New Page 5

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 10/15

Bible Quotation For Today/A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me
John 16/16-19: "‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.’Then some of his disciples said to one another, ‘What does he mean by saying to us, "A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me"; and "Because I am going to the Father"?’They said, ‘What does he mean by this "a little while"? We do not know what he is talking about.’Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, ‘Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, "A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me"?"

Bible Quotation For Today/ His descendants would be resident aliens in a country belonging to others, who would enslave them and maltreat them for four hundred years.
Acts of the Apostles 07/01-08: "Then the high priest asked him, ‘Are these things so?’And Stephen replied: ‘Brothers and fathers, listen to me. The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, "Leave your country and your relatives and go to the land that I will show you." Then he left the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God had him move from there to this country in which you are now living. He did not give him any of it as a heritage, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as his possession and to his descendants after him, even though he had no child. And God spoke in these terms, that his descendants would be resident aliens in a country belonging to others, who would enslave them and maltreat them for four hundred years. "But I will judge the nation that they serve," said God, "and after that they shall come out and worship me in this place. "Then he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs."

Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on June 09-10/15
Analysis of the FPM-LF Declaration -- Part 1/Elie Aoun/May 09/15
Iran threatens, ISIS executes/Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/June 09/15
Turks Glorify Historic Slaughter and Rape of Christians/Raymond Ibrahim /FrontPage Magazine/ June 09/15
Netanyahu warns of Iran's five-layered threat/Itay Blumenthal/Ynetnews/June 09/15
America and the Middle East Complex/Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Al Awsat/June 09/15
Geneva talks throw a lifeline to the Houthis/Salman Aldosary/Asharq Al Awsat/June 09/15
Beyond Islamists and Autocrats: Prospects for Political Reform Post Arab Spring/David Schenker and Sarah Feuer/une 09/15/PDF
What Turkey's Election Results Mean/Soner Cagaptay/Washington Institute/June 09/15
Study: Israelis, Palestinians would gain billions from peace/Associated Press, Attila Somfalvi /Ynetnews/June 09/15
Houthis are Iran’s priority, but what about the Rohingya/Camelia Entekhabi-Fard/Alarabiya/June 09/15
Gulf plan key to Yemen solution/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya/June 09/15

Miscellaneous Reports And News published on June 09-10/15
White House Denies Abadi 'Snub'
U.S. airport security agency cleared 73 workers with terror ties
After a year in power, what has Egypt’s President Sisi achieved?
Saudi summons Iranian envoy over poisoning incident
Syrian rebels say they capture major base from army in south
Syria Rebels Overrun Key Army Base in New Regime Setback
ISIS sells girls for ‘as little as a pack of cigarettes’
Iran threatens, ISIS executes
Foul play suspected in death of Saudi children in Iran
Israel concerned about U.S. arms to Gulf states to deter Iran
French mother sues govt for letting son join Syria militancy
Gaza crossings shut after rockets reopened
Ya'alon: No peace with Palestinians in my Time
Head of al-Azhar Says West Partly to Blame for Islamic State
Israeli Jews believe 'whole world is against us'
CIA, US military chiefs visit Israel over Iran
White House welcomes Jerusalem passport ruling as upholding president's authority
Arab-Jewish party declares support for boycotting Israeli companies in settlements
Israelis fear rerun of last year's Gaza war
Israel's statesmen must offer strategy to avoid next war, president says
Yemen: No negotiations with Houthis at Geneva meetings, says PM
Islamophobic hate speech goes unchecked in the West

Jehad Watch Latest Reports And News
Raymond Ibrahim: Turks Glorify Historic Slaughter and Rape of Christians
Turkey: Christian schools shut down for distributing Bibles to Muslim refugees from Syria
Al Azhar distributing free book dedicated to discrediting Christianity, the “failed religion”
Egypt summons U.S. ambassador over DC Muslim Brotherhood meetings
Islamic State: Abducted Eritrean Christian refugees failed Qur’an test
France: “Anti-Islamophobia” group on trial for plotting jihad terror attacks
Video of Boston jihadi proves he wasn’t shot in back, refuting family claims
Islamic State announces plan to transform Mosul church into mosque
Pamela Geller: Media jihad: Diet Coke vs. decapitation

زيارة الراعي لسوريا جريمة وخطيئةRaei's visit to Syria is a sin & a crime
Elias Bejjani/Al Raei's Evil visit to Syria, shall remain a deadly sin no matter how much the Dhemmitute and rotten Maronite politicians, mediamen and clergy endeavour to rationalize it in a sickening and disguesting manner
الياس بجاني/مهما تم تجميل إبليس لا يصبح ملاكاً، ومهما تفنن ذميو الطاقم السياسي والإعلامي والكهنوتي الماروني بتبرير زيارة الراعي الجهنمية لسوريا، تبقى الزيارة خطيئة مميتة وجريمة وطنية بامتياز

Ali Hmade Is A courageous & Patriotic Lebanese Journalist
Elias Bejjani/09.06.15
Great, Great Piece, thank you Mr. Ali. I really enjoyed reading it because without any fear or Dhimmitude it tells the truth as is, names boldly the atrocities of the terrorist Hezbollah, unveils the Iranian scheme aiming to empty Ersal town of its Sunni inhabitants and to put the Lebanese army against the Ersal Sunnis. This is an evil Iranian scheme that the Terrorist and criminal Hezbollah is trying to execute. This above great article addresses with knowledge, courage and patriotism the actual dilemma the Ersalis are encountering. Thanks Mr. Hamade. YOU ALL AL HMADE ARE GREAT LEBANESE PATRIOTIC Citizens. God bless you all.
My advice to all those who see in Hezbollah a resistance and in Aoun a Christian advocate to check themselves with the nearest psychiatrist.

