Quantcast
Channel: Respect: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM – سلام القدس عليكم
Viewing all 27504 articles
Browse latest View live

A Strife That Will Not Soon Rest

$
0
0

Lebanese firefighters extinguish fire from burning cars following an explosion on January 21, 2014. (Photo: AFP).
Published Monday, February 3, 2014
Suicide bombers are now a creed. Impassioned followers see in them a legend leading to uncovering the mystery of God. Partisanship is not contingent on certain death. But it is enough to be afflicted with the blindness of the mind and the heart to be one of them. In Lebanon, this is not difficult like the sons of "Lebanese uniqueness" assume. It has the most fertile soil for the call and recruitment. When the powers that be are like the dominant political class here, there is only God that can save you.
In Lebanon, the Shia are repulsed by those who adopt Wahhabi ideology. They see it as the source of this mad killing. In Lebanon, there are Sunnis that reject Wahhabi thought, but they consider the Shia to be a source of concern for their lives, or so they think. They do not see any harm in disturbing those who are disturbing them today or any other day. Between the Sunnis and the Shia, the opportunists gather from other tribes, Christians, Druzes, seculars, or those who are called civil society. Their position rejects that people subsume the position of a god in giving life and taking it, forcefully and without permission. We are facing a fire burning under a cauldron of strife and only strife.
Renegades who are happy with this type of killing blame the victims for demanding a condemnation without questioning the motive. Those renegades refused in the past any justification for the terrorism, which fell on their own system of values. They rejected even to question the cause of the problem. They did so on September 11. And when the United States asked the difficult question “why do they hate us?” the renegades rejected the mere question. However, today they want us to gain insight about the reason why terrorism spreads among us. They refuse to condemn it, except through cold statements in all what they say before and after. Today, they want the victim to choose between two deaths: either to commit suicide by giving up its right of self defense or to await its fate at the hands of a suicide bomber who decided that its destiny is death.
Demons proliferate among us today. A demon that drives a young man or a teenager to a death that rips the flesh of others. Another demon urges his family to send someone after him in serial death of the same kind. And a demon that dances over the blood, as if he was Satan who refused to repent and rejected that others do so. An uglier demon who thinks he is standing on a high hill away from the fire. He greets the killer and blames the one who was killed. These demons are everywhere today. They include men of religion and scholars, politicians in public positions, and leaders in active parties. They include journalists who pin the badge of enlightenment on their chests. Among them are owners of businesses and banks, which do not close by civil war or external wars. They include activists who run after foreign embassies and their donor institutions, in pursuit of an odious lie called "civil society."
They all reject the crime, but do nothing to confront it. They do not believe it their responsibility. In reality, they assume it is a selective crime, which will not cause them harm. They do not see a need to raise their voices, not in their homes, not in their offices, not in their beds, or anywhere. They just stand at the head of the victim and ask why did they stand in the path of death. They ask the victim's family to commit suicide, in order to neutralize the effect of the suicide of lunatics, spreading like mushrooms in our unfortunate lands.
Today, Lebanon has entered the market of insane death. Those who believe in a remedy close at hand are delusional. It is fanciful to believe that we will surpass this ugly and bloody chapter soon. It is an illusion that anyone can remove those rotten roots. All the efforts are coming from the victim, who is trying to disable the madness, disrupt it, sabotage it, or keep it as far away as possible from people. But the efforts will not repel the poison, which resides in the minds, hearts, and blood of others.
But should this lead us to surrender? Does recognizing the ability of madness to spill our blood mean recognizing it as an inevitable fate?
Of course not. This "no" is spoken by a wise mind. It is not governed by the reaction of those bloodied by the crime, or those who want to imitate the murderer and become his brother in killing. This "no" means resisting this epidemic and fighting it, not only where it hits, but where it appears in slips of the tongue, and in the laboratory that produces this airborne virus. It means resisting its elements of attraction, whether among us or among those around us. Resisting it means sterilizing souls and minds from all the illnesses of despotism and oppression, whatever shape they take. It means sterilizing souls, minds, and bodies from all blind emulation of the rituals, fantasies, and delirium of what they call historically inevitable.
We can only resist this epidemic, with our blood where needed, but not with our freedoms, which will remain a source of concern for all demons.
Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Abbas seeks NATO forces, vows to stop third uprising

