LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

January 16/17

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

 

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site

http://www.eliasbejjaninews.com/newsbulletins17/english.january16.17.htm

 

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006

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

Bible Quotations For Today
If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 16/24-28/:"Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life? ‘For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been
done.Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

God Of mercies and all consolation, consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction
Second Letter to the Corinthians 01/03-07/:"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ. If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation; if we are being consoled, it is for your consolation, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we are also suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our consolation."

Pope Franis admits to 'darkness' in own faithالبابا فرنسيس يقر بأننا نمر في أحيانا أوقات إيمان ظلامية
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2017/01/15/pope-francis-admits-to-darkness-in-own-faith%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B3-%D9%8A%D9%82%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%A3%D9%86%D9%86%D8%A7-%D9%86%D9%85%D8%B1-%D9%81/
Guidonia (Italy) (AFP) - Pope Francis admitted on Sunday to sometimes having "darkness" cloud his own faith, while warning against "Christian parrots" who pay lip service to the church without acting on its values. "At certain times, I have also encountered moments of darkness in my faith and that faith decreased a lot, but with a little bit of time we rediscover it," the Pointiff told parishioners after saying mass in a village near Rome. "Some days we can't see faith, everything is in darkness. "Yesterday, for example, I christened 13 children in areas devastated by earthquakes and there was a father who had lost his wife, and we ask ourselves if this man can have faith. "We understand that there is darkness, we must respect this darkness of the soul. We don't study to get faith, we receive it like a gift."Francis also urged believers to spend more time talking to their family. "If I say I'm Catholic and every Sunday I go to mass but then I don't talk to my parents, I don't help my grandparents, the poor, I don't visit the sick, then there's no point," said Francis. "In that way, we're nothing but a Christian parrot: words, words, words."

Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 15-16/17
Behind Aoun’s visit to Saudi Arabia/Shadi Alaa Eddine/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Israel steps up shadow war with Hezbollah/Ed Blanche/The Arab WeeklyJanuary 15/17
Lebanese hope for new relations with Riyadh/Dalal Saoud/The Arab Weekly//January 15/17
Lebanon moves to oil exploration stage/Walid Khadduri/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
An exchange on Israel and the “Palestinians” between Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. and Robert Spencer/JRobert Spencer/Jihad Watch/January 15/17
Obama's Mideast Legacy Is One of Tragic Failure/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/January /17
The Bigotry against Israel in the UN/Salim Mansur/Gatestone Institute/January 15/17
Anger in Egypt as Red Sea islands’ handover looms/Amr Emam/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17/
Middle East Christians remain hopeful for the future despite ISIS violence in 2016/Amr Emam/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Courting the Copts/Mohamad Abou el-Fadel/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Damascus goes dry as Syria’s grim water wars intensify/Sami Moubayed/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
The Middle East in 2017: A chaotic regional order emerging/Nassif Hitti/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
The 6 Religious Leaders Who Will Pray At Trump’s Inauguration/Harry Farley/Christian Today/January 15/17

Titles For Latest Lebanese Related News published on January 15-16/17
Hamadeh: Lebanon Now Practicing a More Independent Foreign Policy
Efforts to Reach New Electoral Law Stumble as 1960 Law Chances Surge
Hizbullah Condemns Bahrain's Execution of Three Shiites
Qaouq Says Govt. a 'Failure' if 1960 Electoral Law Re-Endorsed
Four Wounded in Fresh Ain el-Hilweh Clash
Mustaqbal 'Besieges' Rifi as Hariri Throws Support behind Mashnouq
Mufti Deryan concludes visit to KSA
Raad: Full proportional electoral law with single district ensures equity
Rahi: Changing mentalities helps us develop new electoral law
Kanaan: LF, FPM understanding strategic
Hariri praises closing statement of Paris ME Peace Conference
Jumblatt sends condolences cable to UAE President denouncing Afghanistan bombing
Protest by Civil Movements at Beirut Airport: For aviation safety remove landfill
Zeaiter says Arabs should come together to fight terrorism
Bomb tossed in Ain Helwe Camp, no casualties reported
Teen abducted from Nabatiyeh, $3K demanded in ransom
Behind Aoun’s visit to Saudi Arabia
Israel steps up shadow war with Hezbollah
Lebanese hope for new relations with Riyadh
Lebanon moves to oil exploration stage


Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 15-16/17
Israel: New gov't bill allows for assistance in registering as Aramean
French FM blasts Trump for embassy move plan
At Paris meeting, major powers to warn Trump over Middle East peace
Bahrain Executions Spark Violent Protests
Trump Unleashes Attack on U.S. Civil Rights Icon
Trump Warned Off Unilateral Mideast Moves at Paris Peace Conference
Clashes in Wadi Barada near Damascus after Negotiator Killed
German Jet Lands in Kuwait over Hoax Bomb Threat
Yemen Shelling Kills Saudi Soldier on Border
Former Iraqi Vice President: Ghasem Soleimani Told Me Iran Has Relations With Al-Qaida
Iran Regime's State Newspapers: Vienna Meeting, Negotiating With Bare Hands
French Organization Calls for a Boycott of Iran Regime’s Football

Links From Jihad Watch Site for on January 15-16/17
Paris peace conference: No “acceptable” solution for Israel and “Palestinians” except two states
French pol: “Islam is a religion of peace and solidarity”
Hugh Fitzgerald: The Insubmissive Infidel, Or, Just A Jot About Jerusalem
Scotland: Provost of cathedral where Qur’an was read denounces “appeasement” of “those who are Islamophobic
An exchange on Israel and the “Palestinians” between Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. and Robert Spencer
Washington state: Mosque arsonist arrested, cops say “we haven’t seen any evidence that this is a hate crime”
Florida: Iraqi skater claims she was banned from rink for being Iraqi; rink owner says “it’s extortion”
Austria: Muslim migrant “Sharia patrol” breaks girl’s jaw after false claim she pulled off Muslima’s hijab
Washington state: Man charged with threats at mosque is…Muslim
Islam’s Litigious Paranoia
San Diego State University: Hijabbed Muslima drops claim of assault by two Trump supporters
North Carolina: “No evidence” for Hamas-linked CAIR’s claim that teacher assaulted Muslim kindergartener
Israel: Muslim migrant accused of breaking into home, sexually assaulting 12-year-old girl while she slept

Links From Christian Today Site for on January 15-16/17
Pope Francis Makes Passionate Appeal For Care Of Child Migrants
Austria's Far-Right Freedom Party Calls For Ban On 'Fascistic Islam'
Theresa May To Call For National Unity In Major Brexit Speech
We Need A Brexit Plan By Mid-Feb, Parliamentary Committee Tells Theresa May
Iraq Special Forces Sweep Mosul University For Remaining Militants
Washington Protesters Vow To Fight For Civil Rights Under Trump
Baby Kidnapped From Florida Hospital Found Safe 18 Years Later
Trump's Inauguration: Why Who Prays Is Always Controversial
The 6 Religious Leaders Who Will Pray At Trump's Inauguration

Latest Lebanese Related News published on January 15-16/17
Hamadeh: Lebanon Now Practicing a More Independent Foreign Policy

Naharnet/January 15/17/Education Minister Marwan Hamadeh has expressed optimism over the outcome of President Michel Aoun's visit to Saudi Arabia, noting that Lebanon “is now practicing a more independent foreign policy.”“Aoun's visits to Saudi Arabia and Qatar turn the page on ambiguities and open a new chapter with the Arab brothers, and Lebanon is now practicing a more independent foreign policy,” Hamadeh told al-Mustaqbal newspaper in remarks published Sunday. “A lot of Arab capitals are awaiting the factors of time and action in order to become more reassured,” the minister added. Arab tourists will return to Lebanon and the Arab countries “will deal positively with the pending issues,” Hamadeh went on to say.  And apparently referring to Hizbullah, the minister also noted that “the Arab brothers do not want to besiege Lebanon and hold it fully responsible for the actions of some Lebanese parties.”
 
Efforts to Reach New Electoral Law Stumble as 1960 Law Chances Surge
Naharnet/January 15/17/Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq's declaration that it will be difficult to pass a new electoral law before the deadlines expire has given the impression that the country is headed once again to the controversial 1960 law. “Mashnouq's remarks and the continued fruitless debate regarding the electoral law indicate that the parliamentary elections will likely be held under the 1960 law that was amended by the Doha Accord in 2008,” al-Joumhouria newspaper quoted “prominent” parliamentary sources as saying in remarks published Sunday. “This is a fact that should not be overlooked, even if some try to deny it, and the truth must be said as it is,” the sources added. Ruling out consensus over a new electoral law, the sources noted that “each party has its calculations and no one wants to offer concessions.”“Some parties want to seize control of the new parliament in order to control political life in the country,” the sources added. Hizbullah has repeatedly called for an electoral law fully based on proportional representation but other political parties, especially the Progressive Socialist Party and al-Mustaqbal Movement, have rejected the proposal, arguing that the party's controversial arsenal of arms would prevent serious competition in regions where the Iran-backed party has clout. Mustaqbal, the Lebanese Forces and the PSP have meanwhile proposed a hybrid electoral law that mixes the proportional representation and the winner-takes-all systems. Speaker Nabih Berri has also proposed a hybrid law. The country has not voted for a parliament since 2009, with the legislature instead twice extending its own mandate. The 2009 polls were held under an amended version of the 1960 electoral law and the next elections are scheduled for May 2017.
 
Hizbullah Condemns Bahrain's Execution of Three Shiites
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/Hizbullah on Sunday condemned the execution of three Bahraini men found guilty of killing three policemen, calling it "a crime" and "extrajudicial killing" that would undermine any chance for a political solution in Bahrain. The Iran-backed group, which has been critical of the Bahraini government's crackdown on the Shiite-led uprising, said international silence toward what takes place in Bahrain must be met with the "largest solidarity campaign." It also described the executions of the "innocent" men as "part of the big crime committed by the regime against the Bahraini people." "It is clear that this execution will destroy every chance for a political exit out of Bahrain's crisis, and leads the country into an unknown future, threatening stability in Bahrain and the whole region," Hizbullah added in a statement. Bahrain, which has been ruled by the Al-Khalifa dynasty for more than two centuries, has a majority Shiite population which has long complained of marginalization. It has been rocked by sporadic unrest since March 2011 when security forces brutally crushed an Arab Spring-inspired uprising. Since the 2011 uprising, Bahrain has arrested and put on trial hundreds of Shiites and cracked down hard on the opposition, despite repeated appeals by international rights groups.
 
Qaouq Says Govt. a 'Failure' if 1960 Electoral Law Re-Endorsed
Naharnet/January 15/17/Senior Hizbullah official Sheikh Nabil Qaouq warned Sunday that the new government's performance would be deemed a “failure” and the new presidential tenure would suffer a major setback should the controversial 1960 electoral law be re-endorsed.
“Regaining people's confidence is hinging on one thing: the approval of a new electoral law that ensures correct and fair representation,” Qaouq, who is an official in the party's Central Council, said. “The thing that is hindering the start of the new presidential tenure is the 1960 law, which is still 'alive' and which is the perfect recipe for disappointing the hopes of the Lebanese that were pinned on the new government,” the Hizbullah official cautioned. “Its re-endorsement would be the shortest path towards deeming the new government's performance as a failure,” Qaouq added.
“We insist on a law that guarantees just and correct representation, because a new law is the normal and obligatory gateway for building a strong and just state,” the official went on to say. Hizbullah has repeatedly called for an electoral law fully based on proportional representation but other political parties, especially the Progressive Socialist Party and al-Mustaqbal Movement, have rejected the proposal, arguing that the party's controversial arsenal of arms would prevent serious competition in regions where the Iran-backed party has clout. Mustaqbal, the Lebanese Forces and the PSP have meanwhile proposed a hybrid electoral law that mixes the proportional representation and the winner-takes-all systems. Speaker Nabih Berri has also proposed a hybrid law.  The country has not voted for a parliament since 2009, with the legislature instead twice extending its own mandate. The 2009 polls were held under an amended version of the 1960 electoral law and the next elections are scheduled for May 2017.
 
Four Wounded in Fresh Ain el-Hilweh Clash
Naharnet/January 15/17/Four people were wounded Sunday in an armed clash in the Ain el-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp, media reports said. “Gunshots are still being heard every now and then,” MTV reported in the evening. It had said that the clash broke out in the camp's al-Manshiyeh neighborhood over the installation of CCTV security cameras around a new office for the Joint Palestinian Force, which led to an exchange of gunfire. The TV network identified two of those wounded in the clash as Khalil George and Ihab al-Maqdah, the son of senior Palestinian official Abu Bassam al-Maqdah.
 
Mustaqbal 'Besieges' Rifi as Hariri Throws Support behind Mashnouq
Naharnet/January 15/17/The war of words between Interior Minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq and former justice minister Ashraf Rifi took a new turn after Prime Minister and al-Mustaqbal Movement leader Saad Hariri threw his support behind Mashnouq. “A decision to besiege Rifi has been taken in al-Mustaqbal Movement,” sources following up on the issue told al-Joumhouria newspaper in remarks published Sunday. The so-called siege has taken three forms. “The first through a media siege, whose last episode was canceling a TV interview with Rifi's adviser Asaad Beshara, the second was slashing the size of Rifi's guard platoon, and third is the attempt to regain Tripoli's popular bases through resuming Mustaqbal's 'services' in the city,” the sources said. Rifi had lashed out at Mashnouq over the removal of several policemen from his guard platoon, revealing that Hariri had told U.N. investigators probing Rafik Hariri's assassination that Mashnouq might have “leaked” information about his father prior to the 2005 bomb attack. But Hariri jumped into the exchange of tirades on Friday, throwing his support behind Mashnouq. “How mistaken I was when I doubted Nouhad al-Mashnouq and placed my full confidence in some people,” Hariri tweeted. The Mashnouq-Rifi confrontation had first erupted over the arrest of Omar Bahr, one of Rifi's bodyguards, after he allegedly violated Internal Security Forces bylaws. The move prompted Rifi to accuse Mashnouq of corruption and of being a Hizbullah crony. The ex-minister also accused Mashnouq of compromising his security, holding him responsible for any harm that he might face.
 
Mufti Deryan concludes visit to KSA
NNA - Mufti of the Republic, Sheikh Abdel-Latif Deryan, concluded on Sunday his visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in Al Yamama Palace in Riyadh. Mufti Deryan informed King Salman of the situation in Lebanon, and hailed the efforts of KSA aiming at preserving stability and peace in Lebanon and Muslim countries. Deryan said that the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques was keen on preserving unity of the Lebanese and their The King of Saudi Arabia confirmed to his visitor Saudi's permanent support for Lebanon, hoping that this country would overcome its crisis and enjoy harmony and prosperity among its citizens.

