LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 18/15

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletins05/english.september18.15.htm

Bible Quotation For Today/Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.
Mark 08/31-38: "Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things. ’He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Bible Quotation For Today/Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation
Second Letter of Peter 03/10-18: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 17-18/15
Netanyahu can't stop Putin, but he can coordinate with the Russians in Syria/ALON BEN-DAVID/J.Post/September 17/15
US Jews can support both Israel and the Iran deal/Ynetnews/Yael Patir/September 17/15
We've got your back Bibi'/Yitzhak Benhorin/September 17/15
The Russians are saving Assad from Iran/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
Does Japan need to be involved in the Middle East/Faisal J. Abbas/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
Has U.S. policy changed after Saudi king’s visit/Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
#IStandWithAhmed shows America at its best, and worst/Joyce Karam/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
Turkey’s Erdogan: The method behind his madness/Dr. John C. Hulsman/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
Why Do Muslims Flock to The "Evil West/Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/September 17/15
UN Gives Palestinians Flags, But No Democracy/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/September 17/15
Why Western Nations Should Only Accept Christian Refugees/Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/September 17/15
Why Are Christian Soldiers in Egypt Harassed and Killed/Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/September 17/15
Khamenei asks IRGC to prevent 'enemy’s influence'/Arash Karami/ Al-Monitor/September 17/15
What Iran Is Permitted To Do Under The JCPOA/Yigal Carmon/MEMRI /September 17/15
US to name coordinator for implementing Iran nuclear deal/Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/September 17/15
Egyptian Coptic Church tapped to play the role of mediator in Nile River dispute/Ayah Aman/ Al-Monitor/September 17/15
Congress rethinks anti-Assad stance/Author Julian Pecquet/Al-Monitor/September 17/15
Are Muslims Fatalists/Daniel Pipes/Middle East Quarterly/September 17/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on September 17-18/15
U.N. Chief: Lebanon Hosting Syrian Refugees Equal to 25% of Population
Shehayyeb Dismisses Masnaa as Landfill
Protesters Urge Sacking of Interior, Environment Ministers, Call Sunday Demo
Environment Ministry Protesters Suspend Hunger Strike
Lebanon’s interior minister: Protesters want to be beaten
Choucair: Civil Society Calls Righteous but Vandalizing Central Beirut is Rejected
Bkirki Officials Urge Dialogue Participants for Swift Action over Presidency
Lebanese Energy Minister Promises Additional 3-Hour Power Supply

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 17-18/15
Pope Wears Cross of Slain Iraqi Priest
U.S. Open to Talks with Russia on Syria
U.N. Envoy in Syria for Talks as West Sees Russian Buildup
Ahrar al-Sham: a new leader without a new agenda
Islamist' Shot Dead after Knife Attack on German Policewoman
Saudi King Seeks 'Urgent' U.N. Action on Al-Aqsa
Syria starts using new Russian arms: source
Saudi Arabia denounces Israeli actions at Jerusalem's al-Aksa mosque
Netanyahu: Battle with Washington over Iran deal served Israel’s interests, didn't harm ties

Links From Jihad Watch Web site For Today

U.N. Chief: Lebanon Hosting Syrian Refugees Equal to 25% of Population
Naharnet/September 17/15/U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has praised Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey for taking in millions of refugees from the war in Syria, which is now in its fifth year. “Lebanon is hosting Syrian refugees equal in number to 25 per cent of its population,” Ban told a news conference on Wednesday less than 10 days before world leaders gather at the U.N. Headquarters in New York for general debate of the 70th session of the General Assembly. “Jordan is also a major per capita host, providing shelter to Syrians equal to almost 10 per cent of its population,” he said. “Nearly 10 per cent of Syria’s pre-war population -- some 2 million people -- today live in Turkey,” Ban stated. “I commend those countries that are admirably doing all they can for people in need,” he told the news conference. The U.N. chief cited Germany, Sweden and Austria "for opening up doors and showing solidarity" and applauded Britain and Kuwait for providing financial aid to address the refugee crisis. But he made clear that other European countries were lacking in their response. "I ask those standing in the way of the rights of refugees to stand in their shoes," he said. "People facing barrel bombs and brutality in their country will continue to seek life in another. People with few prospects at home will continue to seek opportunity elsewhere.""This is natural. It is what any of us would do for ourselves and for our children."

Shehayyeb Dismisses Masnaa as Landfill
Naharnet/September 17/15/Agriculture Minister Akram Shahayyeb stated on Thursday that the ministerial waste committee has dismissed the possibility of opening a landfill in the al-Masaa area in the eastern Bekaa valley because geological reports have shown that it will affect the ground water. “Reports of the geological experts tasked with studying the location of possible landfills have shown that opening one in al-Masnaa near the customs area could affect the ground water,” said Shehayyeb. “We have therefore dismissed the idea of setting one over there,” he told al-Mustaqbal daily in an interview. “Efforts are ongoing to find an environmentally appropriate alternative in the light of the reports of experts.”The Minister has assured that he held a series of contacts that included PM Tammam Salam where discussions focused on the trash plan. He concluded saying that the outcomes of his meeting with Tashnag party representatives where they discussed the Bourj Hammoud landfill were very “acceptable.”Last week, hopes had been raised after the government approved a waste plan for the months-long crisis that was suggested by Shehayyeb following the biggest anti-government protests in years. The plan called for waste management to be turned over to municipalities which would have 18 months to prepare the necessary infrastructure, the temporary expansion of two landfills and the reopening for seven days of the Naameh dump south of Beirut, which was closed in July.

Protesters Urge Sacking of Interior, Environment Ministers, Call Sunday Demo
Naharnet/September 17/15/The so-called follow-up committee of the popular protest movement called Thursday for the resignation of the interior and environment ministers over perceived violations and announced that it will organize a march Sunday from Bourj Hammoud to central Beirut's al-Nejmeh Square. “We demand the release of all detainees held in connection with the August 22, 23 and 29 demos and an end to any legal measures against them,” the committee said in a statement, a day after dozens of protesters were arrested during a downtown Beirut sit-in. “Authorities' behavior yesterday was premeditated,” the committee noted. It pointed out that “there is a clear decision to crush the protest movement, and as they were meeting around the dialogue table, they sent their thugs to beat us up.”The activists organized a sit-in to coincide with Wednesday's national dialogue session in parliament. TV footage showed police dragging at least two protesters on the ground while violently beating them both. Protesters accused the Internal Security Forces of using excessive force against them as the ISF stressed that it respects “the people's freedom of expression and peaceful demonstration rights.” Later on Wednesday, young men claiming to be supporters of Speaker Nabih Berri attacked protesters at a hunger strike camp and destroyed their tents over alleged insults against the parliament speaker.The committee urged Thursday an end to “arbitrary arrests,” adding that Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq “must be held accountable and sacked” and that “an independent, transparent probe must be launched to hold accountable anyone who gave orders and covered up for the abuses that were committed against protesters.”
The activists also reiterated their call for the resignation of Environment Minister Mohammed al-Mashnouq over “his negligence in shouldering his responsibilities regarding the garbage disaster as well as his covering up for corruption that spanned 20 years.”Accordingly, the committee called for devising “an immediate emergency plan to tackle the environmental disaster that would involve declaring a state of alert in line with the Civil Defense Law.”It also reiterated the call for “speeding up the release of funds to municipalities to enable them to perform their waste management role” and organizing “early parliamentary polls that would secure the representation of all social categories without discrimination and away from sectarian polarization.”The activists concluded their statement by calling for a massive march on Sunday at 5:00 pm from Bourj Hammoud to al-Nejmeh Square, stressing that “the popular protests will continue against the corrupt ruling class.”The trash crisis has ignited the largest Lebanese protests in years and has emerged as a festering symbol of the government's paralysis and failure to provide basic services. It was sparked by popular anger over the heaps of trash accumulating in the streets of Beirut and Mount Lebanon after authorities closed Lebanon's largest landfill in Naameh on July 17 and failed to provide an alternative. Campaigns like "You Stink" have managed to bring tens of thousands of people into the streets in unprecedented non-partisan and non-sectarian demonstrations against the ruling political class.

Environment Ministry Protesters Suspend Hunger Strike
Naharnet/September 17/15/Protesters holding a sit-in near the Environment Ministry in downtown Beirut announced on Thursday an end to their hunger strike but said their tents will remain in the area. “We achieved our objective. We held him (Environment Minister Mohammed al-Mashnouq) accountable through street protests,” said hunger striker Waref Suleiman at a press conference. Only one young man will continue in his hunger strike while the rest will join other activists holding street protests, he said. “The tents will remain here as a symbol” of our protest, Suleiman added. The young men erected tents and went on hunger strike after protesters from “You Stink” movement stormed the environment ministry earlier this month, demanding al-Mashnouq's resignation over his failure to resolve the waste crisis. Angry protests that suddenly erupted over the government's failure to deal with the garbage crisis have evolved into the most serious anti-government demonstrations in Lebanon in years. The protesters seek to challenge a political class that has dominated Lebanon and undermined its growth since its civil war ended in 1990.

Lebanon’s interior minister: Protesters want to be beaten
Nohad Machnouk said demonstrators were arrested Wednesday for insulting ISF members.
BEIRUT – Lebanon’s interior minister has claimed that grassroots activists protesting against the government want to be beaten in demonstrations, a day after security forces responded to a protest with a heavy-handed response. “[Some of the demonstrators] are looking for someone to beat them so they can bleed on the street,” Nohad Machnouk said in a Wednesday night interview on the TV outlet of his political party, the Future Movement. “There are those who want to show that they were beaten up or wounded, they want to be depicted as the victims and the oppressed,” he added. Machnouk’s interview came hours after security forces beat and arrested dozens of protesters in Downtown Beirut after the #YouStink movement attempted to block Lebanese leaders from joining a national dialogue session. Amid heavy security measures in the Downtown district, confrontations erupted between riot police and protesters throughout the morning protest, with a number of pictures, videos as well as television feeds showing clear-cut cases of police brutality. An-Nahar footage of security forces beating detained protesters. Machnouk vehemently defended the conduct of the security forces, adding that protesters had been arrested for verbally insulting Internal Security Forces (ISF) members. “Their task is not to protect the protesters right to insult the Internal Security Forces by name and with foul language,” the minister said, stressing that Lebanese laws do not allow demonstrators to abuse security. “Consequently, this matter necessitated the application of the law through their arrest. Then the judiciary ordered their release.” “If the demonstrators want to keep their right to expression and protection, and their right to protest, they must [understand] that the people in front of them are humans with feelings, dignity and responsibility.”Machnouk claimed that “even the ISF’s women were subjected to… insults; everyone heard it [live] on air.”Female ISF officers on Wednesday were tasked with the arrest of women protesters, with live footage and pictures showing the officers using strong force to restrain seemingly peaceful activists. #YouStink announced that 40 demonstrators were arrested Wednesday, while activists reported a number of civil society organizers had been swept up in the heavy-handed security sweep, including a hunger striker who had gone 14-days without food and was released in the late afternoon. The arrests prompted civil society organizations to call for a sit-in Wednesday evening in Downtown Beirut until the release of the detained protesters. Approximately 2,000 activists gathered at Riad al-Solh Square following the day of violence, dispersing only after authorities released detainees in the night. Machnouk, however, downplayed the strength of the anti-government movement, which attracted tens of thousands of Lebanese for a mass rally on August 29 to protest the country’s worsening trash crisis. “The size of the movement today is severely limited,” he said in the interview.

Choucair: Civil Society Calls Righteous but Vandalizing Central Beirut is Rejected
Naharnet/September 17/15/Head of the Beirut Chambers of Commerce Mohammed Choucair stressed on Thursday that the demands of the civil society campaigners are righteous but denounced the spiraling chaos in downtown Beirut that he sees as an attempt to close it down.
“We support activists who are open to logical solutions. Their demands are righteous but we strongly denounce the systematic attempts to vandalize downtown of Beirut,” said Choucair in a press conference titled To Save the Heart of Beirut. “There are systematic attempts to close down what is left of the institutions there,” he emphasized. Choucair appealed to the lawmakers of Beirut for quick action and to “take deterrent measures to stop the horrible deteriorating conditions.”For his part, the spokesman of the company of Solidere Nasser al-Shammaa said: “Downtown Beirut had a prominent role over the years in the revival of tourism in Lebanon. Institutions in central Beirut contribute significantly to the revitalization of the economic cycle and tourism and thus support the Lebanese economy.”President of the Beirut Traders Association Nicholas Chammas noted: “The Souks are compelled to close down because of the recurrent crises.“The center of the capital suffers from three overlapping economic crises that include a bad economic situation, tight security measures and the absence of Arab tourists.”He concluded by saying: “We respect the mobility of the civil society. Their demands are ours, but things are deviating out of track.”Downtown Beirut has been an action scene lately for demonstrations raging over a waste-management crisis that erupted in July. The demos kicked off when the largest landfill that receives the trash of Beirut and Mount Lebanon closed, leaving the country drowning in garbage and the foul smell of rotting trash filling nostrils and lungs. Protests angered over the government's dysfunction are turning into Lebanon's largest movement in years, targeting an entire political class. However, campaigners who chose the location of their demos in the capital's downtown, infamous for its tourist attraction but losing the luster with recurrent crises, took their anger on the public property smashing traffic lights, setting out fires and spray painting walls.

Bkirki Officials Urge Dialogue Participants for Swift Action over Presidency
Naharnet/September 17/15/Officials in Bkirki said the national dialogue on the presidential vacuum would prolong the crisis, urging top officials who are holding all-party talks to take a “historic” decision that would lead to the election of a new head of state. The officials, who were not identified, told the Kuwaiti al-Seyassah newspaper published Thursday that “the conferees should take a historic decision, which would lead to the removal of obstacles facing the presidential elections and help fill the vacuum.” The election of a head of state would give back Christians their rights and fix the current flaw in the balance among different Lebanese sects, they said. The officials called for holding onto the Constitution and for parliament to elect the president, in a clear rejection to a proposal made by Change and Reform bloc leader MP Michel Aoun for direct elections. A new government would be formed and parliamentary elections be held based on a fair and balanced electoral draft-law after the election of the head of state, they said. The country's top Christian post has been vacant since the term of President Michel Suleiman ended in May last year. Huge differences between the March 8 and 14 alliances have caused the vacuum.The rivals are now tackling the presidential crisis and other controversial issues at the national dialogue chaired by Speaker Nabih Berri.

Lebanese Energy Minister Promises Additional 3-Hour Power Supply
Naharnet/September 17/15/Energy Minister Arthur Nazarian vowed on Thursday to increase power supplies but said electricity in Lebanon will not improve without an appropriate plan approved by politicians. “Two more plants will be in service soon to increase power supply by three hours,” Nazarian said at a press conference he held with Electricite du Liban's chairman Kamal al-Hayek. “But electricity will not improve without an appropriate plan,” he said. Nazarian said his ministry had recently worked on having a 19 percent increase in power supply. “But these improvements suffered as a result of the Syrian crisis and additional demand for electricity.”Lebanon is hosting around 1.5 million Syrian refugees, an enormous strain for a country with a population of just four million. The influx has tested the country's overstretched infrastructure and created tensions. At the press conference, Hayek denied that EDL had leaked a list including the names of politicians who haven't paid their bills. The list is confidential and has been sent to the financial prosecutor's office, he said. The names on the list that was published on Thursday are old, Hayek added. Financial Prosecutor Judge Ali Ibrahim ruled on Wednesday that power would be cut off from the homes and institutions of politicians who had not paid their bills. Lebanon has been suffering from severe power cuts during the hot summer season, leading to growing frustration among the people. Power is rationed, including in Beirut where many businesses and apartment blocks use generators to tide them over during lengthy blackouts. The problem runs far back. An outdated electricity grid and lack of reform after the bloody civil war has left supply lagging way behind rising demand.

Pope Wears Cross of Slain Iraqi Priest
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 17/15/Pope Francis revealed Thursday that he now wears a cross that belonged to a Iraqi priest who was wearing it when he was slain for his faith. He said he had been given it by another Iraqi priest he met on St Peter's square. "It is a cross this priest had in his hands when he had his throat cut for refusing to renounce Jesus Christ," the pontiff told a gathering of young monks and nuns. "This cross, I wear it here," he added, indicating his chest. Francis, who has regularly spoken out on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, added: "Today we have more martyrs than in the first centuries (after Christ)."Iraq is now home to an estimated 400,000 Christians, compared to 1.4 million in 1987. The rise of the Islamic State grouping is the latest factor driving them out of the country with witnesses having recounted how the militant group threatens them with death or punitive taxes if they do no convert to Islam.

U.S. Open to Talks with Russia on Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 17/15/The White House said Thursday it was open to limited talks with Russia following Moscow's deployment of troops and heavy weapons to war-torn Syria. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the United States could be willing to take up a Russian offer of talks so long as they were "tactical, practical discussions."Amid suspicions that Russia is moving to further prop up Syrian President Bashar Assad, President Barack Obama's critics are sure to pounce on the decision. It was not immediately clear whether the discussions would be held by the military or civilians, or at what level. Military dialogue between Russia and the United States had been suspended since 2014, following Moscow's annexation of Ukraine. The White House said it would use the talks to urge Russia to focus its actions in Syria on countering the Islamic State group. Moscow has long portrayed Assad's army as a bulwark against Islamist rebels, including the Islamic State, and has sent military equipment and trainers to bolster his position. ashington views Assad as a pariah who shoulders the blame for driving Syria into a civil war that has killed 240,000 people and displaced four million. "We have made clear that Russia's military actions inside of Syria, if they are used to prop up the Assad regime, would be destabilizing and counterproductive," said Earnest. "That all being said, we have long indicated we could welcome constructive contributions from the Russians to the anti-ISIL coalition," he said, using an acronym for Islamic State. "That is why we remain open to tactical, practical discussions with the Russians in order to further the goals of the counter-ISIL coalition and to ensure the safe conduct of the coalition operations."

