New Page 5

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

Bible Quotations For Today
Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 01/18-25: "Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’ All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel’, which means, ‘God is with us.’ When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus."

"This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles
Letter to the Ephesians 03/01-13: "This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles for surely you have already heard of the commission of God’s grace that was given to me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that is, the Gentiles have become fellow-heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the working of his power. Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him. I pray therefore that you may not lose heart over my sufferings for you; they are your glory."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on December 12-13/15
US-Turkey-Russia-Iran and the Arabs: New Dimensions to Iraq-Syria Proxy Wars/Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
The “Grand Game” in Syria: How Assad and ISIL are Used/Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
Will Abadi Allow US Special Forces to Operate on their Own/Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
A Chinese Marshall Plan for the Muslim World/Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
Will changes to US Visa Waiver Program torpedo Iran deal implementation/Reza Nasri/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
With the Islamic State gone from Sinjar, Kurdish groups battle for control/Mohammed A. Salih/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
Turkey prepares for Trump presidency/Pinar Tremblay/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
US presidential candidates speak out on Syria/Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
Intellectual State of Emergency, The Occupied Territories of Progressive Thought/acques Tarnero/Gatestone Institute/December 12/15
Is PA on verge of collapse/Adnan Abu Amer/Al-Monitor/December 12/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on December 12-13/15
Gadhafi's Son Hannibal Briefly Abducted in Lebanon, Says Captors 'Loyal to al-Sadr Cause'
U.S. Urges Americans to Avoid Lebanon Travel after Bombings
Mass Held on 10th Assassination Anniversary of Gebran Tueini
Report: U.S. Momentum to End Presidential Deadlock
Report: Hizbullah in a Meeting with Franjieh, Adheres to Aoun's Nomination
Lebanese Army Arrests IS Militant who Confesses to Terrorist Plans
AlRai hopes for a new President as the holiday season's gift to the Lebanese
Bassil, Jaafari confer over Turkish intervention in Iraq
Jumblatt: Franjieh's presidential election settlement has been disrupted or delayed
Activists occupy auditing board, push for regime change
Canadian bridgehead of Syrian refugees en route to Montreal
Geagea meets with Egyptian Ambassador over matters
Qazzi: We need not abort Hariri's initiative pending guarantees
Army: Enemy drone violates Lebanese skies

Gadhafi's Son Hannibal Briefly Abducted in Lebanon, Says Captors 'Loyal to al-Sadr Cause'
Naharnet/December 12/15/Hannibal Gadhafi, a 40-year-old son of slain Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, appeared in a video on Friday in which he announced that he had been kidnapped in Lebanon. Both MTV and al-Jadeed television, which aired the video, said Gadhafi was abducted in Lebanon at the hands of an “armed group.” In the video, Gadhafi said his captors are "loyal to the cause of Imam Moussa al-Sadr," the founder of Lebanon's AMAL Movement who disappeared while on a trip to Libya in 1978. He said anyone who has information about al-Sadr should come forward. Gadhafi appeared to have been beaten up and had black eyes but said in the video he is "in good health, happy and relaxed." State-run National News Agency said Gadhafi was abducted Thursday in the Bekaa region and that his captors demanded "information about Imam Moussa al-Sadr and his two companions." Later on Friday, the agency said Hannibal was “handed over to the Internal Security Forces Intelligence Branch after his captors left him on the Baalbek-Homs international highway near the northern Bekaa town of al-Jamaliyeh.”It said he had been abducted on Thursday “after being lured from Syria into a town near Baalbek.”Ex-MP Hassan Yaaqoub, the son of Sheikh Mohammed Yaaqoub who disappeared while accompanying al-Sadr, denied any ties to the kidnap operation. He however hoped the reported abduction would “reactivate the case” and noted that he was not “saddened” by the news.Hannibal is married to Lebanese lingerie model Aline Skaff. Skaff had first met Hannibal in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Skeikh in 2000, her brother has said in an interview with An Nahar newspaper. “They later met in France and got married in Copenhagen in 2003.” The couple has a son and a daughter.Photographs obtained by Agence France-Presse in Libya had revealed how Hannibal and his wife were living a high-flying party lifestyle during his father's iron-fisted rule. In the dozens of photographs, found on a laptop belonging to Gadhafi's son and made available by former Libyan rebels to AFP, Hannibal and Aline are shown partying in European capitals, on a private jet and on a yacht off the Egyptian coast. The undated photographs show the couple on luxurious trips to Paris, Rome and Sharm el-Sheikh. They are shown flying on a private jet, lounging in bathing suits on a luxury yacht and shopping in expensive boutiques.The lavish lifestyles of Gadhafi's family and entourage helped fuel the anger in Libya that sparked the protests that led eventually to the former strongman's ouster.Hannibal was among a group of family members -- including Gadhafi's wife Safiya, son Mohammed and daughter Aisha -- who escaped to neighboring Algeria after the fall of the Libyan capital Tripoli.

U.S. Urges Americans to Avoid Lebanon Travel after Bombings
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/December 12/15/The United States urged its citizens to avoid traveling to Lebanon, after deadly bombings in Beirut claimed by the Islamic State group, a State Department travel notice said on Saturday."Sudden outbreaks of violence can occur at any time in Lebanon, and armed clashes have occurred in major cities," the State Department said. The November 12 attacks hit a busy shopping street in the Beirut southern suburb of Bourj al-Barajneh . A total of 44 people were killed. It was the largest IS attack ever in Lebanon, and among the deadliest bombings to hit the volatile country in decades. "The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to avoid all travel to Lebanon because of ongoing safety and security concerns," the notice read. "U.S. citizens living and working in Lebanon should understand that they accept the risks of remaining in the country and should carefully consider those risks."

Mass Held on 10th Assassination Anniversary of Gebran Tueini
Naharnet/December 12/15/A mass was held at the St. George's Cathedral in Downtown Beirut marking the tenth anniversary of the assassination of MP Gebran Tueni. Beirut Greek Orthodox Archbishop Elias Audeh, who celebrated the mass, asked: “Did the martyrs who died for the sake of the country die to see the nation wither away without a president or parliament that legislates for a better life.” His comments come lamenting the presidential vacuum and the paralysis of the state's institutions. “Turning a blind eye on the truth and submission are big mistakes. Everyone must come to the rescue of the country,” he added. Tueni, the former editor and publisher of An Nahar newspaper, was assassinated in a car bomb blast in Mkalles on Dec. 12, 2005. He was among a series of anti-Syrian officials who were assassinated or escaped murder in the aftermath of the Feb. 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Report: U.S. Momentum to End Presidential Deadlock
Naharnet/December 12/15/The U.S. embassy in Lebanon invited several representatives of Christian figures to lunch on Friday in a move aimed at envisioning their stances regarding the presidential settlement and the nomination of Marada Movement leader MP Suleiman Franjieh for the top state post, An Nahar daily reported on Saturday. During the meeting which took place at the embassy in Awkar, the U.S. side stressed the need to elect a head of state, highlighting the latest meetings between U.S. Chargé d'Affaires ad interim Richard Jones and several political leaders including the Christian figures to that end. The U.S. side “stressed the need to avoid the continuation of the presidential vacuum at any price,” highlighting the necessity to either agree on the current settlement or to nominate another Maronite figure that garners the approval of all. Franjieh emerged in recent weeks as a potential presidential candidate in the wake of a meeting he held with al-Mustaqbal Movement leader MP Saad Hariri in Paris. His candidacy is being proposed alongside a settlement that would end the political deadlock in Lebanon. The efforts to nominate Franjieh have however been met with objections from the Christian parties of the Kataeb, Free Patriotic Movement, and Lebanese Forces. “A U.S. delegate might kick off a visit to Lebanon next week in a bid to either revive the settlement or to look for an alternative for the nomination of Franjieh,” ministerial sources told the daily on condition of anonymity. “Knowing that the State Department is not prepared to intervene directly in the file before having guarantees that are not available at this moment,” they concluded.

Report: Hizbullah in a Meeting with Franjieh, Adheres to Aoun's Nomination
Naharnet/December 12/15/Well informed sources confirmed that a meeting between Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Marada Movement chief MP Suleiman Franjieh took place two days ago and highlighted the party's stance on the nomination of the latter for the top state post, An Nahar daily reported on Saturday. “The meeting was not positive with regard to the nomination of Franjieh, which reflects Hizbullah's cautious stance from the proposed settlement,” unnamed sources told the daily on condition of anonymity.
The two men met on Thursday it said. Franjieh emerged in recent weeks as a potential presidential candidate in the wake of a meeting he held with Hariri in Paris. His candidacy is being proposed alongside a settlement that would end the political deadlock in Lebanon. The efforts to nominate Franjieh have however been met with objections from the Christian parties of the Kataeb, Free Patriotic Movement, and Lebanese Forces. For its part, As Safir daily highlighted the details of the meeting and said that “Nasrallah's words were clear on the presidential file,” and that “Franjieh has therefore realized that Hizbullah will not back away from nominating its ally MP Michel Aoun as long as the latter adheres to his candidacy.”Aoun is the candidate of the March 8 camp, while LF chief Samir Geagea is the candidate of March 14.

Lebanese Army Arrests IS Militant who Confesses to Terrorist Plans
Naharnet/December 12/15/The army arrested Lebanese fugitive Ahmed Adnan al-Hamad in the Akkar town of Mashta Hasan for having links to terrorist groups, the Army Orientation Directorate said in a statement on Saturday.
Al-Hamad had links with terrorist Mohammed Ahmed al-Satem and had schemed to carry out attacks in the area of Wadi Khaled, the statement added. The detainee had admitted that the so-called al-Satem had briefed him on the plans of the Islamic State to recruit fighters and establish terrorist cells and armed groups in Wadi Khaled in a bid to target army positions in conjunctions with military operations inside the Syrian territory. Al-Hamad said that he had joined a group of five members and were all tasked with recruiting other units and with collecting information about collaborators with the security services to be eliminated afterward. On Monday, the Security forces arrested two Islamic State jihadists who had plotted to carry out attacks inside Lebanon. Dozens of suspects were arrested across the country in recent weeks. The crackdown followed an IS suicide bombing in the southern Beirut suburb of Bourj al-Barajneh that killed 44 people and wounded around 240 others.

AlRai hopes for a new President as the holiday season's gift to the Lebanese
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Bshara Butros al-Rai, hoped Saturday that "a new President of the Republic will be elected before the year's end, as a gift for the Lebanese to rejoice in receiving for the holiday season."He added: "I am at an equal distance from all candidates, without naming anyone in particular," noting that "presidential nomination is upto the political and parliamentary blocs, in light of our democratic regime."Al-Rai's words came during his presence in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, as part of a parish visit to the Maronite Archdeoceses in both Egypt and Sudan. "I have for long addressed the consciences of political and parliamentary blocs, even before the presidential vacuum, urging them to rise up to their national duty in implementing the Constitution, and thus, instantly electing a President of the Republic," al-Rai went on, adding that "I hope they would sit around the table together and adopt an overall national decision the soonest possible."

Bassil, Jaafari confer over Turkish intervention in Iraq
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - Foreign and Expatriates Minister, Gebran Bassil, received a call Saturday from his Iraqi counterpart, Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari, briefing him on the "Turkish military intervention in Iraq and the Iraqi government's rejection of said intervention, and the failure of bilateral efforts to stop it."Both men also touched on Iraq's submitted request to the Arab League to hold a meeting at the ministerial level, devoted to tackling this matter. Bassil voiced his support to the Iraqi request "to discuss the violation of Iraq's sovereignty by a non-Arab state."In this context, he contacted Arab League Secretary-General, Dr. Nabil el-Arabi, deliberating over the Iraqi situation.

Jumblatt: Franjieh's presidential election settlement has been disrupted or delayed
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - "Democratic Gathering" Head, MP Walid Jumblatt, indicated Saturday via "Twitter" that "the settlement of electing MP Sleiman Franjieh as President of the Republic has been disrupted or delayed...thanks to the strange, wondrous convergence of contradictory forces."He went on to note that, "On one hand, we have the objection Front's unexplainable silence towards Franjieh's election despite his clearly supportive stand to its perspectives...and on the other hand, the sovereign Front par excellence, namely the Lebanese Forces, to whom we pay all respect and appreciation, that have converged with the reluctance Front rejecting Franjieh's nomination..alongside of course the forefront sovereign figure, Michel Pharaon," he added. "This reminds me of the steadfastness and confrontation Front, back in the days of Hafez Assad, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi," noted Jumblatt, adding that "if there is some sort of strategic shuffling of cards, then I admit my absolute ignorance towards its details and advantages."

