New Page 5

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

Bible Quotation For Today/To whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."
Luke 12/42-48: "The Lord said, ‘Who then is the faithful and prudent manager whom his master will put in charge of his slaves, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says to himself, "My master is delayed in coming", and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

Bible Quotation For Today/To me unreasonable to send a prisoner without indicating the charges against him.’
Acts of the Apostles 25/,13-14.22-27/: "After several days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to welcome Festus. Since they were staying there for several days, Festus laid Paul’s case before the king, saying, ‘There is a man here who was left in prison by Felix. Agrippa said to Festus, ‘I would like to hear the man myself.’ ‘Tomorrow’, he said, ‘you will hear him.’ So on the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp, and they entered the audience hall with the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city. Then Festus gave the order and Paul was brought in. And Festus said, ‘King Agrippa and all here present with us, you see this man about whom the whole Jewish community petitioned me, both in Jerusalem and here, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. But I found that he had done nothing deserving death; and when he appealed to his Imperial Majesty, I decided to send him. But I have nothing definite to write to our sovereign about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write for it seems to me unreasonable to send a prisoner without indicating the charges against him.’"

LCCC Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 06-07/15
The President Gets Personal about the Iran Deal/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/August 06/15
ISIS Going Rogue in Turkey, or Is It/by Burak Bekdil/The Gatestone Institute/August 06/15
Nuclearizing Iran, Sabotaging Arabs/Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/August 06/15
Turkey and Its Kurds: At War Again/Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/August 06/15
No to the separation of South Yemen/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/August 06/15
Why Donald Trump wins even if he loses/Joyce Karam/Al Arabiya/August 06/15
Obama ‘Modifies’ U.S. Oath of Allegiance According to Islamic Law/Raymond Ibrahim/August 06/15
Exclusive: Rafsanjani on future of Iran-US ties, Saudi Arabia/Rohollah Faghihi/Contributor, Iran Pulse/August 06/15
Fatah Member Calls For 'Two States In One Space,' Separated By A Virtual Border/MEMRI/August 06/15
Iraqi Christians held for months by ICE after crossing Mexican border in asylum bid/Cody Derespina/FoxNews.com/August 06/15

Top Officials Represent Lebanon at Inauguration of Suez Canal Extension
Associated PressAgence/France PresseNaharnet/Naharnet/August 06/15/Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Tammam Salam and Deputy PM Defense Minister Samir Moqbel attend Thursday the inauguration of a major extension of the Suez Canal in Egypt. The three officials are expected to return to Beirut the same day. The event in the port city of Ismailiya, which was attended by several heads of state including French President Francois Hollande, comes two years after then army chief Abdel Fattah Sisi overthrew his Islamist predecessor. Sisi broke ground on the project last August after being elected president on promises of strengthening security and reviving a dilapidated economy. The $8.5 billion extension of the waterway is funded entirely by Egyptians, without foreign aid. The new extension involved digging and dredging along 72 kilometers of the 193-kilometer canal, making a parallel waterway at its middle that will facilitate two-way traffic accommodating the world's largest ships.

Zarif in Beirut Next Week over Iran Nuclear Deal
Naharnet/August 06/15/Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is scheduled to visit Beirut next week to brief Lebanese officials on the nuclear deal signed between major powers and Tehran. Zarif will make the visit on August 12. He is expected to meet with top officials and political figures who are allied with Iran. The nuclear deal was negotiated between Iran and six world powers last month. While the deal would effectively cut off Iran's pathway to developing an atomic bomb, it would lift economic sanctions on Tehran, including unfreezing at least $50 billion in foreign reserves. U.S. President Barack Obama warned Congress on Wednesday that blocking the accord would damage the nation's credibility and increase the likelihood of more war in the Middle East.

Moqbel Extends Terms of Top Army Officials for a Year
Naharnet/August 06/15/Defense Minister Samir Moqbel has extended the terms of the Army commander, the chief of staff and the head of the Higher Defense Council, a move that is expected to draw the anger of Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun.
Moqbel took the decision to make the one-year extension late Wednesday after the cabinet failed to resolve the controversial issue of the appointment of high-ranking military and security officials.
Army chief of staff Maj. Gen. Walid Salman was due to retire Friday. Army chief Gen. Jean Qahwaji’s term ends on Sept. 23. Moqbel is expected to make a formal announcement on the decision on Thursday morning. Aoun, who has been calling for making new appointments, is likely to take escalatory measures following the decision. FPM sources said the movement had no information about such a move because the rival officials were still holding consultations to reach a settlement on the appointments. “The extension will be met with more escalatory measures. Aoun will not back off,” the sources told al-Akhbar.

Hizbullah and Mustaqbal Discuss 'Proposals to Resolve Political Crisis'
Naharnet/August 06/15/A sixteenth dialogue session between Hizbullah and al-Mustaqbal movement tackled “proposals to resolve the political crisis” and “a number of social issues,” the two parties said in a joint statement. “The conferees discussed the suggested proposals for resolving the country's political crisis and a number of social issues that are of concern to citizens,” said a terse statement issued after talks in Ain al-Tineh on Wednesday evening. The two parties have announced that the their dialogue, which kicked off last year, is mainly aimed at defusing the Sunni-Shiite tensions in the country. Lebanon has been without a president since Michel Suleiman's term ended on May 25, 2014. The presidential vacuum is increasingly paralyzing the work of the government and the parliament. The political impasse was recently aggravated by unprecedented waste collection and electricity crises that have prompted angry citizens to take to the streets to denounce the government's shortcomings. The garbage crisis erupted after the closure of the Naameh landfill on July 17. It has seen streets overflowing with piles of trash for around two weeks. The country is also reeling from lengthy power outages that have coincided with a fierce heat wave. Electricite Du Liban has blamed the problem on the disconnection of two power generation units at the vital Zahrani plant and the high demand on electricity during this time of year.

Loyalty to Resistance: Priority for Presidential Vote, Mustaqbal Must Stop Complicating Crisis
Naharnet/August 06/15/Hizbullah's Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc noted Thursday that “the current priority is for ending the presidential vacuum,” as it called on al-Mustaqbal movement to “facilitate the proposed solutions.”“The current priority is for ending the presidential vacuum and we support any initiative aimed at reviving the parliament's legislative role,” said the bloc in a statement issued after its weekly meeting. “The pressing, extraordinary circumstances that the country is going through necessitate a careful approach that allows the current government to take the necessary measures to cater to the interests of the Lebanese people and state,” the bloc added. But it noted that “consensus” must be preserved in the cabinet's sessions, calling on rival parties not to “take lightly the stances and political weights of the forces that should be partners in taking the decisions.”Accordingly, Loyalty to Resistance called on al-Mustaqbal movement to “facilitate the proposed solutions” instead of “carrying on with the policy of escalation and complication, which will only prolong the crisis and worsen the situations.”Lebanon has been without a president since Michel Suleiman's term ended on May 25, 2014. The presidential vacuum is increasingly paralyzing the work of the government and the parliament. A dispute over the cabinet's decision-making mechanism has recently erupted between the Free Patriotic Movement, Hizbullah's main Christian ally, and Prime Minister Tammam Salam, who is close to al-Mustaqbal.

Hisham, Elie Daou Charged in Rabih Kahil Murder
Naharnet/August 06/15/State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Saqr Saqr charged on Thursday two suspects with the murder of army Major Rabih Kahil, various media outlets reported. They said that Hisham and Elie Daou were charged in the case. Hisham Daou was charged with opening fire at officer, hitting him in the leg four times. Elie Daou is charged with interfering in the accident. Saqr then referred the case to the military examining magistrate. Kahil died in hospital last week after succumbing to wounds sustained in a shooting in Bdadoun. A statement issued by the Army Command said the officer was “shot by a criminal as he was passing in the Bdadoun area.”According to his family, he was heading to his house in the nearby Aley District town of al-Qmatiyeh. Several TV networks said the officer was shot during a quarrel with two men after he parked his car on the side of the road in Bdadoun to make a phone call. The dispute erupted after the two men arrived in a car and asked Kahil to leave the area, although he identified himself as an army officer. A fistfight ensued before one of the men, Hisham Daou, opened fire at Kahil from a weapon equipped with a silencer.

Military Official: More U.S. Arms Delivered to Lebanon
Naharnet/August 06/15/The United States has delivered more weapons to the Lebanese army as part of the program aimed at assisting the military to confront terrorist organizations, a high-ranking military official said. The official, who was not identified, said that the delivery of the new batch of heavy weapons is a sign that “Washington has confidence in the capabilities of the military institution and its performance after its success in the battles and the operations it carried out lately.” “The army was recently able to impose security, pursue terrorist groups and paralyze their movements,” the official told al-Joumhouria newspaper published Thursday. “We no longer hear of the movement of terrorist groups or acts that tamper with national security,” he said. In late May, the U.S. delivered over 200 TOW-II Missiles and dozens of launchers to the Lebanese army.The assistance was valued at over $10 million and jointly funded by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Since August 2014, America has provided the Lebanese army with $82.5 million of weapons and ammunition. Ambassador David Hale said following talks with Prime Minister Tammam Salam last week that the U.S. will continue to be the Lebanese army’s steadfast and foremost security partner. Since 2006, Washington has provided more than $1 billion in security assistance and critical training, he said.