U.N. Envoy in Syria for Talks as West Sees Russian Buildup
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 17/15/The U.N. envoy for Syria discussed his peace proposals with officials in Damascus on Thursday, as Western fears grow that Russia is ramping up military support for President Bashar Assad. Experts said Russia's steadfast backing for Assad and the growing waves of Syrians seeking refuge in the West might force Europe to abandon its goal of regime change to achieve peace. The U.N.'s Syria pointman Staffan de Mistura held talks with Foreign Minister Walid Muallem during his sixth visit to Damascus in search of an end to a four-year-old war in which 240,000 people have died. "We will continue the meetings," de Mistura told reporters afterwards, declining to elaborate. The visit comes after the envoy was strongly criticized by the Syrian government last month for "making statements that lack objectivity and facts" about deadly regime air raids.
According to Syria's official news agency SANA, de Mistura met with Muallem to address the regime's questions about the envoy's proposed 60-page peace plan. The initiative, set to begin this month, was submitted to Damascus in mid-August by de Mistura's deputy, Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy. It would set up four working groups to address safety and protection, counterterrorism, political and legal issues and reconstruction. But Syria's regime does not want the committee's conclusions to be mandatory, a diplomat in Damascus told AFP. SANA quoted de Mistura as saying the working groups' meetings "would be for brainstorming and would not be binding."Muallem for his part said that "fighting terrorism in Syria is the priority, and that it would be the gateway to a political solution in Syria."The regime refers to all of its opponents -- including non-violent activists -- as "terrorists."
Fighting terrorism 'only way'
Syria's al-Watan newspaper, which is close to the government, said Thursday that the regime and Russia were "on the same page concerning the solution to the crisis" but that the U.N. had different priorities. The Syrian and Russian leaders "have signaled that there is no political solution without defeating terrorism. It's the only way to put an end to the war in Syria," the daily wrote. But it said that de Mistura's plan "is aligned with the positions held by the 'opposition coalition,' America, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, who want the political solution to come before the fight against terrorism." The U.S., Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have been leading backers of the political and armed opposition throughout Syria's conflict, which has forced millions to flee since it broke out in 2011. Washington has expressed serious concern in recent weeks that Russia, a decades-long backer of Syria's regime, is escalating its military aid to forces loyal to Assad. Russia has reportedly moved artillery units and tanks to an airport in Assad's coastal stronghold in Latakia province, along with dozens of personnel and temporary housing for hundreds more. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that Moscow had proposed opening a "military-to-military conversation" with Washington to ensure that Russian forces do not come into conflict with a U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State group jihadists.Kerry did not specify whether the proposed dialogue would include a joint fight against IS.
'Stability at all costs'
Combined with Moscow's staunch backing for Assad, the arrival of thousands of Syrian asylum-seekers may also push Europe to adopt a new approach towards the regime, experts said. "Indeed, after the migrant crisis, we heard several European voices pleading for a closer cooperation with Assad and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin," said Karim Bitar, head of research at the Paris-based Institute for International and Strategic Relations. "Clearly, the 'stability at all costs' narrative is rapidly gaining ground. After the Libyan debacle and the unending Syrian tragedy, many people came to mistakenly believe that a return to authoritarianism is the only solution to the Middle East crisis," Bitar told AFP. "The proponents of the 'Assad as a lesser-evil' theory are now more vocal and coming out openly in favor of a rapprochement with Assad to fight IS," he added. IS meanwhile has called on Muslims to seek safety in its so-called "caliphate" in areas of Syria and Iraq under its control following a string of migrant shipwreck tragedies. One IS-produced video, depicting refugees trying to reach Europe, says refugees "are living under their (European countries) laws humiliated and submissive, instead of fleeing to the land of Muslims to live in dignity under its sword."

Ahrar al-Sham: a new leader without a new agenda
Haid Haid/Now Lebanon/September 17/15
“After the end of Sheikh Hashim al-Sheikh’s [aka Abu Jaber] term as the leader of Ahrar al-Sham’s Islamic Movement and his refusal to extend it, the Movement’s Shura Council met and agreed on appointing the engineer brother Muhannad al-Masri [aka Abu Yahya al-Hamwi] as the commander in chief of Ahrar al-Sham’s Islamic Movement.”This surprising change in the leadership of the movement was published in a public statement on 12 September, just one year after Al-Sheikh was appointed. It’s worth noting that against expectations Al-Sheikh succeeded in assuring the group’s survival through the hardest period in its history following the killing of the majority of its leadership in September 2014. So, why was this change made how it might it impact the strategy of one of the biggest and most powerful rebel groups in the country?
Significance
This allegedly voluntary rotation in power is the first of its kind in the history of armed groups in the Syrian conflict. Group leaders usually stay in power either until they die, get arrested or the group gets dissolved. It’s also not common that groups survive after they lose their leaders — they either split up and join other groups or they become weak as members start defecting. This also shows the group’s significant ability to adopt and turn challenges into opportunities. More than 40 of the group’s top leaders were killed on 9 September 2014 in a gas attack during a top-level meeting in one their most secured underground bases in Idlib. Since then the group has not only been able to survive but has grown and become stronger. It also seems that the group has been able to benefit from the tragic incident by starting a new tradition in power sharing, which is exactly what Al-Sheikh tweeted after the new leader was appointed: ”Ahrar al-Sham’s soldiers are brought up to be attached to the project rather than clinging to personalities.”That the group has been able to change leadership twice in one year without damaging its capabilities also shows that there is power superior to specific leaders and that that power has the final say. It’s not clear what that power is — it could be the group’s ability to act in an institutionalized way with clear structure and management mechanisms. It could also be the group’s ruling Shura council, or perhaps a strong regional supporter with a clear strategy.
The new leader
Mohannad al-Masri is a Syrian civil engineer born in 1981. He was arrested and put in Sednaya Prison in rural Damascus in 2007, allegedly for an affiliation with Islamist groups, and was freed after the Syrian revolution broke out in 2011 with a large number of prisoners known for their support for radical groups. After his release, he engaged in peaceful demonstrations and later supported the armed uprising, becoming leader of the Osama bin Zeidbattalion, a small armed group based in his hometown in Al-Ghab plain. This was allegedly the first armed group working under the Ahrar al-Sham banner. He then moved on to occupy a higher position, serving as Ahrar al-Sham’s head of operations in rural Hama before being appointed as a deputy leader under Al-Sheikh in 2014.
What for?
There is still no verified information as to why the group changed its leader, however many theories are being discussed. The first one is the official reason given by the group: the current leader refused to extend his term so as to pump new blood into the leadership. It could be as simple as that, but what makes it difficult to believe is that the group wasn’t previously in the habit of changing its leadership and furthermore, the new leader was already part of the leadership. Even if Al-Sheikh really didn’t want to extend his term, the change could still be for other reasons than the ones they gave. The second reason could be to reduce internal divisions between moderates and hardliners within the group. Under Al-Sheikh’s leadership, the group made many amendments meant to change the people’s perception of them as a conservative group. These amendments varied from dismissing hardliners from leadership positions to reaching out to the Western public as a credible partner and finally welcoming Turkish intervention in northern Syria in the establishment of a no-fly zone, thereby contradicting the position of many hardliners and jihadist scholars. But this is difficult to believe given that interviews with various members in the group confirmed that the new leader has actively participated in changing the group’s discourse along with Al-Sheikh — his appointment therein wouldn’t do the trick. It’s likely that more information about the leadership change will emerge soon, but it’s highly unlikely that there will be any significant shift the group’s political discourse. It’s also quite likely that the group will continue to reach out to the West and present itself as a credible alternative to Bashar Assad and as an active local partner in the fight against ISIS.
Haid Haid is a Syrian researcher based in Istanbul. He tweets @HaidHaid22

Islamist' Shot Dead after Knife Attack on German Policewoman
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 17/15/German police on Thursday shot dead an Iraqi man who wounded a policewoman with a knife in Berlin, with prosecutors saying he was a "suspected Islamist."The 41-year-old man had previously been sentenced in 2008 to a jail term for planning an attack against former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, a prosecution spokesman told AFP. In the incident Thursday, four police cars were called to the western Berlin district of Spandau when the man was reported acting aggressively toward passers-by, police said. When a policewoman approached him, he stabbed her with a knife, leaving her badly wounded before her colleagues opened fire, killing the Iraqi man. Prosecution service spokesman Martin Steltner identified the man as "Rafik Y.", saying he was sentenced in 2008 to an eight year prison term for his role in a plot against Allawi. National news agency DPA said the man had removed an electronic ankle monitor he had been ordered to wear. In the 2008 court case, Rafik Mohamad Yousef was one of three Iraqi men sentenced to jail terms. The three were convicted of belonging to a foreign terrorist organization -- Iraqi militant group Ansar al-Islam -- and attempted conspiracy to commit murder. The court found that their plot to assassinate Allawi had been hatched only days before his brief trip to Berlin in December 2004. Authorities insist they foiled the planned attack but conceded before the start of the trial in June 2006 that they knew too little of the plan to charge the defendants with attempted murder.

Saudi King Seeks 'Urgent' U.N. Action on Al-Aqsa
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 17/15/Saudi King Salman has appealed to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and members of the Security Council for "urgent measures" after clashes at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound, state media reported late Wednesday. Salman "expressed strong condemnation of the dangerous Israeli escalation" at the holy site where Palestinian protesters clashed with Israeli police for three straight days, the Saudi Press Agency reported. "He called for serious and speedy international efforts and for the intervention of the Security Council to take all urgent measures to stop these violations," it said. Salman added that the "attack on worshippers" violates the sanctity of religions "and contributes to feeding extremism and violence in the world." SPA said Salman made the same appeal in phone calls to British Prime Minister David Cameron, Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Francois Hollande. Hollande warned on Wednesday that any change in the rules governing Al-Aqsa mosque compound could lead to "serious destabilisation." The third-holiest site in Islam, the compound is also the holiest site in Judaism which venerates it as the Temple Mount. Under longstanding regulations, Jews are allowed to visit but cannot pray there to avoid provoking tensions. Muslim protesters fear Israel will seek to change rules governing the site, with far-right Jewish groups pushing for more access and even efforts by fringe organisations to erect a new temple. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said he is committed to the "status quo", but Palestinians remain deeply suspicious. Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas accused Israel on Wednesday of "waging a fierce and relentless war against us in Jerusalem".

Syria starts using new Russian arms: source
By Tom Perry | Reuters, Beirut/Thursday, 17 September 2015/The Syrian military has recently started using new types of air and ground weapons supplied by Russia, a Syrian military source said on Thursday. The source described the weapons as highly accurate and effective, adding that the army had started using them in recent weeks having been trained in their use in Syria in recent months. “New weapons are being delivered, and new types of weapons. The Syrian army is being trained in the use of these weapons. In fact, the army has started using some of these (weapon) types,” the source said in response to a question about Russian military support. “The weapons are highly effective and very accurate, and hit targets precisely,” the source told Reuters. "We can say they are all types of weapons - be it air or ground."The source declined to give further details about the weapons. IN OPINION: The Russians are saving Assad from Iran! Facing a manpower problem in the army, the Syrian government has lost ground this year in the northwest, the southwest and the center of the country to an array of groups including ISIS and other insurgents battling to topple President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. officials said on Wednesday the they had identified a small number of Russian helicopters at a Syrian airfield, the latest addition to what Washington believes is a significant Russian military buildup in the country. One of the officials said four helicopters had been identified, including helicopter gunships, although it was not clear when the Russian helicopters had arrived there. Reuters has previously reported on U.S. assessments that Russia has sent about 200 naval infantry forces, battle tanks, artillery and other equipment to an airfield near Latakia. conflict, Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah have been the main source of military support for Damascus. Hezbollah has deployed directly in combat, while Iran has mobilized militias and sent military advisers.Lebanese sources familiar with military and political developments in Syria have also previously told Reuters that Russians are taking part in military operations in the country. Syrian officials say the Russian military presence is restricted to experts.

Saudi Arabia denounces Israeli actions at Jerusalem's al-Aksa mosque
REUTERS /J.Post/09/17/2015 /RIYADH - Saudi Arabia denounced on Thursday what it called violations by Israeli forces of Jerusalem's al-Aksa mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, which has seen days of clashes between Israeli police and stone-throwing Palestinians.The state Saudi Press Agency quoted an official source describing the Israeli actions as an "aggression" which would "lead to grave consequences and contribute to feeding extremism and violence."Israel's actions were also a "flagrant violation" of the sanctity of the site, which is revered by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and by Jews as the Temple Mount, the official said. On Tuesday, Israeli police fired stun grenades and tear gas at rock-throwing Palestinians who barricaded themselves inside al-Aksa mosque. Saudi King Salman had informed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that he had been in contact with world leaders regarding the mosque and that he had asked Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir to take all necessary measures to protect al-Aksa, the Palestinian news agency WAFA said. Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam and an ally of the United States, regards itself as the main defender of Muslims. The White House has said it is deeply concerned about the violence and called on all sides to "exercise restraint and refrain from provocative action and rhetoric." Israel captured the site when it seized east Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank from Jordan in a 1967 war. It left al-Aksa under the religious control of Muslim authorities, but Palestinians fear that control is being eroded by increasing visits by Jewish groups

Netanyahu: Battle with Washington over Iran deal served Israel’s interests, didn't harm ties
HERB KEINON/J.Post/09/17/2015/Not only did the bruising battle with US President Barack Obama over the Iran nuclear deal not harm Israel's ties with the US, but it in fact served Israel's interests as even supporters of the deal now understand the need to combat Iranian regional aggression and strengthen Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday. Netanyahu said that this was made clear during a phone conversation he held Wednesday night with US Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as in recent comments made by Obama. Netanyahu's remarks came as he was inaugurating a new train line from Ashkelon to Beersheba. It is clear that there was no deterioration in ties with the US as a result of the high-profile disagreement, Netanyahu said, adding that “there cannot be a deterioration” in those ties. Netanyahu recommended to his critics who have slammed him for harming Israel-US ties to show a little “humility.” “I think I know how to navigate Israel relations, how to defend our state, and we are defending it, both against outside challenges and on the borders,” he said. “I have heard all kinds of experts and pundits explain for months that the struggle we have led against the Iranian deal can cause a break, collapse in relations with the US,” he said. “I never understood why the sovereign state of Israel, which represents the Jewish people, cannot lead a campaign against a nuclear deal with a country that declares its intention to destroy us.”“It is my obligation to point out the dangers, he said. “Not only does this not harm Israel, it serves Israel's interests.” Netanyahu is scheduled to meet Kerry on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, and meet Obama in Washington on Nov. 9.

Netanyahu to meet Obama in November
Associated Press and Yitzhak Benhorin/Ynetnews/Published: 09.16.15/PM and US President will meet in Washington on November 9 for the first time since the Iran deal was signed. After months of chilly relations, President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet at the White House on November 9, to talk about the Iran nuclear deal that Israel's government has harshly criticized and tried, without success, to block. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the leaders also would discuss efforts to counter ISIS's activities in the Mideast. He called the meeting a demonstration "of the deep and enduring bonds between the United States and Israel, as well as our unprecedented cooperation to further enhance Israel's security." It will be the first formal meeting between Obama and Netanyahu in months. Obama pointedly refused to see Netanyahu in March, when the Israeli leader appeared before a joint session of Congress and harshly criticized the US-negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, Israel's enemy. US lawmakers had arranged Netanyahu's appearance without White House input. Congressional Republicans have failed to block the deal from going forward. The international accord backed by the United States, Iran, and five world powers would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions that have undercut Tehran's economy. The United States has committed to provide more than $7.18 billion in security aid to Israel over the next year. Officials have floated the possibility of signing a new 10-year agreement about US-Israeli security cooperation. But Netanyahu's government has reacted tepidly to that proposal, out of concern that signing such a deal would suggest Israeli acquiescence to the nuclear accord. Earnest said that two leaders' talks would also include a discussion of "Israel's relations with the Palestinians, the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and the need for the genuine advancement of a two-state solution." Israeli police continue to clash with Palestinian protesters at Jerusalem's most sensitive holy site during the Jewish new year holiday of Rosh Hashanah. US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet in November to discuss the Iran nuclear deal as well as other regional security issues, the White House said on Wednesday. The Nov. 9 White House meeting will be the first for the two leaders since US-led diplomacy resulted in an Iran nuclear deal that Israel fiercely opposed.

Analysis: Netanyahu can't stop Putin, but he can coordinate with the Russians in Syria
ALON BEN-DAVID/J.Post/09/17/2015
There is no need to exaggerate the threat posed to Israel by the Russian deployment of troops in Syria, nor must we overblow the importance of the upcoming meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. When it comes to dealing with Putin, even a prime minister that "gets everything he wants" understands he must know his limitations. Netanyahu is not traveling to Moscow to stop the deployment of Russian forces in Syria - he is going in order to coordinate. Russia is preparing the infrastructure for an airbase in Syria at which 1,000 Russian military personnel will be deployed along with MiG-29 fighter jets and SA-22 air defense batteries. A Russian marine force, outfitted with T-90 tanks will also be deployed in order to defend the base - not to take part in the civil war. The army of Syrian President Bashar Assad has been operating SA-22 batteries for a number of years. It is an advanced, autonomous anti-aircraft system for short and medium-range threats that, up until a few years ago, was considered a serious challenge for the Israel Air Force. However, according to foreign reports, the system has not prevented Israel from carrying out air raids in Syria every few months.
The difference this time is that the system will be operated by Russian soldiers and therefore demands cooperation, not just with Israel, but with all of the forces in the anti-ISIS coalition operating in Syrian airspace. This entails getting an understanding of the rules of engagement of the Russian batteries and how they will identify the plane on their radar screen and prevent accidents. The same goes for the fighter jets. The Syrian Air Force has been operating MiG-29 jets for more than two decades. Israel knows this aircraft well, and has trained against it, but must establish rules in order to prevent unwanted encounters between Russian and Israeli pilots. In the War of Attrition, Israeli pilots fought against Russian pilots. The battle ended 5-0 in Israel's favor, but neither side wants to repeat it. It is important for Israel that Russia avoid deploying systems in the area that are liable to disturb the IAF's freedom of flight, such as the S-400 or the S-300. Nor does Israel want to see Russia deploy advanced jets with stealth capabilities in Syria. As for the fear that advanced weapons systems could fall into the hands of Hezbollah, Netanyahu has already spoken to Putin about this in the past, but it did not stop him from selling such systems to Syria, with the clear knowledge that some of them were intended for Hezbollah. Russia is a for-profit country. It does not pretend to have moral policy and it has no intention of taking into consideration a foreign interest which does not serve it. Moscow's support for Assad actually serves Israel's interests - it could potentially bring stability, which is currently the best scenario for Israel. Assad, bloodied and weak, will continue to control Damascus and the seaports, ISIS will remain in the east and Hezbollah will continue to be tied up in Syria.
**Alon Ben-David is the military commentator for Channel 10.