Activists occupy auditing board, push for regime change
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - Activists belonging to the Leftist movement "We want to hold them accountable", have occupied in their anti - corruption drive, Beirut main Auditing Board offices, NNA field reporters said today. Calling for an immediate legal action against the Auditing Board by Courts of law, protesters' spokesperson Wasef Harakeh reiterated need for altering political power structures in the country as a national and ethical obligation. Also, accusing warlords of robbing state institutions of their supervisory bodies with the intention of stealing the poor, Harakeh went on to say that warlords reactivated their own religious sectarian institutions in pursuit of maximizing their private fortunes. The actual garbage crisis is another clear indication of the corruption of the ruling sectarian class and its Auditing board, Harakeh said. Also urging transparency and accountability of state officials, the lawyer activist stressed hope for reinstalling supervision on various state organs and at all levels by implementing the illicit enrichment law, passing of additional laws by holding general elections based on proportionality and ultimately by establishing the legitimate rule of law he concluded.

Canadian bridgehead of Syrian refugees en route to Montreal
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - A Canadian military transport, has ferried off up to 162 Syrian refugees mostly children, to their new - found home in Mont Real, NNA field reporters disclosed today. Today's second batch of Syrian refugees earmarked by the Canadian government for permanent asylum in North America constitutes only a part of a bridgehead of chartered planes due to take thousands more en route to their new life of freedom and safety, reporters added. Refugees boarding the military transport have been seen off at Beirut Airport by Canadian ambassadress Michelle Cameron and staff, the same reporters concluded.

Geagea meets with Egyptian Ambassador over matters
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - Lebanese Forces Commander, Samir Geagea, has met on Saturday in Meaarab with visiting Egyptian Ambassador to Lebanon Mohammad Bader-Din-Zayed, over the course of the general political situation on both domestic and regional scenes. There has been as yet, no immediate disclosure as per the outcome of today's meeting, NNA field reporters concluded.

Qazzi: We need not abort Hariri's initiative pending guarantees
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - We need not abort Hariri's initiative at this point, pending concrete guarantees, minister of Labour Sijaan Qazzi, told Voice of Lebanon talk-show today. Gebran Tueini's loss on March 14 of 2005 had actually begun on the 13th of March 1975 where we struggled together in pursuit of the same principles, the minister stressed. Making a distinction between what he termed as "the patriotic project and deep friendship towards Frangiyeh" minister Qazzi preconditioned consent to Hariri's initiative on getting certain guarantees. Evidently, the bloc to which Frangiyeh belongs, has turned down his candidacy, Qazzi added. As for March 14, the minister concluded that while this bloc lacks a coherently unified will, its constituents tend to confront comrades within with a fait accompli.

Army: Enemy drone violates Lebanese skies
Sat 12 Dec 2015/NNA - Army Command Guidance Directorate issued the following communiqué: "On Saturday at 06:50 a.m., an Israeli drone violated Lebanese airspace from above Kfarkilla village, executed circular flight over Riak, Hermel and Baalbek regions; and then left at 9:00 a.m. from above the said village.

World adopts historic global warming pact
Staff writer, Al Arabiya News Saturday, 12 December 2015/Envoys from 195 nations on Saturday adopted to cheers and tears a historic accord to stop global warming, which threatens humanity with rising seas and worsening droughts, floods and storms. “I see the room, I see the reaction is positive, I hear no objection. The Paris climate accord is adopted,” said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, banging down a gavel to cap a decades-long diplomatic quest to combat climate change. Earlier, negotiators at the U.N.-sponsored climate summit in Paris have come up with a draft agreement that was presented to ministers, a French government source said on Saturday. “There is a draft agreement,” the source said. “It is being translated. For it to become a deal, it would have to be adopted.” The draft, completed after late-night negotiations, is being translated from English into the U.N.’s five other official languages and will be presented at a special meeting of international delegates, according to two French officials. The officials, not authorized to be publicly named in discussing the negotiations, would not elaborate on the contents of the draft. The last draft of the accord, released Thursday night, did not resolve several key issues, including how rich and developing countries would share the costs of fighting global warming. If the 190 nations gathered in Paris agree to an accord, it would be a breakthrough after more than two decades of U.N. efforts to persuade governments to work together to reduce the man-made emissions that scientists say are warming the planet. Melting glaciers, rising seas and expanding deserts linked to such climate change are threatening populations around the world. Negotiators emerged from meetings late Friday with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, the host of the talks, amid an air of optimism that had been lacking just hours earlier. “We are pretty much there,” Egyptian Environment Minister Khaled Fahmy, the chairman of a bloc of African countries, told The Associated Press late Friday. “There have been tremendous developments in the last hours. We are very close.” A negotiator from a developed country was equally positive. “I think we got it,” said the negotiator, who was not authorized to speak publicly as the talks were not over yet. In a bid to encourage agreement, French President Francois Hollande will join the special meeting Saturday and give a speech alongside U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to show “the importance of deciding and now adopting the draft text,” Hollande’s office said. The talks were initially scheduled to end Friday and then Fabius wanted a final draft accord by early Saturday. U.N. climate conferences often run over time, because of the high stakes and widely differing demands and economic concerns of countries as diverse as the United States and tiny Pacific island nations. This accord is the first time all countries are expected to pitch in - the previous emissions treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, only included rich countries and the U.S. never signed on. After a final draft is presented, delegations are expected to spend a few hours studying it before it goes to a plenary meeting for eventual adoption.(With Agencies)

Rival protesters clash as Australia marks race riots
AFP, Sydney Saturday, 12 December 2015/Minor scuffles broke out between anti-Islam and anti-racism protesters as hundreds of people and police congregated at a Sydney beach Saturday to mark the 10th anniversary of modern Australia’s worst race riots. Riot police and mounted units descended on Cronulla beach, a scenic spot in southern Sydney, as anti-Islam groups blocked by courts from organizing a “memorial” rally in support of the Dec. 11, 2005 incident held a “halal-free” barbecue. The riot a decade ago -- which saw a drunken white mob of thousands attack Arab-Australians after two lifeguards at the beach were beaten up -- led to retaliatory attacks. It shocked Australians and ignited a debate over whether the nation built on migrants was racist. The anniversary has taken on fresh resonance amid growing concerns about homegrown extremism and Australians travelling to Iraq and Syria to support jihadist groups. It also came just days before Sydney marks one year since two hostages were killed along with an Iranian gunman in a 17-hour cafe siege. But authorities’ fears about an outbreak of violence appeared to be largely quelled by the heavy presence of police, who outnumbered the 200 or so protesters. The two groups were mostly kept apart, although there were several run-ins that were quickly broken up. Two men were arrested, New South Wales state police told AFP. The president of far-right group Rise Up Australia, Daniel Nalliah, led the barbecue with chants of “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi,” a refrain usually heard at sporting events. “If you come here, integrate in Australian life and culture... (or) shut up, pack up and get out,” the Sri Lankan Christian migrant said to cheers from the crowd, some of whom had draped the national flag over their shoulders. Holding banners such as “stand with Muslims against racism,” the rival rally consisting of socialists, anarchists and other groups chanted “say it loud, say it clear, Muslims are welcome here.”“I lived here during the riot and for years I was ashamed to tell people I was from here,” one protester -- Cronulla local Andrew, who did not want to give his last name -- told AFP. “(Cronulla’s) become a nice place, I don’t want it to go back to what it was.” Another, Margaret, who did not give her last name, told AFP the anti-Islam rhetoric was “spreading hatred in our community when we should be spreading tolerance.”

Suspected arson attack on California mosque
AFP, Los Angeles Saturday, 12 December 2015/Authorities in California have launched a probe after a fire broke out on Friday at a mosque in California, officials said. A spokeswoman for the Riverside County Fire Department told AFP that firefighters had rushed to the Islamic Society of Palm Springs shortly after smoke and flames were seen coming out of the building at around noon. No injuries were reported and firefighters managed to extinguish the fire within a half hour. Officials at the mosque could not immediately be reached for comment but they were quoted by local media as saying someone “fire-bombed” the building. The incident comes more than a week after a Muslim couple in San Bernardino, about an hour from Palm Springs, killed 14 people and injured 22 in an assault that is being investigated by the FBI as a terror attack.
The rampage has raised fears of a backlash against the Muslim community in the U.S.

U.S. vows stepped up fight on ISIS group
AFP, Washington Saturday, 12 December 2015/The United States will intensify its efforts to destroy the ISIS militant group, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter pledged Friday. A U.S.-led coalition began bombing the group in both countries last year, after the miiltants overran large areas in a brutal campaign of beheadings and forced religious conversions. The White House is, however, under growing pressure to do more, with President Barack Obama’s administration criticized by opponents for what they say is a lack of discernable progress in eliminating the militants. “We are taking a number of steps... and we intend to take more to strengthen the execution of our strategy and hasten the defeat of ISIL,” said Carter, speaking at a news conference in Washington alongside Michael Fallon, his British counterpart and ally in the bid to defeat the ISIS group. “I expect in a week and two weeks and six weeks and so forth for us to be doing more and building more capability, and having more and more impact every week. “That’s the whole idea. That’s what President Obama has asked to us to do, that’s what we have been able to do and we will continue to do.” Obama will travel to the Pentagon Monday to take stock of the ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Syria. The president will hunker down with his National Security Council and then make a statement, said his spokesman Josh Earnest. However, it is not expected to herald a major change in strategy.

Neutral Finland to boost Iraq, Lebanon missions to help France
Reuters, Helsinki Friday, 11 December 2015/Finland said on Friday it would boost its involvement in a training mission in Iraq and in a U.N.-led operation in Lebanon to help relieve French forces following the Paris attacks last month by ISIS militants. France made an unprecedented call for military help from its European Union partners under the bloc’s Lisbon Treaty following the attacks, which killed 130 people. EU member Finland is officially neutral and not in NATO. Its constitution does not allow it to take part in military operations overseas. However, the Finnish government said in a statement it would expand the number of people it has deployed to a training mission in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and was stepping up its presence in the United Nations mission in Lebanon to help free up French forces needed elsewhere. Finland is also considering boosting its participation in a crisis-management operation in Mali, the statement said.

Russia slams ‘unlawful’ Turkish troops in Iraq
Agencies Saturday, 12 December 2015/Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has spoken by phone with his Iraqi counterpart Ibrahim al-Jaafari to discuss the “unlawful incursion” of Turkish troops in northern Iraq, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday. “The Russian side expressed its firm position in support of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq,” the ministry said in a statement. Iraq appealed to the United Nations Security Council on Friday to demand an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Turkish troops from the north of the country. Baghdad said their presence was a “flagrant violation” of international law. Meanwhile, several thousand protesters, most of them members of Shiite paramilitary forces, gathered in central Baghdad on Saturday to demand the withdrawal of Turkish forces from Iraq. Iraq says Turkey deployed troops and tanks to a base in the country’s north last week without its permission, sparking a diplomatic uproar between Baghdad and Ankara. Turkey insists the forces were deployed to protect trainers working with Iraqi forces at the site, but Baghdad has repeatedly demanded their withdrawal and complained to the UN Security Council. Groups within the Hashad al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilization forces, which are dominated by Iran-backed Shiite militias, called for the demonstration against the Turkish military presence. “As the leader of a military brigade, I am not fully satisfied with the government’s action, and we are here to say that Iraq’s patience has run out,” said Ali Rubaie, the commander of a unit usually stationed west of Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi should have struck “with an iron fist at the beginning,” rather than make concessions to Massud Barzani, the leader of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, and others, he said. “But we are not here to doubt the ability of our commander-in-chief, and as a brigade we are ready,” said Rubaie, who wore a military uniform and had a large Iraqi flag on a pole resting on his shoulder. But not all the demonstrators were fighters, including businessman Hussein al-Samawi, who came from the city of Samawa, south of Baghdad, to take part. “We agree with every step the prime minister is taking right now,” said Samawi, who was dressed in a suit. “We have to pursue the political track, but if it doesn’t work, force will be the only option,” he said. The demonstration was mostly attended by young men in military uniforms and was well organized, with large processions converging on Tahrir Square in central Baghdad. The area was heavily guarded by security forces positioned on the ground and atop buildings, and roads were closed for up to several kilometers away from the protest site.(With Reuters, AFP)

