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/Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Messiah!" and they will lead many astray
Matthew 24/01-14: "As Jesus came out of the temple and was going away, his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. Then he asked them, ‘You see all these, do you not? Truly I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’ When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Messiah!" and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. ‘Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But anyone who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come."

Bible Quotation For Today/For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ
First Letter to the Corinthians 15/19-34: "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘All things are put in subjection’, it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’ Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame."

Question: "What are the seven things God hates?"
GotQuestions.org/
Answer: The seven things God hates are a catalog of sins summed up in Proverbs 6:16–19. While these aren’t the only sins that should be avoided, they do sum up most of the wicked things condemned by God. The seven things God hates are the sins that deal with the deep heart motives of the individual. The writer of Proverbs points the finger straight at our hearts and our sinful thought processes. This is in line with our Lord Jesus Christ’s elaboration of the Ten Commandments during His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21–48). Sin is committed the moment it is conceived in the heart, even before it is actually committed. Avoiding the seven things God hates will help us expose our hidden intentions and motives.
The following is Proverbs’ list of seven things God hates:
Arrogant (haughty) eyes: This describes a feeling of pride and looking down upon others (Philippians 2:3, 5–11). When we begin to think of ourselves more highly and with unparalleled importance, we are forgetting the fact that anything good in us is the result of Christ living in us and that the old self is now dead (Galatians 2:20). Often, believers feel superior to other believers when they receive godly wisdom and display amazing tenacity against sin. We fail to realize these gifts were given by God through Christ and fanned into flame by the Holy Spirit and are not due to our own goodness. This sin of pride is so detested by the LORD that Paul was kept from committing this sin by being provided with “a thorn in the flesh” to humble him (2 Corinthians 12:7).
Lying tongue: A lying tongue is one that speaks falsehood, knowingly and willingly, with an intention to deceive others. Lying can be used to impugn the character of a brother or to flatter a friend. It is a most detestable evil to God, who is a God of truth. Nothing we do causes us to more closely resemble the devil, who is the father of lies (John 8:44).
Hands that shed innocent blood: This refers to cold-blooded murder. We may never have orchestrated killing someone or never have touched a gun or knife, but in Matthew 5:21–24, Jesus says that anyone hating someone else unreasonably without offering room for forgiveness commits a sin equivalent to murder. John reiterates this concept in 1 John 3:15.
A heart that devises wicked schemes: This encompasses thinking or conceiving evil against any individual or group for personal benefit or other misguided objectives, like modern-day terrorists indulge in. Any sin is basically a wicked scheme. David’s sin against Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba comes to mind (2 Samuel 11). The heart of an evil man continually contrives schemes to bring others to ruin, whether physically or spiritually.
Feet that are quick to rush into evil: Those whose feet are quick to rush into evil display no resistance whatsoever to sin. Having many examples in the Bible, and having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30; Galatians 5:16), we are expected to be wise in this regard (Romans 6:11–14; Ephesians 5:5, 11). In the Garden of Eden, Eve had the first experience of temptation. She displayed no resistance to the serpent’s temptation. Instead, as soon as the devil attracted her to the fruit, she “saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye” (Genesis 3:6). Eve had sinned at that moment itself. Contrast this with the attitude of Jesus: when tired and hungry after forty days and forty nights of fasting, He refused to yield to the devil’s tempting and killed the temptation in His mind without allowing it to grow into sin (Matthew 4:1–11). “Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (James 4:7).
False witness who pours out lies: This is similar to the sin of the lying tongue mentioned earlier, but this form of lying is given special mention as it could send an innocent person to jail or even lead to him being stoned to death as happened to Naboth, thanks to false witnesses instigated by the wicked Jezebel (1 Kings 21:8–14). The prohibition against bearing false witness is the ninth of the Ten Commandments, and the New Testament is equally condemning of it. Colossians 3:9–10 explains the reason for the continued prohibition against lying. Christians are new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and, as such, we reflect His nature. We have been released from our “old self” with its evil practices such as lying and bearing false witness.
A man who stirs up dissension among brothers: Brothers are created by God to live in unity (Psalm 133:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:9). Believers are brothers and sisters since they have one Father God and one Brother, Jesus Christ. The Church is also the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25–27). In many situations strife among brothers and even within the church seems unavoidable, but anyone who purposely causes disruption to peace in the body of Christ will displease God above all, since that person gives room for others to sin and for himself to sin further (1 John 2:9–11; 4:19–21). Moreover, Jesus pronounced a great blessing on peacemakers, the privilege to be called “sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).
Recommended Resources: Proverbs NIV Application Commentary by Paul Koptak and Logos Bible Software.

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 26-27/15
Putin has checkmated Obama in Syria/Hisham Melhem/Al Arabia/September 26/15
Analysis: Europe’s Mideast peace push/LESLIE SUSSER/J.Post/September 26/15
What does “settlement in Syria” mean to Washington/Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabia/September 26/15
Ali Salem defeated them/Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabia/September 26/15
Politicizing the Hajj Stampede/Salman Aldosary/Asharq AlAwsat/September 26/15
Lebanese foreign minister: We cannot be the only one receiving refugees/Al-Monitor Staff/September 26/15
Obama Stung by Putin’s Syria Gambit/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
CENTCOM under Investigation for “Cooking” ISIS Intelligence/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
The Syria Russian Roulette/Samir Altaqi/Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
The Save-Syria Initiative Debated Among Opposition Groups/Samir Altaqi/Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
Russians in Syria: What Should be done/Samir Altaqi/Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
Palestinians: We Are the New Nazis/Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/September 26/15
Why the West Should Listen to Hungary on Muslim Refugees/Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/September 26/15
Russians, Syrians and Iranians setting up military coordination cell in Baghdad/By Lucas Tomlinson, Jennifer Griffin/FoxNews/September 26, 2015

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin for Lebanese Related News published on September 26-27/15
Nasrallah: Failure of US-led campaign against ISIS led to Russian involvement in Syria
Report: Syria to give Hezbollah Soviet tank division
Nasrallah: Russian intervention in Syria will be decisive.
Salam Appeals for Development Aid at U.N. Summit
Salam Meets Richard, Highlights Need to Ease Burden of Refugees on Lebanon
Hariri: Nasrallah's Rhetoric Dims Hopes for President, Settles Political Scores with Saudi Arabia
EU Commissioner: Next Migrant Wave Could Come from Lebanon
Former Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Missing after Stampede in Saudi Arabia
Army Arrests Palestinian in Sabra on Terrorism Charges

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 26-27/15
Pope in Philadelphia on Final Leg of U.S. Tour
Castro at U.N. Calls for End to U.S. Embargo
Record Migrant Arrivals in Croatia as Crisis Deepens
Iran Presses Saudi over More than 340 Missing Pilgrims
Hajj Ends as Stampede Death Toll Rises to 769
Russia Keeps Up Buildup at Syria Airbase
Official: U.S.-Trained Syria Rebels Gave Ammo, Equipment to Qaida Group
U.S. to make new diplomatic push on Syria
Protests delay Syria truce evacuations: monitor
U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave ammo to Nusra Front
15 civilians killed in Boko Haram attack in Niger

Nasrallah: Failure of US-led campaign against ISIS led to Russian involvement in Syria
By REUTERS/J.Post/09/26/2015 /Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on Friday welcomed Russia's military buildup in Syria in support of common ally President Bashar Assad, saying it was the failure of a US-led campaign against Islamic State that had forced Moscow's hand. Nasrallah said in an interview with the Lebanese Shi'ite group's al-Manar TV that increased Russian support for Assad included highly advanced weapons systems, warplanes and helicopters. "We welcome any force which intervenes and supports the front in Syria, because through its participation, it will contribute to pushing away the major dangers that are threatening Syria and the region," Nasrallah said. He also confirmed that a localized cease-fire agreement had been struck in two areas of Syria, where Hezbollah is fighting alongside government forces against an array of insurgent groups including Islamic State and al-Qaida. Nasrallah, in a wide-ranging interview that was his first media appearance since Russia's recent military buildup hit headlines, said Washington's own campaign against ISIS had failed. "The failure of America and the international coalition to bring defeat to Daesh was one of the reasons which called or pushed Russia to also come, and to get directly involved," Nasrallah said. Russia has declined to comment on the full scope of its military support for Assad, but US officials have said it includes at least two dozen fighter jets as well as tanks, troops and artillery. Damascus had not yet requested combat troops, Nasrallah noted, but said this could happen "at any time."Russia insists Assad must be included in the international campaign against Islamic State, but the United States opposes this, saying the Syrian president is part of the problem. US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin are meanwhile to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York to discuss Syria and the crisis in Ukraine amid high tension in Europe and the wider Middle East. On Monday, following a meeting on the outskirts of Moscow between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the premier said Israel and Russia agreed to a create a mechanism to prevent accidental confrontation between their forces in Syria. Netanyahu, in a phone briefing with Israeli diplomatic reporters after the meeting, said it was devoted entirely to the complicated situation on Israel’s northern border. “I made clear our policy to try to prevent through various means the transfer of lethal weapons from Syria to Hezbollah, which is actually done at the direction of Iran,” said Netanyahu, who spent just a few hours in Russia for the meeting before flying immediately back to Israel.
*Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

Report: Syria to give Hezbollah Soviet tank division
Roi Kais/Ynetnews/Published: 09.26.15/T-55 and T-72 tanks said to aid Hezbollah in fights against al-Qaeda militants; Iranian troops arrive in Damascus; speculation grows that Russian presence may help Islamic State. Hezbollah may have recently declared an end to offensive combat in Syria on behalf of government forces fighting off rebel groups, but President Bashar Assad hasn't forgot to thank the Lebanese group for years of support. That "thank you" is set to arrive in the form of 75 soviet-era tanks, the T-55 and T-72, to help Hezbollah create their own armored division for use in their fight against al-Qaeda affiliated militants, according a report Saturday in Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai. The report also said that 100 officers and regulars from Iran's Special Forces that specialize in urban warfare arrived in Damascus in cooperation and in accordance with an agreement between Russia and Hezbollah. Meanwhile, French media cited military sources claiming 15 cargo planes carrying equipment and personnel have landed over the last two eeks at a Russian forward operating base recently erected near Latakia. According to the source, fighter jets accompanied the cargo planes during landing and takeoff. The Guardian also reported on Syria Saturday, quoting a report from the Royal United Services research institute which stated that Russia's presence in Syria is likely to aid the forces of the Islamic State. According to the report, Russia's forces are currently positioned to take on smaller rebel groups like Nusra Front which are threatening the Assad regime, but also actively fighting Islamic State.

Nasrallah: Russian intervention in Syria will be decisive
Ynetnews/September 26/15/Hezbollah Sec. Gen. says more Russian troops are on the way to Syria and will have major effect on civil war, as speculation continues to mount about the level of cooperation between Russia, Iran, and Syria.As speculation mounts about the level of cooperation between Russia, Iran, and Assad's Syria, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah said Friday that he welcomes the Kremlin's direct intervention in the Syrian Civil War. In an interview given to the Al-Manar TV network, Nasrallah stated that this development was highly significant and would affect the entire campaign. He also claimed that additional Russian forces are soon to arrive in Syria. Concern has risen in Israel about the increasing Russian presence in the region, particularly that Russian military activity could hamper IDF actions on the northern border. Hezbollah, Syria, and foreign media outlets have over the last three years claimed that the Israeli Air Force had bombed targets in Syria and near the Syria-Lebanon border, including weapons caches meant for Hezbollah. A significant Russian presence could complicate any such efforts. "We welcome any power that comes in and helps this front, because this participation will help drive away the great dangers threatening Syria and the whole region," said Nasrallah. The Hezbollah chief gave the impression throughout the interview that he was well-acquainted with the details of the Russian buildup in Syria. He added that there is "very advanced Russian weaponry" in Syria, including fighter jets, missiles, rocket launchers and heavy equipment. Nasrallah also claimed it was very possible that Russian troops would soon be fighting in Syrian territory. "The Syrians haven't requested this up to now," he said, "but it could happen". The Russian intervention was, said Nasrallah, carefully planned for months and included coordination with Iran and Iraq. With characteristic bombast, he said that the Russian intervention "proves what we said years ago, when people thought Syria would collapse: We said then that Assad's allies would not abandon him." Russia has in recent weeks significantly built up its forces in Syria, and has also increased weapons supplies to Syria. Satellite images published this week showed that Russia has begun building two new military facilities. According to reports, the existing Russian base already contains nearly 30 fighter planes. Washington has been cautious about Moscow's support for Assad. US Secretary of State John Kerry argued this week that supporting Assad would merely prolong the war and draw more forces who oppose the Syrian president, whose power has seriously deteriorated.

Salam Appeals for Development Aid at U.N. Summit
Naharnet/September 26/15/Prime Minister Tammam Salam said on Saturday that the humanitarian aspect of the Syrian refugee crisis is one of the biggest challenges facing development, calling for more assistance to Lebanon. “The international community's reaction to a crisis of this size hasn't been at the required level,” Salam said at a U.N. development summit in New York. He urged the world to provide development aid to Lebanon and share the burden of the displaced Syrians. “We need to recognize the importance of putting an end to armed conflicts, terrorism and sectarian violence to guarantee security and stability,” said Salam. Such efforts are a prerequisite for achieving development, he added. More than four years into Syria's war, Lebanon has become home to more than 1.5 million Syrians living in encampments across the country, mainly in the eastern Bekaa Valley and the northern district of Akkar.
World leaders on Friday pledged to end extreme poverty within 15 years, adopting an ambitious set of U.N. goals to be backed up by trillions of dollars in development spending. Billed as the most comprehensive anti-poverty plan ever, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets were adopted at the start of the summit that capped three years of tough negotiations.They will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that expire this year and will apply to both developing and developed countries. On Saturday, Salam met with his Norwegian counterpart on the sidelines of the summit. “Countries should work on resolving the Syrian crisis and not just its consequences,” he said after the talks. The premier also held talks with European Union diplomatic chief Federica Mogherini.

Salam Meets Richard, Highlights Need to Ease Burden of Refugees on Lebanon
Naharnet/September 26/15/PM Tammam Salam held a meeting on Friday with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, Anne Richard where talks highlighted the burden of Syrian refugees on Lebanon.
“We always call on all relevant officials to ease the burden of Syrian refugees on Lebanon,” Salam told Richard. Lebanon is hosting around 1.5 million Syrian refugees, which is equivalent to a quarter of its population, since the war broke out in Syria in 2011. On Saturday, Salam also held talks with Jordan King Abdullah II and Spain's King Felipe VI. The meeting highlighted the latest developments in the region. EU leaders agreed at a summit in Brussels on Thursday to boost assistance for U.N. aid efforts in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which has taken in the bulk of Syria's four million refugees from the war.
Salam is in New York to attend the opening of the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015. The summit is aimed at formally approving an ambitious and costly 15-year blueprint to eradicate extreme poverty, combat climate change and address more than a dozen other major global issues.
Implementing the new development goals — expected to cost between $3.5 trillion and $5 trillion every year until 2030 — is expected to be the focus of the three-day summit that will include speeches by U.S. President Barack Obama, China's President Xi Jinping and the leaders of Egypt, India, Iran, Germany, Britain and France. The document — called "Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" — which sets out the 17 broad goals and 169 specific targets, will be adopted after the opening speeches at the summit. On Monday, the U.N. General Assembly session will officially kick off and the next day a summit on fighting extremism will be held during which leaders, including Obama and Salam, will give speeches. The PM will also address the General Assembly and the International Support Group for Lebanon on Wednesday before returning to Lebanon.