Raad: Full proportional electoral law with single district ensures equity
Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Deputy Mohammad Raad stated on Sunday that the proportional law was the most equitable law that should be adopted in the upcoming parliamentary elections. "A full proportional electoral law with a single district is the most proper law that ensures equity in representation," Loyalty to the Resistance bloc leader noted during a funeral ceremony in South of Lebanon. The Deputy added that if the electoral law was not fixed we would not be able to hold officials accountable.
 
Rahi: Changing mentalities helps us develop new electoral law
Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Maronite Patriarch, Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rahi, said on Sunday that the change in mentalities would help in the elaboration of a new electoral law. In his homily in Bkerki, Cardinal Rahi stressed the need for changing attitudes in Lebanon, during the new presidential mandate, the new government formation and constitutional institutions as well as public administrations. "There is a need for renewal at the spiritual, moral and human levels for people who are managing public affairs. A renewal that would be able to eliminate the corruption in public institutions and preserve state funds from waste and diversion," the prelate said. "This will help in reaching an agreement on a new electoral law for Lebanon and its people, not for individuals and factions," Rahi said. He also pointed out that the establishment of a new electoral law would guarantee the renewal of parliamentary elites and would give value to the voice of the elector. Rahi also mentioned President Michel Aoun's recent visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, adding that Lebanese people aspire to more visits to other countries in the east and west in order to consolidate the constructive role of Lebanon in the Arab and international communities.

Kanaan: LF, FPM understanding strategic
Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Deputy Ibrahim Kanaan said on Sunday that the understanding between the Lebanese Forces (LF) and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) was strategic and consecrated partnership and Charter. "It has been proven that this understanding was not seasonal but strategic and allotted a new equation on the Christian level," Change and Reform secretary Kanaan told Voice of Lebanon radio station. "On a national level, this agreement also proved to be a true partnership that the Lebanese lacked," reiterating that the LF-FPM consensus "is for the sake of national unity and was followed up domestically and internationally." The Deputy highlighted the results of this agreement saying that it helped to pave the way for the presidential elections and the cabinet formation with a greater respect for the principles of partnership and proper representation.
  
Hariri praises closing statement of Paris ME Peace Conference
Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Prime Minister Saad Hariri praised the closing statement of the "Conference for Peace in the Middle East" held in Paris, which renewed the commitment to the two-state solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hariri said on "Twitter": "We thank France for organizing the Conference for Peace in the Middle East today and we thank President François Hollande for his just and courageous stance". He added: "There is no solution except based on the Arab peace initiative adopted in Beirut and the establishment of the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." Hariri stressed that the Israeli settlement policy aims at imposing a fait accompli that would thwart any peace process. He also praised the adoption by the Paris closing statement of the United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, which condemns the settlement policy. He concluded: "Lebanon will always adhere to the Arab unanimity and the full rights of the Palestinian brothers, especially the right of return. We will always remain against the settlement in Lebanon in accordance with our Constitution."
 
Jumblatt sends condolences cable to UAE President denouncing Afghanistan bombing
Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Democratic Gathering Head, MP Walid Jumblatt, cabled on Sunday, United Arab Emirates President, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, condemning the "targeting of the guest house of Kandahar Governor in Afghanistan in a terrorist bombing during an Emirates diplomatic mission for a humanitarian cause, which led to the martyrdom of a number of mission relief officials and innocent citizens."In an issued statement by the Progressive Socialist Party Media Commission, Jumblatt said: "This incident demonstrates, despite its tragedy, the positive role played by the UAE on the human level in support of people suffering from major difficulties at the social, developmental and educational level."
 Jumblatt expressed deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of the fallen martyrs and the people of the UAE.
 
Protest by Civil Movements at Beirut Airport: For aviation safety remove landfill
Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Civil activists of "You Stink" Campaign and other Civil Movements gathered at Rafik Hariri International Airport on Sunday evening, in protest against "the way of dealing with the birds threatening the safety of civil aviation crisis," NNA correspondent at Beirut Airport reported. Civil activist Lucien Abu Rjeily called for "the removal of the main reason for this crisis, namely the Costa Brava Landfill."

Zeaiter says Arabs should come together to fight terrorism

Sun 15 Jan 2017/NNA - Agriculture Minister, Ghazi Zeaiter, said on Sunday that the Arab country was facing a very difficult security situation, and Arabs should stand shoulder to shoulder to counter terrorism because what is happening today is in Israel’s interest.
Zeaiter’s fresh words came during his meeting in his residence in Baalbek with municipality delegations, farmers and a number of figures. He stressed the necessity to visit Arab countries, notably Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Gulf states, in order to implement the agreements concluded with these countries in the agriculture sector.
 
Bomb tossed in Ain Helwe Camp, no casualties reported
 Sun 15 Jan 2017 /NNA - National News Agency Correspondent said on Sunday that an unidentified person in the Minchiyye Street of Ain Helwe Camp tossed a bomb at dawn, adding that no casualties have been reported yet. The incident was coupled with gunfire shot in the air.
 
Teen abducted from Nabatiyeh, $3K demanded in ransom
Sun 15 Jan 2017 /NNA - Marwa Youssef Makki, aged 15, was abducted from her home town of Habboush in Nabatiyeh, south of the country, on Sunday. Her kidnappers demanded a ransom of three thousand US dollars. The teenager's father pressed charges against anonymous culprits at the police station in Nabatiyeh. An investigation has been launched into the matter.
 
Behind Aoun’s visit to Saudi Arabia
Shadi Alaa Eddine/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Iran may also use guaranteeing safety of Saudi tourists in Lebanon as gesture of goodwill.
The recent visit to Saudi Arabia and Qatar by Lebanese President Michel Aoun was aimed at winning back Saudi donations to the Lebanese Army and re-establishing Lebanon as a touristic destination for Gulf country citizens. Some political analysts also saw in the visit a renewed triumph for Lebanon’s open-door policy and the laying down of a welcome mat for more Arabs returning to the country.  These readings overlook, whether deliberately or inadvert­ently, the series of events and reasons that had led to Aoun’s visit.
 The first thing to note is that the trip came after a Saudi- French deal regarding the Saudi $3 billion donation to the Lebanese Army that was contin­gent on buying French-made weapons. The deal must have lessened Saudi fears that the new weapons would end up in the hands of the Hezbollah militia by stipulating that the manufactur­ing and delivery of the weaponry be carried out in several lots and phases in accordance with the immediate needs of the Lebanese Army.
 In France, Syrian President Bashar Assad is being rehabili­tated politically. He recently played host to right-wing French representative Thierry Mariani. Other French politicians’ visits are likely to follow, which would seem to indicate a change in the countries’ relations with the rise of the conservative right in French politics. The French right is, on the whole, favourable to the Syrian president.
 It would seem then that direct French economic interests in conjunction with forthcoming new foreign policies have laid the groundwork for the visit of a Lebanese president considered in Saudi Arabia as belonging to the camp opposing the Syrian- Iranian axis in the region.
 We must not also overlook Russian interests in the affair. Before being scrapped in defer­ence to American sensitivities, a project by the Lebanese Army to purchase $500 million worth of Russian weapons had been in the works. The Americans were, at the time, providing aid to the Lebanese Army in the form of weapons and equipment.
 US-Russian relations are on the threshold of a new and com­pletely different era. With Donald Trump in the White House, American reservations on the armament deal with Russia may be lifted. Some sources indicated that Aoun’s agenda in Saudi Arabia included discussing using part of the Saudi donation or funds from other Gulf sources to finance the deal with Russia.  Iran did not try to torpedo Aoun’s visit to Saudi Arabia simply because it is compatible with its interests in Lebanon and the region. The eventual return of Saudi Arabia on the Lebanese scene, despite the heavy pres­ence of Hezbollah there, would count as recognition of Iran’s influence in the region. Iran will also try to barter its influence in other hot spots such as Yemen and Syria.
 Contrary to what many may say, Hezbollah is not opposed to the return of Gulf tourists to Lebanon. Many of its members and sympathisers work in tourism and have been suffering during the severe crisis in the sector. With the Shia party waging a war in Syria and funds being more scarce, Hezbollah can no longer financially support all its sympathisers. More tourists returning to Lebanon would work to its economic advantage.  Their eventual return to the country carries with it more than economic recovery. It could also be exploited politically. Aoun, for example, might market it as a major achievement that would also strengthen Christian hold on power. With economic recovery, the Sunni side, namely the Future Movement Party, might be amenable to accept the government’s decisions.  Iran may also use guaranteeing the safety of Saudi tourists in Lebanon as a gesture of goodwill. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security of the Islamic Consultative Assem­bly of Iran, paid a visit to Leba­non prior to Aoun’s trip to Saudi Arabia and renewed Iran’s offer to equip the Lebanese Army.
 Among these strategies and projects by France, Russia and Iran in Lebanon, an Arab project is painfully absent. These countries have built their projects and strategies in Lebanon on clear and direct interests. Even Aoun’s visit to Saudi Arabia was planned with these interests in mind.
 The return of normal Leba­nese-Gulf relations is meaning­less in the absence of a clear Arab project for Lebanon.
 *Shadi Alaa Eddine is a Lebanese writer.
 
Israel steps up shadow war with Hezbollah
Ed Blanche/The Arab WeeklyJanuary 15/17
Hezbollah is estimated — largely by Israel — to possess more than 130,000 rockets and missiles, in­cluding long-range weapons capa­ble of destroying city blocks.
Vast majority of arms supplied to Hezbollah from Iran pass through Syria
 Beirut - Israel’s Institute for Nation­al Security Studies (INSS) stressed in its annual strategic assessment, released January 2nd, that Hezbollah remains the most serious threat the Jewish state faces.
 It urged Israel’s intelligence es­tablishment to intensity efforts to block the transfer of advanced weapons systems to Hezbollah — a process that may already be under way with a spate of air and missiles strikes against Syria.
 The vast majority of the arms supplied to Hezbollah from Iran pass through Syria. Hezbollah, a key force keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power amid the war in the country, is reportedly building military bases and seek­ing to establish a presence in the disputed Golan Heights, a strategic volcanic plateau that overlooks Is­rael’s agricultural heartland.  Iran, Hezbollah’s patron and arms supplier, is listed as the second-ranking military threat by INSS, in part because of its distance from Israel.
 Combined, Iran and Hezbollah, which serves as the Islamic repub­lic’s strategic arm in the Levant, present a comprehensive threat to Israel that far exceeds any other. This ranges from Iran’s growing bal­listic missile force and the nuclear weapons Israel’s military leaders are convinced it will develop in the coming years to Hezbollah’s emerg­ing tactical capabilities.
 Much of that is due to advanced weaponry it amassed in recent years despite repeated Israeli air strikes against weapons convoys and targeted assassinations in Syria and Lebanon of key figures in ac­quiring or developing Hezbollah’s firepower.
 Hezbollah is estimated — largely by Israel — to possess more than 130,000 rockets and missiles, in­cluding long-range weapons capa­ble of destroying city blocks.
 In recent weeks, the covert war between Israel and Hezbollah that has dragged on for five years ap­parently flared again, possibly this time with higher stakes.
 There have been several missiles attacks reported in Syria, all pre­sumably Israeli weapons launched from either the Israeli-occupied sector of the Golan Heights or from Lebanese airspace. These were ap­parently aimed at curtailing de­liveries of advanced weapons to Hezbollah that in the past have reportedly included Soviet-era SA- 22 air defence missiles, which, for the first time, allow Hezbollah to directly challenge Israel’s control of the air in Lebanon and Syria, and Yakhont anti-ship missiles that could be used against Israel’s off­shore gas facilities.
 On November 30th, at least two missiles, apparently fired by Israeli jets in Lebanese airspace, hit a con­voy of trucks outside Damascus, triggering speculation the trucks were carrying advanced weapons to Hezbollah.
 On December 2nd, Israel report­edly conducted two air strikes us­ing Popeye missiles around Damas­cus, one against a weapons depot manned by the Syrian Army’s crack 4th Armoured Division at Sabbou­ra, north-west of the Syrian capital. The other blasted several cars near the Damascus-Beirut highway.
 In a 3am strike on December 7th, several surface-to-surface mis­siles hit installations in the Mezzeh military airbase at Damascus Inter­national Airport, where Hezbollah maintains a high-security facility for receiving arms airlifted from Iran before they are trucked to Leb­anon. The missiles started several big fires at the airport, triggering major explosions.  In a separate attack on that date, Hezbollah facilities in and around the town of Zabadani, on the bor­der with Lebanon and a key junc­tion in the overland arms route to Hezbollah strongpoints, were hit. On January 13th, Syria accused Is­rael of another missile strike on the Mezzeh base in a predawn attack that triggered multiple explosions and caused casualties.
 Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu acknowledged for the first time in April 2016 that Israel has been mounting air strikes in Syrian territory to curb shipments of what he called “game-changing weaponry” to Hezbollah.
 The Jerusalem Post suggested on December 8th that the Israelis’ strikes the previous day had tar­geted “the presumed base of the Syrian Army’s secretive Unit 450, a branch of the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre that is at the centre of the Assad regime’s chemical weapons programme north of Damascus”. On the same day, Israel’s hawkish Defence minister, Avigdor Lieber­man, raised the ante by claim­ing that the Israeli Air Force had thwarted an attempt to transfer chemical weapons from Syria to Lebanon.
 If that is true, it suggests that Hezbollah and Iran may be pre­pared to escalate the covert efforts to upgrade Hezbollah’s arsenal to a highly dangerous new level.  Lieberman often shoots from the hip and his comments may have had political overtones but it was the first time a top-level Israeli offi­cial had voiced such concerns.  These air and missile strikes con­stitute what the Israelis call a “cam­paign between wars”, a concept that involves overt and covert oper­ations designed to thwart emerging threats, particularly the acquisition of advanced weaponry.
 This is a finely balanced confron­tation short of war in which both sides observe certain restraints that will prevent hostilities escalating to all-out conflict.  But now Israel seems to be step­ping up the shadowy conflict with Hezbollah, as Iran seeks to estab­lish a presence in the divided Go­lan, a red line for Israel.  Lieberman warned that while Is­rael has no interest in intervening in the Syrian war, it would take ac­tion to preserve Israelis’ security, particularly on advanced weapons transfers to Hezbollah. Israel, he declared, “will make decisions ac­cording to this policy without tak­ing other circumstances or restric­tion into account”.
 **Ed Blanche has covered Middle East affairs since 1967. He is the Arab Weekly analyses section editor.
 