Afghan forces end siege near Spanish embassy in Kabul
Staff writer, Al Arabiya News Saturday, 12 December 2015/Afghan forces fought back after suicide attack on a guest house near the Spanish embassy in Kabul, killing three Taliban fighters after hours of sporadic gunfire and explosions that lasted into the early hours of Saturday. Two Spanish security officers were killed in the attack, Madrid’s interior ministry said Saturday. The attack took place in a heavily protected part of Kabul close to several embassies and government buildings, while five Afghan police were killed or wounded.
In addition, one Spanish citizen and nine Afghan civilians were wounded and another 47 Afghans and foreigners were rescued from nearby buildings where they were trapped as security forces sealed off the area around the guest house.
The latest in a series of attacks on foreign targets in Kabul began at about 6 p.m. (1330 GMT) on Friday when a suicide attacker detonated a car bomb near the guest house, allowing three gunmen to take up positions and open fire on security forces.“The operation took time because we wanted to rescue the people trapped in surrounding buildings and we had to move cautiously and in a proper tactical manner,” Rahimi told
Reuters.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, just days after President Ashraf Ghani returned from a regional peace conference in Pakistan, where he sought support to revive peace talks that stalled this year.
'Disgrace'
In a statement issued on Saturday, the Taliban taunted authorities with the “disgrace” of not being able to prevent an attack in the heart of the capital.
“The presence of our Mujahideen with weapons and a car loaded with explosives in such a high security area shows God’s support and the cooperation of the poor and Muslim people,” spokesman Zabihulla Mujahid said in a statement.
The militant movement has been racked by internal power struggles of its own with rival factions battling for supremacy since it confirmed in July that its founder, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had died more than two years previously.
However, that has not prevented the militants from gaining a string of successes, including the brief seizure of the northern city of Kunduz in September.
Friday’s attack followed a separate Taliban attack on the airport complex in the southern city of Kandahar, in which at least 50 civilians and security forces personnel were killed. The Taliban are fighting to expel foreign forces and bring down the Western-backed government. (With Reuters and AFP)

Yemen’s warring sides say ceasefire to begin on Monday
Mohammed Ghobari, Reuters, Dubai Saturday, 12 December 2015/A 7-day ceasefire in Yemen will start on Monday, the day before planned U.N.-sponsored peace talks in Switzerland, senior officials on both sides of the civil war that has killed nearly 6,000 people said on Saturday. “Based on what had been agreed upon, there will be a halt of the aggression on the 14th of this month,” Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul-Salam told a news conference broadcast live from the Yemeni capital Sanaa. The Houthis, allied with Iran, have been locked for nine months in a civil war with forces loyal to President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s exiled government, who are backed by air strikes and ground forces from a mainly Gulf Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia. The Houthis, who control most of the northern part of the country, see the Arab alliance’s military operations in Yemen since March as an aggression. The alliance says it intervened in response to a request by Hadi. Yemen’s new Foreign Minister Abdel-Malek al-Mekhlafi, who will also lead Hadi’s delegation to the U.N. talks, confirmed that the ceasefire would start on “the evening of December 14.” “We are going to the talks with serious intentions and we hope that the other side to abide by that,” he told Reuters. The United Nations has invited Hadi’s government and the Houthis to peace negotiations after the two sides agreed a draft agenda and ground rules for the talks. A previous round of peace talks in June failed to reach an agreement, with both sides accusing each other of failing to offer compromises to end the conflict. In July, the two sides observed a five-day ceasefire, in which both sides traded accusations of violating the truce. But both sides now say they are determined to end the crisis that had devastated the country and displaced hundreds of thousands of people. Hadi had said that he had asked for a seven-day ceasefire, while Mekhlafi had earlier said that the ceasefire was subject to automatic renewal if the Houthis abided by it. The World Health Organization said on Saturday that as of Nov. 12, the death toll in Yemen since March was 5,878 people. A total of 27,867 had been wounded during the same period. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and UNICEF, using slightly more recent data from late November and early December, said nearly half those killed were civilians, including 637 children. Hadi’s Prime Minister Khaled Bahah said on Friday he was determined to end the fighting that had also caused widespread damage to Yemen’s economy and infrastructure. Houthi militia’s spokesman Abdul-Salam complained that the United Nations had not taken into account all the remarks his group had made on the draft but said the group, officially known as Ansarullah, and its allies would try to press their demands at the talks. “We are in constant coordination, together with the General People’s Congress party, and we will all go with a national will aimed at stopping the aggression and lifting the siege,” he told the news conference.

Suspected ISIS recruiter arrested in Spain’s Ceuta
AFP, Madrid Saturday, 12 December 2015/A Spaniard has been arrested in the Spanish north African territory of Ceuta on suspicion of recruiting youth to fight for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria, the interior ministry said Saturday. The 34-year-old Ceuta resident, arrested at dawn in the Mediterranean peninsula bordering Morocco, “was carrying out recruitment and indoctrination of youths with a vulnerable profile,” the ministry said in a statement. He offered them “help to travel to conflict zones and join the Daesh terrorist organisation,” it said, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. The suspect was known for “his adherence to Salafist ideology,” it said, referring to a fundamentalist branch of Islam. The ministry has said it has arrested around 100 suspected jihadists this year. Spain has been on a heightened anti-terror alert -- level four of a possible five -- since June.

US-Turkey-Russia-Iran and the Arabs: New Dimensions to Iraq-Syria Proxy Wars
Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
Turkish troops surprised all and entered Iraq December 4 allegedly to protect Camp Zalkan in the Mosul province, where members of the ethnically diverse Nineveh Hashd are training. The Nineveh Hashd (or the National Mobilization) is a popular diverse militia trained by both Turkey and KRG Peshmerga of Iraq’s Kurdistan. It is meant to create a counter weight to the sectarian Popular Mobilization in the South almost exclusively led by the boys of Qassem Suleimani of the IRGC Quds Brigades.
The incursion was a kind of message to all concerned parties, particularly Tehran and Moscow that Ankara preserves the right to cross the border in case its security requires. It was also a reminder to the Kurdish PKK that Turkey will not shy away from going to Iraq in case Moscow assists the group to escalate its campaign against Turkish targets.
Previous arrangements between Turkey and the US agreed to enhance the role of the Peshmerga in order to counter the expansion of the PKK. Now, as the prospects of using the PKK by the Russians to revenge their downed jet is higher, the Turks wanted to remind all that they will not sit idle in face of any escalation by the PKK.
Russia’s reaction to Ankara’s surprising move was double folded. It warned the Turks not to do the same in Syria, and it focused the light on Iraq’s political groups’ invitation to Moscow to send forces to Iraq. Moscow considers Syria now a “protectorate” and the decision to go to Iraq is clearly a matter of time. It is when, not if. A Parliament committee in Baghdad issued an invitation to Putin already coupled with a recommendation to cancel all security arrangements with the US. Ankara, in its part, wants to preserve its stake in the battle of Mosul, which is currently under preparation.
Russia’s economic sanctions imposed on Turkey after the jet incident will have minor effects on the Turkish economy. And Russia cannot stop natural gas shipments to Turkey for many reasons. This short reach of Moscow leaves Ankara a wider space to continue its security policies. This will certainly mean an increase in tension between the two countries and a parallel increase in polarization in Iraq and Syria.
The general lines of the Turkish policies in both Iraq and Syria have been set since the Incerlik Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) reached between the US and Turkey last August. The MoU, however, deliberately missed one central point for lack of agreement then. This point is a joint understanding of the role of the Syrian Democratic Party (PYD) with its militias called the PYD or the people’s protection committees. The reason then was that while Ankara considered the PYD too close to the PKK, Washington on the other hand was supportive of the Party’s effective fight against ISIL. The US was actively helping the PYD in its fight against the terrorist group.
For some time now, and as monitored on the ground, the direction of the winds was slowly changing. The new objective has been to expand the role of the Peshmerga in both Iraq and Syria. Attempts to convince Saleh Muslim, the head of Syria’s Kurdish PYD, to reduce ties to the PKK were not particularly fruitful, or in more precise wording were not producing the required fast realignment. Under the rapidly moving developments, no one was willing to wait longer.
We mentioned in MEB few months back that there were high level meetings in Sulaymaniyah in Iraq between representatives of Syria’s PYD, Iraq’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). These meetings took their course in time and they may have reached the point of a coordination with the Russians as well.
The sign of this is that there are strong signs on the ground indicating that the PYD received recent considerable shipments of Russian arms. Moscow will represent this as a support to the PYD anti-ISIL military activities in Hasaka. Yet, the whole situation has risen now to a level that transcends ISIL. It is a fight for who will control North of Syria and North of Iraq. Turkey’s position, and to a lesser extent Washington’s as well, is that Barzani’s Peshmerga should be introduced to the region more forcefully, yet there should be a way to keep the PYD’s fight against ISIL as effective as it is.
There is no easy way to solve this dilemma. Pressure is still being exerted on Saleh Muslim to align his group with the Peshmerga and get it away from the PKK. The US considers the PKK a terrorist organization. Furthermore, ties between Russia and Iran on one the hand and the Party on the other seem to be warming up. The two countries have traditionally strong old ties to the group.
We noticed, for example, that Muslim was not invited to Riyadh’s deliberation in preparation for forming an opposition unified delegation to the proposed UN talks. The moderate Syrian opposition seems to be willing to welcome the Peshmerga in the North of Syria. Leaders of the Syrian Coalition visited Erbil recently and expressed the willingness of the moderate Syrian opposition to cooperate more openly with Barzani’s Peshmerga. Furthermore, the moderate Kurdish political organization in Kurdish regions in North Syria, The Kurdish National Council, which is close to Barzani, is building new bases of support among the Kurds there.
The PYD is ill-advised to stick with the PKK at this critical moment. The reason is that at one point its role will cease to be the most important in fighting ISIL. It cannot rely on a continuation of its situation today to imagine its role tomorrow. The Kurds fought for their rights. They will get these rights, but not by the PYD or the PKK.
This whole picture has distinctive characters within its details. If indeed the conflict is moving to a proxy war that involves the US, the Turks, the Arabs and Barzani in one side and Iran, Iraqi Shia forces, Hezbollah, Assad and Russia in the other, the situation would have inched closer to a more dangerous point.
US (and the West in general) and Russia’s increasing involvement would be the direct reason for looking at the conflict differently. The Turks have a long experience, since the cold war, in being a front line state. But the difference now is obvious. There are Russian forces on its southern borders, Iranian forces on its eastern borders and Russia itself in the east. And there is the PKK within and cross its southern borders.
If the diplomatic effort fails, which is more likely than unlikely, everyone will understand that they are in it for the long haul. Few things should be said in that context:
A coalition will go as far as the degree of coherence and convergence which constitutes the substance of its base. Injecting this base with broader common objectives determines how far it will go. There must be, therefore, a clear understanding between all the potential partners on what this coalition seeks to achieve.
In the case of Syria, complex as it is, the above mentioned fragments of policies used up-to-date is clearer than in many other cases. Is it possible, in this particular case, to establish a coalition that merely goes as far as only defeating ISIL, while differing in all other individual objectives of its partner? It is possible. But as one applies a superficial concept to such a coalition one should expect superficial results. This applies to Ankara’s position on ISIL for one example. There are other examples as well. And this is what we see in the current “coalition”.
The US has to set a very clear agenda for such a coalition. The “coalition” we see now is a joke. It is created to help the administration spins its indecisiveness.
No one should be willing to put any considerable number of US forces on the ground. However, this should not be added to the Ten Commandments. It is not sacred. And above all, it should not be announced needlessly in every occasion.
A real coalition should be formed in a way that gets Arab, Turkish, Peshmerga and NATO trainers and Special Forces to join in implementing a plan based on the clear principles accepted in advance by all partners. These objectives should be based on creating a considerable Sunni force from the indigenous population, helped by others, to defeat ISIL and control central Iraq and East Syria as a first phase. The definition of control is based on clearing these regions from ISIL and having a Barzani-like moderate style leadership. The Kurds should control their traditional areas. No more. Then two federal states would come as a natural conclusion. If not, no Sunni attacks on Alawi or Shia regions in both countries should ever be permitted. This principle must be crystal clear to all, the Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and Syrian opposition.
The objective of this strategy must start always with building this Sunni forces in Iraq and Syria. There were some half steps and timid efforts that has already been done in this direction. But now, it must be a coordinated, well-studied full steam ahead. All efforts should focus on this particular objective as we believe that indeed it is a long term fight and it has been raised to the level of a grand strategic game between world powers. KRG should play a role in this through the effective example of the Peshmerga and its role on the ground.
If we ever reach this point, forming a well-trained, well-disciplined and effective Sunni forces in Central Iraq and East and North Syria, Sykes-Picot would have been redefined silently so to speak. If the Syrians and Iraqis value their respective “national” bond, they will find the way back to each other, and we will see a re-emergence of the national state in both on natural bases. If not, we will see what happens then. These forces should be built in full awareness of the possibility that they may deviate to undesirable objectives. Therefore, vigilant measures must be applied on every phase of the process of building their units.
The pro-Iran Iraqi Shia called loudly for a Russian role in kicking the small Turkish force that entered Iraq out. The cry among them is that it is a Turkish aggression against “national sovereignty”. One wonders about this moody national sovereignty that appeared now and is nowhere to be seen when Iranian forces move freely in Iraq. Did not they see Haj Qassem Suleimani with their Popular Mobilization hundreds of times? It reminds us with President Putin who wants a Syrian “secular” state to be built in alliance with the “Islamic” Republic of Iran.
The Shia Popular Mobilization forces built by Iranian agents and calling daily for a Russian role in Iraq are bluntly sectarian. They slaughter Sunnis because of their belief. The Shia militias in Syria are doing the same thing. Moscow supports this kind of “secular” forces. However, the Sunni armies proposed must confine their role to Sunni-land only. As much as possible, it should be free of any sectarian ideology. Sectarianism is the other face of the coin of extremism. It is based on religious identities hence it breeds extremism. What it should be based on is the objective of living in dignity and free on their own land.