Hariri: Nasrallah's Rhetoric Dims Hopes for President, Settles Political Scores with Saudi Arabia
Naharnet/September 26/15/Al-Mustaqbal movement leader Saad Hariri criticized on Saturday Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's position saying that the latter has linked the fate of Lebanon's presidency to that in Syria, dimming the hopes to have a head of state. “Sayyed Hassan has announced that Lebanon will not have a president before knowing the fate of the presidency in Syria,” said Hariri via twitter.“The whole rhetoric of Sayyed Hassan on the interior situation in Lebanon means that nothing will move forward,” the ex-Premier added. Disputes between March 8 and March 14 alliance have thwarted so far any attempt to elect a head of state, as Lebanon witnesses a vacuum at the top Christian post since May 2014 when the term of President Michel Suleiman ended. “Sayyed Hassan believes that Lebanon is perfect grounds for Iranian politics. He believes that the Christians are a major component in Lebanon's existence, but pledges a head of state who covers the presence of Hizbullah and its influence in a number of countries,” Hariri underscored. The ex-Premier also criticized Nasrallah's positions on the Mena incident in Saudi Arabia saying: “Nasrallah intersects with the Iranian position, taking advantage of the Mena incident as a means to settle political records with Saudi Arabia.”717 pilgrims lost their lives on Thursday's during the annual Muslim pilgrimage which came just weeks after a crane collapse in the holy city of Mecca that killed more than 100 pilgrims, many of them foreigners.
Iran, Hizbullah's ally, got furious that 136 of its people died in the stampede and blamed Sunni rival Saudi Arabia and says it is unfit to manage the pilgrimage. On Hizbullah's involvement in the fighting in Syria, Hariri said: “Nasrallah is acting like he is Iran's high commissioner in Syria and takes the right to negotiate on Zabadani, al-Fouaa and other regions.“He denies any Iranian involvement in Syria, and that is hilarious and surprising," concluded Hariri.

EU Commissioner: Next Migrant Wave Could Come from Lebanon
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15/The European Union's enlargement commissioner told the German Die Welt daily Saturday that the next wave of migration to Europe could come from Syria's neighbor, fragile Lebanon. "Developments in Lebanon unsettle me. The situation there is ... dramatic," Johannes Hahn told the conservative-leaning daily. "The next wave of refugees might come from there," Hahn said. More than four years into Syria's war, Lebanon has become home to more than 1.5 million Syrians living in grim conditions -- making Lebanon's the highest refugee population per capita in the world. "This country (Lebanon) has always been the most fragile of the region," Hahn said, noting his concern over its endemic "political instability.""It also has a high unemployment rate and exorbitant public debt. It's a dangerous mix," he warned. EU leaders have agreed to boost aid for Syria's neighbors, including one billion dollars through U.N. agencies, in a bid to mitigate the refugee influx into Europe.

Former Iranian Ambassador to Lebanon Missing after Stampede in Saudi Arabia
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 26/15/Iran's state TV says Ghazanfar Roknabadi, a former ambassador to Lebanon, is among those missing after at least 719 pilgrims died in a stampede during the hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia.The Saturday broadcast said two Iranian state TV reporters and a prominent political analyst are also missing. At least 134 Iranian pilgrims died and 85 were injured in the Thursday incident, while 354 Iranian pilgrims remain missing, according to the report. Iran has strongly criticized archrival Saudi Arabia over the disaster, blaming the Saudi government for "incompetence" and "mismanagement" of the annual hajj.

Army Arrests Palestinian in Sabra on Terrorism Charges
Naharnet/September 26/15/The Lebanese army arrested a Palestinian national in the refugee camp of Sabra following a dispute that developed into an exchange of fire. “Late on Friday, clashes that erupted between Palestinian nationals in Sabra region aggravated and developed into torching some houses and an exchange of fire,” the army said in a communique on Saturday. “The Lebanese army, which is usually deployed in the area, interfered and resumed the situation to normal. “Army troops raided some houses and arrested Ahmed Hassan Merhi who is wanted on charges of carrying out terrorist acts,” the statement added. Merhi was handed to the relevant authorities and the army is on the hunt after the parties that were involved in the incident.

Pope in Philadelphia on Final Leg of U.S. Tour
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15
Pope Francis arrived in Philadelphia Saturday for the final leg of his triumphal tour of the United States, with hundreds of thousands expected to turn out for his weekend visit focused on families. The head of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics landed in the City of Brotherly Love after a short flight from New York, where he spent a whirlwind 36 hours that included an emotional visit to Ground Zero and mass at Madison Square Garden.The 78-year-old Argentine pontiff is ending a historic visit to Cuba and the United States this weekend with a packed schedule in Philadelphia, including two appearances at the Festival of Families, an international gathering of Catholics. At the airport in Philadelphia, he walked down the steps of the jet and onto the red carpet to embrace members of the clergy and greet local dignitaries with a beaming smile on the fifth of six days in the United States. The pontiff then got into the back seat of his modest Fiat, waving to the crowd as a band played welcoming music on the tarmac. But at the sight of a child in a wheelchair close to the security barrier, he got out of the car and walked over to bless the child. He said a few words to the child's mother, who appeared moved almost to tears.Francis then headed straight to mass at the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul, where people slept in the street overnight, having travelled far and wide in the hope of seeing him. "We pray for you every day," said one sign held by a woman in her 50s who waited all night. Philadelphia is under a security lockdown, with traffic banned downtown for the entire weekend and thousands of National Guardsmen in the streets. Later Saturday, Francis, the first pope from Latin America, is due to address immigrants at the city's historic Independence Hall before greeting huge crowds at the Festival of Families, a Catholic event that takes place every three years."I wanted to be part of this family celebration," said 42-year-old Luis Ortiz, who slept outside with his 11 children near the cathedral.
Prison visit
On Sunday, he will meet with American bishops, visit a prison and lead a farewell mass on the sweeping Benjamin Franklin Parkway, the city's grandest avenue, before flying out of the country in the evening. The pope has received a rapturous reception in America -- he was welcomed personally by President Barack Obama when he arrived on Tuesday and by giant crowds in both Washington and the Big Apple. His reform-minded approach to social issues, humility and focus on the most vulnerable has struck a chord across the racial and socioeconomic divide in the United States. New York treated the pontiff to a rock-star welcome, shutting down the city with draconian security measures to allow him ease of movement. A sea of 80,000 people screamed out in joy as he proceeded through Central Park in his popemobile before celebrating mass at Madison Square Garden. Around 20,000 people packed into New York's premier concert venue and home of the Knicks basketball team, after Billy Joel, who was originally booked for Friday night, shifted his schedule. Once again, the pope focused on society's poorest, in a message voiced time and again in America's financial capital, a city of staggering wealth but also need.
He called on worshippers not to forget "the faces of all those people who don't appear to belong, or are second-class citizens.""They are the foreigners, the children who go without schooling, those deprived of medical insurance, the homeless, the forgotten elderly," the pope said.
Songs in Harlem
At the city's somber September 11 Memorial, he laid a white rose and led a gathering of 700 in multi-faith prayers for world peace and paid tribute to the nearly 3,000 victims killed in the 2001 attacks.Francis was welcomed in song and laughter on a heartwarming visit to a Catholic school in New York's East Harlem neighborhood. Beaming and relaxed, even submitting to a selfie or two, the pope seemed to come alive during the hour he spent with the children at Our Lady, Queen of Angels school, where he also met migrant workers. It was a stark contrast to the austere surroundings of the U.N. General Assembly, where he offered his vision of a better world. Francis touched on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, the Iran nuclear deal, drug trafficking -- "silently killing millions" -- and the rights of girls to an education. As he did at the U.S. Congress, the pope gave a passionate plea to protect the environment, as he voiced confidence that a looming U.N. summit on climate change would reach "effective" agreement in Paris. He also offered a strong endorsement of Iran's agreement with the United States and five other world powers to limit its nuclear program -- a deal vehemently opposed by many U.S. lawmakers.

Castro at U.N. Calls for End to U.S. Embargo
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15/Cuban President Raul Castro on Saturday took aim at the U.S. embargo against his country, describing it as the "main obstacle" to his country's economic development. "Such a policy is rejected by 188 United Nations member-states that demand its removal," Castro told a U.N. development summit, referring to a U.N. resolution calling for the end of the decades-old embargo. The U.N. General Assembly has voted each year since 1982 to approve a resolution calling on the United States to lift the embargo against Cuba, which has been in place since 1960. Making his first visit to the U.N., Castro hailed the re-establishment of relations with Washington as a "major progress," but stressed that the embargo was unfinished business. "The economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba persists, as it has been for half a century, bringing damages and hardships on the Cuban people" said Castro, who succeeded his brother Fidel as president in 2006. Cuba estimates that more than $121 billion in damage has been inflicted on its economy from the embargo, which was imposed in retaliation for Cuba's nationalization of U.S. properties on the island. Since the rapprochement with Cuba, President Barack Obama's administration has expressed support for lifting the embargo, but the decision rests with Congress, where a Republican majority opposes the move. Castro argued that the embargo affects other nations that face punishment for investing in Cuba under U.S. laws, and that it was "hurting the interests of American citizens and companies."The General Assembly is set to discuss a new draft resolution condemning the embargo at a session next month. This year, however, Cuba will introduce a resolution that "welcomes" the reestablishment of relations and acknowledges Obama's determination to work with the U.S. Congress to lift the embargo, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has said. More than 160 world leaders are arriving in New York for the U.N. development summit, followed by the U.N. General Assembly debate opening Monday.
Castro is due to speak again on Monday, a few hours after Obama takes the podium.

Record Migrant Arrivals in Croatia as Crisis Deepens
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15
Croatia on Saturday announced an unprecedented spike in the arrival of migrants on a long, dangerous journey towards western Europe as the continent's worst post-World War II refugee crisis showed no sign of abating. With many of the people fleeing war and misery flocking towards Germany, a new poll showed Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity at home has been hit by her policy of openness. Merkel's "strong commitment to the refugees has obviously not been met with much backing," the Der Spiegel weekly newspaper said on the poll published Saturday on its pages. Germany is expecting up to a million refugees and migrants to enter its borders this year, many encouraged by Merkel's welcoming stance. Some 500,000 people have come to Europe so far this year, the International Organization for Migration says, many of them taking perilous journeys on inflatable dinghies to Greece from Turkey, and then up towards western Europe through the Balkans and Hungary. EU member Croatia became a key transit country when Hungary sealed its border with Serbia earlier this month in a bid to keep the migrants out.In the past 10 days alone 65,000 refugees and migrants have arrived in the Balkan country, the interior ministry said Saturday. Most were given temporary shelter in a recently-built refugee reception centre in the village of Opatovac near the Serbian border. They were then taken on buses and trains to three border crossings with Hungary. "The key is that everything goes smoothly on Hungary's side. (Hungary) is still receiving (the migrants) and transporting" them on towards the Austrian border, Interior Minister Ranko Ostojic told reporters. "The situation is under control," he added. However with hardline Hungary planning to seal the border with Croatia too, there is speculation that people might carve out a new so-called southern route through Montenegro. Ostojic said preparations were underway in southern Croatia in case the need to give them shelter arises there.Croatia may temporarily house them in military facilities remaining from the former Yugoslav People's Army in the Prevlaka peninsula, which is located at southern tip of Croatia's long coastline on the Adriatic Sea, 45 kilometres (27 miles) southeast of Dubrovnik, bordering Montenegro. Some regional officials have warned however that Croatia must prevent any influx of migrants near the resort of Dubrovnik as it might affect tourism.
Merkel seeks unity
Merkel, with her popularity down over her handling of the crisis, on Saturday sought to bring back the spirit of the country's reunification in 1990, to help face today's challenge of integrating the refugees. While admitting that handling the current wave of migration and facing the task of reunification are two very different things, Merkel said integrating people will require a similarly important effort from the whole of German society. "That general feeling -- when we are faced with a major task that we can achieve -- that, I believe, we can absolutely remember how to do," Merkel said in her weekly podcast. Their memory of the reunification process of east and west Germany is what has encouraged "many, many people to get involved today... Their approach to their task is with the idea that 'we want to succeed, and we can succeed.'"More than 250,000 people claimed asylum in Germany from January to July this year, among them 55,587 people who said they were Syrian.
Bulgaria Church fears 'invasion'
The European Union's enlargement commissioner meanwhile warned in an interview with the German Die Welt newspaper that the next wave of migration could come from SLebanon. "Developments in Lebanon unsettle me. The situation there is ... dramatic," Johannes Hahn told the conservative-leaning daily. EU leaders have agreed to boost aid for Syria's neighbors, including one billion dollars through U.N. agencies, in a bid to mitigate the refugee influx into Europe. EU interiors ministers recently pushed through a deal to relocate 120,000 refugees amid fierce opposition from central and eastern states.
But resistance to welcoming the migrants remains strong in hardline states, with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on Saturday calling on the government not to let any more Muslim refugees into the country to prevent an "invasion". The EU member has largely been bypassed by the refugees, most of whom set off from Greece through neighboring Macedonia and Serbia. The migration crisis has sparked concern in some quarters, playing into the hands of the far-right across Europe which hopes to turn fears of migrants into electoral success.

Iran Presses Saudi over More than 340 Missing Pilgrims
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15/Iran urged Saudi Arabia on Saturday to locate more than 340 of its nationals still missing in the aftermath of the deadly stampede at the annual hajj pilgrimage. So far, 136 Iranians are known to have been killed and 102 injured, said the head of Iran's hajj organisation, Said Ohadi, in the worst tragedy in a quarter-century at the pilgrimage to Islam's holiest sites in western Saudi Arabia. Ohadi, quoted on state television, said 344 Iranians were still unaccounted for, two days after the disaster. "The list of missing Iranians has been passed on to Saudi authorities," Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said. Culture Minister Ali Janati is to head a delegation to Saudi Arabia to follow up on the cases of those missing and injured in Thursday's stampede in Mina, near the holy city of Mecca. He will also oversee the repatriation of those killed, to take place on Monday according to local media. Iranian leaders have condemned Saudi authorities over what they charge were flawed safety measures that led to the tragedy. "It is not only incompetence, but a crime," Iran's attorney general Ebrahim Raeisi said. "We will ask for the Al-Saud (ruling family in the Gulf kingdom) to be tried for this crime against the pilgrims before international courts," he said, quoted by state television. He also called for the Saudi government "to put those responsible on trial".

Hajj Ends as Stampede Death Toll Rises to 769
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15/
Saudi Arabia deployed large numbers of special forces Saturday as pilgrims performed the final rituals of a hajj marred by double tragedy, with the toll from a stampede rising to 769. Health Minister Khaled al-Falih announced the new figure, an increase from the previous toll of 717. The number hurt rose to 934 from 863 recorded just after the deadliest incident in a quarter-century to strike the annual Muslim pilgrimage. Dozens of "special emergency force" personnel were seen Saturday on one level of Jamarat Bridge, a five-storey structure in Mina where pilgrims ritually stone the devil, and on which hundreds of thousands were converging when the stampede occurred nearby. Many more special forces patrolled the network of roads leading to the structure, which resembles a parking garage.The tightened measures came after the stampede outside Jamarat Bridge. The interior ministry has said it had assigned 100,000 police to secure the hajj and manage crowds. But pilgrims blamed the stampede on police road closures and poor management of the throng, during searing temperatures. Criticism has also been particularly strident from Saudi Arabia's regional rival Iran, which raised to 136 Saturday the number of its people who died. "It is not only incompetence, but a crime," Iranian Attorney General Ebrahim Raeisi said, calling on the kingdom to take those responsible to court.
Culture Minister Ali Janati is to head a delegation to Saudi Arabia to follow up on 344 Iranians Tehran says are missing. The disaster was the second deadly accident to hit worshipers this month. A massive construction crane collapsed on the Grand Mosque in the nearby holy city of Mecca days before the hajj, killing 109 people, many of them pilgrims. Undeterred Saturday, pilgrims in Mina still flooded the area to perform the stoning for a third time, on the last day of the hajj which this year drew about two million people.
They also stood in prayer.
Most pilgrims begin leaving on Saturday, returning to Mecca where they circumambulate the holy Kaaba structure before going home. "We are thankful to our brothers in Saudi Arabia for this effort," said Abdullah Ali, a 38-year-old Emirati, who blamed other pilgrims for the stampede and urged more awareness. "As you can see, people come from different backgrounds. They are affected by their cultures."Abdullah al-Sheikh, chairman of the Shura Council, an appointed body which advises the government, stressed that pilgrims must stick to "the rules and regulations taken by the security personnel".
His comments, reported late Friday by the official Saudi Press Agency, followed similar remarks by Health Minister Khaled al-Falih. The minister faulted worshippers themselves for the tragedy, saying that if "the pilgrims had followed instructions, this type of accident could have been avoided".
'Lesson' for next hajj
Saudi Arabia's top religious leader, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, told Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef that the incident was beyond human control.
"You are not responsible for what happened", SPA quoted Sheikh as telling him.
"Fate and destiny are inevitable."Mohammed chairs the Saudi hajj committee and has ordered an investigation into the stampede. King Salman, whose official title is "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" in Mecca and Medina, also ordered "a revision" of how the hajj is organised. Saudi authorities have yet to provide a breakdown of the nationalities of pilgrims killed in the stampede, as the difficult process of identification continues. But several foreign countries, largely African and Asian, have announced deaths. Only around 250 deaths in total have been officially confirmed by foreign officials. Sudanese pilgrim Abdulmahmud Rahman, 52, said he was happy to have carried out the hajj rituals but "pained that some pilgrims had died in such catastrophic circumstances". He said he hoped organisers "would learn a lesson for next year's hajj". Rahman suggested that when police close roads, it should be done from far away with signs warning pilgrims, so they did not find themselves crowded into the same area. Interior ministry spokesman General Mansur al-Turki said "a large number of pilgrims were in motion at the same time" at an intersection in Mina. "The great heat and fatigue of the pilgrims contributed to the large number of victims," he said. Ali Mohammed Assiri, a 23-year-old Saudi student, said countries sending pilgrims to Saudi Arabia "should first educate them and raise awareness among them on how to follow rules."
For years, the hajj was marred by stampedes and fires, but it had been largely incident-free for nine years after safety improvements and billions of dollars worth of infrastructure investment. The stoning bridge, erected in the past decade, has a capacity of 300,000 pilgrims an hour and was intended to improve safety after past disasters. The hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam, and every able-bodied Muslim who can afford it is expected to perform it at least once in a lifetime.