$
0
0

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is seen during a meeting with Russia's President Vladimir Putin outside Moscow, on January 23, 2014. (Photo: AFP - Yuri Kochetkov)
Published Monday, February 3, 2014
Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas said on Sunday that he has proposed to US Secretary of State John Kerry for a US-led NATO force to patrol a future Palestinian state indefinitely, with troops positioned throughout the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.
In an interview with The New York Times , Abbas said that his plan would allow Israeli soldiers to remain in the West Bank for up to five years and that illegal Israeli settlements should be phased out of the new Palestinian state along a similar timetable.
Palestine would be completely demilitarized, and therefore only have a police force, he added.
The NATO mission, according to Abbas, would be responsible for preventing the weapons smuggling and any resistance against Israeli forces.
“For a long time, and wherever they want, not only on the eastern borders, but also on the western borders, everywhere,” Abbas. “The third party can stay. They can stay to reassure the Israelis, and to protect us.
“We will be demilitarized,” he had said in the interview. “Do you think we have any illusion that we can have any security if the Israelis do not feel they have security?”
Abbas’s proposal comes six months into a deflating negotiations brokered by the United States, as Israel continues to enlarge illegal colonial settlements, the construction of the apartheid wall within Palestinian territories, and conducts deadly raids and strikes on Gaza and the West Bank which have killed and injured tens of civilians in the past year.
In regards to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas said, “This is out of the question,” pointing out that Jordan and Egypt were not asked to do so when they signed peace treaties with Israel.
In addition, the PA president said that he had been resisting pressure from the Palestinian street to join the United Nations agencies and leadership and that his staff had presented 63 applications ready for his signature, which he has ignored so far.
“No, I don’t want, I want to take advantage of every minute now, maybe we can achieve something,” he said to The New York Times. “I don’t like to go to the courts. I don’t like courts. I want to solve my problems directly between the parties.”
He also stressed that he would not allow a third uprising to erupt.
“In my life, and if I have any more life in the future. I will never return to the armed struggle,” he said.
However Abbas’ comments have been harshly criticized by many within the Palestinian community.
“The declarations by Mahmoud Abbas to the New York Times are simply expressing his opinions and policies,” Suhail al-Natour, a Palestinian writer and an editor for a Beirut-based Palestinian journal al-Hurriyah, told Al-Akhbar.
“All the Palestinian factions in the executive committee of the Palestinian Liberation Organization refused to go to negotiate,” Natour added.
“All the results and positions that are not with the Palestinians’ inalienable rights will be unacceptable for anyone. Israeli or foreign military presence means no state and no sovereignty.”
The writer also noted that also within Abbas’ own political organization, Fatah, there were growing “objections [to] these continued concessions.”
“This is not about creating peace. And Palestinians will not allow the continued existence of the Israel occupational and colonial yoke over them,” he added.
In a similar vein, Marwan Abdel Aal, an official of the Lebanese branch of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), echoed these sentiments.
“[Abbas’] statements are basically allowing Israel to continue it’s control and power. It seems they are going to have a majority of their illegal colonial enclaves on most of the land,” he said to Al-Akhbar
“In regards to security, ironically Israel refuses to have American forces and only wants the military presence to be Israeli. Anyways, whatever foreign forces are there it would ensure that Palestine wouldn’t be a state, it would be a caricature of a state,” he added.
The PFLP official also stressed that Abbas’ policies seeks to “further the occupation and does not have support of Palestinians in the West Bank, in Gaza, in the 1948 land, and elsewhere.”
“For Israel, this is a soft victory and a typical concession by Abbas,” he concluded.
The future of the illegal settlements is among one of many core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians fear the Israeli colonial enclaves, which are considered strictly illegal by international law, will deny them terrain they see as crucial to a viable country.
More than 500,000 illegal Israeli settlers live among 2.4 million Palestinians in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Furthermore, Israel, with the help of Egypt, has further tightened an illegal siege on the Gaza Strip, which has been in place since 2007. The blockade, which is considered by many international organizations to be a form of collective punishment, has had catastrophic consequences for the civilian population.