Syrian Troops, Hizbullah Advance in Zabadani
Associated Press/Naharnet/August 06/15/Syrian government forces backed by Hizbullah have advanced from different directions in the mountain resort of Zabadani near the border with Lebanon, Syrian state media reported. Syrian opposition groups have accused the government and Hizbullah of displacing thousands of Sunnis from areas along the border with Lebanon and preventing them from returning to their homes. Syrian troops and Hizbullah have been besieging Zabadani since early July, and have faced strong resistance from gunmen inside the resort. Syria's state news agency SANA said Wednesday that the fighting has left dozens of militants dead. The capture of Zabadani would tighten Hizbullah's grip on Syrian territories bordering Lebanon and help secure the highway linking Beirut with the Syrian capital, Damascus. Hizbullah has said it is fighting alongside President Bashar Assad's forces to protect Lebanon from Sunni extremists.

U.N. Security Council to Vote Friday on Syria Chemical Weapons Probe
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 06/15/The U.N. Security Council is expected to adopt on Friday a draft resolution that would set up a panel to determine who is responsible for deadly chlorine gas attacks in Syria, diplomats said. A vote at the 15-member council was scheduled after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry won backing from Russia for the measure, in a rare sign of cooperation from the Damascus ally over how to address the conflict in Syria. Under discussion for months, the U.S.-drafted resolution would set up a team of experts tasked with identifying the perpetrators of the chemical weapons attacks, paving the way for possible sanctions. The resolution mandates the panel jointly set up with the OPCW chemical weapons watchdog to "identify to the greatest extent feasible individuals, entities, groups, or governments who were perpetrators, organizers, sponsors or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals as weapons including chlorine or any other toxic chemical" in Syria. The United States and its allies have repeatedly accused President Bashar Assad's forces of carrying out chlorine gas attacks with barrel bombs thrown from helicopters. The three countries argue that only the Syrian regime has helicopters, but Russia maintains there is no solid proof that Damascus is behind the attacks. "So what we are trying to do is to get beyond the mere finding of the fact that it may have been used, and actually find out who used it, and designate accountability for its use," Kerry told reporters in Malaysia earlier. Kerry said he agreed with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the measure during a meeting on Wednesday. The measure would task U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to set up the team within 20 days, working with the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The panel would present its first findings to the council 90 days after it begins its work.
Russian shift
Pressure has been mounting on the deeply-divided Security Council to take action in Syria, where the war is now in its fifth year and has claimed more than 230,000 lives. A veto-wielding member of the council, Russia last year blocked a key resolution on referring Syria to the International Criminal Court for war crimes but it later backed a measure on boosting humanitarian aid. Russian support for the chlorine gas probe is seen by some western diplomats as a shift from Moscow, which has shielded the Assad regime at the United Nations.
"There is a change of tone," a Security Council diplomat said this week, but he cautioned: "I don't want to overstate it." Security Council diplomats are separately working on a statement backing a new push for peace talks in Geneva that could yield a plan for a Syrian transition that western powers insist should happen without Assad. Discussions are also inching forward on a new tougher U.N. measure on banning the use of barrel bombs, building on resolutions that have condemned the practice. In 2013, Syria agreed to a U.S.-Russia plan to dismantle its chemical weapons network and join an international treaty banning their use in what was then hailed as a first sign that Moscow was ready to turn up the pressure on Assad.
But human rights groups and Syrian doctors have since come forward with videos and accounts of dozens of chlorine gas attacks that have in particular targeted the northwestern Idlib province. Earlier this year, council members heard graphic accounts from Syrian doctors of chlorine gas attacks in March on the village of Sarmin that left six dead including three children.

IS Suicide Bomb Attack at Mosque for Saudi Forces Kills 15
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 06/15/ An Islamic State group suicide bomber on Thursday detonated an explosives-packed vest in a mosque inside a Saudi special forces headquarters killing 15 people. In the latest in a string of IS attacks in the kingdom, the interior ministry said the bomber struck during noon prayers in the city of Abha, in the southern province of Asir near the border with war-strewn Yemen. Twelve of those killed were members of a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) unit, while the other three were workers at the compound, officials said. Seven other people were wounded. "The terrorist attack struck worshipers during prayer," the spokesman said, giving an initial toll of 10 policemen and three workers killed and nine people wounded. El-Ikhbariya state television later said that two policemen wounded in the "heinous" attack had died, bringing the death toll to 15. IS affiliate "al-Hijaz Province" said in an online statement that it was behind the attack, the latest -- and deadliest -- against security forces in Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia in recent weeks. The statement identified the bomber as Abu Sinan al-Najdi and said the jihadist infiltrated the special forces headquarters in Abha and activated his explosives vest, killing and wounding dozens. Al-Hijaz Province vowed to carry out fresh strikes against "tyrants in the Arabian peninsula... in the coming days."Another IS-affiliated group, "Najd Province", had claimed attacks on Shiite mosques in May that killed 25 people. An interior ministry spokesman said that "body parts found at the scene" indicated the use of an explosive vest. The governor of Asir province, Prince Faisal bin Khaled bin Abdul Aziz, visited the mosque and the wounded in hospital. "The attack is aimed at destabilizing the country and sowing fear among citizens," he said, quoted by the official Saudi Press agency.
IS attacks in Saudi
IS has committed atrocities in Syria and Iraq, where it controls swathes of territories, and expanded across the region, claiming responsibility for a wave of deadly attacks from Libya to Kuwait. The group has said it was behind a July 16 car bomb that exploded at a security checkpoint near a prison in the Saudi capital Riyadh, killing the driver and wounding two policemen. Officials identified the driver as a 19-year-old Saudi man and said he had killed his uncle, a colonel, before blowing himself up on a road near al-Hair prison, a high security facility. IS said the attack was a message to jihadists held at Al-Hair that they had not been forgotten. Two days later, Saudi Arabia said it had broken up an IS-linked network and arrested more than 430 suspects involved in attacks and plots. The interior minister said the suspects had plotted attacks on an unidentified diplomatic mission and mosques, including one used by security forces in Riyadh. In the southwestern city of Taif on July 3, a policeman was gunned down during a raid in which three people were arrested and IS flags found. The IS-affiliate Najd Province, apart from the attacks in Eastern Province, also claimed a suicide bombing that killed 26 people at a Shiite mosque in Kuwait in June. IS considers Shiites to be heretics. Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Gulf neighbors last year joined a U.S.-led military coalition bombing IS in Syria, raising concerns about possible retaliation in the kingdom. The kingdom also leads a coalition that has launched air strikes since March against Shiite rebels who have overrun much of neighboring Yemen and forced the government into exile. Al-Qaida waged a campaign of shootings and bombings against foreigners and Saudi security personnel between 2003 and 2007.

17 Dead in Afghan Military Helicopter Crash
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 06/15/At least 17 people, including 12 Afghan army soldiers, were killed Thursday in a helicopter crash in the southern province of Zabul, officials said. The military helicopter went down due to technical reasons in Shinkay, a district relatively free of insurgent activity in Zabul. "Five crew and 12 soldiers were killed when the helicopter crashed in Shinkay district of Zabul province due to technical issues," a provincial police official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Shinkay district chief Mohammad Qasim Khan confirmed the death toll, with an army commander saying an official delegation has been dispatched to the area to investigate the crash. Aircraft crashes have been a regular risk for Afghan and foreign coalition forces, with troops relying heavily on air transport to traverse Afghanistan's rugged terrain to fight the Taliban. The insurgents have on occasion brought down NATO helicopters, notably a U.S. Chinook in 2011, which killed 30 Americans, but such incidents have been rare. In April last year five British troops died when their helicopter crashed in Kandahar province in what London's Ministry of Defence said at the time appeared to be a "tragic accident". U.S.-led NATO forces ended their combat mission in Afghanistan in December, leaving local forces to battle militants alone, but a 13,000-strong residual force remains for training and counter-terrorism operations.

Israeli President Warns of Isolation over Row with U.S. on Iran
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 06/15/Israeli President Reuven Rivlin warned Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fight with Washington over the Iran nuclear deal threatens to leave the Jewish state isolated. U.S. President Barack Obama vigorously defended the agreement with Tehran on Wednesday and singled out the Jewish state as its only public opponent. "I am very worried by the battlefront (that has opened up) between Obama and Netanyahu and by relations between the United States and Israel," Rivlin told the Maariv daily. "The prime minister is leading a campaign against the United States as if we were equals, and that is liable to hurt Israel," he said. "We are to a large extent isolated in the world at the moment... I'm not a pessimist but for the first time I see that we are alone." Rivlin told Haaretz daily: "I say to him (Netanyahu) and I'm telling him again that disputes, even where they are just, can at the end of the day turn out to be at Israel's expense." The interviews, marking the completion of Rivlin's first year in office, were conducted before Obama's speech, his spokesman said. Netanyahu has not responded publicly to Obama's speech at the American University in Washington. His office declined comment when contacted by AFP on Thursday. He has previously said the deal will not block Iran's path to nuclear weapons and that the lifting of sanctions will allow it to further back proxy militants in the region, including enemies of Israel. Netanyahu on Tuesday made a direct appeal to U.S. Jewish groups to fight the agreement, while hitting out at "disinformation" over Israel's trenchant stance against it. Obama pointedly refused to meet Netanyahu when he traveled to Washington in March to argue against the deal before the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress.