The “Grand Game” in Syria: How Assad and ISIL are Used
Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
The record of President Obama’s “legacy” will be clear of involving the US in a major war in the Middle East. But this should not be a reason for self-contentment among his aids. Everyone understands that the President’s refusal to engage in the regional crisis earlier will leave some heavy bills to pay for the next administration. And the only way to pay those bills is to get heavily engaged sometime in the future. The President’s policy of avoiding serious engagement today will lead to very serious engagement tomorrow. When you soak a house with gasoline, you cannot claim that you did not set the fire even if you did not light the match that caused it. Mr. Obama did not soak the house in gasoline, but he did not stop others from soaking it when he could. He did not do a thing. After all, it was “hands off”.
The President simply helped create all the ingredients of a war under the pretext of avoiding a war. Mr. Obama can be happy with his legacy. He did not light the match. But who really believes that the President’s hands-off policies did not push the region to an almost unsolvable crisis. And indeed it is unsolvable now, except through long term military confrontation which will involve the US (It already started to do) in a larger scale tomorrow. As manifested on the ground, the President’s policies left the US no other choice. Unless Secretary’s Kerry’s efforts succeed, the most likely scenario emerging from the current dynamics on the ground is the continuation of the military confrontation with varying levels of intensity and increasing number of countries getting into the ring. One can do a lot by doing nothing, and often the road to war starts from saying loudly that one is unwilling to fight.
And in all appreciation to the Secretary’s uphill journey, his chances of success are diminishing fast.
Let us examine these dynamics on the ground.
Mr. Putin, who moved himself from being almost irrelevant to being relevant, thanks to Mr. Obama who moved himself from being relevant to being almost irrelevant, has changed his mind after entering Syria with a small powerful army. Now, Putin the Conqueror wants Assad to remain for always, while previously he hinted to several interlocutors that he is willing to “rethink Assad’s future” if there is a political deal that preserves the Syrian state.
How and why Mr. Putin changed his mind?
It all happened during his visit to Tehran November 23. Khamenei’s foreign policy advisor Ali Akbar Velayati described Putin’s visit as “the most important in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. “President Putin agreed that no agreement on Syria would occur without coordinating with Iran”, he said. In December 7, Velayati was more explicit. “President Assad is considered a red line for the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is elected by his people”, he said.
Why Putin forfeits his decision on Assad to Tehran? Two reasons: 1-The alliance between the two countries is much wider than only Syria and it is becoming a major element in Russia’s West and Central Asia strategy and its natural gas policies. 2-Putin did not fully endorse the idea of Assad’s departure before. He always left room to maneuver his position differently. Now, with his forces already in Syria, he believes that his position has improved beyond the point of sacrificing Assad.
Iran, in its part, believes that Assad is very useful the way he is. First, he gives foreign intervention the legitimacy required to abort any legal challenge based on international norms and laws. Second, he is too weak to prevent the Iranians from spreading their control inside the Syrian State structure even if he is not totally happy about that.
What started as a credible promise to negotiate the fate of Assad at one point down the road to a diplomatic solution has turned to “No”, “Assad has the right to run in the elections after the proposed transitional period”, Putin said. Well, half the Syrians are refugees somewhere. Who will vote? And how the vote will be held in areas without even the minimum governance requirements? And since when criminals of war are allowed to run in elections to rule over their victims for a longer time? This is exactly the point. Those living in Assad’s Syria only would vote. The result is known under the slogan already raised in Damascus for years now: “Assad For Ever” or “Al Assad Ela Al Abad” as his loyalists sing it.
Putin told the French President that Assad will not go. He also told President Obama in the Climate Summit that Assad will remain. All this follows the pressure that Kerry placed on the Arabs and the Turks to accept participating in transition negotiation while Assad in power. The Turks and the Arabs insisted prior to the talks on that their participation is conditioned by Assad’s departure.
While the Arabs and the Turks agreed to give up their condition of Assad’s departure at the first step in return for a clear commitment that he will go at the end of the transition, and while this was the content of Kerry-Lavrov understanding that allowed a joint push to find a solution, President Putin said “Niet”.
Kerry admitted the other day that the future of Assad is a problem facing the current diplomatic effort. He also said that eliminating ISIL would be possible “within a matter of months” after a successful transition. Now the Russian President and Iran’s Khamenei say they want to defeat ISIL. But at the same time they do not want to accept the logical steps that may indeed lead to “eliminating ISIL within few months”, namely a transition that ends with a new Syria without Assad in which everyone fights ISIL. Can anyone explain that?
In the case of Iran, one can understand. The Iranians encouraged Maliki to create the environment that created ISIL even if when that went contrary to the requirements of preserving the unity of Iraq. They are doing the same in Syria. Assad replaced Maliki. But Putin? Why?
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said December 5 that his country is ready to play a bigger role in supplying natural gas to Russia while Khamenei expressed deep gratitude to Russia for its friendship. It is a pattern that Russia jumps on any major energy producer in its periphery to integrate their capacity into Russia’s supplies to the World.
Russia will increase gas exports in the eastern direction, the Russian President said while in Tehran last month. He also noted that the cooperation with China and India is valuable. “We are planning to increase gas exports in the Asian direction from six to 30 percent, to 128 billion cubic meters,” he added. South Pars will be strategically important.
Putin got what he wanted. And he offered the Iranians what they wanted. Where would Kerry and the diplomatic approach go in this context?
The Russian President understands, as much as Kerry, or any other reasonable person, does, that ISIL will not be defeated while Assad is in power, that is to say with no diplomatic solution in Syria.
Khamenei understands as well, as any young student in a high school does, that defeating ISIL in Iraq requires an inclusive government. Yet, he supported Maliki to do exactly the opposite. The same treatment given to Iraq is now given to Syria, and the Russian President is getting along with this plan that is clearly illogical.
Well, logic is defined in these two cases by the strategic objective required. If Iran’s strategic objective is indeed to defeat ISIL it would not have done what it did in Iraq or what it is doing in Syria. If Russia really wants to defeat ISIL it would not be insisting to block the only way to build a collective force of the Syrian army, the opposition and the international community to “eliminate the terrorist organization within months”. And this only way is the departure of Assad.
The Persian conception of time is totally different than the common one. Iranians see that they advance slowly. They count on life’s ever changing dynamics to move them to a more forward point. But in any given moment they try to keep where they are if they cannot advance on their own. Betting on future winds is the essence of their patience and long term strategy. We have seen that in the nuclear issue. We have seen it in Iraq. And now we see it in Syria.
Is Assad worth all this trouble?
No. He is one person. All possible alternatives were discussed between Kerry and Lavrov. It is possible to keep the State and change its head within the context of national reconciliation.
Why then all offers were refused?
Because in reality it is not even Assad that matters here. What matter is the essence of any political solution. Iran wants all of Syria. If it cannot have it today, it hopes it will have it tomorrow all the while keeping the West of Syria for today. Take the case of Iraq again, it was possible to give Prime Minister Haider Abadi a chance to put his country together. But Tehran chose instead to support the Popular Mobilization Forces. This force will preserve the South of Iraq firmly within the Iranian orbit. Tehran even pushed to enable this force to control Central Iraq. The US and Sunni tribes resisted. Patience then while trying to get the Americans out of Iraq all together.
Tehran does not want an inclusive government in Baghdad. It never did. It wants all of Iraq, not under Abadi, but under its own agents. If it cannot have it today, then patience until it gets the Americans out of Iraq, strengthens its army of agents then give it a try all the while keeping under firm control what it already got. This is why it keeps agitating the population against any US presence there. The US does not share its objectives. Now, we know that Putin, unfortunately, does.
So it is not even the issue of Assad. Assad is the stick which can stop the wheel of what Kerry is trying to do: that is to put Syria back together in order to be able to fight ISIL. Really fight ISIL. Kerry is looking at a different direction that that of Moscow and Tehran. When Iran felt it may lose what it already got in Syria, it invited the Russians to help it preserve it. The point is not defeating ISIL. The point is to get a pass all the way to the Mediterranean Sea.
Where will all this take us?
The differences in the agendas of both Iran and Russia in the one hand, and the world, including the Arabs and the Turks on the other, are irreconcilable. It is becoming explicitly what it always was implicitly: A global strategic conflict.
This will be a long war. Syria is heading towards more pain. But it is becoming increasingly unavoidable. We pray that Kerry succeeds. The alternative is a lot more blood and destruction.

Will Abadi Allow US Special Forces to Operate on their Own?
Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
Under the latest “adjustment” in US military operations in Iraq and Syria, President Obama has approved the deployment of a larger contingent of US Special Forces into Iraq. Unlike previous “train, equip and advise” deployments, the new Special Forces teams will be operating independently of the Iraq Army, conducting “decapitation” operations against ISIL targets.
The expanded Special Forces deployment comes as the result of the latest Pentagon assessments that the Iraq Army is still disjointed, plagued by political interference from Baghdad politicians under the influence of Iran, and will not be effective against ISIL strongholds for the foreseeable future. Iran continues to exert significant influence on the Dawa Party, through former Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, and Iranian-backed Shia militias continue to conduct operations independent of the Iraq military command.
One feature of the change in the US military mission in Iraq is that the American forces will no longer be sharing intelligence with the Iraq Army or the government in Baghdad. This is due to the expanded Iranian and Hezbollah penetration of the Iraqi intelligence services. The US had already pulled back from intelligence sharing since the announcement more than a month ago that a joint intelligence center had been established in Baghdad, involving Iraq, Iran, Russia and Syria. But this is a further step towards Washington conducting independent military operations inside Iraq.
The US Special Forces already deployed inside Iraq have developed extensive intelligence profiles of ISIL’s operations and key personnel. ISIL’s communications systems have been reportedly penetrated at a local level, and under the new rules of engagement for US Special Forces, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) will be acting unilaterally, without consulting or coordinating with the Iraq Army, when actionable intelligence is obtained.
The new US Special Forces mission is modeled on the night raids against Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. In effect, US commanders in Iraq concluded that Iraqi military units were incapable of acting on short notice to conduct such missions, and will, therefore, be operating independently. An estimated 200 additional US Special Forces are expected to be arriving in Iraq as an Expeditionary Targeting Force in the coming days.
The US deployment has created a major political problem for Prime Minister Abadi, who is already under fire from within his own ruling Shia coalition in parliament. A number of prominent Shia parliamentarians, representing powerful militia groups, have rejected the US expanded deployment, and threatened to bring down the Abadi government if the US deployment goes ahead. Some Shia officials, including Jafaar Hussaini of the Kata’ib Hezbollah and Mohammed Naji of the Badr Organization and the Hashid Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Force) militia, have threatened civil war if the US Special Forces are allowed in the country.
On Dec. 3, in response to that pressure, Prime Minister Abadi’s office issued a statement that Iraq “will consider any country sending ground combat forces a hostile act and will deal with it on this basis. The Iraq government is committed to not allowing the presence of any ground force on the land of Iraq.”
Secretary of State John Kerry countered by claiming that he had fully briefed Abadi on the expanded US mission, and that he believed the official statement was more directed at domestic critics of the planned Special Forces deployment than at the US. Nevertheless, there is a concern among Shia militia leaders and Dawa Party officials that the Special Forces could eventually be turned against the Shia forces. A number of Shia militia leaders are already on the US terrorist list.
The controversy has been compounded by the deployment of additional Turkish military forces to the Mosul area, where they have been training Sunni tribes, former local police, and Kurdish militias for over a year.
The bottom line for the Pentagon is that the multi-year efforts to stand up an effective Iraq Army have run aground, and Washington is losing political ground to Iran and, indirectly, to Russia. President Obama’s longstanding policy of refusing “US boots on the ground” in Iraq or Syria has given way to a more flexible and pragmatic position, driven by the poor results of the US operations against the ISIL to date.
In another signal of that shift, President Obama was also recently forced by his military advisors to lift the embargo against striking ISIL infrastructure targets in Syria, particularly the oil refineries and tanker trucks, and the power plants. For 18 months, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM have been asking for Presidential approval to bomb vital ISIL infrastructure, with no success.
Military planners had been arguing, all along, that the danger of civilian casualties and the destruction of vital infrastructure needed for a post-ISIL, post-Assad reconstruction, were secondary to the mission of cutting off the Islamic State’s ability to govern in the territories it controlled, by generating millions of dollars a week in black market revenue. Finally, that message got through to the President, and the target ban has been recently lifted.
While there is little area of agreement yet between the United States and Russia, particularly over the issue of the future of President Assad, Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov are working together on a United Nations Security Council resolution, demanding cooperation of all UN members in shutting off the finances of the Islamic State.