Syrian Behind Hermel’s Suicide Blast: Did Assir Supporters Hit Choueifat?

$
0
0
Via -Al-Manar
Al-Akhbar

Choueifat blast
Yesterday, terrorism hit the city of Choueifat on the outskirts of the southern suburb of Beirut. Yesterday the suicide bomber was not driving a booby-trapped car, he rather followed a different strategy, as he took a "van" which was supposed to pass through the Dahieh reaching Hamra street.

Did Ahmad Al-Assir make another strike? Do those who are still active in his group stand behind Choueifat's suicide explosion? Yesterday this question was asked in the security corridors after two suspects were arrested for being related to the suicide bomber who blew himself up inside Choueifat's van, and for being known as activists in groups related to Saida's escaped sheikh.

Security information have revealed that the suicide bomber was seen standing in front of "Gulf Mart" in Khaldeh, carrying a bag in his hand. Information have further indicated that the suicide bomber kept standing for around 15 minutes before getting into a Taxi cab driven by Salafist Sheikh A.G. A while after taking off, the sheikh dropped off the suicide bomber who took a van heading to Choueifat. After the explosion in Choueifat was heard, the taxi driver claimed that he was suspicious about the man so he dropped him, according to a security source.

The security apparatuses began their investigations, and the Information Branch arrested Sheikh A.G. along with his son and the two witnesses Ahmad N. and Mamdouh M. for investigations. However the key witnesses are Sheikh A.G. ad his cousin Z.G. as the latter is a well known arms dealer in the area which the suicide bomber took off from. Information also stated that Sheikh A.G. had previously traveled to Pakistan, while search is ongoing for Z.G. who disappeared.

Until yesterday, the security apparatuses were not able to specify the kind of relation between the sheikh and the suicide bomber. Security sources told Al-Akhbar that the sheikh either "has a direct relation with the suicide bomber, or he knows the side standing behind the latter, because he had received a phone call from someone asking him to drive the suicide bomber from Khaldeh to a specific spot in Choueifat.

 Moreover, security sources presumed that the suicide bomber was heading to the southern suburb of Beirut where he was supposed to blow himself up. Information circulated about the van driver being suspicious about the suicide bomber which urged the latter to blow himself up. However, security sources assumed that the suicide bomber blew up the explosive belt by mistake.

The question about groups related to Assir's involvement is based on the Iranian Embassy explosions which were implemented by two supporters of Assir.

On another hand, sources close to "Al-Nusra Front" told Al-Akhbar that the suicide bomber who did the latest suicide attack in Hermel city was a Syrian citizen. Sources said he was known as "Abu Omar Al-Ansari", but they refused to reveal his real name, leaving this issue for "Al-Nusra" leadership. The same sources also stated that delaying the announcement about the identity of the last suicide bomber is for "security essentials".

