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/ I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father
John 15/15-21: "I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father. You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another. ‘If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, "Servants are not greater than their master." If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.
But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me.

Bible Quotation For Today/As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all
Letter to the Romans 05/17-21: "If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 06-07/15
Will religiously divided landfills solve Lebanon's trash crisis/Sami Nader/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
Netanyahu heads to US to push for $50b. military aid package/J.Post/November 06/15
Analysis: The Obama-Netanyahu meeting: Just like the very first time… or not/HERB KEINON/J.Post/November 06/15
How will Erdogan solve 'terror problem' that brought him a victory/Kadri Gursel/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
Is Qatar Iran's door to the Gulf/Ali Mamouri/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
Turkey Still Besieges Its Kurds/by Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/November 06/15
Mystery continues over Iran's missing ambassador/Arash Karami/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
The Vienna Declaration: Precision Is Key to Avoiding a Slippery Slope/Andrew J. Tabler and Olivier Decottignies//Washington Institute/November 06/15
Netanyahu Comes to Washington: A Recalibration, if Not a Reset/David Makovsky/Washington Institute/November 06/15
Sanders and Corbyn: Birds of a feather/Abdallah Schleifer/Al Arabiya/November 06/15
Why Iran still won’t abandon ‘Death to America’/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/November 06/15
Assad must not get away with his crimes/Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya/November 06/15

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on November 06-07/15
Lebanon army hit by IED in Arsal/Five LAF soldiers were injured by the blast.
Report: U.S. Treasury Sanctions Lebanese and 4 Companies for Hizbullah Support
Five Lebanese Soldiers Injured in Arsal Blast
Hezbollah redeploying troops to Damascus fronts
Minor Earthquake Jolts Northern Bekaa
Report: Legislative Session Next Week Despite Christian Leaders Boycott
U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Urges Lebanon Leaders to Find 'Innovative Compromises'
Report: New Committee to Tackle Exporting Waste
Will religiously divided landfills solve Lebanon's trash crisis?

Lebanon army hit by IED in Arsal/Five LAF soldiers were injured by the blast.
Now Lebanon/November 06/15/BEIRUT – Terror has struck Lebanon’s Arsal yet again, this time when a blast targeted an army unit on patrol in the troubled northeastern border town. At midday Friday, an improvised explosive device (IED) detonated as a Lebanese Armed Forces patrol moved through the Ras al-Sirj area of Arsal, less than 24 hours after a deadly explosion went off outside meeting of Muslim clerics in the town’s commercial market. Lebanon’s state National News Agency reported that ambulances rushed to the site of Friday’s attack “after news that 5 soldiers suffered light wounds.”The LAF rushed to the scene of the blast, with soldiers working to move the damaged military vehicle after evacuating the wounded troops. Army troops also conducted raids on a refugee encampment near the bombsite, the NNA said in a later report. The attack on the LAF comes after a blast went off Thursday during a gathering of sheikhs, mostly Syrian, at the Qalamoun Scholars Committee headquarters in the town’s commercial market. The religious committee—which focuses on Syrian refugee issues in the border town—has served as a mediator seeking the release of Lebanese servicemen captured last year in Arsal by the Al-Nusra Front. Qalamoun Muslim Committee chief Sheikh Othman Mansour, a Syrian national, was killed in the attack that left at least three others dead. The nature of the blast remains unknown, with the NNA reporting that the blast ripped through a motorcycle outside the Committee’s headquarters. Lebanon’s state news agency earlier said that the remains of a purported suicide bomber had been taken to a local hospital. Arsal has borne the brunt of the spillover of Syria’s conflict into Lebanon, with a number of violent attacks rocking the border town that hosts more refugees than Lebanese nationals.
In past years, Syrian helicopters conducted a number of airstrikes on the outskirts of the town, which has also been hit by rocket attacks. Militants have also conducted ambushes against the Lebanese army in the town. LAF troops in the town have been targeted by IED explosions on three previous occasions last year, killing 5 soldiers and injuring a number of others. The most serious violence to beset Arsal came in August 2014, when Syrian Islamists conducted a cross-border rain, taking dozens of security personnel during 5-days of fierce battles.

Report: U.S. Treasury Sanctions Lebanese and 4 Companies for Hizbullah Support
November 06/15/The U.S. Department of Treasury said that it placed sanctions on two alleged Hizbullah members and their companies, and on two other companies freezing their assets, a report said on Friday. “The U.S. Department of the Treasury targeted significant Hizbullah procurement facilitators responsible for providing material support to enhance the group’s military and terrorist capabilities,” said a statement published on the Treasury's website. The Treasury said that it placed sanctions on Fadi Hussein Serhan and Vatech SARL, of which he is general manager. “Serhan is a Hizbullah procurement agent and General Manager of Beirut-based company Vatech SARL, which he has used to purchase sensitive technology and equipment for Hizbullah. Serhan has purchased unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and accessories, and various electronic equipment from companies in United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East,” said the statement. The Treasury also placed sanctions on Shenzhen, China-based Adel Mohammed Cherri and his company, Le-Hua Electronic Field Co, the report added. “Cherri is a Hizbullah procurement agent who has purchased dual-use technology and equipment from suppliers in Asia on behalf of Hizbullah. He facilitated Hizbullah’s efforts to procure a variety of electronics from China for transport to Yemen for use in improvised explosive devices by the Houthis, a group that has engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen,” said the statement. Sanctions also included two other companies owned and controlled by Ali Zoaiter. “Aero Skyone Co. Limited is a China-based front company created in 2013 and controlled by Hizbullah procurement agent Ali Zoaiter who has used Aero Skyone Co. Limited. to procure engines and other UAV equipment from Europe and Asia for Hizbullah. "Labico SAL Offshore is a Lebanon-based company owned by designated Hizbullah procurement agent Ali Zoaiter," it stated. “Hizbullah is a dangerous, destabilizing terrorist group, and Treasury is determined to maintain maximum pressure on this organization by targeting its many revenue streams,” said Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. In October, the United States slapped similar sanctions on prominent Lebanese businessman Merhi Ali Abou Merhi on charges of facilitating the activities of a Lebanese-Colombian drug trafficker and money launderer accused of having ties to Hizbullah.

Five Lebanese Soldiers Injured in Arsal Blast
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/ Five soldiers were injured in a blast that targeted an army tank in Ras al-Sarj in the eastern border town of Arsal, the state-run National News Agency said on Friday. Gunfire was later heard in the area and the army deployed heavily, NNA added. It added that the troops engaged in heavy clashes with the gunmen in the Khalaf al-Jafar area in Arsal. Afterwards, the army raided the refugee encampments close to the site of the explosion. Al-Jadeed TV said that the bomb was planted on the side of the road. The explosion came a day after a suicide bomber killed several people there when he entered a meeting of Syrian clerics and detonated an explosive belt. Arsal lies along Lebanon's border with Syria and is a Sunni Muslim enclave in mainly Shiite eastern Lebanon. It hosts many Syrian refugees as well as rebel fighters in the surrounding countryside. The town was the scene of fierce fighting in August 2014 between Lebanese security forces and jihadists of Al-Qaeda's Syria affiliate Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State group. As they withdrew from Arsal, the jihadists took dozens of Lebanese police and soldiers hostage and still hold them in the hilly terrain on the town's outskirts. In October, eight people were killed and others wounded when Lebanon's army targeted militant positions along the mountainous eastern border.

Hezbollah redeploying troops to Damascus fronts
Now Lebanon/November 06/15/BEIRUT – Hezbollah has been redeploying its fighters from Zabadani to the frontlines around Syria’s capital where regime forces have pressed unsuccessful offensives against rebels, according to pro-opposition media. All4Syria reported Friday that Hezbollah fighters as well as Syrian National Defense Force militiamen were redeploying “en-masse” from their positions in the mountains west of Zabadani, where Hezbollah lead a campaign against rebels from July to late September. A rebel source in the western Qalamoun border region told the outlet that the troops were headed toward battlefronts in eastern Ghouta—where the Army of Islam rebel group cut the Damascus-Homs highway northeast of Damascus—as well as Darayya, where the regime earlier in the week launched a failed bid to storm the town. The bloody fighting in Zabadani came to an end on September 24 in a deal that called for rebels holding out in the town to withdraw in exchange for safe-passage for civilians out of a besieged Shiite enclave in the Idlib province. All4Syria’s source gave a detailed account of the Hezbollah withdrawals carried out in the towns of Bloudan and Al-Maamoura that overlook Zabadani. “23 Microvans, 14 large Kia vehicles, 16 large Toyotas, two small closed top cars, three Inter trucks, 3 ZiL vehicles full of men, 15 taxis carrying Hezbollah and NDF members and four large transport vehicles [each] big enough for over 200 passengers,” left the two western Qalamoun towns for Damascus, according to the report.
The party’s force that withdrew from the western mountain area included “37 Jeeps, 16 Toyotas, 7 130mm field artillery units, several BMP vehicles and a rocket launchpad,” he said. Another pro-opposition outlet, 7al.me, carried a similar report Friday, saying that “Hezbollah and Syrian regime forces have withdrawn from the Ayn Ramleh checkpoint and adjacent positions in Zabadani’s western mountains.”“They have withdrawn from their positions in the western mountain towards the Al-Saroukhiya checkpoint at the town’s entrance and the capital Damascus to make up of the lack of manpower on other fronts,” a media activist who identified himself as Ahmad Yabrudi told 7al.me. Yabrudi said that the regime had also “withdrawn a large number of its forces and militias from Bloudan, Maamoura and the area around Zabadani to Al-Saroukhiya and Damascus.”

Minor Earthquake Jolts Northern Bekaa
November 06/15/A minor earthquake rocked several regions in northern Bekaa on Friday evening, causing no casualties or damage. The state-run National Center for Geophysical Research said the epicenter of the 3.9-magnitude tremor was an area between the city of Baalbek and the town of al-Fakiha. It said the earthquake hit at 7:50 pm. The National News Agency said the tremor was felt by residents in Baalbek, northern Bekaa, Hermel and the northern district of Bsharri. According to NCGR, over 600 earthquakes with magnitudes below 3 degrees hit Lebanon each year.
In 1956, a 6 degrees on the Richter scale earthquake struck Lebanon, killing 136 people and destroying 6,000 houses.

Report: Legislative Session Next Week Despite Christian Leaders Boycott
November 06/15/Speaker Nabih Berri insistence to hold a legislative session on the 12 and 13 of November to approve 38 items including financial draft laws have driven contacts between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces who say could boycott the session, al-Hayat daily said. FPM and the LF could possibly boycott the session over the exclusion of the electoral law proposal from the agenda, which the Speaker believes that it needs more time to be studied. The Kataeb Party also refuses to attend the legislative session amid the presidential vacuum, reiterating the need to hold the session primarily to elect a head of state. Parliamentary sources told the daily that Berri will not waver from holding a session despite the boycott of leading Christian parties because he believes that the “financial situation in Lebanon requires a parliament convention to cover mostly foreign loans and financial issues,” the daily added. On Wednesday, Berri had called for general legislative sessions on November 12 and 13 to tackle and approve several draft laws listed on the agenda. The country has not had legislative elections since 2009, with parliament meeting only to extend its own mandate twice. Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh held talks with Berri on Thursday where talks focused on the draft-laws on the upcoming legislative session's agenda, most notably those on money transfers from abroad and combating money-laundering. Media reports in recent weeks have highlighted the threat of Lebanon losing its international grants and loans due to the paralysis of the parliament and cabinet, which is linked to political bickering.

U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Urges Lebanon Leaders to Find 'Innovative Compromises'
November 06/15/U.S. Chargé d’Affaires ad interim Richard Jones on Friday urged Lebanon's political leaders to find “innovative compromises” and “Lebanese solutions” in order to overcome the country's growing political crisis. “Domestic political stability cannot be bought or furnished from the outside. Lebanese political leaders need to come together now to find innovative compromises and Lebanese solutions to the challenges facing the country, so as to end the current political paralysis,” said Jones after his first meeting with Prime Minister Tammam Salam at the Grand Serail. The chargé d’affaires, who arrived in Beirut overnight, will help fill a transition period until the nomination and confirmation of a new ambassador, the U.S. embassy said in a statement. “The Cabinet, Parliament, and a new President need to get back to work for the benefit of the people they were or will be elected to serve,” Jones said after his talks with Salam. “While these challenges require Lebanese solutions, please rest assured that America will stand by your side as you grapple with them,” he added. The envoy said talks tackled “the many interlocking political, economic, security, and humanitarian challenges confronting Lebanon today.” “I told Prime Minister Salam that America will remain a steadfast partner as Lebanon responds to the threats presented by the spillover from the crisis in Syria,” he said. Jones also vowed to “work tirelessly to ensure American assistance in the military, economic, and humanitarian spheres continues to help build a secure, prosperous, and stable Lebanon.”“Our assistance will continue to equip and modernize the Lebanese Armed Forces in order to bolster their ability to counter the extremist threat and to fulfill the LAF’s responsibilities as the sole entity with the legitimacy and capacity to defend Lebanon’s territory and its people,” he said. Jones has “deep experience” serving in the region, including as ambassador to Lebanon from 1996 to 1998, the embassy said in its statement. “His return to Beirut and continued service underscores the priority that the United States places on its strong and enduring partnership with Lebanon at this critical time,” it underlined.