Damascus, Muscat to 'Unite' Efforts to End Syria War
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 06/15/Muscat and Damascus agreed to work together to end Syria's brutal war, official media reported, as the Syrian foreign minister Thursday made his first Gulf visit since the conflict erupted in 2011. Foreign Minister Walid Muallem met Oman's chief diplomat Yussef bin Alawi to discuss "several regional and international topics of common interest," the official Omani news agency ONA said. They agreed "that now is the time to unite the efforts to end this (Syrian) crisis," according to Syria's state news agency SANA. "The two sides agreed to continue cooperation and coordination to achieve the shared goals of their peoples and governments," it said. Syrian daily al-Watan daily, close to the regime in Damascus, pointed out that Muscat had not cut diplomatic and political ties with President Bashar Assad's government, unlike other Arab countries in the Gulf. It was Muallem's "first visit to an Arab state in nearly four years, at the official invitation of his Omani counterpart", the paper reported in announcing the visit.
Al-Watan also wrote of a possible meeting in Muscat, a traditional mediator in the region, between top diplomats from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran, along with Russia, is a key backer of Assad, while Saudi Arabia is a prominent supporter of the opposition and rebels fighting to topple his regime. On Wednesday, Muallem was in Tehran, where he met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The Syrian minister also met with Mikhail Bogdanov, Russia's deputy foreign minister and special representative to the Middle East. The visit to Tehran coincided with Iran's announcement of a new peace plan to bring an end to Syria's conflict, which has killed more than 230,000 people.

Kuwait Court Frees 11 Suspects in Shiite Mosque Attack
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 06/15/A Kuwaiti court trying 29 suspects in a deadly bomb attack on a Shiite mosque freed 11 defendants Thursday, while the main accused said he had been told worshipers would not be harmed. A travel ban, however, remains in place on the freed defendants, including two women. Of the 29 initial suspects, five have gone on trial in absentia. Abdulrahman Sabah Saud, the main suspect, renewed his confession at the second hearing that he transported the Saudi suicide bomber to the Kuwait City mosque attacked in June. But Saud insisted he was told by the suicide bomber, Fahad al-Qaba'a, he would only blow up the mosque after it was emptied of worshipers. The prosecutor played footage taken by security cameras showing Saud driving the car with the bomber seated next to him, before he dropped him off and left. Saud, a stateless Arab, said the footage was genuine and recognized the bomber in the video. The court set August 10 for the next hearing in the trial over the June 26 bombing that killed 26 people and wounded hundreds of others. On Tuesday, Saud told the court he was a member of the Islamic State jihadist group that claimed responsibility for the attack, the worst in the history of the oil-rich Gulf state. Although the public prosecution has not released the official charge sheets, a number of defendants stand accused of belonging to a banned group and taking part in the bombing.
Saud also confessed to having transported the explosive belt from near the border with Saudi Arabia where two Saudi brothers, currently held in the kingdom, had left it. Seven Kuwaitis, five Saudis, three Pakistanis, 13 stateless Arabs known as bidoon and another unnamed person at large were charged with involvement in the attack. An IS-affiliated group calling itself Najd Province claimed the Kuwait City bombing as well as suicide attacks at two Shiite mosques in Saudi Arabia in May. The Sunni extremist IS considers Shiites, minorities in both Gulf states, to be heretics and has targeted them across the region.

Egypt unveils new Suez Canal extension
Ismailia, Egypt, AP/Thursday, 6 August 2015
With much pomp and fanfare, Egypt on Thursday unveiled a major extension of the Suez Canal billed by its patron, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi as a historic achievement needed to boost the country's ailing economy after years of unrest.
Sissi, wearing his ceremonious military uniform and trademark dark sunglasses, flew to the site aboard a military helicopter and immediately boarded a monarchy-era yacht that sailed to the venue of the ceremony.
The yacht was flanked by navy warships as helicopters, jet-fighters and military transport aircraft flew overhead. A visibly triumphant Sissi stood on the vessel’s upper deck, waving to well-wishers and folklore dance troupes performing on shore. At one point, a young boy in military uniform and holding an Egyptian red, black and white flag joined him on deck. Later in the day, the president changed to a dark grey business suit and took his seat at the main stand for an elaborate ceremony in the canal city of Ismailia, attended by foreign dignitaries and organized amid tight security measures following a series of attacks by Islamic militants in the Sinai Peninsula and the capital, Cairo.
World leaders attended
Among those at the ceremony were French President Francois Hollande, King Abdullah of Jordan and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Kuwait’s Emir Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah and Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras also attended. The unveiling of the $8.5 billion extension has been trumpeted as a historic achievement by pro-government media and has revived the nationalistic personality cult built around the 60-year-old Sissi, who as army chief led the overthrow of an Islamist president in 2013 and was elected to office last year. Egypt’s black, white and red flags now adorn streets across much of the nation, along with banners declaring support for Sissi and hailing his latest achievement. The government declared Thursday a national holiday, and banks and most businesses were closed.
The new Suez Canal extension involved digging and dredging along 72 kilometers (45 miles) of the 193-kilometer canal, making a parallel waterway at its middle that will facilitate two-way traffic. With a depth of 24 meters (79 feet), the canal now allows the simultaneous passage of ships with up to 66 ft. draught.
Counting the cost and value
The project was initially estimated to take three years, but Sissi ordered it completed in one. The government says the project, funded entirely by Egyptian investors, will more than double the canal’s annual revenue to $13.2 billion by 2023, injecting much-needed foreign currency into an economy that has struggled to recover from the 2011 uprising that toppled President Hosni Mubarak and the years of turmoil that followed. Economists and shippers have questioned the value of the project, saying the increased traffic and revenues the government is hoping for would require major growth in global trade, which at this point seems unlikely. But the man-made waterway linking the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, which was inaugurated in 1869, has long been seen as a symbol of Egyptian national pride. And pro-government media have compared Sissi to former President Gamal Abdel Nasser, whose nationalization of the canal in 1956 is seen as a defiant break with the country’s colonial past.“Egypt makes history,” read the banner headline of Thursday’s pro-government daily Al-Watan. The front page of another daily, Al-Maqal, said “Rejoice, it is worth it!”
Islamist execution threat
But Thursday’s ceremony was partially overshadowed by an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) affiliate’s threat to kill a Croatian hostage kidnapped in Cairo last month - a grim reminder of the threat posed by Islamic militants to Egypt’s stability.
The affiliate, calling itself the Sinai Province of the Islamic State, released a video Wednesday threatening to kill the Croatian in 48 hours if Egyptian authorities do not release “Muslim women” held in prison, a reference to female Islamists detained in the government's broad crackdown on former President Mohammed Mursi’s supporters. The 30-year-old Croatian father of two, Tomislav Salopek, was kidnapped on July 22. There have been conflicting reports on where he was snatched. An official at the French company he worked for in Egypt said he was taken from his car at 7 a.m. in an area west of Cairo while making his way to the city’s airport from a company site. Other reports spoke of him being snatched in the Cairo suburb of Maadi, a quiet and leafy neighborhood where many of the city’s Western community live. If confirmed, a broad daylight kidnapping of a foreigner in Maadi could cause panic among the security-conscious expatriate community. Croatian state TV reported on Thursday afternoon that Foreign Minister Vesna Pusic left for Cairo together with Salopek’s wife, Natasa. Egypt has seen a surge in attacks by Islamic militants since Mursi’s ouster, in both the restive north of the Sinai Peninsula and the mainland, focusing primarily on security forces.
Continued violence
The violence continued on Thursday, with militants shelling two homes near security checkpoints in northern Sinai, killing two people and wounding nine, according to Egyptian security officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. Also Thursday, a soldier standing guard at a military checkpoint in northern Sinai was killed by sniper fire, the officials said. Militants have also targeted foreign interests, including the Italian Consulate in Cairo, which was hit with a car bomb last month. That came just days after another bomb killed Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat in an upscale Cairo neighborhood. However, Wednesday’s video was the first to be released by Islamic militants showing a kidnapped foreigner in Egypt, an ominous escalation as the country tries to rebuild its vital tourism industry. The professionally-made video resembled clips released by ISIS, indicating closer ties with its Egyptian branch. The government says it has taken major steps to prevent anyone from disrupting Thursday’s ceremony, and pro-government media have portrayed the canal extension itself as a victory over extremism. “Rejoice, for it is a victory over terror,” wrote Al-Maqal’s editor Ibrahim Issa. “Rejoice, for it is a tremendous win for a country suffering from the blows of terror.”

Gulf Expert: Arab states oppose Iran deal but don't want to show agreement with Israel
ARIEL BEN SOLOMON/J.Post/08/06/2015
President Barack Obama said in his speech on Wednesday that all states that have commented on the Iran nuclear deal publicly support it, except for Israel, but this is misleading since Arab leaders are only being polite. Gulf leaders prefer a less confrontational approach with Washington than the very strong public opposition exhibited by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead of voicing their displeasure publicly and directly against the US rapprochement with Iran, Gulf States get their message across unofficially through articles in the Arab owned media and by leaking their strong discontent to the Western press. Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya TV and the former editor-in-chief of the popular Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat, wrote a recent article in the Saudi-backed newspaper stating that the Iran deal “was viewed by some as a rather low move by Washington against its longtime allies in the Gulf, who were loyal for over five decades.” “As a result, some in the region believe the deal requires the Gulf states reconsider their relationship with the US,” he said, going on to add, “This represents lowest point in the history of the Gulf–US relationship.”However, officially, the message was the exact opposite when Gulf Arab states told US Secretary of State John Kerry in talks this week that they supported the deal. Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah, speaking at a news conference after talks between the foreign ministers of the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Kerry said, "We are confident that what they undertook makes this region safer and more stable." Simon Henderson, the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Jerusalem Post that the text of the US-GCC joint statement “made it clear that the GCC was very concerned about Iran’s capacity for mischief, citing in particular events in Bahrain in the previous few days.”“The US media spun the meeting as showing Gulf support for the accord. The Gulf media emphasized warnings to Iran not to meddle,” said Henderson. “The Gulf rulers have clearly decided to avoid a public split with the US on the nuclear accord,” he said adding, “They also don’t want to be publicly on the same page as Israel.” David Pryce-Jones, the author of The Closed Circle, published for the first time in 1989, wrote that the shame-honor dynamic in Arab culture meant that the greater the stakes, the more caution expressed as a safety screen. He cites Kenneth Pendar, an American intelligence officer, who said, “Arab psychology is a fascinating study. Much of what goes on in places like Syria or North Africa must seem utterly confusing to anyone who has not lived with Arabs and been in close contact with their subtle and indirect ways of thought.” "At first I was completely baffled by some of the conversations I had with them. As I carefully recorded my notes afterwards, I would find that my written record of the conversation was quite different from the impression I had of it. Sometimes it seemed exactly the opposite,” said Pendar. Reuters contributed to this report.