Related Articles


Prime Minister Designate: Cancel the Ministerial Rotation

$
0
0

If there is one person among the current political leaders who can make a decision, just for once, that will pay off in the face of this tragedy, it is Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam.(Photo: Marwan Tahtah)
Published Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Is it necessary to explain to those in charge of forming the Lebanese government that there is nothing to fight over?
Let us return to the beginning of the story, when everyone, in and outside Lebanon, was against Prime Minister Najib Mikati’s government. Everyone raised some kind of political slogan to topple it. And then Walid Jumblatt set up his famous trap (he gave political justifications for what he did, or so he said) and Mikati took the bait and resigned.
All factions were up in arms that a government cannot be formed unless their political preconditions are met. After a while however – even though it took a relatively long time – the reality on the ground raised issues that take us back to the same old question. Who among the Lebanese political parties can live for a long time outside the governing power structure and without the bliss of public funds at their disposal?
March 14 raised the slogan that there can be no partnership with Hezbollah. The Lebanese party had to leave Syria, put a timetable to surrender its weapons, and hand over the men accused of Rafik Hariri’s assassination to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. There was a call to cut ties with Syria and expel the Syrian ambassador from Beirut and prevent the Iranian ambassador from leaving the confines of his office. Everyone had to accept that the basic sovereign ministries – interior, defense, and foreign – will be under their supervision.
As soon as Hezbollah sent a short SMS message expressing its willingness to participate in a balanced government with this high and mighty bunch, all political demands from Saad Hariri, the kingdom of oppression in the Arabian Peninsula, the almighty United States, and the racist French administration, went by the wayside.
For a moment there, everyone seemed to be confronted with a strange magic game. No one understood how the riddle was solved in minutes, and all sides came so close to reaching an understanding.
Suddenly, however, a new-old issue emerged that seems quite basic: the question of ministerial rotation. Everyone in and outside Lebanon who agreed to compromise politically was not concerned with political issues at all but with the issue of ministerial rotation.
At the center of the rotation issue is not the Defense Ministry, since the March 14 forces know that the Lebanese Armed Forces will not go to war with Hezbollah. It is not the Interior Ministry either; Hezbollah knows that it cannot change the priorities of the Information Branch’s agenda as part of a hostile security-political system. It is not even the Foreign Ministry in which Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour’s outcries are not enough to amend a line in regional and international statements written with Syrian and Iraqi blood. Nor is it the Finance Ministry, which everyone is running away from now that the treasury is empty. And it is not the Telecommunications Ministry that puts its programs on track and continues to divide the pie into two pieces, one exclusively for the March 14 forces and one to be shared with the March 8 forces.
What is left other than the Energy Ministry?
Since the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) joined the government, everyone talks about corruption, from Energy Minister Gebran Bassil’s wealth to General Michel Aoun’s family, to the interests of this person or that person from the FPM’s leadership within the state or on its margins. But none of the accusers have provided a single paper that puts Aoun and his team under suspicion.
Why would his adversaries cover up what indicts him if it were true? And then they wonder why Aoun is adamant about keeping the Energy Ministry. The real question is why do all the others, except for Hezbollah, insist on taking the Energy Ministry from Aoun?
We only have two options. Either all the members of the political class want to implement a US-Saudi decision to prevent Lebanon from joining the club of oil-producing countries, which makes it necessary to foil any attempt to extract oil or gas now that it has become hard for the insolent policeman (Israel) to enforce the decision in his usual ways. Or the political class has its own designs for the Energy Ministry and our untapped oil.
The truth is that we, the average and not so average people, have the right to raise suspicions around this bizarre insistence on taking the Energy Ministry from the FPM. Every prime minister who headed a cabinet in which Bassil was a minister said, “I can’t stand him but he is the most active minister.”
If there is one person among the current political leaders who can make a decision, just for once, that will pay off in the face of this tragedy, it is Prime Minister-designate Tammam Salam.
We address him because we lost hope in the other governing partner, President Michel Suleiman whose thinking is limited to the confines of the presidential palace and his hometown of Amchit. And in both cases he put himself in rivalry and enmity (he likes to call it competition) with Aoun.
So we go back to Salam who lives an ordinary life. He is the closest to the general public, knowing that the country is on the brink and on the verge of more madness because of the barrage of suicide bombers and those behind them. It is not a joking matter, and even though the government will not address the issue, it will open the door to acceptable solutions.
We say to Salam briefly, end this game of ministerial rotation and form a government that helps to calm the situation. The alternative, either in a de facto government or a government that excludes Christians, will be like a car bomb that someone wants you to drive where it will blow up amidst the innocent people only.
Ibrahim al-Amin is editor-in-chief of Al-Akhbar.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS: The Renunciation of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