Analysis of the FPM-LF Declaration -- Part 1
Elie Aoun
May 09/15
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2015/06/09/elie-aounanalysis-of-the-fpm-lf-declaration-part-1%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%86%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%88/
The purpose of my articles is not to insult, but to correct.
My loyalty is to The Truth, which is the path to true freedom. The reason we, as a country or as individuals, have not achieved what we deserve or are entitled to achieve is mainly because we had been deceived into believing and pursuing concepts which are not true. We have no enemy, except ignorance.
Following are my concerns on the FPM-LF Joint Declaration, intended not simply to criticize but to build for what is better. I have reservations on the context of the Declaration and its content.
Concern #1: The absence of Christianity
The Declaration between two Christian political parties failed to provide any plan, or promise any tangible plan, aimed at strengthening the Christian community or supporting its elements to achieve a better status. The word "Christian" is not even mentioned.
All that the Declaration refers to, and all the March 14 "eagles" and some independents talk about -- dialogue, coexistence, authority of the state, United Nations, etc. -- did not protect us in the past, nor will do so in the future. No one refrained from persecuting, killing, or displacing Christians simply because those Christians believed in dialogue and coexistence. No Middle Eastern Christian was protected when he relied on the authority of the state where he lives, the United Nations, or any international institution.
Concern #2: The misguided reliance on "international legitimacy"
The Declaration calls for "Respect for all the resolutions of 'international legitimacy' and commitment to conventions of the United Nations and the League of Arab States."
We can find the conventions of the United Nations and Arab League. However, personally, I do not know what are "all the resolutions of international legitimacy" which are being respected. No list of these resolutions is provided, and no list will be provided even if we ask for it. To believe in an international legitimacy is to believe in a right of an entity outside the Lebanese territory to rule or to govern the Lebanese or their affairs -- which is contrary to the concept of true sovereignty and independence.
Moreover, there is another important concept to recognize when we discuss anything that is "international" -- understanding the difference between "unalienable rights" and "privileges."
"Unalienable Rights" are God-given rights, sometimes called Natural Rights. Man has no power to alienate -- to dispose of, or surrender those rights. The United States Bill of Rights is an example of these unalienable rights.
The nations established with bill of rights and common law have had freedom, liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In these nations, the people have sovereign unalienable God-given rights, and the government is responsible for protecting those rights. The rights of personal freedom, individual liberty, and private property are granted by an authority higher than man; thus, this authority cannot be overruled by men.
On the other hand, documents issued by the United Nations view individual rights as a "privilege" granted by government -- which means that these rights can be taken away.
Any "respect" given to any international or globalist entity, is a respect given to an enslavement system that eventually can and will take away whatever rights we have.
The disrespect given by the U.N. Special Tribunal for Lebanon in questioning Lebanese politicians and media personnel is only a small example -- a result of Lebanese Cabinets that sold out the country to the globalists and a misinformed Lebanese public that views the United Nations and its entities in a positive light and refuses to recognize the infringement on national sovereignty and dignity by this and other international institutions.
As a Lebanese citizen, I do not respect the "international legitimacy," the United Nations, or the Arab League -- none of which has done anything to protect Middle Eastern Christians when needed.
I advocate self-reliance and the enactment of rights similar to the U.S. Bill of Rights and laws based on common law which historically have been proven to work and lead to a prosperous nation and a protected citizenry. There is no logic in pursuing anything else that has resulted in failure.

Mustaqbal Slams Hizbullah and Aoun's 'Suicidal, Irresponsible Policies'
Naharnet/09.06.15/Al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc lashed out on Tuesday at Hizbullah and Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun, accusing them of implementing “suicidal, irresponsible policies.”“The policy adopted by Hizbullah and its allies -- through their insistence on imposing a sole (presidential) candidate claiming exclusive representation of an entire sect – is a suicidal, irresponsible policy that might lead to Lebanon's destruction,” the bloc warned in a statement issued after its weekly meeting. Criticizing recent remarks by Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem, Mustaqbal said it “condemns in the strongest terms the dangerous and shameful statement.” “These blatant and unconcealed remarks have highlighted the identity of the party that is paralyzing the republic and its institutions and hijacking its presidency,” the bloc added, blasting Qassem's statement as a “massive national and political scandal.”On Monday, Qassem said “the other camp has only two choices: electing General Aoun as president or (presidential) vacuum for an indefinite period of time.”
Accordingly, the Mustaqbal bloc accused Hizbullah on Tuesday of “implementing an Iranian agenda that is trying to subjugate Lebanon and its people and state through impeding the presidential vote and insisting on the election of a certain candidate who would become subordinate to Hizbullah and the Iranian regime.”“Al-Mustaqbal bloc and the Lebanese people will not allow anyone to impose their agenda on them through force and coercion. The free democratic system that the Lebanese people chose is based on the principle of partnership and freedom of choice,” the bloc stressed. It called on all political forces to seek the election of “a consensual, strong president whose personality, ethical conduct, leadership skills and unifying policy would allow them to become a symbol for Lebanese unity … and to pull Lebanon out of the dangerous dilemma that it has been implicated in.” Mustaqbal noted that the same parties that are “impeding the presidential election” are the ones “who are now seeking to paralyze the work of the cabinet.”
The bloc also warned against paralyzing the parliament, underlining that it must be allowed to convene and pass urgent draft laws. MPs from Aoun's bloc in addition to Hizbullah and other March 8 alliance lawmakers have been boycotting parliamentary sessions aimed at electing a new head of state since Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May last year.

Change and Reform: We Won't Allow the Cabinet to Convene and Violate Constitution
Naharnet/09.06.15/The Change and Reform bloc rejected on Tuesday attempts to hold a cabinet session that will not address the security appointments. Former Minister Salim Jreissati said after the bloc's weekly meeting: “We will not allow the government to convene and violate the constitution.” “We urge those who respect the constitution to resolve the case of security appointments,”he added. Moreover, Jreissati added: “The security appointments must be separated from the presidential vacuum.” Furthermore, he stressed the importance of Change and Reform bloc chief MP Michel Aoun's initiative to end the presidential deadlock. Lebanon has been without a president since May 2014 when the term of Michel Suleiman ended without the election of a successor. On Tuesday, Suleiman severely criticized the Free Patriotic Movement and Hizbullah without naming them for seeking to “paralyze” the cabinet. “It is not acceptable to impose conditions on the cabinet,” he said following talks with a delegation from al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc at his residence in Yarze. FPM officials have been calling on the appointment of high-ranking military and security officials before discussing any other issue in the cabinet. Aoun wants to bring his son-in-law Commando Regiment chief Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz as army chief. “There are always threats made by certain parties. But we back Prime Minster Tammam Salam,” said Suleiman.

Hizbullah Fends Off ISIL Attack in al-Qaa
Naharnet/09.06.15/Hizbullah repelled Tuesday an attack by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on the outskirts of the north Bekaa border areas of al-Qaa and Ras Baalbek near Syria's border. The party's media outlets reported that fighters from Hizbullah thwarted an assault by ISIL jihadists at dawn on al-Mazbaha hilltop between Jouseih and al-Qaa.ISIL reportedly targeted several Hizbullah posts in the attack. Hizbullah fighters inflicted several casualties in the ranks of the Islamist group, destroying around 10 vehicles, reports said. Clashes are ongoing in the area. On Monday, Hizbullah managed to link the outskirts of the town of Fleita in the Syrian al-Qalamoun region with the edges of the northeastern border town of Arsal. The party has succeeded recently in achieving gains against al-Qaida-affiliate al-Nusra Front in the area, compelling fighters to retreat from their positions. Hizbullah insists it is fighting in Syria to prevent extremist groups from entering Lebanon. On Friday, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah claimed that the party managed to "liberate dozens of square kilometers" of land in al-Qalamoun, pushing back al-Nusra Front and its allies. He vowed that Hizbullah will next turn its sights on the Islamic State group which has seized chunks of Syria and Iraq.

MP Hashem, Protesters Hoist Lebanon's Flag on Israeli-Erected Fence
Naharnet/09.06.15/Development and Liberation parliamentary bloc MP Qassem Hashem and Shebaa town residents hoisted on Tuesday the Lebanese flag on a barbed wire fence that was newly erected by Israel, the state-run National News Agency reported. The lawmaker and several of the town's residents erected the flag near Jabal Sadana, it said. Hashem and the demonstrators reached the area in the morning to protest the works carried out by the Israeli army in the area and the installation of the fence. Earlier, an Israeli infantry unit backed by military vehicles deployed along the border with Lebanon in the area of the Shebaa Farms all the way to Jabal Sadana.