Russia Keeps Up Buildup at Syria Airbase
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15/Russia kept up its military buildup in Syria on Saturday with a fresh transport flight into a new airbase in the heartland of its regime ally, a Syrian military source told Agence France Presse. It was the 15th straight day that a Russian transport aircraft had flown in troops and equipment to the Hmeimim base in Latakia province on the Mediterranean coast, the source said on condition of anonymity. "For the past two weeks and again today a Russian cargo plane has landed every morning at Hmeimim," the source said, adding that they all had fighter escorts. U.S. satellites have recorded increased activity by Russian forces at the base inside the Bassel Assad civil and military airport. Washington and NATO say that recent spottings of helicopters, bombers, ground attack aircraft, tanks and soldiers prove that Russia is building an airbase. If such a buildup is officially verified -- and more importantly deployed -- it would be the Russia's first military engagement in a distant theatre of war since the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. One senior Syrian official called Russia's military involvement a "turning point" in more than four years of devastating civil war.
"Russia wants to remind the U.S. that its relations with Damascus date back more than 50 years and that this country is in its sphere of influence," the official said.

Official: U.S.-Trained Syria Rebels Gave Ammo, Equipment to Qaida Group
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 26/15/The Pentagon on Friday said a group of U.S.-trained Syrian rebels had handed over ammunition and equipment to al-Qaida's affiliate in the country, the Al-Nusra Front, purportedly in exchange for safe passage. The startling acknowledgement contrasted with earlier Pentagon denials of reports that some fighters had either defected or handed over gear. "Unfortunately, we learned late today that the NSF (New Syrian Forces) unit now says it did in fact provide six pickup trucks and a portion of their ammunition to a suspected Al-Nusra Front (group)," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said. Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for Central Command (CENTCOM), which is overseeing efforts against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, said the fighters had handed over the gear in exchange for safe passage in the Al-Nusra operating area. "If accurate, the report of NSF members providing equipment to Al-Nusra Front is very concerning and a violation of Syria train-and-equip program guidelines," Ryder said. Ryder added that the pickup vehicles and ammunition represented about 25 percent of the equipment issued to the group by the U.S.-led coalition.
"We are using all means at our disposal to look into what exactly happened and determine the appropriate response," Ryder said.A defense official told Agence France Presse that according to the rebels, there had not been any defections, but he stressed: "We only know what they have told us."
A new setback
The development is another embarrassing setback for the U.S. effort to "train and equip" moderate Syrian rebels to fight Islamic State jihadists in Syria.
The $500-million program originally aimed to ready around 5,400 vetted fighters a year for three years but problems finding suitable candidates have seen only a fraction getting trained. The first graduates, who made up a group of 54 fighters, were attacked by Al-Nusra in July and the Pentagon isn't sure what happened to them all. At least one was killed. The second group, consisting of about 70 rebels, were sent back to Syria last weekend and reports began circulating on Twitter soon after that they had either defected or handed over equipment. Last week, before the insertion of the new fighters, the U.S. general overseeing efforts against IS drew disbelief from senior lawmakers when he told them only "four or five" U.S.-trained rebels were on the ground fighting in Syria.
Unwilling to commit U.S. ground troops in the region, the Obama administration in January launched the train-and-equip mission for Syrian opposition fighters as part of a broader push to work with locals there and in Iraq. The program has faltered, with many would-be fighters failing the strict screening process. The troops are being trained as part of the U.S.-led fight against Islamic State in the region.

U.S. to make new diplomatic push on Syria
By Lesley Wroughton and Phil Stewart | Reuters, Washington/Saturday, 26 September 2015/U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will try to launch a new initiative for a political solution in Syria during meetings in New York in the next week, starting with talks with his Iranian counterpart on Saturday, U.S. and other Western officials said. After backing a United Nations peace process that has failed to end the Syrian conflict, Kerry will test several ideas for a new approach during the United Nations General Assembly in New York in the coming days, the officials said. The new approach - which officials stressed was in its infancy - could bring together Russia, a major ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Saudi Arabia and countries such as Turkey and Qatar, which support Syrian opposition groups. Russia’s sudden military build-up this month in support of Assad and a refugee crisis that has spilled over from the region into Europe have lent new urgency to attempts to resolve the Syria conflict. Three years after the agreement of the Geneva Communiqué, a document setting out guidelines on Syria’s path to peace and a political transition, the U.N. process has failed to make headway in brokering an end to the war. “And so you will get from Secretary Kerry an effort to find some formula that will get us back to a real substantial negotiation,” a senior U.S. official said. U.S. Under-Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told reporters on Friday that Kerry would discuss Syria when he meets Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in New York. Iran, which has said it is willing to sit down with rivals to discuss the crisis in Syria, is a staunch ally of Assad that backs the activities in Syria of Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which has given Assad vital support. U.S. officials acknowledge that to reach a political breakthrough in Syria, Iran will eventually have to play a role. “We certainly know there are parallel interests” on Syria, Sherman said. “There are great political sensitivities in Iran about having these discussions, perhaps some limits, but it is important to engage to the extent we can.” Kerry had not wanted to discuss Syria at the same time as the negotiations on an Iran nuclear deal, which concluded in July, because he didn’t want Tehran to think it could trade concessions on Syria, U.S. officials said. The White House said on Thursday that President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin would discuss Syria when they meet in New York on Monday. Diplomats say the meeting is critical for a better understanding of Russia’s intentions. One of the biggest obstacles, officials say, will be agreeing on the future of Assad.

Protests delay Syria truce evacuations: monitor
Beirut, AFP/Saturday, 26 September 2015/Efforts to evacuate civilians as part of a six-month truce in flashpoint Syrian villages stalled Saturday when protesters blocked a key route, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. “Dozens of men... cut off the road that was to be used to evacuate civilians from Fuaa and Kafraya,” the last two regime-held villages in northwest Idlib province, Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman said. A UN-brokered ceasefire deal to include Fuaa, Kafraya and Zabadani - the only remaining rebel bastion along Syria's border with Lebanon - was reached Thursday between warring parties in Syria. The agreement included the withdrawal of rebel fighters from Zabadani to Idlib, in exchange for the evacuation of 10,000 civilians from Fuaa and Kafraya. “The evacuations were supposed to start this morning, but they have been delayed until tomorrow or the next day,” Abdel Rahman told AFP on Saturday. Young men from the town of Saraqeb blocked the road that Syria’s Red Crescent would have used to escort civilians out of Fuaa and Kafraya and south into regime-controlled territory in Hama province, he said.“Some of them were protesting the fact that Saraqeb was not included in the ceasefire, and others were protesting the ceasefire as a whole,” he added. Held by opposition fighters, Saraqeb is regularly bombarded by the Syrian regime's military aircraft. On Saturday alone, at least six regime air raids struck the town, the Observatory said. Elsewhere in Syria, seven civilians were killed when regime forces fired a missile on a neighborhood in the central city of Homs on Saturday. The Observatory said most of those killed were children, and that dozens more were wounded.

U.S.-trained Syrian rebels gave ammo to Nusra Front
Reuters | Washington/Saturday, 26 September 2015/Syrian rebels trained by the United States gave some of their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage, a U.S. military spokesman said on Friday, the latest blow to a troubled U.S. effort to train local partners to fight ISIS militants. The rebels surrendered six pick-up trucks and some ammunition, or about one-quarter of their issued equipment, to a suspected Nusra intermediary on Sept. 21-22 in exchange for safe passage, said Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, in a statement. “If accurate, the report of NSF members providing equipment to al Nusra Front is very concerning and a violation of Syria train and equip program guidelines,” Ryder said, using an acronym for the rebels, called the New Syrian Forces. U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, was told of the equipment surrender around 1 p.m. (1700 GMT) on Friday, Ryder said. Earlier on Friday, Ryder had said all weapons and equipment issued to the rebels remained under their control. The news was the most recent sign of trouble in a fledgling military effort to train fighters to take on the ISIS militant group in Syria, where a 4-1/2-year civil war has killed about 250,000 people and caused nearly half of Syria’s prewar population of 23 million to flee. A top U.S. general told Congress last week that only a handful of the rebels are still fighting in Syria, though U.S. military officials said this week that dozens more have since joined them. U.S. officials have told Reuters that a review is underway that could result in scaling back and reenvisioning the program. Syrian rebels trained by the United States gave some of their equipment to the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in exchange for safe passage, a U.S. military spokesman said on Friday, the latest blow to a troubled U.S. effort to train local partners to fight ISIS militants. The rebels surrendered six pick-up trucks and some ammunition, or about one-quarter of their issued equipment, to a suspected Nusra intermediary on Sept. 21-22 in exchange for safe passage, said Colonel Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, in a statement. “If accurate, the report of NSF members providing equipment to al Nusra Front is very concerning and a violation of Syria train and equip program guidelines,” Ryder said, using an acronym for the rebels, called the New Syrian Forces.
U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East, was told of the equipment surrender around 1 p.m. (1700 GMT) on Friday, Ryder said. Earlier on Friday, Ryder had said all weapons and equipment issued to the rebels remained under their control. The news was the most recent sign of trouble in a fledgling military effort to train fighters to take on the ISIS militant group in Syria, where a 4-1/2-year civil war has killed about 250,000 people and caused nearly half of Syria’s prewar population of 23 million to flee. A top U.S. general told Congress last week that only a handful of the rebels are still fighting in Syria, though U.S. military officials said this week that dozens more have since joined them. U.S. officials have told Reuters that a review is underway that could result in scaling back and reenvisioning the program.

15 civilians killed in Boko Haram attack in Niger
By AFP | Niamey/Saturday, 26 September 2015/Fifteen civilians were killed in an attack by Boko Haram militants on a border village in southeastern Niger, state television reported Friday, the latest deadly raid by the militant group. The attack followed two months of calm in the area and took place as Muslims marked Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice, the most important holiday of the Islamic calendar. “We found a dreadful scene, around 15 people had been executed, four of whom were from Nigeria,” Hassan Ardo, an official from the Diffa governorate told the Tele Sahel television station. The attackers had also torched 22 houses, a car and a mill, he said, and left four others wounded. The station said the attack took place Thursday night and was carried out by around a dozen armed militants who had arrived on foot at the village on the banks of the Komadougou Yobe river on the border with Nigeria.
One of the victims was the village chief, the Afani private radio station reported. Niger, whose primary source of foreign income is uranium, has joined a regional military alliance, alongside Chad, Niger and Nigeria, to fight Boko Haram, infamous for mass abductions, village massacres and suicide bombings by women and teenagers.

Putin has checkmated Obama in Syria
Hisham Melhem/Al Arabia/September 26/15
A few months after Russian President Vladimir Putin brazenly annexed Crimea from Ukraine, President Barack Obama dismissed those analysts who hailed Putin’s land grab as a masterful strategic coup: “Three or four months ago, everybody in Washington was convinced that President Putin was a genius and he had outmaneuvered all of us, and he had bullied, and strategized his way into expanding Russian power,” Obama told National Public Radio. “Today, I’d sense that - at least outside of Russia - maybe some people are thinking what Putin did wasn’t so smart.”
Less than a year later, Obama finds himself forced to stop his silent treatment towards Putin, ending the suspension of military talks with the Russians and agreeing to rehabilitate his adversary by meeting him formally for the first time in two years at the United Nations. How did Putin, a ruthless practitioner of hard power, get the best of Obama? How did Putin, while presiding over a country afflicted with serious structural economic problems, buffeted by a recession caused by collapsing oil prices and subjected to Western sanctions and political isolation, manage to freeze the Ukraine crisis and put it in the background, while elevating the war in Syria as the most urgent crisis requiring American and European attention?
Perplexed in Washington
President Obama’s overall aimlessness in the Middle East, (with the exception of the Iran nuclear deal), his lack of seriousness and resolve in dealing with Syria’s savage wars, that are threatening the whole Eastern Mediterranean region and his unwillingness to challenge Iran’s destabilizing activities in Syria and Iraq and his inability to pursue a comprehensive regional strategy against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), gave Putin a historic opportunity to re-assert Russia’s influence in the region. President Obama’s epic failure in Syria brought Putin out of the cold and now Putin is trying to bring Bashar Assad out of the cold and into a Russian led coalition to fight ISIS and other radical Islamists. In recent months and weeks leaders of Arab Gulf states, Egypt, Israel and Turkey went on Eastern sojourns to Moscow to discuss the future of a region on the verge of a meltdown. In recent weeks the Obama administration found itself once again trying to guess Russia’s real intentions following its large military buildup in western Syria. The confusion of a perplexed administration was on full display. Russia’s enlargement of a civilian airport in Latakia, its deployment of a contingent of Special Forces, drones, dozens of jet fighters, ground attack jets and attack helicopters, anti-aircraft missiles and tanks and facilities to house up to 2,000 military personnel was pronounced by Secretary Of State John Kerry, the eternally optimistic Doctor Pangloss of the Obama administration as defensive in nature. “It is the judgment of our military and most experts that the level and type (of weaponry) represents basically force protection.” Later on, according to press reports U.S. Intelligence agencies informed the White House that Russian forces in Syria are on the verge of conducting military operations and the “jets are ready to strike at any moment. The equipment we’ve seen out there is not strictly defensive,” one U.S. official was quoted as saying. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter was more explicit warning that Russian airstrikes would be tantamount to “pouring gasoline on the civil war in Syria. That is certainly not productive from our point of view.”
The arsonist as the fireman
President Obama’s epic failure in Syria brought Putin out of the cold and now Putin is trying to bring Bashar Assad out of the cold and into a Russian led coalition to fight ISIS and other radical Islamists like Jabhat al-Nusra, with the promise to the Europeans that this new coalition will help alleviate their Syrian refugee crisis, the very crisis Putin had helped in creating by his considerable lethal support of the Assad regime. If there ever was a deal made in hell this would be it. Putin the arsonist is fading away, and Putin the fireman is emerging as the indispensable leader to fight Islamist terrorism in Syria, and to save Western Europe from those refugees storming its ramparts and trying to enter its rapidly closing gates. Every Russian move and every Iranian decision in Syria scream loudly that the two states are as committed as ever to the survival of the Assad regime. Before his arrival in New York, Putin confirmed his intentions to support Assad in an interview with Charlie Rose of the “60 Minutes” program on the CBS television network when he was asked if he was planning to “rescue” Assad. “Well, you’re right.” Then he warned that the destruction of “the legitimate government” in Syria would create chaos and disintegration as was the case in Libya and Iraq, in a clear jab against American interventions in those two states. “And there is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.”
Redeeming the irredeemable
The false narrative of the Obama administration, and some European countries and a growing number of analysts that confronting ISIS, al-Nusra and other Islamists is the urgent priority now, has played into Putin’s narrative and is beginning to reflect a very disturbing shift towards rehabilitating Assad.
Assad’s regime is the most brutal military machine in Syria, responsible for the killing of more than 95 percent of civilians, according to human rights organizations. Syrians in the main are fleeing the country because of the depredations of the Assad regime. The United Nations envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura said it explicitly that it is “totally unacceptable that the Syrian air force attacks its own territory in an indiscriminate way, killing its own citizens. The use of barrel bombs must stop. All evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of the civilian victims in the Syrian conflict have been caused by the use of such indiscriminate aerial weapons.”
Secretary Kerry recently repeated his pro-forma mantra that Assad has no place in Syria’s future, but he indicated a willingness to keeping him around for a period of time that was negotiable. However the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was more generous towards Assad saying “we have to speak with many actors, this includes Assad…
Following his meeting with Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan appeared to have fallen into Putin’s circle of thought saying Assad could take part in the transition process. What is so ironic about these political shifts towards Russia and Assad is they are taking place after the Assad regime has suffered serious military setbacks in the Idlib Governorate in the North, which prompted both Russia and Iran to step up their support for the regime. It is crucial here to clarify that both Iran and Russia are committed to defending their strategic and political interests in Syria more than they are wedded to the idea of keeping Assad in power indefinitely. But it is also true that both states are convinced that no future leaders in Damascus regardless of their religious background will give them the kind of unfettered influence and power that Assad has given them.
Partition?
There is ample anecdotal evidence that the fallback position for the Assad regime in the case of the war dragging on for years and regaining control of areas lost to the opposition is no longer viable, that the regime will consolidate control over Damascus and its immediate environs, and a long corridor adjacent to the Lebanese borders linking the capital with Homs and the coastal region, the ancestral land of the Alawite community.
A review of some of the early massacres of Sunni civilians in villages inside or bordering this region such as Bayda, Baniyas, Tal Kalakh and Qusayr show these deliberate killings were designed to cleanse a potential Alawite statelet of Sunnis. The current campaign by the regime and Hezbollah militia against the Sunni enclave of Zabadani close to the Lebanese border is the latest indication that the regime is continuing its sectarian cleansing war.
Short of a massive outside military intervention with ground forces, it is difficult to see a quick end to the war in Syria
The nature and size of the Iranian revolutionary guards and Shiite militias from Lebanon, and elsewhere deployed in Syria, as well as the recent Russian buildup clearly shows that Assad and his allies are unable to wrestle control of the more than 70 percent of Syrian territory that is in the hands of the rebels. Such a de facto state could be defended by Russian and Iranian muscle for the foreseeable future, and the enclave would continue to provide Russia a port on the Mediterranean, and maintain Iran’s land access to Hezbollah in Lebanon. But, the long term survival of such an enclave, if it is not an autonomous part of a unitary federated Syrian state is very doubtful.
The worst is yet to come?
Short of a massive outside military intervention with ground forces, it is difficult to see a quick end to the war in Syria. As we have seen in Angola, Sudan, Afghanistan and Lebanon, such conflicts can rage for more than a decade. Theoretically, it is still possible to save Syria from disintegration, although the chances are diminishing with each passing day.
I do not expect the Obama administration to exercise serious leadership, working with its regional allies to mobilize a serious national and non-Jihadi opposition coalition to take on the Assad regime, ISIS and the other radical Islamist groups. But such an approach should be explored nonetheless. A change in leadership style and content in Washington could force the combatants and their sponsors, to review their plans and options.
Belated American leadership in Bosnia and Kosovo prevented massacres and led to the cessation of hostilities. If the U.S. had not lead a coalition to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait, who knows how many years Saddam would have maintained his occupation? There are many proposals presented by leaders, former officials and academics about how to start reclaiming Syria. The U.S. is still capable of convincing Jordan and Turkey to start recruiting Syrians opposed to both Assad and ISIS, but not according to its impossible vetting criteria which assume almost moral purity on the part of those who are about to go fight brutal evils.
Safe zones should be established close to the borders of Turkey and Jordan, where the displaced can be helped and opposition rebels and NGO’s can begin to provide services, and a modicum of governance. Assad will be warned not to bomb these safe zones, and if he fails to heed the warnings, the U.S. should shoot down his air force, as retired General David Petraeus said last week during his congressional testimony, where he called for greater U.S. role in Syria.
The U.S. and its allies can start working on “Seizing local opportunities in Syria” where new alliances can be formed among non-militant groups and minorities such as the Druze and the admittedly more difficult coordination between Kurdish and Arab groups. There were no serious sustained efforts to explore these possibilities before. Success requires that the U.S. start by re-establishing its credibility, and by convincing all concerned that it is in it to win it. Not exercising such leadership will condemn Syria to a slow but increasingly violent death. But Syria, to paraphrase Dylan Thomas will not go gently or solely into that long cold night.