$
0
0
A rebel fighter carrying a weapon rides his bike on February 3, 2014 in a street in the northeastern city of Deir Ezzor. At least 36 people were killed on February 2, 2014. (Photo: AFP- Ahmad Aboud).
Published Tuesday, February 4, 2014
The Islamic State of Iraq, which later became the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), was never really a subordinate of al-Qaeda. The groups’ relationship dates back to 2003, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi swore an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden. The religious dispute between the two jihadi groups, however, is new, as all reconciliation attempts have so far failed.
statement attributed to al-Qaeda, published by the Fajr Media Center, a jihadi propaganda platform, announced that al-Qaeda has no official ties to ISIS. According to the statement, al-Qaeda was never notified, consulted, or approached about the founding of ISIS. Instead, the statement continued, al-Qaeda has called for dissolving the group, stressing that ISIS “is not a branch of Qaedat al-Jihad [al-Qaeda], and has no organizational ties to it.”
This is not the first time that al-Qaeda has disowned ISIS, but this episode indicates the depth of their disagreements. In November 2013, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the preeminent figure in the global jihadi movement, called for dissolving ISIS, and proclaimed ISIS’ rival al-Nusra Front as al-Qaeda’s official branch in Syria. Shortly after, al-Nusra Front took part in some battles alongside the Saudi-backed Islamic Front against ISIS.
The story does not start there, however. The issue is not just a dispute among jihadi emirs over who should be leading in the Syrian arena. Instead, an ideological-religious dispute is at the heart of the battles between the Islamic Front and ISIS.
Indeed, the Islamic Front has called its offensive against ISIS “the Battle of Nahrawan,” in reference to the historical battle between the fourth Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib against the historical rogue Muslim faction known as the Kharijis. For its part, ISIS has linked its battle with the Islamic Front to the Wars of Apostasy, in reference to the first caliph’s crackdown against tribes that mutinied against the Islamic caliphate following the Prophet Mohammad’s death.
A strange version of that history is repeating itself in Syria, with war raging among the “brothers in jihad.” Relentless battles are taking place among armed opposition groups, and so far, all attempts at reconciliation have failed.
The jihadi infighting has drawn interventions by Salafi-jihadi ideologues, such as Sheikh Abu Iyad al-Tunisi, emir of Ansar al-Sharia in Tunisia, who issued a statement in support of those he called the “mujahideen in the Levant.” For his part, the director of al-Maqrizi Center for Historical Studies, Egyptian Sheikh Hani al-Sibai, attacked the factions who have assaulted ISIS. Jordanian Sheikh Issam al-Barqawi, known as Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, sent out a letter criticizing ISIS. In turn, Sheikh Omar Othman, who is known as Abu Qatada al-Filastini, called on the emir of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to withdraw from Syria or merge with al-Nusra Front.
These interventions, however, have only deepened the state of division. Only the initiative of Saudi Sheikh Abdullah al-Mohisni to create an Islamic court of arbitration, has been taken somewhat seriously. Most warring factions approved of the initiative, except ISIS, which thanked Mohisni but said that the fighting in Syria was not a “rift among the mujahideen, but rather a war waged by a heretical faction against the mujahideen.”
Amid the conflicting positions and the excessive issuing of fatwas of apostasy, we should return to the beginnings of this affair. Had Baghdadi pledged an oath of allegiance to Zawahiri to begin with, to justify accusations of reneging on his oath? In truth, all indications suggest that al-Nusra Front leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani mutinied against Baghdadi, the man who originally sent Golani to Syria.