President Suleiman Meets Mustaqbal MPs, Unleashes Tirade against FPM, Hizbullah
Naharnet/09.06.15/Former President Michel Suleiman on Tuesday severely criticized the Free Patriotic Movement and Hizbullah without naming them for seeking to “paralyze” the cabinet and dragging the war in neighboring Syria to Lebanon. “It is not acceptable to impose conditions on the cabinet,” Suleiman said following talks with a delegation from al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc at his residence in Yarze. The delegation was headed by MP Ahmed Fatfat and the meeting was attended by Defense Minister Samir Moqbel.
Suleiman, who now heads the so-called Consultative Gathering that brings together Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel and several cabinet ministers, described the current paralysis of the government as “very dangerous.”FPM officials have been calling on the appointment of high-ranking military and security officials before discussing any other issue in the cabinet. FPM leader MP Michel Aoun wants to bring his son-in-law Commando Regiment chief Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz as army chief. “There are always threats made by certain parties. But we back Prime Minster Tammam Salam,” said Suleiman. “Is it so important to choose an army commander now rather than elect a president?” he asked. “Lebanon's democracy is not based on staging a coup by the army,” the former head of state told reporters. Suleiman also criticized Hizbullah without naming it, saying it “should focus on Lebanon's project rather than the plans of Iran and Syria.”“We should unite and implement the Baabda Declaration,” he said. “What would the fighting in al-Qalamoun benefit Lebanon?” Suleiman asked. Hizbullah has recently succeeded in making major gains against al-Qaida-affiliate al-Nusra Front in the Syrian al-Qalamoun region that borders Lebanon. The party insists it is fighting in Syria to prevent extremist groups from entering Lebanon. The Mustaqbal delegation visited later Tuesday Gemayel at the Kataeb Party headquarters in Beirut's Saifi area. Fatfat said after the talks that “everyone should be committed to the Baabda Declaration,” adding “Lebanon's interest should come first.” “We are seeking to prevent strife and preserve the army and Lebanese institutions,” the lawmaker said. Gemayel also described the current “paralysis as a coup against the constitution and a suicide.” “Whether Hizbullah is right or wrong we should exert joint efforts” to resolve the country's problems, he said. “The country is in danger,” the Kataeb chief warned.The Mustaqbal lawmakers held separate meetings on Monday with Speaker Nabih Berri and Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea. They are also expected to meet with PM Salam.

Al-Nusra Sources: Kidnapped Servicemen Will Wage the Fight if Requested
Naharnet/09.06.15/Sources close to al-Qaida linked al-Nusra Front stated on Tuesday that the kidnapped Lebanese soldiers and policemen are kept in a safe place and that they are ready to fight along the ranks of the jihadist group if they are requested to do so.
“The video footage that was released lately is authentic. The soldiers have been provided with weapons upon their request and insistence to fight Hizbullah,” sources close to al-Nusra Front told al-Akhbar daily. “The kidnapped soldiers are staying in a safe place,” they said, adding that “they will wage the battle if they were requested.”“The Front did not stop the negotiations, it's the Lebanese side who did,” the sources stressed. Last week, the jihadist group denied that there was progress in the negotiations to release the hostages in a prisoner swap, saying that the talks have been suspended because of the manipulation of mediators from the Lebanese side. Furthermore, they considered the latest statements of General Security chief Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim that there was progress in the negotiations to release the hostages in a prisoner swap as untrue. Ibrahim has been tasked by the Lebanese government to follow up talks on the hostage ordeal. The kidnappers request that Islamist inmates are freed in return for the release of the hostages. “Abbas' statements are only a signal to kill the servicemen with the army's artillery or Hizbullah's because it is the most proper way to end the issue,” the sources said. They also added on condition of anonymity that al-Nusra gunmen have no intention to withdraw from the outskirts of the northeastern border town Arsal, emphasizing that the areas under its control allow it to stand fast for a long period of time. The group has in its captivity 16 soldiers and policemen, while nine remain held by the Islamic State extremist group. The servicemen were taken hostage in the wake of clashes in Arsal in August last year. A few of them have since been released and four were executed. Reports have said that the negotiations with IS jihadists have stalled over their crippling demands.

Jumblat Urges Christians Not to Waste Historic Opportunities but Says No President for Now
Naharnet/09.06.15/Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat has advised Christian parties not to waste historic opportunities and to agree on a consensual candidate other than Free Patriotic Movement chief Michel Aoun and Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are in a dispute over the situation in Yemen, so there won't be any mediator to help Lebanese MPs elect a new president, Jumblat said in remarks published on Tuesday.
“That's why my advice to Christian parties is to stop wasting historic opportunities,” the MP told al-Akhbar newspaper. “They are not yet convinced on the importance of a consensual candidate other than Michel Aoun and Samir Geagea.”Jumblat has backed the candidacy of Aley MP Henri Helou, saying Lebanon needs a centrist president. But the rivalry between Aoun, who heads the Change and Reform bloc, and Geagea has caused a vacuum at Baabda Palace. MPs from Aoun's bloc in addition to Hizbullah and other March 8 alliance lawmakers have been boycotting parliamentary sessions aimed at electing a new head of state since Michel Suleiman's six-year term ended in May last year. Asked whether he thought that the Christians were responsible for the vacuum, Jumblat said: “Yes, although they will not like what I am saying.”“They haven't yet realized the size of the loss … Some leaders are dreaming to become presidents although huge obstacles are standing in their way for the presidency,” he added. “The majority of the political parties have not yet understood that there is no president for the time being,” the lawmaker told al-Akhbar. Jumblat also advised Lebanese officials to overcome their “selfishness” because of fears that the violence in neighboring countries, mainly Syria, would spread to Lebanon.
“The Islamic State group is in Palmyra, which means (at Lebanon's) doorsteps at a time when we are drowning like the Tower of Babel,” he warned. In May, the IS seized Iraq's Anbar capital Ramadi and captured Palmyra in Syria. Such a move signaled its most significant victories in almost a year.

Berri Enraged over Cabinet Paralysis
Naharnet/09.06.15/Speaker Nabih Berri tenaciously rejected the paralysis of the cabinet as the Free Patriotic Movement refuses to budge an inch on its stance regarding the importance of conducting the appointments of civil servants before tackling any other state matter, al-Mustaqbal newspaper reported Tuesday. “A couple of ministers have no right to obstruct the work of the government,” Berri said after talks with a delegation from al-Mustaqbal parliamentary bloc on Monday. The speaker also expressed anger over the parliamentary crisis and those who are behind it, sources close to al-Mustaqbal delegation told the daily. The delegation had also met with Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Monday. The al-Mustaqbal tour came as the government plunged in a further crisis last week when it failed to agree on the appointments of high-ranking security and military figures. Following the cabinet session, Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq issued a decree effectively extending the term of Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Ibrahim Basbous for two more years. His move prompted Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, who is a member of the FPM, to warn that Change and Reform bloc ministers would block any cabinet decision before security appointments are made. FPM chief MP Michel Aoun has bluntly rejected any attempt to extend the terms of the officials. He has been lobbying for political consensus on the appointment of Commando Regiment chief Brig. Gen. Chamel Roukoz, his son-in-law, as army chief as part of a package for the appointment of other top security officers. Roukoz's tenure ends in October while the term of army commander Gen. Jean Qahwaji expires at the end of September.