The President Gets Personal about the Iran Deal
by Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/August 5, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6297/obama-personal-iran-deal
President Obama, in his desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways. He has accused critics of his deal of being the same Republican warmongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer "overheated" and often dishonest arguments. He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress.
These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more Democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern about, and sometimes strong opposition to, the deal that is currently before Congress.
I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Part of the reason I was opposed was because I considered, and still consider, Iran a much greater threat to the security of the world and to the stability of the Middle East than Iraq ever was. In my newly published e-book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, I make arguments that I believe are honest, fair and compelling. I recognize some advantages in the deal, but strongly believe that the disadvantages considerably outweigh them and that the risks of failure are considerable. My assessment is shared by a considerable number of other academics, policy experts and other liberal Democrats who support President Obama's domestic policies, who admire Secretary Kerry for his determination, and who do not see evil intentions in the deal.
The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers. Questions that need answering include the following:
1. Even after the expiration of the nuclear agreement, will American policy remain that Iran will never under any circumstances be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Or is it now our policy that Iran will be free to do whatever it wants to do once the deal expires?
2. After the major constraints contained in the deal end, or were the deal to collapse at any point, how long would it take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear bomb?
3. Would the United States allow Iran to begin production of a nuclear arsenal when the major constraints of the deal end?
4. Does the deal reflect a reversal in policy from President Obama's pre-reelection promise that "My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon"?
5. If not, will President Obama now announce that it is still the policy of the United States that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?
6. How exactly will the inspections regime work? Precisely how much time will the Iranians have between a request for inspection and the inspection itself? What precisely will they be permitted to do during this hiatus? And why do they need so much time if they don't plan to cheat?
7. What will President Obama do if Iran is caught cheating on this deal during his administration?
8. Precisely when will which sanctions be lifted under the agreement? Do provisions that prevent the P5+1 from imposing new sanctions apply even if Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments under the agreement? When exactly will sanctions prohibiting the sale of weapons, and particularly missile technology, be lifted?If and when these and other important questions about the deal are answered — directly, candidly, and unambiguously — Congress will be in a better position to answer the fundamental questions now before it: would rejecting this deeply flawed deal produce more dangerous results than not rejecting it? If so, what can we now do to assure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear arsenal? The answers to those questions may profoundly affect the future of the world.
So the President should spend more time on substance and less on personal attacks.
**Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School. His new e-book, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, is now available.

ISIS Going Rogue in Turkey, or Is It?
by Burak Bekdil/The Gatestone Institute/August 05/2015
http://www.meforum.org/5422/turkey-isis
Excerpt of article originally published under the title, "Turkey: ISIS's Hostage Again."
In March 2014, Turkey's main opposition social democratic party submitted a parliamentary motion to investigate alleged failings of safety standards at a coalmine in Soma, in western Turkey. The ruling Islamist party's parliamentary majority voted to reject it. Less than two months later the same coalmine exploded, killing more than 300 miners.
In February 2015, an opposition member of parliament, Nazmi Gur, from the pro-Kurdish People's Democratic Party (HDP) filed a parliamentary motion, asking for an inquiry into the activities of the Islamic State (IS, ISIS) inside Turkey. The next day, the motion was rejected by the same government benches, leading Gur to decry the vote as "a sign that the Turkish government still refrains from taking a clear position against ISIS." Half a year later, an IS suicide bomber murdered 32 people in an attack against a pro-Kurdish gathering, in a Turkish town bordering Syria.
IS has mainly targeted foes of the government — Alevis in the 2013 Reyhanli bombing, and Kurds in four separate attacks.
Turkey's covert relationship with the IS, which has captured larges swaths of land in Syria and Iraq since last summer and declared an Islamic Sharia caliphate in the lands it controls, can be described by words ranging from "clandestine support" to "distant Islamist comradeship," and from "malign neglect" to "defensive caution." But overall, it was self-destructive miscalculation.
The Turks did not understand what kind of distant ideological comrades they were dealing with when these comrades last year took hostage 49 Turkish personnel at Turkey's consulate in Mosul, Iraq's second biggest city, including the consul general.
Following secret negotiations and under terms never disclosed, the hostages were released unharmed after 101 days of captivity. Apparently, Turkey promised cautious and more covert support for the Islamic State in return for an IS promise not to commit acts of terror on Turkish territory. However, as Turkey came under increasing pressure from its Western allies to do more against the jihadists, and after Turkey showcased dozens of potential jihadists detained while crossing the Turkey-Syria border, that deal began to crack, and has now become null and void. Thus, the recent attack in an obscure corner of Turkey should come as no surprise.
Previously, Turkey offered covert support for IS in return for its promise not to attack Turkish territory.
In March 2014, three Islamic State jihadists killed two security officers and one civilian, and injured eight, when they opened fire on a checkpoint manned by gendarmes and police in Nigde, in central Turkey. Three suspected attackers, along with eight others, were arrested and are on trial, with the prosecution demanding three life sentences for each. Police reports found links between the suspects and a Syrian Turkmen, Haisam Toubaljeh (or Heysem Topalca in Turkish), who is allegedly linked with radical groups, including IS. Toubaljeh is also a suspect in the "Reyhanli case," in which a 2013 bomb attack in the southern Turkish town of Reyhanli (on the Syrian border) killed more than 50 people.
In May, shortly before Turkey's parliamentary elections, the Islamic State targeted two provincial buildings of the pro-Kurdish HDP party, injuring eight. One IS bomb arrived as a package delivery and the other as a bouquet of flowers.
An Islamic State suicide bomber murdered 32 people and wounded more than 100 others in a July 20 attack on Kurdish humanitarian activists in Suruc, Turkey.
And only two days before the elections, on June 5, a Turkish IS militant detonated a bomb at an HDP election rally in Diyarbakir, the unofficial "Kurdish capital" in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish southeast. Five people were killed and over 100 injured.
Then came the July 20 suicide bomb attack in Suruc, a small Kurdish town on the Turkish side of the Turkey-Syria border. The 32 murdered victims were mostly young Turkish and Kurdish leftists organizing humanitarian assistance for Kobane, a nearby Kurdish town on the Syrian side of the border. The bomb left more than 100 people injured.
Interestingly, with the exception of the Mosul hostage crisis and the police checkpoint shooting, all Islamic State attacks on Turkey have so far targeted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ideological/political foes: mostly Alevis in the Reyhanli bombing and the Kurdish political movement in four separate bomb attacks. Note that it was the Kurdish political movement that on June 7 dashed Erdogan's dreams to introduce an executive presidential system.
**Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a columnist for the Turkish daily Hürriyet and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Nuclearizing Iran, Sabotaging Arabs
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/August 6, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6303/nuclearizing-iran
Obama's solution? To let Iran have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, along with intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. -- or perhaps from America's soft underbelly, South America, where Iran has been acquiring uranium and establishing bases for years. Or perhaps launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible. Incredibly, America's politicians do not even seem to seem to be concerned about that.
We have just sacrificed Sunni stability for American ideology: empty slogans fed to us by clueless, if well-meaning, American officials.
As we watched one stable Arab regime fall after another, we have allowed ourselves to be destroyed from within by these bungling diplomats -- from America, Europe, China and Russia. Instead of keeping our eyes on the real threat, we exhausted ourselves in wasteful, unending battles against the Jews -- meanwhile letting the Iranian menace slip out of sight.
Obama really does deserve a Nobel Prize, but it should have been awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in gratitude for America's surrender.
"Nation building" seems to have fallen into disrepute in the West, but it should not. It is vitally important -- as the successes of Germany, Japan and South Korea attest.
Over the past few years, in our foolishness, we in the Middle East swallowed the deceptive bait of "democracy" dangled before us, even though we knew that it could not, in the misguided way it was presented, be implemented in the Middle East.
The idea was superb, but here in the Middle East, possibly in being impatient to "get credit" before the diplomats' term of office were over, no one ever took the time to establish the institutions of democracy -- equal justice under law, freedom of speech, property rights, the primacy of the individual rather than the collective, separation of religion and state -- to show us in the Middle East how democracy actually operates, and to allow those institutions to take root before ever holding an election.
So eager were Western leaders to take credit right away that they refused "let the rice bake." Had the West introduced democratic elections to Japan and South Korea (where they eventually worked brilliantly) in the same way it muscled democracy into Iraq, it would never have taken root in those countries either. Had the Germans had been asked to vote right after World War II, they would most likely have reelected the Nazis -- that was what they knew. It took seven years to re-educate the public to understand and accept a Konrad Adenauer.
What seems clear is that we have sacrificed Sunni stability for empty slogans -- and for clueless, if well-meaning, American officials. As we watched one stable Arab regime fall after another, we allowed American ideology to destroy us from within. Instead of keeping our eyes on the real threat, we exhausted ourselves in wasteful, unending battles against the Jews -- meanwhile letting the Iranian menace slip out of sight.
If we try to look at the positive side of the Iran nuclear agreement, it is just possible that Obama looked at the Sunni Arab states, fractured and at each other's throats, and at the ruthless terrorist groups gaining ground in the expanding battle zones, and decided that we were too fractious for the U.S. to protect.
Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been worsening the situation in the Arab world by funding Sunni terrorist organizations, thereby putting it on a course of complete chaos. Despite Arab wealth and power, we have been dealing almost exclusively with the marginal issue of Palestine and the Jews, to excuse our inability to be effective in giving U.S. President Barack Obama what he really needs: regional stability.
Obama sees Iran and its terrorist organizations, which are all unified, organized and obedient, opposing the Sunni Arabs. Obama may be betting on Iran to bring order to the Middle East.
Imagine if we and our fundamentalist Sunni terrorist organizations had actually focused on stopping the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Imagine if we had abandoned, even momentarily, the dream of the Muslim Brotherhood (what the West calls "political Islam") ruling the world. Imagine if we had stopped our stupid, useless acts of hatred, and could instead have focused on our common enemy, Iran. Our situation now would be immeasurably better. We would not be deviating from the teachings of Muhammad, because first we have to focus on the near enemy and then on the distant one. Iran is nearer and more dangerous than Europe and the United States, so Iran should have been -- and still should be -- the first Sunni target. We might have led Obama to adopt a different approach than allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb in ten years or sooner -- but we did not, because of our weakness and distraction with marginal "causes." Thus Obama, from a desire to stabilize the Middle East, seems to be betting on the strong horse, Iran.
The truth, however, may be somewhat different. It is entirely possible that Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, is employing a policy of "divide and conquer." In the U.S., instead of trying to improve how children in the inner cities are being educated, he has been busy stoking racial and economic conflict. The Arabs are becoming increasingly suspicious that he is a historic "divide and conquer" manipulator. He may deliberately be creating fitna (civil strife) in the Arab world by whipping up conflict with Iran, so that America will one again look like the big power-broker -- but at the expense of the Arabs.
We Arabs are expert conspiracy theorists, and interpret every political agenda as a hidden plot, but one only has to look at the Obama administration's fawning support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey and Egypt, and how America supported the fall of Mubarak, and it immediately becomes obvious that the U.S. is trying to manipulate the fate of the Arabs.
Anyone following America's rejection of, and now only reluctant support for, the reformist regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi understands that the Americans prefer what they consider "backward Arabs": those controlled by regressive Islam.
That is the reason we see Obama's policies as backing both the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the theocrats in Iran. The ideologies of both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's mullahs would lead to most dangerous and regressive fate of both Sunni and Shiite Muslims around the world, as well as Americans at home -- and these are the Muslims most loved by the current American administration. Or maybe, as many of us say here on the street, Obama is just trying to "get even" with the West and bring it to its knees, for being white, "imperialist" and non-Muslim. Obama's solution? To let Iran have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, with the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. -- or perhaps from America's soft underbelly, South America, where Iran has been acquiring uranium and establishing bases for years. Or perhaps launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible. Incredibly, America's politicians do not even seem to seem to be concerned about that.
Obama really does deserve a Nobel Prize, but it should have been awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in gratitude for America's surrender.