And what, exactly, is the relationship between al-Qaeda and ISIS? The ties between the two date back to the US occupation of Iraq following the 2003 US-led invasion. Back then, 16 extremist Sunni factions were fighting in Iraq, including: Jaysh Ahl al-Sunna, Ansar al-Islam, Jaysh al-Sahaba, Jaysh al-Khilafa, Jaysh Mohammad, and al-Tawhid wal Jihad, led by Jordanian national Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who swore allegiance to the leader of al-Qaeda at the time, Osama bin Laden.
After Zarqawi pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, he changed his group’s name to al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Later on, al-Qaeda organized jihadi groups into an alliance called Hilf al-Mutayibin. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was chosen as its emir, before he formed the Islamic State of Iraq, with a view to establish a caliphate in the areas where Sunnis are a majority in Iraq.
In the jihadis’ understanding, this was necessary because the area under their control needed a state to manage their affairs, and this is where the crux of the matter lies: The Islamic State of Iraq was established as a “peacetime,” rather than a “wartime,” structure.
According to a Salafi cleric, “There are two types of emirates in the Salafi doctrine: a general Islamic emirate, that is, a Muslim state under the name of caliphate, as it was in the time of Prophet Mohammad; and a special Islamic emirate, which can be either for jihad and proselytizing, or for governing.” This, they say, is the source of the dispute between ISIS and the rest of the jihadi factions.
To be sure, the “governing emirate” that Baghdadi declared was meant to manage the affairs of the Muslims in the ISIS-controlled areas, the Salafi source said. The “jihadi emirate,” by contrast, “would focus on combat until the enemy is defeated, and does not concern itself with managing the affairs of the people.”
In Syria, Baghdadi aimed to expand his power, and created al-Nusra Front, tasking Golani with coordinating jihadi operations in Syria. When Golani was asked to reintegrate his group with ISIS, he refused, causing the rift that we see today.
To declare his state, Baghdadi said the areas under his control needed a governor. Therefore it was imperative, from a Sharia perspective, to convert his group from the jihadi type to the governing type. Next, a Shura council was formed, which then appointed Baghdadi as the “emir of the faithful.” Baghdadi subsequently appointed ministers, governors, and officers to collect Zakat money, and outlined domestic and foreign policy for his “state.”
As a result, all armed factions present in the ISIS-controlled areas had to either pledge allegiance to him to keep their arms, leave to fight in other areas, or lay down their arms.
With this, Baghdadi followed in the footsteps of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who had assumed the Emirate of the Islamic State in Afghanistan, that is, moved from being an emir of a group to an emir of a state, before he was toppled following the US invasion of Iraq. The same can be said about Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, and al-Qaeda’s emirate in Mali.
Baghdadi considers himself a “ruling emir,” while Zawahiri considers him the “emir of a group.” This is while bearing in mind that Zawahiri himself is the emir of a group since he does not control any geographical areas where he can implement Sharia -- though he is a global jihadi emir who commands the allegiance of many factions throughout the world.
The fighting among jihadis in Syria continues. Foreign fighters, who are known as the “muhajirin,” or emigrants, side with ISIS, while the majority of Syrian-born jihadis, known as “al-Ansar,” the partisans, side with al-Nusra. In the meantime, an undeclared battle over Saudi Arabia is intensifying: The Islamic Front is fighting ISIS at the behest of the Saudi government, while ISIS and al-Nusra both declare the latter as an infidel regime.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