Netanyahu warns of Iran's five-layered threat
Itay Blumenthal/Ynetnews
Published: 06.09.15/ Israel News
At Herzliya conference, prime minister says nuclear threat is not the only one Tehran poses; it also arms its allies against Israel, produces advance weapons, launches cyber attacks and backs Hezbollah, whose agents are all over the world. Iran poses Israel in particular and the world at large a five-layered threat, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday evening in his speech at the Herzliya Conference. The main threat from Tehran is its nuclear program, a threat which will not be alleviated by the nuclear deal currently being negotiated between the Islamic Republic and world powers, Netanyahu said. The sanctions relief the agreement offers, the prime minister said, would give Iran "no less than $150 billion," money it desperately needs. "As soon as sanctions are removed, they will get hundreds of billions of dollars, which will bolster Iran's aggression," Netanyahu said. The prime minister also asserted that whether Iran breaks the agreement or not, it will still pose as a threat. "Iran insists on not having real supervision because it is being left with the infrastructure to enrich uranium," enabling it to break the agreement, he said. On the other hand, if it does not break the agreement, "within 10-12 years it could build an infrastructure of hundreds of centrifuges, with international approval." Those centrifuges, the prime minister said, would be 25 times more effective than Tehran's existing centrifuges.
Another threat Iran poses is by arming its allies with advanced weapons, "some of which are aimed at us," Netanyahu said. A third threat is posed by Iran's ally Hezbollah, whose agents operate in over 30 countries around the world. Tehran also poses a cyber threat to Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia. The fifth threat - Tehran produces advanced weaponry like drones, satellites and submarines. "Their work is impressive," Netanyahu said. "They take a project and finish it in record speed."
Meanwhile, the top US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, reassured Israeli officials that Washington would work to mitigate Iran-related risks, with or without a deal. Dempsey said that while Iran would likely spend some newfound resources gained from sanctions relief on its military and its surrogates, the long-term prospects were "far better" with an Iran that wasn't a nuclear power. "If a deal is made, we've got work to do. If a deal is not made, we've got work to do," Dempsey told a small group of reporters in Jerusalem. "And I think we've built up enough trust and confidence in each other - military to military - that we're prepared to do that work."
'Palestinian tricks'
Turning to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu said that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was not willing to talk. "The Palestinians have a trick in which they refuse to talk every time, and then turn to ask for a boycott against Israel and submit demands to the UN Security Council and say we are refusing to renew talks," he said. "I've been going to talk to Abbas for six and a half years and I had to do things that were difficult for me - settlement freeze for almost a year, and on the tenth month he agreed to meet. We met for three hours in Sharm el-Sheikh and three hours in Jerusalem, and he had one demand - continue settlement freeze," the prime minister went on to say. "I called on him to renew negotiations without preconditions."
"He can make international moves without talking and then accuse Israel of being unwilling to talk," Netanyahu added. He also stressed the need to ensure Israel's security in any future agreement. "The problem in Gaza is not arms smuggling, because there is not a lot of that - there's self-production. They are producing pipes with accurate aiming capabilities and this is because we are not there," he said. "This doesn't happen in Ramallah because when you need a security regime, it's Israel's security abilities."
"We must ensure a long-lasting and stable security regime," Netanyahu stressed. "This is not an excuse, there are real things and that is why we need to negotiate the recognition of two national states with real security arrangements."
**Reuters contributed to this report.

America and the Middle East Complex
Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Al Awsat
Tuesday, 9 Jun, 2015
The front cover of this week’s issue of the Economist reads: “Losing the Middle East,” in reference to several disputes that have plagued Arab–US relations since the eruption of the wave of upheavals known as the Arab Spring. Disputes between the two sides have taken a public turn as they began to adopt contradictory policies, something both were keen to avoid, at least over the last three decades.
Barack Obama’s administration, which takes pride in managing to disengage Washington from foreign adventures for the first time in a long period, has not recovered from the complex it developed following its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it lost thousands of soldiers and failed to make any political gains. The situation in Iraq is still chaotic and the conflict there has taken a sectarian dimension. The Taliban have far from disappeared in Afghanistan; in fact they have extended their presence to Pakistan’s tribal areas.
The Obama administration, for a while, seemed set on overcoming the Iraq–Afghanistan complex in Syria, only to backtrack at the eleventh hour. Washington’s policy reversal has led Syria to become fertile ground for terrorism, attracting fighters from around the world and posing a threat to global security. Several Arab countries had warned against just such a scenario early on in the Syrian crisis.
Some Western analysts are promoting the theory that the Middle East is losing its significance as an energy powerhouse after new technology used in shale oil extraction made the United States a swing producer that is no longer dependent on imports to meet its oil needs. The proponents of this theory overlook the fact that developed countries rely on the Middle East for oil, an important factor in the stability of the world economy. This is not to mention the high cost of extracting shale oil, a process that some researchers suspect encourages seismic activity.
The bottom line is that America will not leave the region as it still has massive interests there. Moreover, Arabs would like Washington to remain engaged in the Middle East given the important role it has played in the security of the region. Disputes between the two sides can be pragmatically dealt with by promoting common interests and identifying the points where both sides differ. An example of such pragmatism is the decisive position the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, have taken in Egypt by siding with the public against the Muslim Brotherhood. The Gulf states did not wait for Washington’s signal—the US, for unknown reasons, positioned itself nearer to the Brotherhood under the illusion that a deal could be struck with some of the Islamist currents.
It appears that both sides have reached an undeclared understanding in terms of adopting some sort of a pragmatic approach, the Economist said. According to the weekly magazine, while Washington sides with Iran in Iraq, it takes a contradictory position in Syria. The same applies to Arabs who despite their dislike for some of Washington’s foreign policies seem to have decided to live with it.
Most importantly, Arabs need to adhere to their interests. Some cases of Western interventions have proved catastrophic, as is the case in Iraq whose state institutions have been dismantled its military disbanded. Western intervention also backfired in Libya where chaos reigned as the North African country became a magnet for global terrorism groups.

Geneva talks throw a lifeline to the Houthis
Salman Aldosary/Asharq Al Awsat
Monday, 09 June, 2015
Because the United Nations in its modern era has signed more agreements than it has implemented, and because the international organization has been more concerned about working out details on paper rather than coming up with realistic solutions, another episode in a series of UN-sponsored talks is about to kick off in Geneva. But this time the situation in Yemen will take center stage. The talks are to be held despite the fact that the Houthi rebels, along with Yemen’s toppled former president and their ally Ali Abdullah Saleh, are under siege on military, political and diplomatic levels. The UN has decided to all of a sudden throw a lifeline to the Houthis and Saleh who have both neglected all international laws and diplomatic norms and instead insisted on violating them with intransigence. It is as if the Geneva talks are another way for the UN to drag out the crisis in Yemen, rather than a way to resolve it.
The impression that the highest UN body is only concerned about signing deals on paper has not come from the subsequent void. It is a reflection of the policies of the international organization that sponsored and cheered on the Peace and National Partnership Agreement signed by the Houthis and Yemen’s President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi in September. However, the Yemeni people and the rest of the world have realized that the agreement is simply the “genie of the lamp” that helped the Houthis turn against all of their partners and occupy the capital Sana’a, seizing ministries and government institutes by the force of weapons before kidnapping President Hadi and members of his cabinet. Throughout that time the UN remained silent. This passivity shows that the UN has failed twice in Yemen. First, by failing to implement the agreement; and, second, by endorsing an agreement that cannot be implemented in the first place. The UN-sponsored deal acted as a green light that allowed the Houthis to take control of the Yemeni state’s capabilities. Who would believe that the Houthi coup in Yemen was conducted through a UN-sponsored agreement?
The United Nations is yet to answer the nagging question: Why hold new consultative talks, since Resolution 2216 on Yemen has already been issued by the UN Security Council and is based on the outcomes of the National Dialogue Conference and the Gulf Initiative? The international organization is yet to announce the agenda of the talks and the foundations on which they would be based. I have been told by a Gulf diplomat that UN officials have confirmed (in secret) that the agenda of the talks will be based on Resolution 2216. But their shying away from publicly stating this is suspicious and has led to the Houthis threatening to set out conditions for their participation in the talks. Of course, no one expects Hadi’s legitimate government to acquiesce to any UN pressures in Geneva, particularly since it has Resolution 2216 which represents a road map for future solutions and whose implementation is an international demand rather than an option.
No one opposes efforts to seek a political exit from the crisis in Yemen. Moreover, no one wants for the war, caused by the Houthis as admitted by the international community, to continue for long. However, the Geneva talks should not act as a coup against all the political and international agreements binding on all factions in Yemen. The forthcoming Geneva talks thus seem mysterious and raise questions more than provide answers. Would the Geneva talks be a continuation of the Houthi coup that the Peace and National Partnership Agreement started? Or will the talks provide a cover for stripping Hadi of his legitimacy? The Geneva talks will happen, and the little credibility the UN has left is now very much at stake.