US Jews can support both Israel and the Iran deal
Ynetnews/Yael Patir/Published:09.17.15
Op-ed: After holding a serious, open discussion on the world powers' nuclear agreement with Iran, America's Jews clearly support President Obama's stand and most Jewish Congress members will vote in favor of the agreement. Last week, the American House of Representatives began its discussions ahead of the vote on the Congress' support for the world powers' agreement with Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The support of 41 Democratic senators guarantees that it will not only be impossible to overcome a presidential veto in favor of the agreement, but that there will likely be no need to impose the veto. The battle, therefore, has ended with a victory for President Barack Obama and his policy. The Jewish community in the United States has been at the center of the discussion on the agreement with Iran since the agreement was signed in Vienna, following the campaign led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against the agreement and his attempt to gain the support of the community leaders and institutions. Netanyahu gave America's Jews an alleged dichotomic choice between being loyal to Israel (in other words, opposing the agreement) and being loyal to the US president (in other words, supporting the agreement), but the Jewish community members did not fall into the trap. The Jewish community in the US held a serious, open discussion, filled with arguments from both sides, on the issue of the Iranian nuclear program, which is a fateful matter for Israel's security. It's a shame that such a discussion was not held in Israel. The following questions were asked - and answered - in the synagogues, community centers and around dinner tables across the US: Is an agreement better than no agreement? Does the agreement achieve the goal of neutralizing Iran's ability to produce a nuclear bomb? Will the agreement have a moderating effect on the region? Will it contribute to the security of the US and Israel?
I am certain that both those who chose to support the agreement and those who chose to oppose it saw the security of Israel and the US before their eyes.
Netanyahu gave America's Jews an alleged dichotomic choice between being loyal to Israel and being loyal to the US president . The result is that US Jews clearly support President Obama and the agreement. In the final count, most Jewish Congress members will vote in favor of the agreement. Public opinion polls point to a majority of supporters among the Jewish community, and the one of the expressions of support was a letter signed by 440 rabbis. In their support for the agreement, US Jews considered the professional opinion of hundreds of nuclear and national security experts, ambassadors and American public figures who also support the agreement. Some Israeli security experts and intelligence assessments see the agreement as positive as well and argue, unequivocally, that it is the best chance to stop the Iranian nuclear program and that it could have positive effects on the entire region, including deterring Iran from committing terror attacks for the purpose of intimidation.Finally, US Jews considered the criticism voiced by Israeli politicians against the prime minister's destructive public interference in American politics. The ramifications of such meddling are more dangerous and destructive than the nuclear danger itself, as it could harm the core of Israel's special relations with the US. One of the challenges created by the discussion on the Iranian nuclear agreement is the fact that the argument focuses on the political lines - in other words, between the two parties. However, the future of Israel's relations with the US, it is crucial, however, to position the Jewish community which supports Israel on both sides of the American political map.
**Yael Patir is the director of the Israel Program at J Street.

We've got your back Bibi'
Yitzhak Benhorin/Published: 09.17.15/Ynetnews
The Middle East, Russia, and the US -Israel relationship played central roles in Thursday's Republican candidate debate, with a strong show of support for the Jewish state. Washington - Eleven presidential candidates met on one stage on Thursday, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, in the second televised debate for the Republican party where Israel's security turned into a key talking point. The second debate was similar to the first, largely characterized as 10 candidates vs. the frontrunner, Donald Trump, who has managed to capture the support of conservative voters, leading with over 30% in recent polls. The CNN debate was a battle for survival for some of the other candidates. Surprisingly enough, the three leading candidates going into the debate are not even politicians; Donald Trump the real estate mogul, Dr. Ben Carson the neurosurgeon, and HP's former CEO Carly Fiorina.
These three hold a collective 51 percent of the vote according to recent polls. Fiorina, the only woman on the stage, seemingly outperformed her male peers during the debate. Among other major issues, the Iran deal and relations with Israel stood at the heart of the debate. Jeb Bush declared that, "We need to make sure that they have the most sophisticated weapons to send a signal to Iran that we have Israel's back." Senator Marco Rubio strengthened the sentiment and attacked President Barak Obama. "We have a president that is more respectful to the ayatollah in Iran than he is to the prime minister of Israel."
Carly Fiorina, currently ranked third in the polls promised that, "On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu."Some of the candidates, led by Senator Ted Cruz, promised to cancel the nuclear deal with Iran on their first day in office. Governor John Kasich replied saying, "I think it's a bad agreement, I would never have done it, but cancelling it would be playing to a crowd."Senator Rand Paul replied stating that, he would not "cut it up without looking to see if whether or not Iran has complied."On the issue of the Russian deployment to Syria, Trump warned that, " Putin has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I will get along - I think - with Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable - stable world."Senator Marco Rubio also answered the question saying, "He's trying to reverse the fall of the Soviet Union, and exploiting a vacuum that this administration has left in the Middle East."Carly Fiorina said that she would, "Immediately begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, and conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states."Fiorina later "swung" at Trump, who didn’t know the difference between the Kurds and the Quds force in an interview last month, saying, "It is critically important that every one of us know General Suleimani's name."Israel mentioned 11 times. The candidates statements on Israeli-American relations played a central role in the debate, In addition to Fiorina's comments about Netanyahu and Bush's stern warning to Iran, Mike Huckabee also stated that, "This (the deal) threatens Israel immediately, this threatens the entire Middle East, but it threatens the United States of America. "And we can't treat a nuclear Iranian government as they have sponsored terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah, and they threaten the very essence of Western civilization." Senator Ted Cruz also promised that when he enters office, "The American embassy in Israel will be in Jerusalem."

The Russians are saving Assad from Iran!
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
A disagreement between Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally, the Iranian regime, has been on the cards for some time. The mutually beneficial relationship has lasted for a long time, and it’s truly thanks to the Iranians that Assad and his regime have not entirely collapsed. The Iranians formed a massive army consisting of militias from different countries to fight on behalf of the Syrian regime, which saw its own army break down either due to defections or human losses.
Russian activity in Syria
During the past few weeks, we noticed that Russian President Vladimir Putin has started to personally manage the issue of the Syria crisis in a very careful and involved way. Then photos by American intelligence revealed Russian activity in Syria. According to this footage, a runway and airstrip for helicopters have been added to Latakia’s airport. Changes have been made to aircraft shelters and the civilian airport has thus been transformed into a military base. Iran and Russia have for four years tried to implement one plan – preserving Assad’s rule. However, they’ve begun to discover the impossibility of that.
In addition to all this, the Russians are also using an air base near Damascus. Hundreds of prefabricated buildings arrived from Russia, probably houses for more than 2,000 Russian military personnel. The Americans’ suspicions increased after the Russians submitted hundreds of requests, to several countries, for permission for their military jets to cross their airspace to Syria, and assemble there. It was also confirmed that the Russians are developing the Syrian city of Tartus to become their naval military base, after the port had previously been a mere ‘gas station’ and maintenance facility for Russian ships!
Moscow’s intentions
So – what are Moscow’s intentions? Is it military move against NATO? Is it saving Assad from falling? Or is it a plan to activate the idea of dividing Syria by transferring Assad and his regime to the coast and establishing an Alawite state? In an article published Wednesday in Al-Hayat daily, Ibrahim al-Hamidi wrote a thorough analysis on the matter, but from a different perspective. He said the plan of Russian military intervention does indeed aim to save Assad – but not from ISIS or the armed Syrian opposition, but from its main ally: Iran! Although Ibrahim al-Hamidi’s point of view greatly disputes some of the givens of the cooperation, his article is interesting and important. Al-Hamidi assumes that the Iranians want to move a weak Assad aside, and that they seek political rapprochement with the United States, which is currently in a continuous confrontation against the Russians over the Ukrainian crisis.
Dispute between Russia, Iran
Al-Hamidi says there is a dispute between the Russians and the Iranians and that the former oppose the latter’s projects, such as their attempt to achieve political and demographic change and which the Russian foreign minister called “social engineering.”The Iranians have tried to swap the residents of two Shiite towns and transfer them to Zabadani in Syria, emptying the latter of its Sunni residents. However, I think that the theory of Iranian domination is a guaranteed failure due to demography itself! The Shiites in Syria are a very small minority – just 5% – and Sunnis are around 80%, unlike the case in Iraq and Lebanon. This has been the reason behind Iran’s failure in Syria until today – Iran, which pledged to restore the Assad state to what it used to be before the Syrian uprising, erupted but failed, despite all it spent. Foreign powers came to Syria with plans that are difficult and perhaps impossible to achieve, such as gathering enemies in one government. Another plan, for example, would consider ISIS as the only enemy. A third plan suggested dividing Syria and establishing an Alawite or minorities’ state along the Mediterranean coast. Iran and Russia have for four years tried to implement one plan – preserving Assad’s rule. However, they’ve begun to discover the impossibility of that, as Syria is no longer one united people, with united army and security force. Enmity also increased against Assad because he’s responsible for the murder of 250,000 people. The easiest of plans would be to oust him, but in whose favor? It will not be possible to task the armed opposition with governing the country unless there’s a regional Arab-Iranian-Turkish consensus. The Syrian reality has become very difficult, and it will become more complicated if it’s true that there’s an Iranian-Russian dispute. The Middle East will change after the nuclear agreement with Iran. Tehran may swing politically towards the U.S. in opposition to the Russians’ policy. Maybe this is why Putin wants to make a preemptive move in regard to this change, by suggesting the solution itself: a governance that includes Assad and some opposition forces protected by Russian forces – and without Iran’s Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah and the rest of Afghani and Iraqi Shiite militias.

Does Japan need to be involved in the Middle East?
Faisal J. Abbas/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
I just returned from Tokyo, where I took part as a panelist at the G1 Global Conference.
The conference, attended by a handful of politicians, top business executives and global shapers, was held under the theme From ‘Japan Passing’ to ‘Japan Rushing’. Sessions were dedicated to discussing a “re-set” in both the role and the positioning of Japan in today’s world – economically, politically and culturally.It wasn’t too long ago that Arabs were feverishly passionate about all things Japanese. However, when it came to the future of the Middle East, and Japan’s role in it (which was the subject of the session I participated in), I argued that the conference’s theme should – regrettably – be reversed to: “The Middle East, where Japan went from rushing to being passive!” Indeed, it wasn’t too long ago that Arabs were feverishly passionate about all things Japanese: from enormously popular manga and anime (and I cite the unmatched success of the dubbed 1980s series, Grendizer), to practicing martial arts such as karate and judo, to enjoying sushi and sashimi, to being loyal to “quality” household brands like Sony, Panasonic and Sharp, and “reliable” car manufacturers such as Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi.
However, the significance of Japan in the Arab World seems to have been in a steady decline over the past few decades.
China, South Korea fill the void
Much of what we consume in the Arab world today is made in China. Not only is it cheaper, but the Chinese – generally – won’t hesitate to go to any length to close a deal (including learning Arabic, if needed). For its part, South Korea is proving superior in terms of research and development, particularly with brands like Samsung (which today is the global leader in terms of smartphone market share, followed by the U.S.’s Apple and China’s Huawei.) Meanwhile, the “Korean Wave” has been hitting Arab shores since the 1990s. As a result, Arabs – like most people around the globe – danced the “Gangnam Style” (and many even produced their own version of the YouTube sensation); while K-pop, dubbed into Arabic, is proving extremely popular in our region. (Promo for MBC 4’s “Holm al-Shabab”, the Arabic subtitled edition of KBS’s “Dream High”)
Why get involved?
A reasonable question to ask is why does Japan need a role, or indeed, to get involved in the Arab World in the first place?
Indeed, Japan has no historical responsibilities given that it – unlike the Brits or the French – has no colonial past in the region. Furthermore, it has no religious or ethnic affiliations with the Arab people, nor does it have any military involvement or proxy wars in the region, like the Americans and Russians do.
Ask an Arab why Tokyo should play a bigger role, and the answer would most probably come in the form of a self-inflated assumption that we – as a region – form a lucrative and indispensable market for Japanese products. However, the reality is it is the other way around, as according to the 2010 findings of the World Trade Atlas, Arab League exports to Japan are worth $85 billion, while Japanese exports to the region are worth only $22 billion. What I think, however, is that Japan needs to get involved exactly for all of the above reasons.
Japan may very well be the perfect partner to help the Arab World overcome its current difficulties, and rebuild the region as the peaceful, prosperous place it has the potential to become. Japan is a major country with no colonial stigma when it comes the Middle East. It has no military presence here; there are no ideological, religious or racial biases to any of the conflicting parties; there is an interest in stabilizing the region to ensure the safe flow of oil; and Japan has experience in creatively rebuilding nations – as it did itself after WWII. As such, Japan may very well be the perfect partner to help the Arab world overcome its current difficulties, and rebuild the region as the peaceful, prosperous place it has the potential to become. Furthermore, if Japan (and other “good” countries) don’t fill this void, they would be leaving the task for rogue nations such as China, Iran and Russia; and the results of such a reality – as we are witnessing today in Syria – could be disastrous. What is equally important for Japan to realize is that the serious issues we are living in the Arab World – such as terrorism – will never remain locally confined. Indeed, as it was once put to me by legendary Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland: “If you don’t go to the Middle East… the Middle East will come to you.” Japan, unfortunately, experienced the first signs of Hoagland’s prophecy earlier this year, when ISIS brutally beheaded hostages Kenji Goto and Haruna Yukawa. And despite having not taken part in the Syrian crisis, Japan is today being questioned for not taking in any refugees from the war-torn nation.

Has U.S. policy changed after Saudi king’s visit?
Mohammed Fahad al-Harthi/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
The much-heralded visit to Washington by Saudi Arabia’s King Salman exceeded all expectations by seeing the old allies reach consensus on vital regional and international matters. After their critical summit, King Salman and President Barack Obama both expressed the desire to further develop the two nations’ long-term strategic partnership, signaling a qualitative change in the 70-year relationship. Saudi Arabia’s latest diplomatic modus operandi has focused on building sound economic partnerships in the belief this will result in mutually beneficial political ties. This approach has seen the king heading to Washington, and earlier Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visiting Russia and France.
Investment drive
The result has been a massive $2 trillion worth of investment opportunities earmarked in 12 sectors, including infrastructure, transportation, mining, finance, housing, health, education, banking and entertainment. The Saudi government has correctly placed the interests of its citizens first by taking this route, but has also catalyzed a network of interlocking relations with some of the world’s most influential countries. Washington needs Riyadh in the volatile Middle East, as a politically moderate state that enjoys international respect and confidence. The United States, a global superpower, considers Saudi Arabia an important player with which it has a special alliance. Washington needs Riyadh in the volatile Middle East, as a politically moderate state that enjoys international respect and confidence. This country is not only a regional and global economic powerhouse, but also the spiritual home for over a billion people because it hosts Islam’s holiest sites. It is therefore in the interests of both countries to have solid agreement on important issues.
The Iran question
Some analysts have argued that Washington has been moving closer to Iran, effectively replacing Saudi Arabia. But this argument is clearly not logical or realistic. The Americans know that the region’s problems can be traced to one common denominator, which is clearly Iran. During a visit to the Middle East Institute in Washington while King Salman was in the capital, former White House advisers and retired ambassadors told Saudi editors that the United States has more reasons to keep its distance from Iran rather than cozy up to it. They explained that Washington sought the nuclear deal to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, and was not meant to completely change its relationship with Tehran. The Americans know that the region’s problems can be traced to one common denominator, which is clearly Iran. They reiterated that the Iranians would not have a green light to do as they like. A top Saudi official said that the Kingdom told Washington it would not brook any interference by Iran in the internal affairs of Arab countries.
Analysts say that this has been demonstrated by Saudi Arabia leading a rare military alliance of Arab nations to counter Tehran’s violations of international law in Yemen by starting a proxy war with its support of local militant groups. It is clear that Washington and Riyadh want a strategic partnership on all levels. King Salman has stated unequivocally that this is needed to ensure world peace and stability; and emphasized again that Saudi Arabia has no expansionist plans. The two countries have now overcome the nuclear weapon issue, which Saudi Arabia has approved on the condition that there is strict and permanent monitoring, and the use of sanctions if Iran violates the agreement. While Washington is known for its drawn out decision-making because of bureaucratic hurdles, the general atmosphere on Capitol Hill is that close ties are absolutely essential between the two nations. The Saudi ambassador in the United States, Prince Abdullah bin Faisal, is well-respected and his presence as part of King Salman’s delegation has opened important doors in Washington. The two countries are now looking beyond the Iranian nuclear deal and have set in place a firm foundation on which their strategic relationship will be based. King Salman has undoubtedly stamped the country’s new foreign policy direction on the agreement, which will protect the country’s interests over the long haul.

#IStandWithAhmed shows America at its best, and worst
Joyce Karam/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
In the last 24 hours, a 14-year-old Muslim-American teen has gone from being perceived as a “bomb maker” handcuffed and arrested by the Texas police, to an innovator celebrated by millions on social media and in the business community. The story of Ahmed Mohamed showcased the worst forms of Islamophobia and racial profiling in the United States, followed by unprecedented embrace and public support for the teen, exposing the discrimination against him. Ahmed went to his high school in Irving, Texas on Monday proudly dressed in his NASA t-shirt and holding onto his latest invention: a digital clock that he had made from a pencil case to show his teachers. If his name were Charles Adams or his skin color was white, Ahmed would probably have been applauded by his teachers. Little did he know that his school day would end in him being handcuffed and arrested, taken by the police to a juvenile detention center without his parents or a lawyer, where he was interrogated for “trying to make a bomb.”
Arrested for being Muslim
In post 9/11 America, Ahmed Mohamed was only arrested because of his skin color and for being a Muslim. If his name were Charles Adams or his skin color was white, Ahmed would probably have been applauded by his teachers and classmates for creativity at a time when the U.S. school system is lagging behind other industrialized nations. It should also be noted that the arrest of Ahmed is not in isolation, given the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The fear and paranoia that drove Ahmed’s teacher to report him to the police is by no means exclusive to MacArthur High School or to the state of Texas. Hate crimes and negative stereotypes of Muslims have been on the rise across the United States. Fourteen years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, an average of 100-150 hate crimes target the Muslim community annually, compared to 20 or 30 prior to 2001, according to FBI records. The Chapel Hill shooting in North Carolina last February, and the assault on a Sikh man in Chicago mistaken for a Muslim-Arab last week, illustrate the rising level of bigotry against the U.S. Muslim community. A poll conducted by The Economist/YouGov in February suggests that a slight majority of Americans (52%) view Islam as more likely than other religions to encourage violence. While this could be a product of increased anti-Muslim rhetoric following the rise of ISIS and other terrorist groups exploiting the banner of Islam, it goes against what Muslim-Americans stand for, and contradicts the message of assimilation and diversity that the United States champions in today’s world.
Ahmed to visit the White House
For the few hours between the arrest and the police asking Ahmed Mohamed repeatedly ‘So you tried to make a bomb?’, to which he responded “no, I was trying to make a clock”, the 14 year old boy regretted taking his invention to school. According to the Dallas Morning News, “he’s vowed never to take an invention to school again”.Discouraging free thought and innovation because of the state of fear and prejudice is entirely un-American and feeds into the terrorists’ propaganda that the United States is the enemy of Islam. It is also rejected by millions of Americans who have flooded the internet and social media websites in solidarity with Ahmed.
The story of Ahmed’s clock renews hope that despite the prejudice and the fear mongering, the majority of Americans is neither silent nor intolerant. The outpouring of public support, the tweet from the U.S. President Barack Obama inviting Ahmed (and his clock) to the White House, and the post from Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to host him in Palo Alto are a better reflection of American values than the circumstances that led to the arrest. In one day, Ahmed has received a scholarship to Space Camp, an invitation to Google’s science fair, a lifetime membership to Dallas electronics club, an offer to visit General Electric headquarters and a new NASA shirt – one flown in space by astronaut Daniel Tani. At a time when fear mongering and stereotypes of Muslims dominate far-right talk shows and statements by several xenophobic Republican Presidential candidates, it is those voices embracing Ahmed that give confidence in America’s future. Muslims have since the 19th century flocked to the United States, charting a better story of assimilation than in Europe, and excelling in opportunities that are not abundant in their countries of origin. The story of Ahmed’s clock renews hope that despite the prejudice and the fear mongering, the majority of Americans is neither silent nor intolerant. It shows once again that injustice can be confronted, and that a Sudanese-American boy can grow and innovate, undeterred by voices of divisiveness, fear and delusion.