Report: New Committee to Tackle Exporting Waste
November 06/15/A new committee has been formed on Thursday to tackle the controversial trash crisis and to study the proposals presented by some companies to export Lebanon's waste abroad, al-Mustaqbal daily reported on Friday. Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb heads the committee which is comprised of three new members one representing the Environment Ministry another representing the Council for Development and Reconstruction in addition to a judge to study the legal aspects of the offers put forward, unnamed ministerial sources told the daily. The committee kicked off its first meeting Thursday evening under the chairmanship of Shehayyeb, and started studying the offers put forward by specialized companies in order to make the right decision before presenting it to the cabinet, they added without elaborating. Lebanon has been suffering from a trash disposal crisis since July with the closure of the Naameh landfill. Politicians have failed to find an alternative to the landfill, resulting in the pile up of garbage on the streets of the country. Heavy rains last week brought with it flooded streets coupled with waste, as experts warned of the health and environmental impact of the crisis.

Will religiously divided landfills solve Lebanon's trash crisis?
Sami Nader/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
The pictures of floating garbage after rain fell on Beirut Oct. 25 are indicative of the situation plaguing this small country. The shameful images, which went viral, point to Lebanon literally being a failed state. The Lebanese government — or what's left of it in light of the presidential vacuum ongoing since May 2014 and the parliamentary paralysis making it impossible to elect the president or enact new laws — is also unable to perform the most basic of municipal tasks: clearing roads of garbage.Is this the paralysis that on Oct. 16 prompted Interior Minister Nouhad Machnouk to threaten to have his team resign from the government? Machnouk probably prefers not to bear false witness or be turned into a scapegoat following numerous protests against the prime minister, environment minister and himself, all affiliated with the Future Movement. Garbage has been piling up on the streets since August.
Under popular pressure, on Sept. 11 the government had unanimously adopted a comprehensive waste treatment plan, according to which municipalities would be responsible for managing local waste. The government has failed to implement the plan, however, because of the sharp political divides among its components, which show no desire to make concessions in their refusal to establish landfills in their regions and share responsibility for collective waste. This is all the while knowing that the landfills are essential to the plan agreed to. The point of contention is the location and distribution of the landfills among the provinces, a problem that at this point has taken on a sectarian character, like the overall power structure in the country. Although Lebanon's various regions are home to a mix of sects, they are still characterized by sectarian division. The solution on the table suggests distributing waste on a regional basis, but this by nature also means on a sectarian basis. Thus, talk of Shiite, Sunni and Christian landfills has emerged.
No sect has shown a willingness to receive waste from other areas or sects in its region. No political party, which essentially represent religious groups in the Council of Ministers, is willing to allow into its constituency the waste of other regions or religious groups. Following much controversy, one agreement was reached in which a landfill in the Shiite area of the Bekaa Valley agreed to take in waste produced in Shiite areas elsewhere. Discussions are underway to develop a landfill in the Srar region, in Sunni-dominated Akkar, in the north. This landfill would receive and treat waste produced in Beirut, especially its Sunni areas, because efforts to develop a landfill in the densely populated capital have failed.
The waste problem from Christian areas, particularly Mount Lebanon (the Metn and Keserwan districts), stems from the old landfills being full and no possibility of creating new ones. Establishing landfills in mountainous areas is tricky given the threat posed to groundwater. The government plan does not include waste treatment landfills for the Metn and Keserwan areas, leaving Christian political forces to deal with their own waste and distribute it among their regions. This drew the ire of Christian forces, who then raised the issue of the air pollution caused by the electricity plant at Zouk (in Keserwan) in a bid to exert pressure or use the situation as a bartering tool. According to the Christian Free Patriotic Movement and the Kataeb, Christians are bearing the burden of this pollution in their areas, while all the regions and sects of the country partake in the energy supplied by the Zouk plant.
The scene these days in Beirut is surreal. As Lebanese youths take to the street to demand an end to the political system based on the sectarian distribution of power in ministries, the parliament and high-ranking government positions, the traditional political forces are battling over the sectarian distribution of waste and environmental burden. Until now, Lebanon's sectarianism had never sunk so low as to include waste. One is left to wonder whether the current crisis is actually about waste or if it is a sectarian conflict fueled by other factors. Administrative Development Minister Nabil de Freij, affiliated with the Future Movement, told Al-Monitor, “I do not believe that the problem is about waste. This issue could have been settled from the very beginning. When the government approved waste treatment tenders, the winners were private companies, so why were the tenders canceled [by the Cabinet] in such a drastic way?”
A day after the opening of the envelopes and the official announcement of the results by Environment Minister Mohammed Machnouk, on Aug. 25 parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt denounced the tenders for their high cost to public finance.
“From the very beginning, there has been a desire to disrupt the government’s work, thwart the presidential elections and disrupt the political and constitutional life,” Freij asserted. When asked whether the disruption would prompt Prime Minister Tammam Salam to resign, Freij replied, “He probably should have resigned three months ago.” He then noted the constitutional requirement that the prime minister has to submit his resignation to the president. “Would it [even] be possible for Salam to resign if he wanted to? To whom would he submit his resignation when there is no president?” Freij asked. Thus, a bigger struggle underlies the current waste crisis. Sectarian conflict and the waste crisis are pieces of the regional proxy conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Lebanon's governing institutions remain in a state of dysfunction pending Iranian-Saudi discussions and agreement on a way forward. In the meantime, waste continues to pile up in the streets of Lebanon, a failed state.
***Sami Nader is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Lebanon Pulse, an economist, Middle Eastern affairs analyst and communications expert with extensive expertise in corporate strategy and risk management. He currently directs the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs, focusing on the economics and geopolitics of the Levant, and is a professor for USJ University in Beirut.

Canada: Teen Muslim convert charged with encouraging violence for Islamic State
November 06/2015/By Robert Spencer/Jihad Watch
“The Crown attorney also confirmed a report that the boy had visited the Brandon Islamic Centre in an effort to convert to Islam.” Where did this lad get the Islamophobic idea that the Islamic State had something to do with Islam? John Kerry, call your office!

“Youth charged with terrorism offence appears in Brandon court,”
Winnepeg Free Press, November 5, 2015/BRANDON — A Westman youth has been charged with a terrorism offence for allegedly using social media to encourage violence on behalf of the Islamic State. His arrest was the result of an investigation involving the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP’s National Security Enforcement Section. The 16-year-old, who can’t be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, appeared in Brandon provincial court on Thursday.Crown attorney Grant Hughes sought a remand because the investigation continues and further charges may be pending.
Hughes said one computer had already been searched. The boy’s home was also searched on Wednesday and a computer tower was seized. Another warrant is needed to search the computer itself, Hughes said. The boy’s case was put to Monday and he remains in custody. Details regarding the case are scarce. The youth is charged under Section 83.2 of the Criminal Code — counselling assault causing bodily harm at the direction of, or in association with, a terrorist group. Authorities have confirmed the group is ISIS, known as Islamic State. The charge, however, doesn’t specify who was to be the target of the suggested assault. However, a target doesn’t have to be specified under that offence, Crown attorney Ian Mahon said. The charge as laid, however, suggests the assault was carried out by another individual…. The Crown attorney also confirmed a report that the boy had visited the Brandon Islamic Centre in an effort to convert to Islam.

“Iran Calls U.S. World’s Top Terrorism Supporter, Drug Trafficker
Washington Free Beacon, November 6, 2015/The head of Iran’s Justice Minister [sic] on Friday called the United States the world’s top supporter of terrorism and drug trafficker, according to regional reports. Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, Iran’s Justice Minister, made the remarks while in Russia for a meeting with his counterparts. “I want to say that we perceive the United States as country supporting terrorism and spread of narcotic substances,” Pour-Mohammadi was quoted as saying in Iran’s state-controlled press. In Afghanistan, for instance, drug production has increased exponentially since U.S. forces invaded the country, Pour-Mohammadi claimed. “Today, financial support and supply of weapons [to terror groups] are carried out either by the United States or by its allies,” the leader added…

Putin Orders Halt to Egypt Flights
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/President Vladimir Putin on Friday suspended Russian air traffic with Egypt and ordered assistance in bringing Russian nationals home as investigators probe why one of its passenger jets crashed in the Sinai. The Russian president has ordered "the halting of flights with Egypt until we manage jointly with our Egyptian partners to establish the necessary level of provision of security for air travel," Peskov told journalists. He said the move would affect all Russian airlines flying into and out of Egypt. "We are talking about the security of our citizens, about preventative measures, and about providing the necessary level of security for our citizens who are taking flights to Egypt and back," he said. The dramatic decision came after Britain and the U.S. said they suspected a bomb was responsible for Saturday's air disaster in which an Airbus jet crashed in the Sinai Peninsula, shortly after taking off from the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. All 224 people on board were killed, most of them Russian tourists. Peskov insisted that the decision did not mean that Russia believed the crash was caused by a deliberate attack, saying that "not one theory could dominate" until the investigation reports its results. Meanwhile, the head of Russia's emergencies ministry said that Russian experts had taken samples from the crashed jet and were testing it for any traces of explosives. "All of these samples have been delivered to Moscow and are currently being carefully studied," minister Vladimir Puchkov said in televised comments. "If there are any traces of explosives then they will certainly be found." Putin's order came shortly after the director of Russia's FSB security service recommended halting flights to Egypt at the start of an emergency meeting of Russia's anti-terrorist committee. "Until we have determined the true reasons for what happened, I consider it expedient to stop flights by Russian aviation to Egypt," FSB chief Alexander Bortnikov said in televised comments. Bortnikov said it was crucial to wait for the results of the probe before drawing any definitive conclusions about what caused the crash. "We need to receive absolutely objective and confirmed information about the crash of the plane," he said. The head of Russia's federal tourism agency Oleg Safonov told TASS state news agency that some 45,000 Russian tourists were currently estimated to be in Egypt.

Probe Source: Russian Jet Black Boxes Point to Attack
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/An analysis of black boxes from the Russian plane that crashed in Egypt point to a bomb on board the aircraft, a source close to the probe said Friday. The flight data and voice recorders showed "everything was normal" until both failed at 24 minutes after takeoff, pointing to "a very sudden explosive decompression," one source said. The data "strongly favors" the theory a bomb on board had brought down the plane, he added. Another source said the plane had gone down suddenly and violently. One of the black boxes recovered from the crash site showed that the plane suffered "a violent, sudden" end, a source close to the case in Paris told AFP. The flight data recorder showed that "everything was normal during the flight, absolutely normal, and suddenly there was nothing."The Islamic State (IS) group has claimed responsibility for the disaster, in which all 224 on board to Saint Petersburg were killed, most of them Russian tourists. The Times newspaper reported Friday that electronic communications intercepted by British and U.S. intelligence suggested a bomb may have been carried onto the plane. Satellites uncovered chatter between militants in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria, it said. "The tone and content of the messages convinced analysts that a bomb had been carried on board by a passenger or a member of the airport ground staff," the newspaper reported, without giving a source. If it was behind the attack, it would be the first time IS, which controls large areas of Syria and Iraq, has hit a passenger plane.

France advises against travel to Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh resort
By AFP, Paris Thursday, 5 November 2015/France on Thursday advised its nationals against all non-essential travel to Sharm el-Sheikh following the crash of a Russian passenger jet that took off from the Egyptian resort at the weekend.The advice from the foreign ministry, updated on its website on Thursday, also concerns the town of Taba. The ministry said only "a few dozen" French citizens are currently in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Britain authorizes flights to bring tourists home from Sharm el-Sheikh
AFP, London Friday, 6 November 2015/Flights to bring British tourists home from the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh will resume Friday, but passengers will only be allowed to carry hand luggage, the British government announced. “The government has decided, in consultation with the airlines, that flights from Sharm to the UK will resume tomorrow,” a spokeswoman for Prime Minister David Cameron said. “The additional security measures will include permitting passengers to carry hand baggage only and transporting hold luggage separately.” Flights to Britain were suspended on Wednesday night after the government determined it was possible a bomb had brought down a Russian flight that had just departed Sharm el-Sheikh last Saturday, killing all 224 people on board. Passenger flights to Sharm el-Sheikh from Britain remain suspended, and the Foreign Office advises against all but essential travel to or from the Egyptian resort by air. British airlines, easyJet and Monarch said they were planning a total of 15 flights on Friday to repatriate some of the 20,000 British tourists currently in the resort. Charter flight operator Thomson Airways said flights would “will operate under special security measures mandated by the UK Government” with large check-in luggage transported separately. “All hold luggage will be returned to customers under separate secure cover arranged by the UK Government,” a statement from Thomson Airways said. British officials were sent to Sharm el-Sheikh airport to assess security and beef up checks, as Prime Minister David Cameron told reporters it was “more likely than not that it was a terrorist bomb” that brought down the Russian flight. EasyJet said it was planning eight additional flights and said that anyone scheduled to fly in the next 14 days to Sharm el-Sheikh could get their money back or could change their destination. Monarch, a British charter company serving the Egyptian resort, said it hoped to carry out five flights - two scheduled ones and three extra ones.