Beyond Islamists and Autocrats: Prospects for Political Reform Post Arab Spring
David Schenker and Sarah Feuer
June 2015
Concern about the political direction of the Middle East has long ago replaced the optimism that briefly followed the 2010-11 so-called Arab Spring. Many countries in the region seem headed toward either a return of traditional dictators or a new Islamist authoritarianism. Yet all is not lost. The Arab states have not fallen like dominoes to the Islamists. Modest opportunities to move toward greater pluralism, more-representative government, and increased respect for universal human values can be found in several places in the region. And in other areas, the poor governance record and declining popularity of Islamists in power are creating an opening for non-Islamist alternatives.
To address the prospects for the region’s non-Islamist, nondictatorial forces, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is announcing the publication of a new series of scholarly papers, Beyond Islamists and Autocrats: Prospects for Political Reform Post Arab Spring, to be published over the next eighteen months. The essays offer sober assessments of non-Islamist and non-Islamist pluralistically inclined actors in a dozen or so Middle East states. The analysis focuses on the particular conditions in each country, detailing the goals, strengths, and weaknesses of the groups in question, and exploring their approach in the contest with their Islamist rivals.
Only in recent months have voices in Washington begun to recognize the promise, however limited, of non-Islamist actors, as opposed to focusing solely on the authoritarian-versus-Islamist narrative. The Washington Institute’s series aims to shed light on this trend and provide suggestions for Washington on how best to cultivate and preserve this limited resource during this critical time of transition.
Series Introduction
David Schenker
Four years after the Arab Spring, the Middle East is aflame, but the Arab states have not fallen like dominoes to the Islamists. In Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood electoral victory was reversed by a military coup; in Tunisia, a democratically elected but widely unpopular Islamist-led coalition ceded power to a more secular coalition government. Elsewhere in the region, non-Islamists—individuals, NGOs, and political parties—are also contesting the concept of religiously inspired government. Yet ISIS and other Islamic extremists remain quite powerful in some places, while traditional autocrats claiming various shades of religious legitimacy continue to rule in others....
Download the full text of this chapter [PDF]
Chapter 1: Post-Jasmine Tunisia
Sarah Feuer
One of the more dramatic Arab Spring plotlines has been the rapid turn of fortune for Islamist movements throughout the region. If the tumult of 2011 initially paved the way for Islamist parties to assume power in places like Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco, by 2014 the pendulum had swung decidedly back and Islamists were on the defensive, if not wholly defeated, in most of the affected countries. Tunisia, the birthplace of the Arab uprisings, was no exception. There, the Islamists of the Ennahda Party who swept into power after the 2011 parliamentary elections were, by late 2013, struggling to negotiate a departure from the government that would preserve the party’s future political relevance. Ennahda’s stinging defeat in the parliamentary election of October 2014, and the election of an avowedly anti-Islamist president two months later, ostensibly spawned an Arab democracy in which non-Islamists are the dominant actors....
Download the full text of this chapter [PDF]
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/BeyondIslamists-Feuer.pdf

What Turkey's Election Results Mean
Soner Cagaptay/Washington Institute
June 09, 2015
The outcome has dealt a blow to the AKP's longstanding dominance and Erdogan's goal of implementing a presidential system, with potential implications for the economy, Syria policy, and the Kurdish movement.
This weekend, Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) lost its thirteen-year parliamentary majority. According to unofficial results from the June 7 elections, its vote tally dropped to 41 percent, down from 50 percent in 2007.
Elsewhere, the main opposition faction -- the leftist Republican People's Party (CHP) -- saw its support drop from 26 percent to 25 percent, while the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) boosted its tally from 13 percent to over 16 percent. And the smaller Kurdish nationalist Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) more than doubled its support, winning 13 percent on a liberal platform that reached out to women as well as political and ethnic minorities.
Preliminary results indicate that the AKP will hold 258 seats in the 550-seat legislature, CHP 132, MHP 80, and HDP 80. Since no party holds a majority, the next government will be either a coalition or minority government. The AKP can form a coalition with just one partner, whereas the other parties need at least two partners to muster a majority.
In theory, many coalition permutations exist, but in reality the options are limited because the MHP and HDP have, at least for the moment, ruled out coalition with the AKP, and the MHP has ruled out coalition with the HDP. Left-right coalitions are unlikely in Turkey, suggesting that an AKP-CHP government may not be in the offing, though such an alliance could deliver much-needed stability and social harmony by bringing the country's disparate halves together. A left-left CHP-HDP coalition is not possible because their total seat tally would not be enough to secure a vote of confidence. The political alignment points in the direction of a minority government, unless the two right-wing parties, the AKP and MHP, can form a government in which President Recep Tayyip Erdogan agrees to take a step back -- a highly implausible scenario.
Alternatively, the country could face early elections. The Turkish constitution dictates that a government must be formed within forty-five days after elections. If no government has received a vote of confidence in the legislature by this deadline, new elections have to be called.
OTHER IMPLICATIONS
For Erdogan: His ambitions to become Turkey's first executive-style president have been vetoed by the electorate. The MHP, CHP, and HDP have all ruled out the status quo -- whereby Erdogan effectively runs the country behind the scenes -- as a precondition for entering a coalition government with the AKP. His party may still form a government or come back as the majority party in likely early elections, but Erdogan's presidential ambitions are now exhausted. Nevertheless, he will continue his efforts to run the AKP and pursue an executive-style presidency, albeit with different tactics -- especially if early elections usher in a more pro-Erdogan alignment.
For short-term Turkish politics: No coalition or minority government in Turkey has ever finished its term, and the country usually witnesses political and economic crises when such governments fail as a result of bickering between coalition partners. Should Turkey enter a period of political or economic instability under a coalition government or during the forty-five-day formation process, the public may be swayed to support a single-party AKP government again in early elections. Conversely, the opposition could paint the AKP as the problem, increasing its own support in such elections.
For long-term Turkish politics: The results have proven that Turkey is too big and diverse for President Erdogan, the AKP, or any other party to control singlehandedly. The economic miracle that Erdogan ushered in over the past decade has become his nemesis. He helped make Turkey a middle-class society, but that constituency has now found a voice in the parliament through the Kurdish-liberal alliance and the CHP. The liberals are Erdogan's greatest long-term challenge. With a record number of women (who now constitute nearly 20 percent of the legislature), young members, and ethnic, religious, and political minorities (e.g., Armenians), this will be the most diverse Turkish parliament ever.
For Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu: This was an awkward election for him because he essentially ran a campaign to eliminate his position, telling the electorate, "Vote for me so you can get rid of me, and then make Erdogan the formal head of government." This gambit failed, but he had no other choice -- Erdogan ran the AKP's campaign.
For the Kurds: This is a chance for the pro-democracy wing of the Kurdish nationalist movement to finally take over its violent wing. The HDP has entered the parliament thanks to support from liberal Turks, showing that democracy is the solution to Kurdish grievances -- and, more important, that the movement's future is intertwined with that of liberal, democratic Turkey.
For Syria policy and U.S.-Turkish ties: The AKP has been nearly obsessed with ousting the Assad regime in Damascus and has used most any means to achieve this end, such as allowing radical fighters to flow across Turkey's borders. Now that the party has lost its legislative majority, this policy will come under greater parliamentary, media, and public scrutiny. As a result, Ankara may come down a notch to a policy that involves taking smaller steps toward removing Assad, akin to Washington's policy.
**Soner Cagaptay is the Beyer Family Fellow and director of the Turkish Research Program at The Washington Institute, and author of The Rise of Turkey: The Twenty-First Century's First Muslim Power, named by the Foreign Policy Association as one of the ten most important books of 2014.