AIPAC and the Israel Lobby: Down, but Not Yet Out!

$
0
0

President Obama's speaks to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. (photo: AP)
President Obama’s speaks to the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference. (photo: AP)
Feb 4, 2014, Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
n March 2006, the London Review of Books published a path-breaking essay on “The Israel Lobby” by University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Stephen Walt. The two then published a book the following year, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” They argued that a loose coalition – including leading journalists and media outlets, neo-conservatives, Christian Zionists, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – held a “stranglehold” on U.S. policy in the Middle East and on any public discussion of it.
The mud-slinging that followed confirmed their argument, as the ever watchful Philip Weiss noted at the time. Some supporters of Israel compared the authors to Neo-Nazis and grubby Jew-baiters. The Anti-Defamation League called their argument “a classical conspiratorial anti-Semitics analysis invoking the canards of Jewish power and Jewish control.” And Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, that paragon of even-handed objectivity, decreed that the two men had “destroyed their professional reputations.”
The same mud-slingers still call their political foes anti-Semites, which drains the word of all meaning – a dangerously short-sighted reaction given the resurgence of neo-Nazis on the streets of Paris, as I reported last week. But the Israel Lobby’s stranglehold on Washington has visibly weakened, thanks in good measure to the bravery of Mearsheimer and Walt. Courage is indeed contagious.
Think back to August 2013, when Obama and Kerry called for a not-so-limited military strike on Syria following reports that the government of Bashir al-Assad had used poison gas. To this day, Washington has not shown that the horrific use of gas came from Assad’s forces rather than from the Sunni rebels. But, no matter, AIPAC and its pro-Israel allies led a massive campaign to support U.S. military intervention. They pushed and they failed. Ignoring “the impossibility” of ever defeating the Israel Lobby, progressive organizers – many of them Jewish – mobilized public opinion to flood the White House, Congress, and the media with petitions, emails, and telephone calls opposing yet another U.S. military action in the Middle East.
Faced with the outpouring of antiwar sentiment, Obama first said he would leave the decision to a vote in Congress and then made a deal with Russia to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons. The deal stinks. According to the Obama administration, Assad is dragging his feet and has reportedly shipped out of the county only 4% of his most dangerous chemical weapons, the Priority One chemicals that he was supposed to remove by the end of 2013. But with his fellow Americans weary of endless lies about endless war, Obama has given no indication that he will put military intervention back on the table or that it would rid Syria of chemical weapons if he went to war, whether limited or all-out.
The lesson seems clear. Too many lies and too many military threats make it difficult for Obama to use force even if he could make a good case for it, which he cannot, and who would now believe him if he could? This will not stop the Israel Lobby from jumping in whenever they can. Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times has just done that with a report – datelined Tel Aviv – accusing Assad of “stockpiling advanced weaponry, including chemical and biological arms, in the heartland of his Alawite sect as an insurance policy in case his country is eventually partitioned.”
To punctuate the report, the article confirms that last week Israeli F15s destroyed a missile depot at Jableh near Latakia, which is in the Alawite enclave. Earlier reports of the attack appeared in Lebanese media.
Syria’s civil war continues on its tragic path, and not even Washington’s “humanitarian warriors” openly call for U.S. military intervention. But the big fight here is that Obama’s stand-down on Syria led to negotiations with the Iranians over their nuclear program, which the Israel Lobby is doing everything it can to scuttle. They came close to succeeding. They still might. At one point, they looked as if they had enough senators in their pocket to pass a bill enacting new sanctions against Iran, which could have made negotiations impossible.
Once again, progressive organizers mobilized the largest outpouring of public opinion many Congressional staffers had ever seen, and – believe it or not – Obama stood firm and hit hard. “If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so,” said a spokeswoman for his National Security Council. Then, in his State of the Union speech, Obama raised the stakes. “If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks,” he promised, “I will veto it.”
Will negotiations stop the Iranians from ever getting a nuclear weapon? They might, or they might not. But the truth is that, according to the polls, the American people do not want to go to war to stop them. On that, as the Israel Lobby still has to learn, our fellow citizens are absolutely right.

Syrian Army Continues to Uproot Militants, Seizes Weapons

$
0
0


Local Editor

Syria crisisThe Syrian army has killed scores of foreign-backed armed mercenaries and seized their weapons during an ongoing campaign across the war-hit country.