U.N. Watchdog Confirms Syria Chlorine Attack, Mustard Gas Use
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/The U.N. chemical weapons watchdog Friday confirmed with "utmost confidence" that mustard gas was used in Syria in August during fighting between rebels and jihadists and "likely" killed a child. Experts from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons also found toxic chemicals, including chlorine, were likely used as a weapon in an attack in Idlib province in March, the OPCW said in statement. Three reports have been sent by the head of the OPCW to the body's 192 members after separate missions to investigate incidents in Syria. In one attack in the town of Marea in Aleppo province on August 21, the OPCW team investigated after "a non-state actor had allegedly used a chemical weapon." They collected samples and "interviewed two individuals affected by exposure" as well as the doctors that treated them. "In this case, the team was able to confirm with utmost confidence that at least two people were exposed to sulfur mustard, and that it is very likely that the effects of this chemical weapon resulted in the death of an infant," the OPCW statement said. OPCW sources told AFP late Thursday investigators had for the first time in the four-year war confirmed the use of deadly mustard gas in Syria. First used in battle in World War I, the gas causes the skin to break out in painful blisters, irritates eyes and causes eyelids to swell up, temporarily blinding its victims. Internal and external haemorrhaging then results and destroys the lungs. While the OPCW's mandate is not to apportion blame, activists on Friday accused militants from the Islamic State group of using the gas as part of its sustained campaign to capture Marea. Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which operated a nearby field clinic, treated four members of a single family for "symptoms of exposure to chemical agents" after the Marea attack. Residents told MSF they saw a "yellow gas" when a mortar round hit their house.
New chlorine attack
In a separate investigation, OPCW experts probed allegations that toxic chemicals were unleashed in March in northwestern Idlib. The team "concluded that the alleged incidents likely involved the use of one or more toxic chemicals – including chlorine – as a weapon." Human Rights Watch had accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad of dropping barrels filled with chlorine in the rebel-held area during six attacks from March 16 to 31. However, in a third incident in which the Syrian government said its soldiers had been exposed to toxic chemicals in Jobar on the eastern edge of Damascus on August 29, the OPCW "could not confidently determine that a chemical was used as a weapon." In September 2014, the OPCW confirmed that chlorine was used as a chemical weapon "systematically and repeatedly" in villages in northern Syria earlier in the year. It cited attacks in the villages of Talmanes, al-Tamana and Kafr Zeita. Now a special OPCW mission has been set up to investigate who is behind the deadly gas attacks. Under a deal hammered out in 2013 between Russia and the United States following a sarin gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus in which hundreds died, the regime pledged to hand over all its toxic weapons to the OPCW for destruction. Assad's government had had stockpiles of more than 19 tons of mustard gas. But activists said IS had probably managed to get hold of the gas smuggling it via Turkey or Iraq.

US: No peace talks during Obama's term
Ynetnews/Yitzhak Benhorin/Published:11.06.15
Deputy national security advisor says neither Israelis or Palestinians have taken steps required for peace, Obama will not pressure Netanyahu during White House visit. WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama has ruled out the possibility of renewing Israeli-Palestinian peace talks before the end of his term in 2016, according to a statement Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes made while speaking to the press Thursday night.Rhodes' comments come just days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to arrive in Washington for talks with Obama, who the deputy said does not currently see any chance for a two state solution. The security official cited attempts at direct as well as indirect talks as failures. Both sides, he said, failed to take the steps required to produce an agreement. According to Rhodes, Obama does not plan on attempting to pressure Netanyahu to peace talks during his visit. Instead, the president plans to discuss ways to stymie the wave of violence that has engulfed namely the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past several weeks." Rhodes said this could be accomplished by taking "trust-building steps" to release tension and decrease incitement. He included that the Obama administration expects to hear from Netanyahu what steps Israel is prepared to take toward meeting the "aspirations" of the Palestinian people.The deputy national security advisor specifically cited Israel's West Bank settlements as an Issue that Obama feels has damaged trust and the chances for an agreement. According to Robert Malley, Obama's Middle East advisor, Rhodes' statement marks the first time since the Clinton administration that Israel-Palestinian peace negotiations have been taken off the table of foreign policy priorities.

Sisi, Putin Agree to Bolster Aviation Security
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi agreed with President Vladimir Putin to bolster coordination to secure Russian flights and resume them as soon as possible, after Moscow halted them Friday, his office said. Sisi called Putin and they agreed "to bolster cooperation between the two countries' relevant agencies to ensure the safety of Russian tourists and strengthen security measures for Russian planes," a statement said. Moscow halted the flights amid mounting suspicion that a Russian airliner that crashed in Egypt on Saturday, killing 224 people, had been brought down by a bomb.

Obama, Netanyahu Eye Arms Deal to Mend Ties
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu will hold a post-row summit Monday, hoping a massive 10 year defense deal will help them move beyond a bitter public fight that shook a decades-old alliance. After acerbic clashes over the U.S.-backed nuclear deal with Iran, the two leaders will discuss a deal expected to be worth more than $30 billion which will include a string of advanced weaponry systems, officials said. The deal will not be finalized during the summit and would only come into effect after a current accord expires in 2017. But Obama and Netanyahu are expected to discuss commitments that could see Israel get more than the 33 hi-tech F-35 jets already ordered, precision munitions and a chance to buy V-22 Ospreys and other weapons systems designed to ensure Israel's military edge over its neighbors. The weapons said to be under discussion reflect the prominence of Iran in U.S. and Israeli military thinking. The F-35 is the only aircraft able to counter the S-300 surface-to-air missile system that Russia has suggested it may sell to Tehran. Officials said Israel may also seek to ensure that other U.S. allies in the region do not get the F-35. The White House has so far rebuffed Arab Gulf states' requests to buy the planes. But while Israel has been offered some bunker-busting bombs, divisions over how to handle Tehran may put the sale of 30,000 pound "Massive Ordnance Penetrators" that could be used to target Iranian nuclear sites off the table."This is not something that has been raised in the context of the MoU discussions," said senior Obama national security aide Ben Rhodes referring to the deal, known formally as a memorandum of understanding. Military experts say Israel's lack of bunker busting capability has limited Netanyahu's ability to launch a unilateral strike against Iran, effectively giving Washington a veto over military action. The visit, Rhodes said, "would be an opportunity to discuss and hear from Israel its assessment of its security challenges and the related security needs it has... whether it is something like the F-35 or a variety of others." During his last trip to Washington in March, the Israeli prime minister found the door of the White House slammed firmly shut, with Obama refusing to meet him. The White House had been infuriated by Netanyahu's decision to appear in Congress at Republicans' invitation and urge US lawmakers to vote against a deal to curb Iran's nuclear program. Obama views the deal as a signature achievement that will close down Tehran's pathway to getting a bomb. The Israeli leader publicly and stridently opposed a deal, describing it as a "stunning, historic mistake." He will try to make amends in part by addressing the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank with close ties to the White House and the Democratic Party. Israel could still be a help or hindrance to Obama in keeping the deal on track, ratcheting up domestic pressure on the White House should Iran stall or falter on implementation. Some commentators have called for Israel and the United States to set up a formal joint implementation mechanism, a move that would infuriate Tehran. Amid an uptick in violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Obama will also be looking for Netanyahu to recommit to a peace process centered around a two-state solution, which he seemed to shy from during a recent election campaign, much to Obama's chagrin. Rob Malley, the National Security Council coordinator for the Middle East, said Obama would look to hear ideas from Netanyahu about how to move the process forward. "The President has said we have to reach a realistic assessment that there will not be a comprehensive final status agreement in the remainder of his term, and there likely may not be meaningful negotiations between the two sides," said Malley. "Given that reality, which is a new one, how does the prime minister himself see Israel going forward?"

Top Iraq Cleric Warns Parliament Not to Undercut Reforms
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, warned parliament Friday against attempting to use constitutional or legal grounds to circumvent reforms aimed at curbing graft and streamlining the government. The directive from Sistani came after parliament pushed back against Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's reform drive earlier in the week, saying its legislative powers must not be usurped during the process. "Legislative and other authorities should not take the need to protect the constitutional and legal path as a means of circumventing reform measures," Sistani said in remarks read by a representative at Friday prayers. Sistani, who is revered by millions and has unmatched prestige in Iraq, has played a key role in supporting reforms by calling for the government to carry them out, giving Abadi the political cover to move forward with changes. In a sign of the importance Sistani attaches to change, he told AFP earlier this year that if "true reform" is not realized, Iraq could be "dragged to... partition and the like, God forbid."In response to popular protests and calls from Sistani, Abadi announced reforms including scrapping the posts of deputy premier and vice president, streamlining the cabinet, cutting salaries for officials and slashing their huge number of guards. Parliament approved a reform program proposed by Abadi along with its own series of proposed changes, but now appears to be trying to assert greater control over the process. On Monday, parliament said that while it supports reforms, it "denies the delegation of any of its legislative powers to any executive side, and calls on all authorities to abide by their work according to the constitution."A dispute between parliament and Abadi could further hinder reform efforts by the premier, who has already struggled to effect significant or lasting changes. The endemic nature of corruption and the fact that officials are limiting their own privileges by implementing some changes are already major obstacles to reform.

Activists Accuse IS of Using Mustard Gas in Syria
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 06/15/Activists accused the Islamic State (IS) group Friday of being behind a deadly gas attack in northern Syria this past summer, which the global chemical weapons watchdog said was mustard gas. Mustard gas was used in the town of Marea in Aleppo province on August 21, a source from the Organization for the Prohibition for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told AFP. "We have determined the facts, but we have not determined who was responsible," the source said. But activists and a monitoring group said it was clear that IS was behind the attack. Rami Abdel Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group, said "IS used toxic gases during its attack on Marea in August." He said IS had likely gotten the gas through Turkey or Iraq. Journalist Maamun al-Khatib, who was in Marea at the time, said: "We knew it was IS because all the shells were being fired east of Marea, and that area is totally under the control of IS."IS has attacked Marea for months in an effort to cut off a supply route into the country from Turkey. For activist Nizar al-Khatib, OPCW's report "comes too late and isn't enough, because it doesn't identify IS as the one responsible for firing the mustard gas." Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which operated a nearby field clinic, treated four members of a single family for "symptoms of exposure to chemical agents."The Marea residents told MSF they saw a "yellow gas" when a mortar round hit their house.
An MSF spokesman said Friday that the Paris-based group did not have enough evidence to finger IS. After a chemical attack that killed hundreds in the Eastern Ghouta region east of Damascus in August 2013, Syria agreed to declare and hand over its chemical weapons in a deal overseen by OPCW.

Israeli fire kills Palestinian in Gaza clashes
AFP, Gaza City Friday, 6 November 2015/Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian in the Gaza Strip on Friday during clashes along the border, the enclave’s health ministry said. Salame Abu Jamaa, 23, was shot in the head during a protest east of Khan Yunis, health ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said. The Israeli army confirmed they had shot a suspect, saying they responded after Palestinians tried to breach the buffer zone between Gaza and Israel. “The forces called the perpetrators to halt, followed by warning shots in the air, and upon the suspects’ continued assault, forces fired toward a main instigator, confirming a hit,” a spokeswoman told AFP. Seventy-three Palestinians, including alleged attackers, and an Arab-Israeli have been killed since a wave of violence began on October 1. Nine Israelis have died. The unrest and attacks began in and around Jerusalem and the West Bank, but later spread to Gaza, hit by three wars with Israel since 2008 and where Palestinians have protested against Israel’s ongoing blockade of the enclave. There were also sporadic clashes in the West Bank city of Hebron on Friday following the weekly Muslim prayers, where one protestor was wounded in the head by a rubber bullet.
In Ramallah, also in the West Bank, Palestinians throwing stones clashed with Israeli troops next to the adjacent Israeli settlement of Psagot.

Egyptian naval fire kills Gaza fisherman
AFP, Gaza Friday, 6 November 2015/An Egyptian naval patrol shot dead a Palestinian fisherman and wounded another on Thursday off the coast near the border between Hamas-ruled Gaza and Egypt, a Gaza health ministry spokesman said. The victim was identified as Faris Meqdad, 18, ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qudra said. The Gaza interior ministry condemned the shooting and demanded an inquiry. “We condemn the shooting by the Egyptian military which left a Palestinian fisherman dead and another injured,” it said in a statement. “We are asking the Egyptian military to immediately open an investigation to find who committed this crime.”Egyptian forces have previously opened fire on Gazans they accused of crossing the maritime border between Egypt and the Palestinian enclave. Fighters have been battling Egyptian forces in the restive Sinai peninsula, which borders Gaza. Egypt rarely opens its border with Gaza, and the strip also faces an Israeli blockade. Since the ouster of its Islamist president Mohamed Morsi in 2013, Egypt says it has destroyed hundreds of tunnels used to transport militants, merchandise and arms between Gaza and the Sinai. Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, lost a major ally in Mursi and has had strained relations with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who overthrew him while army chief. In September, Hamas accused Egypt of further besieging the Gaza Strip by flooding the border area to the south.

58 Iraqis died of electrocution during heavy rains
By AFP, Baghdad Friday, 6 November 2015/Fifty-eight Iraqis died of electrocution during heavy rains and flooding last week, the health ministry said Thursday, illustrating the dangers posed by the country’s dilapidated infrastructure.The 58 “died of electric shocks,” spokesman Ahmed al-Ridaini told AFP. The sewer system was overwhelmed by several days of downpour, leading to widespread flooding in Baghdad and other parts of the country, and with some areas still flooded days after the rain stopped. The flooding combined with decrepit electricity infrastructure to pose deadly danger, and videos posted online showed the bodies of people purportedly electrocuted being fished out of flooded streets. As more rain fell Thursday, the electricity ministry issued a warning for citizens to “be careful with the distribution networks that include wires, poles and transformers.”Because government-provided power falls far short of demand, many streets in Iraq are crisscrossed by spider webs of dozens of haphazardly strung wires linking homes and shops to private generators.Government electricity provision - which falls to just a few hours a day during the summer, when temperatures top 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit) - has been a major source of discontent in Iraq. Anger over poor services and rampant corruption sparked weeks of protests earlier in the year. Reforms have been announced, but little in the way of significant change has occurred so far.