Lebanese hope for new relations with Riyadh
Dalal Saoud/The Arab Weekly//January 15/17
Saudi official source in Riyadh explains that 'nothing official has been decided' concerning suspended Saudi military aid to Lebanon.
Beirut - After turning its back to Lebanon for nearly a year, leaving the tiny country on the verge of collapse, Saudi Arabia received with open arms Hezbol­lah-backed Lebanese President Michel Aoun on his first official trip in office.
The January 9th-10th visit repre­sented a Saudi policy shift. It came after mounting tensions linked to its rivalry with Iran and revived Lebanese hopes for a swift return of Saudi and other Gulf tourists and badly needed investments.
Ties between the two countries were strained after Riyadh sus­pended $4 billion in military aid to Lebanon last February. It also advised Saudi citizens to stay away from Lebanon, dealing a big blow to the country’s tourism sector. The Saudis were angry about pro-Iran Hezbollah’s heated rhetoric against the Muslim Sunni monarchy and Lebanon’s failure to abide by the Arab consensus and condemn at­tacks by Iranian demonstrators on Saudi missions in Iran.
The fact that Aoun opted for vis­iting Saudi Arabia first was dictated by the need to rectify relations with Riyadh and enlist its help to revital­ise the country’s ailing economy.
Aoun returned to Beirut satis­fied with the outcome of his talks in Riyadh, where he met with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and a short visit to Qatar. Aoun con­firmed that normal relations with the Gulf countries, especially with Saudi Arabia, were restored, “re­gardless of any differences that may arise or that may have arisen in the past in relation to the Syrian file”.
 He said “the direct and indirect results (of his tour) will soon ap­pear”, announcing “an increased return of the Gulf citizens to Leba­non as was the case in the past”. The Saudis, however, main­tained their cautious approach to­wards Lebanon.  King Salman expressed “great trust” in the new Lebanese presi­dent, saying he would “steer Leba­non to the shores of safety and sta­bility”. The Saudi ruler instructed his cabinet to review with their Lebanese counterparts economic, security, military and tourism co­operation.
 A Saudi official source in Riyadh explained that “nothing official has been decided” concerning the suspended Saudi military aid to Lebanon but “it has been agreed to discuss the issue at a later stage between Defence Minister Moham­med bin Salman [bin Abdulaziz], who was out of town at the time of Aoun’s visit, and his Lebanese counterpart and top army com­manders”.  That, the source said, would de­pend on how relations between the two countries develop, taking into consideration “bilateral and regional issues and the importance to guarantee that the weapons are not being leaked to any non-official party”. This was a clear reference to Hezbollah, which Riyadh last year classified as terrorist organisation.  The meeting, the source added, is likely to take place in April due “to important Saudi engagements” before then — a sign of the Saudis’ watchful approach.
 Saudi and Lebanese leaders also agreed to boost “political coordina­tion over certain issues, increase security cooperation for fighting terrorism and drug trafficking, ap­point a new Saudi ambassador to Lebanon soon, secure the return of the Saudi tourists and the Saudi airlines in line with Lebanese secu­rity guarantees for their safety and increasing investment opportuni­ties as well as Lebanese exports to the kingdom”.
 Ignoring Hezbollah’s harsh me­dia campaign against Saudi Arabia, which is aware that the militant group takes its orders from Iran and not the Lebanese state, Saudi officials expressed understand­ing of Lebanon’s peculiar position, especially regarding Syria’s rag­ing war. However, they cautioned Lebanese officials against “adopt­ing political stances in support of outside parties that would reflect negatively on its Arab relations”, the source said.
 Saudi Arabia, which had adopt­ed a neutral stance until its main Sunni ally in Lebanon Saad Hariri returned to power as prime min­ister in November shortly after he endorsed Aoun for the presidency, realised the importance of re-en­gaging with Lebanon.  It was clear that the Saudi policy towards Lebanon was an “attempt to drag Aoun to the middle and push him away from Hezbollah and its patron Iran, and so to corner it”, said Amine Kammourieh, a Leba­nese political analyst.  “The Saudis are betting on start­ing to dismantle the alliances that Iran has knitted with non-Shia forces in the region,” he said. “They realised that their previous policy of letting Iran sneak into the region freely was wrong, adding to that the latest developments in Syria, which were not in their favour, starting with Turkey’s new devia­tion.”  The Saudi kingdom, which Kam­mourieh said was the “wiser state in the region”, is not ready to en­gage in dialogue with Iran or recog­nise its growing influence.
 Dalal Saoud is the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of The Arab Weekly. She is based in Beirut.
 
Lebanon moves to oil exploration stage
Walid Khadduri/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Approval of decrees end­s more than two years of gridlock among politicians on how to pro­ceed with Lebanon’s first-round bidding process.
Beirut - The Lebanese government has agreed, after nearly three years of delay, to approve two decrees. The first delineates five blocks to be put on offer for oil and gas ex­ploration. The second establishes the working model to be used — a hybrid production-sharing contract (PSC).The approval of the decrees end­ed more than two years of gridlock among politicians on how to pro­ceed with the Lebanon’s first-round bidding process. The delay cost Lebanon opportunities, as neigh­bouring Cyprus and Israel made discoveries, attracted major inter­national oil companies (IOCs) in the case of Cyprus and the start of do­mestic production in Israel as well as the signing of sales and purchase contracts with regional countries.  The delay in Lebanon raised an outcry among the public concern­ing corruption. This outcry was reiterated — by two Democratic Al­liance ministers, led by the Druze political leader Walid Jumblatt — during the cabinet’s meeting that approved the two decrees.  The breakthrough was reached as a result of an agreement among the country’s sectarian leaders in late 2016 for Michel Aoun to become president and Saad Hariri prime minister.
 Pre-qualified firms were select­ed in 2015 to take part in the first-round bidding. The list includes major IOCs that showed interest due to the blocks’ potential. Leba­non commissioned international firms to conduct 2D and 3D seismic surveys in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters. The results showed positive prospects.
 ExxonMobil, Chevron and Ana­darko (the United States), Shell (Britain/Netherlands), Total (France), Inpex (Japan), Statoil (Norway), Repsol (Spain), Mersk (Denmark), Petrobras (Brazil), Pet­ronas (Malaysia) and Eni (Italy) are among the companies pre-quali­fied.
 The final selection is to take place in the last quarter of this year. It is not clear how many of the firms are still interested in operating in Leba­non, particularly after the decline in oil prices. Several firms (Exxon Mobil, Total and Eni) are taking a regional interest in the eastern Mediterranean, having expressed interest in operating in both Cyprus and Lebanon.
 The gas process in Lebanon, how­ever, faces more difficult challeng­es. The maritime borders — north with Syria and south with Israel — are not demarcated. The border with Israel poses a particular prob­lem as the countries are formally at war. Demarcating the marine bor­der with Syria is not easy either, as it must await the end of the conflict there and the development of bet­ter relations between the two coun­tries.  Lebanon has not signed joint field development agreements with its marine neighbours. The accords set rules and procedures to develop fields that straddle the waters of multiple countries.  Both Cyprus and Israel launched bids during 2016. Israel has discov­ered around 1.1 trillion cubic metres (tcm) of gas in ten fields and started production from the Tamar field in April 2013. Cyprus has discovered one field, Aphrodite, with about 140 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas reserves.  In the latest bid rounds an­nounced by the two countries last year, Cyprus succeeded in attract­ing Exxon Mobil, Qatar Petroleum, Eni and Total for southern blocks.
 Eni discovered a major field, Zohr, last August in northern Egyp­tian waters, only 5km south of Cyp­riot waters. The projections are that the structure could extend into the southern Cypriot waters, hence the IOCs’ interest in blocks bordering the Zohr discovery.
 Israel has two tasks during 2017. The first is to see to it that the op­erating companies — local Israeli firms and Houston-based Noble En­ergy — receive sufficient credit fa­cilities from international banks to develop the giant Leviathan field. A sales and purchase agreement has been signed with Jordan’s National Power Company for gas supplies over a long-term period.
 The second challenge for Israel is attracting IOCs to participate in gas exploration and development. About 24 blocks were opened to bidding last August and interest was expressed by several firms.  Major exploration work in Isra­el, has been undertaken by Noble Energy, in partnership with local Israeli firms, principally the Delek Group.  Israel gas development slowed in 2015 and 2016 because of a legal battle between the Anti-Monopoly Commission and the operating companies. The former argued that Noble and its partners discovered all the offshore gas fields so far, cre­ating a monopoly that gives them the upper hand in determining fu­ture gas prices and hence power prices to the detriment of the Israeli consumer. The companies argued that the commission was acting contrary to the agreement that they had signed with Israel. The dispute, though having been settled, scared the IOCs.
 The 24-block opening is to assist in further exploration in Israel and create a more positive relationship with the IOCs.
 Walid Khadduri is an Iraqi writer on energy affairs based in Beirut.

Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports And News published on January 15-16/17
Israel: New gov't bill allows for assistance in registering as Aramean
Tova Tzimuki/Ynetnews/January 15/17/A new bill put forth by MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu) and approved by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Bayit Yehudi) allows Israeli-Arabs wishing to change their nationality to Aramean to do so without a fee and complicated paperwork. The government is set to approve a bill Sunday allowing for assistance to be granted to Arab-Israelis who request to register as Aramean. This distinction is for those who wish to differentiate themselves from Arab-Muslim society and/or draft into the IDF. A similar process began with the tenure of Gideon Sa'ar as Minister of the Interior, who allowed them to register as a separate nationality. However, those wishing to register as Aramean were required to fill out numerous forms and pay a fee of NIS 1,200 per request. According to the new bill put forth by MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beytenu) and supported by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Bayit Yehudi), those wishing to change their registration need only fill out a short form and will be exempt from paying a fee. Another section of the bill further states that a family representative may submit an application on behalf of several people from the same family.

French FM blasts Trump for embassy move plan
Eichner and Kobi Nachshoni/Ynetnews/January 15/17/As 72 countries convene in Paris in an effort to reiterate their united support for a two-state solution as being the only viable premise for peace, and to pressure President-elect Trump to renege on his campaign pledge to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, French FM condemns it as a 'provocation' with 'serious repercussions.' The French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault delivered harsh criticism Sunday against US President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “The suggestion is a provocation with serious ramifications,” Ayrault warned during the Paris Peace Summit which took place on Sunday and which was attended by representatives from 72 different countries. Asked whether it was a provocation, Ayrault was unequivocal in his response. “Obviously. He can’t do it. There will be the most serious ramifications. It isn’t the first time that this has been on the agenda of an American president but none of them actually implemented the decision,” he answered. “You can’t make unilateral decisions. You have to create the conditions for peace.” Representatives from dozens of countries are using the summit, which was still underway by Sunday afternoon, to send a message to Trump that a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians is the only way forward. They also wanted to warn that his plan to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem could derail peace efforts. Outside of the hall where the conference was being held, hundreds of Israeli supporters demonstrated, carrying Israeli flags and waving placards which sought to draw attention to the rampant killings taking place around the world, particularly in the Middle East, in an effort to highlight the world’s apparent ignoring of mass bloodshed. “500,000 dead in Iraq, one conference in Paris?,” one sign read. “The illusion of peace by sacrificing Israel,” was the general theme of the protest. While Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has designated the Paris peace conference as the "last chance" for peace, officials in Jerusalem strongly condemned the conference. "This is a redundant, futile conference and this is not how to make peace. International conferences and UN resolutions only distance us from peace because they encourage the Palestinians to continue to refuse direct negotiations with Israel. The only way for peace is bilateral negotiations between the two sides, as was done with Egypt and with Jordan.

At Paris meeting, major powers to warn Trump over Middle East peace
Ynetnews/Reuters//January 15/17/Despite the absence of both Israeli and Palestinian representatives, the Paris peace conference is set to begin Sunday and send a strong message to the incoming Trump administration that his embassy pledge can derail peace efforts.
Major powers will send a message to US President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday that a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians is the only way forward, and warn that his plan to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem could derail peace efforts.
Some 70 countries, including key European and Arab states as well as the permanent members of the UN Security Council, are due in Paris for a meeting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected as "futile" and "rigged." Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be represented. However, just under a week before Trump is sworn in, the conference provides a platform for countries to send a strong signal to the future American leader. Trump has pledged to pursue more pro-Israeli policies and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv, where it has been for 68 years, to Jerusalem, despite international objections. "It would be a unilateral decision that could escalate tensions on the ground," a senior French diplomat said. "Five days before he becomes president, it's not negligible that 70 countries recall (the need for) a two-state solution when his administration could implement controversial measures that may aggravate things."France has said the meeting does not intend to impose anything on Israel or the Palestinians and that, ultimately, only direct negotiations between the two can resolve the conflict. A draft communiqué seen by Reuters reaffirms existing international resolutions, urges both sides to restate their commitment to the two-state solution and disavow officials who reject it, and asks the protagonists to "refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations".
Low Point
Diplomats said there could also be an allusion to Trump's plans.Relations between the United States and Israel have soured during President Barack Obama's administration, reaching a low point late last month when Washington declined to veto a UN resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlements in occupied territory. Obama's secretary of state, John Kerry, said the settlement program threatened Middle East peace, and that the two-state was in "serious jeopardy". Palestinian President Authority Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday that he had written to Trump warning that a move to Jerusalem would kill off the peace process and strip the United States of its role as honest broker - and could lead to the Palestinians going back on their recognition of Israel. Home to Europe's largest Muslim and Jewish communities, France has tried to breathe new life into the peace process over the past year. It believes that, with the uncertainty surrounding how the next US administration will handle the issue, it is important to push the sides back to talks rather than allowing a fragile status quo to fester.
But with elections coming up this year in France and Germany, and Britain appearing to align itself more closely with the Trump administration on the issue, the prospects of the European Union, the largest economic partner for both Israel and the Palestinians, taking a lead on the matter appear unlikely. Arab states have their own concerns about how Trump's relationship with them will turn out, and have taken a cautious line. "All this is premature. We need to give the new US administration time to assess what they want to do," said a Middle Eastern diplomat based in Paris.