Study: Israelis, Palestinians would gain billions from peace
Associated Press, Attila Somfalvi /Ynetnews
Published: 06.08.15/Israel News
RAND Corp. says two sides stand to receive significant economic benefits if peace deal is reached, and lose much more if not; two-state solution found to be by far the best scenario financially.
Israelis and Palestinians would gain billions of dollars from making peace with each other while both would face daunting economic losses in case of other alternatives, particularly in case of a return to violence, according to a new study released on Monday.
The RAND Corp., a US-based nonprofit research organization, interviewed some 200 officials from the region and elsewhere during more than two years of research into the costs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its main finding was that following a peace agreement, Israelis stood to gain $120 billion over the course of a decade. The Palestinians would gain $50 billion, marking a 36-percent rise in their average per-capita income, the report said.
In contrast, the Israeli economy would lose some $250 billion in foregone economic opportunities in a return to violence, and the Palestinians would see their per-capita gross domestic product fall by as much as 46 percent, the report said.
"Our calculations, which are based on very careful evaluation of all factors, are that if there is a two-state solution, within a decade Israel will have GDP that is $23 billion greater than it is now," he said. "If you calculate the increase in income throughout that entire decade, we estimate that the sum will increase by $123 billion."
The findings are in line with long-time arguments that peace is in the economic interest of both sides. "We hope our analysis and tools can help Israelis, Palestinians and the international community understand more clearly how present trends are evolving and recognize the costs and benefits of alternatives to the current destructive cycle of action, reaction and inaction," said C. Ross Anthony, co-leader of the study and director of RAND's Israeli-Palestinian Initiative.
The study looked into five different scenarios: a two-state solution, a coordinated unilateral withdrawal, an uncoordinated unilateral withdrawal, nonviolent resistance and a violent uprising. Not surprisingly, the economic benefit for both sides dropped considerably in each alternative down the ladder. Some of the elements of the nonviolent resistance scenario are already unfolding with Palestinians taking actions to put economic and international pressure on Israel. The study found that Israelis could lose $80 billion and Palestinians could lose $12 billion relative to current trends. But compared with a two-state solution, losses from the non-violent resistance scenario become even more dramatic: about $200 billion for the Israelis and $60 billion for the Palestinians.RAND teams are currently in the region, presenting their findings to both Israeli and Palestinians officials. The study was funded by an independent donor and the think tank insisted it was not advocating, just providing tools for leaders to make good decisions.
In reaching their conclusions, researchers devised a "cost-of-conflict calculator" that factored in issues like Israel's defense budget, its trade relations and what it would cost to relocate West Bank settlers. For Palestinians, variable costs included potential destruction of property, freedom of movement and banking regulations. The Palestinians seek the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of their future state, yet numerous rounds of peace talks have been unsuccessful.
"A two-state solution produces by far the best economic outcomes for both Israelis and Palestinians," said Charles Ries, co-leader of the study and an executive at RAND. "In a decade, the average Israeli would see his or her income rise by about $2,200, versus a $1,000 gain for Palestinians, compared with our projection for present trends. But that only works out to 5 percent for each Israeli versus 36 percent for the average Palestinian, meaning Israelis have far less and Palestinians far more economic incentive to move toward peace."
RAND spokesman Jeffrey Hiday said copies of the study had been sent to officials on both sides of the conflict, including the Israeli prime minister's office and Foreign Ministry and the Palestinian Finance Ministry.
Israeli officials declined comment, while Palestinian officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Houthis are Iran’s priority, but what about the Rohingya?
Camelia Entekhabi-Fard/Alarabiya
Tuesday, 9 June 2015
Text size A A A
It is quite moving and so disturbing seeing thirsty and hungry people - men and women, children and the elderly – lost at sea and crying for help while no one lifts a finger to help. These unwanted peoples are from the Rakhine State, Burma, and are predominantly Muslim. The ruling Buddhist government of Burma revoked their nationality and has heavily restricted their movements. Denied citizenship, they are effectively stateless with almost no basic rights. As they become increasingly marginalized, several groups are warning that the building blocks of genocide are in place, the Associated Press recently reported.
Worrying trend
This is worrying as even the world’s Nobel Peace Prize winners, whose job it is to advocate for peace, have not lent their voice to the community. Humanitarian efforts are unfortunately mixed with politics. Even Burma’s own Aung San Suu Kyu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1991, has not supported the group. She was kept under house arrest for 15 years until November 2010 and yet has not shown the courage to mediate between her own people and the silent oppressed. Besides Aung San Suu Kyu, Shirin Ebadi of Iran – a human rights lawyer and also a Nobel winner – has failed to express shock about the discrimination against the Rohingya.
Indonesia and Malaysia have come under fire for barring the entry of Rohingya refugee boats. Dropping water and food by helicopter was apparently the most these two countries could offer to assist their fellow brothers and sisters begging for help.
Iran’s concerns. Despite their anguish, Iran sends boatloads of aid to the Houthis in Yemen. It seems the Rohingya’s fight to stay alive is not a priority.
The struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia over Yemen kicked off as the Rohingya crisis was a major topic in the media. I was at the United Nations in New York and was talking to a foreign diplomat who is assisting in the run up to Geneva peace talks between Yemen’s warring factions. I spent those days wondering why Iran didn’t send humanitarian aid ships to the poor people from Burma, rather than entering this power struggle with Saudi Arabia over sending aid to Sanaa. I was discussing my point of view with a foreign diplomat who spoke with me on condition of anonymity. He told me that due to a lack of trust, Saudi Arabia and the international community didn’t allow Iranian aid-workers to come anywhere near Yemen. (Saudi Arabia has denied blocking aid and says it has asked that aid must be coordinated with the Saudi-led coalition).
“There is a fear that Revolutionary Guards advisors could enter into Yemen undercover. Houthis have enough weapons and a cache of ammunition. What they need is military advisors directing them and this access has been denied.”My jaw dropped when I heard this concern, whether it is actually on the cards for Iran or not. Today, humanitarian efforts are unfortunately mixed with politics. President Obama, also a Nobel Prize winner, offered help to the Rohingya, for his part. Obama, whom was speaking with a small group of youths from Asia on June 1 in Washington D.C., commended Indonesia and Malaysia for taking on the thousands that they did take on.
He has been the only Nobel winner to say anything to help their cause.