Netanyahu heads to US to push for $50b. military aid package
J.Post/November 06/15/Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is to leave for Washington on Sunday in hopes of securing a decadelong, $5 billion a year military aid package to help Israel defend itself against Iran and other regional threats.
On Monday, US President Barack Obama plans to host Netanyahu at the White House for their first face-toface meeting in a year.
The interim 12 months have been most acrimonious in the seven-year relationship between the two leaders, whose perceived personal dislike has been elevated to the level of diplomatic legend.
Netanyahu and Obama exchanged continuous barbs over the Iran deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear weapons, which the prime minister believes to be an historic mistake that only strengthens Iran’s military and atomic capacity.
But now that the deal is in place, the Obama-Netanyahu meeting is intended to heal some of that rift and to focus on the day after, by looking at a way the two long-standing allies can strengthen their military cooperation.
“This will be a crucial meeting [between] our two administrations,” an Israeli official said.
“No one should underestimate the fact that both our political and security establishments, with the differences we had in recent times, still continue to work [together] very closely and very intimately and very frequently,” the official said.
Both governments are clear on one thing, “that Israel and America are fundamental and strategic allies that share the same interests and values.
“I am sure this will be reinforced next week as the PM conducts his visit in Washington,” the official said.
Israel now wants a decadelong security package, beginning in 2017 and worth $5 billion per year, according to sources; an increase from the last package that was worth $3 billion a year.
The US provides more defense aid to Israel than to any other nation.
White House officials have previously said they are prepared to increase foreign military financing and defense aid to Israel, but have not specified to what extent.
The proposed aid increase is far larger than previous rate hikes, and also more substantial those that had been discussed shortly after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was announced. At that time, discussions were over a marginal increase of $600 million-$ 700 million annually.
Israel faces several turbulent fronts, threatened by the civil war engulfing Syria to its east, the Iranian-financed Hezbollah militant organization to its north, Hamas in the Gaza Strip to its west and the hotbed of the Sinai Peninsula to its south, where ISIS is growing stronger.
“The day after the agreement with Iran is a much more complicated situation than the day before,” an Israel official said.
Iran’s military reach in the region has grown stronger, he said.
In Syria, “it has reinforced its military assets” – a move that brings “Iran another step closer to Israel,” he said.
When “we look at the reality after the nuclear agreement, we try to gauge is there any change in Iranian behavior or policy – the clear answer is no,” the official said.
The leaders are also expected to discuss the second topic that has consistently put them at odds: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Washington would like the peace process to resume and believes that settlement building is a significant obstacle to jump-starting those talks. Netanyahu has insisted that he will not halt Jewish building in east Jerusalem or the West Bank and that the heart of the problem is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
After Netanyahu meets with Obama on Monday morning, he will deliver a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, where he will receive the 2015 Irving Kristol Award. It is the institution’s highest honor and is given to those who have made exceptional contributions in governance and political understanding.
On Tuesday morning, the prime minister is to address the annual Jewish Federations of North America’s General Assembly and afterward hold talks with congressional leaders.
In the evening, the Center for American Progress will host Netanyahu, where he is expected to speak on Iran, the Israel-Palestinian conflict and regional issues.
The prime minister is to return on Wednesday.

Analysis: The Obama-Netanyahu meeting: Just like the very first time… or not?
By HERB KEINON/J.Post/11/06/2015
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets US President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on Monday, it will be their 16th meeting. That’s a lot of face-time for leaders coming from vastly different ideological positions, who see the world through fundamentally different glasses, and who famously – and publicly – disagree about a lot: from the Palestinians, to the Arab Spring, to Iran.
Sixteen meetings on, however, and there is something that feels – in the run-up to Monday’s sit-down – like the very first time.
Now, as was the case in May 2009, when the two men first met as the leaders of their respective countries, there was much written and said about their differences. Obama the liberal, Netanyahu the conservative; Obama the dove, Netanyahu the hawk. Surely sparks would fly at that meeting, some speculated. Obama, during the 2008 presidential campaign, said that not adopting an “unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel” did not make one anti-Israel. And there he was, just a few months into office, meeting an “unwavering” Likud prime minister.
But many others argued that surely the two men would realize that they needed each other, that they must work together. Surely they would find a way to bridge their ideological gaps and get along – it was in the interests of both their lands. Surely, at least, they would radiate warmth and harmony before the cameras.
But it wasn’t to be. The caustic tone that has marked much of the Obama-Netanyahu relationship was set back then when the US president surprised Netanyahu in front of the cameras with a demand for a total settlement freeze, including in Jerusalem, and when he created linkage between the Iranian and Palestinian issues. It was as unexpected as it was unprecedented, and it set the relationship off on the wrong foot.
Now, as then, there are those saying that following their titanic clash over the Iran deal, the two men – meeting for the first time in over a year – will surely want to show that bygones are bygones, and send a message to their constituencies and the world that they want to bury the hatchet and work together.
This will most likely be Netanyahu’s approach to the meeting. He signaled this already in picking the venues for his public appearances in Washington.
Besides meeting with Obama, he will address the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, and the conservative American Enterprise Institute. No surprises there.
But he will also speak at the Center for American Progress, one of the most clearly identifiable progressive think tanks in Washington.
After addressing Congress in March at the invitation of then-speaker of the house John Boehner, over the loud and angry objections of Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, he is clearly trying to mend fences, to show that Israel is not a partisan issue. What better way of choreographing that message than to speak at a liberal think tank.
But things don’t always go as planned.
Back in May 2009 Netanyahu went to Washington hoping to get the relationship off on the right track with a president with whom he had deep ideological differences. Obama, however, had a different agenda.
Concerned about America’s standing in the Arab world following eight years of George W. Bush – years that saw America go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq – Obama was intent on showing daylight between Washington and Jerusalem, in order to bring the US closer to the Arab and Islamic world.
It didn’t work. This policy of creating space between the US and Israel to close gaps between the US and the Arab world succeeded, indeed, in placing space between Washington and Jerusalem, but without moving the Arab world closer to Washington.
More than six years down the line, the Arab world is more skeptical and wary of the US, its polices and commitments, than it was back then. Obama is not going to be able to assure the Saudis, or the Emirates, or the Egyptians, of American commitment by publicly blindsiding Netanyahu. What they want to see now, no less than Israel, is a firewall against Iran.
Which is why this time the president is unlikely to pull out any surprises – like the settlement freeze demand – when he meets Netanyahu in front of the cameras. And Netanyahu realizes well that with all his railing and fury at the Iran agreement, it’s a done deal – at least until January 2017 and a new president comes into office. The need now is to figure out how to work together to scrupulously make sure the deal is implemented.
When all is said and done, what the deal does, essentially, is kick the Iran nuclear issue down the road for 15 years. If implemented, it will cap and roll back somewhat the Iranian program for the next decade and a half.
What Obama and Netanyahu will need to focus on now is how to use the next 15 years to ensure that Iran does not break out to a bomb.
This means the two countries will need to coordinate to ensure and monitor implementation, something that is in the best interests of both nations.
There needs to be an understanding between Jerusalem and Washington about what constitutes an Iranian violation, and what the proper response to such a violation should look like.
Israel and the US need to coordinate on monitoring, on sharing intelligence to get a clear picture of exactly what the Iranians are – and are not – doing.
And finally, there needs to be discussion about how to deter the Iranians, to deter them both from breaking the accord as well as – flush with all the cash that will come their way from sanctions relief – moving ahead to destabilize the region. And this is where the so-called compensation package to Israel in the form of an enhanced Memorandum of Understanding spelling out defense aid to Israel over the next 10 years comes into play.
Despite widespread perception to the contrary, this enhanced military support to Israel is not a “consolation prize” to Jerusalem following the signing of the Iran nuclear deal. What it is, rather, is an effort to build up deterrence to Iran, so that the Iranians will know that if they either try to dash to a nuclear finish line, or if they continue efforts to destabilize the region, then Israel will have the wherewithal to deter them.
This deterrence, by the way, is not only on Israel’s shoulders, and it is for this reason that the US is also trying to build an enhanced deterrence capability with the Persian Gulf states.
So on paper, in theory, there is every reason to believe that this visit will be hiccup-free – because both sides want it to be, because both Obama and Netanyahu realize the importance of showing the Iranians, and the region, that they are now on the same page.
But that was also the assumption many had before that first meeting more than six years ago, and it was not to be.
Watch Obama. Not his body language, carefully (and ridiculously) scrutinized from every angle whenever he meets Netanyahu, but rather watch what he says to the press when they meet. That brief statement – whether it comes before or after the meeting – will, as it did following their first meeting, go a long way toward setting the tone for the next year, the final year of that topsy-turvy period in Israeli-US ties that has come to be known by some as the Obibi Era.

How will Erdogan solve 'terror problem' that brought him a victory?
Kadri Gursel/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
The 49.4% of the vote the Justice and Development Party (AKP) got in the Nov. 1 elections beat all forecasts, astonishing not only Turkey and the world but the party’s own quarters as well. How the AKP was able to boost its vote by a fifth in only five months after losing its parliamentary majority with 40.8% in June is now an imperative question. With an outcome of such an extraordinary nature, the AKP — a party supposed to have fatigued and lost some appeal after 13 years in power — must have resolved some major problem in Turkey in five months’ time or convinced part of the electorate that only the AKP could resolve that problem. And what is this problem? For an accurate diagnosis, one needs to compare the two different Turkeys that existed ahead of the June 7 and Nov. 1 elections. There was only one new problem that emerged after June 7: the resumption of bloody clashes with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and suicide bombings blamed on the Islamic State (IS). A relative calm preceded the June 7 polls, while the clashes between the PKK and government forces, which erupted July 24, resulted in hundreds of dead in the runup to last week’s vote. In addition, a suicide attack in Suruc on July 20, followed by twin suicide bombings in Ankara on Oct. 10, claimed a total of 134 lives, with both carnages blamed on IS.
After nearly three years of nonhostility — coupled with settlement talks between the PKK and Ankara — Turkey had abruptly descended into a spiral of violence, and coffins of soldiers and policemen arrived almost daily to provinces across the country. This new situation was, of course, bound to upend the electorate’s “problem perception” — a major factor swaying political preferences. And this shake-up explains to a large extent the AKP’s electoral victory.
In September, the Ipsos Social Research Institute’s “Turkey Barometer” survey, conducted in 15 cities among 1,319 people, found that 72% of Turks saw “the settlement process/terrorism” as the country’s “biggest problem.” The reason why the problem was defined by two seemingly contradictory terms — the settlement process and terrorism — stemmed from the fact that the survey’s questions were open-ended. In the survey’s August edition, the figure had stood at 47%. A 25-point increase in just one month reflects a dramatic shift in the perception of a “terrorism problem,” which funneled a great deal of votes to the AKP.
Now, let’s see how things stood ahead of June 7 before the “problem perception” turned upside down. The May findings of the same survey explain why the AKP failed in the June 7 polls. In the absence of conflict with the PKK and terror attacks attributed to IS, only 14% of Turks saw “the settlement process/terrorism” as the country’s main problem, while a staggering 53% put Turkey’s economic downturn on top of the list. And here comes the crux of the matter: Four months later, in September, those who believed the economy was the biggest problem were down to 12%, although economic indicators showed no improvement in the meantime.
All these figures speak of one thing: The new war against the PKK, launched as a deliberate political choice by Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s regime, coupled with the bombings blamed on IS, suppressed the perception of the economic downturn as the country’s biggest problem, which had been a key factor in the AKP’s failure in the June 7 polls.
The climate of terror kept stoking fear, insecurity and threat perceptions among the electorate, reaching a climax in the wake of the Oct. 10 twin bombings in Ankara that killed 102 people. At that point, the security forces raided an IS safe house in Diyarbakir, killing seven militants, in what seems to have had a reassuring effect on the electorate. The operation also aimed to undo the perception that the government was behind the IS bombings.
As a result, a segment of voters who had abandoned the AKP in last year’s municipal polls and the June 7 general elections, unhappy with economic woes, corruption or the settlement process, and who had gravitated either to the far-right Nationalist Action Party or the Kurdish-dominated Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), gave up their demands for political change under the strain of the mounting terror threat, opting for the continuation of the authoritarian status quo and handing back the AKP its strong parliamentary majority.
The regime’s media played a major role in ensuring this outcome. Equally influential was the huge government pressure on other media that severely curbed press freedoms. All in all, the government managed to convince the conservative Sunni electorate that it was the PKK that had reignited the conflict and ended the settlement process. Thus, those voters put no blame on the AKP for the climate of terror. The opposition, meanwhile, failed to convince them of its own credibility as an alternative, further facilitating their return to the AKP.
In short, the Erdogan regime won the elections by adding new problems to Turkey’s already hefty load of them and then convincing part of the electorate that only the AKP could resolve them. The credit should go to Erdogan as the architect of an exceptional tactical victory achieved with Machiavellian cunning.
The outcome may have given the regime another four years in power, but Erdogan and the AKP should now get down to business to sort out the conflict with the PKK and gratify the voters. And the only way to do this is the revival of the process to settle the Kurdish issue.
Will this process be linked to a new constitution and Erdogan’s aspirations to introduce a presidential system? We have to wait and see. The parliamentary arithmetic, however, is favorable. The AKP has 317 seats and the HDP 59. Provided the two parties reach a compromise, their total of 376 seats allows them to draw up a new constitution and enact it directly, without even going to a referendum.
Should the settlement of the Kurdish conflict become the subject of bargaining in return for a new constitution installing a presidential system, the real question will be how high the PKK’s military and political leadership puts the bar. This time it is likely to impose tougher negotiating terms on Ankara since the PKK today is in a much stronger position than in late 2012, when the previous settlement process kicked off. As a result of the policies Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu have pursued vis-a-vis Syria and the Kurds, the PKK and its Syrian offshoot, the Democratic Union Party, have become allies of both the United States and Russia. The two Kurdish organizations also are allies of Iran and the Damascus regime. Such bonds could now make it easier for outside actors to exert indirect adverse influence on Turkey’s Kurdish problem.
If the PKK raises preconditions that are extremely hard to accept, such as a demand for autonomy, Erdogan will find himself facing a tough dilemma. The discussion of autonomy is likely to stir nationalist outrage and thus hamper the making of a new constitution. The alternative, however, cannot be the continuation of the war with the PKK.
Erdogan was able to win the elections by augmenting Turkey’s problems. Now, these problems are bound to grow further unless he finds urgent solutions.
**Kadri Gursel is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Turkey Pulse. He wrote a column for the Turkish daily Milliyet between 2007 and July 2015. He focuses primarily on Turkish foreign policy, international affairs and Turkey’s Kurdish question, as well as Turkey’s evolving political Islam. On Twitter:

Is Qatar Iran's door to the Gulf?
Ali Mamouri/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
The map of alliances in the Middle East is changing rapidly, influenced by regional and international conflicts. Following the Iran nuclear deal signed in July and the improvement of Iran’s ties with the West in general, multiple parties in the region have started to reconsider their relationships.
The countries that have complained about the expansion of Iranian influence in the region and tried to hinder it have found this role strengthened. However, following the nuclear deal, some Gulf countries, particularly Qatar, have sought to decrease the tension and started to warm to Iran.
Iran’s recent stances have allowed the country to adapt to the opposition facing Tehran’s influence in the region following the nuclear deal, Reformists called on Iran to open up to the Gulf countries. Speaking to Shafaqna on Oct. 18, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chairman of the Expediency Council, said that the improvement of Iranian ties with Saudi Arabia is necessary and will be possible based on mutual interests and respect, the same reasoning followed in the nuclear talks with the West.
Furthermore, on Oct. 14, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that it is in neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia's interest to harm one another, adding, “Iran and the Arab countries are in the same boat, which if it sinks, everyone on board will drown.”
Qatar’s stances seemed to align with this new approach by Tehran. It seems that Qatar was prepared for and welcomed the Iranian rapprochement with the West, as it waited to see the outcome of the Iranian nuclear discussions, and adapted its own alliances based on developments in this regard.
Qatar was one of the first countries to welcome the Iran nuclear deal. Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid Attiyah said Aug. 4 that the deal makes the region safer. The emir of Qatar had focused his discourse at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28 on the need for cooperation and rapprochement with Iran. He said, “The relations between Doha and Tehran are evolving and growing steadily, based on common interests and good neighborliness.”
He added that Qatar “looks forward with hope that this nuclear deal contributes to maintaining security and stability in our region,” and concluded that his country “is ready to host a dialogue between Iran and the Gulf countries in its territory.”
Also, Qatar fears an expansion of the Saudi role in the region following the Saudi-Iranian conflict, which is playing out in the fighting in Yemen. The Saudi-Qatari conflict also escalated when Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar on March 5, negatively impacting Qatar’s regional influence.
Qatar took another step toward Iran by developing its security and military agreements with it in a qualitative change. The Islamic Republic News Agency announced that Iran and Qatar signed a security agreement Oct. 18 to fight crime in the two countries’ boundary waters.
This new agreement was preceded by a series of meetings and understandings between the two countries. In December 2010, Iranian military commanders arrived in Qatar in Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps military vessels to hold meetings and reach security understandings. Iran’s Ambassador to Qatar Abdullah Sohrabi and military attache Masha-Allah Purseh attended the meeting that resulted in the signing of a security agreement between the two countries. The joint meetings and talks between the two sides continued in the military, security and economic fields.
Apart from these political developments, Qatar has shared important economic interests with Iran, particularly in the gas fields between the two countries. Qatar is aware that the lifting of sanctions on Iran would end its privileged position for Iran, as it is the only one of the two that can host foreign companies investing in gas. If sanctions are lifted then Iran could do this as well.
In this context, investment projects will be launched in the joint Qatari-Iranian gas fields following the lifting of UN sanctions in the deal's full implementation deal, which could take up to six months. These projects will require cooperation and understanding between the two countries.
Qatar does not want to be part of the Saudi camp in the sectarian conflict in the region. It already has border disputes with Saudi Arabia and does not want to be under its influence, considering itself a leader in the Arab World. This is another reason for Qatar to diversify its alliances in general and move closer to Iran after the healing of the rift between Iran and the West.
The responses to the recent Qatari-Iranian security agreement were totally different in the Gulf countries and Iraq. Some parties with good relations with Iran, such as the Badr Organization, have welcomed the Qatari-Iranian rapprochement, while others consider it a form of treason. On Oct. 22, the pro-Iranian Badr parliamentary bloc in Iraq welcomed the security agreement and called on the Gulf countries to reconcile their views with Iran's.
Nevertheless, Gulf news sites opposing the Qatari-Iranian rapprochement have exaggerated the security agreement between the two countries to exploit it in the Saudi-Iranian conflict. Saudi Arabia's Sada newspaper reported Oct. 20 that Qatar and Iran have signed an agreement involving the entry of the Iranian navy into Qatari waters as well as Iranian help to train Qatari naval forces on Iran's Qeshm Island. It described the agreement as a threat to the security of Qatar's Gulf neighbors. Based on unverified reports, other Gulf websites claimed that Qatar is on its way to turning from being a “US favorite” into an “Iranian protectorate.”
Away from the exaggerations, experience shows that alliances in the Middle East change with the political equations between the conflicting powers in the region, and these changes sometimes result in harsh surprises to embattled countries such as Iraq and Syria, which are in no position to make such initiatives.
***Ali Mamouri is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Iraq Pulse, a researcher and writer who specializes in religion. He is a former teacher in Iranian universities and seminaries in Iran and Iraq. He has published several articles related to religious affairs in the two countries and societal transformations and sectarianism in the Middle East.