Bahrain Executions Spark Violent Protests
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/Bahrain on Sunday executed three men found guilty of killing three policemen, sparking violent protests and stoking tensions between the country's Shiite majority and its Sunni rulers. The three Shiites faced the firing squad, six days after a court upheld their death sentences over a bomb attack in March 2014, the prosecutor's office said. Bahrain, which has been ruled by the al-Khalifa dynasty for more than two centuries, has a majority Shiite population which has long complained of marginalization.
It has been rocked by sporadic unrest since March 2011 when security forces brutally crushed an Arab Spring-inspired uprising. The executions triggered protests in Shiite villages. Demonstrators blocked roads with burning tires and police retaliated by firing tear gas, according to posts on social media. Pictures shared online by activists showed relatives of those executed weeping over their deaths. Bahrain authorities do not permit international news agencies to cover events independently. The executions came a day after demonstrations broke out across Shiite villages following rumors they were going to be put to death. They are the first in six years in the Gulf kingdom, according to London-based human rights group, Reprieve. "It is nothing short of an outrage -- and a disgraceful breach of international law -- that Bahrain has gone ahead with these executions," Reprieve director Maya Foa said.  Reprieve said the executions went ahead "despite serious concerns that their convictions were based on evidence obtained under torture."
 'Black day
 Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, head of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, said: "This is a black day in Bahrain's history.""It is the most heinous crime committed by the government of Bahrain and a shame upon its rulers." Scores of men and women took to the streets on Saturday after the families of the three were summoned to meet them in prison, a measure that usually precedes the implementation of death sentences, witnesses said.  "No, no to execution," the protesters chanted. Later on Saturday, a policeman was wounded when his patrol came under fire in the Shiite village of Bani Jamra, said the interior ministry.  The outlawed al-Ashtar Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack in a purported statement, saying the "heroic operation" was a warning to authorities not to harm "brothers sentenced to death." Authorities have said that the trio and fellow defendants belonged to the same clandestine group which has claimed several bomb attacks in Bahrain. The high court on Monday upheld the death sentences against the trio convicted in a bomb attack in March 2014, which killed three policemen, including an officer from the United Arab Emirates.  The executed men have been named by activists as Sami Mushaima, 42, Ali al-Singace, 21, and Abbas al-Samea, 27. Seven other defendants received life terms. The Emirati officer was part of a Saudi-led Gulf force which rolled into Bahrain in March 2011 to help put down a month of Shiite-led protests. Bahrain is a strategic ally of the United States and home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.  Iran's foreign ministry on Sunday criticized the Bahraini authorities for what it called an "inconsiderate action.""The Bahraini regime with its security approach is on its way to complete political blockage," ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi said. Lebanon's Hizbullah, which is backed by Iran, slammed the executions of the "innocent" men as "part of the big crime committed by the regime against the Bahraini people." "It is clear that this execution will destroy every chance for a political exit out of Bahrain's crisis, and leads the country into an unknown future, threatening stability in Bahrain and the whole region," it said.  Brian Dooley, director of Human Rights Defenders at the Washington-based Human Rights First, urged the United States to use its influence. "Washington should warn its Gulf ally that this would be a reckless, frightening level of repression to pursue, likely to spark rage and further violence in an already volatile region," he said on Saturday. Since the 2011 uprising, Bahrain has arrested and put on trial hundreds of Shiites and cracked down hard on the opposition, despite repeated appeals by international rights groups. Cleric Ali Salman, the head of al-Wefaq largest opposition group, was arrested in December 2014 and later sentenced to nine years in prison after being convicted of inciting hatred.

Trump Unleashes Attack on U.S. Civil Rights Icon
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/President-elect Donald Trump lashed out Saturday at a prominent civil rights icon and lawmaker who said he is skipping next week's inauguration ceremony because he sees the New York businessman's election as illegitimate.
Trump aimed his latest Twitter blast at longtime congressman John Lewis and the majority-black district in Georgia he represents, drawing widespread criticism just days before the holiday honoring the slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. Lewis, whose district includes Atlanta and surrounding areas, on Friday became the highest-profile Democratic lawmaker to boycott Trump's inauguration. "I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president," he told NBC's "Meet the Press" talk show in an interview on Friday.
 Trump fired back at him early on Saturday. "Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results," Trump said on Twitter. "All talk, talk, talk -- no action or results. Sad!"He followed up later in the evening with a tweet repeating his campaign theme that African Americans are living in desperately grim inner-city areas where they lack education and jobs.
 Lewis "should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the US," he said. "I can use all the help I can get!"
 Inaugural boycott
 Known for his decades of work in the civil rights movement, Lewis, 76, marched with King at the August 1963 rally in Washington at which King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.  The son of sharecroppers, Lewis took part in the Freedom Rides -- challenges to segregated facilities at bus terminals in the South. On March 7, 1965, he led a march in Selma, Alabama that ended in an attack by state troopers on the protesters that later became known as "Bloody Sunday." At least 16 House Democrats have publicly stated they will not be attending Trump's swearing-in at the US Capitol next Friday, with several indicating their absence will be an act of political protest -- but Lewis is the most prominent. In his interview with NBC, he cited what he called Russian interference in the November 8 election as his reason for skipping the presidential inauguration for the first time since becoming a member of Congress in 1987.  "I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton," he told the network in the interview, which will air in full on Sunday. U.S. intelligence organizations have accused Russia of cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee and distributing hacked emails from senior Clinton aides in an effort to influence the U.S. election. Trump has acknowledged that Moscow likely meddled in the election, but has staunchly refuted any notion that it helped him defeat Clinton.
 'A true American hero'
 Lewis earned a flood of support from Democratic colleagues -- and a few Republicans -- on Twitter. "Ahead of #MLKDay2017, let us remember that many have tried to silence @repjohnlewis over the years. All have failed," House Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi said. "Rep. John Lewis was beaten, bloodied & arrested 40+ times marching for civil rights," Senator Chris Coons of Delaware wrote. "He is a true American hero and represents the best of us.""Is this really happening?" Rhode Island Representative David Cicilline said. "The incoming President is attacking an American civil rights icon during Martin Luther King Jr. weekend?" Without directly denouncing Trump's comments, Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska linked to a photo of Lewis at a civil rights march, with the message, "John Lewis and his 'talk' have changed the world."
 'We won't go back'
 Some 2,000 demonstrators, the majority of them black, marched in Washington on Saturday to the park near the Martin Luther King Memorial in the city's first major protest ahead of Trump's January 20 inauguration. Some chanted, "We will not be Trumped.""We won't go back," said civil rights leader Al Sharpton, calling on marchers to fight to defend the accomplishments of Barack Obama's eight years in the White House. "We want this nation to understand what has been fought for and gained," he added. "You are going to need more than one election to turn it around."Many of those gathered expressed pessimism about the incoming Trump administration. Valerie Williams, a black woman who had traveled to the nation's capital from New York for the march, told AFP she fears that for the next four years, "nobody in the government is going to have my concerns at heart.""Unfortunately when they elected Obama president, black people mistakenly thought that meant that this country was more tolerant of different races," she said. "But we saw over the past eight years that it just made some people that were probably inherently racist upset, and all those people came bubbling to the top." Hundreds of thousands of Americans are preparing to demonstrate nationwide as Trump prepares to take office, most notably at the Women's March on Washington the day after the inauguration. Organizers say that event could attract some 200,000 people.
 
Trump Warned Off Unilateral Mideast Moves at Paris Peace Conference
 Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/France warned Sunday of "serious consequences" if Donald Trump moves to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital as representatives from 70 countries met in Paris to try to revive stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are represented at the conference, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed as "futile." Opening the meeting, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the international community wanted to "forcefully reiterate that the two-state solution is the only solution possible" to the seven-decade-old conflict. He also warned the U.S. president-elect against relocating the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in a move to recognize the contested city as Israel's capital. Ayrault said such a move, which Trump promised during campaigning, would have "extremely serious consequences" and predicted the incoming U.S. leader would find it impossible to implement.  "When you are president of the United States, you cannot take such a stubborn and such a unilateral view on this issue. You have to try to create the conditions for peace," he told France 3 TV. Both Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been invited to meet with President Francois Hollande to discuss the conclusions of the Paris talks. Abbas, who has backed the conference, is expected to travel to Paris in the coming weeks but Netanyahu has rejected the offer, French diplomats said. The Israeli premier on Sunday again heaped criticism on the conference, calling it "futile.""It was coordinated between the French and the Palestinians with the aim of imposing upon Israel conditions that are incompatible with our national needs," he told a weekly cabinet meeting.  The Paris conference is mainly symbolic, but comes at a crucial juncture for the Middle East, five days before Trump is sworn in as U.S. president.Israel, which insists only direct talks with the Palestinians can bring peace, fears the meeting could produce measures that could be put to the Security Council before Trump takes over. The French have stressed they have no such plans. "France has no other desire than to serve peace, and there is no time to lose," Ayrault said. Tensions between Israelis and Palestinians are running high following a wave of Palestinian attacks. Israel's ongoing expansion of settlements on land the Palestinians want for their state is also seen as a major obstacle to a resolution. Peace efforts have been at a standstill since a U.S.-led initiative collapsed in April 2014.
 'Could destroy peace hopes'
On Saturday, Abbas warned of a major escalation if the U.S. embassy was moved to Jerusalem. The city's status is one of the thorniest issues in the conflict. The Palestinians regard Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, while Israel proclaims the entire city as its capital. "Any attempts at legitimizing the illegal Israeli annexation of the city will destroy the prospects of any political process, bury the hopes for a two-state solution, and fuel extremism in our region, as well as worldwide," Abbas warned.U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who rebuked Israel recently over its settler activity on Palestinian territory, will join the talks on his farewell tour, along with delegates from the U.N., EU and Arab League.  A draft conference communique called on Israel and the Palestinians to restate their support for two states and to refrain from "unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations."
 'One-state reality'
 Israel fears being further isolated by the conference, which comes hot on the heels of a landmark December U.N. resolution criticizing the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The vote passed after the Obama administration -- in a parting shot at Netanyahu after years of frustrated mediation efforts -- took the rare step of abstaining rather than using its veto to protect Israel. Explaining the U.S. abstention, Kerry warned last month that settlement expansion, terrorism and violence were "increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality" that would never yield real peace. Trump, who had urged the U.S. to veto the text, has said "there's nobody more pro-Israeli than I am." His choice for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is a hardliner who says he looks forward to working from "Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem."Nathan Thrall, senior Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group, dismissed the conference as "inconsequential.""If there are no consequences, if nobody is listening, if they are repeating the same thing they said over and over again, it amounts to a charade," he told AFP.
 
Clashes in Wadi Barada near Damascus after Negotiator Killed
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/Heavy clashes erupted overnight between regime and rebel forces near Damascus after the official who negotiated a deal to restore water to the Syrian capital was killed, a monitor said Sunday. Government workers had entered the formerly rebel-held area in the Wadi Barada region near Damascus on Friday to begin restoring water to the capital after weeks of shortages. "Fierce fighting broke out after midnight between regime forces, fighters from Hizbullah and the rebels, after gunmen killed the negotiator, Ahmed al-Ghadban," said Rami Abdel Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Ghadban had been on his way to the Ain al-Fijeh spring with maintenance teams, he told AFP. But following the killing of Ghadban, "regime forces and their allies tried to advance to Ain al-Fijeh," bombarding rebel positions with heavy artillery, said Abdel Rahman.  The two sides accused each other of killing the retired army officer, who had only assumed his duties to restore the water supply on Saturday. Under the agreement, Ghadban was to oversee teams working to repair the infrastructure that supplies the capital with water in exchange for a cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of rebel fighters willing to do so. The official SANA news agency reported on Saturday night that "terrorists opened fire" on Ghadban after he left a meeting with armed groups in the village of Ain al-Fijeh. Activists and civil committees in Wadi Barada denounced the killing of Ghadban, which they said had been ordered by the regime with the intention to "kill any hope of a peaceful solution". In a joint statement, they urged rebel factions not to attend peace talks in the Kazakh capital Astana later this month and called for international observers to monitor the ceasefire. Fighting has persisted in Wadi Barada since the entry into force on December 30 of the ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey. The violence caused damage to pipes, leaving more than five million people in Damascus without water. The ceasefire and planned talks are the latest effort to negotiate an end to a conflict that has killed more than 310,000 people since it began with anti-government protests in March 2011.

German Jet Lands in Kuwait over Hoax Bomb Threat
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/A German plane carrying 299 passengers made an emergency landing in Kuwait on Sunday over a hoax bomb threat, authorities in the Gulf emirate said. The aircraft operated by Eurowings, a low-cost carrier owned by Lufthansa, had been traveling from Salalah in Oman to Cologne in Germany when the captain requested an emergency landing. Upon its arrival in Kuwait, the plane was searched for explosives but none were found, a spokesman for the Gulf country's civil aviation authority told the official KUNA news agency.

Yemen Shelling Kills Saudi Soldier on Border

Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 15/17/
Shelling from Yemen has killed a Saudi soldier on the kingdom's southern border, the interior ministry said Sunday. A Border Guards post in Najran region came under attack from "intensive shelling" at 5:00 pm (1400 GMT) Saturday, killing a corporal, the ministry said. Army troops intervened to support the Border Guards. The corporal is the latest of more than 110 soldiers and civilians killed in southern Saudi Arabia by rocket strikes or skirmishes since a Saudi-led coalition began operations in Yemen almost two years ago. In support of President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi's government, the alliance started air strikes after Huthi rebels and their allies overran the capital Sanaa and moved on to other parts of Yemen.
Since then, more than 7,400 people have been killed in Yemen, where United Nations mediation and seven ceasefires have failed to stop the fighting. 

Former Iraqi Vice President: Ghasem Soleimani Told Me Iran Has Relations With Al-Qaida
NCRI/January 15/17/In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Tariq al-Hashimi, Secretary General of the Iraqi Islamic Party and former Iraqi vice president, revealed details of a meeting he had a few years back with Ghasem Soleimani, commander of the terrorist Quds Force. Tariq al-Hashimi was on a trip to Tehran at the time to meet with a number of Iranian officials, and above all with the then President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad. On the details of his meetings, al-Hashimi said that “Ghasem Soleimani came to (Iranian) vice president’s office. I talked to him about some conclusive evidence on Iranian regime’s intervention in Iraq.”“I told Soleimani that Iranian regime is creating chaos in Iraq and supports Al-Qaida. Ghasem Soleimani denied the allegations at first. So I told him I was going to end my trip and get back to Iraq. I asked my staff to inform the pilot to get ready for my flying back to Iraq. I got up and went toward the door. Soleimani followed me and asked me to stay”, added al-Hashimi. “I told him I’m not going to sit down with you until you give me real answers to my questions. He then told me to go ahead and ask my questions. I asked him if they had relations with Al-Qaida and if they were attempting to set up Iraqi Shiite militia groups similar to the Revolutionary Guards or the Quds Force”, said al-Hashimi. “Soleimani replied in the affirmative to my questions and said yes! I then asked Soleimani why Tehran was doing that. Soleimani responded that they were worried about US presence in Iraq”, added the former Iraqi vice president.“Is that what makes you kill Shiites and Sunnis?”, asked al-Hashimi. “That’s the way it is”, responded Soleimani.  

Iran Regime's State Newspapers: Vienna Meeting, Negotiating With Bare Hands
NCRI/January 15/17/With the joint commission meeting held in Vienna to oversee Iran’s nuclear deal, Vatan-e Emrooz, a newspaper close to Khamenei’s band, has written on January 13 that “the more we refer to this commission, the more responsibilities we’ll likely have to bear! Iran (Iranian regime) has accepted new commitments beyond those set out in the nuclear deal as to the amount of its enriched uranium reserve, and has also decided not to pursue its complaints over the extension of Iran Sanctions Act.” Regarding regime’s set-back in joint commission meeting in Vienna, the state newspaper has quoted the spokesman to the Security Commission of regime’s parliament as saying that “the mechanism of the nuclear deal’s joint commission is designed in such a way that it’s quite in favor of the other side, since any member state opposing a decision can veto it, thus preventing it from being approved.” Also in this regard, Khamenei’s Kayhan pointed on January 12 to the set-backs imposed on the Iranian regime, describing the joint commission meeting as “Vienna meeting, negotiating with bare hands!” The newspaper added: “some sources, including Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, have said that after listening to a bunch of more empty promises, Iran( Iranian regime) has given up insisting that the United States has violated the agreement, saying the explanations have been convincing! The sources have also announced that with (acceding to) the US plan to fully clear Natanz power plant of the remaining uranium, Iran (Iranian regime) has agreed to fulfill obligations beyond those set out in the nuclear deal, lowering its uranium reserve to less than 200 kg despite the 300 kg limit set out in the deal.”“Unfortunately, we have to admit it that they have received several strong, solid guarantees from us during the negotiations without giving us any in return, and, as Obama puts it, all without firing a shot”, added Khamenei’s Kayhan.