Analysis: Europe’s Mideast peace push
LESLIE SUSSER/J.Post/09/26/2015
EVER SINCE last year’s resounding American failure to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation, the Europeans have been looking to step into Washington’s shoes and lead a new peacemaking effort. France has been working on a UN Security Council resolution that would set parameters for new peace talks; former British prime minister Tony Blair has been mediating between Israel and Hamas; and the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini is trying to set up a broader negotiating framework that would include Arab states. There has been a concerted determination about the Europeans’ work with frequent visits to the region, talks with key players and the adumbration of highly ambitious peace plans. But the success or failure of their effort is likely to be determined by two non-European protagonists – Israel and the US. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown little enthusiasm for the various European initiatives. He is distrustful of their motives and does not believe the Europeans can deliver a square deal. The question is how far they try to push a recalcitrant Israeli government. More importantly, if they do exert pressure, how much support will they receive from the Obama White House, frustrated by Netanyahu’s backtracking on the two-state solution and livid at his unrelenting interference on the nuclear deal with Iran? In late June, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius visited Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank and Israel in an effort to find a formula to restart the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The French hope to pick up from where the US left off, but avoid the mistakes that led to the collapse of the American effort. After meetings with Fabius, both the Arab League and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the French initiative. Israel claimed the proposals were half-baked, trying to impose borders without taking its most basic security needs into account. The idea behind the French move for a new Security Council resolution is to set internationally agreed parameters for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. The aim would be to reassure the Palestinians on what a final peace deal might look like and put international pressure on Israel to participate in serious and focused negotiations.
A UN resolution of this kind would bypass the need for consensus between the parties on terms of reference for final peace talks, which is precisely where the American- mediated peace effort broke down in early 2014.
The French have not yet finally decided on whether to go the Security Council route.
It will depend on the degree of international support, especially American, they have.
But if they do, the proposed resolution will likely refer to the November 1947 UN General Assembly partition plan, which called for the establishment of two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and which was jubilantly hailed by the Israeli state-in-themaking at the time. It will also seek to replace the 1967 UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for land for peace without going into details as the preeminent international document on peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians. The proposed resolution will call for two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace; Jerusalem as the capital of both; borders along the 1967 lines with land swaps; and a satisfactory security package for Israel.
But there are major difficulties in the way of a draft that could bring both sides to the negotiating table. For example, will it refer to Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people? If it does, the Palestinians will probably reject it and if it doesn’t, Israel might say no. And, needless to say, the Palestinian refugee question will need an open formula both sides can live with.
The French will also have to decide whether or not to include timetables for negotiations and for subsequent implementation. The aim would be to set a target date for completion of a peace treaty in say two years by November 2017, the 50th anniversary of the occupation, and allow three to five years after that for phased implementation.Last December, however, the Security Council rejected an Arab resolution setting a two-year timetable for a final peace deal, largely at America’s behest. But what will the American position be this time round? EU foreign policy chief Mogherini came to Israel just a week after Netanyahu formed his new government in May.
She said the fact that she had come so early “had meaning.” In late July, after a meeting of European foreign ministers in Brussels, Mogherini announced her intention to set up an “international support group” to give Israeli-Palestinian negotiations a better chance. The plan is to add Arab states to the international Quartet of the US, EU, UN and Russia – to give Israel greater incentive to negotiate and help the Palestinians make concessions on sensitive issues like Jerusalem and refugees. The international support group could also help advance Israel-Hamas negotiations on a long-term cease-fire.
The European aim is not only to widen the negotiating framework but also to broaden the agenda. If this ambitious plan works out there would be a triple focus – on Israel’s relations with the West Bank, with Gaza and with the Arab world as a whole.
• Israel-Palestinian Authority: Peace talks based on a UN Security Council resolution or other agreed terms of reference for a two-state solution, supported by the international community and most Arab states.
• Israel-Hamas: Indirect negotiations mediated by Blair, Qatar and others for a long-term cease-fire or hudna in return for significant easing of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. This could entail port facilities for Gaza in Cyprus, where cargoes could be monitored. Netanyahu met with Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades in July. Both Hamas leaders and Netanyahu are due in London, in September.
• Israel-Arab World: Adding Arab countries to the negotiating framework could create conditions for talks on a full normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab/Muslim states based on the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. This would be predicated on normalization in return for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
• If it works out, this triple focus/wide negotiating framework approach could give Israel a historic opportunity to transform its standing in the region.
Netanyahu, however, seems unlikely to rise to the challenge. His election declaration that there would be no Palestinian state on his watch was more than a vote-winning gambit. In June 2014, he outlined a new security doctrine designed to contend with regional threats posed by disintegrating Arab states and the rise of militant non-state actors like ISIS. It called for Israeli security control over the West Bank and along the Jordan River border, virtually ruling out the possibility of independent Palestinian statehood. But without a genuine Israeli commitment to a two-state solution, the triple-focus European initiative, with the possible exception of the cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza, will almost certainly prove a non-starter.
There are other indications that Netanyahu, in his fourth term as prime minister, will be reluctant to move on the Palestinian track: The right-wing nature of his coalition, his failure to give Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog a compelling reason to join the government, his hard-line foreign policy appointees, Tzipi Hotovely as Deputy Foreign Minister, Dore Gold as Foreign Ministry Director General and Dani Danon as Israel’s Ambassador to the UN – all of whom vigorously oppose a two-state solution.
INDEED, NETANYAHU’S current Palestinian policy is based on “managing the conflict” rather than solving it. This has a security and an economic plank: a strong IDF hold on the West Bank bolstered by close security coordination with the Palestinian Authority, coupled with economic measures designed to improve the quality of Palestinian life as part of the overall effort to deter violent resistance to the occupation. Netanyahu’s offer to discuss the borders of the Jewish settlement enterprise rather than borders based on the 1967 lines with land swaps seems more an attempt to create a future pretext to blame the Palestinians for failure to engage than a serious negotiating offer.
The main Israeli opposition is unlikely to press Netanyahu hard to do more, even though it takes a very different view on the two-state solution. In an article in Foreign Affairs in September 2011, entitled “Why Israel Should Vote for Palestinian Independence,” Zionist Union opposition leader Isaac Herzog argued that Israel should accept a new UN resolution on Palestinian statehood, but with strong Israeli input on conditions and parameters for negotiations.
However, Herzog today, focused on convincing Israeli voters of his right-tending security credentials, is unlikely to repeat a call of this kind. That means Netanyahu will probably be spared strong domestic pressure to go along with the European initiative.
The overarching question though is whether the international community, especially the United States, will allow Netanyahu to maintain his conflict managing policies.
Hard on the heels of the prime minister’s rejection of the two-state formula in the March election run-up, US President Barack Obama warned that there would be “foreign policy consequences” without spelling out what they might be.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest was more forthcoming: The understanding that Israel was committed to a two-state solution was a “bedrock” of US policy, he explained, adding that if Israel “walked back” that policy, the US would find it more difficult to shield it from attack in international forums. The implication was that if a resolution on Palestinian statehood in the context of a two-state solution was presented to the UN Security Council, Israel would not be able to count on an automatic American veto, as it had done in the past.
Earnest pointed out that in the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act passed by Congress in December 2014, “pursuit of a twostate solution was identified as our goal to solve this conflict.” And if Israel was no longer on board, the US, he said, would have to reassess its diplomacy for solving the Israeli- Palestinian problem. Come this year’s UN General Assembly meeting in September, there could be a reversal of traditional great power roles, with the Europeans in the mediator’s seat and the US providing the carrot and stick. How long it lasts will depend on how effective it proves.

What does “settlement in Syria” mean to Washington?
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabia/September 26/15
Secretary of State John Kerry’s talk of going along with a “complete and clear” operational understanding with Moscow, represents a significant shift. It is significant not only as far as its handling of the Syrian crisis over the last four-and-a-half years is concerned, but also regarding its initial reaction to Russia’s recent logistic moves a few days ago. At the beginning we heard, as did the American public, that the Barack Obama administration was “concerned” by Moscow’s show of force which has gone far beyond the long familiar military aid to become effective military presence, and takeover of facilities and airbases, reaching even deployment of a fighting force. The denial uttered by Walid Al-Mouallem, the Damascus regime’s foreign minister, of rumors about such deployment in Latakia as well as other Syrian areas, ended by virtual confirmation of what he started off denying; when he said that Damascus was willing to ask for direct Russian military if the need arises. As if in theatrical play, no sooner had the confirmation-intended denial been uttered, than Moscow declared its readiness to provide combat troops the moment it received a formal request from Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad, whom the Russians regard as “the legitimate leader.”How does Washington plan to take part in “the war on terror” now that it has just discovered the “elusive secret formula”, and has publicly decided to cooperate with the Russians, and as yet tacitly with the Iranians, in combat duties?
In the meantime, Washington’s “concern” seemed to have dissipated, and following the now only too familiar pattern, ended with the virtual acceptance of Moscow’s viewpoint on Syria. Within a few hours and a number of phone calls between Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, the secretary of state said “The U.S. would welcome a constructive Russian role in counter-ISIL (ISIS) efforts,” and went as far as expressing its willingness to begin ‘military talks’ with Moscow. Then, after the cautious welcome, Kerry made it crystal clear at a press conference in London that he fully agreed with the Russian viewpoint towards Syria, candidly and stubbornly expressed by Moscow since the first round of Geneva talks (dubbed Geneva I).
Kerry has specifically adopted Moscow’s two primary positions:
The First, making the “war on terror and extremism” the basis of any international approach in Syria.
Assad won’t have to leave
The Second, putting off for the time being any discussion of the fate of Assad, rather than making it the first step in any discussion of a political settlement, as the Syrian opposition has been demanding since day one. Kerry has now made it clear Assad does not have to leave anytime soon when he said: “It doesn’t have to be on day one or month one. There is a process by which all the parties have to come together and reach an understanding of how this can best be achieved.”
It is, indeed, quite interesting that Washington is still blabbering that “there is no place for Assad in a future Syria.” The experience of the last four years with what the Obama administration promises hardly encourages anyone to believe that such a statement means anything.
On the other hand, talking about Assad, as an individual, may have now become pointless and overtaken by events. It is true he has been the face of the Syrian tragedy as well as its main cause, but it is also true that as an individual he is now but an irrelevant and a worthless detail. Those in control in Syria today are the ones who are striking deals, bringing in sectarian fighters across the border, and drawing with blood the maps of Syria’s partition. Assad would not make any difference anymore if the political settlement, being promised by Washington and its new partners, Moscow and Tehran - and surely, Israel, albeit from behind the scenes - is going to confirm the apportioning of zones of interests and control, and give the partition of Syria an official stamp of international approval and legitimacy at the highest levels.
“Elusive secret formula”
Talking again and again about the areas the regime, its backers and sponsors are keen to keep for themselves, is becoming boringly familiar. It is well-known that in the absence of any meaningful political solution to the Iraqi problem it will become extremely difficult to maintain order and control of the desert and semi-desert region covering western Iraq and eastern Syria - i.e. the provinces of Al-Anbar, Salah Al-Din and Nineveh in Iraq, and Deir Ezzor and Raqqa in Syria. This region, which is predominantly Sunni Muslim, finds itself squeezed between the hammer of the expansionist Iranian project extending all the way westward to the Mediterranean, and the anvil of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) phenomenon which is now the justification of a new ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement.’ Sure enough the Sunnis of this region are now paying an exorbitant humanitarian, political, and habitational price.
How does Washington plan to take part in “the war on terror” now that it has just discovered the “elusive secret formula”, and has publicly decided to cooperate with the Russians, and as yet tacitly with the Iranians, in combat duties? Washington’s conditional arming of “moderate” Syrian opposition fighters is looking nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to numb and buy time.
Furthermore, the American pitiful gamble of overcoming the Turkish - Kurdish dilemma in conducting the “war on terror” by intentional ignorance must be seen either as astounding denial of facts on the ground, or flagrant ill intentions towards Turkey. The latter may be unable on its own to achieve much, but can surely make the situation ever more complex. Regarding the Arab states, if Washington continues to dismiss their misgivings about its blessings of Iran’s hegemony over Iraq, and its self-delusion that the Syrians’ would accept the perpetuation of the four-decades old despotic mentality and its security and suppression, they would realize that nothing is going to change in Syria except the portrait of a figurehead president.Today, there are facts on the ground in Syria that are interconnected, thus, it would be illogical to deal with them separately. Among these is the fact that Iran has regional interests, some of which are legitimate; however, they must not be imposed on the peoples of the region either by force or sectarian blackmail. Russia too may well have worries that deserve to be addressed in a positive and rational way. Israel sure is a more than capable regional player, and although it has desisted from diluting its identity, it will never accept being sidelined or overlooked. Last, but not least, it would be absurd to think that American fiddling with Kurdish national aspiration will not be costly, more so when the “national Kurdish homeland” destroys Syria and Iraq, and even threatens to become a time bomb for Turkey and Iran.
Assad must leave. There should not be any doubts about that; but the policy of “fighting ISIS” alone must not conceal Washington’s frighteningly contradictory approach to the Middle East’s problems; including, turning the Arabs and their countries to failing experiments.

