam.[30]
The same is true with the imposing of the jizya, which seems more a Salafi Caliphate publicity stunt than a careful recreation of jizya as practiced by the early Caliphs. There is no evidence of one open church or monastery in ISIS-controlled territory or of any sort of normal life by any religious minority within its boundaries. This reality underscores how similar the ISIS state is not to the sprawling pluralistic caliphates of history but to the monochrome, expansionist idol-breaking Emirate of Diriyah (1744-1818), the so-called first Saudi state, that was eventually destroyed by the Ottoman Empire and its surrogate in Khedival Egypt.
Any perceived differences from early Islam are examples of how ISIS "modifies its religious and political doctrines when they get in the way" of its principal aim which is establishing this "ultra-conservative Islamic state at all costs."[31] The Al-Baghdadi Caliphate is reading from a Salafi manual drawn from early Islam, but is also busily writing emendations in the margins. So ISIS is many things, but is also a modern gloss on a Salafi interpretation of the formative period of Islam. As Edgar Allen Poe might say, it is a "dream within a dream." For anyone not like them, it is a nightmare.
*Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice-President of MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] See MEMRI JTTM report ISIS Destroys Ancient Monastery In Homs, August 20, 2015.
[2] "Al-Rashidun," the first four Caliphs – Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali Ibn Abi Talib – who ruled from 632 to 661 A.D., the formative period of Islam after the death of Muhammad.
[3] Gilles Kepel, Muslim Extremism in Egypt, The Prophet and Pharaoh (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).
[4] Archive.org/details/JihadGuidelines, accessed August 27, 2015.
[5] Talismangate.blogspot.com/2007/03/al-baghdadis-third-speech-sounding.html, March 14, 2007.
[6] Talismangate.blogspot.com/2007/04/abu-omar-al-baghdadis-fourth-speech.html, April 17, 2007.
[7] Hudson.org/research/9854-the-caliphate-attempted-zarqawi-s-ideological-heirs-their-choice-for-a-caliph-and-the-collapse-of-their-self-styled-islamic-state-of-iraq, July 1, 2008.
[8] Reuters.com, May 18, 2008.
[9] CNN.com, August 1, 2004.
[10] Joshualandis.com/blog/meet-the-badris, March 13, 2015.
[11] Theguardian.com, November 1, 2010.
[12] Onlinejihad.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/isi.pdf.
[13] Nervana1.org/2015/02/16/isis-digs-out-old-grievances-to-attack-copts/ February 16, 2015.
[14] Alberto M. Fernandez, "In the Year of the Martyrs: Anti-Coptic Violence in Egypt, 1988-1993," paper presented at the Middle East Studies Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California, November 18-20, 2001.
[15] Joshualandis.com/blog/al-qaedas-governance-strategy-raqqa-chris-looney, December 8, 2013.
[16] English.al-akhbar.com/node/20110, June 10, 2014.
[17]Joshualandis.com/blog/islamic-state-iraq-ash-shams-dhimmi-pact-christians-raqqa-province, February 26, 2014.
[18] BBC.com, August 7, 2014.
[19] Ahramonline, February 15, 2015.
[20] Nytimes.com, February 21, 2015. .
[21] MEMRI TV Clip No. 4842, ISIS Presents Conversion to Islam of Christian Captured in Syria, March 23, 2015.
[22] BBC.com, July 21, 2014.
[23] Christiantoday.com/article/syrian.monk.and.church.volunteer.kidnapped.from.monastery/54483.htm, May 22, 2015.
[24] Academia.edu/6728523/Christian_Monks_in_Islamic_Literature, Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies
6, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2004).
[25]Ballandalus.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/the-wahhabi-sack-of-karbala-1802-a-d, August 2014.
[26] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No.5872, Senior Saudi Salafi Cleric: 'ISIS Is A True Product Of Salafism', November 4, 2014.
[27] The classic work is Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj. Abu Yusuf was chief Qadi under the Caliph Harun al-Rashid.
[28] Syriahr.com/en/2015/08/isis-seizes-syrian-christians-in-attempt-to-further-establish-stronghold-in-strategic-city, August 25, 2015,
[29] Facebook.com/DemandforAction/photos/pb.293404620839013.- 2207520000.1440515529./453479498164857/?type=3&theater.
[30] See MEMRI Special Dispatch No.5872, Senior Saudi Salafi Cleric: 'ISIS Is A True Product Of Salafism', November 4, 2014.
[31] Politico.com, August 19, 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