Turkey’s Erdogan: The method behind his madness
Dr. John C. Hulsman/Al Arabiya/September 17/15
As the years have passed, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has increasingly worried the West. As the era of easy catch-up growth and stable government (all of which very pleasantly surprised observers) has come to an end, America has come to fret about Erdogan’s erratic, authoritarian tactics, as well as his country’s increasingly perilous economic plight. While none of this seemed to dent his AKP party’s unprecedented popularity, Erdogan had morphed – in Washington’s eyes – from being part of the solution in the Middle East to being part of the problem.
But what has happened in 2015 has been a bridge too far, even for the Turkish president’s dwindling band of admirers. Stung by his party’s shocking failure (after over a decade of utter dominance) to win June’s parliamentary elections outright, Erdogan responded by wandering even further off the reservation. Rather than meekly accepting the Turkish voters’ verdict and curtailing his dreams for creating a strong Turkish executive presidency (with himself at the helm), Erdogan doubled down, embarking on a series of highly risky domestic and foreign policy moves that have further destabilised a region already on fire.
Everything Erdogan has done since the June elections is an effort to alter the newly imposed domestic constraints on his power. In the course of a few short months, he vilified the Kurdish parliamentary opposition, accusing them of being traitors. Then he tore up one of his greatest accomplishments, the fragile ceasefire with the Kurdish armed insurgents, the PKK. Finally, he blocked any hopes of a government being formed in the wake of the inconclusive elections. How, western experts wail, can he be so reckless?
The simple answer, which any realist understands, is that Erdogan wants to survive, both politically and personally. Everything he has done since the June elections is an effort to alter the newly imposed domestic constraints on his power. As ever, this real-world imperative conditions everything else, including foreign policy. The western punditocracy may bewail his lack of statesmanship, but it is unlikely that the Turkish President cares very much. From the perspective of the Turkish Sultan, doubling down on his domestic political agenda makes eminent sense.
The Political Problem
After 13 years in power, the AKP lost its absolute majority in parliament. The Turkish President had gambled on winning a two-third’s majority, which he constitutionally needs to amend the document and create a new presidential system, a course of events that would cement Erdogan’s personal dominance for years to come. But instead, the HDP (People’s Democratic Party), a left-leaning group with strong Kurdish links, thwarted his grand strategy when it surprisingly won 13% of the overall vote, clearing the high 10% threshold and entering parliament. The AKP, far from winning the desired, massive two-thirds majority, only won a mere plurality of the vote. It would seem that after all, the Turkish electoral colossus has been decisively stopped. But such a naïve view is to misunderstand the tenacious nature of both the man, as well as Turkish political culture. Erdogan knew that if he meekly accepted the result, his dream of changing the very nature of Turkish politics itself, by the installation of a strong presidential system with himself at the helm, would be definitively over. Worse still, the surprising June result could well mark the high-water mark of AKP power as a whole.
The end game of such a prospect was obvious to Erdogan; either he doubled down, trying with all his might to overturn the result, or his days in power (and even his days of freedom given the corruption allegations lodged against his family) would be numbered. Instead of going gentle into that good night, the Turkish President hatched an audacious scheme designed to nullify a parliamentary result he simply could not live with.
Step one: see that no government is formed that reflects the June result
While the formal powers of the sitting president in the present Turkish system are quite limited, in terms of setting the rules for forming a new government the executive still sets the scene. Erdogan took full advantage of his good fortune, effectively derailing any efforts that would lead to the formation of a new government in the wake of the June parliamentary elections. This he simply had to do, as if a new coalition government were formed which reflected the June results, Erdogan’s dream of creating a strong presidency would be banished forever.
Step two: bolster Turkey’s foreign policy against external Kurdish threats
Erdogan did not have long to wait for an opportunity to emerge allowing him to climb out of the box the Turkish electorate have so recently placed him in. On July 20, 2015, a devastating suicide bombing – highly likely at the instigation of ISIS – took place at a Kurdish youth rally in Suruc, on the Turkish-Syrian border. Seizing his chance, Erdogan used the atrocity to finally commit to acting against ISIS, as the American-led coalition had been pleading with him to do for the past year.
But as ever in the Middle East, Erdogan had a big ‘ask’ in return for his strategic support. Erdogan pressured the Obama administration to agree to help establish a 65-mile ISIS-free zone along a western sector of the Turkish-Syrian border, running north from Aleppo to the Euphrates. The ostensible aim of pushing ISIS out of the area is to sever the access route to Turkey through which it funnels its recruits and supplies.
But this pledge amounts to so much less than meets the eye. As the Syrian war has ground on, the President has increasingly worried about preventing the Syrian Kurds from making further territorial gains. The ISIS-free zone in Syria is – from the point of view of Erdogan – designed to be a Kurdish-free zone. The real strategic goal is preventing the Kurds from taking and controlling the whole of the Syrian border cohesively. Erdogan (perhaps rightly) fears this now increasingly cohesive Kurdish enclave on the Syrian border will become de facto a state, a calamity from Turkey’s point of view.
Step three: whip up anti-Kurdish feeling in Turkey by restarting the war with the PKK. But while Erdogan claims to be battling ISIS, in reality he is primarily fighting Turkey’s old foe the PKK, Turkey’s home-grown Kurdish separatist guerrilla group. The prior Turkish-Kurdish war lasted for decades and left around 40,000 people dead. Erdogan has shown little compunction in ending the tenuous peace process with the Turkish Kurds clustered around the PKK, which up until now has been one his greatest policy achievements.
The Turkish President is now playing the anti-Kurdish card for all it is worth. He has disowned a road map to peace negotiations originally agreed to by the PKK and his own AKP, saying talks ‘aren’t possible’. Increasing pressure on the HDP, he vows to strip away the parliamentary immunity of their MPs, allowing an investigation of their loyalty. And here we come to the heart of the matter. Erdogan is purposely whipping up anti-Kurdish fervour, as it is the only way he can still achieve his overall goal of decisively winning new parliamentary elections (scheduled for November 1st), allowing for greatly expanding presidential powers and preserving his regime. As so often is the case, domestic politics is a basic force driving foreign policy strategies. Specifically, Erdogan wants to both smear the HDP as a party of traitors to the Turkish state, while reminding his voters that only one-party government headed by the AKP (and not the coalition outcome they just voted for) can manage the many dangers – both within and without – Turkey. In addition, due to his newfound bellicose stand against the Kurds, Erdogan is hankering to poach some of the far right’s voters. Specifically, Erdogan’s primary political goal is to push the HDP below the 10% threshold required to secure seats in the Turkish parliament, thus cementing his decisive victory. One must accept that, cynical and destructive as it is, the Turkish Sultan has devised a brilliant political plan.

Why Do Muslims Flock to The "Evil West"?
Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/September 17/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6488/muslims-evil-west
Millions of Muslims are trying, through dangerous ways, to reach the borders of a civilization they have historically blamed for all the world's evils, including in their own countries'.
Muslims in this part of the world view the Christian West as "evil;" yet they know Christian lands are the most decent places to live economically and politically. Wealthy Arab states rigidly turn their back on the plight of fellow Muslims who are in need of a helping hand; and Islamist hypocrites blame it all on the West.
Sadly, no one questions why "West-hating" Muslims go West... or why non-Muslims should pay the price for exclusively intra-Muslim wars and the wave of migrants they create.
"The tragedy of the Palestinians," Jordan's (late) King Abdullah wrote in his memoirs, "was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue."
Decades later, Syrians fleeing the civil war in their homeland make up the backbone of the world's refugee tragedy.
Officially, Muslim Turkey is home to the largest number of Syrian refugees (1.9 million). Lebanon hosts 1.2 million Syrians; Jordan, more than 600,000; and Egypt, over 100,000. That makes nearly four million predominantly Muslim Syrians.
But curiously (or not), the refugees risk their lives trying to cross into the predominantly Christian West, which probably most of them have viewed as the "evil." Hundreds of thousands have made their way into Greece via Turkey, or Italy via Libya, and thousands have drowned in rough crossings as their rubber dinghies often capsize in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas.
Migrants set sail on an inflatable boat from Turkey to the Greek island of Lesbos, August 25, 2015. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)
European Union officials say the refugee crisis "could last years," while European countries work day and night to settle hundreds of thousands of Syrians in their countries. Even faraway non-Muslim countries such as Brazil, Chile and Venezuela have said that they would volunteer to take thousands of refugees.
Tragic? No doubt. But who is to blame? According to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is the West. In March, Erdogan criticized the West for having taken only 250,000 Syrian refugees. And, according to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, not Syria's neighbors, but the United Nations Security Council's five permanent members (the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China), should pay the price.
In reality, millions of Muslims are trying, through dangerous ways, to reach the borders of a civilization they have historically blamed for all the world's evils, including in their own countries'. Turkey's leaders are blaming non-Muslims for the tragedy. But they do not speak a single word about super hydrocarbon-rich Muslim countries in their own neighborhood: Not a word about Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman (all of which employ large numbers of Asian workers) has taken a single Muslim Syrian refugee.
There is a history showing which hemisphere of the world's political map has treated Muslims refugee problems with relative affection, and which side with visible cruelty. While most Muslims immigrants in the West have successfully integrated in countries like Britain (mostly Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh), France (mostly Muslims from North Africa) and Germany (mostly Muslims from Turkey), Arab host countries in the past abstained from giving, for instance, Palestinian refugees full citizenship and other civil rights.
In the 1970s and 1980s, when Saudi Arabia faced a labor shortage, it recruited thousands of South Korean and other Asian workers to fill job but refused to employ Palestinian refugees.
Until the First Gulf War, Kuwait employed big numbers of Palestinians but refused to give them citizenship. After the war, Kuwait expelled 300,000 Palestinian refugees.
After the downfall of Saddam Hussein, Palestinian refugees in Iraq faced systematic attacks by Muslim Shia militias. They were denied even medical care. In 2012, at least 300,000 Palestinian refugees were living in Lebanon. Human Rights Watch found their social and economic conditions "appalling." But the Lebanese government persistently ignored their demands for broader property rights.
And before the summer of 2012, Egypt maintained a restrictive travel policy for Palestinians who cross into Egypt from Gaza. They had to be escorted by security officials and were sometimes detained.
The Syrian refugee crisis in lands stretching from the Middle East into the heart of Europe is another episode in a grandiose, multi-faceted Middle Eastern dilemma: Muslims in this part of the world view the Christian West as "evil;" yet they know Christian lands are the most decent places to live economically and politically. Wealthy Arab states rigidly turn their back on the plight of fellow Muslims who are in need of a helping hand; and Islamist hypocrites blame it all on the West.
Sadly, no one questions why "West-hating" Muslims go West; why their fellow Muslim Arab nations do not raise even a helping finger, let alone a hand; or why non-Muslims should pay the price for exclusively intra-Muslim wars and the wave of migrants they create.
That is always the easy way out.

UN Gives Palestinians Flags, But No Democracy
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/September 17/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6503/palestinian-flag-democracy
The vote in favor of hoisting the flag is not going to bring democracy, freedom of expression and transparency to the Palestinians.
The vote at the UN concerning the Palestinian flag came amid increased human rights violations by both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. But since when does the UN care about human rights violations committed by the PA and Hamas against their own people?
Who cares if Hamas arrests Fatah voters and candidates as long as a Palestinian flag is raised in front of the UN? The UN considers raising a Palestinian flag more important than demanding an end to human rights violations by the PA and Hamas. No UN member states bothered to denounce the Hamas crackdown and the obstruction of the Fatah election.
The countries that voted in favor of the motion do not really care about the needs and interests of the Palestinians. The vote was mainly directed against Israel -- to taunt Israel rather than help the Palestinians move closer towards building an independent state.
A Palestinian living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip does not really care if his flag is flown in front of a UN building. For Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, there are more urgent matters such as the harsh economic conditions and the repressive measures of the Hamas regime.
Hamas wants the world to continue believing that the Palestinians are still unable to rebuild their homes because of Israeli "restrictions" and lack of international funds. That is why the journalists who tried to cover the removal of the debris were physically assaulted and detained for interrogation.
The situation under the PA in the West Bank is not any better with regards to human rights violations. Almost every day, PA security forces arrest several Palestinians and hold them without trial.
Last week, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of a motion allowing the Palestinian flag to be flown in front of the UN buildings.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership and various "pro-Palestinian" groups have hailed the vote as a "symbolic victory" for the Palestinians. The Palestinian representative to the UN, Riyad Mansour, said that the vote regarding the flag would be "another step" towards solidifying Palestinian statehood.
The 119 UN member states that voted in favor of the motion are apparently convinced that this is a "big victory" for the Palestinians and their political aspirations. But what these countries do not know is that flying a Palestinian flag outside UN buildings is probably the last thing Palestinians need at this stage.
The vote in favor of hoisting the flag is not going to bring democracy, freedom of expression and transparency to Palestinians. The Palestinians do not need "symbolic victories" such as the one concerning the Palestinian flag.
A Palestinian living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip does not really care if his flag is flown in front of a UN building. For Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, there are more urgent matters that need to be dealt with immediately, such as the harsh economic conditions and the repressive measures of the Hamas regime. For those living in the West Bank, economic development, employment and democracy are more important than any flag raised in front of the UN headquarters.
But the countries that voted in favor of the motion do not really care about the needs and interests of the Palestinians. They do not care if the Palestinian Authority and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively are functioning as repressive and corrupt regimes that have no respect for human rights or public freedoms.
The vote was mainly directed against Israel. Its main goal was to taunt Israel rather than help the Palestinians move closer towards building an independent state.
The vote at the UN concerning the Palestinian flag came amid increased human rights violations by both the PA and Hamas. But since when does the UN care about human rights violations committed by the PA and Hamas against their own people?
The UN state members that voted in favor of raising the flag pay attention to human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip only when there is a way to lay the blame on Israel.
In recent weeks, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have reported a number of incidents that demonstrate how the Palestinian Authority and Hamas continue to show complete disregard for due process, human rights and freedom of expression. These incidents continued even as the 119 UN members raised their hands in favor of the hoisting of the Palestinian flag.
In the Gaza Strip, for example, Hamas security officers beat and detained a number of local journalists who tried to cover the removal of debris from homes that were destroyed during last year's military confrontation between Hamas and Israel.
One of the journalists, Fadel al-Hamami, was hit in the face with the butt of a rifle and had to rush to a hospital for treatment.
Hamas does not want journalists to cover any reconstruction work in the Gaza Strip. It wants the world to continue believing that the Palestinians are still unable to rebuild their houses because of Israeli "restrictions" and lack of international funds.
That is why the journalists who tried to cover the removal of the debris were physically assaulted and detained for interrogation.
The UN General Assembly, of course, did not hear about this incident when its members voted in favor of raising the Palestinian flag outside its buildings. Even if the UN does hear about it, it is unlikely that the General Assembly or the Security Council would ever issue a statement condemning the assault on representatives of the media.
Nor is the UN going to condemn Hamas's use of force to disperse Palestinians protesting against power cuts in the southern Gaza Strip. The lack of electricity has triggered widespread protests throughout the Gaza Strip, where many Palestinians hold the Hamas government fully responsible. Eyewitnesses said Hamas policemen used live ammunition and clubs to disperse the protesters.
Last week, Hamas arrested 30 Fatah activists in the Gaza Strip as part of its crackdown of supporters of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The arrests came as Fatah was holding internal elections for its leaders in the southern Gaza Strip. The detainees later went on a hunger strike in the Hamas prison. This incident also coincided with the UN vote concerning the flag. However, none of the UN state members bothered to denounce the Hamas crackdown and obstruction of the Fatah election. Who cares if Hamas arrests Fatah voters and candidates as long as a Palestinian flag is raised in front of UN buildings?
In the past two weeks, Hamas security officers in the Gaza Strip arrested a journalist and political activist whose only crime was that they dared to criticize Hamas. The journalist, Shadi Shaheen, works for an Arabic Gulf newspaper. Hamas confiscated his computer and camera.
The political activist, Mohamed Abu Mahadi, is known for his outspoken criticism of both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. He was detained by Hamas policemen as he was visiting his brother in Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Abu Mahadi was released after interrogation.
The situation under the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is not any better with regards to human rights violations. Almost every day, PA security forces arrest several Palestinians and hold them without trial.
Last week, the PA issued a directive banning its security personnel from criticizing the Palestinian leadership on social media.
The ban came as PA security officers detained a Palestinian from the West Bank city of Tulkarem who criticized PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah on Facebook. The man was identified as Abdullah Nash'at Sayed.
Journalist Shadi Shaheen (left) was recently arrested in Gaza, because he criticized Hamas. Abdullah Nash'at Sayed (right) was detained by Palestinian Authority security officers, because he criticized PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah on Facebook.
Sayed is not the first Palestinian to land in prison for posting critical remarks on Facebook against Palestinian leaders. More than 14 Palestinians have been arrested or summoned for interrogation in the West Bank over the past three years for their activities on social media.
Still, the UN and other international organizations are not interested in holding a debate about these assaults on human rights and freedom of expression.
These organizations are more interested in provoking and condemning Israel than helping the Palestinians build democracy and proper transparent institutions. That is why the UN considers raising a Palestinian flag more important than demanding an end to human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. With such an attitude at the UN, the Palestinians will eventually get their own flag flown outside those buildings. But they will also end up with a state that has no respect for human rights -- all thanks to the indifference and corruption of the UN and other international bodies.