Turkey and Its Kurds: At War Again
Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/August 06/2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6288/turkey-kurds-war
"We have only one concern. It is Islam, Islam and Islam." – President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, July 31, 2015.
Why should they be fighting? After all, they are both Sunni Muslims.
Once again, Erdogan, an Islamist, relied too much on religion in resolving what is essentially an ethnic (not religious) conflict.
Even President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's critics, including this author, praised him when, after 40,000 lives lost in a bloody conflict, he (as then prime minister) bravely launched a difficult process that would finally bring peace to a country that suffered much from ethnic strife. His government would negotiate peace with the Kurds; grant them broad cultural and political rights, which his predecessors did not; and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Kurds' armed group, would finally say farewell to arms. Erdogan (and the Kurdish leaders) would then be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
But now Turkey is in flames again; the country smells of death. Dozens of members of the security forces, as well as civilians, have been killed in clashes in just the two weeks after an Islamic State suicide bomber murdered 32 pro-Kurdish activists in a small Turkish town on the Syrian border on July 20. Several hundred people were injured and more than a thousand were detained by the police.
Turkish cities have once again become a battleground in an almost century-old Turkish-Kurdish dispute: Kurdish militants attack security forces on a daily basis, while the Turkish military buries its fallen soldiers and strikes Kurdish guerrilla camps in northern Iraq. What happened to the Turkish-Kurdish ceasefire and the prospect of sustainable peace?
There are three main reasons why all the effort of the last few years has gone into the political wasteland:
1) Erdogan's obsession with Islam(ism): Speaking at a conference in Jakarta on July 31, Erdogan unsurprisingly said: "We have only one concern. It is Islam, Islam and Islam. It is impossible for us to accept the overshadowing of Islam."
In the same vein, Erdogan's prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu said in a 2014 interview: "In Turkey's periphery you cannot explain anything without the religion factor."
Erdogan (mis)calculated that he could successfully use Islam as a glue keeping Muslim Turks and Muslim Kurds in unity. Why should they be fighting? After all, they are both Sunni Muslims. He thought he could convince the Kurds to surrender their arms and live happily ever after with their Turkish Muslim brothers. For a historic end to the conflict, Islam had to take a central role. Erdogan would therefore restructure Turkey along multi-ethnic lines but a greater role for Islam would be the cement keeping the nation united. Once again, Erdogan, an Islamist, relied too much on religion in resolving what is essentially an ethnic (not religious) conflict.
2) A dishonest negotiator: Erdogan was not an honest negotiator from the beginning. His counterparts, the PKK leadership, were smart enough not to trust him. They agreed to a ceasefire in 2013, but have never really buried their arms since then, thinking that they would one day need them. Erdogan's real intention was to keep the PKK "inactive," away from bombings and other acts of terror, and therefore minimize the risk of losing votes as the masses turn angry at his government in the face of the tragic loss of human life. Prolonged negotiations with the Kurds would give him enough peaceful time to win one local election (March 2014), one presidential election (August 2014) and one parliamentary election (June 2015). If, afterward, there is peace, that would be fine. If not, the Kurds could go to hell, with the next election scheduled for 2019. In other words, he pretended to negotiate in order to buy time and delay any renewed wave of violence.
3) An unbridgeable gap: It is true that Erdogan's governments granted Turkey's Kurds far more than any other Turkish government did in the past. In 2009, the state broadcaster launched the country's first TV channel in Kurdish. A new electoral law allowed, for the first time, campaigning in Kurdish. Universities and private courses could now teach the Kurdish language. The use of letters like q, w, x, which are necessary for Kurdish Romanization, would no longer be prohibited. Kurdish also would be allowed in courtrooms and at prisons when families visited inmates (previously the language was forbidden).
All of that was nice, but not enough to win Kurdish sympathies for peace. The Kurds simply wanted autonomy in Turkey's southeast, where they are in predominant majority. They wanted to have their own police force, elected governors and budgetary control. They wanted two more things: Official (constitutional) recognition of their ethnicity as co-founders of the Turkish Republic; and the introduction of Kurdish language in school curricula. Erdogan accurately calculated that granting the Kurds relatively minor rights would keep them his loyal voters, and away from arms. He knew that the Kurds would want more. But he also knew that granting the Kurds what they actually want would be political suicide in a notoriously nationalist country. Even to this day, the Kurdish demands remain a taboo for most Turks. Speaking of Kurdish education in schools or Kurdish ethnic identity as part of the constitution could earn anyone a nasty label: Traitor!
But Kurds have more self-confidence today than a decade or two ago. Their next of kin in Iraq have a functioning autonomous administration that is waiting for the right time officially to split from the central government in Baghdad. Syrian Kurds are trying to unite a Kurdish strip of cantons along the Turkish border. The PKK has proven that it did not lose its firepower during the ceasefire.
The PKK did not lose its firepower during its years-long ceasefire with Turkey. (Image source: VICE video screenshot)
And more importantly, the Kurdish vote in Turkey has dramatically risen from a mere 5.24% (cast for independent candidates) in 2007 to 13.1% in 2015, when the Peoples' Democratic Party overcame the 10% national threshold and became the first Kurdish party to enter the Turkish parliament. Today, in another first, the Kurds have exactly the same number of seats in the Turkish parliament as the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) has -- 80 seats each.
Erdogan's "Kurdish gambit" worked, to a certain extent, when the ceasefire helped him maintain his popularity. Now, it seems, it's payback time.
**Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