Ali Salem defeated them
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabia/September 26/15
Some intellectuals only see the late Egyptian playwright, Ali Salem, as a symbol of normalization with Israel, and strip him of all he has offered to millions of Arabs and to the Arab culture through his works which have become immortal. We do not want to withhold their right of criticism but it is not acceptable to terrorize intellectuals because of their political stands, to make them traitors, exclude and fight them. This becomes more than a right to expression and more than expressing an opposing opinion. They overlook his history and productions, and try to defame him only because of their different political opinion. At the end, history is the only judge. It will remember him and forget them. Ali Salem was an amazing person who brought added value to art, culture and even politics. They didn’t succeed in shutting him up and make him reverse his position, as oppose to some artists and novelists who could not bear the attacks and decided to “repent.” Salem held onto his unwavering belief, as an intellectual and a man of conviction, that a relationship with Israel did not mean at all to give up the rights of Palestinians and supporting them, Some of those who waged campaigns against him in his life, and after his death, are hypocrites who belong to circles with solid political and mediatic relations with Israel, while others are Israeli Arabs who shifted towards populism attempting to appease a certain public. What is left of them are Islamists belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood who, if they had lasted longer in governance, would be more like the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat who achieved war and peace more than anyone calling himself a nationalist and Islamist.
Immortalized in his work
Salem held onto his unwavering belief, as an intellectual and a man of conviction, that a relationship with Israel did not mean at all to give up the rights of Palestinians and supporting them. We have witnessed how Arab revolutionary forces used the Palestinian cause for other purposes that brought harm to the Palestinian rights for decades. Some of those who criticize him are in the same ranks as the al-Assad regime and Hezbollah, next to the remnants of the left-wing and Iran’s Islamists like Hamas. Their true face appeared during the revolutions of the Arab Spring as they were encouraging killing, displacement and injustice. In all cases, Ali Salem was an Egyptian citizen who exercised his right according to signed agreements. Even president Mohammad Mursi didn’t dare to disapprove or change this fact and insisted on respecting the Camp David accords signed with Israel. When these intellectuals damage the reputation of a famous person such as Ali Salem in the course of his life and after his death, they reveal their falseness and fail to respect the most elementary rights of an intellectual person: his freedom of expression and the right to exercise it. The late playwright left works that will immortalize him, more than twenty theatrical works which are still dominant on the scene and, therefore, do not need the approval of his opponents. I asked him once at lunch about his colleagues who reversed their open political opinions. He answered me: You know that the situation is difficult. They found it easier to cope with the demagogic movement instead of facing it. He himself was talking about immigrating to Turkey despite his reservations about its political preferences. Egyptians remain nostalgic about the days when Turkey was the preferred destination of politicians and intellectuals.

Politicizing the Hajj Stampede
Salman Aldosary/Asharq AlAwsat/September 26/15
It is a never ending story. Whenever an emergency occurs during the Hajj season, certain parties blame Saudi Arabia who, nevertheless, continues to give pilgrims top priority. The Kingdom spends about 10 percent of its income on providing services to Mecca and Medina. Moreover, it considers hosting more than 1.5 million Muslim pilgrims each year an honor, not a handout. It is an honor not just for the rulers and the government of Saudi Arabia but for the 20 million Saudis. When the tragic stampede occurred in Mina, Saudi Arabia was blamed again by those who seem to have wished for the accident to happen in order to exploit it politically. Regardless of what the investigation leads to, using the tragic accident as a pretext to destroy the efforts of hundreds of thousands of people who provide services to the pilgrims is extremely unfair. The Hajj season, at least in the past few years, did not witness any emergencies. Iran’s hostile and contradictory response to the stampede that occurred on Thursday is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is the response of a country like Turkey whose top religious affairs official issued a provocative statement demanding an international conference on “ways to secure pilgrims.” This was followed by remarks by Ahmet Davutoğlu, the Turkish Prime Minister, in which he said that stampedes were frequent in Hajj despite the fact that Thursday’s stampede was the first to happen since 1990. So, how can he say it is a frequent phenomenon? He also called on Saudi Arabia to learn from “past experiences.” In fact, I do not know what Davutoğlu meant by “past experiences” unless he thinks Hajj takes place somewhere else other than Mecca! Later, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sought to calm things a little bit by saying that he refuses to hold Saudi Arabia responsible and praising its organization of the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages. Moreover, the Vice President of the ruling Justice and Development Party claimed that his country can organize Hajj better than Saudi Arabia. The question remains: Has the Saudi state stopped improving the Hajj season? The Kingdom has continued to improve Hajj services year after year and everyone who has performed Hajj in recent years would testify to this. In a speech on Thursday Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman Bin Abdulaziz said: “Regardless of the investigation results, the improvement of the methods and mechanisms of the Hajj season will not stop. We have instructed the concerned entities to re-evaluate the current policy and the distribution of responsibilities.”On the other hand, the Saudis themselves have never stopped demanding to improve the Hajj season. Local Saudi media over the past years never hesitated to criticize problems and propose plans whether they came from inside or outside Saudi Arabia. And the Saudi government has often welcomed these constructive efforts that aim to improve services to visitors to Mecca and Medina. This is of course different from politicizing emergency incidents.
There is a difference between constructive criticism that aims to improve performance and destruction of efforts in an attempt to make political gains.

Lebanese foreign minister: We cannot be the only one receiving refugees
Al-Monitor Staff/September 26, 2015
NEW YORK — In an interview with Al-Monitor, Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Gebran Bassil focused on the challenges of providing shelter and support for more than 2 million refugees, who now make up almost 50% of Lebanon’s population, and called on the international community to do more. He noted that “Lebanon cannot be the only one receiving refugees. We can give humanitarian assistance to people in need, but not be a political recipient for the problems of Syria.”
In response to a question about Lebanon’s presidential vacancy and its impact on the management of the crisis in Syria, Bassil said, “With a good, strong president, you can have the real decision to fight terrorism and to put Lebanon at the heart of the battle.” He also said, “All the problems coming from Syria can be stopped at the Lebanese border if the country is being ruled and directed by a strong president.”
The text of the interview follows:
Al-Monitor: When we last spoke in March, following your address to the UN Security Council on the dire situation of minorities in the Middle East, you said that a "real political will" for the protection of minorities has not been demonstrated. Has any progress been made since March?
Bassil: Not really. There is more awareness, but not much has been done. Actually, this is why you see that there is a failure and somehow people are admitting they failed. They are looking for different alternatives, whether militarily through the Russian intervention or politically through accepting that [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad has to be somehow in a transitional period. Mosul was not regained. Mass influxes of immigrants have not stopped. Actually, they increased, and the destruction of the culture and of the heritage has not stopped. More conferences have happened, more acceptances of the reality, and the need for minorities to stay in the region has been declared more often, but nothing really has happened.
Al-Monitor: What has been the response of the United Nations and the international community to your appeal? You mentioned that more people are paying attention, but they haven’t done anything. Has anyone made attempts to do anything?
Bassil: Not really, frankly. Maybe the Russian intervention, among other things, would have the aim of doing something. Actually, by stopping Daesh [an acronym in Arabic for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] from expanding, we are undoubtedly doing something to preserve the minorities. I think we will see more of a stand, more actions of Western countries, of the US, Europe, Russia, out of the need to stop the spread of terrorism. Yes, I believe we will see more, but actually not enough, not at the speed that is needed.
Al-Monitor: Do you fear a permanent erosion of the Christian presence in Syria as a result of the war?
Bassil: Actually, it’s happening, the erosion, and we’ve lost more than an erosion in large chunks. In Iraq, it happened over 20 years, and we saw that 90% of the Christians have left Iraq. In Syria, we don’t have actual numbers because of the chaos. We cannot tell. We know that there has been a lot of internal and external immigration and displacement. Can we talk of figures and percentages? No. But definitely churches have been destroyed and people have left already. Somehow it’s sad to see that some European countries are expressing interest to receive minorities, thinking that they can be of added value to European societies whether through labor force or with their culture that they have and that they have something for European society. And you see the rush to receive some of them, but this is very negative for the region by emptying it of its minorities, and it is negative to lose this part of the population.
Al-Monitor: Lebanon, with a population of less than 5 million, is now sheltering nearly 1.2 million displaced. How has Lebanon been dealing with this issue, and what assistance does Lebanon seek from the international community?
Bassil: Actually, the figures are even higher. The number can be as high as 1.5 million on top of a half-million Palestinian refugees. So all in all, we are talking about 2 million refugees. That’s almost 45-50% of the population. How can we deal with it? We cannot deal with it. It is in the nature of the hospitality of the Lebanese that allows us to somehow adapt to the situation. But are we handling it? Not at all. We are suffering. We are losing a lot of our security. In economic terms, we are spending more than $10 billion on the refugee crisis. Our social services cannot handle this type of crisis in sectors like electricity, water and sanitation. We are suffering a lot, and the promises of the international community have not been met. We have received less than $100 million in the last four years. The international community has not lived up to its promises, and they would not be able to handle such a crisis in their own home countries. The only way to solve this crisis is by keeping the Syrians in their country, such as what Europe is doing. Lebanon has taken its share and much, much more. We cannot take anymore. That is why they are seeking refuge in other countries.
Al-Monitor: Lebanon has now been without a president for more than 16 months. What is causing the impasse when it comes to electing a new president in your view?
Bassil: It’s the same crisis of Daesh. It is not an exaggeration by saying this. You can see it in different means, such as in Lebanese politics where the diversity has been eliminated and it is not accepted to have the real representative of the Christians in a political position. This is similar to what Daesh is doing in the region by eliminating the nonuniform elements. In Lebanon, we should have the diversity of all communities sharing the power through a real partnership, real power sharing. It’s not happening now where the elements of the minorities are being gradually eliminated by not allowing them to ascend to power. There is a refusal to allow the real representatives of the minorities to gain power, comparable to an ideology of political extremism.
Al-Monitor: Has the presidential vacuum hindered the country’s ability to deal with the impact of the Syria crisis?
Bassil: Definitely it affects us. With a good, strong president, you can have the real decision to fight terrorism and to put Lebanon at the heart of the battle. This did not happen in the last few years when we had a president. But eventually, terrorism was able to infiltrate our country, in Arsal, for example, in Tripoli, in Sidon, and we had an occupation of some Lebanese lands by Daesh. But with a strong president, we can remove them from the country because we can force the situation where we will not be a place to hide terrorists, and Lebanon cannot be the only one receiving refugees. We can give humanitarian assistance to people in need, but not be a political recipient for the problems of Syria that spill over. All the problems coming from Syria can be stopped on the Lebanese border if the country is being ruled and directed by a strong president. There is no president who has the power and capability to make the hard decisions to fight terrorism and to preserve Lebanon as a diverse country and to really enforce the power sharing in our system. This is what’s bad about it.
Al-Monitor: In a Sept. 18 interview with the Washington Post, Prime Minister Tammam Salam said that of the 12 Lebanese presidents since independence, “11 have either been suggested or produced by external powers.” Do you think Lebanon’s next president will also be suggested by an external power?
Bassil: It is how Lebanon has reached this deteriorated situation, when we accepted the influence of foreign powers to nominate our president. Now it’s time for us, especially in these hard days, to have a president with real representation. The only criteria that should dictate electing a president is the choice and endorsement of the Lebanese people. Because this happened before and brought us more difficulties, it should not happen anymore.
Al-Monitor: Lebanon has received considerable media coverage in the past few weeks regarding the so-called "You Stink" protests. Demonstrators initially came out to protest the trash crisis, but demands then shifted to addressing perceived corruption in the government, with organizers calling for the resignation of Minister of Environment Mohammad Machnouk. What is your position on these protests, and where do you see the street movement heading?
Bassil: This is something that is needed, to have the reaction of the people against what is bad. Part of our political work is to invite people to take part in movements and to motivate them to be of high spirits, of high morale and to take action. The problem is that the call for reform was generalized as all politicians are being accused of corruption. So this I believe made them lose a lot of credibility, and this made them lose a lot of their support. We endorse them, we encourage them to be active and vocal of refusing the corruption and encouraging the reforms, but they cannot accuse everybody of being corrupt. I believe we need this movement supported by the real movements of reform, by the real parties and personalities to do the reform. All the reforms should be a joint effort to reach reform.

Obama Stung by Putin’s Syria Gambit
Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
On September 17, President Barack Obama made a sudden about-face and ordered Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to contact his Russian counterpart, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, to begin talks on Syria. For weeks, since the beginning of Russia’s increased military deployments to Syria, the US Administration had been paralyzed, making a series of half-hearted efforts to halt the Russian shipments of tanks, artillery and other advanced hardware. Those efforts failed, when the Iraq government refused to block over-flights, allowing a corridor from Russia through Iran and Iraq into Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry, on orders from the White House, had pressured Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to back off of the Syrian deployments.
In reality, Kerry was part of an Administration faction, which also included some top Pentagon officials, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who saw the futility of attempting to stop the Russian deployments, and favored direct negotiations with Moscow to reach some kind of agreements on the Syrian front against the Islamic State (ISIL).
President Obama’s top advisors, including National Security Advisor Dr. Susan Rice and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power, had argued that Putin’s actions had made the president look weak, and that Obama had to take a hard line against any Russian increased involvement in Syria.
US Central Command intelligence analysts confirmed the expansion of the Russian military deployments, and concluded that, within two weeks, Russia would have completed construction of a new air base south of Latakia. However, the analysts stopped short of drawing any conclusions about what Putin’s game-plan was for direct combat operations, or the size of the military force that Russia was prepared to send in to Syria.
It was in that context that Obama succumbed to pressure from administration “realists” and ordered Carter to open up the dialogue with his Russian counterpart. Carter will chair a working group that will confer regularly with Russian military officials, in an attempt to work out “deconfliction” ground rules and possible collaboration against the ISIL forces.
The Obama Administration still remains largely in the dark over what Putin’s ultimate objectives are in boosting the Russian military presence in Syria. The US Intelligence Community had concluded, prior to the Russian buildup, that Syrian President Bashar Assad was losing ground to rebels, and that his regime was likely to collapse within one year or less. That assessment has been dramatically altered, as the result of the Russian deployments. It is now a top priority to determine whether Putin’s primary objective is to preserve the Assad regime, as presently constituted, or to defend Russian strategic interests in Syria in a post-Assad transition. One US official described Putin’s behavior as “coy,” keeping Washington intentionally off-balance and unsure about the overall Russian objectives and plans.
Over a month ago, President Putin proposed, through the Lavrov-Kerry channel, that he would like to meet with President Obama, face to face, in New York City, when both are in Manhattan in late September, to address the United Nations General Assembly. Up until now, the White House has refused to give Putin a definitive answer. The Obama Administration remains split over whether or not the President should accept Putin’s proposal. The same Rice-Power faction has argued that it would be a mistake for President Obama to meet with Putin without knowing in advance exactly what the Russian leader will propose, fearing an embarrassment that would play into the hands of Republican Party critics, who have been assailing the President over the P5+1 deal with Iran.
Before the recent media leaks and confirmation that President Obama will indeed meet his Russian counterpart, there have been some reports to the effect that, with the start of the military-to-military negotiations, it is likely that President Obama will meet with Putin in New York—but only on the condition that the Russian leader is more transparent about Russian intentions in Syria, and that the US has an advance report on Putin’s planned speech before the UN General Assembly, where he is expected to call for a new global coalition to fight against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, under United Nations authorization. For President Obama, the US already has assembled a coalition of 60 countries, committed to defeating ISIL, and Russia should simply join that ongoing American-led effort.
Back on May 12, when Secretary of State Kerry held a four hour meeting with Putin and Lavrov in Sochi, Russia had proposed to revive the failed Geneva II diplomatic initiative for a political solution to the Syria crisis. At the time, Kerry had reported back to the President that the Russian initiative signaled a renewed Russian desire to collaborate with the US, after the diplomatic freeze, following the Edward Snowden asylum and the Ukraine crisis. Kerry subsequently held a series of meetings in the Persian Gulf with Lavrov, ostensibly to convince Gulf Cooperation Council states that the P5+1 deal was viable, but also sounding out the prospects of a new Syria diplomatic initiative.
At this point, the Obama Administration has settled on three general priorities: Initiate a dialogue with Russia in order to obtain a more transparent idea of what Putin’s true plans are for Syria; assure that the Israeli-Syrian border area remains quiet; and pursue the opportunities for a renewed United Nations process. The first step will center on determining whether Putin is prepared to discuss a transition to a post-Assad process. That answer may only come from a face to face meeting between Obama and Putin—regardless of the risks to a US President whose own failures in Middle East diplomacy have led to the current crisis, and will leave a stain on his legacy that will be hard to erase, at this late moment in his presidency.