Why Western Nations Should Only Accept Christian Refugees
Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/ September 16, 2015/
As refugees from the Middle East flood the West, a number of countries—including Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Cyprus, and Australia—are defying political correctness by wanting to accept Christian refugees only.
While more “progressive” voices cry “racism,” the fact remains: there are several objective reasons why the West should give priority, if not exclusivity, to Christian refugees—and some of these are actually to the benefit of European host nations.
Consider:
Christians are true victims of persecution. From a humanitarian point of view—and humanitarianism is the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees—Christians should receive top priority simply because they are the most persecuted group in the Middle East—well before the Islamic State phenomenon came into being. As Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop put it, “I think that Christian minorities are being persecuted in Syria and even if the conflict were over they would still be persecuted.”
Indeed. While they are especially targeted by the Islamic State, before the new “caliphate” was established, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims—Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.)—and for the same reason: Christians are infidel number one. See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hate and contempt for Christians.
Conversely, Muslim refugees—as opposed to the many ISIS and other jihadi infiltrators posing as “refugees”—are not fleeing direct persecution, but chaos created by the violent and supremacist teachings of their own religion, Islam. It’s not for nothing that Samuel Huntington famously pointed out that “Islam’s borders are bloody, and so are its innards.” This means that when Muslims enter Western nations, chaos, persecution, and mayhem follow. Take a look at those West European cities—for example, Londonistan—that already have a large Muslim population for an idea.
Muslim persecution of Christians has been further enabled by Western policies, especially those of the Obama administration. In other words, Western nations should accept Christian refugees on the basis that Western meddling in the Middle East is directly responsible for exacerbating the plight of Christian minorities. After all, Christians did not flee from Bashar Assad’s Syria, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Muamar Gaddafi’s Libya. Their systematic persecution began in earnest after the U.S. and others interfered in those nations in the name of “democracy.” All they did is unleash the jihadi forces that the dictators had long kept suppressed. Now the Islamic State is deeply embedded in all three nations, enslaving, raping, and slaughtering countless Christian “infidels” and other minorities.
Vladimir Putin’s thoughts on the refugee crisis are plainly true:
This is a crisis which was absolutely expected…. We in Russia and your humble servant said several years ago that there would be massive problems if our so-called western partners conduct what I have always called the “wrong” foreign policy, especially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and north Africa, which they continue practically to this day.
The Russian leader correctly adds that “people are running away not from the regime of Bashar Assad, but from Islamic State, which seized large areas in Syria and Iraq, and are committing atrocities there. That is what they are escaping from.”
Thus if the West is responsible for unleashing the full-blown jihad on Christians, surely it is the latter that the West should prioritize, from a humanitarian point of view.
Unlike Muslims, or even Yazidis, Christians are easily assimilated in Western countries, due to the shared Christian heritage. As Slovakia, which prefers Christian refugees, correctly points out, Muslims would not fit in, including because there are no mosques in the Slavic nation. Conversely, “Slovakia as a Christian country can really help Christians from Syria to find a new home in Slovakia,” said an interior minister.
This too is common sense. The same Christian teachings that molded Europe over the centuries are the same ones that mold Middle Eastern Christians—whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant. As San Diego’s Father Noel said in the context of the Iraqi Christian refugees who managed to flee ISIS but are now rotting in a U.S. detention center, Mideast Christians “who come here [America] ‘want to be good citizens’ and many who came here a decade ago are now lawyers, teachers, or other productive members of society.”
Meanwhile, Muslims follow a completely different blueprint, the Koran—which condemns Christians by name, calls for constant war (jihad) against all non-Muslims, and advocates any number of distinctly anti-Western practices. Hence it is no surprise that many Muslim asylum seekers are anti-Western at heart, if not members of jihadi organizations.
Mideast Christians bring trustworthy language and cultural skills that are beneficial to the West. They understand the Middle Eastern—including Islamic—mindset and can help the West understand it. Moreover, unlike Muslims, Christians have no “conflicting loyalty” issues: Islamic law forbids Muslims from aiding “infidels” against fellow Muslims (click here to see some of the treachery this leads to in the U.S. and here to see the treachery Christians have suffered from their longtime Muslim neighbors and “friends”). Indeed, an entire book about how “double agent” Muslims have infiltrated every corner of the U.S. government exists. No such threat exists among Mideast Christians. They too render unto God what is God’s and unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Finally, it goes without saying that Mideast Christians have no sympathy for the very people and ideology that made their lives a living hell—the very people and ideology that are also hostile to everything in the West. Thus a win-win: the West and Mideast Christians complement each other, if only in that they share the same foe.
All the above reasons—from those that offer humanitarian relief to the true victims of persecution, to those that offer benefits to the West—are unassailable in their logic and wisdom. Yet, because Western progressives prioritize politically correct ideals and fantasies over stark reality, there is little chance that they will be considered.
Quite the reverse: in America and Britain persecuted Christians are “at the bottom of the heap” of refugees to be granted asylum. Muslims receive top priority. Since January 2015, the U.S. has granted asylum to approximately six Muslims for every Christian it takes in.
The reason for this is simple: for the progressive mindset—which dominates Western governments, media, and academia—taking in refugees has little to do with altruism and everything to do egoism: It matters little who is really being persecuted—as seen, the West is directly responsible for greatly exacerbating the sufferings of Christians.
No, what’s important is that we “feel good” about ourselves. By taking in “foreign” Muslims, as opposed to “siding” with “familiar” Christians, progressives get to feel “enlightened,” “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “multicultural”—and that’s all that matters here.
Meanwhile, reality quietly marches on: The same Islamic mentality that slaughters “infidel” Christians in the Middle East is now welcomed into the West with open arms.

Why Are Christian Soldiers in Egypt Harassed and Killed?
Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/September 16, 2015
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2015/09/16/raymond-ibrahimwhy-are-christian-soldiers-in-egypt-harassed-and-killed/
http://www.meforum.org/5507/egypt-christian-soldiers
Originally published under the title “In Egypt, Muslim Soldiers Slaughtering Their Fellow Christian Platoon Mates.”
On Sunday, August 23, a Coptic Christian soldier was killed in his army unit in Egypt. Baha Saeed Karam, 22, was found shot dead with four bullet wounds at the headquarters of his battalion in Marsa Matruh. Although transferred to a hospital in Alexandria, he was pronounced dead upon arrival.
According to Baha’s brother, Cyril, the Coptic soldier had recently told him that he had gotten into arguments with Muslim soldiers in his unit and that one had threatened him with death.
Baha is certainly not the first Coptic Christian serving in his country’s military to be killed over his religious identity.
Two months earlier, on June 24, the only Christian in his army unit was found shot dead in a chair at the office of the military base he was stationed. Bahaa Gamal Mikhail Silvanus, a 23-year-old conscript, had two gunshot wounds and a gun at his feet. Relatives who later saw the body said he also had wounds atop his head, as if he had been bludgeoned with an object.
In most cases, the Egyptian military claims that murdered Christian soldiers committed suicide.
The military’s official position was that the Copt committed suicide—despite the fact that suicides are rarely able to shoot themselves twice or first hit themselves atop the head with blunt objects. Moreover, according to Rev. Mikhial Shenouda, who knew the deceased, “A person who commits suicide is a disappointed and desperate person, but Baha was in very good spirits. He was smiling always. He was keeping the word of God,” and planning on entering the monastic life after his military service.
A friend of the deceased Christian said that Silvanus had confided to him that he was regularly pressured by other soldiers in his unit to convert to Islam: “He told me that the persecution of the fanatical Muslim conscripts in the battalion against him had increased … and that they would kill him if he wouldn’t convert to Islam.”
On August 31, 2013, another Copt in the armed services, Abu al-Khair Atta, was killed in his unit by an “extremist officer” for “refusing to convert to Islam.” Again, the interior ministry informed the slain Copt’s family that he had committed suicide.
However, Abu al-Khair’s father, citing eyewitnesses who spoke to him, said that “one of the radical, fanatical officers pressured and threatened him on more than one occasion to convert to Islam. Abu al-Khair resisted the threats, which vexed the officer more.”
Then there was 20-year-old Guirgus Rizq Yusif al-Maqar, who died on September 18, 2006. Without notifying him why, the armed forces summoned his handicapped father to the station in Asyut. After making the arduous journey, he was verbally mistreated by some officers and then bluntly told, “Go take your son’s corpse from the refrigerator!” The father “collapsed from the horror of the news.”
Officials claimed the youth died of a sudden drop in blood pressure. Later, however, while family members were washing Guirgus’ body, they discovered wounds on his shoulders and a large black swelling around his testicles.
Assuming these were products of injuries incurred during harsh training, his family proceeded to bury him. Later, however, a colleague of the deceased told them that Guirgus was regularly insulted, humiliated, and beaten—including on his testicles—simply because he was Christian. The dead youth’s family implored authorities to exhume Guirgus’ body for a forensic examination but was denied.
And on August 2006, the mutilated and drowned body of another Copt serving in the Egyptian military, Hany Seroufim, was found. Earlier he had confided to his family that he was being insulted and abused for being a Christian by his commander, both in public and in private.
According to MCN, “His unit commander ordered him to renounce Christianity and join the ranks of Islam.” The Coptic youth refused, warning his Muslim commander: “I will notify military intelligence about this,” to which his superior replied, “Okay, Hani; soon I will settle my account with you.”
His body was later found floating in the Nile covered with signs of torture.
For Muslims who equate war with jihad, having non-Muslims fighting alongside them is unacceptable.
It should come as no surprise that some Muslim soldiers insist that the men fighting alongside them be Muslims as well. “Infidels” are seen as untrustworthy fifth columns (hence why Islamic law holds that non-Muslim subjects, or dhimmis, are forbidden from owning weapons). In Islam, allegiance belongs to the Umma—the abstract “Muslim world” that transcends racial, linguistic, and territorial borders—and not to any particular Muslim nation.
Thus it may seem reasonable for all Egyptian citizens—Muslims and Christians alike—to serve in their nation’s military. But for Muslims who equate “war” with “jihad,” having non-Muslims fighting alongside them is unacceptable—hence the aforementioned anecdotes of pressure on Christian soldiers to convert to Islam.
Nor is this sort of thinking limited to Egypt. In Kuwait, no one can become a citizen without first converting to Islam, and indigenous Kuwaitis who openly leave Islam lose their citizenship. In nations as diverse as Iran and Sudan, prominent church leaders are regularly persecuted, some put on death row, on the accusation that, because they are not Muslim, they must be treasonous agitators working for the West (which, in the popular Muslim mind, continues to be conflated with Christianity).
Finally, all these modern day slayings of Christian soldiers who refuse to convert to Islam thoroughly contradict the historic narrative being peddled by Mideast academics in America. Put differently, the present sheds light on the past.
In an attempt to whitewash the meaning of jizya—the extortion money non-Muslims redeemed their lives with—Georgetown University’s John Esposito writes that jizya was actually paid to “exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service.” Similarly, Sohaib Sultan, Princeton University’s Muslim chaplain, asserts that jizya was merely “an exemption tax in lieu of military service.”
Such assertions are absurd: Muslim overlords never wanted their conquered and despised “infidel” subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad—holy war against infidels, such as the conquered subjects themselves—without first converting to Islam.
That’s how it was in the past, and, increasingly, the way it is in the present.
**Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Khamenei asks IRGC to prevent 'enemy’s influence'
Arash Karami/ Al-Monitor/September 16, 2015
One of the balancing acts for Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been to engage Western countries in extensive negotiations over their nuclear program without opening the door to deeper Western influence in Iran. Minus last-minute tactics by Republicans in Congress, the Iranian nuclear deal now seems a done deal, and Iranian officials are welcoming foreign and Western investors. These investors — and the tourists and products they will bring along with them — have the potential to open up a country that has been increasingly isolated due to US, EU and UN Security Council sanctions.
The potential for Western or foreign influence poses a problem for conservatives in the country, who would like to maintain the country’s Iranian or Islamic values. During his speech with commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Sept. 16, Khamenei talked about the importance of preventing this influence. He warned that one of the paths the enemy would pursue is to influence society and weaken the beliefs of people. He described the enemy as “world arrogance, with America being the complete symbol of it.”
Khamenei advised that “the path to confront this type of influence is to arm the IRGC with the strong logic of the revolution through increasing its persuasive, logical and expressive strength regarding the Islamic Revolution.”
Khamenei accused foreign countries of saying that Iran is an influential player in the region while at the same time saying that Iran must put aside its revolutionary ideals if it wants to be part of the world economy. According to Khamenei, “These two propositions are contradictory, because our strength and influence is due to our revolutionary actions, and naturally — if we put that aside — we will become weak.”
Khamenei warned that “the primary goal of the enemy is that the Iranian nation put aside its revolutionary philosophy until it loses its power so that it is eliminated through the plans of a few bullying countries, which name themselves the international community.” Interestingly, President Hassan Rouhani told the IRGC officers Sept. 15 that the Islamic Revolution brought about the state of the Islamic Republic and hinted that the state should be given priority over the revolution.
Given that the IRGC answers to the supreme leader, they will be more ideologically aligned to Khamenei, who spent a considerable part of his Sept. 16 speech warning about the potential influence of the enemy. “The enemy’s effort to have influence is one of the big threats,” Khamenei said.
He added, “An economic and security influence are of course dangerous and have heavy consequences, but a political and cultural influence is a much larger danger and everyone must be careful.” Khamenei also warned that the enemy is seeking influence in the decision-making centers of the country so that decisions are made based on the wants of foreign countries.
The head of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jafari, also spoke to the commanders, echoing Khamenei’s comments about the influence of foreign countries. He said, “With all of our ability, we will properly guard the principles, values and achievements of the Islamic Revolution, and we will never allow those opposed to this divine path to pave the way for the enemy.”

What Iran Is Permitted To Do Under The JCPOA
By: Yigal Carmon/September 17/5 MEMRI Daily Brief No.57
Support or opposition to the nuclear deal should be predicated on the text of the JCPOA.
Here are a few examples of what Iran can do under the JCPOA. These actions –permitted under the JCPOA – clearly contradict statements and arguments raised recently by U.S. administration officials.
Iran Can Pursue The Development Of A Nuclear Device And Key Nuclear Technologies
Under the JCPOA, Iran can conduct activities "suitable for the development of a nuclear device" if the joint commission approves it as being "monitored and not for weapons purposes".[1] If anything should have been totally and absolutely banned by this agreement, it is activity suitable for the development of a nuclear device. President Obama's declared rationale for the agreement is to distance Iran from a nuclear device. The JCPOA, under certain conditions, allows even that. Also nowhere in the JCPOA does Iran promise to refrain from development of key technologies that would be necessary to develop a nuclear device. To the contrary, Ali Akbar Salehi head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran stated that: "We are building nuclear fusion now that is the technology for the next 50 years."[2]
Iran Can Prevent The Inspection Of Military Sites
Under the JCPOA the IAEA cannot go wherever the evidence leads. The JCPOA allows Iran to reject a priori any request to visit a military facility. This exclusion was included in the JCPOA by introducing a limitation under which a request that "aims at interfering with military or other national security activities" is not admissible. [3]
The ban on visits to military sites has been enunciated by all regime figures from Supreme Leader Khamenei downwards. Supreme Leader Khamenei specified: "(The foreigners) shouldn’t be allowed at all to penetrate into the country's security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of inspection, and the country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection." [4]
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that such visits crossed a red line and were successfully rejected by Iran during the negotiations.[5] Supreme Leader Khamenei's top adviser for international affairs, Ali Akbar Velayati, stated: "The access of inspectors from the IAEA or from any other body to Iran's military centers is forbidden."[6]
Administration spokespersons persist in claiming that military facilities will also come under inspection, in total contradiction to the language of the JCPOA and the Iranian position.
There Will Be No Snapback Of Sanctions
Under the JCPOA, snapback is not automatic, but will be dependent on UN Security Council approval.
Additionally, a declaration has been introduced into the JCPOA and thus became an integral part of the agreement. Iran "will treat such a re-introduction or reimposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part."[7] The inclusion of this clause in the agreement makes the re-imposition of sanctions, in the optimal case, the subject of litigation, when Iran can contend that the other sides is in violation of the agreement.
Sanctions Regime's Duration Can Be Shortened To Less Than Eight Or Ten Years
Under the JCPOA the duration of the sanctions regime need not extend to eight or ten years but can be much shorter if the IAEA so determines. Upon a report from the director-general of the IAEA to the board of governors of the IAEA and in parallel to the UN Security Council stating that the IAEA has reached the broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities whichever is earlier (emphasis added)"[8]
Arak Will Remain A Heavy Water And Hence A Plutonium Capable Facility; Iran’s Plutonium Pathway Was Not Totally Blocked
Arak houses Iran's heavy water facility. Despite the vague wording in the JCPOA, (i.e. Iran will "redesign" the reactor and it will be "modernized"),[9] it will also continue to operate partially as a heavy water facility a key element needed in plutonium production.
*Yigal Carmon is President and Founder of MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/
[2] Farsnews.com, August 9, 2015.
[3] JCPOA, Annex I, Q.74.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Latimes.com, July 22, 2015
[6] http://english.farsnews.com/print.aspx?nn=13940510000646
[7] JCPOA, Section I, Article C, Paragraph 26. See footnote 1 for link to text.
[8] JCPOA, Annex V, D.19. See footnote 1 for link to text.
[9] JCPOA, I.B.8. See footnote 1 for link to text.