No to the separation of South Yemen
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/Thursday, 6 August 2015
After liberating Aden and Al-Anad, voices demanding the establishment of a South Yemen Republic have emerged. These voices have always been there, and are due to the disappointments of the unified Yemen that was established in 1990. Back then, the South Yemen government was going through a struggle over governance, and the Marxist system was teetering. Then-President Ali Salem al-Beidh requested unity with the north, in an attempt to escape the inevitable repercussions of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
However, unity occurred without a political arrangement, so the experience of Egyptian-Syrian unity was repeated, with one party - former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh - trying to dominate. Most of those who call for separation are either patriotic dreamers or opportunists The only real unity was manifested via government correspondences, as well as the currency, flag and other official formalities. However, on the ground Saleh’s forces were running the south, many of whose leaders were assassinated or forced to flee to foreign countries. There were failed attempts to rebel against Saleh’s governance.
Based on this sad historical background, it is normal for unity to be a negative symbol and for separation to be popular in the south, but most of those who call for separation are either patriotic dreamers or opportunists. They justify their desire by saying it is a restoration of the natural historical situation when there were two Yemens for most of the past centuries. Separation of the south will not result in its stability, but in new crises due to struggles among rival southern parties and leaders.They believe that the north suffers from crises that are difficult to resolve, and that it is better not to export them to the south. They say separation is a popular desire in the south. They also say separation has become more than just an idea as it is currently a politically and militarily organized movement, and is a fait accompli that must not be confronted or else the Yemeni crisis will escalate. Some may find these arguments convincing enough to support separation as an easier solution to today’s crisis, which required a massive war to stop the collapse of Yemen. Some may think that separation is the only solution if it is hard to liberate Yemen of rebels, Houthis and Saleh’s troops within a reasonable timeframe.
The logic of unity
Despite difficulties such as the incapability of imposing legitimacy over all of Yemen - a country with rugged terrain, a complicated tribal system and a lack of resources - we must still oppose its division. Logic is to insist on adopting the model of one Yemeni state, to consider the separation that is happening as temporary, and to view the southern regime being established as incomplete and the northern regime as illegitimate. Dividing Yemen into two states, and perhaps more states later, means the entrance of regional and foreign powers in a struggle that will last for decades There are many reasons to do so. Forcible separation on the desire of one category without the consent of others lacks justification in international law, and sabotages a legitimate entity that is internationally recognized. According to political logic, separation of the south will not result in its stability, but in new crises due to struggles among rival southern parties and leaders. Such bloody conflicts were a reason to resort to unity with the north in the first place. Dividing Yemen into two states, and perhaps more states later, means the entrance of regional and foreign powers in a struggle that will last for decades. This will threaten the security of the Gulf states, increase regional tensions and wars for years to come, and make 25 million Yemenis suffer from long-term infighting, misery and poverty. Separation is a destructive and stupid idea in a world that prefers rapprochement. Refusing to support it does not deny the right to separate later if that is really the desire of the entire Yemeni people, not just a few of them.Separation is a destructive and stupid idea in a world that prefers rapprochement. One can address achieving this desire when there is stability, and when everyone can rationally think and decide what serves their interests in the long run. Perhaps they would choose a federal system that maintains the state. Separation is an idea produced by an emotional outburst, or resulting from instantaneous revenge.

Why Donald Trump wins even if he loses
Joyce Karam/Al Arabiya/Thursday, 6 August 2015
Will he call his running mates losers or will he offend Mexico or China or Japan or Vietnam? These are the questions surrounding tonight's much anticipated debate for the Republican candidates for President and their new frontrunner Donald Trump. But win or lose the debate, Trump has won already on the scale of beating all expectations and emerging as a force to be reckoned with inside the Republican party. A force that could go well beyond the nomination process. Trump has won already on the scale of beating all expectations and emerging as a force to be reckoned with inside the Republican party. Almost two months into his candidacy, Trump, a real estate mogul and TV personality has effectively turned the Republican race upside down, beating every expectation out there about his prospects -perhaps even his own-. Today, Trump or “The Donald” as his supporters call him, is leading in all the Republican Presidential nomination polls , and has more Facebook and Twitter followers than the top five candidates combined.
The Trump rise
Trump’s rise is breaking the rules and political algorithms of past campaigns, bewildering experts and elites from both sides of the spectrum. There is no clear logic for his ascendancy except that his style is resonating with the GOP voters. The Republican field with 16 politicians appears to have offered Trump, a TV celebrity, the perfect space to outshine the rest in a blunt and inflammatory style. Even before the Trump announcement early June, the Republican field had no clear frontrunner, in part due to internal squabbling between the moderates and the tea party inside the GOP. More importantly, the Trump candidacy has directly tapped into this Republican leadership crisis, and into voters’ dissatisfaction and anger at the political machine in Washington. Ironically, the well plugged-in businessman is portraying himself as an unscripted independent outsider, who will not be influenced by the Koch brothers or other donors. In a Ross Perot kind of way, Trump is trying to appear as someone who speaks the language of the voters and not the policymakers. His outrageous remarks against Mexicans, or undermining John McCain’s time as a war prisoner did not slow his rise. The reason behind that is the Republican voters’ anger at illegal immigration and economic disparity that Trump's rhetoric amplifies is much bigger than their emphasis on political correctness or affinity for McCain. The rise of Trump cannot be seen in isolation of the Republican party’s trajectory since 2000. The party of George H. Bush and John McCain has gradually veered to the right since the campaign of George W. Bush in 1999. This shift exponentially grew after Bush left office in 2008, and with the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. While Trump is not himself a “Tea Party” member, he capitalizes on the movement’s issues to rally his support. He did it in 2011 while championing the infamous quest for U.S. President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and is doing it now by largely attacking illegal immigration and trade.
A win-win path
With all eyes on Trump for tonight’s first debate, it is fair to argue that the candidate has already won by steering its agenda and dictating the way that the top 10 candidates will interact.It is hard to predict the outcome of the GOP primary nomination, let alone the 2016 Presidential race, but win or lose, Trump has secured himself a seat in swaying the outcome of the campaigns. Even if the Trump fever dissipates at the ballot box next year, given the popular support that the billionaire has amassed, his endorsement of a future candidate if he loses the elections, could be a game changer. With a Republican field that has 17 candidates and wins that could be decided by a 1 or 2 points margin in battleground states, the rise of Trump could make him a kingmaker if he loses the race. There are no inevitabilities in this campaign, and the prospects of Trump winning the nomination are no longer wild talk in the U.S. media. The new frontrunner has not ruled out either a third party run if his bid for the Republican nomination falters. That would be a blessing undisguised for the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who sees in Trump’s candidacy a good opportunity to brand the Republican party with anti-immigration policies and loose talk. For now, however, Trumpism is winning the day inside the Republican party. Tonight’s debate might be neither civil nor contained, and whoever Trump offends, reality is he has become a force to be reckoned with, in the 2016 road to the White House. That, on its own, is a win for "The Donald".

Obama ‘Modifies’ U.S. Oath of Allegiance According to Islamic Law
Raymond Ibrahim/ August 6, 2015/ in Islam, Other Matters
The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.
On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance which immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.
The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.
Now the USCIS says that “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”
The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”
These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well. For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.
The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan—the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer—comes to mind and is illustrative.
A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life—American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.
However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States”—to quote the original Oath of Allegiance—against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.
Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity. According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons.
However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty—even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it—with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims. In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.
Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).
Most germane is Koran 3:28: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”
The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y—the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.
Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]
Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]
And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims—who, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty—it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).
Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.” When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.” The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”
Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.
In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.” The army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed. Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.
And in April 2005, Hasan Akbar, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”
In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality. It is not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smile to (see here for examples). Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second”—reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.
Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her—including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.
[1] ‘Imad ad-Din Isma’il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author’s translation.
[2] Abu Ja’far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan ‘an ta’wil ayi’l-Qur’an al-Ma’ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author’s translation.