A Chinese Marshall Plan for the Muslim World?
Middle East Briefing/December 12/15
Chinese and American officials are engaged in quiet, but intense behind the scenes discussions about a greater role for China in bringing stability to the Muslim world, through targeted investments in job-creating infrastructure projects in war-torn regions of Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.
The Obama Administration has belatedly come to the conclusion that the fight against the Islamic State and other jihadist groups cannot be ultimately won by military means alone, and there must be a multi-generational economic transformation in the Muslim world to combat the spread of jihadist ideology.
Since Xi Jinping took power in Beijing two years ago, he has been promoting a “One Belt, One Road” program of investment in railroads, highways, ports and other vital infrastructure across Eurasia, from central China to the Atlantic coast of Western Europe. His “New Silk Road” has already seen the completion of freight rail links from Chongquing in central China, to the German port of Duisburg, a distance of 11,000 kilometers (7,000 miles approx.). When Xi Jinping visited Germany in March 2014, he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were in Duisburg to greet one of the arriving freight trains, which cut transport time in half and greatly reduce costs, compared to maritime shipping.
On June 5, 2014, Xi Jinping addressed the opening session of the sixth ministerial meeting of the China-Arab States Cooperative Forum at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. In that speech, he elaborated on the importance of his “Maritime Silk Road” program for building economic ties between China and the Arab world. During that meeting, plans were advanced for a free trade area for China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
Subsequently, a number of Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, joined the Chinese-sponsored Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will fund some of the infrastructure projects along the Maritime Silk Road, running from China, through Southeast Asia, through the Indian Ocean, to Africa, and on through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean Sea.
China has more than $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, which Xi Jinping has clearly been willing to spend on his “One Belt, One Road” project.
The question that is occupying American negotiators is whether China will be willing to invest in areas along the Silk Road route where there is currently instability, chaos and warfare. Will China put capital into Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and other areas where security issues are, at best, uncertain?
Behind the scenes, Washington is attempting to encourage such Chinese investment. During their meetings in New York and Washington in September, President Obama and President Xi agreed that China’s renmimbi would be added to the International Monetary Fund’s Standard Drawing Rights (SDR) currency basket, an agreement that the US upheld. At the beginning of December, the IMF announced the adding of the renmimi to the SDR basket, marking the first time that a non-advanced sector currency was added to the fund.
Beijing recently announced that it would be building its first overseas naval base in Djibouti on the east African coast across from Yemen. The United States and France already have bases there, and the agreement between Djibouti and China could not have happened without prior US consent. This marks a significant move by China to establish its first permanent overseas security presence. It is a crucial location along the proposed Maritime Silk Road route.
Washington is testing whether China is now willing to deploy its extensive hard currency reserves for investment in parts of the Muslim world facing grave economic and security problems that fuel jihadist recruitment.
When Xi Jinping comes to Washington in March 2016 to attend an international conference on nuclear proliferation and security, the Obama Administration hopes to be able to announce a US-China agreement on a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. That coincides with the target date for implementation of the Vienna Agreements on the forming of a transitional governing council for Syria and the drafting of a new constitution—if the January 2016 ceasefire has been successfully put in place.
Up until now, the Obama Administration has taken a cool approach to Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) program, fearing it is, first and foremost, a Chinese geopolitical project to gain global influence through the carrot of large-scale investment, and that it will ultimately weaken American clout in key parts of Eurasia and Africa. The Obama Administration refused China’s invitation to join the AIIB, even after key US allies Great Britain, France, Germany, South Korea and Italy joined the new bank as charter members.
Now, however, Washington is testing whether China will target investments in Arab states where the US has strategic interests, but where Washington cannot generate serious funds for economic development. The Obama Administration is counting, in part, on China’s growing worries about the involvement of hundreds of Uighurs, ethnic Turks, from China’s northwest Xinjiang Region, in the Islamic State (ISIL).

Will changes to US Visa Waiver Program torpedo Iran deal implementation?
Reza Nasri/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
As it currently stands, the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows citizens of 38 countries — namely European states, Australia, Japan and South Korea — to travel to the United States without having to obtain a visa. However, the US House of Representatives passed a bill (H. R. 158) on Dec. 8 that aims to exclude from this program all dual nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, and anyone else who has traveled to those countries in the past five years.
If the bill passes through the Senate and is signed into law, this means in practical terms that for instance any British, French, German, Australian or Japanese citizen who has recently traveled to one of these four destinations loses his or her automatic eligibility to enter the United States without a visa. Thus, those affected would have to go through a visa application process before being able to gain permission to travel to the United States.
Proponents of the bill argue that the new restrictions are meant to close the loopholes and "enhance" security measures for the VWP, in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. However, critics rightly question this claim, pointing at the "politicized" character of the bill and stressing the fact that the legislation unduly takes aim at Iran, a country at war with the Islamic State and where the terrorist organization has no physical presence, while conveniently leaving out countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, from whose territories numerous terrorist attacks conducted on US soil have either been planned, enabled, funded or motivated.
Beside this valid criticism, the bill also raises at least two concerns with regard to US obligations on the international plane: one regarding those under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) laws and regulations, and the other concerning those under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed between Iran and six world powers in July.
First, regarding the effects of this piece of legislation on US obligations under international trade law, European partners of the United States would be right to point out that, if enacted, the legislation would violate the spirit and text of WTO laws and regulations. In fact, by deterring European business people, contractors and CEOs of major companies from going to certain countries, by imposing fear of compromising their US ties, the US government is practically giving American companies, namely oil companies, an unfair and illicit advantage in those markets. This is something that directly goes against the "national treatment principle," along with the "Most-Favoured-Nation" rule, which constitute the two pillars of the nondiscrimination principle that forms the foundation of the WTO trading regime.
Of course, this is an issue that European countries, along with Australia, Japan and South Korea, could raise at the WTO Dispute Settlement Forum, at the United States' expense, since the latter has not yet provided a convincing and legally sound justification for the enactment of this bill. In fact, David O’Sullivan, the European Union ambassador to the United States, has already called the vote on these new restrictive measures "extremely counterproductive" and added that "some of these ideas are being rushed through without necessarily thinking out fully the consequences."
The EU has a history of opposing such measures, which it perceives as the "politicization of trade," within the framework of the WTO. Indeed, in 1997, EU countries threatened formal counteraction in this forum over the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), which later resulted in a decision by the Clinton administration to waive ILSA sanctions on the first project determined to be in violation.
Indeed, European countries have all the more reason to oppose this bill, as the United States at the end of the nuclear negotiations with Iran reportedly gave them the requested guarantees with regard to conducting business in Iran without such hindrances, so long as the JCPOA is properly implemented.
Second, with regard to the JCPOA, it is clear that the immediate effect of H. R. 158 becoming law would be that members of European, Australian, Japanese or Korean business delegations who are planning to travel to Iran following the successful conclusion of the nuclear deal would be compelled to choose between visiting Iran and being barred from the VWP. Of course, as a matter of priority, and namely because of the respective sizes of the Iranian and US economies, many of them would most probably choose to forego traveling to Iran over the risk of compromising their ties to the United States. The Iranian tourism industry, which is rehabilitating in the aftermath of the sanctions, would also very likely suffer a blow as a consequence of these measures, which could discourage thousands of tourists from visiting one of the few stable countries in the Middle East.
Thus, although some members of Congress may take pride in chipping away at Iran and the nuclear deal in this manner, this new policy constitutes a direct and adverse interference with the normalization process of Iran's trade and economic relations, and as such, violates US moral and legal obligations under the JCPOA, whose Article 29 reads: "The EU and its Member States and the United States, consistent with their respective laws, will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran."
This breach of the nuclear accord — through the unwarranted inclusion of Iran among the black list of "untouchable" states — is all the more problematic considering that as recently as October, US President Barack Obama stated that the "successful implementation of the JCPOA" would generate "extraordinary benefits to our national security and the peace and security of the world." The Democratic caucus also consistently invoked this argument in defense of the JCPOA back in September, as Republicans were trying to kill the deal in Congress.
In this regard, the key question to ask the Obama administration and Democratic members of Congress is: Which objective, beyond shortsighted campaign politics, justifies supporting a bill that compromises the implementation of a UN Security Council-endorsed international agreement that only two months ago generated "extraordinary benefits" for the United States, the world, peace and security?
In sum, it appears that H. R. 158, if signed into law, will likely antagonize US allies and trade partners, as well as key players vested in the implementation of the JCPOA. The Obama administration should therefore take all appropriate measures to dampen the legislation’s unwarranted effects.

With the Islamic State gone from Sinjar, Kurdish groups battle for control
Mohammed A. Salih/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
SINJAR, Iraq — Despite the swift expulsion of the Islamic State from Sinjar in an offensive by Kurdish and Yazidi forces on Nov. 13, assisted by unremitting airstrikes from the US-led coalition, competing interests and agendas present a major challenge to the future stability of the Yazidi-dominated region.
Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga forces were the major driving force of the multipronged offensive, given their large numbers and superior resources such as armored vehicles, tanks and rocket launchers, compared to other forces. As many as 7,500 peshmerga troops took part in the assault, according to the Kurdish Region Security Council on Nov. 11.
That figure included Yazidi battalions headed by Qasim Shesho, a Yazidi leader allied with the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which is the dominant party in the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). Shesho now commands 13 units, each including as many as 400 to 450 fighters, incorporated into the peshmerga ranks, according to Jadaan Darwish, a senior lieutenant to the Yazidi leader.
The rivalries among different forces in Sinjar are primarily manifested in the form of various flags flying high in the area.
The major rival to the peshmerga forces and KDP is the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and its Yazidi and Syrian Kurdish affiliates, respectively known as the Sinjar Resistance Units (YBS) and People's Protection Units (YPG).
Although senior Iraqi-Kurdish political and military leaders alleged the ground leg of the offensive was solely carried out by the peshmerga forces, the PKK, its allies and some smaller Yazidi groups such as the Ezidkhan Protection Force (HPE), played a significant role in forcing IS out of Sinjar.
The PKK and its affiliates had a forward base at the northern entrance of Sinjar right at the foot of the iconic mountain that sheltered thousands of Yazidis from IS in August 2014. After the peshmerga-led offensive got underway, PKK forces started fighting IS inside and outside the town of Sinjar, according to accounts provided to Al-Monitor by several PKK and peshmerga sources.
However, peshmerga commanders told Al-Monitor that retaking Sinjar would have not been possible had it not been because of their forces. They say the PKK and its allies had a presence in parts of the Sinjar area, including the northern entrance of the town, for over a year but had been unable to push IS out of the area on their own.
"The front on the eastern side of Sinjar was the major front of the offensive," claimed Maj. Gen. Ghazi Salih, a peshmerga commander. "But there was no PKK force here."
Despite official claims and counterclaims, multiple accounts from PKK and peshmerga sources point out that some level of coordination and even limited cooperation existed between the two sides.
Sipping tea with his fighters in Sinjar's grain silo where the Kurdistan and PKK flags fly high, Dilsher Harakul, a senior PKK commander in Sinjar, downplays differences with the peshmerga.
"Everywhere we went, we gave our coordinates to the peshmerga [so that they would pass it on to the US-led coalition] so we won't be hit by warplanes," he said on a chilly morning, just a couple of days after the battle of Sinjar.
The PKK has founded the Yazidi force YBS. In total, Harakul told Al-Monitor, there are around 2,000 PKK and YBS fighters in the Sinjar area.
"We offered training to a group of YBS forces," Harakul said. "This was a duty we fulfilled and whoever needs assistance we will help them. We have longstanding experience of warfare, fighting Turkey, Iran, the KDP and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and now IS as well."
Then suddenly, Harakul left the silo to tend to a confrontation between his forces and the peshmerga a mile away.
PKK-affiliated forces wanted to tow truck a bombed-out IS tank with a bulldozer. But the peshmerga forces armed with armored vehicles and high-caliber machine guns prevented them, saying Sinjar was Iraqi Kurdistan's territory and that they should take the tank.
The standoff continued for a few minutes after Harakul arrived, and turned chaotic as fighters with weapons in hand rushed to the scene.
Harakul and a peshmerga official agreed that the latter will take the tank. In no time, the fighters from both sides smiled as they jointly posed for pictures with their cellphones, a testament to the unpredictable nature of the relationship between the two sides.
A peshmerga officer who fought on the western side of Sinjar also confirmed that some degree of collaboration between the peshmerga and PKK existed.
"In the side where my forces were advancing, there were no PKK fighters with us. But in some areas our forces [peshmerga and PKK affiliates] were together," said the peshmerga officer who commanded a unit of a couple of hundred troops, but did not want to be identified due to the sensitive situation. "There is an understanding between us and there will be no problem, God willing."
Apart from the peshmerga and the PKK, another group that fought during the Sinjar battle was the HPE, previously named the Sinjar Protection Force. The HPE is headed by Haidar Shesho, who is a nephew of Qasim Shesho, but stands at the other end of the political spectrum from his uncle.
Haidar received aid from Baghdad for a few months to become part of the Popular Mobilization Units, which are funded and armed by the Iraqi government and Iran. But Haidar discontinued the cooperation after he was arrested by KDP-affiliated security forces in April. An alliance he later struck with the PKK-backed YBS in November did not last more than a few days, Haidar told Al-Monitor.
Haidar, who has been a leader of the local Yazidi resistance to IS after the group's onslaught in August 2014, said his 3,000 forces are now volunteers without having received any payouts since April.
"We've been promised that our forces would be incorporated into the Ministry of Peshmerga's ranks, but unfortunately that did not happen," Haidar said. "We hope those promises will be implemented."
When IS attacked Sinjar in 2014, peshmerga forces abandoned their positions leading to widespread atrocities against the religious minority by the jihadist organization.
That disaster created a rift between certain segments of the Yazidi community and the KDP, led by Massoud Barzani, whose tenure as the president of the Kurdistan region is currently disputed by some Kurdish factions that say his term has expired.
The KDP had tried to mend fences with the Yazidi community ever since, by assigning a more prominent role and authority to figures such as Qasim.
There are still around a dozen Yazidi districts and villages south of Sinjar in IS hands, but conflicting visions between Kurdish and Yazidi groups as to how to administer post-IS Sinjar are well underway.
During a victory press conference on Nov. 13 near the town of Sinjar, Barzani promised to exert efforts to turn Sinjar into a province inside Iraqi Kurdistan's territory.
"Sinjar has been liberated by peshmerga's blood and is in all respects part of the Kurdistan region," he told reporters from a hill overlooking Sinjar.
Haidar also called for turning Sinjar into a province, hoping this would bring more funding and public projects to the impoverished area.
"Then the people of Sinjar should decide whether they want [their province] to be part of the Kurdistan administration or Baghdad's," he concluded.