French Organization Calls for a Boycott of Iran Regime’s Football
NCRI/January 15/17/ A French organization called for total boycott of Iranian regime’s football because of the regime carrying out executions in football stadiums. The request was sent to the International Football Federation (FIFA) and the FIFA’s secretary general has also supported the call. According to state-run ISNA news agency, on January 12, French news site SOfoot wrote that FIFA has recently added an article (provision) to its statutes emphasizing on human rights according to which the organization will deal with countries that implement death penalty in sports stadiums. The name of Iran regime is included in the FIFA’s report as a country that carries out death penalty in sport stadiums. In recent years, a number of executions by hanging have been carried out in sport stadiums in Iran. However, a death penalty carried out in the football stadium in Neyriz in Fars province (southern Iran) on September 22, 2016, was reported to FIFA.In this regard, the human rights organization ECPM in France, protesting implementation of death penalties in sport stadiums in Iran, has sent a letter to Gianni Infantino, president of FIFA, to inform him about executions in sport (football) stadiums. The human rights organization particularly called on FIFA to boycott Iranian regime and remove the regime football from the international competitions. Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, director of ECPM, in his letter to FIFA’s president wrote: “FIFA cannot ignore this behaviour. If I was a player, I would not play (football) in a place where a human being is executed.”Following the letter, FIFA has finally reacted to these events and Fatima Samoura, FIFA’s secretary general, in a letter responded: “…FIFA condemns any such action which by its nature fundamentally violates the dignity inherent to every human being. In this regard, I am committed to raise this topic in my future exchange with Iran Football Federation … We will prevent such actions through our programs….”“According to Article 3 of our statues, FIFA is committed to respect internationally recognized human rights and promote protection of these rights. These commitment included efforts to prevent such actions that have adverse human rights impacts,” she added.

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on January 15-16/17
An exchange on Israel and the “Palestinians” between Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, S.J. and Robert Spencer
JRobert Spencer/Jihad Watch/January 15/17
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2017/01/15/an-exchange-on-israel-and-the-palestinians-between-fr-samir-khalil-samir-s-j-and-robert-spencer/
Father Samir Khalil Samir, SJ is Professor of Islamology and Middle East Christianity at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. He recently sent me a lengthy letter in which he wrote: “J’apprécie beaucoup ce que vous écrivez sur l’Islam” (I appreciate very much what you write about Islam). He does not, however, appreciate very much what I write about Israel and the “Palestinians,” as he made clear in that letter and has now reiterated in a comment he left at Jihad Watch this morning:
Father Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJ says
January 15, 2017 at 8:12 am
All the insults that I read in some of the comments are shameful and unworthy of this site.
1) Pope Francis is a man who seeks to build PEACE among peoples. What he said about Islam as “a religion of PEACE” was not correct, as I explained to him in my personal meeting with him for 30 minutes on Monday, 6 June 2016. I also gave him my book “Violence and non-violence in the Qur’an and Islam” and 3 other articles from me on the question. Its objective is to restore the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Muslim world, interrupted for nearly 6 years, and it has succeeded: the meeting is scheduled for the month of February in Cairo.
2) His meeting with President Mahmoud Abbas goes in the same direction: it is about building together PEACE. The State of Palestine exists, recognized by the United Nations, just as the State of Israel exists. It is not the USA that decides whether or not a state exists, but the United Nations, notwithstanding certain readers. However, the State of Palestine never invaded the State of Israel, or occupied a single square meter of that State. On the other hand, the State of Israel invades periodically the State of Palestine, occupies a part of it after having driven the Palestinian inhabitants. In my opinion, the invading State (whatever it is) is a terrorist state.
3) Pope Francis — who is neither American, nor Palestinian, nor Israeli — does not judge with feelings, but according to the INTERNATIONAL LAW. If we want to live in PEACE –and this is the primary goal of every reasonable citizen –, INTERNATIONAL decisions must be respected, even if they are questionable. They could be discussed, but as long as they exist they must be applied. I am convinced that PEACE is possible between these two States, and that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis want it. They must be helped to achieve it by scrupulously respecting INTERNATIONAL decisions, even if it means reviewing certain points.
4) Finally, it is a serious mistake to mix religion with this question, as a great many of the citizens of the two States unfortunately do. It is a question of INTERNATIONAL politics, which can only be resolved by INTERNATIONAL Law. It is not a matter of sentiment or sensitivity. The problem is POLITICAL, it is not sentimental or religious.
Father Samir Khalil SAMIR, SJ (Professor of Islamology and Middle East Christianity at the Pontifical Oriental Institute)
**
To that I responded:
Robert Spencer says
January 15, 2017 at 12:32 pm
Fr. Samir:
Thank you for your comments.
1. He appears not to have heeded your wise counsel in regard to the nature of Islam. What good is a “dialogue” with the Muslim world when it is based on false pretenses?
2. In reality, the Arabs (the “Palestinians” had not yet been invented, as they would be in the 1960s by the KGB and Yasir Arafat) rejected a Palestinian Arab state in 1948, and the surrounding Arab states invaded the State of Israel with the intention of destroying it. By your own statement that “the invading State (whatever it is) is a terrorist state,” Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia are terrorist states for invading Israel at that time. Your claim that “the State of Israel invades periodically the State of Palestine” ignores the fact that these “invasions” are preceded in every case, without exception, by rocket attacks by “Palestinians” against Israel, murders of Israeli civilians that are celebrated by “Palestinians,” etc. The fact is undeniable that if the “Palestinians” laid down their arms, there would be peace, while if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be a new genocide of the Jews, as is frequently called for on official Palestinian television stations.
3. Your claim that the majority of “Palestinians” want peace is belied by surveys showing that “Palestinians” overwhelmingly favor the imposition of Sharia (which would deny Christians basic rights), as well as suicide bombings: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/1/pew-poll-palestinians-favor-suicide-bombings-shari/
4. As you no doubt know well from your study of Islam, in Islam the religious and the political cannot be so easily separated.
Kindest regards,
Robert Spencer

Obama's Mideast Legacy Is One of Tragic Failure
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/January /17
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2017/01/15/alan-m-dershowitzgatestone-institute-obamas-mideast-legacy-is-one-of-tragic-failure/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9774/obama-mideast-legacy
The Middle East is a more dangerous place after eight years of the Obama presidency than it was before. The eight disastrous Obama years follow eight disastrous George W. Bush years, during which that part of the world became more dangerous as well. So have many other international hot spots.
In sum, the past 16 years have seen major foreign policy blunders all over the world, and most especially in the area between Libya and Iran — that includes Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and the Gulf.
With regard to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the Obama policies have made the prospects for a compromise peace more difficult to achieve. When Israel felt that America had its back — under both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush — they offered generous proposals to end settlements and occupation in nearly all of the West Bank.
 Tragically the Palestinian leadership — first under Yasser Arafat and then under Mahmoud Abbas — did not accept either offers from Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Clinton in 2000-2001, nor Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer in 2008. Now they are ignoring current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's open offer to negotiate with no preconditions.
 In his brilliant book chronicling American-Israeli relationship, Doomed To Succeed, Dennis Ross proves conclusively that whenever the Israeli government has confidence in America's backing, it has been more willing to make generous compromise offers than when it has reason to doubt American support.
 Obama did not understand this crucial reality. Instead of having Israel's back, he repeatedly stabbed Israel in the back, beginning with his one-sided Cairo speech near the beginning of his tenure, continuing with his failure to enforce the red line on chemical weapons use by Syria, then allowing a sunset provision to be included in the Iran deal, and culminating in his refusal to veto the one-sided UN Security Council resolution, which placed the lion's share of blame on the Israelis for the current stalemate.
 Obama's one-sided Cairo speech, on June 4, 2009, took place before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. (Image source: White House)
 These ill-advised actions — especially the Security Council resolution — have disincentivized the Palestinian leadership from accepting Netanyahu's offer to sit down and negotiation a compromise peace. They have been falsely led to believe that they can achieve statehood through the United Nations, or by other means that do not require compromise.
 The Iran deal, while it delayed Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, virtually guaranteed that it would be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal as soon as the major restrictions on the deal expire in the next decade. Israel will never allow a regime sworn to the destruction of the nation-state of the Jewish people to secure such a weapon.
 So the likelihood of an eventual dangerous military confrontation has been increased, rather than decreased, by the poorly negotiated Iran deal.
 Obama's failure to carry out his red-line threat against the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons has weakened American credibility among its allies and adversaries alike. It has created a power vacuum that Russia was quick to fill. Turkey, too, has flexed its bullying muscles, as its irascible and egomaniacal leader has used the excuse of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to go after another American ally, the Kurds, who have at least as strong a claim to statehood as the Palestinians.
 America's traditional allies in the Middle East — Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan — have all been weakened by Obama's policies, most especially the Iran deal. America's traditional enemies — Iran, Syria and Hezbollah — have been strengthened, along with Turkey.
 Terrorism has increased and moved northward to Europe, partly as a result of the Syrian crisis. ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist offshoots, though weakened, remain a serious threat to regional stability and to civilians.
 A destabilized Middle East poses increasing dangers to American allies and to peace. The blame for this instability is shared by Presidents George W. Bush and Obama. The invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein divided that country, rendering it ungovernable, and invited Iran to play a major role in its current destabilized condition.
 The toppling of Moammar Gadhafi left Libya open to increasing terrorist influences. The attempt to replace Bashar Assad has turned Syria into a nightmare.
 The forced resignation of Hosni Mubarak initially placed Egypt under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, and strengthened Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Only a coup, opposed by the Obama administration, restored some semblance of stability to Egypt.
 Lebanon has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hezbollah, a terrorist group under the influence of Iran that has 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel's population centers. The "Shiite arc" now runs from Iran through parts of Iraq and Syria and into Lebanon.
 This is the tragic legacy of the Obama administration's failed efforts to undo the harms caused by the George W. Bush administration. Radical Islamic terrorists have replaced authoritarian secular tyrants.
 Both are bad, but tyrants at least produce a degree of stability and predictability. They also tend to keep their tyranny domestic, whereas terrorists tend to export their evil tactics.
 We should have learned the lesson from the replacement of the tyrannical Shah of Iran by the far more tyrannical and dangerous ayatollahs. But we did not. We insisted on supporting the "democracy" of the Arab spring, which resulted in the replacement of undemocratic domestic tyrants by undemocratic international terrorists.
 History will look kindly on Obama's domestic successes, but it will judge his mideast policy harshly.
 Alan M. Dershowitz is professor emeritus at the Harvard Law School and author of "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law" and "Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters."
 © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