Exclusive: Rafsanjani on future of Iran-US ties, Saudi Arabia
Rohollah Faghihi/Contributor, Iran Pulse
Rohollah Faghihi is a journalist who has worked for various Iranian media organizations including the Entekhab news site.
TEHRAN — In an exclusive interview with Al-Monitor, Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s most powerful politicians, spoke about the future of relations with the United States. He also hit back at domestic critics of Iran’s nuclear deal with six world powers, saying they are “making a mistake.” While acknowledging that Washington seems to want to “distance itself from the past,” Rafsanjani said that that approach needs to be proven in action and that the implementation of the deal would be a major step. The interview in his Tehran office on July 28 is the first Rafsanjani has conducted with a foreign media outlet since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was struck.
A senior cleric and two-time president, Rafsanjani also spoke about regional crises, including Tehran’s tense relationship with Riyadh. Arguing that Iran “does not inherently have any issues with Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries,” he pointed to Saudi-Iranian engagement in the aftermath of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War despite Riyadh’s prior backing of Saddam Hussein. Rafsanjani emphasized that cooperation with Saudi Arabia and other regional states is “a priority in our constitution.” Of note, Rafsanjani headed crucial talks with Riyadh in the 1990s, along with then-Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Hassan Rouhani, ushering in important security coordination.
In the interview, Rafsanjani also referred to the order from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, to repair ties with Riyadh after the 1987 killing of hundreds of Iranian pilgrims in Mecca, seemingly hinting at the possibility of normalizing the regional situation "with a swift move.” He also revealed that late Saudi King Abdullah had pressed for him to attend the hajj pilgrimage on several occasions "toward the end of his life."
Undeterred by the Guardian Council’s disqualification of his candidacy in the 2013 presidential election, ultimately won by his protege Rouhani, Rafsanjani has recently been in the news over his announcement that he will run in the upcoming elections for the Assembly of Experts, which is responsible for appointing the next supreme leader.
The full transcript of Al-Monitor's interview with Rafsanjani follows, translated from the original Persian:
Al-Monitor: Considering Iran's nuclear deal with the West, how do you assess the prospects of political cooperation between Iran and the United States?
Rafsanjani: In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful. Naturally, the path before Iran and America is not as straightforward as that of [Iran and] other Western countries. Because from [even] before the revolution up until now, there has always been the image in Iran that America is behind every impediment and obstruction against Iran. However, it seems that the Americans want to somewhat distance themselves from the past, and this is something that must be proven [in action].
Al-Monitor: Did you see the same pattern of the United States distancing itself from the past in the negotiations?
Rafsanjani: In regard to the nuclear issue, [the Americans] have acted fairly well up until now. We see that officials from their executive branch, who are from the Democratic Party, are engaged [in clashes] with the Republicans, and that their secretary of state, their president and other individuals are declaring their positions very explicitly. In my view, the bottom line has always been that America must somehow make amends for the past and vindicate itself in the minds of the people of Iran. Some of America's positive policies for resolving the nuclear issue might have been effective so far, and if they’re continued and lead to positive results, [the Americans] will come closer to this [vindication].
Al-Monitor: In your view, what will Iran’s relations with Saudi Arabia and the region be like after the deal?
Rafsanjani: We do not inherently have any issues with Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries, because they are Islamic, and we see cooperation with them as a priority in our constitution. Even though they provided support for Saddam during Iraq’s imposed war on Iran, our differences were very quickly resolved once they responded to Iran's post-war policy of detente and stepped forward to cooperate. The [1987] killing [of Iranian pilgrims] in Mecca was among the disputes, and it was resolved by the order of the Imam [Khomeini] because the essence of the matter [of our relations] is not such that we [inherently] have conflict.
Al-Monitor: Where is the problem now? Where do the tensions stem from?
Rafsanjani: Recent events in the region, meaning the events in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain, are among the issues that have created a distance. Of course, if the Iranian government and [its counterparts] decide to work together, things won’t be difficult and will be as they were in the past. It is possible to normalize the situation with a swift move for the sake of the Muslim world as a whole. I really believe it is possible. However, we have to see where these events lead, which is very important.
Al-Monitor: Have you been invited to attend the hajj pilgrimage?
Rafsanjani: Toward the end of his life, King Abdullah on two or three occasions pressed that I be there [in Saudi Arabia] for the hajj pilgrimage during the month of Ramadan.
Al-Monitor: How about after King Abdullah? Has King Salman [bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud] extended any invitation for hajj?
Rafsanjani: This new group that has come to power has not requested anything from me. It is natural that they haven't, because the present situation is not such that I can accept and go [to Saudi Arabia].
Al-Monitor: Inside [Iran], some have described the deal as a retreat on the part of Iran. What is your view on this?
Rafsanjani: I think those [in Iran] who express opposition are making a mistake. There was no retreat; we maintained our position and all of our nuclear infrastructural needs are preserved. Moreover, our research and development will be pursued seriously, which is very important for us. Even if the [restrictions under the deal] didn’t exist, we need time for research as our current means of enrichment is elementary and cannot provide for our [industrial] needs. [Under the nuclear deal], we will be able to develop [IR-]6 or [IR-]7 [centrifuges], which have a 10- to 15-times larger output and require plenty of raw material. If we want to operate four or five nuclear power plants and fuel them on our own, we need to have a very strong fuel production [capability].

Fatah Member Calls For 'Two States In One Space,' Separated By A Virtual Border
MEMRI/August 6, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6126
In a July 13, 2015 article titled "Two States In One Space – Why? and How?" on the website of the independent Palestinian agency Ma'an (maannews.com), Fatah member 'Awni Al-Mashni, from Bethlehem, presented his perceptions on a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This solution would, he said, be based on following principles: an independent sovereign Palestinian state will be established, in the June 4, 1967 borders with no border adjustments; the border between the two states will be open, allowing Palestinians and Israelis to move, reside, and work in either of the two countries; Jewish settlements will be brought under Palestinian control; Israeli citizens residing in Palestine and Palestinian citizens residing in Israel will have full civil rights in their countries of residence, but political rights only in their respective home countries.
As for Jerusalem, Al-Mashni proposes to unite East and West Jerusalem under a joint municipal council in which Palestinians and Israelis will have equal representation. The united city will have its own governmental and security apparatuses and will serve as the capital of both states.
Regarding the Palestinian refugees, Al-Mashni proposes what he calls a "creative solution": the refugees in the Palestinian diaspora will have the right to become Palestinian citizens and to return to the Palestinian state; their rights will be restored to them in accordance with the international law, and they will have their property restored to them and compensation paid. Like any other Palestinian citizen, they will have the right to live in Israel.
According to Al-Mashni, this solution represents a vision under which both sides benefit, though neither is completely satisfied. It includes all principles of the two-state solution, including the right of return, while leaving the door open for a future single binational state, if both parties wish it. He rejects the two-state solution because, he says, it is based on the existing balance of power, which favors Israel and disadvantages the Palestinians. He also rejects the one-state solution (a single binational in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal rights) as unfeasible at the present time.
'Awni Al-Mashni is active in an Israeli-Palestinian group supporting a "two states, one homeland" solution. The following is a translation of his article's main points:
'Awni Al-Mashni (Source: Maannews.net, July 13, 2015)
The Two-State Solution Has Been Issued A Death Certificate By Netanyahu, The One-State Solution Is Unattainable
"Political discourse over the past two years has revolved around the preferred possible solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The mainstream maintains that the two-state solution is the preferred possible solution to this conflict, while a minority characterized by pessimism, the long view, or both maintains that the two-state solution is the worst possible recipe for dealing with this conflict and that the ideal solution is one democratic state. This discourse now may have completely changed, because Netanyahu, when he won the Israeli election, issued a death certificate to the two-state solution. [Since then,] the discourse has taken a new direction, based on two issues: the content and form of the state that will be established within the context of a one-state solution, and the possibility of, and tools for, actualizing such a solution.
"Even if the discourse has been conducted in whispers, and [only] in certain circles, it lays the foundation for a stage in which the aim will be just such a solution [of one state]. Nobody doubts that the issue is complicated, and therefore there is apprehension about... the obstacles that have prevented the two-state solution... and the lack of practical tools for actualizing this [one-state] solution...
"The one-state solution is an option that is not available and not attainable; the path to arriving at it is far more complicated and protracted than the path to the two-state solution – to the point where most are convinced that it is doomed to failure.
"Additionally, there is a chance that the two parties to the conflict will fail to reach a joint understanding about it, because there are various perceptions of the one-state issue that are both completely contradictory and highly utopian. Furthermore, some people who have adopted the one-state idea aim essentially at achieving a victory that wars have not managed to achieve... Therefore, any apparent agreement on the one-state concept [by various elements] also conceals absolute contradictions.
"The Zionist racism will remain a wall against attempts to arrive at this solution, and until both sides of the conflict reach mutual understandings and a common vision about it... much time will pass. This means that [more] victims, suffering, and wars [can be expected], and maybe an all-out regional conflagration, indicating that there will be something far graver than a conventional war.
"Therefore, we are facing a situation in which the two-state solution has failed; the one-state solution, under these circumstances, is closer to a dream than reality; and the continuation of the conflict [will be a dangerous] adventure for the entire region."
Two Sovereign States, No Division Of Historical Palestine
"In light of this impasse, only sophisticated diplomacy is capable of finding a creative solution that will keep the region and its peoples away from the disaster of continued conflict, lay the foundations for strengthening mutual trust, and keep the door open to more positive developments in the lives of these two peoples. Is such a solution possible? The answer is yes, for the following reasons:
"There is no such thing as conflict that is eternal and infinite; the broad margins between the two-state and the one-state options allow [room] to maneuver. Both parties to the conflict are undoubtedly convinced that military solutions have failed; and – I think this is the most important reason – the option of removing the other side from the region is no longer valid, neither practically nor morally... If the two-state solution includes the elements of its own failure, then the [binational] one-state solution is [merely] a beautiful dream for most Palestinians... And because an endless continuation of the conflict is pointless, then there must be another solution, different and unusual.
"Before getting into the details, let us explain the principles on which [this other solution] must be based – which I think are more important than the details of the solution itself:
"1. Most important is changing the philosophy on which the solution should be based. The two-state solution is based on a philosophy of a balance of power, and assumes that, when the quest for justice is based on a balance of power, it is the balance of power that determines the solution's scope, borders, and conditions. [Therefore,] this solution is short on justice, even relative [justice]; it is unstable and is not by nature permanent, because the balance of power changes and every change can cause the party that is disadvantaged by the solution to rebel against it and annul it. This is political logic, and this is how history develops: the balance of power shifts, and how it is perceived shifts as well.
"2. The two-state solution is based on splitting the loss between the two parties, with all the bitterness that that entails. The partition of the country causes each side to feel a sense of loss. Giving both sides of the conflict a way to regard the entire country as [a single] homeland is a shared benefit. This is a great thing. Both sides will feel that peace has given them more, and has taken nothing from them. This will be made possible by some creativity, and a deeper look at the essence of the conflict. Turning back history will not promote the solution, but taking into account each party's version of history will help satisfy both. Under every stone, at the bottom of every riverbed, and behind every building in the Holy Land there are two narratives. We will never be able to interrogate 'history' in the search for the true narrative, but where there are disagreements, we will let each side cling to its own narrative.
"3. Stability is achieved when both parties to the conflict have an interest in preserving security. The talk about 'Israeli security' as something separate from the security and freedom of the Palestinian people is illusory, and has been disproven over decades of Israeli attempts [at attaining stability], during which Israeli military superiority, whether qualitative or quantitative, has not produced stability. What guarantees Israel's security is the actualization of relative justice for the Palestinian people, which will bring with it a Palestinian interest [in preserving] security – because then, the Palestinians [also] will have something to lose from insecurity. As long as [they are] under the shadow of occupation and suppression, the Palestinians are gladdened more than anything else by insecurity and instability within the occupation.
"4. Peace is an exchange of interests. There is no peace in which one side receives without giving, and no peace is built on concessions by only one side. Just as the Palestinian should feel that he has actualized himself, the Israeli should feel the same; there can be no freedom for one side but not the other. One side cannot have a right while the other does not, and there can be no future and assurance of continued existence for one side but not the other. A peace that is based on terms that are forced on one side while giving the other a free hand is deception and a huge lie; it is more like terms of surrender forced on one side while the other is crowned victor.
"[The four principles] above are neither terms nor principles of peace; they are general concepts that will, if taken into account, lay the foundation for a genuine peace, for a peace with scope and possibilities, a peace that does not disregard the crisis of confidence [that exists between the sides] and that strives to anchor the foundations of genuine confidence.
"The most dangerous model of peace is one whose peace plan is based on the principle of laying the foundations for the next war – as in the case of a two-state solution that includes [the following]: borders under Israeli control, early warning [stations], crossings under Israeli oversight, disarmament, strategic hills under Israeli control, and thousands more conditions of various kinds. All these conditions are suitable for preparing for war, not for building peace and confidence; [they are suitable for] a peace that perpetuates [Israeli] superiority, that imposes oppressive terms, that disregards the interests of one party to the conflict, and, ultimately, that is nothing but a temporary hudna [truce]... [Such a peace] ultimately ends in terrible disasters, wars, destruction, and victims. This is no prophecy; these are logical conclusions. It is only a matter of time [until this happens].
"The important question is: What kind of peace will overcome the sins of the two-state solution and the dreams of the one-state [solution], and will take all the above principles into account? How will it be formulated? What magical equation will produce such a peace? How will the two sides be satisfied – and is there anything that will satisfy them both?
"The answer to these questions lies exclusively in the principles on which this solution will be based. These include the establishment of two fully independent sovereign states in the June 4, 1967 borders, with no border adjustment; an open border between the two states; freedom of residence, movement, and work for both peoples in the entire country – i.e. in historic Palestine; Israeli citizenship for [the Arabs of 19]48, with all social, political, and civil rights of Israeli citizenship, and the annulment of all racist laws against them; the right to Palestinian citizenship for the Palestinian refugees in the diaspora, and the right to return to the state of Palestine – they will therefore [also] be entitled to live, stay, and move through all of parts of historic Palestine. Israeli citizens residing in Palestine and Palestinian citizens residing in Israel will be subject to the law of the state in which they live and enjoy [that state's] civil rights, but will be able to exercise their political rights [only] in the state of which they are citizens. East and West Jerusalem will be [combined into] a united city under a joint municipal council, in which Palestinians and Israelis will be equal in number and hold equal positions. This council will be subordinate to a system of governance and a security apparatus unique to this region – that is, a united Jerusalem that will be the capital of two states. Joint institutions will be established... for joint issues, such as a supreme court for human rights, committees for economic development, environmental committees, and security committees... Public institutions for joint issues such as development, human rights, and the environment will be set up... The Palestinian refugees' rights will be restored to them, such that there will be no more wrongs."
Palestinian Refugees' Rights Will Be Restored, Israeli Settlers Will Be Subject To Palestinian Law
"A quick glance at these ideas shows that they meet all the demands of anyone who believes in the two-state solution – taking into account that the two states are fully independent and sovereign, and within in the 1967 borders. Nevertheless, maintaining freedom of crossing, movement, and residence – that is, an open border between the two states – leaves the door ajar for a single future [binational] state, once the trust and the relationship [between the two peoples] have developed.
"These principles ensure a creative solution for the issue of the Palestinian refugees – a solution that brings them back and restores their rights to them, while removing the Israelis' demographic fears. Likewise, it solves the issue of the settlers, by making them subject to Palestinian law... These principles do not actualize full justice, but relative justice, that neither relies on a balance of power nor disregards it, and does not erect closed borders but sets out a virtual border, that does not maintain a single state but opens a path to it, and does not eliminate the uniqueness of either of the two peoples, but deepens what they have in common...
"These are the foundations and general principles of the solution. They undoubtedly represent a new vision, in which the two parties to the conflict share the benefits instead of splitting the loss. This vision leaves no explosive issues to threaten the region's stability and bring down the peace and the agreements. It makes the [concept of] the homeland broader than the concept of citizenship, and establishes two states and a single homeland... This vision is open to all future options that herald a promising future; it does not surrender to reality, but is based upon it, so as to provide scope and possibilities for the future. Many details are [still] needed... but if the principles are clear, it will make it easier to arrive at these details. Thus, we will end a difficult era, in which we were captive to classic, hackneyed concepts that could not break through the fortified wall.
"We stand before a creative concept for breaking through a bitter and prolonged conflict. This concept of peace consolidates a new vision, that distinguishes between nationality and citizenship... and assures the right of [self-]determination to two peoples, with full sovereignty [for each]. I do not claim to have found a magical solution. My point of departure was reality...
"This solution does not constitute an automatic response to reality, but it dismantles reality and reassembles it so that it guarantees the two people's partnership in benefit, not in loss. This is much more than an arrangement – it anchors stable, robust, and permanent principles of peace. It is a solution of minimal loss, maximum partnership, and maximum [preservation] of uniqueness. It does not actualize exactly everything needed for both peoples, but it does actualize each one's main objective, in a way that does not contradict the wishes of the other.
"Ultimately, this solution reflects the desire of all who support the traditional two-state solution – it includes all the principles of the two states, as well as the actualization of the right of return. It [also] constitutes a giant step towards a single state, if the two peoples want to reach it – because it strengthens what they share, and thus opens the way to this direction."