Turkey prepares for Trump presidency
Pinar Tremblay/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, called Dec. 7 for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. At a public event, Trump read a statement issued by his campaign office: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” While claiming to be the voice of the silent majority, Trump says there is great hatred toward Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.
Trump’s words generated a global outrage, including in his own Republican Party, where various key names asked him to withdraw from the race claiming that by uttering such words he had disqualified himself from the presidency. Yet, Trump neither retracted nor apologized for his statement.
In Turkey, Trump succeeded in unifying opposing camps of the media, all of which reported his words with deep shock and condemnation. Most media commentators in Turkey are convinced that Trump will become the next US president because of his lead in the polls. A joke now heard in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul goes like this: "Trump will be kicking out a black family from the White House, and it would not be his first time!” Trump’s less flattering photos appeared on Twitter with comments such as, “If this guy becomes the next US president, Muslims won’t be able to enter the US.” These headlines were promptly followed by articles about who Trump is, and what he has said so far. One popular article included 10 controversial Trump statements from his presidential campaign, with a focus on his plans mandating registration for all Muslims in the United States, keeping a database on them and building a wall on the Mexican border.
As reactions on Turkish social media were abundant, Twitter users were quick to remind Trump of his business investments in Turkey and the Muslim world. Several Twitter users called for a boycott of the Trump brand. "Take your partner and your skyscraper and leave Turkey," read multiple tweets. Some stated that Trump was uncomfortable with Islam, but happy to earn profits from Muslims.
Istanbul's skyline has since 2012 been dominated by Trump Towers, which includes an upscale shopping mall; the towers were erected in the heart of Istanbul and opened by then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As can be seen in the photo of the grand opening, to Erdogan's right stands Aydin Dogan, CEO and owner of Dogan Holding, a prominent businessman who owns media outlets critical of the Justice and Development Party (AKP).
Pro-AKP media published articles with headlines linking Dogan to Trump, at a time when Trump has generated much fury all over the world; Erdogan’s presence at the opening ceremony of the towers was not mentioned. Islamist daily Yeni Akit published a piece with the headline “Aydin Dogan’s silence about Trump, his Islamophobic partner.” The article claimed, without providing any evidence, that the Turkish social media was calling upon Dogan to cut his links with Trump and stop funding Trump Towers. Similarly, daily pro-AKP Sabah repeated the Turkish social media’s reactions to Dogan about Trump, and highlighted that despite his hatred toward Muslims, Trump is making billions of dollars from his investments in Muslim countries. Sabah’s editorial asked whether or not Dogan would change the name of the towers given the anti-Muslim sentiment.
Zaytung, the satirical website similar to The Onion, tweeted, “Aydin Dogan who had handed out his Freedom [a prominent newspaper owned by Dogan named Hurriyet, meaning freedom] to the government is now expected to change the name of Trump Towers into Erdogan Towers.” Following this media attention, the Trump-Dogan relationship became a trending topic on social media in Turkey, asking why Dogan pays $5 billion to Trump each year and why he has not changed the name of the towers yet.
Finally on Dec. 10, caving under growing social pressure, General Manager of Trump Towers Bulent Kural issued a statement condemning Trump’s words and explaining that they are “evaluating different legal aspects of their relationship with the Trump brand.”
The AKP gave an official reaction on Dec. 9, when AKP spokesman Omer Celik declared Trump’s statement as openly racist and asked for strong reactions from non-Muslim Western nations. Erdogan chimed in on the issue from an unexpected perspective on his official Facebook account. Erdogan did not name Trump, but rather referred to Mark Zuckerberg’s post, the founder of Facebook, and stated he appreciated Zuckerberg’s diligence in differentiating between Islam and terror. Zuckerberg’s post was viewed as a reply to what Trump had said.
Al-Monitor spoke with several small business owners in the Spice Market and Grand Bazaar, most of whom said they are convinced that Trump will become the next president, and that his views are widely shared by the US public and the government establishment. One carpet dealer told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “Americans are racist and they hate Muslims. Because of Islamophobic Trump, Americans had to shut down their consulate here.” Due to high security risks, the US consulate in Istanbul was closed on Dec. 9.
Another shopkeeper in the Spice Market said, “Americans are a wild bunch, they elected Arnold [Schwarzenegger] so why not Trump?” A customer who was shopping for tea added, “Soon enough we will hear Erdogan say on the news, ‘Hey Donald, who do you think you are?’ It will be nice though as Russia has Putin, we have Erdogan and so why should the United States not join in the fun?”
Al-Monitor also spoke with Trump sympathizers. Journalism student Ayse Yilmaz said, “He is honest. He says it as he sees it and that attracts a lot of people who are fed up with political correctness. I mean, look around. We kept the borders open and ended up with 2 million Syrians. No one is happy about their presence here but no one can voice their anger because it is not good Muslim behavior. They are treated horribly, even their kids and women. So it is normal that Trump with his hate speeches will gain more support.” Hakan Akturk, a college student studying sociology, said, “It is also good because Muslims are always labeled as anti-American — but see we are justified because the American government is against Islam. So this is just fair.”
Trump’s comments about banning Muslims entry into the United States received more attention in Turkey than his plan of keeping a registry of Muslims in the United States. When asked about this, medical student Ali Altin told Al-Monitor, “I guess we are kind of used to being constantly under surveillance by our own government, so the Muslim registry did not hit a nerve here. But banning entry [to the United States for Muslims] is serious. I mean, every year thousands of Turks apply for visas to immigrate, to study and to visit the US. I am hoping to obtain a post-graduate degree in the US. If we are disqualified just because of our religion then we will stop looking at the US as the land of free.”
In addition, stories of successful American Muslims were also highlighted on Turkish social media — particularly Mohammed Ali's story and his successful boxing career and conversion to Islam. Ridiculing Trump was also popular; for example, a video where a bald eagle had attacked Trump during a TV show spread quickly online and offline.
Turkey's approach to Trump's hate speech was most visible in the attitude of Nevsin Mengu, a well-respected CNN Turk news presenter, when she asked a pundit on television, “When will the US judiciary prosecute Trump for this hateful rhetoric?” Many Turks can not understand that Republican presidential candidate Trump enjoys freedom of speech under the protection of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Considering that offending religious sentiments of the public in the Turkish Constitution is a crime, calling for Trump’s prosecution seems plausible.
In an odd way, Turks are accepting Trump’s latest comments as the official and popular American view — which further fuels anti-American sentiment.