The Bigotry against Israel in the UN
Salim Mansur/Gatestone Institute/January 15/17
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9772/un-bigotry-israel
"[U]nlike America, Europe is inherently anti-Semitic. This anti-Semitism is spread more or less evenly across the political spectrum and, therefore, it translates into widespread hostility to Israel. Europeans hate the Jews. Consequently, they hate the Jewish state." — Robin Shepherd, A State Beyond The Pale: Europe's Problem With Israel.
No "Palestinian" leader has publicly disavowed jihad against Jews. Instead, every aspect of engagement by "Palestinians" with Jews and Israelis is considered an obligation for advancing this jihad until its final expected objective of pushing the Jews out of "Palestine" has been reached.
The doublespeak of the Palestinian leadership made no difference within the UN. Since the June 1967 war, the UN began to tilt away from being fair and balanced toward Israel, and extended support to Arabs of the "occupied" West Bank and Gaza as an indigenous "Palestinian" people supposedly wronged by Jews.
"The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; an issue where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one." Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the UN (1981-85).
All of this occurred with the complicity of member states of the once-Christian West in the UN against one single and much maligned Jewish state, Israel, surrounded by hostile Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East.
The passage of the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 just before Christmas 2016, with the United States abstaining, was an IED-wrapped Chanukkah gift that lame-duck President Barack Hussein Obama delivered to Israel. It was another signal to Palestinians that they may continue their "rejectionism" of Israel, and stage another round of jihadi terrorism providing the UN the excuse to deliver pre-packaged condemnations of any Israeli reaction to the maiming and murder of Jews in the so-called "occupied" territories.
The U.S. abstention was an appalling betrayal of a people wrongly maligned by a sitting American president who for the past eight years went about assuring American Jewry, especially liberal Jews loyal to his party, that he was the most pro-Israel occupant of the White House. Instead, Obama's decision, as a parting shot before he left office, not to veto Res. 2334 lifted the veil over the unspoken animus that he not only harbors within himself but also one that still stirs many within Western nations against Israel despite their solemn public denunciations of anti-Semitism.
This is evident in the language of Res. 2334. It exclusively condemns Israel stating: "settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has [sic] no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation of international law". It also effectively revokes Security Council Res. 242 of 22 November 1967.
There was no pretense in Res. 2334 to be fair, and hold Palestinian Authority (PA) and with Hamas equally responsible for inciting terrorist violence against civilians within Israel, thus poisoning any diplomatic effort required for a negotiated settlement between the parties. The adoption of Res. 2334 was a "gang up" by France, Eurabia, the US and the 57 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) against Israel. It was reminiscent of the long, shameful history of Jews as a minority people, abused and tormented by the majority among whom they resided.
For the past half century, Res. 242 was the keystone in the UN framework for peace in the Middle East. It laid out the process envisaged in the "land-for-peace" formula between parties in conflict following the June 1967 war. And on the basis of this formula Israel reached peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan in the aftermath of the October 1973 war.
But Res. 2334, instead, categorically states, the UN "will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations." In other words, the demand is on Israel to return to the 1949 armistice lines an outcome pre-determined by Res. 2334.
If Israel cannot now trade "land-for peace", since land held after June 1967 war is deemed "illegal," then there is no further reason for any negotiated settlement.
Israel cannot simply accept a status quo ante bellum that would be untenable for Israel's security -- Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban called then the "Auschwitz borders" -- and the PA, with backing of the UN.
Res. 2334 is then a formula for continued terrorist violence by Palestinians against Israelis. The adoption of Res. 2334 -- not unintentionally -- has driven a nail into the promise of the "two-State solution." The Security Council was warned ahead of the December 23 vote by President-elect Donald Trump that the United States under his administration will not accept this blatantly anti-Israel resolution.
It needs to be asked -- political correctness set aside -- of the other four permanent members of the Security Council (Britain, China, France, and Russia): Why, at this time -- when the situation in the Middle East has gone from bad to worse -- has the Security Council decided to weigh in against Israel, the only democracy and oasis of sanity in the region that has imploded through an excess of Arab-Muslim bigotry and fanaticism?
And, why did the Security Council, whose record in the Middle East is one of abysmal failure in providing "peace and security" to people most in need -- the beleaguered Christians, Yazidi, and Kurdish minorities of Iraq and Syria -- decide to revoke the long-standing Res. 242 on the patently false excuse of "salvaging the two-State solution", when the Palestinian leadership has continually refused to engage with Israelis in direct negotiations?
These questions require credible answers, but none can be given.
The real story in the adoption of Res. 2334 lies in the persistence of anti-Semitism within the UN.
Islamists, and Muslim states singly, or together, cannot advance any anti-Semitic policy in the UN detrimental to the security of Israel without the support, direct and indirect, of the Christian West. The Security Council vote on December 23 is the definitive proof. The ugly truth that many Israelis know, is that without Western complicity anti-Jew hatred of Arabs and Muslims post-Holocaust could not take root and flourish within the UN.
The last act of Obama's presidency, in the grim shadow of Aleppo's destruction, will be Obama's legacy -- of playing Brutus to Israel.
Obama conned a majority of liberal American Jews, throughout his two-terms, into believing he would keep Israel secure against her enemies. The liberal American Jews, as loyal supporters of and donors to the Democratic party, willingly subscribed to Obama's smooth sale pitch directed at them: that he would be, as the first black president, a steadfast friend and protector of Israel in a world insanely hostile against Jews.
The facts about Obama and his politics, however, were contrary to the image crafted for him and that duped liberal American Jews.
Obama was groomed in the anti-Vietnam War ideological stew of anti-Americanism blended with a potpourri of new left cultural Marxism of Herbert Marcuse; the left-wing anarchism and utopianism of Noam Chomsky; the radicalism of the community organizer Saul Alinsky; the reflexive anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism of "third world" ideologues, such as Frantz Fanon and Edward Said; the radical politics of student activists, such as Tom Hayden and Abbie Hoffman, of the nineteen-sixties; and the Black "identity" politics of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Obama's mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright in Chicago that snugly fit with the filthy anti-Jew politics of Louis Farrakhan and his "Nation of Islam."
This ideological mixture was apparently a potent, mind-warping, brew. When fed to young minds in schools and colleges, as it was with Obama, with little experience of the real world and even less familiarity with world history, it infected many of them with the politics of grievance to turn resentful against their own society.
It took an outsider, like Dinesh D'Souza, an immigrant from India, to see through Obama's mask the angry face of a mulatto. In The Roots of Obama's Rage, D'Souza described the psychological motive behind Obama's politics as a misfit in the America of his mother (a white woman), in the Africa of his father (a black man raised in the midst of anti-colonial struggle against imperial Britain in Kenya), and in a part of Asia of his stepfather (an Indonesian caught in the currents of anti-communism in his country under military dictatorship).
Obama needed support of American Jews as part of his strategy in winning and retaining the White House in the control of Democrats. The party, however, had moved so far to the left since the era of Bill Clinton's presidency that for the rank-and-file members, support for Israel became increasingly contentious.
The leftward drift meant that domestically the Democratic party, in the name of "Progressivism," embraced "third world" anti-capitalism and, in the realm of foreign policy, the UN's "one world" agenda. It also meant adopting "identity" politics, and mobilizing a coalition of ethnic minorities among whom Muslim immigrant voters are headed in the near future to outnumber Jewish voters
The party of Truman embracing Israel had morphed into the party of Obama embracing anti-Zionism.
The results of the November 2016 election made redundant the charade surrounding Obama's posturing as a faithful friend of Jews and Israel. For eight years Obama watched and contributed to the worsening of political disorder in the Middle East with a series of policy decisions -- most notably the Iran deal lifting sanctions on vague promises from Tehran of putting a halt to its nuclear weapons program -- that not only is funding the Iranian nuclear program it was purportedly supposed to stop -- but it also greatly exacerbated Israel's security environment.
Many believe that Obama's refusal to veto a Security Council resolution was orchestrated by his own administration. But Obama's national-security adviser, Ben Rhodes, sought to dismiss this betrayal, by blaming Israel.
According to Rhodes, as reported by the New York Times, "Absent this acceleration of settlement activity, absent the type of rhetoric we've seen out of the current Israeli government, I think the United States likely would have taken a different view."
It did not matter to Obama that his explanation encourages Palestinian-Arab-Muslim view that their jihad in the long term will prevail against Israel. The Western powers delusionally believe that accommodation with Muslim states is of greater self-interest than indefinitely protecting the Jewish state against a hostile Muslim world.
The reason it did not matter is that Obama never publicly spoke out against the idea of Israel as a Western colonial outpost in the Arab heartland. It is a view he likely holds given his predisposition to embrace "third world" political grievances. Moreover, his friends, such the late Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and their academic cohorts in Western universities have peddled the view that Israel is, in the words of the late French Marxian historian, Maxime Rodinson, a "colonial-settler state."
Europeans, led by France, began to tilt toward the Arab countries before the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. A Euro-Arab Dialogue paved the way, as French leaders, beginning with De Gaulle saw in Arab North Africa, after French withdrawal from Algeria in 1962, a bridgehead for a Europe-Arab partnership, along with affordable oil and hopefully less terrorism.
France had supported Israel diplomatically and with military assistance during the period of the Algerian War (1954-62), which included the fateful alliance of France and Israel during the Suez War of 1956. But a crack opened in the Franco-Israeli relations after the June 1967 war.
Most likely in a fantasy of promoting France by currying favor with the Muslim states for more low-cost oil and optimistically less terrorism, De Gaulle turned on Israel.
Europeans increasingly came to view Israel, as the French leader depicted her. De Gaulle had used the word "occupation" in a reprimand of Israel, and the word lent support to Arab propaganda against Israel. This Euro-Arab Dialogue paved the way, as Bat Ye'or, the peerless historian of the Middle East and Islam, described, as the making of "Eurabia."
In Europe, or "Eurabia", it has become an article of "faith" that Israelis have wronged the "Palestinian" Arabs and have proceeded systematically, in the words of Charles de Gaulle, to "oppress," "repress," and "expropriate" them.[1] In supporting Arabs of Israeli "occupied" territories, Europeans can also assuage their guilt over the anti-Semitism of their past, and re-balance their sense of political morality by embracing Arabs and Muslims as people of the "third world" to atone for their past sins of colonialism.
But this European consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the nineteen-seventies cannot obscure the ugly reality beneath. Europeans have not expunged anti-Semitism from their midst. As Robin Shepherd writes,
"[U]nlike America, Europe is inherently anti-Semitic. This anti-Semitism is spread more or less evenly across the political spectrum and, therefore, it translates into widespread hostility to Israel. Europeans hate the Jews. Consequently, they hate the Jewish state."[2]
The American left finds itself ideologically at home with Europe's mainstream politics, which mostly "Left"-leaning. Obama as a man of the "Left" is similarly at home with the European views about the world. Obama did not hide this affinity with Europeans from Americans; instead he publicized it when he took his campaign for the White House to Berlin in 2008.
Americans in general admire and support Israel. For Americans, the "special relationship" with Israel is special. Consequently, even as Obama shared the European consensus on Israel and did not hide his disdain for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he kept his pretense of being a friend of Israel until nearly the end of his presidency.
At a deeper level, Obama's animus, exposed over Res. 2334, also revealed his woeful ignorance of world history. All his foreign policy catastrophe have come from that: his reset button" with Russia; his courtship of other dictatorships such as Cuba and Iran; his premature withdrawal from Iraq thereby creating a vacuum filled by ISIS; his release of hard-core terrorists from Guantanamo Bay; his indifference to the Iranian people after the fraudulent elections of 2012; his enabling Iran's nuclear program under the pretense of "preventing it; his murder by default of America's ambassador to Libya and three other heroes; and his abandonment of Syria, creating more than half a million deaths to name but a few.
Samantha Power, Permanent Representative of the United States to the UN, at a Security Council meeting, on February 24, 2016. (Images source: United Nations)
Res. 2334, in falsely declaring Israeli settlements on disputed territories illegal, has ruled out negotiations by predetermining the outcome.
Israel is now denied control over the most sacred part of Jerusalem -- the Temple Mount area and the Western Wall -- that is at the heart of Jewish history, and the longing of Jews since their eviction from the City of David by the Romans in the first century C.E.
UN machinations also fabricated a previously non-existent identity for a people -- the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs. In the process, the UN lent itself to the Arab and Muslim states, or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), to advance their not-so-hidden agenda of undermining Israel's security by demanding the establishment of a "Palestinian" state with boundaries existing prior to the June 1967 war.
In UN Security Council Res. 242 (1967), there is no mention of "Palestinian" people. They did not exist. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, the area was mandated by the British who called it Palestine. Anyone born there -- Jew, Arab or Christian -- had Palestine stamped on his passport and was a Palestinian.
Resolution 242 called for a "just settlement of the refugee problem" without defining the refugees. Leaving "refugee" undefined meant that parties in conflict when negotiating would need to recognize that the partition of Palestine and the establishment of Israel led to the making of refugees among both Arabs and Jews -- Arabs dislocated or evicted due to the partition and the war that followed, as were Jews from Arab states in the Middle East and North Africa.
The non-mention of "Palestinian" people, or "Palestinian Arabs, or "Palestinians" in Res. 242 was consistent with all previous resolutions, statements, and declarations made by the UN or its predecessor, the League of Nations.
In all but name, the wish to consummate Hitler's "final solution" for Jews has animated a substantive segment of Arab and Muslim thinking since the establishment of Israel.[3] Each of the wars Israel has had to fight, beginning with the war in May 1948 against the combined Arab armies, if lost, had the potential of Jews being exterminated by Arabs in Palestine.
The Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini escaped from Europe after the Nazi defeat and made his way into Egypt. The Allied powers never indicted him as a war criminal; he eventually retired as an Arab hero to Lebanon, where he died in 1974. The leaders of the "Palestinian" movement since 1945 have been the progeny of the Mufti.
The Mufti's politics of jihad declared against Jews, beginning with the riots of 1921, has since then grown in intensity. No "Palestinian" leader has publicly disavowed jihad against Jews. Instead, every aspect of engagement by "Palestinians" with Jews and Israelis is considered an obligation for advancing this jihad until its final expected objective of pushing the Jews out of "Palestine" has been reached.
After the overwhelming defeat suffered by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in the six-day war of June 1967, a practical response was needed by the Arab leaders to quell the seething anger of their people against them and re-direct that anger against Israel, while buying time to rebuild Arab strength. One response came in the Arab League Summit in Khartoum, Sudan, in August-September 1967. There the Egyptian leader, President Gamal Abdel Nasser, spelled out the "three no's" -- "no recognition, no negotiation, no peace" -- in defining the collective Arab stand against Israel.
The other response was to build support for a resistance movement of Arabs both in Gaza (under Egyptian control until June 1967 war) and in the West Bank (under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan). Israel had warned Jordan to stay neutral during the buildup of the crisis ahead of the June 1967 war. But when King Hussein imprudently joined forces with Egypt and Syria against Israel, Jordan's military defeat came with the loss of control over the West Bank. Arab governments officially designated the resistance movement launched from the "occupied" territories as the "Palestinian" struggle against Israel.
In the UN, after the June 1967 war, the great powers met with renewed energy to seek a diplomatic resolution in containing the Arab-Israeli conflict that might be spinning out of control. The result was Resolution 242, carefully crafted and unanimously adopted by the Security Council.
The resolution's preamble, emphasizing "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" was a pious wish with no basis in history or law, for if it did then much of the history of Western powers and their acquisitions of territories as result of wars would need revision. But even more to the point, Arab and Muslim states have continued to contravene the intent of the clause -- Pakistan has occupied parts of Kashmir, Turkey has occupied parts of Cyprus, Morocco has occupied the Spanish Sahara, Russia has occupied Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea, and China has occupied Tibet.
The key point in the English version of Res. 242 with reference to Israel was withdrawal of its armed forces "from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Arthur J. Goldberg, the U.S. ambassador to the UN (1965-68) involved in drafting the resolution, explained,
"The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal, from Israel's viewpoint, are the words all, the, and the June 5, 1967 lines. The Israeli emphasize that there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967."[4]
According to Goldberg, Israel tied its withdrawal "from territories" to the principle Res. 242 affirmed that every State in the area is entitled "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Since then, every American administration, until Obama's, has supported this formula of "land-for-peace" without prejudging the outcome of the land that would be returned by Israel in reaching a final agreement with each of its opponents.
Arab states in the years since the adoption of Res. 242 eventually came to accept it as the framework for peace in the region. The reasoning was, again Goldberg, "the Arab States came to the conclusion that the language of the Resolution was the best they could hope for from the United Nations."
Arab leaders also shrewdly sensed the tide of support for Israel as the "underdog" within the UN was shifting as new members, former colonies of the European powers, was emerging as a majority-voting bloc. These new members were more sympathetic to the cause of Arabs as the new "underdog" in the UN.
The leading Arab states in the decade and half after the June 1967 war -- Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, Tunisia -- continued to characterize their politics in terms of secular nationalism, even as support for Islamic fundamentalist parties began to grow among a new generation of radical youths. The Arab states became more diplomatically adept in pushing their interests at the UN and among the European powers. After the October 1973 war, Arab efforts to isolate Israel grew in tandem with the use of oil as a "weapon".
It is during this period that the "Palestinian" movement under the banner of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and headed by Yasser Arafat, emerged from the shadows of internal Arab politics into the notice of the UN. In 1974 the Arab states with support of non-Arab Muslim countries, nonaligned members of the "third world", and countries of the (former) Soviet bloc arranged for the UN General Assembly to invite Arafat to its opening session in New York. The following year the same group of countries adopted in support of Arab states the General Assembly resolution 3379 (1975) declaring, "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." This resolution was revoked during the 1991 General Assembly session.
The PLO was not constrained by any of the recognized norms of an established state in waging its asymmetrical terrorist warfare against Israel. At the Munich Summer Olympics in 1972, a wing of the PLO -- the "Black September" faction -- took 11 Israeli athletes hostage and killed them. There were attacks on Israeli civilians and airplane hijackings by Palestinian terror groups, as the Arab war against Israel turned unconventionally terrorist.
The 1979 revolution in Iran under Khomeini was a victory for Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East. Khomeini repudiated the idea of normalization between Muslims and Jews, between Israel and the Arab-Muslim states in the region and beyond. Khomeini invited Arafat to meet with him in Tehran, and he sharpened the language of jihad against Israel.
In October 1981 President Anwar Sadat of Egypt was killed by his own soldiers in a public military parade in Cairo. Sadat had signed a peace treaty with the Jewish state and had pushed for the normalization of Arab relations with Israel under the UN framework of Res. 242. Palestinians rejoiced over the murder of Sadat.
The Palestinian leadership spoke in a secular setting about Palestinian movement in terms of nationalist struggle, and in an Islamic setting in terms of jihad against Jews and Israel.
When Arafat was asked in South Africa in 1994 about the PLO accepting the Oslo Accords on the basis of Res. 242, he explained it as only a hudna (truce) with the enemy. He referred to the example of the treaty of Hudaibiyyah that Prophet Muhammad negotiated with his opponents in Mecca. In this treaty, Muhammad had promised a ten-year truce; but after he had strengthened his armies, he returned in only three years to obliterate the opposition.
The doublespeak of the Palestinian leadership made no difference within the UN. Since the June 1967 war, the UN began to tilt away from being fair and balanced toward Israel, and extended support to Arabs of the "occupied" West Bank and Gaza as an indigenous "Palestinian" people supposedly wronged by Jews.
After June 1967 war, Palestine came to no longer mean the territory designated for the establishment of Israel, as the Jewish homeland. It came to mean, instead, the land forcibly occupied by an alien people.
Until 1967, opposition to Jews and Israel, had been mounted in the name of Arabs, as was the jihad proclaimed by the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini on behalf of Arabs and Muslims against Jewish colonial-settlers in Palestine deemed an integral part of the Arab watan (homeland).
But in the years after 1967, Arabs of the territories "occupied" by Israel, and newly designated as "Palestinians," came to be viewed in the Muslim world -- enthusiastically backed by Europe, especially France -- as the vanguard of a jihad against Jews. As Arafat said, agreements to him were merely hudnas (truces) with the enemy until the goals of the jihad -- liberation of "al Quds" (Arabic for Jerusalem) and the annihilation of Israel, which Khomeini put forward as Islamic imperatives -- were realized.
The mention of "Palestinians" as a people with inalienable rights, and not as refugees, was made for the first time in the UN General Assembly Resolution 2535 (XXIV), Section B, of December 10, 1969. From then onwards, the notion of the "Palestinian" people with "the right to self-determination" pushed by Arab and Muslim countries became a ritual in the UN. As Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the UN (1981-85), wrote:
"The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; an issue where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one."
All of this occurred with the complicity of member states of the once Christian West, or Christendom, in the UN against one single and much maligned Jewish state, Israel, surrounded by hostile Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East.
The reputation of the UN for efficacy, justice, sense of history, is just about non-existent. Adam LeBor, a British author, in "Complicity with Evil": The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide, has provided a grim indictment of the UN's repeated failure to stop those who broadcast their genocidal intent to the world, as Hitler did.
When it comes to Israel, the United States and not the UN has protected her from the mob like behavior of the representatives of much of the world's member states at its meetings. In the Security Council, there have been a few occasions, such as when the U.S. representative voted with the majority on a resolution condemning Israel in March 1980.
Daniel P. Moynihan, who had served as the U.S. representative to the UN (1975-76), in writing about what such a vote, instead of a veto, on the part of the United States at the Security Council meant, observed:
"The Security Council resolutions are time bombs. Ticking. The case has all but been made that Israel is an outlaw state, and indeed the General Assembly has now called on the Security Council to consider imposing sanctions against it. It will take the toughest minded diplomacy to dismantle the indictment now in place—thanks to the Carter administration; thanks to those who brought the Democratic party to such confusions. The new administration will have to deal also with the whole question of the Third World. It should be clearer now that hostility toward the West, toward the United States, is abiding and, it may be, burgeoning."
As the new administration of President Donald J. Trump begins, it will take immense stamina and courage to stare down the "jackals" in the UN emboldened by Obama's betrayal of Israel. Neither the late Daniel P. Moynihan, a distinguished and widely respected diplomat and Democratic Senator from New York, nor most Americans could have imagined that nearly four decades later another Democratic administration would sink lower than that of President Jimmy Carter in undermining America's "special relationship" with Israel, the only liberal, open, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East.
**Salim Mansur is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He teaches in the department of political science at Western University in London, Ontario. He is the author of "Islam's Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim" and "Delectable Lie: A Liberal Repudiation of Multiculturalism."
[1] See Jean Lacouture, De Gaulle: The Ruler 1945-1970 (London: HarperCollins, 1992), p. 443.
[2] Robin Shepherd, A State Beyond The Pale: Europe's Problem With Israel (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2009), p. 209.
[3] Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust (New York: The Modern Library, 2001), p. 58.
[4] Arthur J. Goldberg, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and the Prospects for Peace in the Middle East," in Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 12 (1973): pp. 187-195.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Anger in Egypt as Red Sea islands’ handover looms
Amr Emam/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17/
If parliament approves deal, Sisi can circumvent public anger, which would then be directed at legisla­tors.
Cairo - Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s move to re­fer to parliament an agree­ment that would hand over two uninhabited Red Sea islands to Saudi Arabia jeopard­ises the country’s stability and goes against the public’s wishes, critics said.
“By referring the deal to parlia­ment for approval, the government proves its total disrespect of the will of the people,” rights advocate Khalid Ali said. “This amounts to voluntary abdication of a piece of our country’s territory.”
Ali and other activists filed a law­suit to stop the transfer of Tiran and Sanafir islands, which lie at the en­trance of the Straits of Tiran, which connects the Read Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba, to Saudi ownership.
Cairo stated in April 2016 that the islands are in Saudi territorial wa­ters, although Egypt has had a mili­tary presence on Tiran to protect the nearby Straits of Tiran. Riyadh handed control of the islands to Egypt in 1950 as a bulwark against Israel.
The government referred the deal to parliament on December 29th, al­most seven months after signing the agreement in Cairo in the presence of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.
It is expected to take parliament weeks at least to act on the deal, Deputy Parliament Speaker Sulei­man Wahdan said.
“Can you face your constituents on the streets after approving this deal?” lawmaker Ahmed al-Tantawi asked his colleagues during a recent debate on the private Dream televi­sion network. “Approving the deal will be a betrayal of the confidence of the people.”
Protests against the deal have taken place in Cairo and on social media, a position backed by thou­sands of people who said there was no mandate for Sisi or his govern­ment to hand control of the islands to Saudi Arabia.
Former presidential candidate and leftist politician Hamdeen Sa­bahi said he expected public anger to snowball.
“Egyptians will get out on the streets to protest the deal, even if they all go to jail,” Sabahi said. “Sisi does not have the right to give up sovereignty over these islands.”
Sisi has been under pressure from the Saudis to offer them something tangible in return for the billions of dollars in aid since the overthrow of Islamist president Muhammad Morsi in 2013.
Riyadh has started measures to punish Cairo for not reciprocat­ing in some way. The Saudis have suspended oil shipments and post­poned billions of dollars in promised investments and finally by cement­ing ties with Ethiopia, the country that is constructing a dam on the Nile River, Egypt’s only source of water.
A former career diplomat, who requested anonymity, warned the island dispute could cost Sisi his job and spark a new popular uprising.
If parliament rejects the deal, the diplomat said, Sisi can go to the Sau­dis and tell them: “Look, I did eve­rything to give the islands to you but [the lawmakers] are against this.”
If parliament approves the deal, however, the diplomat added, Sisi can circumvent public anger, which would then be directed at legisla­tors.
Mustafa al-Fiqqi, a former diplo­mat, said he expected Saudi Arabia to resort to international arbitration if parliament rejects the deal. “This is why it is necessary to set­tle this issue peacefully,” Fiqqi said. “Egypt and Saudi Arabia need each other, particularly now.”
Amr Emam is a Cairo-based journalist. He has contributed to the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and the UN news site IRIN.