Iran threatens, ISIS executes
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya
Tuesday, 9 June 2015
The two terrorist attacks targeting mosques in al-Qadeeh and Dammam in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia prove - if proof were ever needed - that the kingdom is fighting a real war. Even before Operation Decisive Storm was launched in Yemen, Iran’s leaders were scrambling to issue one threat after another against Saudi Arabia. Tehran’s manic desire to take over large areas of the Arab world means that anyone willing to take a stand against the country’s brash meddling is considered to be “interfering in Iran’s internal affairs!” Well, why not, particularly when some top officials in Tehran already boast that Iran’s borders now reach the Mediterranean, and that it is in full control of four Arab capitals!
Tehran firmly believes it is the rightful spokesperson for any Shiite, anywhere in the Arab world. Iran’s “new Arab colonies” aside, Tehran firmly believes it is the rightful spokesperson for any Shiite, anywhere in the Arab world. It feels it is entitled to issue “diplomas in patriotism” to all those it approves of, and pass the death sentence against those it brands traitors. This is exactly what Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, is doing. He recently described any Shiite who does not toe his party’s line, and who expresses reservations toward his blind political allegiance to Iran, as “American Embassy Shiites!”
In fact, Iranian threats against Saudi Arabia haven’t relented since 2011, ever since the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries dispatched their Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain. Bahrain—a GCC member state—needed the Force in order to impose law and order and protect public and private property in the aftermath of sectarian protests and disturbances inspired and orchestrated by Tehran. The threats continued as a reaction against Saudi Arabia and the GCC’s support of Syria’s popular uprising, especially when the uprising was met by wholesale massacres by Bashar al-Assad’s army and militiamen.
Old aggressive objectives
Such threats would never have been issued in the first place had it not been for the old aggressive objectives harbored by the Tehran leadership. No government openly threatens its neighbors if it really believes in “good neighborly relations” and “regional cooperation,” as uttered from time to time by the sweet-talking Iranian President Hassan Rowhani and his Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Unfortunately, Western capitals are only too happy to believe such statements.
Therefore, when the GCC countries felt obliged to defend the legitimate Yemeni leadership, according to the U.N.-endorsed GCC initiative, the true magnitude of Iran’s involvement became clear for all to see. Iran has been arming, training, financing and organizing the rebel Houthi machine for years. Their massive arsenal, as well as their organizational infrastructure, could not possibly have been there merely for “local” or “domestic” reasons, but are rather part and parcel of Iran’s massive expansionist project under the slogan of “exporting the [Khomeinist] revolution.”
The Houthi coup d’état is just one front in the regional war Iran is fighting, first to crush Saudi Arabia; second, to destroy Gulf security; and third, to impose its hegemony over the whole Arab Mashreq, in addition to the international waterways from the Arab Gulf to the Suez Canal.
This war, however, has not always taken the shape of direct confrontation. Indeed, it has from time to time sought to exploit dubious and misled groups. These groups are the ones adopting the most extreme Takfirist Sunni sectarian discourse to outbid all Sunnis; through committing barbaric murders they are engaged in an all-out war against moderate Sunni Islam.
Common knowledge
How al-Qaeda was conceived is common knowledge by now. We all recall how certain global superpowers actively contributed to the war in Afghanistan, alongside Arab and Muslim countries. Yet some in the West are now accusing these Arab and Muslim countries of being solely responsible for the emergence of post-war extremism in Afghanistan as embodied by al-Qaeda, and now the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Some Western commentators, in their zeal to defend and promote the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal, are working overtime to redefine Islamic extremism as “Sunni” extremism, exclusively placing the blame on particular Arab and Muslim countries. In this they are intentionally denying the fact that it was the West that was so keen to turn Afghanistan into the “USSR’s Vietnam!”
Serving the same end—defending and promoting the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal—many in the Western media are busy erasing the unsavory image of the Iranian part in “Islamic” extremism from the West’s collective memory. This is happening even in the U.S. and UK—which for years suffered the tragedy of having their citizens taken hostage, even murdered, in Lebanon in the 1980s.
This phenomenon has recently spread to Japan. The Japan Times recently published a report under the headline “Islamic State builds an ‘air force’ out of truck bombs”. The report painstakingly lays out when and where “truck bombs” were used, including in the Syrian border town of Ain al-Arab, also known as Kobane. The author, bless him, tells the readers that this weapon, given the initials SVBIED (suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device), was not invented by ISIS: in 1800 a rigged horse cart was used in the failed assassination attempt against Napoleon in Paris. He goes on to cite other examples of the use of “truck bombs” throughout the past decades with the help of American experts who somehow remember Tamil Tiger suicide attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, but not the massive 1983 attack on the U.S. Marines headquarters in Beirut!
I doubt this oversight was a result of natural forgetfulness, but rather a genuine attempt—at the highest levels—to exonerate the enemy of yesterday in order to repackage it as the ally of tomorrow.
This is the reason why one needs to deal with the regional Iranian war with full awareness of all its dimensions, avoiding naïve and irresponsible justifications that only serve the arguments of those hell-bent on exonerating Tehran, who are en route to turning Iran’s regional enemies into global pariahs.
Condemning the extremist gangs
With this in mind, any hesitation about condemning the extremist gangs that are perpetrating ISIS’ heinous crimes—including now in Saudi Arabia—will be a priceless gift to the above mentioned dangerous project. Of course there are grievances, and of course there are social incubators for extremism that are growing and becoming ever-more bitter as a result of maltreatment and abuse. But what we are going through at the moment is a real war which will not be winnable without a truly cohesive, safe and secure society.
As for ISIS, its regional role has now been uncovered for what it really is, at least as far as Syria is concerned. There it is the undercover ally of the Assad regime and its backers. ISIS has in the last few years uprooted millions of Sunnis, after putting them before an unenviable choice: Either accept Iranian hegemony under the banner of sectarian revenge, or succumb to ISIS’ Dark Age anti-culture of the sword and dagger.
Our countries and minorities do not need foreign protection, be it Iranian or not. In fact, the future of our religious, sectarian and ethnic minorities must be the responsibility of every patriot who strives for cohesive and solid societies that are based on coexistence, and respect diversity and the right to be different. Those who do not accept the conditions for such coexistence must bear the responsibility for their positions and actions.