US presidential candidates speak out on Syria
Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
With international talks on Syria set to resume at the United Nations in New York in the coming days, here are the leading US presidential candidates’ positions on Syria, combating the Islamic State (IS) and the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States.
REPUBLICAN PARTY
Donald J. Trump
Leading Republican presidential candidate, the unapologetically bombastic real estate tycoon and TV personality Donald J. Trump has mostly framed the Syria issue in relation to his call to build a wall on the US-Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants and, he claimed, deter potential IS militants who might pose as Syrian refugees to try to enter the United States. The Mexican government should pay for this wall, Trump has proposed.
“Thirteen Syrian refugees were caught trying to get into the US through the southern border,” Trump wrote in a Nov. 22 Twitter post. “How many made it? WE NEED THE WALL!”
Trump, 69, has called for speeding up the fight against IS, ideally using ground troops provided by other countries, backed up by the United States. But he did not specify who would be willing to provide such ground forces, and he has been vague about how he would speed up the fight. He also called for designating a “swatch of land” in Syria that could serve as a Syria safe zone that should primarily be funded, he said, by the Gulf states.
"We've got to get rid of [IS] quickly, quickly,” he told a campaign rally in Worcester, Massachusetts, on Nov. 18. “Let me tell you what I really want to do. I want to get other people to put troops on the ground and we'll back them up 100 percent.”
Trump proposed the idea of building “a safe zone in Syria; build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live,” he told a Tennessee campaign rally on Nov. 16. “We give a little bit but other countries, like the Gulf states, should fund it,” he said.
On Dec. 7, Trump controversially called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,” his campaign said in an official press release. The position has been almost universally denounced by rival candidates — “unhinged,” Jeb Bush responded on Twitter; “disqualifying” for the presidency, said the White House — as well as by key allies abroad and the Pentagon as being detrimental to US national security. On Dec. 10, Trump canceled a planned post-Christmas trip to Israel after the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he did not agree with Trump’s remarks about Muslims.
Dr. Ben Carson
Retired pediatric neurosurgeon and leading GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson has called for halting the admission of all Syrian refugees to the United States. He has also called for pursuing an end to the Syrian conflict by providing support to rebels battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and IS, backing a safe zone on the Turkish-Syrian border and for the United States to provide more help to frontline countries hosting millions of Syrian refugees, especially Jordan where he traveled in November to visit a Syrian refugee camp.
Given the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, “The US simply cannot, should not and must not accept any Syrian refugees,” Carson wrote in Time magazine on Nov. 17, rejecting the Obama administration plan to permit additional Syrian refugees over the next two years.
“The reality is that the threat of radical Islam and the corrosive influence of Sharia law here in the US is not just a figment of our imagination,” Carson wrote. “The US must defend itself by preventing the infiltration of terrorists who pose as refugees to enter our land.”
“We must find a political end to this conflict,” Carson said in a campaign press release on his trip to visit a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan on Nov. 28.
“Millions of refugees have now been waiting years for the end of the war to come in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey,” the Nov. 28 Carson campaign release said. “Until it is safe for them to return home, Jordan is a safe place for them to wait.”
“The United States must do more,” the Carson campaign statement said, but added, “We can do our part to help this crisis without bringing 10-25,000 refugees to the United States. Jordan already houses 1.4 million refugees. Jordan needs and deserves our logistical help and financial support.”
In an Oct. 7 interview with Breitbart News, Carson called for weakening both Assad and IS. The United States should “continue to assist Syrian insurgent forces in their conflict against pro-Assad and [IS] forces with advisers, intelligence and weapons,” Carson told Breitbart News. The United States should also work with NATO ally Turkey to establish a “no-fly/no-fire zone along the Turkish-Syrian border,” Breitbart said Carson proposed.
Sen. Marco Rubio
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has cast himself as among the more hawkish candidates among his Republican rivals, supporting a Syria no-fly zone and saying he would consider sending US ground troops into the conflict. But it is worth noting Rubio, along with fellow Republican Senators and rival presidential candidates Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Kentucky), voted against authorizing Obama to use force against Assad for using chemical weapons in September 2013. Rubio has also come out against allowing any Syrian refugees into the United States, after earlier saying he might be open to that.
“When I am president, what I will do to defeat [IS] is very simple: whatever it takes,” Rubio wrote in Politico Magazine Nov. 19. “Exactly what it will take will depend on how the situation on the ground changes over the next 15 months.”
“I would protect the homeland by immediately stopping the flow of Syrian refugees into the United States — not because refugees fleeing conflict are unwelcome, but because it is currently impossible to verify their identities or intentions,” Rubio, 44, wrote. “Next, I would reverse defense sequestration so we have the capabilities to go on the offense against [IS].”
Rubio said he would consider sending US ground forces as part of a multinational coalition to Iraq and Syria to aid local forces on the ground. He said he would declare a Syria no-fly zone to stem the flow of refugees and provide a place to train and arm Syrian rebel fighters.
Regarding Syrian refugees, Rubio, in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks in November, said the United States can’t afford to let them in. "It’s not that we don’t want to," Rubio told ABC's "This Week” Nov. 15 about accepting Syrian refugees. "It’s that we can’t." Earlier, in September, Rubio said he would be open to letting some Syrian refugees come to the United States.
Sen. Ted Cruz
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz has called for increasing US air operations targeting IS, arming the Kurds and ending the effort to arm Syria’s Arab rebels. Cruz, 44, has also called for legislation blocking admission to the United States for Syria’s Muslim refugees, while saying he would support the United States welcoming Christian refugees from the Middle East.
The “idea that we should bring tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees to America … is nothing less than lunacy,” Cruz told Fox News Nov. 15. “On the other hand, Christians who are being targeted for genocide, for persecution … we should be providing safe haven to them.”
“We should stop engaging in the fiction of trying to find these moderate rebels and support them,” Cruz said in an interview with Fox News posted to his campaign website. “We should stop the fiction of trying to bring together the Sunnis and the Shias to put down their arms and embrace like brothers."
He contiued, “Instead we should defend US national security interests and do what works to defeat [IS]." Cruz added, “Now what would that mean? That’d mean number one, using overwhelming air power to target and destroy [IS]. Number two, we need to be arming the Kurds … they’re strong allies of America and yet the Obama administration refuses to fund them because it wants to send the weapons to Baghdad. … We need to focus on what works.”
Cruz, in September 2013, said he would vote against a congressional measure to endorse Obama’s plan to strike Syrian forces for using chemical weapons. (Obama ended up deciding not to carry out the strikes, making a deal with Russia’s Vladimir Putin to force Syria to give up its chemical weapons arsenal instead.)
“Just because Assad is a murderous thug does not mean that the rebels opposing him are necessarily better,” Cruz wrote in The Washington Post on Sept. 9, 2013.
Jeb Bush
Among Republican presidential candidates, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has offered one of the more detailed treatments of the issue of how to stabilize Syria as part of his larger set of policy objectives for how to combat IS. Among his proposals, Bush, 62, has called for establishing multiple safe zones and a no-fly zone in Syria, to protect Syrians not only from IS but also from Assad, and bolstering the training and support to moderate Syrian rebels fighting IS.
“Our ultimate goal in Syria is to defeat [IS] and to achieve long-term political stability in that country,” Bush said in an August speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. “Defeating [IS] requires defeating Assad, but we have to make sure that his regime is not replaced by something as bad or worse.”
To that end, Bush proposed a four-part plan, including leading a coordinated, international effort “to give Syria’s moderate forces the upper hand” and to expand and improve the recruitment and training of Syrian forces fighting IS. Bush said the United States “and our partners should declare a no-fly zone in Syria, and then work to expand that zone to prevent more crimes by the regime.”
Though his policy seems to have much in common with the Obama administration’s approach, Bush has criticized the Obama administration’s strategy of the war against IS as incremental and under-resourced and suffering from half measures.
“America will not be safe if we only play defense. Gov. Bush believes that in addition to bolstering our defenses at home, we must take the fight to the terrorists who have declared war on us and our way of life,” the Bush campaign said in a Dec. 9 press release. “Jeb Bush is the only candidate in the race who has outlined serious and substantive plans to destroy [IS], restore the American military and reverse President Obama’s risky counterterrorism policies.”
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Hillary Clinton
Former US Secretary of State and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has proposed using a combination of intense US-led international diplomacy, air power and special forces, support for local rebel forces and the Kurds, and a no-fly-zone to get a diplomatic solution on Syria as part of a comprehensive strategy to defeat IS, a challenge that she warns will take a long time.
Like President Obama, Clinton opposes sending US ground forces to Syria, but supports his call to send more US special forces to Syria to help intensify the campaign and work with local forces combating Assad and IS. Beyond combating IS in its core base in Syria and Iraq, Clinton has proposed intensifying efforts to dismantle the “terrorist infrastructure” facilitating the flow of foreign fighters and financing to IS, as well as working with technology companies to combat IS’ ideology and on-line recruitment, which has resulted in as many as 31,000 foreign fighters joining the terrorist group.
“We need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on [IS] as well,” Clinton said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York on Nov. 19. “To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized, and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight.”
“We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air,” Clinton said. “Opposition forces on the ground with materiel support from the coalition could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country rather than fleeing toward Europe.”
“This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from [IS], choking off its supply lines,” Clinton said. “It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing.”
“Resolve means depriving jihadists of virtual territory just as we work to deprive them of actual territory,” Clinton said in a speech to the Brookings Saban Forum on Dec. 6. “They are using websites, social media, chat rooms, and other platforms to celebrate beheadings, recruit future terrorists, and call for attacks. We should work with host companies to shut them down.”
“Our goal is not to deter or contain [IS] but to defeat and destroy [IS],” Clinton told CFR. “But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. So we also have to play and win the long game.”
“Our strategy should have three main elements,” Clinton said. “One, defeat [IS] in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing arms, and propaganda around the world; three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.
Clinton has said the United States should be vigilant in screening but must not close the door on Syrian refugees.
“We cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us into abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligations,” Clinton told CFR. “Turning away orphans, applying a religious test, discriminating against Muslims, slamming the door on every Syrian refugee — that is just not who we are. We are better than that.”
Bernie Sanders
Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, has generally supported President Barack Obama’s approach of leading an international coalition to combat IS and trying to achieve a diplomatic resolution of the conflict. But Sanders has opposed sending US special forces or ground troops into Syria and has urged the United States to work in an international coalition with other nations to try to achieve a diplomatic settlement.
Sanders has opposed Republican calls to block admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. He has also opposed setting up a Syria no-fly zone, as his Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton and several Republican presidential candidates have advocated.
“I think that there's a lesson to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, [that] what a great military power like the United States is about is trying to use diplomacy before war and working with other countries rather than doing it alone,” Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” on Oct. 18, 2015. “At the end of the day, a military coalition is what will succeed, not the US doing it alone.”
Asked Nov. 8 if he opposed Obama’s call to send some 50 US ground forces to Syria, Sanders said he understood that President Obama was trying to “thread a very difficult needle,” but worried the United States could incrementally get sucked into intervening in the Syrian conflict more deeply than he thought it should.
President Obama is “trying to defeat ISIS,” Sanders told ABC’s This Week on Nov. 8, 2015. “He's trying to get rid of this horrendous dictator, Assad. But at the same time, he doesn't want our troops stuck on the ground. And I agree with that. But I am maybe a little bit more conservative on this than he is. I worry that once we get sucked into this, once some of our troops get killed and once maybe a plane gets shot down, that we send more in and more in. But I will say this. [IS] must be defeated primarily by the Muslim nations in that region. America can't do it all. And we need an international coalition. Russia should be part of it — UK, France, the entire world — supporting Muslim troops on the ground, fighting for the soul of Islam and defeating this terrible [IS] organization."
Following the terrorist attacks in Paris on Nov. 13, Sanders said he supported Obama’s efforts to lead an international coalition to combat IS. Sanders, like Clinton and fellow Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, also strongly rejected Republican calls to block the admission of Syrian refugees, as well as what he called growing “Islamophobia” promoted by some Republican candidates.
“Now is the time — as President Obama is trying to do — to unite the world in an organized campaign against [IS] that will eliminate the stain of [IS] from this world,” Sanders told a campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio, on Nov. 16.
“What terrorism is about is trying to instill terror and fear into the hearts of people,” Sanders said. “And we will not let that happen. We will not be terrorized or live in fear. During these difficult times, we will not succumb to Islamophobia. We will not turn our backs on the refugees who are fleeing Syria and Afghanistan. We will do what we do best and that is be Americans — fighting racism, fighting xenophobia, fighting fear.”