US to name coordinator for implementing Iran nuclear deal
Laura Rozen/Al-Monitor/September 16, 2015
With the Iran nuclear deal expected to emerge intact this week from a grueling 60-day congressional review, the Barack Obama administration is preparing to unveil a new office for coordinating its implementation, to be led by outgoing US Ambassador to Poland Stephen Mull.
The announcement of Mull’s appointment as US coordinator for the Iran nuclear deal implementation is expected to be made by Secretary of State John Kerry as early as Sept. 17 — the deadline for Congress to have sent a resolution of disapproval to the president, a move that was blocked by Senate Democrats — or shortly thereafter, US officials said. It is expected to come as the White House also announces the nomination of State Department Counselor Tom Shannon to succeed Wendy Sherman as undersecretary of state for political affairs, as Al-Monitor previously reported.
A veteran foreign service officer, Mull previously served as executive secretary of the State Department (2010-12), ambassador to Lithuania and, most critically, as senior adviser to then-Undersecretary of State William Burns (2008-10) when Burns was the lead US Iran nuclear negotiator and the United States was helping negotiate UN Security Council Resolution 1929 that sanctioned Iran over its nuclear program, among previous relevant assignments. (Mull was described by one former State Department colleague as “Burns’ right arm.”)
Mull, contacted by Al-Monitor, declined to comment on his anticipated new appointment before it is officially announced. His successor as US envoy to Poland, Paul Jones, was sworn in by Kerry at the State Department on Sept. 11.
Mull “is a brilliant choice,” Richard Nephew, former top State Department Iran sanctions official, told Al-Monitor, noting Mull’s experience on the Iran file under Burns from 2009-10 and wide-ranging work with agencies across the government. He may want to bring on as his deputy coordinator somebody who has invested a decade-plus specifically on the Iran file to complement his experience, Nephew said.
Beyond the near-term ribbon-cutting, the office may get off to a somewhat slow start, as Mull gathers his team, meets with all the senior people throughout the government and foreign interlocutors, and brings himself up to speed on every detail of the past two years of negotiations and the 159-page Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, former US officials suggested.Mull is expected to oversee a small team of up to seven people, based at the State Department, who will coordinate US government implementation of the JCPOA across US government agencies as needed, including the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Department of Energy and so on. The team will be “lean … not more than seven” people, and Mull “will have reach” across the entire interagency to convene what he needs, said a US official, speaking not for attribution to discuss the still-fluid plans for the office.
The small team working under Mull will be “coordinating this very large interagency group of people, hundreds of people,” across multiple agencies, including the State and Treasury departments and the labs employing Department of Energy nuclear experts, to ensure that both Iran lives up to its commitments under the JCPOA, and the United States lives up to its commitments, a second US official said, stressing that “the function of the team is a coordinating function.”
On the nuclear and sanctions issues, Mull brings a variety of expertise to the table, including his experience serving as Burns’ senior adviser from 2008 to 2010 when the United States was helping negotiate the critical UN Security Council Resolution 1929, and as executive secretary of the State Department, in which he coordinated lots of people to serve then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now Democratic presidential candidate.
The coordinating team will be structured with Mull in charge; he will have an assistant coordinator and a handful of deputies responsible for different functions, including congressional reporting, verifying the nuclear piece, sanctions and sanctions relief.
The other members of the P5+1 — the permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — are also in the process of organizing themselves to implement the JCPOA. The JCPOA mandated that a Joint Commission — comprised of each member of the P5+1, plus the European Union and Iran — be established to meet regularly to coordinate implementation of the landmark Iran nuclear deal and work out any disputes that may arise.
“We are still in process and have not decided yet who will be representing us in the Joint Commission,” a Russian official told Al-Monitor, adding that Russia is likely to be represented on the Joint Commission at the expert level, rather than by its chief Iran nuclear negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov.
France is likely to be represented on the Joint Commission by its political director and chief Iran nuclear negotiator Nicolas de Riviere, a French official told Al-Monitor.
Who will lead the European Union team on the Joint Commission “is still a work in progress,” an EU official told Al-Monitor on Sept. 15. An Iran task force has been established at the European External Action Service, led by Portuguese diplomat Hugo Sobral. Also mentioned as a possibility is Stephan Klement, the longtime top nonproliferation adviser to European Union Deputy Secretary-General Helga Schmid, who played the central role in over two years of Iran nuclear deal negotiations and the drafting of the final deal, reached July 14 in Vienna.
Iranian officials told Al-Monitor they were still figuring out their representation on the Joint Commission, and they understood the same to be true of some of the other P5+1 governments.
“At this moment, all these questions are under consideration in Iran and even, I assume, by other P5+1 countries, and no definite position has yet been made on them,” a member of the Iranian negotiating team, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor on Sept.16.
Diplomats from Iran and the P5+1 are expected to meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly opening session that gets underway in New York later this month. Both US President Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani are scheduled to address the UN General Assembly on the first day, Sept. 28. The first meeting of the Joint Commission is likely to happen in New York at the political director level. “It’s supposed to be held on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York,” a senior Iranian official, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor on Sept. 15. He added that the date is not finalized yet.
“Adoption day” of the JCPOA is Oct. 18 — 90 days after the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the deal, US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told journalists at a press conference in Vienna on Sept. 14 on the sidelines of an International Atomic Energy Agency general conference.
Barring surprises from Congress, after Sept. 17, “our expectation … is that the agreement will then go forward,” Moniz told journalists in Vienna on Sept. 14. “Certainly our thinking … is [then] on the question of implementation.”
“This is a large task,” Moniz said. “And my view … is that over the next year and a half, the most important thing is in fact implementing well on all sides, and essentially demonstrating the value [of the Iran nuclear deal] so that … next year, what we will see [is that] the Iran nuclear program has been rolled back substantially.”

Egyptian Coptic Church tapped to play the role of mediator in Nile River dispute
Ayah Aman/ Al-Monitor/September 16, 2015
CAIRO — As tensions continue between Cairo and Ethiopia over the construction of the Renaissance Dam of Ethiopia despite political efforts in both countries to overcome the dispute over sharing Nile water, the Egyptian government is involving the Egyptian Coptic Church and encouraging it to play a role of mediation and convergence of views over the issue. On Aug. 25, the minister of water resources and irrigation, Hossam El Din Maghazi, announced at a press conference attended by Al-Monitor the signing of a cooperation agreement with Pope Tawadros II, the pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Maghazi said, “The church supports the efforts of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and the government to manage the issue of the Renaissance Dam and build confidence between the two sides,” expressing hope that the church’s efforts would resolve the crisis of the dam for the benefit of the two countries.Khalid Wassif, spokesman for the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, told Al-Monitor, “We appealed to the church to help solve the water crisis in Egypt given its important influence on Egyptians and since it has the ability to deliver a message explaining Egypt's water crisis to a broad sector of local and foreign public opinion.”Wassif added, “The cooperation program with the church will allow training 500 pastors, servants and priests to be water ambassadors and convey messages based on religious devotion to protect the Nile River.”
He said, “The church does not have a direct role in the political or technical negotiations with Ethiopia and the Nile upstream countries, yet it has another role, that of cultural and religious influence aimed at activating soft policy through the Egyptian church’s activity in Africa.”
In another development, Tawadros is expected to travel to Ethiopia Sept. 27 to participate in a celebration of what tradition says was the fourth-century discovery of remnants of Jesus Christ’s cross. The pope had indicated in press statements that the “visit is in response to the visit of Patriarch of Ethiopia Pope Matthias I to Cairo on Jan. 10, and the Nile water issue has paramount importance in all of our dialogues.”
Regarding the pope's visit to Ethiopia, Bishop Beemen, the liaison between the Egyptian and Ethiopian churches, said in a press statement Aug. 27, “The pope did not ask for meetings with political and executive leaders of Ethiopia.” He added, “The church has soft power in terms of negotiations over the Renaissance Dam through [spreading] messages of peace and love, reassuring the Ethiopian side with regard to Egypt’s intentions. Our message is clear. We seek the development of Ethiopia, but at the same time we will not accept any damage to our country.”
The Egyptian Coptic Church is the mother church in the African continent since its inception in the first century, and has a strong and active role in Africa, which is not limited to the religious role, but also covers a range of political, cultural, educational and developmental duties.
The Coptic Orthodox Church had sent several missions to Africa, where it built its first church in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1976; there are 55 churches in Kenya alone. Egyptian Coptic churches have spread to Tanzania, Zambia, Congo and Nigeria. Abune Boulos, the general bishop of the Bishopric of African Affairs, has documented the Egyptian church’s services in Africa in the documentary “Miracles in Africa,” which presents the church as helping provide medical, social, educational and cultural as well as spiritual services.
The Egyptian and Ethiopian churches have a special historical relationship. The church of Alexandria is the mother of the church of Ethiopia, which became part of the See of St. Mark the Apostle. According to the prevailing tradition, the head of the Ethiopian church was an Egyptian bishop assigned by the pope of Alexandria. However, in 1959, Abune Basilios, an Ethiopian, was enthroned as the first patriarch of the Ethiopian church. In 1974, under communist rule and following the military coup led by Mengistu Haile Mariam against the emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie I, the ties between the churches were severed. Moreover, the church in Ethiopia faced fierce attack under communist rule and lost its influence on the political administration in Ethiopia.
Despite the strong spiritual influence of the Egyptian church in Africa and its distinctive relationship with Ethiopia, experts in African affairs rule out the possibilities of potential progress to mitigate the crisis with Ethiopia over Nile water.
Hani Raslan, an expert in African affairs at Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, told Al-Monitor, “Resorting to the church or religious institutions at the present time to resolve the ongoing dispute over the Nile waters is a waste of time and will not push negotiations toward a solution.”
Still, he believes the role of the church and the exchange of visits could improve relations between Egypt and the Nile Basin countries, especially since most of the problems between Egypt and its African neighbors are due to the bad perception African countries have about Egypt in general. “Ethiopia is a secular state and the Ethiopian church has no influence over the government’s decisions,” Raslan said.
Moreover, he did not expect the visit of Tawadros to Ethiopia to have concrete results, saying, “Sisi himself went to Ethiopia, talked with the political leadership and signed a declaration of principles, but the crisis persists.”
It should be noted that the technical negotiations between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia, which began in August 2014, failed to reach tangible results to minimize the negative impacts of the Renaissance Dam on the Nile water’s flow to Egypt and Sudan. Despite the political momentum in these three countries on this file, Egypt expressed — in an official statement of the Ministry of Water Resources on Sept. 6 — its dissatisfaction with the slowdown in the implementation of impact studies showing the dam’s bad effects on Egypt so far. Moreover, Egypt reiterated its call for urgent consultations with Sudan and Ethiopia to rescue the negotiations on the construction of the dam in order to preserve the common interests of the three countries. It seems that Egypt is keeping the door open to any initiatives that will strengthen its position and resolve the ongoing crisis with Ethiopia and the countries of the Nile Basin over the management of the Nile water. However, the political administration must exert more effort in the negotiations to reach technical and legal solutions guaranteeing the interests of all parties while not prejudicing any of them.

Congress rethinks anti-Assad stance
Author Julian Pecquet/Al-Monitor/September 16, 2015
A growing number of Democratic lawmakers are openly questioning whether toppling Syria's Bashar al-Assad should still be a priority amid steady gains by the Islamic State. The issue came to a head Sept. 16 as a key Senate panel held its first IS hearing since the first batch of 54 US-trained rebels was routed in late July by al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra as soon as it entered Syria. Reports that Russia is beefing up Assad's forces with tanks, troops and artillery has only added to the calls of some Democrats for a new strategy. "I don't know that it helps for us to keep banging the table about Assad," panel member Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told Al-Monitor. "I think it would be better for us to be as effective as possible in fighting [IS] and restoring some kind of security environment that shifts back the flow of refugees."
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., shared similar misgivings.
"I think we've come to a point where we should be reassessing what our strategy [should be] with respect to Assad and Syria and the conflict there," she said. "I don't have the answer on me about what I think that should be, but I really think we're at a point where we need to reassess, because what we've been doing is not working."Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he's worried about the "void" left by Assad's removal in the absence of any viable moderate opposition. "Who are you going to replace him with? What are you going to do? Leave a void?" he told Al-Monitor. "That hasn't worked with Saddam [Hussein] or with [Moammar] Gadhafi. It's a royal, royal mess, and we're just throwing more money at it and making it messier." And Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., cautioned against open calls for toppling Assad. Instead, he has backed the creation of humanitarian safe zones for civilians brutalized by the regime's barrel bombs as well as Islamist extremists.
"I don't think regime change should be an official policy of the United States," Kaine said. "Our batting record is very poor."The growing angst follows repeated assurances by the Barack Obama administration that Assad "must go" and that his days were "numbered." Four years and more than 200,000 deaths later, the only groups making much progress on the ground appear to be IS and other extremist militant groups. During the hearing, McCaskill warned Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of the US Central Command, that the Pentagon's $600 million request for the train-and-equip program for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 "seems very unrealistic to me." Austin didn't help his case when he admitted that only "four or five" US-trained rebels — out of 5,400 the Obama administration had hoped to train by year's end with the $500 million appropriated last year — were currently fighting in Syria.
Defense spending bills in the House and Senate set aside $600 million and $531.5 million for the program over the next two years, respectively, but that was before the extent of the program's failure was known. The House-passed defense policy bill, meanwhile, calls for setting aside $531 million for the program in FY 2016.
Shaheen agreed with McCaskill that the program is in jeopardy.
"I do think it will be challenging to continue to support that kind of money," Shaheen told Al-Monitor. "There are other initiatives that have potential to have significant impact, such as efforts to counter [IS] propaganda. There's a center in the UAE [United Arab Emirates] that we've been working with to try and do that; perhaps that's a better place to put those resources." And McCaskill and Manchin recommended using the money to pay fighters with the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in Syria. The YPG, which Turkey considers a terrorist group, has increasingly been coordinating with Assad's forces in their joint fight against IS. "What we ought to do is rethink that $500 million that we've committed, how much we've spent already as far as trying to recruit in Syria," Manchin told Al-Monitor. "Knowing that the Kurds will fight, you can get a much better bang for your buck right there. See if you can back the Turks off from trying to kill the Kurds that are fighting in Syria, and make some peace on that end of it and then you have a united front in terms of a good ground force."
Even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., a longtime proponent of greater US involvement to counter Assad through no-fly zones and other means, warned that the train-and-equip program was doomed absent "major changes."
McCain has lambasted Russia's full-fledged entry into the fight as proof that President Obama has allowed US foes to gain traction in the Middle East. But others see an opportunity.
"I would suspect that the reason for the Russian [moves] is the belief that the Assad regime is at least pulling back, and there's some significant instability," Kaine told Al-Monitor. "I don't think they care at all about Assad. I think what they care about is stability. And if that is the case, and they see [Jabhat] al-Nusra and especially [IS] as the same threat that we do, then there are some possibilities there."
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, agreed. He maintained the need for getting rid of Assad, but said the Obama administration was clearly going about it the wrong way. "Part of good strategic thinking is that you modify your strategy according to changed circumstances," King told Austin during the hearing. "You mentioned Assad is losing his capabilities every day — I'm sorry, general, I've been hearing that since 2013: Assad is about to go, he's about to collapse. We've got to find a strategy that allows us to move Assad aside in some way, working with the Russians, if necessary, or the Iranians, because he's the irritant that's keeping this thing stirred up."The comments follow reports that Russia in 2012 offered a compromise that would have seen Assad step down. Western officials have questioned the Kremlin's ability to ever deliver on a proposal that ended up going nowhere. King went on to embrace McCain's calls for a humanitarian corridor that would be defended against incursions by Assad's air force. Kaine endorsed the idea in an April 21 letter to Obama along with McCain and Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "You would need military support, but I think you would get it," Kaine told Al-Monitor on Sept. 16. "The European nations, I think they would participate in militarily providing safety — with us, with Turkey — to staunch the flow of refugees. You could still have so many more come out of Syria. I actually think that if you do that, and you do it well, that will actually increase the odds of some political resolution of the situation in the country."