Turkey Still Besieges Its Kurds
by Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/November 6, 2015
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6824/turkey-besieges-kurds
"They attacked even the wounded. Many people throughout Kurdistan have been arrested wholesale lately. Some of them participated in the election campaigns for our party. Many Turkish mainstream media outlets distort the facts and put the blame of the conflicts on Kurds. But it was the police that started the violence and conflicts... they murdered civilians knowingly and intentionally" — Ferhat Encu, Kurdish MP for the People's Democratic Party (HDP). "The police broke F.A.'s teeth, tortured him, beat him and inserted a gun in his anus. ... When we saw him, there were bruises and marks of torture all over his body." — Zozan Acar, F.A.'s lawyer. "We sent ambulances, but the police opened fire even at the ambulances. They open fire at anyone who go outside." — Seyfettin Aydemir, co-mayor of Silopi. Even though the AKP won the majority of votes this week, on Nov. 3 a curfew was imposed on the Kurdish town of Silvan -- for the sixth time since Aug. 17. Just before the curfew, Muslum Tayar, 22, was killed by the police. They shot him from their armored vehicle. For the past few years, the AKP government has proudly proclaimed that it wanted to resolve the Kurdish issue: "bring peace" to Turkey. But the government has kept attacking Kurds, including their legal political party, the People's Democratic Party (HDP). "We target those who target Turkey. If they have not targeted Turkey, we do not target them," Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in televised comments on July 27.
But of all the civilian Kurds killed or tortured lately, which ones targeted Turkey? And how? This year, the Turkish government and state authorities have been using "ditches," "barricades" or young Kurds clashing with police as excuses to terrorize the Kurdish provinces. The authorities claim that the Kurds are "terrorists," and that they, the authorities, are simply maintaining order and protecting lives. The aim of the Turkish state and military, however, does not seem to be to "stop criminals." If you try to stop criminals, you do not daily commit crimes even more brutal than theirs.
The aim of the Turkish government seems to be to attack and destroy Kurds simply for being Kurds. They have been arbitrarily arrested, tortured or murdered wholesale ever since the Turkish Republic was established in 1923. According to the state ideology and the mainstream media, if Kurds ask for rights, it is due to "American imperialism," "an Israeli scheme," or some other "external factor," never to the Kurds' genuine wish to live in dignity as equals. The authorities could have negotiated with Kurdish politicians -- who declared several times that they were willing to reach a peaceful and democratic resolution for the Kurdish issue -- but they have not. This week, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the plurality of votes (49.46%) and a majority of seats in parliament in the November 1 elections. The pro-Kurdish HDP lost votes but still achieved 10.75% percent of the popular vote, surpassing the 10% threshold required to remain in parliament. (In the June elections, the HDP had gained 13% of the vote, winning 80 seats in the parliament and ending 12 years of single-party rule of the AKP.) Since the prior election in June, however, in which the popularity of the HDP had prevented the AKP from reaching a majority, Kurdish towns in Turkey's Kurdistan have suffered unending attacks, torture and murder by Turkish "security" forces, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate Turkey's Kurds and exact revenge on their support for the HDP.
Curfews were imposed on several Kurdish towns including Dargecit, Cizre, Silopi, Silvan, Varto, Yuksekova, and Sur -- all strongholds of the Kurdish political movement. On October 10, the district governor of Dargecit wrote that a "curfew has been issued to provide order in Dargecit, to prevent crimes, to protect people's rights and liberties, to neutralize the members of the terrorist organization, to capture the wanted, and to maintain the security of people's life and property by removing barricades and ditches where explosives and were placed." What the police did, however, had nothing to with the "objectives" in that statement. Instead, the police attacked the residents of Dargecit with heavy weaponry and arrested politicians in house raids, including the deputy co-mayor of the town. In other Kurdish towns, excuses for the curfews by the state authorities were similar, but what the authorities brought was anything but "security of life and property." Instead again, they brought torture, starvation, destruction and murder.
The town of Cizre in the Kurdish province of Sirnak, for instance, was closed to the world for eight days, September 4-12. A heavy bombardment by Turkish "security" forces kept residents trapped in their homes. Officials of the HDP were not even permitted to enter the town. In June's general elections, Cizre had voted overwhelmingly for the pro-Kurdish HDP -- by 91.97%. People kept the dead bodies of their family members in refrigerators and sometimes in the cold storage depot of a chicken shop.[1] The Kurdish town of Cizre in Turkey was indiscriminately bombarded by Turkish security forces in September. Many homes were heavily damaged or destroyed. Photographic evidence shows many buildings and vehicles in the town riddled with bullet holes. The HDP party issued a long report on state violence against Kurds in Turkey, in which they wrote:
Although the Minister of EU Affairs, Ali Haydar Konca, and HDP deputies... convinced the Governor and Turkish armed forces to transfer the bodies to the morgue, the armed forces nevertheless fired bullets and gas cannisters on civilians and deputies during the transfers.... The armed forces started threatening all citizens of the town through public announcements such as, 'We will shoot anyone who steps out into the streets.' ... Many houses were... demolished by armored vehicles... State-appointed governors also declared the provinces of Lice, Silvan, Silopi and Yuksekova in the Kurdish region 'special security zones.' The people residing there were forbidden to go outside, and blockades were set up.... Dozens of civilians lost their lives or were injured; dozens of homes, businesses and vehicles were ruined.
The electricity was cut off. For eight days, people had difficulty finding food, medicine and water. Meanwhile, Turkey's Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said: "Not a single civilian died in Cizre. The curfew will not continue forever. It will end only when it should end." All the dead, however, were civilians.[2]
One of the people interviewed said: They even shoot people trying to take the wounded to the hospital. There is problem of electricity. We are in the dark. We drink water that should not be drunk. There are families from Syria and Kobane here. They are in a desperate situation. Ferhat Encu, a Kurdish Member of Parliament for the HDP, told Gatestone Institute that 21 people had been murdered in the town -- 15 shot dead. The rest lost their lives because they had not able to be taken to hospitals. One of the victims, 75-year-old Mehmet Erdogan, who was shot in the head, had apparently gone outside to find bread. After the curfew, his body was found on the street. A nylon bag with pieces of bread inside was found beside him.[3] When state authorities announced through a loudspeaker the lifting of the curfew, they said: "Our security forces have carried out a successful operation against members of the terrorist organization."A reporter for the newspaper, Cumhuriyet, Mahmut Oral, wrote: "Armored police vehicles are in the middle of the town. Panzers are travelling throughout the streets... There are still wounded, pregnant or sick people who have not been able to get medical treatment. There are still dead bodies in coolers or deep freezes. Mass burial ceremonies will be held." (Photos of the aftermath of the curfew here. More photos here. A video from the Dicle News Agency shows the streets of Cizre turned into ruins.) In the meantime, the interior ministry suspended the co-mayor of Cizre, Leyla Imret, 27, the youngest mayor in Turkey, who had won a record 83% of the votes in mayoral elections last March. The ministry accused her of encouraging her fellow Kurds to begin an armed uprising and of spreading "terror propaganda."[4] The town of Silopi, one of the many strongholds of the Kurdish political movement in Turkey's Kurdistan, was also a victim of state violence. In the June 7 elections, its residents had voted overwhelmingly -- nearly 90% -- for the pro-Kurdish HDP. Before dawn on August 7, police blockaded Silopi; shot people randomly; murdered three people[5] and wounded many others. The police then set fire to six houses. The co-mayor of Silopi, Seyfettin Aydemir, told the newspaper Evrensel, "Fires broke out in many houses during the clashes. We sent ambulances, but the police opened fire even at the ambulances. There are sharpshooters all around. They open fire at anyone who go outside."
Ferhat Encu, a Kurdish member of parliament for the HDP, told Gatestone Institute: Silopi was under siege for days. They attacked even the wounded. People were terrorized, they could not go outside. Even we, as parliamentarians, had difficulty travelling across the town. We always used to take our cars to those neighborhoods to see what is happening. It was dangerous to walk through the streets. Even a child, aged 15 or 16, was shot on his back. Many people throughout Kurdistan were arrested wholesale -- innocent people. Some participated in election campaigns for our HDP party. People are worried.... Some youths dug ditches to stop the police from entering their neighborhoods and arresting and torturing them. But the police, on the pretext of filling the ditches, attacked the neighborhoods anyway. Many Turkish mainstream media outlets distort the facts and put the blame of the conflicts on Kurds. But it was the police that started the violence and conflicts. Armored vehicles travelled across the town to terrorize people, and opened fire at them. Many people packed their bags and fled. This much is clear: All of the civilians in the town -- both men and women -- were targeted by sharpshooters. They murdered civilians knowingly and intentionally.
"F.A.," one of the nine people detained while trying to take the wounded neighbors or friends to hospital, was tortured and raped while under detention.
"F.A. is about 20 or 21," his lawyer, Zozan Acar, told Gatestone Institute. "He was arrested in front of the hospital. We tried to go to the police station to see the detainees but the police stopped us. In the meantime, the police broke F.A.'s teeth, tortured him, beat him and inserted a gun in his anus. He fainted during the torture. Then he was taken to hospital. When we saw him, there were bruises and marks of torture all over his body."
Serdar Acar, a doctor at Silopi state hospital, told IMC TV that the police put a gun to his head:
The police came into the hospital in a rush and said that there was a wounded police officer somewhere and that they needed an ambulance. When I said the ambulances should be called on the phone and that I had no authority to send ambulances out of the hospital, they put a gun to my head and tried to take me there by force. But I refused. Some who came to the hospital had been wounded during police attacks. I saw the police break the windows of their cars and beat them... There were wounded people, including a child that had particles of a kind of bomb on her body. I don't know if it was a bomb that wounded them, but they had not been wounded by bullets. Huseyin Bogatekin, a lawyer with the Libertarian Lawyers' Association, said: The only authority here is police officers with heavy weapons, and lots of armored vehicles. We have observed a state of emergency and plenty of rights violations. We cannot find an authority to ask whether there has been a judicial process on these incidents. There is no prosecutor at the Silopi courthouse to whom we can submit a petition. Those under detention or interrogation have been completely abandoned to the police or other armed authorities. We do not know what kind of interrogation they will be exposed to. They are being tortured. There is no assurance that they will come out alive. We do not know if they have even been able to get reports out about the torture."
During that time, a video was released showing about 30 handcuffed Kurds in the town of Yuksekova, in the Kurdish Hakkari province of Turkey, lying face down, and surrounded by Turkish police officers, soldiers and vehicles. "You will see the power of the State of the Republic of Turkey!" an officer shouts at the Kurdish workers. "I know all of you! Whoever is committing treason, whoever is being a traitor will see a response! ...You will see the power of the Turk." [6] It was under these circumstances that the HDP entered elections in Turkey. It was business as usual, Turkish style. Even though the AKP won the plurality of votes and a majority of seats in parliament this week, on November 3 a new curfew was imposed on the Kurdish town of Silvan -- for the sixth time since August 17. Just before the curfew, Muslum Tayar, 22, was killed by the police. They shot him from their armored vehicle. His waiting family has still not been given his body. Since August 17, seven civilians have been murdered there. [7] The telephone lines and internet connections have been cut. Many armored vehicles, helicopters, police and military forces have also been dispatched there.
Either through uprisings or legal politics, every time the Kurds have asked for national rights or even basic human rights in Turkey, they have been brutally suppressed. They have nevertheless established an administration in Iraqi Kurdistan and are about to establish another one in Syrian Kurdistan.
Most significantly, in Turkey's elections in June, the Kurds won a great victory, thereby thwarting the plans of the ruling AKP government to amend the constitution to giving President Recep Tayyip Erdogan absolute power, like a Sultan. And despite all the state terror, Kurds succeeded in entering the parliament again on November 1, and once again President Erdogan was deprived of a parliamentary supermajority for his AKP party, which would have granted him exclusive executive powers to rewrite Turkey's constitution and become a Sultan-like ruler for life. Yet, the Turkish state and many Turkish people seem to feel affronted: Why have they not succeeded in defeating the Kurds, or at least "assimilating" them into "Turkishness"? This is, after all, the "modern," "secular," "democratic" Turkey, a member of NATO, and a state being considered for entry into the European Union.
What, then, is "peace"? In most democratic, civilized countries, one assumes that peace means an end to hostilities and the intent to abstain from further violence. It can also aim to secure the justice and respect the rights of all parties. But to Turkey, "peace" seems to mean a state in which you subjugate, terrorize, and if possible exterminate a people you have persecuted for decades. As long as Turkey is allowed to get away with ethnically cleansing groups it has been oppressing for hundreds of years, the ethnic cleansing will continue.
Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.
[1] 53-year-old Meryem Sune, a mother of 7, for instance, lost her life after being hit by a piece of shrapnel, but as people were not allowed to go outside, her family members could not bury her immediately. Her dead body was kept in a cold storage depot of a chicken shop for two days (photo). The body of Cemile Cagirga, 13, shot dead in front of her house, was also kept in a deep freeze by her family as they waited for the curfew to be lifted.
[2] The HDP reported the names of some of the civilians killed by Turkish police or soldiers: Muhammed Tahir (35 days old), Baran Çağlı (7 years old), Emin Yanaş (10 years old), Cemile Çagırca (13 years old), Adem İrtegün (16 years old), Osman Çağlı (18 years old), Emin Levent (19 years old), Özgür Taşkın (20 years old), Sait Çağdavul (21 years old), Eyüp Ergen (25 years old, health service worker), Mesut Sanrı (28 years old), Meryem Süne (53 years old), Hacı Ata Borçin (60 years old), Xetban Bülbül (71 years old), İbrahim Çiçek (80 years old). An IMC TV report, showing the town incessantly under incessant assault by the police, revealed the police at night announcing to the people of Cizre: "Armenians are proud of you. You are all Armenians" -- "Armenians" being used by many in Turkey as a curse word.
[3] Another victim was one-month-old baby Tahir Yaramis. On September 6, his parents tried to call an ambulance after Tahir became ill, but, as his father, Abdullah Yaramis, said: "The armored vehicles waiting at the beginning of the street prevented the ambulance from coming to our house. The ambulance went back after waiting there for a while."
[4] Some newspapers in Turkey, misquoting Imret's interview with Vice News, claimed that "Imret admitted to 'conducting civil war.'" Imret opposed the decision. "It is unacceptable," she said, "that I have been dismissed from my post due to a distorted news report." John Beck, the Vice News reporter, refuted the newspapers' false reporting.
[5] Mehmet Hidir Tanboga, 17, Hamdin Ulas, 58, Kamuran Bilin, 27.
[6] The latest victims of state violence in the town were a mother, Fatma Ay, 55, and her daughter, Berfin Okten, 14, according to the Dicle News Agency. On the night of August 30, while they were sleeping on the roof of their house, they were shot by district police sharpshooters located opposite their house. The mother died; her daughter was badly wounded and taken to a hospital in a neighboring city.
On August 29 in the town, three more people -- Halil Can, Ali Oduk and Faruk Aydin -- were murdered by the police. Some Turkish news agencies claimed that they had clashed with the police, but Ferhat Encu, an MP of Sirnak, who went to the area, said that the three young men were unarmed and had been running away from the police:
"When the youths realized that the police were following them, they were concerned and ran inside a house to hide from them. The house was besieged by police, who opened fire at the house... The youths were unarmed and were executed by the police."
The dead bodies were taken to the customs gate, instead of Silopi state hospital.
Seyfettin Aydemir, the co-mayor of Silopi, said that he was not there during the killing and that there was no data at hand to prove there were clashes between the police and the youths:
"The residents of the neighborhood told us that the three youths had sought shelter in that home. The police besieged and attacked it with heavy weaponry and bombs. Three people were executed. Thousands of bullets were shot at the house; and bombs were thrown. Everything around was covered with the marks of bullets and blood."
Ferhat Encu also posted photos of the house where those people were murdered.
[7] Muslum Tayar (22), Serhat Binen (25), Bilal Meygil (16), Vedat Akcanim (17), Hayriye Hudaverdi (75), Hasan Yilmaz (9), Ferhat Gensur (16).

Mystery continues over Iran's missing ambassador
Arash Karami/Al-Monitor/November 06/15
The Sept. 24 stampede in the Saudi Arabian city of Mina during the hajj pilgrimage has become another fault line in the Middle East’s most contentious rivalry. Iran, which suffered 464 deaths in the tragedy, had one of the highest death tolls. The Associated Press reports total fatalities of 2,177, a figure disputed by Saudi officials, who place the number at 769.
Most troublesome for Iran, 28 individuals are still unaccounted for, including Iran’s former ambassador to Lebanon, Ghazanfar Roknabadi.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will raise the issue with both the United Nations and the International Red Cross, according to Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, deputy foreign minister for Arab and African affairs. Abdollahian said Iranian hajj officials have inquired about Roknabadi’s status to Saudi officials and the Saudi charge d'affairs in Tehran has also been asked about the matter. Roknabadi’s brother, Morteza, said in a Nov. 4 interview with IR Diplomacy that Zarif had written a letter to Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir inquiring about Ghazanfar Roknabadi’s status. Morteza Roknabadi said he did not know if a response has been given. The article said that, given Ghazanfar Roknabadi’s history, “Speculation about his abduction is not far from expectations.”Roknabadi was the target of a 2013 bombing at Iran’s embassy in Lebanon and some Iranian media have accused Saudi Arabia of kidnapping the former ambassador to interrogate him about Iran’s activities in Lebanon, where Saudi Arabia and Iran compete for influence. The suspect in the 2013 bombing was a Saudi national belonging to al-Qaeda. A day after being taken to a military hospital in Lebanon, the suspect died, reportedly of kidney disease.
Morteza said that the last time any Iranian official had seen his brother alive was when Ghazanfar was put into an ambulance belonging to Saudi Arabia’s Health Ministry. According to an official who works with the Iranian hajj organization, rescue workers had tried to put another Iranian in the ambulance along with Roknabadi, but the driver would not permit it. Morteza Roknabadi said Saudi security and plainclothes officials had arrived at the scene immediately; some helped with the rescue effort while others surveyed the scene.
Saudi officials have not publicly addressed Ghazanfar Roknabadi's situation, but Saudi-funded Al Arabiya said that, according to Saudi sources, Roknabadi had entered the country under a false name. Tensions over the stampede have become so high that when Iranian and Saudi officials are in the same room, arguments erupt. During a Nov. 3 meeting of Islamic culture ministers in Muscat, Oman, the Saudi and Iranian ministers exchanged accusations against one another. Iranian Culture Minister Ali Jannati has said the hajj pilgrimage should not be limited to Saudi management and has called for each country to manage its own hajj affairs. Saudi Culture Minister Adel al-Tarifi said Iran was turning a cultural issue into a political one.Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged Iranian officials to continue to raise the issue of the stampede and seek answers. He also claimed that, contrary to other reports, 7,000 people were killed in the stampede.