CENTCOM under Investigation for “Cooking” ISIS Intelligence
Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
In July, a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst, assigned to the US Central Command, filed a complaint with the Pentagon’s Inspector General, John T. Rymer, charging that he was put under pressure to modify intelligence assessments of the ongoing war against the Islamic State (ISIL), to present a more optimistic picture of the conflict. That initial complaint has mushroomed into a full-scale investigation that could implicate two of President Barack Obama’s senior appointees, Centcom Commander Gen. Lloyd Austin and Director of National Intelligence Gen. James Clapper.
Investigators from the Pentagon IG’s office have been in Tampa, Florida for weeks, and have interviewed more than 50 analysts, some from DIA and others who are intelligence analysts of the Central Command. According to several of the analysts interviewed in the probe, there is compelling evidence that supervisors pressured the analysts to alter their intelligence reports and assessments, to paint a picture of progress, even when Iraqi forces retreated in the face of ISIL attacks. When analysts produced reports that showed progress in the fight against ISIL, they were not challenged to produce multi-source documentation. When they reported battle set-backs, they were ordered to rewrite the reports to include three to four qualified eyewitness accounts. In some instances, even when such documentation was provided, the reports were re-written by supervisors, before being sent on to policy-makers.
An Obama Administration narrative has emerged to blunt the investigation and make sure that the scandal never reaches the point of directly hitting at the President or his top national security advisors. Supervisors who altered the original analytical reports claim that, while the initial reports were “factually accurate,” the supervisors had access to “other source,” who provided contradictory or more in-depth intelligence, justifying the altered conclusions.
Off the record, Pentagon officials provided a different explanation. From the outset, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed the re-deployment of combat troops back into Iraq, after the complete US withdrawal of combat forces in December 2011. The White House has shared this view, although the US has resumed combat bombing missions and has established a training program for the Iraqi Armed Forces, involving 3,400 American soldiers and airmen. If the full extent of the failure of these programs were to be acknowledged, there would be pressure from Congressional Republicans to send American combat forces back in to Iraq. Key Senate Republicans, like Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) have argued for months for the deployment of tens of thousands of American ground troops to Iraq.
As it was explained: “McCain controls the Pentagon budget and he can put tremendous pressure on the Pentagon. By altering the reporting on the war against ISIL, the Pentagon officials involved in the re-writing of the assessments were hoping to avoid the obvious conclusions: The US and the Iraqi forces are losing.”At the recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, Centcom Commander Gen. Austin tried to dodge questions from McCain and Democratic Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), telling the Committee that “There is an ongoing DOD IG investigation looking into allegations concerning the processing of intelligence information by Centcom’s intelligence directorate. Because the allegations are currently under investigation… it would be premature and inappropriate for me to discuss this matter.”
However, when Gen. Austin went on to paint a positive picture of the US and Iraqi progress against the Islamic State, Sen. McCain uncorked, telling Gen. Austin “I must say I have been on this committee for 30 years and I have never heard testimony like this. Never.” McCain pointed out that outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey had testified before the committee one week earlier, and had candidly admitted that the war against ISIL in Iraq was at “a stalemate.”
While the individual who is directly on the hot seat over the intelligence “cooking” is Major General Steven R. Grove, the Centcom intelligence chief, analysts put the blame on Gen. Austin, an Obama appointee who has been a close White House ally since taking the job. Some of the testimony provided to the Pentagon IG’s investigators has also focused on Director of National Intelligence Gen. Clapper, another Obama appointee who has similarly toed the White House line that the war against ISIL is succeeding and on schedule.
At the bottom of the entire scandal is the fact that the Obama Administration has badly botched the entire war against the Islamic State, going all the way back to the President’s decision to totally withdraw US forces from Iraq, which created the vacuum in which the Islamic State emerged. That decision was made by the President and his top advisors, and the intelligence manipulation can be ultimately traced to the fact that the Obama Administration’s policy failures created the current fiasco in Iraq and in the region as a whole.

The Syria Russian Roulette
Samir Altaqi/Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing
Syria’s current moment is very fluid indeed. But someone has yet to point out who is winning and what exactly is won or thought as a reward. Turkey is steadily sliding into civil war. Arab countries will later come to face a wild enlarged Jihadist movement that knows no borders. Russia is heading confidently into another Afghanistan. Iran will have to deal with a sea of sectarian hatred to which it responds with a campaign of sectarian hatred. The US and Europe will face a wave after another of both suffering refugees and suicidal terrorists. Israel, which sees ISIL as no imminent problem, seems to forget as always that time passes and what is not imminent today becomes imminent tomorrow. And Syrians may have already lost their country.
What is really maddening is that almost all players, apart from the simple Syrians in the killing fields or in boats or refugee camps, seem to enjoy this crazy Russian roulette which defies any definition of absurdity.
However, we know that behind this fog there are only two choices-either the political solution or the military solution. If we define the political solutions through the existing balance, and not through the maximalist demands of both sides, we will see that it takes much more than what is being done. Yet, an almost paralyzed world is doing much less than needed. This creates a stalemate between both options and this stalemate in its turn leaves only the partition of Syria as the default alternative.
And what is going now points to this third default option. The deployment of Russian forces is shaping up along specific lines that demark the limits of what we previously called “Iran’s Plan B”, which is preserving certain Western regions and fortifying defenses around them, then hitting the opposition elsewhere when it amasses forces to march west, all obviously under the name of fighting terrorism.
While this appear to be a “new” development, in fact it is a continuation of what has been going on for some time. The only added factor is that the Russians bolstered the military lines of a faltering Assad, a fatigued IRGC and a bleeding Hezbollah. The question is: Will the Russian forces be added, after a while, to the line of exhausted military partners in the alliance of Bashar Al Assad?
Putin’s gambit is based on the assumption that things will not develop to the point where his forces would be subjected to a long term attrition war like that of Afghanistan. Putin bets on the brakes of his adversaries rather than on the effectiveness of his forces. He believes that the fear of ISIL expansion will end up bringing everybody to his table in the Kremlin. The other players are not faring better. The record of the US administration in relation to the Syrian crisis should be taught in history books and schools as an example of utter failures in strategy and foreign policy. The moment the US chose to disengage is the moment when it left enough room for the Russians to engage and allowed different players to push the Syrian ball of fire in all four directions. And as it seems from right here in Washington, there is no hope that this administration could one day do anything meaningful in the current situation in Syria.
But the Arab and Turkish backers of the opposition are no less culprit in this tragic situation. The strategic impact of the worst case scenario (which we actually see right now) was not evaluated correctly early on. For the bottom line would be an Assad backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah in a certain part of Syria, while the opposition, warlords and worst brand of fanatics do whatever they please in the rest.
And whatever they please is not pretty. The distinctions between hardliners and relatively moderates in the opposition will be further blurred and all will merge in a big bowl that deserves to be called a regional time bomb. By reaching the worst case scenario, the Arabs and the Turks will be faced with a double edged sword. But the edge that is facing them would be sharper. The Russians will guarantee, at least for some time, to mitigate the effect of the other edge. The backers of the Syrian opposition have two ways to go-either accept less than what they wanted all along, or face the “regional time bomb” at one point down the road. Recklessness and shortsightedness are not a monopoly of the Obama administration, they are everywhere. This stark choice is exactly the product of any maximalist strategy.
Even Mr. Putin has his share. For if the backers of the opposition decide to go all the way on the road of this Russian roulette, they would force on Mr. Putin to play along. None will win at the end. As the Russians lost in Afghanistan, they will lose in Syria. What should be remembered in the Afghan lesson, however, is that it was not only the Russians who lost. We can see now that Afghanis lost as well. And we could see in 2001 that the Americans lost. And the Arabs had to deal with the moving bombs of the “returnees”-a term well known in the region for calling those who came back from Afghanistan to “Jihadize” the Middle East.
ISIL’s Mosques Sheikhs received Putin’s decisions with a loud welcome. A Sheikh in a Mosque in Raqqa told the worshipers that Putin’s decision is “a gift from heaven”. “Allah wants us to sharpen Jihad in Muslim land. And he sent us Putin to help us accomplish His mission and build an army that extends to the horizon”, he said. Even the Syrian opposition will lose its identity. It is not going to be a national opposition anymore. It will be a supranational Jihadist movement legalizing slavery markets, confiscation of properties, beheading and all the horrors which are not counter-propaganda any more-we see them every day.
Here, we learn that the some common assessments are not only stupid, they are also dangerous. One “advice”, given by some “experts” tells us to be happy and do nothing. The utter absurdity of imagining that a certain situation could remain “static” cannot be clearer. Those who assumed that the Syrian fire will consume its own wood must have been thinking of their backyard barbecue. They simply forgot the first feature of this war: It is regional. Now it is developing even beyond this limit.
A second stupid assumption is that ideological differences can prevent Jihadists from working together. Once upon a time, the elders of the Kremlin laughed at Dr. Kissinger’s attempt to form an alliance with Mao Zedong. Ideological differences are but one side, and only one, of a more complex dynamics. We are surprised at those who dismissed the possibility of a merger between ISIL and Nusra based on their ideological differences. They first do not know anything about the debate going on now among the Salafi Ulamas in Jordan and the Gulf. And they second did not follow how ISIL or Nusra emerged that powerful in Syria. In fact, the political solution in Syria is not only putting all the Jihadists closer to each other, the Russian intervention is pushing this process even faster. The change in Zawahiri discourse did not happen six months ago. We invite those self-assured talk heads to follow the contacts done with Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi , the Jordanian theoretician of the Salafi Jihadi trend and a staunch supporter of Al Qaeda and enemy of ISIL (We will cover that in a future issue). The artificial tranquility of subjective assertions is part of this mosaic that we see now. And one thing is clear, this mosaic draws a historic mural of total madness.
The situation within the opposition deserves to be examined a little further, as many opposition groups do not even see what is waiting down the road. Here, we will see clearly the dynamics which characterizes the whole game, the slow slide towards the lose-lose Russian roulette.
A political solution, whatever that means, is now rejected by the Jihadists on principles, while the relatively moderate wing of the opposition is opened to deal with it. What should be done now is to try to locate the two opposed centers, currently emerging more clearly in the camp of the opposition. Fanatics will express their affiliation to the abstract image of building an Islamic society. Moderates tend to have a synthesis between national state and Islamic rules. Fundamentalists have an image of the country they are fighting to build which is based bluntly on a rejection of the nation state, hence promises more wars. Their vision is that of the absolute rule of what they understand to be the Sharia.
The UN envoy Stafan de Mistura’s proposal is perceived by opposition groups in a specific way relative to the contents of their ideological stands. This proposal offers less than what any of the two camps want. For the fundamentalists, the UN avenue leads to a different country than that they are fighting to achieve. For the relatively moderate opposition, the proposal does not include a specific timeframe for the departure of Assad, even if they accept him to remain in power for some time (Which they did not accept until now). Theoretically, if it is announced that Assad agreed to leave the country tomorrow in return for an inclusive national state structure, some fundamentalists will continue their fight anyway as they strive to build a different state. Yet, they will be isolated to a large extent as most Syrians instinctively side with a more moderate view of Islam. In this hypothetical case of Assad departure, the relatively moderate groups will react positively, align with the Syrian army to fight ISIL and its allies.
This is said to draw a clear distinction between the “political” opposition and the hardliner Jihadists. And this will be the line that will mark the future split of the opposition if the world finds a political solution. We have seen, for example, a communique by a conference of a large number of opposition groups this month in Istanbul rejected by many leaders inside the groups that has signed the communique already. The communique was signed September 14. Sheikh Khaled Abu Anas of Ahrar Al Sham, Abu Mohamed Al Maqdisi, Abu Abdullah Teftenaz of “Lawa Aul Haq”, Saleh Al Hamawi, and even General Riyadh Al As’ad the former commander of the Free Syrian Army, all announced their rejection of the communique signed by their own groups. Some groups had to even deny they signed anything at all. But for this split to happen, the contours of a political solution and of the alternative solutions should become very clear. So long as the line between the two is blurred, as is still the case, there will be no objective pressure calling for any group to distance itself from the other. The split, if happened, will lead to closer ties between the rejectionist Jihadists. It should not be simplified in the question of either ISIL will join Al Qaeda or it is Al Qaeda that will join ISIL. What counts is the number of fighters on the ground and the camps they side with. This logical frame gains its substance at the current moment on light of three developments: The Russian intervention-The consequences of the drive to reach a political solution-The actual debate within the opposition groups. Yet, ISIL and its allies will never be defeated without the rest of Syria’s Sunni fighting them. And the Sunnis will not fight them under Assad’s command. Furthermore, Iran, and now Russia, will not get rid of Assad without a deal that grants both their strategic stake in Syria. Therefore, this dance in hell game of Russian roulette will continue. The players are enjoying it. But Syria’s children are not.