Are Muslims Fatalists?
Daniel Pipes/Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2015 (view PDF) http://www.meforum.org/meq/pdfs/5478.pdf
http://www.meforum.org/5478/are-muslims-fatalists
“According to God, your age is written on your forehead.”An Arabic proverb/“Sit on a beehive and say this is fate.”Another Arabic proverb[1]
Despite repeated deadly stampedes and other disasters during the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, every year, thousands continue to make the journey. Many critics say that the Saudi government should do more to prevent such tragedies, but Saudis have often responded by referring to “God’s will.”
After a building crane fell into Mecca’s Grand Mosque on Sep. 11, 2015, killing 114 and injuring 394, the mosque’s Imam Abdul Rahman Al Sudais visited the injured and, as he met each one, told them, “This is God’s will.”[2]
Likewise, in February 2004, after a stampede killed at least 244 hajjis (pilgrims) in Mina, a town near Mecca, Saudi hajj minister Iyad Madani oxymoronically responded: “All precautions were taken to prevent such an incident, but this is God’s will.”[3]
And, when in July 1990, pilgrims fell from a bridge over the crowded al-Mu’aysim Passageway, a panic ensued, and about 1,400 hajjis lost their lives, King Fahd (r. 1982-2005) neither assumed responsibility for the bridge’s faulty construction nor apologized to the families. Instead, he attributed the event to “God’s irresistible will.”[4]
Saudi and Iranian Views
These Saudi leaders responded as fatalists—meaning those who wait for change to take place “without doing anything to bring about such change” or believing that what will be must be, regardless of what a person does about it. They precisely fit the Muslim belief in maktub (Arabic for “It is written”) and qisma (Arabic for “fate foreordained by God”[5] or “the portion of fate, good or bad, specifically allotted to and destined for each man”).[6]
It bears noting that fatalism is mainly used negatively, only explaining what is un-wished for. “It is written” justifies farmers failing to prepare for drought, parents for polio, or merchants for fire. However, Saudi officials do not invoke God’s will to explain, say, the abundance of inexpensive-to-extract oil reserves on their territory.
But official Saudi fatalism does not end the story. Iran’s no less pious leaders dismissed this fatalism with bitter scorn. “This is not the will of God,” President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani responded to Fahd; yes, an earthquake fits the description of “God’s irresistible will” but not the collapse of a man-made bridge.[7] The head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Mohammed Yazdi, mocked Fahd’s statement while Iranian media competed in scoffing at the Saudi authorities. Kayhan International pointed to criminal intent behind the event, calling it “not an accident but a pogrom,”[8] and asked whether the tragedy was the will of God or that of the Great Satan (i.e., the U.S. government).[9] An editorial in the newspaper Resalat, echoing traditional Shiite resentment of Sunnis, ridiculed the whole notion of fatalism:
Fahd has attributed an incident stemming from his impiety, incapacity, and inefficiency to “divine will,” saying that “they were very fortunate to have died in this holy place, for their hour had come and they could have died in an unholy place (?!).” This reminds one of the “fatalism” in the philosophy concocted by the clergymen of the royal courts to justify the crimes perpetrated by corrupt Muslim leaders throughout 1,400 years [of Muslim history].[10]
In the Iranian leadership’s reading, then, fatalism is a tool concocted by self-interested Muslim despots, not something inherent to the religion.
Responding to these attacks, a Saudi government spokesman feebly retorted: “Has any human being since the creation been able to prevent a time of death willed by God and engraved on the eternal tablet? It was God’s will. His judgment and decision cannot be warded off.”[11] The Saudis even asserted that those seeking a human explanation for the bridge disaster “do not believe in God’s will.”[12]
This antagonism among two Muslim-majority countries with Islamist rulers raises a broader question: Are Muslims recognizably more fatalistic than non-Muslim? Or is fatalism just a convenient excuse, as Tehran claims, “to justify crimes”? Or perhaps, it is an Orientalist stereotype?
Philosophical and Theological Debate
The question of man’s control over his destiny has been a topic of philosophical debate since ancient Greece. The dilemma goes like this: If humans have the ability to make decisions, this diminishes God’s universal powers. But if God makes all decisions, humans have no responsibility for their own deeds, negating such concepts as justice and punishment.
Two main Islamic schools of thought emerged, one arguing for free will and one holding that God acts through man, and the individual has no say.
This controversy flourished in the classical Islamic period when leading philosophical and theological minds took it up.[13] Two main Islamic schools of thought emerged: the Qadariya arguing for free will and the Jabriya holding that God acts through man, and the individual has no say.[14] In its most radical form (forwarded by an early sect named the Jahmiya), the latter approach holds that humans act “only metaphorically, as the sun ‘acts’ in setting.”[15] The historian Bernard Lewis reprises this argument with an analogy:
In the great debate among medieval Muslim theologians on the question of predestination or free will, [chess and back-gammon] sometimes served as symbols and prototypes. Is life a game of chess, where the player has a choice at every move, where skill and foresight can bring him success? Or is it rather backgammon, where a modicum of skill may speed or delay the result, but where the final outcome is determined by the repeated throw of the dice?[16]
Researcher As’ad Abu Khalil notes that “there never was a monolithic view of predestination and free will in Islam. In fact, this very question regarding the responsibility of God and of people for actions lies at the heart of many schisms in Islamic thought.”[17]
This debate continues today,[18] spawning a substantial secondary literature. For example, one book analyzes the narrow topic of “the concept of fate in the Arab world as reflected in modern Arabic literature.”[19] But this dispute is not the topic here. Rather, the question is: Are Muslims more fatalistic than non-Muslims?
Finding Fatalism
Many modern non-Muslims observed that Muslims believe in an unchangeable destiny mapped out in advance. Some distinguished examples:
In 1810, Louis de Corancez, a French traveler to Arabia, wrote that Orientals “are always content with their present state” due to their quality of “absolute resignation,” which he found to be the “distinctive quality” of their character.[20] Writing in 1836, the great English ethnographer of Egypt, Edward Lane, found something similar:
Influenced by their belief in predestination, the men display, in times of distressing uncertainty, an exemplary patience, and, after any afflicting event, a remarkable degree of resignation and fortitude, approaching nearly to apathy. … While the Christian justly blames himself for every untoward event, which he thinks he has brought upon himself, or might have avoided, the Muslim enjoys a remarkable serenity of mind in all the vicissitudes of life. … The same belief in predestination renders the Muslim utterly devoid of presumption with regard to his future actions, or to any future events.[21]
The British found belief in predestination so distinctively Muslim that a word of Arabic-Persian-Turkish origins, kismet, was first adopted in English in 1849 to mean “fate, fortune.” The 1953 Broadway musical Kismet, set in a fictional Baghdad, tells of poets and caliphs. The lyrics of one song lament: “Fate! Fate can be a trap in our path/ The bitter cup of your tears/Your wine of wrath.”
So distinctively Muslim did the British find belief in predestination that a word of Arabic-Persian-Turkish origins, kismet, was first adopted in English in 1849 to mean “fate, fortune.”[22]
The magisterial Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907-12 explained that the Muslim concept of God, plus the “Oriental tendency to belittle the individuality of man,” led to an Islamic “theory of predestination approximating towards fatalism.” It asserted that orthodox Islam holds that “all good and evil actions and events take place by the eternal decrees of God.”[23]
Later British soldiers and administrators dealing with Muslims perceived fatalism as a fact of life and factored this into their actions.
Winston Churchill, reflecting his experience in Sudan, wrote in 1899 that Islam involves a “fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.”[24]
T.E. Lawrence, the British hero of World War I and author of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, found that Arabs “had accepted the gift of life unquestioningly, as axiomatic. To them it was a thing inevitable, entailed on man, a usufruct, beyond control.”[25]
The British Foreign Office drew up a memorandum in 1951 to explain why Iranians insisted, against all reason, that their oil industry should fall under Iranian control. The memo explained: “Often, after finding the world does not answer their dreams, they relapse into indolence and do not persevere in any attempt to bring their ideas into focus with reality. This tendency is exaggerated by the fatalism of their religion.”[26]
“The ubiquitous phrase ‘in sh’Allah’ (God willing) becomes an excuse for taking no initiative whatsoever.”
Americans who ran the Saudi oil concession, a near-colonial setup in its mid-twentieth-century heyday, also discerned fatalism, as echoed by the historian Anthony Cave Brown: “These Arabs were lured to work for Aramco not through any desire to improve their destinies. They believed their lot in life was already determined by Allah.”[27]
Specialists before 1980 or so concurred. Hilma Granqvist, a Finnish anthropologist, wrote in 1947 that Muslims believe that in “small things as in great, man is absolutely subject to Fate.”[28] G.E. von Grunebaum, the great orientalist, put the same idea in his orotund Germanic style:
the Muslim deeply feels man’s insignificance, the uncertainty of his fate, and the omnipotence of the uncontrollable power above him. Therefore, perhaps, he is more readily prepared than the Westerner to accept the accomplished fact.[29]
Morroe Berger, an American social scientist, generalized that Arabs acquiesce “in what has been ordained by God and cemented by tradition.”[30] Raphael Patai, an Israeli anthropologist, explained: “Whatever man is or does and whatever happens to him is directly willed by Allah”; as a result, “Muslim fatalism … makes people averse to any effort directed toward seeking betterment.”[31]
Self-identified Christians continue to espouse this view. Pat Robertson, the media mogul and one-time candidate for U.S. president, finds “tremendous fatalism in Islam, that in a sense Allah set things up and let them go. And the whole concept of Kismet or fate or it’s the will of Allah … You’ve got flies in your face; it’s the will of Allah. A child is hungry; it’s the will of Allah.”[32] David B. Burrell, a Christian theologian, is impressed by Muslims’ palpable sense of the presence of God:
God the Provider, to whom we are enjoined to give thanks by our actions on behalf of others. We are never to forget that our life comes forth each moment from the hand of God, and our destiny as well. This latter can easily spawn a form of ‘fatalism,’ where the ubiquitous phrase ‘in sh’Allah’ (‘God willing’) be-comes an excuse for taking no initiative whatsoever.[33]
Pat Robertson, a Christian media mogul and one-time candidate for U.S. president, finds “tremendous fatalism in Islam … You’ve got flies in your face; it’s the will of Allah. A child is hungry; it’s the will of Allah.”
Western popular culture occasionally references Muslim fatalism. Famed mystery writer Agatha Christie lived for years in Iraq with her archeologist husband and, in a 1951 novel, described the Iraqi disposition: “Not to worry over the chances of success or failure … throw responsibility on the All Merciful, the All Wise.” She also noted “the calmness and the fatalism” that results.[34] The 1953 Broadway musical Kismet tells of poets and caliphs. A Seattle-based music group calls itself Maktub.[35]
Middle Eastern Christians discern fatalism among their Muslim neighbors. Henry Habib-Ayrout, a Jesuit and anthropologist, observed in 1952 that Egypt’s peasant mentality “is of a fatalistic and static order” and permits the peasant not to be active.[36] The sociologist Sania Hamady observes that “the Arab manifests a dominating belief in the influence of predestination and fatalism.” She draws direct implications from this for daily life since “human responsibility for failure and success is relegated mainly to God, the individual does not feel impelled to work in order to obtain his worldly aims.” As a result, she concludes that “the average Arab has an outlook on life that is utterly improvident.”[37]
Some Muslim scholars also perceive fatalism. Iranian economist Jahangir Amuzegar discerns a “fatalistic streak in the Persian psyche” and historian Homa Katouzian writes of Iran’s “unimaginable fatalism.”[38] Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi social scientist, finds that an “extreme fatalism … may be a characteristic of Islamic culture generally.”[39]
Survey Research Finds Fatalism
Survey research confirms these views. In a poll of 347 American Muslims, 33 percent agreed with the statement, “Everything in life is determined by God”; 38 percent with “God allows man to have some free choice in life”; and only 29 percent with “God gives man total free choice.”[40] The Pew Foundation in 2012 asked Muslims in twenty-three countries ranging from Bosnia to Indonesia, “Do you believe: in predestination or fate (Kismat/Qadar)?” and found widespread fatalism:
Predestination, or fate, is … widely embraced by Muslims around the globe. In 19 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least seven-in-ten Muslims say they believe in fate.[41]
In four of the five regions where the question was asked, a median of about 90 percent believe in fate. (See Table 1.)
In another study, a 2004 World Values Survey questionnaire shows Muslims to be more fatalistic than Christians though only marginally more so than the Greek Christian Orthodox but much more so than Protestants. (See Table 2 below).
Muslims Express Fatalism
Plenty of Muslims express fatalistic views. A few documented instances:
When an unkempt Saddam Hussein was captured by U.S. troops in December 2003 in an underground hole, a local supporter, Dhaif Rayhan Mahmoud, commented bitterly: “We Muslims only believe in fate. It was God’s will.”[42] At the end of 2004, asked about the persistent, random violence wracking his city, a Baghdadi money changer also offered a fatalistic approach: “We must continue to live normally because our destiny is in God’s hands. God alone will decide.”[43]
Decades of water mismanagement left­ the Shatt al-Arab, the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, an ecological disaster; among other problems, salt water from the Persian Gulf reaches further up the river than ever before. As the New York Times explains, this “has ravaged fresh-water fisheries, livestock, crops and groves of date palms that once made the area famous, forcing the migration of tens of thousands of farmers.” And how did the Iraqi government respond to this man-made catastrophe? “We can’t control what God does,” said the deputy director of water resources in Basra, sounding rather like an insurance appraiser.[44]
Fatalism, not surprisingly, is widespread in war conditions. An American Muslim about to join the mujahideen in Bosnia announced: “All our destinies are already written. Our time of death is already written as well.”[45] The conductor on an Algerian train often attacked by Islamist rebels when asked if he feared for his life replied: “We Muslims believe in destiny. So whether we die in our beds or on this train, it’s all the same in the end.”[46] Fatih Çoban, 33, a private security guard, was riding a subway in Istanbul when a metal rod, probably from a construction site, seriously injured him, piercing his body and spearing his hips. The family will not seek a legal remedy against the subway authorities because, his father explained, “This is God’s will. Whatever is written in your fate will happen to you.”[47]
Scholars of the Middle East overwhelmingly disagree with the notion of Muslims being disproportionately fatalistic.
Fatalism has obvious allure for those engaged in shameful or embarrassing activities. A Muslim salesman for a beer factory in Egypt is asked how he reconciles his work with his religion: “What can I do? Everything is written in advance, and God assigned me to work here.”[48] Few Muslim homosexuals take seriously the threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, one learns; their usual thinking is, “We don’t care. Life and death are in the hands of God.”[49] “Heroin is written in my fate,” said a Pakistan addict, a needle in his arm and a prayer cap on his head. “No one can change the decree of fate.”[50]
Muslims living in the West also express these sentiments. A Turkish student in Paris casually refers to herself as a “fatalist.”[51] In the aftermath of an EgyptAir crash off New York, Imam Ghazi Khankan of the Islamic Center of Westbury, N.Y., said that as Muslims, “We are ordered to be patient as much as possible from the moment we are born. God knows when we are going to die. It is not a punishment, it is fate.”[52] Whereas Christian prisoners in Switzerland, reports Fr. Alain René Arbez, try to understand what landed them in jail, Muslims “usually respond in a fatalist way because everything that happens is wished for by God.”[53]
Scholars Do Not Find Fatalism
Despite this bulk of evidence, contemporary scholars of the Middle East overwhelmingly disagree with the notion of Muslims being disproportionately fatalistic. The historian R. Stephen Humphreys disparages those “European commentators in the early twentieth century” who
dwelled on the resignation and passivity of Muslim societies, the dispirited effort simply to maintain the institutions and values essential to an Islamic way of life, which they perceived among Muslim peoples. Absurd as it now seems, for many decades the most influential foreign “experts” asserted that Islam was inherently a religion of fatalism and lethargy, though of course it might be punctuated with unpredictable, brief, and irrational outbursts of violence.[54]
In mid-1960s’ Egypt, 90 percent of peasants believed a person’s social position “is dependent on his own efforts.”
A survey conducted by Hani Fakhouri in Egypt in the mid-1960s may have been the first blow: He found 90 percent of peasants believed a person’s social position “is dependent on his own efforts” and only 10 percent thought it “the result of God’s will.”[55] Marcia C. Inhorn, an anthropologist who studied Egypt’s urbanites, finds that
just because life is “written,” human beings are not passive creatures, devoid of volition and will. God expects human beings to exercise their minds and to make choices, including decisions about how to lead their lives.[56]
Olivier Roy writes about the ordinary Afghan:
Far from being imprisoned within the narrow confines of a religion shot through with a sense of fatalism, the peasant finds in this same religion [Islam] a useful tool of analysis, a means of comparing one thing with another and of making sense of his own personal universe.[57]
Islam: Gary S. Gregg, a professor of psychology, shreds the very notion of Islamic fatalism and its effect of breeding inaction and stalling development. He attributes this notion to Western diplomats and administrators in Muslim-majority countries who
vent their frustrations with the pace of progress at religious “fatalism,” which they view as a deep-seated cultural or psychological trait. At almost any capital city cocktail party or Peace Corps beer bash, a voice or two will rise above the murmur of chat and pronounce: “These people are so used to sitting around waiting for God to do things that they won’t get up and help themselves.”
In other words, Gregg contends, Westerners wrongly interpret the “saturation of daily life with God’s power,” something unfamiliar to most of them, as fatalism. He finds this alleged characteristic irrelevant to underdevelopment:
As most scholars recognize, Islam is remarkably flexible, and, like “honor,” it takes diverse forms within a region, a village, or even a single family. Like other religions, Islam can be invoked to advocate or oppose modernization, to justify or condemn violence, to indict an oppressive government or cloak it in legitimacy. Whether it mobilizes initiative or counsels resignation appears to depend mainly on the presence or absence of real opportunity.
Gregg concludes that fatalism
plays no larger role in Islam than it does in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, or Christianity; nor is it any more a trait of Arabs than of any other peoples. And it no more retards development in the MENA [Middle East and North Africa] than it has in Asia.[58]
Poetry of the time of Islam’s development contained strong elements of fatalistic thinking.
History: Gabriel A. Acevedo, a sociologist, complains that “Islam has long been associated with a specific brand of extreme fatalism that is too often depicted as irrational and fanatical” and seeks to disprove this connection. He approaches the topic indirectly, asking if it is “possible to predict that the amount of Western influence on a country would affect levels of fatalism in that nation”; in other words, does fatalism go down under increased Western influence? He looks for answers in a couple of major polls; in his reading, they show an absence of correlation between modernity and fatalism. For example, Indonesian Christians show more fatalism in daily life than do Indonesian Muslims; the more Western-influenced population of Turkey is as fatalistic as the less Westernized population of Saudi Arabia. More broadly, he finds that, other than India, all countries “show no statistically significant effects of being Muslim when compared to other religious groups in that particular country.”
From this, Acevedo concludes that no connection exists between fatalism and Islam. He offers two different (and conflicting) explanations: “What is mistaken for ‘Islamic fatalism’ may be best interpreted as a greater acceptance of central authority and a relinquishment of life’s outcomes to an omnipotent deity.” He concludes with a jargon-laden observation:
there is a need to re-conceptualize fatalism as a multidimensional cognitive orientation that includes both feelings of perceived personal control as well as culturally influenced orientations that look to cosmological forces as sources of mastery over life’s outcomes.[59]
In other words, what gets labeled “fatalism” results not from faith but from political circumstances and a deep religious sensibility. Each is connected to overwhelming power: that of God over man or that of despots over subjects.
Islamic Religiosity as Cause
A Pew survey finds a correlation between Muslim piety and fatalism, and a popular Islamic website, Allah al-Jalil: Islamic Quotes & Reminders, offers the above counsel to Muslims. However, Islamists represent a supremely activist type of Islam, opposing any connection between Islam and fatalism that might impede the actions of revolutionaries, jihadists, martyrs, and suicide terrorists.
Poetry of the time indicates that the environment in which Islam developed contained strong elements of fatalistic thinking.[60] The concept of things being “written” existed before Muhammad’s time,[61] and poetry contained allusions to the allotment that God makes to each human.[62]
The Qur’an contains many fatalistic passages[63] as do many more hadith (statements and actions attributed to Muhammad).[64] A Qur’anic sampling:
Nor can a soul die except by God’s leave, the term being fixed as by writing. (3:145).
All people have a set term, and when the end of that term approaches, they can neither delay it by a single moment, nor can they speed it up. (7:34)
Nothing will happen to us except what God has decreed for us. (9:51)
Those who believe, God will strengthen with a firm word, in this world and the hereafter; but the unjust he leads astray [in this world and the hereafter]. God does what he will. (14:27)
God guides those He pleases to guide. (28:56)
If We had willed it, We could have brought every soul its guidance. (32:13)
God allows to stray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. (35:8)
No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in a book before We bring it into existence. (57:22)