Middle East Christians remain hopeful for the future despite ISIS violence in 2016
Amr Emam/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
While Christian exodus from Syria continues, one needs only to look next door to Lebanon for positive signs of Christian and Mus­lim coexistence.
Cairo - Christians in the Middle East appear to be cling­ing to a renewed sense of hope in the new year as the Islamic State (ISIS) and other militant Islamist groups lose ground.
“Most Middle East Christians un­derwent tragic experiences in 2016 as they continued to escape, espe­cially from restive countries like Syria and Iraq, in pursuit of safety in Europe,” said Sameh Fawzi, a for­mer adviser to the Egyptian Coptic pope.
“True, there is still fear within Christian circles in the region that the same suffering will continue in the new year but there is hope as well,” he added, recalling the De­cember bombing that killed 26 peo­ple in a Coptic church in Cairo. The attack was claimed by ISIS.
Christians, the largest religious minority in Egypt, represent almost 12% of the population. Egypt’s new parliament has 36 Christian mem­bers, out of a total of 596, the larg­est Christian representation ever.
Adding to the Christians’ op­timism has been the Egyptian government’s approval of a long-awaited law to allow them to build churches. The law removes many hindrances that stymied church construction and renovation in Egypt.
“The law has had a positive effect on Christians and showed them that they live in a country that views them as equal to their Mus­lim compatriots,” said Christian re­searcher Ishaq Ibrahim. “Such laws contribute to the empowerment of this country’s Christians.”
In the occupied Palestinian ter­ritories, Muslims and Christians displayed greater unity against the Israeli occupation last year and inside Israel itself Christians and Muslim Arabs often fight the same anti-discrimination battles.
Prolific attacks against Christians in restive Arab countries gave rise to international calls for labelling atrocities committed against them as genocide. Some Christian chari­ties and Western politicians ex­pressed fear for the future presence of Christians in war-torn countries Syria and Iraq.
While the Christian exodus from Syria continues, especially in areas occupied by militant and radical groups fighting the army of Presi­dent Bashar Assad, one needs only to look next door to Lebanon for positive signs of Christian and Mus­lim co-existence.
Lebanon is the only Arab country that has a Christian president and a Christian army commander, po­sitions guaranteed under the Taif peace accord and the constitution.
“Historically, Lebanese Chris­tians have contributed to the Arab renaissance and proved that they were able to play a (positive) role in modernising this region,” said Lebanese Christian politician Fares Souaid. “They have partnered with Muslims, who share with them this common space.”
However, the challenge for re­gional governments in the new year will be to protect Christians and other religion minorities against attacks by ISIS and other radical groups, experts said. It is highly likely that ISIS will target the weak­est segments of Arab societies, namely minorities, as it suffers de­feats, experts warned.
To alleviate the potential suffer­ing of the Christians, regional gov­ernments need to initiate school curricula reform so Christians will be viewed as full-fledged citi­zens, not as religious minorities, they warned.
“This will be the real challenge for these governments in the new year and in the years to come,” said the Rev. Poules Halim, the official spokesman of the Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church. “School curric­ula reform will greatly improve the standing of Christians in the region, even if they continue to be targeted by radical groups like ISIS.”
Amr Emam is a Cairo-based journalist. He has contributed to the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and the UN news site IRIN.

Courting the Copts
Mohamad Abou el-Fadel/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Above all, Egyptian Copts must avoid falling into trap of blackmailing authorities, for this would give Islamic extremists opportunity to weaken government.
The honeymoon between the Egyptian state and the Salafists is over. Their political clout has waned. Previously, they had been able to indirectly remain close to the reins of power, giving the impression that they enjoyed wide acceptance and allowing them to expand their presence on the public scene through mosques and religious circles but the state has resorted to a number of measures to stop their political march.
The exclusionary measures adopted by the Egyptian leadership against the Salafists seem similar to those used against the Muslim Brotherhood, in which the state succeeded rather well in clipping the Brotherhood’s wings economically, socially and politically.
By contrast, we are witnessing the beginning of a systematic charm operation towards the Copts. It started with the extreme kindness and friendliness shown them by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi on holidays and by his anger every time Copts were targeted by violence. It is clear that the Egyptian regime is keen on preserving the voting favours of the Christian bloc, a large and united front, at a time when other blocs seem to be deserting it.
The special attention given by the state apparatus to the Copts is well-motivated. The Copts are — first and foremost — Egyptian citizens who have been feeling targeted and they need reassurances that their rights will be preserved. They also carry economic clout because a large number of Egyptian business people are of the Christian faith and hold important stakes in the economy. In times of economic crisis, these citizens deserve deference.
What the Egyptian regime fears most, however, is for the Coptic asset to turn into a liability as a consequence of the repeated attacks by Islamic extremists and terrorists on Christian citizens and their churches. It is imperative that the country’s president show serious concern about the situation lest things get out of hand with dire consequences both internally and internationally.
Locally, the security apparatus must at all times be on the alert for acts of provocation. Confrontations between Muslims and Copts could start with isolated incidents between individuals and quickly degenerate into riots.
The state must show extreme severity towards anyone who dares attack a Coptic citizen. It must also show serious intent in preserving those rights perceived by the Coptic minority as being taken away. It is for that specific purpose that the Egyptian government speeded up the adoption of the law on building churches. The government has thus given concrete proof of its good intentions.
The Egyptian regime is purposefully doting on Coptic citizens in the hope of limiting potential damage to Egypt on the international level. It cannot choose not do that as Egypt is facing other debilitating problems and definitely does not need further pressure from outside. The Egyptian authorities must fend off suggestions that the Copts in the country be placed under Christian custody because they are part of the world’s Christian community. Giving in to the Coptic community’s demands, even if some of them seem exaggerated, is one way of containing the situation.
There also might be hidden political objectives behind this attention. Rich Coptic citizens might fill social roles previously held by the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter could easily be sidelined. If the Coptic minority in Egypt internalises the encompassing concept of citizenship and breaks free from the restrictive sectarian interests, there will be a good chance for its members to become true actors in the Egyptian society. They must correctly place the official support shown to them within the context of their being Egyptian citizens and not as the result of pressure on the government.
Above all, Egyptian Copts must avoid falling into the trap of blackmailing the authorities, for this would give Islamic extremists the opportunity to weaken the government by accusing it of supporting Copts to the detriment of Muslims. In such a scenario, the government will have very limited choices for action.
Thus, the idea of using the Copts as social alternatives for the Muslim Brotherhood becomes potentially dangerous. It is best, therefore, to promote policies that place citizenship above every other consideration so that all Egyptians — Muslims and Christians — become an alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood.
**Mohamad Abou el-Fadel is an Egyptian writer.