Intellectual State of Emergency, The Occupied Territories of Progressive Thought
acques Tarnero/Gatestone Institute/December 12/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7022/intellectual-state-of-emergency
Who are today's racists?
A "March for Dignity" recently assembled outraged "anti-racists," who shouted insults in the name of universal love.
It was in the name of anti-racism that the progressives chanted "death to Jews" at the UN's Durban conference against racism in 2001.
Every week, the Place de la République has seen the roaring processions of the Sheikh Yassin Collective, inciting the hatred of Jews. Did anyone even care?
These "progressives" were strangely silent while a quarter of a million people were killed in Syria, while Yazidi women were sold into slavery, or when a new Caliph ordered the massacre of thousands in the name of Allah, or the mutilation and murder of Christians who refused to convert. Is that kind of behavior nothing more than bad taste?
Today the new virus of prejudice has two faces: brandishing a knife and trying to appear as innocent as a lamb.
The suffering of the Arabs, of the Palestinians and of the suburban youth is real, but will be alleviated only if there is first a critical examination of the delusional views on what is causing it. Neither the Jews nor Israel are at the root of this suffering.
The massacre perpetrated on November 13th in Paris was predictable and announced; only those who refuse to see things that clash with their ideological beliefs do not understand this. The ideological denial of reality remains the main reason for our inability to fight terrorists, whom many do not dare admit are Islamists.
For months now, our hatred has been directed only at those who have been urging us to open our eyes and call things by their real names. For months now, the demands not to associate an entire population with a few extremists, as well as calls to "stop Islamophobia," have been forcing us to close down our minds.
But who has been making this connection in the first place? Who actually are today's racists?
Every week, the Place de la République in Paris has seen the roaring processions of the Sheikh Yassin Collective, inciting the hatred of Jews. Did anyone even care? Recently, a "march for dignity" assembled outraged anti-racists, who shouted insults in the name of universal love, anti-racism and "fraternity" against several prominent Jewish philosophers and journalists, including Bernard-Henri Lévy, Éric Zemmour and Alain Finkielkraut.
Members of the "Sheikh Yassin Collective" demonstrate in support of Hamas, in Paris, on August 30, 2014.
What is this taste for hatred on full display in public debates, as well as on the streets of Paris? Some youths who adopted a Nazi identity are having a nostalgic sit-in on the Boulevard Saint Germain. They are demanding, right in the midst of the Latin Quarter, that the "Talmudist BHL" (Bernard-Henri Lévy) be expelled from the country -- and no one bats an eye.
When the multi-racial crowd, "Marching for Dignity," the supposed protectors of our universal conscience, descend into the streets to protest the pain and suffering of the offended, they denounce "racism" against "victims" -- usually non-French citizens of non-French origins: Muslims, Arabs, black Africans and others from the former French colonies -- all victims of a supposedly dominant "Islamophobia."[1]
In the midst of all these compassionate anti-racists, the Hamas flag -- from a group we all know to be so charitable and benevolent -- is unfurled. No one denies that there is racism in France but what is this French version of the Nation of Islam, in which suburban Black Panthers declare their hatred for France and the French?
They, who call themselves "Les Indigènes de la République," [Non-Ethnic French Citizens] take full advantage of the reigning anti-racist indignation. Today, no one dares to declare himself a "racist." Racism is the primordial evil. This struggle against racism is the first step toward a new awareness. Today, everyone is anti-racist except for those who practice a kind of "State racism." This idea, which corrupts history and is based on lies, today takes the place of Holocaust denial. The difference today is that these "Indigènes de la République" mobilize people from the projects under the benevolent guise of anti-racism.
There seems to be some confusion. That neo-Nazis denounce the Jews is nothing new, but what of the offended anti-racists who are "not Charlie"? What is the meaning of these slogans splashed across the protest signs of those "Marches for Dignity"? Who are these anti-racists denouncing "white power," while they assemble in the name of ethnic diversity? What demon possesses these people the minute the name of Israel is pronounced or the Star of David makes its appearance?
In the summer of 2015, the City of Paris invited the City of Tel Aviv as a partner for Paris's month-long "Paris Plage" (Paris Beach) event. That was all it took for a Mrs. Simmonet, an elected official from the left, to go into "progressive" fits and an anti-fascist stupor. "Shame on the City of Paris! Obscene invitation, etc. Inviting a colonial racist country, etc.!" We have never heard Mrs. Simmonet denounce trade between France and China, Egypt, Iran, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia, for instance.
"Is the mention of Israel pornographic?" one man says. Some people verge on hysteria, as if the mere mention of the word is a breach of global etiquette. These "progressives" were strangely silent while a quarter of a million people were killed in Syria, while Yazidi women were sold into slavery. They were quiet when two hundred schoolgirls were abducted in Nigeria, and when a new Caliph, in the name of Allah, ordered the massacre of thousands in Iraq or the mutilation and murder of Christians who refused to convert. Is that kind of behavior nothing more than bad taste?
However, if Israel expresses its concerns to the UN regarding explicit plans for its own annihilation by another country and member of this same UN, the exalted Human Rights Commission (in which our dear friend, Saudi Arabia, participates) hastens to denounce the savagery of the Jewish state.
Since the 1970s, anti-Zionism has managed to mainstream ancient racist Jew-hate. This new virus has now supplanted the even more ancient virus of hating Jews as individuals -- a bigotry that led to their massacre, burning, expulsion, and the destruction of their books. It also led to baseless accusations, collective blame for all sorts of ills, blanket condemnation, and finally to their being gassed. At its peak, under Nazism, this hatred then regressed over 20 years, but at the end of the 1960s, it began mutating, and the word "Israel" took on a repellent character no one could have foreseen.
This racist mutation was completed at a UN conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001, when the old, unmentionable antisemitism was merged with a new, liberating anti-Zionism. It was in the name of anti-racism that the progressives chanted "death to Jews" at the UN conference against racism.
This disease of the mind seems extraordinarily mutable, with the capacity to reproducing under different guises. Today the new virus has two faces: brandishing a knife, and trying to appear as innocent as a lamb.
Why raise the recurring issue of hatred for the Jews now, a hatred which has turned into hatred for Israel? Because this is at the heart of this current rabid insanity. Because it is the seed of hatred that the Islamists have planted against Western civilization. What more can be said that has not already been said? Why are hundreds of thousands of people drinking from the cup of this religion that dares not say its name?
This hatred for Israel takes on the same characteristics in the 21st century as the collective medieval belief that blamed the Jews for the bubonic plague. Remember when sharks began attacking tourists in Sharm el-Sheikh, and the Egyptian director of tourism placed the blame on the Mossad? He claimed it had trained these killer sharks so that tourists would flee Egypt and harm its economy; no one has yet explained how the sharks were trained not to eat Egyptians.
"Pro-Palestinians" often do not really care about Palestine. For them, this truly compelling cause is nothing more than fiction: it is hatred for Israel that mobilizes them.
The basic reproach was formulated, simply, by the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Israel, he said,would be "illegitimate" -- meaning it has no right to exist. That is indeed what is being said or thought: Israel, nobody wants you. Please disappear. The world would be so peaceful if it were not for your wrench in the works.
When the journalist Edwy Plenel, the self-proclaimed vigilante against the lies of the government, quoted Nelson Mandela in order to condemn Israel, the quote was discovered to be totally made up. "If I have committed a factual error," he said, "at least I was politically correct!"
During the fall of 2015, the French newspaper Le Monde led the charge against the hidden source of all of our political ills. What worries our anti-fascist vigilantes is the threat of the Front National, led by Marine Le Pen, as well as that popular thought leaning toward the right. Those who are leading this shift to the right must therefore, according to Daniel Lindenbergh, be named and called out. They are Michel Houellebecq, Éric Zemmour and Alain Finkielkraut. How does this view contaminate the mind? Read their works. In France there is no worse insult than being called a racist, but in intellectual circles it is even worse to be called a "reac" (reactionary). If you have murdered your mother and father, there will always be some sort of reason, however subtle, for your actions. But to be called a "reac" is too harsh. It is unbearable. The "reac" thinker is now the new enemy.
The thinkers have found a new home, and the left a new dogma. Here, in order of top priority, is France's greatest enemy: those-intellectuals-who-are-used-by-the-Front-National and who must be flushed out and their names added to the blacklist.[2] What would become of enlightened thinking without the illusory safety of the Front National? The specter of "the darkest years of our history" of the 1940s is often used by those who claim to be Enlightened and to represent universal love.
So here is the predictable return of the already seen, read and heard Fascist menace -- this prefabricated artificial idea that invents radical enemies to avoid dealing with complexities it pretends to understand. [3]
More recently, another incident added to this reversal of causes and responsibilities. The historian Georges Bensoussan is at risk of being summoned by the MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples) "before a criminal court for racial slurs and incitement to hatred and racial violence." The reason is apparently having dared to bring up the antisemitism that is commonplace in the Arabic and Muslim culture in the Maghreb.[4]
If the Republic suffers today in so many areas riddled with such a brotherly hatred, it is because it refuses to face the evil that is devouring it. The suffering of the Arabs, of the Palestinians and of the suburban youth is real, but will be alleviated only if there is first a critical examination of the delusional views on what is causing it. Neither the Jews nor Israel is at the root of this suffering. What is causing it is what happened to this culture -- born from Islam, or from Arabic heritage -- always to place the blame elsewhere when it is itself the source of the current disaster. It is not Israel that is bombing and starving the Yarmouk Palestinian camp in Syria. The historian Bernard Lewis asked the timely question "What Went Wrong?" to cause this heritage to go so far astray? Placing the blame elsewhere was the answer.
This failure of thought not only affects the Arabic and Muslim world. It also affects the ideas of the progressives.
Would the 21st century see the posthumous victory of Comrade Stalin? Have we not learned the lessons of the blinded intellectuals in front of seductive totalitarian ideologies? One fears that the ideological denial of facts -- in exchange for demanded intellectual opium for "unity" -- will remain the norm. These dogmas, even in the name of progressivism and anti-racism, do not eliminate evil, they only lead to deeper graves. Run, Comrade. Graves might be behind you, but the cutthroats are out in front.
Jacques Tarnero, affiliated with the Cité des sciences et de l'Industie, Paris, specializes in the study of racism.
This article was originally published in a slightly different form in French. Gatestone is most grateful to the author for his kind permission to publish it in English.
[1] Quoting the spokesperson for the Indigènes de la République
[2] Which the historian Daniel Lindenberg is getting ready to publish.
[3] On the heels of the Charlie Hebdo and Jewish supermarket attacks, Philippe Lioret, director of the movie "Welcome," a film about the conditions of illegal migrants in France in 2008, stated on France Inter radio: "I have had this idea for a while that I never hear in the news. Who, historically, is responsible for this crisis? The Six Day War for example. In 1967, the Israelis entered into West Bank and Gaza. They dispossessed the Palestinians. Wasn't this the beginning of a terrible transformation of the Arabic identity that brings today this type of Islamic fundamentalism (...) The West is always to blame. The ones with the money," he concludes,"are the ones that decide."
[4] A petition signed by about twenty people was sent to the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (the French TV and radio regulatory body) to decry the statements made by Bensoussan during a debate with Patrick Weil during a program called "Répliques" hosted by Alain Finkielkraut on France Culture on Saturday, October 10, 2015.
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Is PA on verge of collapse?
Adnan Abu Amer/Al-Monitor/December 12/15
Security and military measures by the Israeli authorities have been ongoing in the West Bank since Oct. 1. Palestinians are being arrested, cities are being dismembered and homes demolished in an attempt to stop the unrest.
At the height of the Israeli-Palestinian tension, the leak published by Haaretz Nov. 21 came as a surprise. According to the Israeli newspaper, Israel's mini-Cabinet for political and security affairs discussed on Oct. 19 and 20 the possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the measures to be taken should this happen.
Some Israeli ministers, such as Education Minister Naftali Bennett and Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, said Nov. 27 that the collapse of the PA would serve some of Israel’s interests and demanded that their government not prevent such an occurrence.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Dec. 1 that he does not wish for the PA to break down, for fear of worse alternatives that might harm Israel’s security.
The PA has not issued any official commentary on the news. This scenario is no academic debate, but an issue discussed by Israel's political, military and security decision-makers.
Some PA figures, however, ruled out this possibility, as Abdullah Abdullah, head of the Political Committee of Fatah’s Legislative Council, said Nov. 28 that what is happening is an attempt by Israel to pressure the Palestinian leadership.
On Dec. 5, in a speech to the Saban Forum at the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings in Washington, US Secretary of State John Kerry warned against dissolving the PA, as it would pose a threat to Israel.
Sufian Abu Zaid, a member of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council, told Al-Monitor, “Israeli officials have yet to reach an agreement on the hypothetical collapse of the PA. While right-wing ministers favor this scenario, the opposition, security services and the army are against it, considering that the gradual collapse and the alternative to the PA would cause further security chaos in the West Bank.”
Kerry’s warnings about the collapse of the PA in conjunction with the Israeli government deliberations may have been more than coincidence. This could be related to the deterioration of relations between Israel and the PA, as Israel has been unable to halt the wave of Palestinian attacks despite heavy military and security action, not to mention Israel’s increasing incitement and Israeli Minister of Defense Moshe Ya'alon's Nov. 30 accusation that the PA is unable to stop the attacks.
The former minister of information in the Hamas government, Yousef Rizq, told Al-Monitor, “The Israeli deliberations on the scenario of the PA collapse are serious and not blown out of proportion. Israel has been banking on a regional solution through its enhanced relations with some Arab states through calling for a regional conference with the participation of Arab states where there is the possibility of overriding the PA. This is what the Israeli right has put forth, as it seeks to annex all Palestinian areas in the West Bank to Israel.”
Rizk added, “The PA collapse scenario may play out, given the Israeli right-wing positions. In this case, Israel would find difficulties in running the Palestinians’ affairs in the West Bank, and may return to the pre-PA period prior to 1994. This would mean that Israel will be forced to bear [further] administrative, economic and security burdens.”
At the moment, Palestinians may not have a firm idea of how a potential collapse may play out, such as through a comprehensive Israeli military operation sweeping the West Bank that could restrict President Mahmoud Abbas’ movement, as happened with late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat in 2002.
However, Israel could also start gradually targeting Palestinian security services in the West Bank and arresting some of its members for being involved in attacks against it. Most recently, Israeli forces shot and killed Palestinian intelligence officer Mazen Oraiba, who ran over Israeli soldiers in north Jerusalem on Dec. 3.
Israel could also stop the transfer of tax funds to the PA, leading to the gradual breakdown of the PA. The latter would be unable to pay its employees, especially security staff, who in turn would not be able to work. All this would lead to security chaos in the West Bank.
Al-Monitor met with a PA security officer who preferred to remain anonymous to discuss the PA collapse scenario expected by the Israelis. He said, “Israel may go as far as to divide the West Bank into several geographical areas under the control of an Israeli military commander, who would have control over the security measures to stop Palestinians’ attacks against Israelis. This scenario could involve establishing cement checkpoints around villages and towns, whereby the Israeli army would prevent car traffic between Palestinian cities. Such measures would undermine the PA control over the West Bank, weakening its influence and thus paving the way to its gradual collapse.”
These statements are in line with an article by the editor-in-chief of al-Hayat al-Jadida, which has ties to the PA. Hafez Barghouti wrote Aug. 15 that should the PA truly collapse, Israeli Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai would coordinate the operations of the Israeli government in the occupied Palestinian territories, including the West Bank.
Perhaps the biggest problem facing Israel should the PA collapse would be the unknown fate of the armed Palestinian security forces. Their thousands of weapons could fall into the hands of the Palestinians carrying out attacks against Israelis in the ongoing unrest that could turn into clashes. This possibility could make Israel think twice before trying to dissolve the PA.
Hani Masri, general director of Masarat, the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Strategic Studies in Ramallah, told Al-Monitor, “An Israeli massacre against the Palestinians, a fundamental change in the situation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, a martyrdom operation that results in a large number of Israeli dead or in the death of President Abbas, Abbas’ resignation prior to agreeing on his successor or a change in the current Palestinian policy toward confronting the Israeli occupation are all developments that could lead to the collapse of the PA.”
It may be true that the PA neither fully supports nor stands against the uprising. Yet this hesitation does not seem to be enough for Israeli decision-makers, and it may prompt them to adopt a gradual policy toward brinkmanship, to put pressure on the PA and make it feel that it is doomed to collapse if it does not oppose the uprising. The PA does not seem likely to announce a stance anytime soon.

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