Gulf plan key to Yemen solution
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya
Monday, 8 June 2015
The parties fighting in Yemen are not yet willing to accept a political solution to the crisis. This inevitably means that peace talks in Muscat, the upcoming Geneva negotiations and other bilateral meetings being held across the region won’t amount to much. Neither will a repeat of the recent Houthi attack on southern Saudi borders achieve anything for the rebels. There is seemingly no desire for all parties to reach consensus over a reasonable solution to the crisis, unless either side claims a partial military victory or the incapability to carry on fighting. But what makes negotiations a good path for the legitimate government and its allies is that the major mediators are sticking by U.N. Security Council resolutions and the reconciliation plan approved by all Yemenis, including the Houthis and ousted President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who later turned against it after realizing how easy it was to take over the capital Sanaa.
Legitimate or not?
Mediators have informed the Houthis that they refuse to negotiate over the latter’s military presence in Yemeni cities. However, the legitimate government has also confronted the problem of how to categorize the Yemeni army (whether legitimate or not), which until the fall of Sanaa was the army of legitimacy. It is no longer as such, as many of its brigades joined the rebels and some of its leaders declared their loyalty to Saleh.
The Gulf project will be the only possible solution to resort to, because it is reasonable and based on letting Yemenis decide their fate via U.N.-supervised elections. There is now a complicated situation in Yemen. The government’s army has mostly become illegitimate, while the legitimate president and government are in Riyadh. This situation is likely to continue until the end of this year. The shelling and fighting will go on, and Geneva might be useful to hold meetings, negotiate and reach a middle-ground solution among the several Yemeni fighting parties. In this case, the Gulf project will be the only possible solution to resort to, because it is reasonable and based on letting Yemenis decide their fate via U.N.-supervised elections. The winner would thus represent the Yemeni people and form a government.
At the beginning, some Yemeni parties thought this proposal would be an easy path to take over governance. However, when Saleh in particular realized that he would neither have a part in governance nor dominate power, he decided to sabotage the plan by targeting the interim government. Foreign parties, including the United States and Europe, will realize that the Gulf initiative is the reasonable solution for the crisis via expediting the elections and considering the results as the only legitimate reference, whoever wins. Some parties loyal to Saleh will most likely accept this solution because they will make partial gains. However, the Houthis will object to it because they are a minority that depends on the concept of militia rule. They will only agree to it if they accept to join an expanded coalition that would guarantee some gains but may lessen their influence. Considering the absence of wisdom and rationality, unfortunately war will reign and exhaust all Yemenis. Only then may they accept to go back to the only reasonable plan, which was disrupted the day Sanaa was occupied.

Turks Glorify Historic Slaughter and Rape of Christians
Raymond Ibrahim /June 09, 2015/FrontPage Magazine
A recent news report unwittingly demonstrates how Turkey—once deemed the most “secularized” Muslim nation—is returning to its Islamic heritage, complete with animosity for the infidel West and dreams of the glory days of jihadi conquests:
A group of devout Muslims from across Turkey prayed before the city’s historic Hagia Sophia on the 562nd anniversary of the Turkish conquest of Istanbul [Constantinople], demanding that the site be turned back into a mosque.
Men and women from across the country gathered before the Hagia Sophia museum early May 31, as part of an event organized by the Anatolian Youth Association (AGD) with the motto “Break the chains, Open Hagia Sophia,” and prayed the morning prayer with a call for the reconversion of the museum into a mosque.
In fact, this is an annual ritual. Thousands of Turks surround Hagia Sophia every May and call for it to become a mosque—often to Islam’s war-cry, “Allahu Akbar!”
This is not about a “minority of radicals.” In a survey conducted with 401 Turks, more than 97 percent wanted Hagia Sophia to be turned into a functioning mosque. Nor is this about Muslims needing a place to pray. As of 2010, there were 3,000 active mosques in Istanbul alone.
Rather, this is about Muslims wanting to revel in the glory days of Islamic jihad and conquest. Unlike historically-challenged Westerners, Muslims fully understand the significance of Hagia Sophia. Hagia Sophia—Greek for “Holy Wisdom”—was, in fact, Christendom’s greatest cathedral for almost one thousand years. Built in Constantinople, the heart of the ancient Christian empire, it was also a stalwart symbol of defiance against an ever encroaching Islam from the east.
After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts, Constantinople was finally sacked by the Turks under Sultan Mehmet II on May 29, 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, Hagia Sophia—as well as thousands of other churches—was converted into a victory mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph.
Reading the primary historic texts from the period is not unlike reading current headlines concerning Islamic State atrocities—the massacres, beheadings, rapes, enslavement of Christian “infidels” and the defilement of their churches. Writes an eyewitness to the 1453 Turkish conquest of Constantinople:
The enraged Turkish soldiers . . . gave no quarter. When they had massacred and there was no longer any resistance, they were intent on pillage and roamed through the town stealing, disrobing, pillaging, killing, raping, taking captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions… There were virgins who awoke from troubled sleep to find those brigands standing over them with bloody hands and faces full of abject fury… [The Turkish jihadis] dragged them, tore them, forced them, dishonored them, raped them at the cross-roads and made them submit to the most terrible outrages…
Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers’ breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. . .
Temples [including Hagia Sophia] were desecrated, ransacked and pillaged . . . sacred objects were scornfully flung aside, the holy icons and the holy vessels were desecrated…. Immense numbers of sacred and profane books were flung on the fire or torn up and trampled under foot. This is what Turkey’s Muslims are proud of. Salih Turhan, head of the Anatolian Youth Association, the group that annually organizes mass demonstrations around Hagia Sophia, boasts that, “As the grandchildren of Mehmet the Conqueror, seeking the re-opening Hagia Sophia as a mosque is our legitimate right.”
Turks know full well that Mehmet was the scourge of European Christendom; that his hordes seized and ravished Constantinople, forcibly turning it into Islamic Istanbul; that he had the fallen corpse of the Christian emperor, Constantine, who refused to forsake his besieged city, beheaded, mutilated, and mocked. Openly idolizing Mehmet and other sultans, as many Turks do, is tantamount to their saying, “We are proud of our ancestors who slaughtered, beheaded, enslaved and raped people and stole their lands simply because they were Christian ‘infidels.’”More contemporarily, it’s tantamount to their saying “We are proud of our fellow Sunni Muslims of the Islamic State—who are currently slaughtering, beheading, enslaving, and raping people simply because they are Christian “infidels.”
Such pride in Islamic atrocities goes all the way to the top in Turkey, to President Erdogan, who claims that the jihadi conquest of Constantinople was the true “time of enlightenment.”
Still, none of this stops Turks from claiming victim status. The Anatolian Youth Association still manages to blame the West: “Keeping Hagia Sophia Mosque closed is an insult to our mostly Muslim population of 75 million. It symbolizes our ill-treatment by the West.”
So keeping a historically Christian/Western building—that was stolen by bloody jihad—as a museum is seen as “ill-treatment by the West.”Similarly, last April, after Pope Francis accurately referred to the mass slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as “the first genocide of the 20th century,” Ankara’s highest Islamic authority responded by saying that the Pope’s remarks “will only accelerate the process for Hagia Sophia to be re-opened for [Muslim] worship.”
Such is the Islamic world’s double standards: when Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories, such as Constantinople and its churches—through fire and steel, with all the attendant human suffering and misery—the descendants of those conquered are not to expect any apologies or concessions—not even a building. However, once the same Muslims who would never concede an inch of Islam’s conquests are on the short end of the stick—Palestinians vis-à-vis Israel, for example—then they resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding “justice,” “restitution,” “human rights,” and so forth. It’s a testimony to the blindness and historic ignorance of the West that more people are not onto this old Muslim game yet.