Iraqi Christians held for months by ICE after crossing Mexican border in asylum bid
By Cody Derespina/August 06, 2015/FoxNews.com
Just a few miles from the U.S.-Mexican border, the descendants of one of the oldest Christian communities in the world wait to be delivered from purgatory -- and live in fear of being returned to hell. They came from Iraq and say they only want to practice their faith, free from the threat of ISIS. But for several months, 28 Chaldean Christians have had to pray behind the barbed wire fences of San Diego’s Otay Detention Facility, captives of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and facing deportation. A dozen have already been ticketed for removal. “In Iraq, they only had three choices: convert to Islam, death by the sword or leave the country,” said Mark Arabo, head of the Minority Humanitarian Foundation. “They’ve refused to convert, escaped slavery and death – only to be imprisoned by our broken immigration system. “These aren’t people who woke up one day and said, ‘Let me walk to America.’ They were forced out of their homes because of our inaction in the region. Because of our troop withdrawal. These are people who were sentenced to death because of our involvement in the country.”
They escaped near-certain death, but not the U.S. court system.
“The disheartening thing is it seems that our border is open to anyone unless you’re a Christian fleeing genocide"- Mark Arabo
Of the 28 Chaldeans currently in custody, 12 have been ordered removed by an immigration judge, according to ICE. The deportations have not yet occurred and the countries that would receive the 12 have not been publicly identified. One of the 28 has been criminally charged in federal court with providing false information on an immigration application, ICE said. Reta Marrogi, also known as Zina Hornes Oraha Delli, was allegedly granted asylum in Germany, according to the criminal complaint, but said she had not received lawful status in any country on her official Application for Asylum. “The disheartening thing is it seems that our border is open to anyone unless you’re a Christian fleeing genocide,” said Arabo, a self-described Democrat whose parents came to the U.S. from Iraq in 1979.
The message is even stronger from Frank Wolf, a former Republican congressman who represented Virginia in the House of Representatives for more than three decades. He’s also a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, which works to protect religious freedom.
“This administration is fundamentally anti-Christian,” Wolf said. He recounted that one of the last bills he championed in Congress was to set up a special envoy to advocate for persecuted religious minorities, including Christians in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Pakistan. It was signed by President Obama on Aug. 8, 2014. “He even sent me a signing pen,” Wolf said. “That was one year ago and he has not appointed anyone to fill that role.” The journey to potential freedom for a Chaldean trying to escape Iraq is a lengthy and often treacherous trip. A typical route takes the refugee from Baghdad to Turkey to Jordan to a country in Europe to Mexico. Once that nearly 8,000 mile trek is complete, asylum seekers must make it to the U.S. border, where many of them willingly turn themselves into immigration officials before being ultimately released to the San Diego Chaldean community, Arabo said.
The 28 at Otay are still hoping to complete that final step.
Arabo said he’s met with President Obama and multiple officials in his administration, pleading for large-scale evacuations of the Christians that remain in Iraq. At the outset of the Iraq War in 2003, there were nearly 1.4 million Christians in the country. Estimates today peg the total at fewer than 250,000. “There’s been a genocide in slow motion since 2003, but since the troop withdrawal there’s been a systematic ethnic cleansing,” Arabo said. “We’ve tried all these diplomatic approaches, but in the absence of Washington’s leadership we’ve created an ‘underground railroad.’” That ‘underground railroad,’ which takes its name from the way Harriet Tubman used to guide slaves to freedom during the 1800s, is a somewhat extra-legal mechanism to aid Christians on the dangerous journey from Iraq, Arabo said.
Arabo is able to gain insight into the 28 through some of their family members, who already reside in San Diego. He said the 28 are verbally abused and the conditions are “not pleasant.”“They are the oldest Christians in the world. For centuries they’ve survived everything,” Arabo said.
“They’ve given up everything except their faith.”

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

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