The Vienna Declaration: Precision Is Key to Avoiding a Slippery Slope
Andrew J. Tabler and Olivier Decottignies//Washington Institute/November 06/15
For all the sound principles laid out in Vienna, future talks cannot evade the timeline and mechanism of a transition in Syria, and Russia needs to prove its goodwill on the ground.
An October 30 multilateral meeting in Vienna has produced a nine-point statement of "mutual understanding" on how to end the violence in Syria "as soon as possible." The Vienna Declaration, which complements and refers to the 2012 Geneva Communique, seeks to provide a more inclusive mechanism to "narrow remaining areas of disagreement and build on areas of agreement," and thus could be a starting point for involving supporters of the opposition and the regime (including, for the first time, Iran).
Yet while inclusiveness in Syria necessarily implies a certain degree of ambiguity -- as reflected in the declaration's wording -- finding a workable way out of the crisis will require much more precision on the issue of transition, particularly in terms of establishing a timeline to test Russia and the Assad regime. For example, the current declaration omits the word "transition" in favor of "governance," and it fails to acknowledge that a sustainable settlement is a prerequisite for defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups. Such imprecision could allow Russia and Iran to argue that the Vienna Declaration gives them a diplomatic imprimatur to pursue a military solution, one based solely on keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power. This scenario would only perpetuate the war, fuel terrorism, create more refugees, and likely lead to Syria's long-term partition.
THE DECLARATION'S GAPS
In some ways, the Vienna Declaration seems like diplomatic progress. Seventeen countries (including Iran) joined the UN and European Union in signing onto nine points of understanding:
Preserving Syria's territorial integrity and secular character (the first time the latter point has received such recognition).
Maintaining state institutions.
Protecting civil (read: minority) rights.
Accelerating diplomacy to end the war.
Ensuring humanitarian access.
Defeating ISIS and "other terrorist groups."
Establishing "governance" via UN-supervised elections pursuant to the Geneva Communique and Security Council Resolution 2118. The ever-growing Syrian diaspora has the right to participate in these elections, which will determine the country's new leadership (a point that has elicited worries in Damascus).
Ensuring a Syrian-led political process.
Implementing nationwide ceasefires.
But the declaration is far more ambiguous on transition than the Geneva Communique. For example, point seven speaks vaguely of a process leading to "credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance" without mentioning the word "transition" or related mechanisms. In contrast, the Geneva Communique centered on the creation of a "Transitional Governing Body" with "full executive powers" formed by "members of the present government and the opposition and other groups." And while it allowed regime members to be included in the transition, Geneva precluded the possibility of the sort of Assad-led "reform" process that his backers are now pushing toward.
In addition, the Vienna Declaration does not reiterate Geneva's call for a national dialogue process and the release of political prisoners, freedom of movement for journalists, and the right to demonstrate -- all preconditions for a genuine transition. Also missing is a transition timeline. The talks are due to resume in a fortnight, and other meetings are likely to follow, so setting a timeline is vital to determining whether Russia -- now Assad's most important patron at the negotiating table -- is able and willing to deliver a bona fide transition. Otherwise the default deadline will be 2021, when Assad's current term in office comes to an end following his "reelection" last year. The modalities of transition are unmentioned as well -- while the declaration notes that Syria's state institutions should remain intact, devolving executive powers to a transitional governing body will be crucial, especially regarding the security apparatus.
The international community also needs to sober up about what kind of election is really possible in Syria, and under what kind of supervision. The current regime is one of the world's biggest electoral manipulators, with Assad winning a laughable 94.6 percent of the vote in 2000, 97.6 percent in 2007, and 88.7 percent last year. Parliamentary votes in favor of his Baath Party supporters are a certainty as well. This means that any plan based on the argument "Assad stays until new elections" is really a formula for his continued rule. Only a new government that creates a safe environment for public debate and mobilization can lay the groundwork for new elections at the local, provincial, and national level. As in Bosnia and Kosovo years ago, the UN should seek a more serious and sustained formula than the awkward wording in point seven of the Vienna Declaration: "These elections must be administered under UN supervision to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability."
NEXT STEPS
Explicitly outlining a transition process (as described in the Geneva Communique) and setting a firm timeline will help avoid the mistakes made last year, when battlefield developments overtook diplomacy. In early 2014, when Washington anticipated regime "victory" and advocated "de-escalation" and "local ceasefires," UN Special Representative Staffan de Mistura put forward his "Freeze Plan" for Aleppo, in which the regime would halt its attempt to encircle that city in exchange for a ceasefire and negotiations with the opposition. The plan failed, largely because the regime lacked the manpower to retake and hold Aleppo and the various Sunni-dominated areas where opposition forces were strongest. While Russia's intervention has now propped up Assad for the time being, lack of manpower remains a hard reality, and moving the diplomatic goalposts from "transition" to "governance" will not alleviate that shortage, leaving no viable alternative to a negotiated solution.
Agreeing on these issues will likely require more than one round of negotiation. Although it is unclear whether Assad's allies can actually bring him into such a settlement, their willingness to try should be put to the test. Regarding Iran, questions remain about the Foreign Ministry's mandate to negotiate a true transition given that the Supreme Leader's Office and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have primacy on Syria policy and have invested a great deal of blood and treasure in preserving the Assad regime. Meanwhile, Assad has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the opposition during attempts to negotiate a settlement in Moscow, most recently in April.
Other tests should come on the battlefield: Russia claims that its intervention is aimed at fighting terrorists, so its forces should abstain from striking groups that are not recognized as such by the UN Security Council. Moscow's military role also puts it in a unique position to pressure Assad on renouncing assaults against civilian-populated areas (including through the use of barrel bombs) and allowing humanitarian access throughout Syria. Both efforts could serve as short-term confidence-building measures to facilitate diplomacy toward agreement on a stable end state. Without such agreement and a plan to achieve it, the war will not only perpetuate human suffering and displace more people, it also risks becoming a mechanism for Syria's permanent partition into regime-controlled areas and durable terrorist safe havens.
Last but not least is the importance of the declaration's penultimate point: "This political process will be Syrian led and Syrian owned, and the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria." The next rounds of talks should consult with the widest possible circle of Syrians other than those internationally condemned as terrorists. Gone are the days when ending the war required a two-sided negotiation between the regime and a single opposition body. Future declarations should stipulate that any solution to the crisis must be broadly accepted as legitimate and appropriate by this wide circle of Syrians, or else the "solution" will be an empty piece of paper.
**Andrew Tabler is the Martin J. Gross Fellow in The Washington Institute's Program on Arab Politics. Olivier Decottignies is a French diplomat-in-residence at the Institute.

Netanyahu Comes to Washington: A Recalibration, if Not a Reset
David Makovsky/Washington Institute/November 06/15
The Israeli prime minister and U.S. president appear to be taking steps to ensure next week's visit avoids past minefields.
On November 9, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu will visit the White House following a year of acrimony stemming from sharp differences over the Iran nuclear deal. As the administration heads into its final year, a full reset for the bilateral relationship is unlikely. All the same, both sides could take various steps aimed at stabilizing, or recalibrating, ties in a manner that avoids future collisions. And preliminary indications suggest both sides want to repair ties. Allowing for possible surprises, the upcoming visit will be guided by the following issues.
Iran Deal Aftermath: The Direction of U.S.-Israel Ties
Unlike during his March U.S. visit, Netanyahu is no longer seeking to persuade lawmakers to overturn the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the nuclear deal is known. Last week, during his own U.S. visit, Israeli defense minister Moshe Yaalon publicly affirmed that Israel understands the deal will be carried out. Also, whereas this summer the prime minister refused to discuss a security upgrade with the United States, believing this would compromise Israel's principled opposition to the deal, now Netanyahu is willing to talk. As for the U.S. angle, in the run-up to Congress's JCPOA vote, Obama sought to woo lawmakers by publicly pledging that the security upgrade talks would follow rapidly and smoothly.
Two sets of issues, resources and capabilities, will likely be covered during the visit. On resources, one focus will be on the ten-year extension of the 2007 memorandum of understanding (MOU), a document that covers U.S. foreign aid to Israel. A key question will be whether the United States agrees to provide the specific top-line figure, and how it compares to the current MOU level -- approximately $3 billion a year in military assistance, or a total of about $30 billion over the ten-year period. Notably, Netanyahu seems to have wanted to have this discussion with Obama himself, rather than letting Yaalon handle it during his visit.
As for capabilities, media reports suggest that, in preparing for the prime minister's visit, Yaalon asked his counterpart, U.S. secretary of defense Ashton Carter, for military hardware such as a squadron of F-15 jets and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor planes. For his part, Obama, writing publicly to key members of Congress, highlighted the extent of U.S. military assistance to Israel, noting that Israel will be the first country to receive the F-35 fifth-generation fighter next year and elaborating on different forms of assistance for Israeli missile defense.
On the symbolic level, it should be noted that Maj. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the newly installed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently made his first trip abroad to Israel.
In these days leading up to the visit, however, neither Netanyahu nor Yaalon has focused publicly on either resources or capabilities. This may be because politics is about managing expectations, or it may belie deeper reasons. Such reasons may be embedded in the possibility that no public announcement on a top-line MOU figure and hardware list will be made absent a larger U.S.-Israel understanding on two regional hotspots -- Iran and Syria. Here, questions abound. While Israel and the United States diverge sharply over the Iran deal, individual perceptions vary on the extent to which the JCPOA signals closer U.S.-Iran regional ties. Indeed, a U.S.-Iran condominium in the Middle East feels quite far-fetched, but even the prospect of closer bilateral relations unnerves Israel and the Gulf states. Nevertheless, understanding the broader context and why U.S.-Iran enmity toward ISIS cannot undergird a common regional approach is critical.
On the Iran deal specifically, Israel clearly favors the creation of a joint U.S.-Israel panel to monitor implementation. Trust is an issue here, with the U.S. administration possibly calculating that such close consultation could enable Israel to poke at and ultimately unravel the deal. Alternatively, a panel -- which would assess penalties for violations and evaluate whether the deal's terms are being upheld -- could help build bilateral trust. Likely less sensitive will be consultations about the impact of Iranian cash injections to proxies such as Hezbollah. With regard to Iran's objectionable nonnuclear activities such as terrorism, Netanyahu will probably want to know the extent of U.S. commitment -- at least in general terms -- to imposing additional sanctions.
On the Syrian conflict, a clear U.S. strategy would include a space for U.S.-Israel issues. But absent such a strategy, it is unclear if Netanyahu will feel compelled to consult more closely with the new regional arrival, Moscow, on the war's implications. Somewhat ironically, both Obama and Netanyahu are minimalists when it comes to Syria, each for his own reasons. Their shared desire to avoid getting embroiled could perhaps give them common cause. But without clear communication, Israel will probably assume the worst and view unfavorably the U.S. consultations in Vienna with countries including Iran, given that the war is at Israel's doorstep.
In short, the visit should be judged less by the announcement of a top-line MOU figure than by constructive, good-faith progress toward a U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue that addresses the region's highly fluid developments. The MOU's scope should therefore reflect new challenges relating to Iran, Syria, and Russia.
Easing the Road to Washington
In two notable areas, Netanyahu has acted to ensure the Washington trip goes smoothly. The first involves demonstrating progress toward finalizing a multibillion-dollar offshore gas deal involving the Leviathan field -- eighty miles off Haifa's coast -- with the American firm Noble Energy. The deal has been stalled for close to a year and has become an added irritant in the U.S.-Israel relationship, given a battle within Israel as to whether the Noble deal violates Israeli antitrust laws. To facilitate the deal, Netanyahu has brokered the resignation of Aryeh Deri -- who leads the ultraorthodox Shas Party -- as economy minister, with Netanyahu himself to fill the position and Deri to move to another portfolio. Deri had been reluctant to override the antitrust authority, believing Noble should not be exempt from the monopoly tag. For his part, Netanyahu has sought a compromise for profit sharing, fearing the implications of not finalizing the deal with Noble, which has threatened international legal arbitration over the persistent delay. Broader delay-related concerns have centered on a potential negative impact for future foreign investment as well as Israel's putative gas arrangements with Jordan and Egypt. As Deri's replacement, Netanyahu will now authorize the deal.
On the Palestinian issue, while fierce debate has surrounded the extent of settlement activity during Netanyahu's 2009-2015 terms, the prime minister seems recently to be avoiding major West Bank settlement drives, despite heading a hawkish coalition. Unclear is whether this restraint is tactical and temporary, or linked to a desire for improved ties with Washington or an effort to lure the Labor Party into his government and thereby broaden its configuration. The Obama administration has itself refrained from contentious moves, opposing a potential divisive UN Security Council resolution favored by France that would impose a final deal on Israelis and Palestinians. It also did not press for a UN Security Council vote on settlements. Instead, with the help of the other Quartet states (the European Union and Russia), it has spearheaded an effort that would broaden Palestinian civilian (nonsecurity) authority and access in at least part of the West Bank under Israel's full authority (Area C), an effort more modest than past U.S. peace initiatives.
2016 and Bipartisanship
Neither Obama nor Netanyahu seems to want another stormy encounter. From Obama's perspective, a harmonious visit could help make the case for a Democrat to succeed him and correspondingly preserve his foreign and domestic policy legacy. He emerged victorious from the JCPOA battle with domestic critics, but this does not mean he seeks more fights. Netanyahu, meanwhile, may have absorbed the message that his March speech to Congress, not coordinated with the White House, risked toppling bipartisan support for strong U.S.-Israel relations, a pillar for decades. Therefore, after agreeing to accept an award from the neoconservative-linked American Enterprise Institute during his visit, Netanyahu is giving a speech to the liberal Center for American Progress.
Such steps hardly ensure that the visit will come off as planned, but both leaders appear committed to avoiding minefields that have sabotaged past meetings.
**David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at The Washington Institute.