But you do not will, except as God wills; for God is full of knowledge and wisdom. (76:30)
The Qur’an, other Islamic writings, and folk wisdom tilt toward fatalism but offer an inconsistent message.
The German sociologist Max Weber perceived a direct connection between the Islamic emphasis on God’s omnipotence and His direct control over humans: “The Islamic belief in predestination easily assumed fatalistic characteristics in the beliefs of the masses.”[65] The Pew survey finds a correlation between Muslim piety and fatalism:
Belief in fate varies by level of religious commitment. In seven of the 23 countries where the question was asked, those who are more religiously committed are more likely to believe in fate. The prime example is Kosovo, where 59% of those who pray several times a day believe in predestination, compared with 36% of those who pray less often.[66]
Other Qur’anic verses, however, contradict a fatalistic outlook by calling for personal responsibility:
God does not wrong people at all, but it is the people themselves who do wrong. (10:44)
God does not change the condition of a people until they change that which is in their souls. (13:11)
Do not the believers know, that if God pleased, He would guide all men? (13:31)
Similarly, Arabic proverbs often suggest a spirit that is anything but passive:
“Whoever toils will achieve.”
“He who does not sow does not harvest.”
“First think things out, then rely on God.”
Islamists represent a supremely activist type of Islam. Of course, they vociferously oppose any connection between Islam and fatalism that might impede the actions of revolutionaries, jihadis, martyrs, and suicide terrorists. Muzammil Siddiqi, a Los Angeles-based imam, explains:
We do not use the word “fate” in Islam. The word “fate” means “the power that determines the outcome of events before they occur.” Some people believe in fate as an independent and invisible power that controls their destinies. Such people are called “fatalists.” A Muslim is not a fatalist person. Muslims believe in Allah and only Allah has the power to predetermine anything.[67]
In all, the Qur’an, other Islamic writings, and folk wisdom tilt toward fatalism but offer an inconsistent message.
Despotism as Cause
The Iranian statement about fatalism being a “philosophy concocted by the clergymen of the royal courts to justify the crimes perpetrated by corrupt Muslim leaders” has some truth, for rulers have exploited the fatalistic theme for their own ends: By discouraging initiative, fatalism makes their rule easier to maintain. Along these lines, the American Colliers Encyclopedia explains that fatalism results from “the theological emptiness that overtook Muslims in the wake of social and political decadence.”[68]
Fatalism was espoused by the first Muslim dynasty, the Umayyads, for whom it had the handy implication of discouraging rebellions against their authority. And so it stayed through the ages as rulers hoped that fatalistic notions would engender political passivity with regards to the challenges of life and the decisions by rulers. Abu Khalil observes how “attempts by Muslim/Arab leaders in the past and in contemporary Arab history to rationalize defeats and failures through resorts to pure Jabriyah has become typical to the point of predictability.”[69]
Their support gave this interpretation of the Qur’an enough momentum to prevail. Reviewing the history of fatalism, Abu Khalil notes, “While the history of Islamic thought witnessed a struggle between those who believed in free will and those who believed in the inescapability of fate … the latter school become dominant by virtue of the political support it received from the various Islamic governments.”[70]
Kismet came to denote in the Ottoman Empire, reports C.E. Bosworth in the Encyclopedia of Islam,
a general attitude of fatalism, the resigned acceptance of the blows and buffetings of destiny. …The climate of popular belief in fate and chance is well seen in many stories of the Thousand and One Nights and in much of the Perso-Turkish moralistic literature.[71]
Modern rulers have found the language of fatalism no less useful, and they frequently invoke it. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt regularly dismissed unpleasant developments as inescapable destiny even as he associated his own decisions with inescapable fate, so as to encourage acceptance to the one and discourage resistance to the other. In the aftermath of Israel’s routing of the Egyptian armed forces in June 1967, he resorted to an Arabic proverb (“Precaution does not change the course of fate”) and homely analogies (“Like a man who was hit in the street by a car”).[72] With this, Nasser sought to absolve his government of blame and signal that it could have done none other than what it did. Likewise, after his defeat in 1967, King Hussein of Jordan remarked to his subjects,
If you were not rewarded with glory, it was not because you lacked courage, but because it is Allah’s will.[73]
Modern rulers have found the language of fatalism useful, and they frequently employ it. In the aftermath of the terrible defeat of the Egyptian army in June 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser resorted to an Arabic proverb: “Precaution does not change the course of fate.”
When Saddam Hussein’s conquest of Kuwait in 1990-91 ended in similar ignominy, he also reverted to such language, dramatically reversing decades of boisterous, secular assertions of control over one’s destiny.[74] He apologetically explained why his diplomacy failed so badly and Iraqi forces faced so wide a coalition: “We may seem fatalistic in our view of many leaders in the world because we do not expect anything good from them in terms of humanitarian standards.”[75] His spokesman Tariq Aziz described the outlook of Iraq’s leadership (read: Saddam Hussein) as “fatalistic,” suggesting even that this attitude might have been sincere.[76]
Husni Mubarak responded in 2006 to the sinking of an Egyptian ferry boat, Al Salam Boccaccio 98 and the drownings of more than a thousand of its approximately 1,400 passengers and crew by reminding Egyptians that they accept the hand of God. He also asked the Almighty to accept the drowned as martyrs.[77] The military ruler of Gambia, Yahya Jammeh, exhibited “an Islamic fatalism,” and he routinely replied to questions about his intention to stand for election with the statement, “It is in God’s hands.”[78]
While some examples point to an instrumental use of fatalist rhetoric by leaders, other signs suggest they are sincere.
If these examples point to an instrumental use of fatalist rhetoric by leaders, other signs suggest they are sincere. This is highlighted especially in discussions of their own deaths: Saudi King Faisal believed, according to David Holden and Richard Johns, that “his death was preordained to the exact second the day appointed by Allah. That partly explained his contempt for security arrangements in general. He was irritated by guards whom he looked upon as an unnecessary encumbrance.”[79] This lack of protection enabled his assassination by a relative in 1975.
Interestingly, this attitude can also extend to a Middle East Christian such as Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then Egypt’s minister of state for foreign affairs. Warned in August 1979 that Palestinians would try to kill him, he replied by asserting his belief that “the date of a man’s death is written,” and he could do nothing about it.[80] Yasser Arafat used similar language when speaking about his death: “When my turn will arrive, no one can stop it. This is part of my religion.”[81]
If rulers sometimes use fatalism as a tool, at other times they seem to believe in it.
Muslim Activism
Rulers who expect Muslim political passivity may be in for a rude surprise: Muslim masses have often taken forceful action. The demonstration across Egypt against Mohamed Morsi in June 2013 was the largest, single political event in human history, involving millions of protestors.
The historical record shows that rulers who expect Muslim political passivity are often in for a rude surprise: Muslim masses have often acted very actively.
After World War I, Western administrators assumed that Turks would submit to Allied domination with what one British Foreign Ministry official termed “sulky fatalism.” But they assumed wrong: “The war was not over as far as the leaders of the CUP [i.e., the Young Turks] were concerned,” and they fought hard (and successfully) to keep the Europeans out.[82]
The last shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, believed in the fatalism of his subjects. According to John Stempel, a U.S. diplomat stationed in Iran, “The tendency of most Moslems to take a fatalistic view of life … was neatly woven into the Shah’s philosophy of government, which regarded the leader as active … and the people as passive.”[83] He learned his mistake the hard way in 1978-79, when he lost his throne to country-wide revolution. Surprisingly, Amuzegar made his observation about a “fatalistic streak” in a book about that same revolution.
The Arab-Israeli conflict also rebuts clichés about fatalism. Israel’s forces defeated their Arab foes on the field of battle in 1948-49, in 1956, in 1967, in 1970, and in 1982, then again in 2006, 2008-09, 2012, and 2014. Yet the Arabs, impervious to the apparent message of these defeats, have continued their struggle against the Jewish state. This record over three generations hardly suggests a people who accept whatever fate metes them out.
In Egypt, an increase in the price of bread in 1977 led to food riots. In Iraq, as soon as the brutal rule of the Saddam Hussein regime was momentarily lifted in 1991, rebellions erupted throughout the country. The Arab upheavals that began in late 2010 rapidly overthrew rulers in four countries—Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen—and led to a civil war in Syria.
A far larger percentage of the population participated in the Iranian revolution than in the French, Russian, or Chinese revolutions.
Saudi authorities may have blamed hajj calamities on fate, but at other times, they solved problems in a no-nonsense way. They did not respond to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait by mumbling about “God’s will” but invited half a million foreign troops to defeat the Iraqi tyrant. The nephew who assassinated King Faisal of Saudi Arabia claimed to carry out God’s will, but the judges had him beheaded for “willful and premeditated murder.”[84] A steep drop in the price of oil in late 2008 found the Saudis energetically organizing fellow exporters to cut back on production. The double threat of the Iranian nuclear buildup and American fracking in 2014 found the Saudi leadership keeping production high to reduce energy prices. In 2015, the new Saudi king went to war in Yemen. Such examples can be multiplied a hundred-fold, and each of them refutes the notion of passivity and acceptance of one’s lot.
Finally, two outstanding examples: A far larger percentage of the population participated in the Iranian revolution than in the French, Russian, or Chinese revolutions. The demonstration across Egypt against Mohamed Morsi in June 2013 was the largest single political event in human history, involving millions of protestors.[85]
Accounting for Activism
If this record of activism refutes a reputation for fatalism, adherents of this explanation can cleverly account for hyperactivism; they do so by seeing it as a safety valve. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that a “lethargic and indolent [tendency] in respect to the ordinary industries of life” contrasts with a “recklessness in danger which has proved a valuable element in the military character of the people.” Iraqi analyst Kanan Makiya finds, “The idea of submission to the will of God is the passive counterpart of the quest for martyrdom in His cause.”[86] Abdel-Halim Qandil, an Egyptian columnist, says of his fellow citizens:
There is a deeply rooted conviction among Egyptians that politics is outside their range of interests. True, Egyptians silently endure oppression for long spells of time. But when they have had enough, they erupt like a cyclone.[87]
Conversely, Gary Gregg tells about “one of the more progressive men” in a Moroccan town who built up a café for tourists, only to have it appropriated by a government official. After venting his fury but realizing he could not win, the would-be café owner gradually resigned himself, bitterly muttering, “Maktub, maktub.” Gregg concludes from this that “the opening of opportunity breeds a kind of achievement-oriented, ‘Muslim ethicist’ religiosity; the closing of opportunity breeds resignation in the solace of religious fatalism.” In other words, resignation crept in when opportunity closed.
This definition of fatalism, however, allows one to have it both ways: Muslims are fatalistic whether quiescent or not, whether passive or active. This renders the thesis of Islamic fatalism adaptable to all eventualities and means it cannot be disproven. This is not scholarship nor social science. Rather, it is a semantic trick. If fatalism can mean itself and its opposite, its utility as an analytical tool disappears. A fatalistic people passively accepts its lot and suffers whatever tyranny or brutality is its fate. By definition, a people that rises up is not fatalistic.
Conclusion: Fatalism and Its Opposite
Fatalism coexists with powerful currents of Muslim activism, energy, and enterprise. Von Grunebaum noted this dual heritage:
the Muslim usually acquiesces in impositions backed by superior force. He is aware of the transient character of human power and is apt to minimize its ultimate influence. On the other hand, one glance at the countless rebellions in Muslim lands will show that the believer’s acquiescence had very definite and rather narrow limits. However often disappointed in its expectations, the populace was ever ready to fight for a cause instead of patiently waiting for the pre-ordained outcome. So it seems highly doubtful whether “fatalism” can be actually described as a retarding power in politics.[88]
Or, as this author wrote in 1983 about pre-modern life:
Although Muslim subjects were often referred to by the Arabic term ra’iya (tended flock), indicating their passivity, it would be more apt to see them as cattle which, normally placid and complacent, sometimes turned against authorities and stampeded them. Rejection of the [traditional order] happened rarely, usually at moments of extreme crisis, but often enough to keep Muslim rulers apprehensive.[89]
“Fatalism,” in short, is a simplistic reduction of a complex Muslim reality. Yes, there is a disproportionately fatalistic inclination (the Pew polls establish that); social science skepticism notwithstanding, fatalism does appear to be more prevalent among Muslims than among other peoples. But so too is there a contradictory record of hyperactivism (as symbolized by the Iranian and Egyptian cases). Their mix is unpredictable. Seeing only half the picture distorts the whole. Fatalism does not help explain Muslim life. The term should be retired from analysis.
Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum (DanielPipes.org; @DanielPipes). The author thanks Lenn E. Goodman for his comments on this article.
[1] Quoted by Robert Fisk in The Independent (London), June 18, 2000; Halim Barakat, “Beyond the Always and the Never: A Critique of Social Psychological Interpretations of Arab Society and Culture,” in Theory, Politics and the Arab World: Critical Responses, ed. Hisham Sharabi (New York: Routledge, 1990), pp. 147-50; idem, The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), pp. 191-4.
[2] Associated Press, September 13, 2015.
[3] The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2004.
[4] Saudi Press Agency, July 3, 1990.
[5] Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1974), p. 763. The Qur’an does not use the word qisma in the sense of “fate.”
[6] Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. “qisma.”
[7] Radio Tehran, July 4, 1990.
[8] Kayhan International (Tehran), July 9, 1990.
[9] Ibid., July 7, 1990.
[10] Resalat (Tehran), July 5, 1990. Punctuation as in the original. Fahd does not appear to have uttered the sentence attributed to him here.
[11] Saudi Press Agency, July 9, 1990.
[12] The Independent (London), July 12, 1990.
[13] Helmer Ringgren, “Islamic Fatalism,” in Helmer Ringgren, ed., Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore, and Literature (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1967), pp. 52-62; Maria De Cillis, Free Will and Predestination in Islamic Thought: Theoretical Compromises in the Works of Avicenna, al-Ghazali and Ibn ‘Arabi (Oxford: Routledge, 2013).
[14] W. Montgomery Watt, Free Will and Predestination in Early Islam (London: Luzac, 1948).
[15] W. Montgomery Watt, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2d ed., s.v. “Djahmiyya.”
[16] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (New York: Scribner, 1996), p. 16.
[17] As’ad Abu Khalil, “Al-Jabriyyah in the Political Discourse of Jamal ‘Abd al-Nasir and Saddam Husayn: The Rationalization of Defeat,” The Muslim World, July-Oct. 1994, p. 241.
[18] Ulrich Schoen, Determination und Freiheit im arabischen Denken heute: eine christliche Reflexion im Gespräch mit Naturwissenschaften und Islam (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976); Mohammad M. al-Sha’rawi, Fate and Predestination, trans. Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (London: Dar al-Taqwa, 1994).
[19] Dalya Cohen-Mor, A Matter of Fate: The Concept of Fate in the Arab World as Reflected in Modern Arabic Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).
[20] Louis Alexandre Olivier de Corancez, Histoire des wahabis; depuis leur origine jusqu’a la fin de 1809 (Paris: Chez Crapart, 1810), trans. by Eric Taber as The History of the Wahabis from Their Origin until the End of 1809 (Reading, Eng.: Garnet, 1995), p. 122. See also, pp. 24, 33.
[21] Edward William Lane, Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (London: Dent, 1966; first published in 1860), p. 291.
[22] Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “kismet.”
[23] The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church (New York: Robert Appleton, 1909), vol. 5, s.v. “fatalism.”
[24] Winston Churchill, The River War (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1899), vol. II, pp. 248-50.
[25] T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1935), pp. 38-9.
[26] “Paper on the Persian Social and Political Scene,” quoted in Ervand Abrahamian, Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), p. 115.
[27] Anthony Cave Brown Oil, God, and Gold: The Story of Aramco and the Saudi Kings (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1999), p. 147.
[28] Hilma Granqvist, Birth and Childhood among the Arabs: Studies in a Muhammadan Village in Palestine (Helsinki: Söderström, 1947), p. 177.
[29] G.E. von Grunebaum, Islam: Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition, 2d ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961), p. 70.
[30] Morroe Berger, The Arab World Today (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1964), p. 156.
[31] Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1976), pp. 148, 310.
[32] Pat Robertson, speaking on The 700 Club, Oct. 20 1994, compiled by People for the American Way, Washington, D.C.
[33] David B. Burrell, “The Pillars of Islamic faith: What We Should Know and Why,” Commonweal, Jan. 31, 1997.
[34] Agatha Christie, They Came to Baghdad (London: Fontana, 1954), p. 34.
[35] Gene Johnson, “Seattle’s Maktub is movin’ on up,” July 19, 2003. For more information, see maktub.com.
[36] Henry Habib-Ayrout, Fellahs d’Egypte (Cairo: Editions du Sphynx, 1952), p. 170.
[37] Sania Hamady, Temperament and Character of the Arabs (New York: Twayne, 1960), pp. 185, 213, 187.
[38] Jahangir Amuzegar, The Dynamics of the Iranian Revolution: The Pahlavis’ Triumph and Tragedy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), p. 91; Homa Katouzian, The Political Economy of Modern Iran: Despotism and Pseudo-Modernism, 1926-1979 (New York: New York University Press, 1981), p. 65.
[39] Samir al-Khalil [pseud. of Kanan Makiya], Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 100.
[40] Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Adair T. Lummis, Islamic Values in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 25.
[41] The World’ s Muslims: Unity and Diversity, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Washington, D.C., Aug. 9, 2012, p. 41.
[42] Associated Press, Dec. 16, 2003.
[43] Agence France-Presse, Dec. 31, 2004; Middle East Online (London), Dec. 31, 2004.
[44] The New York Times, June 12, 2010.
[45] Muzaffar Haleem and Betty Bowman, The Sun Is Rising in the West: New Muslims Tell about Their Journey to Islam (Beltsville, Md.: Amana, 1420/1999), p. 29.
[46] The New York Times, Mar. 13, 1999.
[47] Today’s Zaman (Istanbul), Sept. 29, 2014.
[48] Karim El-Gawhary, “Religious Ferment(ation),” Middle East Report, Summer 1999, p. 15.
[49] Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, eds., Islamic Homosexualities: Culture, History, and Literature (New York: New York University Press, 1997), p. 274.
[50] The New York Times, Apr. 19, 2000.
[51] Quoted in Herbert Mason, Memoir of a Friend: Louis Massignon (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), p. 65.
[52] Associated Press, Oct. 31, 1999.
[53] Abbé Alain René Arbez, “Detenus Musulmans Dans Les Prisons Suisses: (Le Constat D’un Aumônier Catholique),” Commission of the Conference of Swiss Bishops for Migrants, Mar. 31, 2000.
[54] R. Stephen Humphreys, Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 186-7.
[55] Hani Fakhouri, Kafr el-Elow: An Egyptian Village in Transition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), p. 41.
[56] Marcia C. Inhorn, Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), p. 78.
[57] Olivier Roy, Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan, trans. by First Edition (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 34.
[58] Gary S. Gregg, The Middle East: A Cultural Psychology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 30-3.
[59] Gabriel A. Acevedo, “Islamic Fatalism and the Clash of Civilizations: An Appraisal of a Contentious and Dubious Theory,” Social Forces, 86 (2008): 1711-52.
[60] Helmer Ringgren, Studies in Arabian Fatalism (Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska, 1955).
[61] Abu Khalil, “Al-Jabriyyah,” p. 242.
[62] Ibid., p. 243.
[63] For a listing, see Saleh Soubhy, Pèlerinage à la Mecque et a Médine (Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, 1894), p. 15.
[64] Abu Khalil, “Al-Jabriyyah,” p. 243.
[65] Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, eds. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 575.
[66] The World’ s Muslims: Unity and Diversity, p. 61.
[67] “Fate or Free Will, Nature or Nurture,” OnIslam.net (Doha), Aug. 16, 2003.
[68] Colliers Encyclopedia on CD-ROM, r.v. “kismet”; Encarta Encyclopedia, accessed 6/4/15, s.v. “kismaayo.”
[69] Abu Khalil, “Al-Jabriyyah,” p. 246.
[70] Ibid., pp. 243-4.
[71] Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., “Kismet.”
[72] Abu Khalil, “Al-Jabriyyah,” p. 247.
[73] Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 310.
[74] Abu Khalil, “Al-Jabriyyah,” pp. 249-55.
[75] Saddam Hussein, meeting with papal representative Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, May 3, 1993, on Republic of Iraq Radio, May 4, 1993.
[76] Quoted in Ghazi A. Algosaibi, The Gulf Crisis: An Attempt to Understand (New York: Kegan Paul International, 1993), p. 38; Milton Viorst, Sandcastles: The Arabs in Search of the Modern World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 345.
[77] Eli Lake, “Egypt’s Titanic Ups Pressure On Mubarak,” The New York Sun, Feb. 6, 2006.
[78] Inter-Press Service (IPS, Rome), Sept. 24, 1996.
[79] David Holden and Richard Johns, The House of Saud: The Rise and Rule of the Most Powerful Dynasty in the Arab World (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981), p. 379.
[80] Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Egypt’s Road to Jerusalem: A Diplomat’s Story of the Struggle for Peace in the Middle East (New York: Random House, 1997), p. 264.
[81] Channel 1 Television (Jerusalem), Aug. 11, 1996.
[82] Nur Bilge Criss, Istanbul under Allied Occupation, 1918-1923 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), p. 4.
[83] John R. Stempel, Inside the Iranian Revolution (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981), p. 13.
[84] Holden and Johns, The House of Saud, p. 383.
[85] The New York Times, June 30, 2013.
[86] Khalil, Republic of Fear, p. 100.
[87] Associated Press, Mar. 28, 2005.
[88] Von Grunebaum, Islam, p. 70.
[89] Daniel Pipes, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (New York: Basic Books, 1983), p. 63.
Related Topics: Islam | Daniel Pipes | Fall 2015 MEQ receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL
.