The Save-Syria Initiative Debated Among Opposition Groups
Samir Altaqi/Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
Special Report
Opposition groups are currently debating the principles included by a group of Syrian politicians in exile in their initiative published under the title: A Syrian-Syrian Dialogue. The initiative aims at placing the momentum around the crisis in its current phase within a context that preserves the integrity of Syrian territories, the structure of the State and the inclusive nature of the Syrian society along its history.
Here is the text of the proposal being debated:
Our Homeland Is In Danger
Syria, as a State and a homeland, is currently facing existential risks driven by conflicting international and regional agendas that blatantly disregard the Syrian national will. There is no faith remaining in achieving national salvation and building the desired State of citizenship. It is therefore dangerous for the Syrians to leave their homeland in the hands of foreign parties who seem to see partition on ethnic and sectarian grounds as the only solution. This approach is built on the false assumption that peaceful coexistence among Syrians is impossible. But the heart of the matter is that Syrians continue to see their country as one and only homeland for all its sects and ethnic communities where no differences are made between an Arab and a Kurd, a Sunni and an Alawite, or a Druze and a Christian. The utter indifference of most countries to the pain of the Syrians, their hopes and hardships.is a baffling reality These countries are even discounting the inevitable repercussions of a unified nation-state disintegrating while the undeniable reality is that this is leading to more bloodshed and protracted struggle, not to mention the objective impossibility of dividing the land.
For some countries, especially the USA and Iran, the Syrian cause has seemingly turned from an issue of a nation that strives to freely decide destiny , and rebuild its State based on a new national contract, peaceful coexistence and democratic rule, into an issue of terrorism that calls for adamant confrontation. Terrorism would never have succeeded in penetrating the Syrian society without a regime that terrorizes its people and relies on sectarian terrorist militias coming from Iran, Iraq or Lebanon and without the active contribution of the Iranian State in infiltrating terrorist organizations and its current attempts to transform the Kurdish security forces into an instrument for carrying out its agenda of hegemony.
There is every indication that Iran seeks to fragment Syria by relying on sectarian and ethnic communities that resort to terrorist practices but it has come to realize that imposing its hegemony over Syria through relying entirely on loyalty to the regime –and on these militias – was indeed, preposterous.
We, Syrians are the sons and daughters of a single and unified nation-state; we are committed to salvaging our country and building a common life and future for ourselves and our children, as we believe that creating mini-states will never ensure peace and security for any of the parties concerned whether inside or outside Syria. We adhere to the international community’s objective of fighting terrorism – defined in international law as the indiscriminate killing of civilians and we are committed to fighting it in all its forms and figures,. Yet we believe it is unattainable as long as the terrorism of the dictatorship has not ended.
To be clear, there is no hope in rallying all Syrians around the common objective of fighting terrorism as long as there are no solid assurances, the most important of which include: freezing the frontlines, ending the use of barrel bombs, stopping the ethnic cleansing, preventing tampering with the map of Syria, as well as protecting the combatant opposition forces fighting in the Golan. Another important assurance is handing over areas which are under ISIS control today and are populated with a majority of Sunni Syrians, to the military forces of the National Opposition, provided that the Opposition immediately supports civil governance in those areas. This seems. However, unreachable in the new situation that followed Russia’s recent steps. The Russian bold escalation brought back the scenes on Afghanistan and made ISIL more popular and gave it additional momentum..
Yet the likelihood of any such arrangements succeeding has receded in light of the forceful intervention of Russia, a development that is sure to enhance the popularity of ISIS and is reminiscent of the Afghan conflict.
Keeping the regime or reproducing it in any form will only bring more disasters upon Syria and the Syrians and will kill any hope of a successful plan drawn by all Syrians to eradicate terrorism and eliminate all the flimsy pretexts used by all of the regime’s regional and international allies who attempt to defend it.
The Assad regime has all but collapsed despite all attempts by Iran to resuscitate it with ever increasing efforts since 2012. It has not succeeded in allowing it to regain any of the areas it has lost. Our initiative is clear. It does not seek to address the regime, rather it aims to rid the State of its talons after it pledged it to Iran’s will. The blood of all Syrians, including Alawites, is exploited to serve the strategy of the Assad regime and its supporting forces and represents an existential crime against the future of Syria. They as much as the regime itself -if not more-shall be held as accountable for this crime.
We have every reason to believe that the regime and Iran are endeavoring to craft an Alawite enclave that will lead to nothing but the alienation of the Alawite community from its homeland, culture, language and Arab identity. Such a plan, if successful, will never produce any kind of peace, security, development or self-sustenance; if anything, it will pave the way for the division of the Land based on fear, and will result in ethnic, national and cliental mini-states..
A national dialogue bringing together all Syrians, with a view to draw a map of national salvation, is now of utmost importance if we are to put an end to the transformation of the regime’s constituency into militias controlled by outside patrons. This is imperative to prevent this incubator from turning into militias that are under the will of Iranian militias and other international willpowers. The Syrian dialog we aspire to attain is the cornerstone on which liberating the will of the Syrians from any foreign hegemony, should be constructed. Moreover, it is the way towards producing the joined national will that will carry us towards the desired national Syrian covenant we all aspire to achieve. The absence or procrastination of this measure will inevitably feed that malignant cancer into a disease that will take over the affairs of the country, especially since this cancer is nourished by the consecutive defeats of the regime on the ground.
Dispelling illusions:
Building the desired National Syrian State, based on the National covenant, will never be attained without being liberated from the prevailing illusions or before acknowledging the following true facts:
Past experiences, drawn from the previous years of the revolution, proved that salvation from without, or protecting the Syrian people by foreign actors, is nothing but illusion.
The Zero-solution the regime adopted to put out the revolution, or any other zero-solution, for that matter, is a mere historical absurdity.
All Iranian attempts to divide Syria have failed miserably after the regime’s contrived zero solution had failed. Although Iran did not succeed in imposing utter hegemony, its attempts to emit the ideology of fear among the Alawite sect might create a medium that leads towards division.
There are certain international attempts (which emerged from the conditions that produced social rifts) to verbalize a political formula aimed at impeding the establishment of the State- similar to what had happened in the Dayton Agreement imposed on the Bosnians because they failed at suggesting a nationally-based solution.
Initiative Perspectives:
The Initiative was launched from a concrete initial perspective which believes in the unity of Syrian territory, senses eminent danger and perceives the regime’s belief in a political solution as mere futile anticipation. Therefore, this initiative calls upon all vital powers in the regime’s incubator, from all ethnicities, sects and provinces, to take a step forward towards preserving the lives of whomever is left of the Syrian people, provided that this opportunity is open for discussing a plethora of different national issues.
This initiative sprang from the fact that as time progresses, the Syrian situation is staggering into further complications. Therefore, it aspires to build the bridges of mutual trust among Syrians and prepares for putting the Syrian cause on the track towards political solutions because the political solution in the current context of complexities has become a multi-phased pursuit; therefore, this initiative does not make reaching a solution a direct objective of the dialog it calls for, despite the fact that the launchers of this initiative wish that. All the issues mentioned by the Initiative as political solution procedures, are mentioned to illustrate the possibility of reaching a realistic political solution.
The Initiative is based on a fundamental prerequisite principle; the dialog has to be one between the Syrians themselves, where insightfulness of all parties should be sought when this insight is overlooked by most Arab and international efforts who strived to gather all stakeholders to launch a dialog that leads towards a political solution. A dialog at such level should be pure Syrian effort unprecedented by any Arab or international efforts since this requires a significant level of neutrality and incrementalism. It is principles like these that make the political solution a feasible one, and its road map, clear. No party can ever perceive national issues in the same way its nationals, can.
The terms of the initiative:
Hold a Syrian-Syrian dialog among political parties: the National Opposition on one hand, and the regime incubators, on the other. A dialog in which every Syrian commits to circling round one table hoping to dissipate all anxieties and regain lost trust.
Have a comprehensive National Syrian dialog for all Syrians, based on the results of the abovementioned, smaller-scale dialog which leads to building a new national and social covenant capable of drawing the features of the new National State and the bases of national reconciliation. This will pave the way for ensuring a secure future for every Syrian in every category in the Syrian society.
After the revolution was purposefully manipulated into a vicious war, and after it was deliberately coerced into a detrimental sectarian strife between the Sunnis and the Alawites, it is imperative that we look back on their historical compatibility when trying to build the new social covenant. This will impede any attempts to divide the land into sectarian and ethnic groups which will ultimately threaten the unity of the land, its sovereignty and decision, let alone undermining genuine developments on the level of the Syrian Homeland.
Both sides are required to put in place a set of security procedures to ensure a minimum level of stability in the form of freezing combat. Such procedures allow for the deployment of national forces all over the country, as per pre-determined agreements. If the international community decides to deploy peacekeeping forces or other forms of monitoring and supervision, it is not expected that their numbers, or indeed their designated tasks will rise up to the desired level. Therefore, they will not be adopted as an alternative to a Syrian-Syrian agreement. Thus, it is of key importance to have in place a plan that depends on a national force after reaching the desired historical agreement.
Reaching an agreement on forming an army and security forces is considered the backbone of any political solution. Restructuring them in a genuine and balanced way agreed upon by all parties, is the most realistic starting point towards addressing the concerns and apprehensions of all Syrians, all over the country.
Subsequent to the state of fragmentation that Syria found itself in, where each district, or indeed, village, has become an independent entity that refuses to agree with its neighboring village even on the level of local administration, adopting a strategy of decentralization can be the formula that brings together all Syrian fragments, drawing the main lines of its new image which will dissipate the fears of the different Syrian categories, exorcising the ghost of division which some regional and international forces have been diligently pushing towards.
Preserving all State institutions and dealing with them as three different categories, as follows:
Institutions that will continue to function even after its corrupt head is cut off. These need to be nurtured and liberated from their corrupt head.
The deep-seated civil State institutions which can be used as instruments for controlling the country, the society and the vital resources; any national government can play their executive role. These also, need to be protected and fostered, after stripping them of any forms of corruption.
The parasitic institutions that act as the leeches that suck off the blood of the country and form the deep State of the tyrant regime. These need to be dismantled and replaced by national ones.
Finally, this Initiative is a sincere and honest internal Syrian cry, and a complete acknowledgement that it is a Syrian-owned initiative in all of its minutest details. It does not claim to be infallible and it believes that, at this critical stage, the power of the whole holds far more resonance than the power of content. We realize that this Initiative is a courageous and sagacious case in a turmoil of disagreements of the others over the future of Syria. We are a weary nation, exhausted by the investments and solutions of the others. If the intents of friends hold true, let them support us with whatever their friendships dictate. We have never been in more need of the sincerity of true friendship, than we are today.
The Syrian National Advisory Group
Dr. Badr Jamous- the Royal Institute for Human Resources Development.
Dr. Basma Qadamani – the Arab Reformation Initiative.
Dr. Samir al Taqi – Orient Research Center
Dr. Muaiyyad al Rashid – the Royal Institute for Human Resources Development.
Dr. Imad Eddine al Rashid – Outlook Center for Studies and Research.

Russians in Syria: What Should be done?
Samir Altaqi/Esam Aziz/Middle East Briefing/September 26/15
The introduction of a substantial Russian military presence into Syria pushes to the surface the suspended question of what kind of international order will emerge in this current critical period of world history. This question was delayed for over two decades. “Desert Storm” was a sign of an order that proved to be unsustainable. The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were too mishandled and misconceived to make the results of the first Iraq war sustainable. The two wars reflected the extent to which Desert Storm was misread and misinterpreted. Moreover, the consequences of those two bad wars created such a negative impact that made any rational approach to establishing a balanced world order difficult to reach.
Yet, regardless of how history chose to go, the present is challenging everyone to find the proper conceptual framework to reintroduce a kind of manageable equilibrium into the global theatre. The prohibiting and rugged terrain of the Middle East is not only revealing to us all the extent of chaos in the global relations the way they are now, it is also providing the maximum test to strategists, academics, military experts and all interested to lift the debate from the current level of only Syria to a higher level, that of managing a world which seems to be crossing a violent storm in a boat without a Captain.
I guess what we are trying to say here is that the consequences of the frightening absence of an understandable and flexible world “system” are imposed on us spontaneously by the eruption of the Middle East regional crisis. This crisis answers back by calling upon us to look at that central issue of how to establish a kind of global collective rules to help navigate the current storm manifested forcefully in the Middle East.
It is only empirical data that can lead us to form accurate abstractions, hence this debate has to start from Russia, Syria, the Iranians, the Arabs, sectarianism, etc. to reach general conclusions.
And in this case, the road splits into two propositions. One points to the need to work with Putin, Khamenei, Hassan Nasrallah and Assad to defeat ISIL. The other tends to ridicule this approach either out of convictions or of subjective political calculus. The distance between the two opposed propositions testifies to the utter lack of a conceptual framework that organizes the inter-relations between different strategies and policies. The “surprise” that followed Putin’s decision confirms that no one possessed an appreciation of the consequence of the absence of some general acceptable “rules” or a clear picture of the emerging trends in a rapidly changing global theatre.
The ghosts of the cold war should remain out of the debate completely. Also we should brush aside the ridiculously naïve argument that the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah intervention in Syria is “only” aimed at fighting terrorism.
Russia is not the USSR and the world now is different than that of the 70’s and 80’s. America now is neither that of Ronald Regan or Richard Nixon and the Arab World is profoundly different from what it was 30 or 40 years ago.
Russia’s current decision was seemingly an extension of Moscow’s bold move in Crimea. Russia is telling us something that we seem to miss time and again: It will not shy from using its military force to reach its strategic goals. Now, it is the role of others to put their cards on the table. It is their turn to choose one of the two opposing propositions circulating around currently, either to stop the Russians or, as they say, if you can’t stop them join them.
Yet, the two choices are based on a false analytical predicate. For it should be asked first: Stop the Russians from doing what? Or Join them in doing what?
In our issue of Middle East Briefing of May, 12 2014 we wrote an opinion recommending a “Grand Bargain in the Middle East Should Start after Iran’s deal”. At that time, there was no ISIL in Mosul and there was no Iran deal. Repeatedly, during that year, we tried desperately to show that it is extremely important to somehow put the Iran negotiations within a regional strategic context. We also proposed, even more frequently, a regional-international conference to try to manage the consequences of the deal or the regional conflict which was already getting out of control in a fast pace.
But this regional approach could not have caught the attention of anyone as long as even the larger one-the absence of a global order, did not. The absence of effective multilateral approach was not even detected by those who introduced themselves to the world as the champions of multilateralism-the Obama team.
Obviously we failed. Yet, it seems the right moment to chart the road that combines the two opposed propositions of either stopping the Russians or joining them and shaping instead an alternative synthesis on a more meaningful and concrete path. We all know that the Russians will not succeed in defeating ISIL even if we assume that this is indeed their objective (We think that they prefer to keep Syria’s West Coast under theirs and Iran’s control and let the rest of Syria decay). Joining them by increasing the air raids would not help neither. Helping sink the Russians in Syria will lead to extremely dangerous proliferation of terrorism and extremism.
In any case, and regardless of the true intent of President Putin, there will be always a mission waiting to be accomplished-fighting and defeating ISIL through effective approaches and pacifying Syria and the Middle East. The unexpected impact of the Russian intervention might be manifested in the fact that all regional powers will be under pressure to think either to realistically deal with the Russian step or challenge it. The first implies questioning the validity of the zero sum conclusion they are hoping to achieve. The second implies another Afghanistan.
The helpful sign, if there would be any positive sides at all in the Russian move, is that Moscow’s effort could be integrated in an international-regional approach to reach some sort of a long term truce starting from Syria and then to the other explosive spots, many as they are, in the region.
A UN frame to incorporate Russia’s intervention within a global-regional approach is indeed knocking on the doors of the current global moment. For the alternatives are so dangerous and ironic at the same time. Dangerous because it will further involve global powers quarreling in a game played on a mine field, and ironic because while the smoke is rising here and there, the moment it settles down a little we see the ugly face of ISIL stretching its tongue out to all of us.
In order to “rationalize” the step-that we believe was wrong-of Mr. Putin, a new context has to be opened where this step must be absorbed in a wider international-regional understanding of the necessity and urgency to reach a truce in Syria and the Middle East. Very distinctive and very clear rules have to be reached to define this context and the multilateral division of labor it requires and particularly Russia’s role. Regional and global powers should get together to find terms for regional de-escalation and concerted (real) efforts to defeat the forces of chaos in that region. This objective transcends the Russian objectives alone or the wish to see Moscow pays a price for its bold move. It even transcends the issue of defeating the terrorists. It reaches to the heart of the real problem which we have now: The absence of a global order. It sets the foundations for a future building of an international mechanism to safeguard global stability and peace, and above all human life. In other words, it may lead to a better global environment to help taking global cooperation one step further.
When we proposed the regional-international conference over a year ago, or more recently a kind of Helsinki accords-like arrangement in the Middle East, we did not see all this coming. There was a sense that things will get worse, but that worse? No. However, here we are now. The thread has to be picked by the international community to exert collective pressure on all relevant parties to get to a regional truce. While the international community will be doing the job, the job will give it many avenues in the way of establishing some new rules that should hopefully get an increasingly chaotic world to a more meaningful path. Europe, the US, Russia, the Arabs, the Iranians and everyone else have an interest in reaching that “norm”. The reason is simple: the fire scarcely reads border signs.
A conference is not a ceremony and cameras. It is a process. This process, in the specific case of the current Russian intervention in Syria, should avoid the easy and tempting willingness to make Putin pays, and should exclude casting the Russian step in any cold war terminology. In other words, Putin should not be applauded or encouraged to hang himself if he is seen doing that in Syria. The consequences of the extremely damaging step which he made there will have far reaching negative impact on everyone. It is not fun to see the ox in a china store if you care about the china.
What is really needed now is to use the moment when the ox entered the china store as a potential opportunity to reach an objective that transcends the current cry for more wars and more killing and more chaos and reach a phase of calm thinking about an international-regional frame, flexible enough and resilient enough to combine all these scattered elements and limit them to a defined diplomatic space where they can react with each other to reach the objective of de-conflicting a region on the brink of total collapse.
Briefly, what is needed is to explore potentials of incorporating the Russian shortsighted move into a more solid and defined framework to solving the Syrian crisis. As we see it here in Washington, there are some voices that find themselves inclined to refuse anything Russian, may be with the exception of Caviar and vodka, merely because they forget that the cold war is over or for whatever reason they have.
The difficulty for us was to explain that we first see the Russian move as stupid, but second we believe it could be developed in a not-very-stupid course.
The abbreviation of the current moment is coming in the form of an open invitation to set the foundation of a new global order. The Middle East is telling us that we cannot learn how to swim unless we start swimming. This new order may emerge from the current storm in that region in particular. It is an unforgiving “natural” conditions in which we should learn how to swim towards a new global norm. But we have to. It might be an opportunity, in spite of all the horrors, to establish a new norm that fits this period in our collective human history.