Sanders and Corbyn: Birds of a feather?
Abdallah Schleifer/Al Arabiya/November 06/15
The most extraordinary political events in the United States and UK in 2015 involve two men at the far left of their once-leftwing parties: Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. Both were relatively obscure in their respective parties at the start of 2015, and are now major personalities.
When Ed Miliband resigned as leader of the UK’s Labour Party, which meant electing a successor, Corbyn was a relatively isolated militant socialist MP in a party that while nominally to the left of the Conservative Party, had strayed far from its socialist origins. This predated Tony Blair’s long run as Labour prime minister, and was successfully pursued by him as he privatized the rail system and other nationalized industries. Corbyn unambiguously opposed Blair’s New Labour and its goal of an “aspirational society” replacing the old Labour goal of social justice. More than any other long-serving MP, Corbyn repeatedly defied his own party, voting against legislation that weakened or dismembered post-war socialist institutions. When he announced his candidacy in June, he barely secured enough nominations from his fellow MPs to get on the ballot. Most of them saw Corbyn as a leftwing eccentric whose candidacy would make the campaign for party leadership more interesting to the public. None expected him to be a serious candidate, much less win.
Corbyn’s campaign for Labour leadership was anchored to similar concerns that suddenly stirred up an extraordinary following among British voting-age youth, as was happening in America. Sanders’ relationship to the Democratic Party leadership was seemingly even more marginal. He was a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, serving first in Congress for many years then in the Senate. As a Senator, he formally allied himself with the Democrats, but remained in name as an independent. When Sanders announced his Democratic candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, few seasoned politicians took him seriously.
Welfare state
He has focused on transforming the welfare state that Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt established during the Great Depression in the1930s. Instead of Congress and the presidency regulating Wall Street, the latter figuratively speaking had come to regulate Congress over the past 25 years.
This has meant increased tax cuts for the wealthy, but no improvement in real wages for the poor and middle class. This has been the main thrust of Sanders’ campaign, as well as his insistence that rising tuition costs, particularly in the once-free state universities, is having a crippling effect on society.
Corbyn’s campaign for Labour leadership was anchored to similar concerns that suddenly stirred up an extraordinary following among British voting-age youth, as was happening in America. Tens of thousands of predominately young voters, inspired by Corbyn’s campaigning, joined Labour and flocked to his rallies, as did the affiliated trade unions whose members were also able to vote. After a four-month campaign, Corbyn - the marginal, unreconstructed socialist - secured nearly 60 percent of the vote against four other candidates.
Popularity
In America, Sanders has drawn the biggest crowds in the first phase of what will be a long campaign for the Democratic nomination against the favorite Hillary Clinton, who was so confident of victory that she barely bothered to seriously campaign until a month or so ago. Opinion polls put Sanders even, and for a while ahead of Clinton in the first two states where registered Democrats will go to the polls in the spring of 2016. As for Corbyn, he has won his first campaign, and if he can hold on to the Labour leadership, he will lead his party against the ruling Conservatives in the next parliamentary elections. Sanders is unlikely to prevent Clinton from securing the Democratic nomination, but he will have a more enduring effect. Most Labour MPs dislike or even despise Corbyn, and are committed to undermining his leadership. He has never hidden his belief that Britain should be a republic, not a monarchy, but he says he would not push for a republic because he knows how popular the queen is. However, when all stood to sing the national anthem “God save the queen” at a memorial service more than a month ago, Corbyn stood but did not sing - an act that no doubt offended many, if not nearly all British voters.
Sanders, on the other hand, is respected by all his colleagues for his integrity. In the face of the surprising support he has acquired with Democratic voters, Clinton has shifted significantly to the left over the past few months, adopting many of his campaign promises and direct rhetoric as her own.
The age group that most strongly supports Sanders - 18 to 35 - does not share its elders’ Cold War fears of socialism, and has embraced his program. They are the future of the Democratic Party.

Why Iran still won’t abandon ‘Death to America’
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya/November 06/15
Improving Western-Iran diplomatic relationships, the nuclear agreement, as well as new venues of direct diplomatic communications between Iranian and U.S. high-level officials, have all raised expectations that perhaps the two countries considered enemies for so long have put their mistrust aside and have embarked on a new path.But these expectations were somewhat shattered when this week an overwhelming majority of Iranian lawmakers and parliamentarians stated that the Islamic Republic will not abandon the inflammatory slogan of “Death to America”.In a joint statement released by Iran’s state news agency IRNA, 192 members of Iran’s 290-seat parliament declared: “The martyr-nurturing nation of Iran is not at all prepared to abandon the slogan of ‘Death to America’ under the pretext of a nuclear agreement.” This means that “Death to America” will continue on Friday prayers, protests, or special holidays such as November 4 – the anniversary of the hostage crisis of 1977, a direct siege on the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
The Supreme Leader, cannot, and will not, declare overnight that the slogan “Death to America” should be abandoned.The Iranian parliament's move is a manifestation of the domestic political struggle, as well as Iran’s inflexible regional policies. After the nuclear deal, the hardliners appear to be on a roll as they send signals to the moderates that the hardliners are in charge, that the nuclear deal does not mean total rapprochement with the “Great Satan,” and that the moderates should watch their steps as they crossed a line when dealing with the U.S.
The toning-down of the slogan
However, it is crucial to point out that that unlike in the past, Iranian officials including the Supreme Leader took their time to tone down and provide an explanation of the true meaning of “Death to America.”For example, this week, according to The Associated Press, Ayatollah Khamenei spoke to Iranian students in Tehran about the slogan. He said: “Your 'Death to America’ slogan and the cries by the Iranian nation, have strong logical support behind them … Obviously by 'Death to America,’ we don't mean death to the American people. The American nation is just like the rest of the nations. It ... means death to U.S. policies and its arrogance."In another message he reitterated that “The slogan ‘death to America’ is backed by reason and wisdom; and it goes without saying that the slogan does not mean death to the American nation.”
Although Iran continues to promote the slogan, its leaders' efforts to minimize the negative connotations of it are a sign of gradually improving ties between Tehran and Washington. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry previously asked Iranian leaders to totally abandon the slogan. The question is why the Islamic Republic does not cut out the slogan altogether? Won’t abandoning it decrease tensions between Washington and Tehran and subsequently lead to improving Iran’s legitimacy on the global stage?
Iran’s indispensible dual identity
Governments, which normally emerge after revolutions, and adopt revolutionary ideals to define their socio-political character and their identity, will often find it almost impossible to subsequently unshackle themselves from revolutionary principles and alter their identity. This means that changing the system can not be accomplished through the will of one individual, even if that person is the Supreme Leader. The legitimacy of the system will continue to rely on those revolutionary ideals. After the 1979 revolution, two key elements characterized the nature and identity of the Islamic Republic: anti-Western values (particularly opposing U.S. policies in the Middle East) and the religious backbone of its society (Shiite theology). The religious character of the Iranian government was formulated and spread through seminaries, changing school curriculums and imposing religious laws with the constitution.
The anti-Western character of the Iranian government was fossilized and strengthened through two elements: Iran’s regional policies and its hard-line institutions (such as the military, Basij, Sepah, Quds force, intelligence, judiciary, among others). Tehran’s regional policies of supporting Shiite proxies and allying itself with U.S. rivals, pushed it towards scuttling American (and Israeli) policies in the region. The government created several hard-line institutions (including Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps) and invested a good chunk of its budget and oil revenue in these institutions. Over the past 30 years, the character of these institutions and their political and economic monopoly was formed based on the anti-Western values of the revolution. These hard-line institutions ensure the ironclad power of the Supreme Leader and he, in return, ensures their monopoly over social, political and economic spectrums.The Supreme Leader, cannot, and will not, declare overnight that the slogan “Death to America” should be abandoned, because this will shatter the foundations of his social and political base (made up of the judiciary and hardline clerics, among others) as well as the military institutions which protect him. In addition, the Islamic Republic has conveniently used its hostility towards the U.S. as a powerful strategy and tactic to repress domestic oppositions or place blame on Washington for domestic economic mismanagements. Nevertheless, “Death to America” does not necessarily mean that Iranian-American ties are not improving. Despite the slogan, Washington and Tehran are finding more shared interests to cooperate together on.

Assad must not get away with his crimes
Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor/Al Arabiya/November 06/15
Ancient cities and World Heritage sites across Syria have been turned into wastelands of blood-soaked rubble littered with infants’ shoes and toys. Almost 300,000 Syrians have been killed and 11 million displaced. If there is one person to blame for the four-year-long tragedy it is Bashar al-Assad, who instructed his army to slaughter his own citizens rather than heed his people’s call to step down. He put his chair before his country and he is responsible for the influx of terrorists. Assad is the greatest war criminal of our time, and as long as he is in Russia’s embrace he can sleep soundly. He is assured of immunity because, firstly, Syria is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and, secondly, he is confident that the U.N. Security Council cannot refer him to The Hague thanks to Russia’s power of veto. Russia makes a mockery of international laws and institutions set-up to hold leaders to account for crimes against humanity. Decisive action is needed so that Syrian families trudging through a freezing Europe with their babies can go home.
What concerns me most is how impotent the international community has become, both diplomatically and militarily. Assad’s future is being used as a bargaining chip in this disgraceful geopolitical power play in which Syrian lives are considered collateral damage. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s defence of Assad has nothing to do with warm personal chemistry between the two leaders. His longevity is dependent purely on his usefulness to Moscow’s interests:
• Preservation of Russia’s naval base in the port of Tartus – its only deep water base on the Mediterranean.
• Compliance with the demands of Russia’s prime regional ally Iran seeking to maintain Syrian state control over the capital, the Mediterranean coast and areas of central Syria serving as a conduit for Iranian weapons destined for its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah.
• The necessity of proving to Moscow’s allies that they will not be abandoned when the chips are down and also to encourage regional partners allied with the West to shift into Russia’s sphere of influence.
• Projection of Russian power in the Middle East through the agency of an informal Russian-Syrian-Iranian (and a potential Iraqi) bloc.
Unfortunately, President Barrack Obama’s hesitancy to stop the bloodshed some years ago following the regime’s use of chemical weapons, the ineffectiveness of year-long U.S.-led coalition airstrikes against ISIS and his unwillingness to put boots on the ground left a vacuum for Russia to fill. Obama’s ‘Syria strategy’ has been marked by failure.
America’s programs to train and arm ‘moderate’ rebels have had to be binned because without heavy weapons they were no match for the better-armed terrorist groups. Since Russia seized the initiative, the U.S. is trying to play catch up with ramped up airstrikes and the insertion of a 50-strong contingent of Special Forces set to work alongside Kurdish and Arab fighters battling ISIS.
The White House has no plans to assist opposition forces fighting to bring down the Assad regime, as deduced by an irate Senator Lindsey Graham recently while grilling Secretary of Defence Ash Carter and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford on the administration’s objectives during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing recently.
Under the veteran lawmaker’s relentless battering, Carter was forced to admit that U.S. strategy is solely to assist rebels fighting ISIS. In his testimony Graham promptly lost his cool. “Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are gonna fight for their guy, and we’re not gonna do a damn thing to help the people who want to change Syria for the better by getting rid of the dictator in Damascus,” he ranted.
“So what you’ve done gentlemen, along with the President, is you’ve turned Syria over to Russia and Iran. You’ve told the people in Syria, who’ve died by the hundreds of thousands, ‘we’re more worried about a political settlement than we are about what follows...’”
A softened stance
Western leaders, including President Obama have at one time or another affirmed that Assad is the problem and insisted he must step down. But in light of Russia’s military intervention, they are softening their stance, suggesting the Syrian president can take part in a transition leading to a transitional government in which top regime figures will be free to participate.
They have dumped their principles in favour of politics. In other words, they have folded out of expediency, which makes them look weak. In any case, what gives foreign powers the right to make deals that have not been sanctioned by representatives of all Syrian parties and factions?
Syrians have given their blood and sacrificed their parents and children to be free from a tyrannical regime. They have a right to a say in their future, but they have been shut out of negotiations. Not a single Syrian was invited to participate in the recent talks in Vienna, not even as an observer. The foreign ministers of 16 countries, including the opponent of many Arab states - Iran - sat around the table to discuss Syria’s destiny. It was a complete waste of time as some attendees were only there to block any progress.
Iran, in my opinion the biggest threat to regional stability, was dignified with an invitation. That should have been a warning sign. It had no intention of compromising, a seen in its verbal attacks on Saudi Arabia, which Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian accused of playing “a negative role.” He also threatened Iran’s withdrawal from the peace efforts should they become unconstructive. Good riddance!
Enough meetings
Syrians will be able to choose their next government at the ballot box, according to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who told reporters after their bilateral meeting that all Syrians both inside and outside the country – including refugees – will get a vote. Is this a joke? How can they propose something so ludicrous? It is likely to be years before free and fair elections can be held. Let us not forget that regime barrel bombs still fall and over dozens of terrorist and militant groups controlling large swathes of Syrian territory.
I am distressed that the world cannot get its act together to bring peace to Syria. Enough conferences and meetings! Enough talking! Decisive action is needed so that Syrian families trudging through a freezing Europe with their babies can go home. Does the U.S. or Russia or Iran truly have those poor people at heart or are they more concerned with their own hegemonic or economic stake in the issue? Russia is the kingpin for without its backing the regime could not have survived until now – and Putin must be persuaded to stop giving Assad a free pass.
Syrians need closure before they can move forward with a process of forgiveness and reconciliation. The idea that Assad will be permitted to walk scot-free and enjoy a life of luxury in Tehran is unacceptable for those who have lost everything at his hands.
Too much time has been wasted and worryingly we now know that the idea of an “international community” is just a meaningless concept.
Self-serving countries trumpeting their values, while juggling for influence and gain without real concern for humanity, is what our world has evolved into – a dog-eat-dog planet where those with the biggest bombs rule.

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