Damascus goes dry as Syria’s grim water wars intensify
Sami Moubayed/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
Despite agreement, crisis is far from over as it will take time and money to repair damaged pumps.Worst humani­tarian disaster to befall Syrian capital in recent years
Beirut - Days before Christmas, Damascus went dry due to an aerial attack on the Ain al-Fijah spring 18km north-west of the Syr­ian capital, which feeds the Barada river that supplies 70% of the water for the city and its environs.
It was initially reported by pro-regime websites on December 22nd that the rebels who have held Wadi Barada since mid-2012 had deliber­ately polluted the waters of Ain al- Fijah, which forced the authorities to cut off the water supply.
The sabotage story was used as a pretext to launch a major ground offensive against militants at the spring to seize control of the water supply despite a nationwide cease­fire proclaimed on December 30th.
Hours later, the armed opposition in Wadi Barada produced a video on social media networks, show­ing heavy damage to the water in­frastructure at the spring, clearly caused by exploding missiles.
They explained that damage on that scale could only be caused by air attacks — and the only planes op­erating over the Damascus country­side were Russian and Syrian.
The regime had attacked the spring, they claimed, to force the rebels to surrender, which they did not.
This fell in line with similar tac­tics used by the regime since 2011 in a continuing battle for resources that has become a central aspect of the nearly 6-year-old Syrian war, all part of its starve or surrender strat­egy in which it imposes sieges on rebel-held towns and cities.
The water crisis spread panic and anger among the war-swollen pop­ulation of about 9 million people in Damascus and its surrounding countryside.
This is by far the worst humani­tarian disaster to befall the Syrian capital in recent years, given that the ancient city has been relatively immune to the violence that has swept the country.
Even when the war began in March 2011, when the greater Da­mascus population was closer to 5 million, water was scarce. Now the populace has reached critical mass because of the huge numbers of ref­ugees and displaced people from all over the war-wrecked country who have thronged the capital seeking safety and succour.
Private water vendors are selling water at black market prices of 2,500 Syrian pounds — $5 a barrel — a crip­pling price because the average Da­mascus household consumes about 100-150 barrels of water per month, for drinking, washing and sanita­tion. Water costs ordinary Syrians $500-$750 a month, devastating for a city in which a senior post in the public sector, which employs mil­lions of Syrians, pays no more than $150 monthly.
The nationwide ceasefire declared by Turkey and Russia prevented re­gime forces from marching on Wadi Barada. The armed opposition tried negotiating a deal with government troops, saying that they would al­low technicians to enter the Barada valley to repair the damage if the regime stopped bombarding the Da­mascus countryside.
On January 9th, this deal went into effect but it may be temporary. The regime insists on retaking Wadi Barada, regardless of the ceasefire, claiming that the estimated 1,500 fighters there are members of Jab­hat Fateh al-Sham (JFS), al-Qaeda’s rebranded branch in Syria, which, along with the Islamic State (ISIS), was the only rebel group excluded from the ceasefire.
Despite the agreement, the crisis is far from over as it will take time and money to repair the damaged pumps, signalling difficult times ahead for the people of Damascus.
Similar crises are emerging else­where in Syria, with equally disas­trous outcomes and with jihadist forces employing the grim and bru­tal tactics of the regime.
The Euphrates Dam, 40km up­stream from Raqqa, de facto capital of the ISIS caliphate, was built by the Soviets in the 1970s. It has been held by the jihadists for two years.
ISIS recently shut down a major water flow into the battered city of Aleppo, a significant battlefield since mid-2016, from the Euphrates — an old tactic used by Zionist mi­litias that blew up the main water pipelines to the port city of Haifa before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.
If Kurdish forces get too close to the Euphrates Dam, ISIS has threat­ened to destroy the huge structure. That would flood the entire region and inundate the nearby town of Tabqa to add to Syria’s already mas­sive human catastrophe.
In neighbouring Iraq, the same applies in Mosul, where the cali­phate was proclaimed in June 2014. US-backed Iraqi state forces are battling to retake the city from ISIS and red flags are already high about the fate of a 3.4km-long dam 60km north of Mosul on the Tigris river.Built on unsuitable foundations as a prestige project by Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, the dam has required regular repair and maintenance, something ISIS failed to provide for two years.
If the dam collapses, up to 11.11 billion cubic metres of water, known as Lake Dahuk, will submerge Mo­sul and lay waste to all the down­stream towns and cities, shattering the lives of up to 7 million people.

The Middle East in 2017: A chaotic regional order emerging

Nassif Hitti/The Arab Weekly/January 15/17
It looks like that after five years and more of once promising 'Arab spring,' chaotic regional order is emerging
Beirut - Five years after the bur­geoning of the “Arab spring”, the Middle East has been caught in a long “Arab winter”. Tension, turmoil and all kinds of wars — civil ones fought under different names, wars by proxy and a bloody regional civil conflict — have developed from Iraq and Syria to Yemen and Libya.
Looking back at the last five years, one could observe through the hotbeds of conflicts, which be­came more and more interdepend­ent because of the grand strategies of the regional and international powers involved, that non-state ac­tors — sectarian, ethnic and extrem­ist religious movements, including the Islamic State (ISIS) and others — are the key players in the trans­national fighting. They yield more power than the countries in which they fight their wars under different banners with the support always of major powers.
In many cases in the “Arab spring” countries, the regimes proved to be stronger than the country they have confiscated and privatised to serve their interests. Meanwhile, society is imploding along primordial iden­tity lines — sectarian, religious or ethnic — and weak state institutions are breaking down and collapsing.
The rise of sub-national identities with their transnational solidarities are threatening, with the exacer­bated violent conflicts, the future of a country itself. One can eas­ily observe the looming danger and growing number of failed and fail­ing nations phenomena due to the open-ended wars of all sorts.
Interesting enough from a histori­cal perspective, this is happening at the centenary of the Sykes-Picot ac­cord and is allowing many observ­ers to predict the collapse of such an order.
Indeed, the taboo of the sanctity of the country that fell after the Cold War allowed many to consider a post-Sykes-Picot order: The carv­ing of new states out of the existing ones amid the absence of any fore­seeable solution to many of the on­going conflicts and the difficulties if not the impossibilities to put back together the broken de facto pieces of many of the concerned states.
Thus, a decade ago Joe Biden, then a US senator, was among the first to call for the partition of Iraq on sectarian basis as the only fea­sible way to establish peace, one based on the breaking of Iraq into pieces. The strong return to the front burner of Middle East politics of the Kurdish independence issue raises the spectre of redrawing bor­ders in the Levant in particular.
Yet, it is worth reminding that states’ divorce or splitting does not necessarily lead to peace and to set­tling conflicts. The clash of sub-na­tional identities in a failing country contributes to and encourages such splitting plans. Breaking up could be considered by certain sectarian or ethnic groups as the only way for final salvation from a historical in­justice done to them in the absence of a successful nation-building strategy.
However, the partition of Ethio­pia and Eritrea as well as of Croatia and Serbia and later the independ­ence of South Sudan have indicated that breaking up does not necessar­ily translate into a peaceful situa­tion.
In the war-torn Middle East, three scenarios appear to be plausible:
— The Sudanisation or the divorce and the fragmentation of certain states into two or more ones along ethnic or sectarian lines, a sort of post Sykes-Picot system. Such a sce­nario is difficult to envisage because it cannot be limited to one particu­lar country. It cannot be done à la carte without having a spillover ef­fect into other countries leading to general chaos and a more compli­cated situation.
— The Somalisation scenario, which has been ongoing for years in many places. It is being looked at as the lively illustration of failed coun­tries. Such states feature ongoing protracted social conflict that could be contained or managed with no spillover effect outside the borders in the absence of any plausible solu­tion due to the complexities of the conflict. At the same time, they de­velop the capacity to live with such kind of conflict that witnesses ups and downs in intensity of fighting, at an acceptable cost and as the only possible option.
— The Lebanonisation scenario or the establishment of a political system based on the consociational democracy model, a consensus over power-sharing among different eth­nic, sectarian or religious communi­ties. To paraphrase what Winston Churchill said about democracy, such a system is the worst of all sys­tems except for all others. Yet, as the Lebanese model has proven for years through its different crises, it is a system that invites interference and interventions and that needs to be revisited regularly because of its tension- and crisis-provoking na­ture and for being vulnerable and attractive to regional tensions and crises.
It looks like that after five years and more of the once promising “Arab spring”, a chaotic regional or­der is emerging in the Middle East carrying more instability, tension and wars of all sorts.
**Nassif Hitti was head of the Arab League Mission in Paris, Rome and the Vatican. He is based in Beirut.

The 6 Religious Leaders Who Will Pray At Trump’s Inauguration/رجال الدين ال6 الذين اختارهم ترامب للصلاة خلال حفل تنصيبه
Harry Farley/Christian Today/13 January 2017
 http://eliasbejjaninews.com/2017/01/15/christian-today-the-6-religious-leaders-who-will-pray-at-trumps-inauguration%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%846-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA/
 Donald Trump has chosen the largest group of clergy and religious leaders to pray and speak at his inauguration next week.
 Six pastors and other faith leaders will pray or offer a blessing of some form – more than have done so at the inauguration of any other US president.
 Trump’s list of names is diverse, ranging from the Hispanic evangelical Samuel Rodriguez to Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Jewish Rabbi Marvin Hier.
 Since 1989 Presidents have chosen just one or two people to pray at their inaugurations, with Ronald Reagan in 1985 the last to have a Rabbi. The bigger and more extravagant range of figures is typical of Trump – who tops Richard Nixon’s choice of five leaders at his inauguration in 1969.
 The six names display a variety across different faith traditions. But they all have one thing in common – all have some form of personal connection to Trump or have publicly supported him.
 Franklin Graham
 Franklin Graham has not disguised his support for the Republican, although he did not officially endorse him.Franklin Graham/Facebook
 The son of famous evangelist Billy Graham, who prayed at the ceremonies for Richard Nixon, George Bush and Bill Clinton, has himself already prayed at the ceremony in 2001 for George W Bush.
 The younger Graham refrained from publicly endorsing Trump during the campaign but frequently indicated his strong support for the Republican. After a video showing lewd comments Trump made about women, Graham said: “The crude comments made by Donald J Trump more than 11 years ago cannot be defended. But the godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise cannot be defended… The most important issue of this election is the Supreme Court.”
 He has repeatedly referred to the importance of the Supreme Court, which Trump has vowed to flood with conservative judges.
 The outspoken figure, who has taken over from his father at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse, has faced calls to step down from praying over accustions that he has an “extremist” attitude towards Islam.
 Paula White
 Pastor Paula White is seen as Trump’s ‘spiritual adviser’ and helped him meet dozens of other evangelical leaders(Facebook/Paula White)
 White, a preacher from Florida, is known for her teaching on “abundancy” and her own lavish lifestyle.
 The televangelist is credited with Trump’s much-heralded “conversion” and has defended his enormous wealth.
 “Every day you’re [living] your destiny, designed by God and discovered by you,” White said in a recent sermon. “You’re either in a position of abundance, you’re in a position of prosperity, or you’re in a position of poverty. Now that’s in every area of your life… You’re living abundant in your affairs of life – and that includes your financial conditions – or you’re living in poverty.”
 She will be the only woman to pray on January 20 and only the second woman in history after civil rights campaigner Medgar Evers’s widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, was the first in 2013.
 Rabbi Marvin Hier
 Dean and Founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center Rabbi Marvin Hier runs the Museum of ToleranceReuters
 The first Rabbi to be chosen since Reagan’s second inauguration in 1985, Hier has said it is a “particular honour” to be chosen and said it “shows the greatness of America”.
 Hier’s parents fled Poland before the Holocaust and he now runs the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. The project aims “to confront all forms of prejudice and discrimination in our world today”.
 As a result of this role, Hier has also faced calls to step down because “Trump’s entire presidential campaign encouraged the opposite”.
 Fellow Rabbi Jason Miller wrote in TIME: “He [Trump] denigrated immigrants, mocked the disabled and disrespected women.”
 He added: “By refusing this role, Rabbi Hier would be making a loud statement in defiance of prejudice and hate. He has the opportunity to proclaim to the world what his institution stands for.”
 Samuel Rodriguez
 Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is the first Hispanic pastor to pray at a presidential inauguration(Facebook/Rev. Samuel Rodriguez)
 Rodriguez, along with Cardinal Dolan, is one of the more surprising entries to the list.
 Born to Puerto Rican parents, he is the President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC) and an ordained minister in the pentecostal Assemblies of God denomination.
 He is the first Hispanic leader to pray at a presidential inauguration.
 Unlike Graham and White, Rodriguez was not afraid to publicly criticise Trump during his campaign.
 “I’m actually very opposed to his [Trump's] rhetoric on most issues,” he said. “At the top of the list, his rhetoric on immigrants, on immigration, is unacceptable.”.
 Rodriguez agreed to pray at the inauguration after “prayerful deliberation and discussion”, he told NPR, and decided he could not miss the chance to pray on “the quintessential political platform on the planet”.
 Rodriguez hopes through engaging with Trump, he can shift his attitude towards Hispanic voters, 30 per cent of whom voted for the Republican.
 “There was a bit of angst due to the fact that throughout the course of this campaign, the rhetoric and tone, as it pertained particularly to the immigrant community, did not line up with the ethos or the values of the NHCLC,” he said, adding he had heard a “change of tone” in recent weeks.
 Cardinal Timothy Dolan
 Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, said he would have been just as honoured to pray for Hillary Clinton.Reuters
 Cardinal Timothy Dolan is the most prominent Catholic leader in the US, the Archbishop of New York.
 In a statement after his invitation he said: “I am honoured to have been asked to offer a reading from Scripture at the upcoming presidential inauguration, and look forward to asking Almighty God to inspire and guide our new President and to continue to bless our great Nation.”
 He told critics he would have been just as honoured had Hillary Clinton won and invited him.
 “We pastors and religious leaders are in the sacred enterprise of prayer. People ask us to pray with them and for them. That doesn’t mean we’re for them or against them,” he told Catholic News Service.
 “That’s our sacred responsibility.”
 The arch-conservative and fellow New Yorker has met Trump twice before and has, like Rodriguez, not been afraid to criticise his attitude towards immigrants.
 “I am not in the business of telling people what candidates they should support or who deserves their vote,” he wrote in the Washington Post. “But as a Catholic, I take seriously the Bible’s teaching that we are to welcome the stranger, one of the most frequently mentioned moral imperatives in both the Old and New Testament.”
 Dolan will read from Wisdom chapter 9, a text in the Catholic Bible where Solomon asks for wisdom to lead Israel according to God’s will.
 Bishop Wayne T Jackson
 Wayne T Jackson runs Great Faith Ministries in Detroit.Reuters
 As leader of Great Faith Ministries in Detroit, Jackson played a key role in Trump’s campaign by giving him a rare audience in front of a black church.
 The African-American pastor, like White, has been accused of being a prosperity gospel preacher. He lives in a multimillion dollar mansion in Detroit and drives luxury cars. His invitation to pray is seen as Trump returning the favour.
 After facing criticism for his endorsement of Trump, Jackson said the billionaire’s wealth was a sign God had blessed him.
 “Donald Trump is an example of someone who has been blessed by God,” said Jackson. “Look at his homes, businesses, his wife and his jet. You don’t get those things unless you have the favour of God.”
 http://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.6.religious.leaders.who.will.pray.at.trumps.inauguration/103838.htm