Palestinians: We Are the New Nazis
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/September 26/15
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6574/palestinians-yehezkel-interview
These are people behaving in a way that does not deserve being rewarded with anything, let alone a state. They far more resemble all tyrannical thugs throughout history who spend their lives telling other people how to live, and using violence, or threats of violence, to coerce anyone who does not agree. Sadly, we already have too much of that kind of muscling in our Arab and Muslim world, as Egypt's forward-looking President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as well as many others, regularly point out.
We have now reached the same stage as Germany's Nazis -- the same thing, ironically, we falsely accuse the Jews of being -- where the appearance of a Jew on a Palestinian television show is considered as an act of "treason" and a "crime." In reality, it is we who are the New Nazis.
A Palestinian TV talk show host is facing strong condemnations and threats for hosting an Israeli Jewish singer who is extremely popular among Palestinian youths.
The condemnations expose the ugly face of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), whose followers are vehemently opposed to any form of "normalization" between Palestinians and Israelis.
The BDS activists are demanding that those who brought the singer, Zvi Yehezkel, to the TV show in Ramallah be punished. The activists do not even seem to care that the singer supports peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
They are more bothered by the fact that a Palestinian TV station in Ramallah dared to invite a Jew to an interview. The BDS activists are also not ashamed to expose their anti-Semitism by expressing their outrage over the fact that Yehezkel is an observant Jew wearing a skullcap.
Judging from the angry reactions to the Yehezkel interview, one can only deduce that members of the BDS movement are a deeply antisemitic racists who hate Jews just because of their faith and appearance.
Dozens of Palestinians took to social media to hurl abuse at the Palestinian TV show and its presenters, calling them "traitors," "spies," "dogs" and "pigs."
Palestinian artist Faten Kabha wrote that she decided to cancel an interview with the TV show "after it hosted a Jewish Zionist in the heart of Ramallah."
The Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate, a body dominated by Fatah activists in the West Bank, and several political groups also joined the bandwagon of denunciations over the Jewish singer's appearance on a Palestinian TV show; and the "anti-normalization" activists are also targeting the five-star Grand Park Hotel in Ramallah for hosting the Jewish singer.
One of the leaders of the "anti-normalization" campaign, Fadi Arouri, demanded that the hotel distance itself from the TV show, which was recorded in one of its halls, or face being labeled advocates of "normalization" with Israel. It would seem he has more to worry about by being labeled a racist.
Arouri, on his Facebook page, lashed out at the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation and the hotel for bringing the Jewish singer to Ramallah. He threatened to add the hotel to the list of advocates of "normalization" with Israel, saying: "You will be fought against the same way we fight the occupation and its institutions."
Arouri and his friends are also angry with the TV show for using Hebrew names of Israeli cities during the interview with Yehezkel, who lives in Ashkelon, and argued that the presenter should have used the Arabic name of Majdal instead of Ashkelon.
The Jewish singer is fortunate that Arouri and his friends did not know about his presence in Ramallah in real time, otherwise they would have attacked the TV studio and forced him to flee Ramallah, as these BDS activists have been doing for the past few years: violently breaking up meetings between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and intimidating the participants like jackbooted thugs. These are people behaving in a way that does not deserve being rewarded with anything, let alone a state. They far more resemble all tyrannical thugs throughout history who spend their lives telling other people how to live, and using violence, or threats of violence, to coerce anyone who does not agree. Sadly, there already seems to be too much of that kind of muscling in our Arab and Muslim world, as Egypt's forward-looking President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as well as many others, regularly point out.
Palestinian "anti-normalization" activists disrupt an unofficial Israeli-Palestinian peace conference last year, in Jerusalem's Ambassador Hotel.
The public outcry over a Jewish singer's appearance on a Palestinian TV talk show is yet another reminder of how we Palestinians have made ourselves intolerable to Israelis, even to those who are sympathetic to our cause and believe in peace and coexistence.
The campaign on social media against the singer and the TV show also provides proof of increasingly racist sentiments among our people. We automatically dismiss anyone wearing a kippa because we assume he is a "settler" who hates Arabs and Muslims. It is embarrassing to read many of the comments posted by Palestinian activists concerning the singer's religion and kippa.
With such attitudes, how can we ever make peace with Israel? If hosting a Jewish singer on a Palestinian TV talk show has drawn such fierce opposition and denunciations, what will happen the day any Palestinian leader signs a peace treaty with our Jewish neighbors?
How many times have Palestinians appeared in the Israeli media during the past few decades? Has anyone ever heard of such protests by Israeli Jews? Israeli media outlets have even been conducting interviews with some of Israel's worst enemies, including Palestinians who mercilessly killed innocent Jews. Still, we never saw disgusting and racist reactions like the ones posted on social media after the interview with the Jewish singer.
Over the years, we have taught our people to hate not only Israel, but Jews as well -- as is already cemented in the Hamas charter. We have done this through incitement in mosques, media outlets and public rhetoric. We have now reached the same stage as Germany's Nazis -- the same thing, ironically, we falsely accuse the Jews of being -- where our people consider the appearance of a Jew on a Palestinian TV show an act of "treason" and a "crime." In reality, it is we who are the New Nazis.
The case of the Jewish singer shows that the BDS and "anti-normalization" folks are nothing but a group of racist brown-shirts working to destroy any chance of peace and coexistence between Palestinians and Israel. Their hysterical reaction to the TV interview with Yehezkel proves that our people are continuing to march backward, toward more extremism, racism and Nazism.
Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.
© 2015 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Why the West Should Listen to Hungary on Muslim Refugees
Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/September 26/15
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been denounced by Western media as "xenophobic" and "full of hate speech" for his opposition to taking in Muslim refugees.
Some central and east European countries are being criticized by more "progressive" Western nations for not wanting to take in Muslim refugees.
Chief among them is Hungary, specifically in the person of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Western media are characterizing him as "xenophobic," "full of hate speech," and Europe's "creeping dictator." Sounding like the mafia boss of the Left, the Guardian simply refers to him as a "problem" that needs to be "solved."
Orbán's crime is that he wants to secure his nation against Muslims and preserve its Christian identity. According to Hungary's prime minister:
Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.... We don't want to criticize France, Belgium, any other country, but we think all countries have a right to decide whether they want to have a large number of Muslims in their countries. If they want to live together with them, they can. We don't want to and I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see....
The prime minister went on to invoke history—and not in the politically correct way, to condemn Christians and whitewash Muslims, but according to reality:
I have to say that when it comes to living together with Muslim communities, we are the only ones who have experience because we had the possibility to go through that experience for 150 years.
A painting by Bertalan Székely commemorates a 1552 Hungarian victory against Ottoman forces besieging Eger.
Orbán is referring to Islam's conquest and occupation of Hungary from 1541 to 1699. Then, Islamic jihad, terrorism, and Christian persecution were rampant.
Nor was Hungary alone. Much of southeastern Europe and portions of modern day Russia were conquered, occupied, and terrorized by the Turks—sometimes in ways that make Islamic State atrocities seem like child's play. (Think of the beheadings, crucifixions, massacres, slave markets, and rapes that have become IS trademarks—but on a much grander scale, and for centuries.)
Still, to Western progressives, such distant memories are lost. In an article titled "Hungary has been shamed by Viktor Orbán's government," the Guardian mocks and trivializes the prime minister's position:
Hungary has a history with the Ottoman empire, and Orbán is busy conjuring it. The Ottoman empire is striking back, he warns. They're taking over! Hungary will never be the same again!... Hence the wire; hence the army; hence, as from today, the state of emergency; hence the fierce, unrelenting rhetoric of hatred. Because that is what it has been from the very start: sheer, crass hostility and slander.
Similarly, the Washington Post, after acknowledging that Hungary was once occupied by the Ottomans—though without any mention of the atrocities it experienced—wondered how "it's somewhat bizarre to think this rather distant past of warlords and rival empires ought to influence how a 21st century nation addresses the needs of refugees."
Blended in among the thousands of refugees are operatives from the Islamic State.
So-called mainstream media ignore the fact that blended in among the thousands of refugees are operatives from the Islamic State, which is currently reliving the "Ottoman days" in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, and which plans on reliving them in Hungary and southeastern Europe. Already, Muslims trying to force their way into Hungary—and Slovenia, which is also resistant to Muslim migrants—are shouting Islam's ancient war cry, "Allah Akbar!"
As for the other, "regular" Muslim refugees, many of them will never assimilate and some will abuse and exploit the weak—particularly women and children—and enforce Islamic law in their enclaves. That's exactly what Orbán was referring to when he said "We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries."
Many "regular" Muslim refugees will never assimilate into their host countries.
To be sure, those "other countries" are not limited to Europe. For example, in Myanmar (Burma), non-indigenous Muslim minorities are behind the same sort of anti-infidel mayhem, violence, and rape.
In response, anti-Muslim sentiment has grown among Buddhist majorities, followed by the usual Western media criticism.
Thus popular Buddhist leader Ashin Wirathu, whom the media refer to as the "Burmese bin Laden," staunchly opposes Muslim presence in Myanmar: "You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog," says the monk in reference to Muslims: "I call them troublemakers, because they are troublemakers."
Reminiscent of Hungary's Orbán, Wirathu also warns that: "If we are weak, our land will become Muslim." The theme song of his party speaks of people who "live in our land, drink our water, and are ungrateful to us"—a reference to Muslims—and how "We will build a fence with our bones if necessary" to keep them out.
The Western media has excoriated Burmese Buddhist leader Ashin Wirathu for seeking to curtail his country's non-indigenous Muslim minority.
Again, sounding like Hungary's Orbán, Wirathu's pamphlets say "Myanmar is currently facing a most dangerous and fearful poison that is severe enough to eradicate all civilization."
To this, the NYT scoffs, arguing that "Buddhism would seem to have a secure place in Myanmar. Nine in 10 people are Buddhist... Estimates of the Muslim minority range from 4 percent to 8 percent."
Justifying Muslim presence in non-Muslim nations on the basis that far outnumbered Muslims can never be a problem is par for the course. After expressing puzzlement at Orbán's stress on history, the Washington Post stressed "the fact that Muslims comprise less than 1 percent of the country's [Hungary's] population."
This media canard ignores Islam's unwavering Rule of Numbers: whenever and wherever Muslims grow in numbers, the same "anti-infidel" violence endemic to Muslim-majority nations grows with them.
Consider the words of Fr. Daniel Byantoro, a Muslim convert to Christianity, discussing the ramifications of Islam's slow entry into what was once a non-Muslim nation but today is the largest Muslim nation:
For thousands of years my country (Indonesia) was a Hindu Buddhist kingdom. The last Hindu king was kind enough to give a tax exempt property for the first Muslim missionary to live and to preach his religion. Slowly the followers of the new religion were growing, and after they became so strong the kingdom was attacked, those who refused to become Muslims had to flee for their life... Slowly from the Hindu Buddhist Kingdom, Indonesia became the largest Islamic country in the world. If there is any lesson to be learnt by Americans at all, the history of my country is worth pondering upon. We are not hate mongering, bigoted people; rather, we are freedom loving, democracy loving and human loving people. We just don't want this freedom and democracy to be taken away from us by our ignorance and misguided "political correctness", and the pretension of tolerance. (Facing Islam, endorsement section).
Indeed. Nations as diverse as Hungary and Myanmar—and leaders as diverse as the Christian Orbán and the Buddhist Wirathu—are well acquainted with Islam. Accordingly, when it comes to the Islamic influx—whether by the sword or in the guise of refugees—instead of judging them, Western nations would do well to learn from their experiences.
Otherwise, they are destined to learn from their own personal experiences—that is, the hard way.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Russians, Syrians and Iranians setting up military coordination cell in Baghdad
By Lucas Tomlinson, Jennifer Griffin/FoxNews.com/September 25, 2015
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/25/russians-syrians-and-iranians-setting-up-military-coordination-cell-in-baghdad/
EXCLUSIVE: Russian, Syrian and Iranian military commanders have set up a coordination cell in Baghdad in recent days to try to begin working with Iranian-backed Shia militias fighting the Islamic State, Fox News has learned.
Western intelligence sources say the coordination cell includes low-level Russian generals. U.S. officials say it is not clear whether the Iraqi government is involved at the moment.
Describing the arrival of Russian military personnel in Baghdad, one senior U.S. official said, "They are popping up everywhere."
The Russians already have been building up their military presence in Syria, a subject expected to factor prominently in a planned meeting between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin in New York Monday on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
While the U.S. also is fighting the Islamic State, the Obama administration has voiced concern that Russia's involvement, at least in Syria, could have a destabilizing effect.
Moscow, though, has fostered ties with the governments in both Syria and Iraq. In May, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi flew to Moscow for an official visit to discuss potential Russian arms transfers and shared intelligence capability, as well as the enhancement of security and military capabilities, according to a statement by the Iraqi prime minister's office at the time.
Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani also was spotted in Baghdad on Sept 22. He met with Shia militias backed by Iran; intelligence officials believe he met with Russians as well.
Meanwhile, a U.S. official described to Fox News how, over the weekend, the Russians were able to move 24 attack jets into Syria undetected.
The Russian military flew 12 Sukhoi Su-25 "Frogfoot" and a dozen Sukhoi Su-24 "Fencer" attack aircraft in "tight formations" under the "steady stream" of the large Russian An-124 cargo planes that have been ferrying supplies from bases in Russia through Iran before traveling on to Syria, the official said.
The large cargo planes appeared as "a big blip" on radar, but flying beneath them were "tight formations" of the smaller Russian fighter jets that used jamming pods and switched off their IFF, which would identify the aircraft to radar.
The large Russian cargo planes have the capability to fly directly from Russia to Syria, but the smaller attack aircraft do not.
"The Russian jets did not have the legs to make it directly from Russia to Syria, and needed a base to refuel," said the official, who spoke to Fox News under the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose sensitive information.
According to the Aviationist, the Russian cargo planes and fighter jets landed at an airbase in Hamadan, Iran, roughly halfway between Baghdad and Tehran on Sept 18-19.
Fox News also has learned from U.S. military sources that the Russians have begun flying some of the Sukhoi fighter and attack jets from Bassel al-Assad airport, in Latakia, now a Russian forward operating base along the Mediterranean.
The planes are not dropping bombs or conducting attack missions, but just flying around near the base, according to one official. The official also confirmed that Russian destroyers are in position off the Mediterranean coast.
On Thursday, State Department spokesman John Kirby denied a U.S. intelligence failure led to U.S. officials being caught unaware of the two dozen Russian warplanes arriving in Syria.
"I can tell you that we've been watching this very, very closely ... and we have not been ignorant of what the Russians have been doing," said Kirby.
Asked Thursday about Russia's military involvement in Syria, Defense Secretary Ash Carter cautioned that without Russian support for a "political transition" in Damascus, it could "pour gasoline on the ISIL phenomenon rather than to lead to the defeat of ISIL."
But just two days ago, Secretary of State John Kerry said the Russian build-up was consistent with defensive measures.
"For the moment, it is the judgment of our military and most experts that the level and type represents basically force protection, a level of protection for their deployment to an airbase given the fact that it is in an area of conflict,'' Kerry said at the State Department Tuesday.
This week, former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill, warning that inaction in Syria carries risks for the United States.
"Russia's recent military escalation in Syria is a further reminder that when the U.S. does not take the initiative, others will fill the vacuum -- often in ways that are harmful to our interests," Petraeus said.
Lucas Tomlinson is the Pentagon and State Department producer for Fox News Channel. You can follow him on Twitter: @LucasFoxNews
Jennifer Griffin currently serves as a national security correspondent for FOX News Channel . She joined FNC in October 1999 as a Jerusalem-based correspondent.

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