Syrian government forces launched security operations against the militants in the provinces of Damascus, Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, Homs, Idlib and Daraa on Tuesday and killed a large number of them, the official SANA news agency reported.

They also captured a large number of machine guns, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, mortar shells and explosive devices.

In Aleppo, the army units destroyed several cars full of weapons and ammunition, and killed a number of militants.

In Idlib, the national military destroyed eight cars equipped with anti-aircraft guns.
Moreover, government troops attacked groups of “terrorists” in the Damascus suburbs of Khan al-Sheeh and Daraya city, killing all of them.

The Syrian army has recently conducted successful clean-up operations across the country, inflicting heavy losses on the militants.

Recent investigations by various media outlets have found that the foreign-backed militants are taking amphetamine stimulants to stay on their feet in exhausting battles against Syrian government forces, Al-Alam website reported.

Al-Qaeda linked groups are also said to be using stimulant drugs extensively as they launch many attacks at night and are engaged in gruesome battles.

Syria was hit by a violent unrest since mid-March 2011, where the Syrian government accuses foreign actors, mainly the Saudi Arabia and Turkey, of orchestrating the conflict by supporting the militant opposition groups with arms and money.

On December 9, Syria urged the United Nations to stop Saudi Arabia from "supporting Al-Qaeda-linked militants" and fanning the flames of "terrorism" in the country.

Source: Websites
05-02-2014 - 15:04 Last updated 05-02-2014 - 15:04

Related Articles

TURKEY: A LESSON TO ALL

$
0
0

by Daniel Mabsout

The visit of Erdogan to the Islamic Republic was not fruitless , and this not because significant deals were concluded that amount to billions of dollars, but because the Turks promised to cooperate in putting term to the war on Syria . The agreement consists in three steps which start by delivering the positions of the terrorist factions in Iraq and their locations and this has been done according to Iranian expert Mohammed Sadek al Husseini. The second step is to continue to build the wall on the Syrian/ Turkish border to prevent infiltration to Syria across the borders that has started in Bab al Hawa and tightening the control on the borders and the third step is to stop any supply in men and weapons heading to Syria .
It is compelled that Erdogan accepted this deal while Iran has found itself in a strong position not only due to the achievements of the Syrian Army on the ground, but also and thanks to the partial lifting of the embargo , Iran is no more in a desperate need for relations with Turkey according to al Husseini . Not only this, but Erdogan- right now- is losing on many fronts and not only in Syria . The Muslim Brothers dream has evaporated with their fall in Egypt. And US has turned his mentor Fethullah Gulen against Erdogan in the corruption scandal that revealed the involvement of officials in fishy deals and -on top of that- Turkey is facing innumerable financial problems and Erdogan no more enjoying fully the favors of the US administration that is ready to sacrifice him and Davutuglu in the next elections. His own party of the AKP is not happy with him or with the fact that he opened Turkey to terrorist groups . Erdogan finds himself in a big mess that he made himself and needs a way out in order to continue to rule, and Iran has offered him this conditioned way out .
Needless to say that – previously- Iran wanted Turkey to join the alliance sponsored by the Islamic Republic to gather Syria , Iraq and Turkey whereby Turkey behaved as if it were willing to join and, in accordance, agreements were concluded with Syria who chose to over look the fact that Turkey was occupying Syrian land . Not only this, but Syrians were not satisfied to see Turkish imported products compete with national goods. All this turned out to be a big cheat and Turkey who was reintroduced to the area by Iran mostly, chose to belong to the NATO side and started its raid on Syria looting and killing and introducing thousands of thugs and tons of weapons that made Erdogan eligible to be tried for crimes against humanity.
Now the Iranian officials have renewed the offer from a strong position to a somehow defeated Erdogan . We trust the Iranian leadership and hope that a defeated Erdogan with limited choices will cooperate to end the blood bath in Syria in order to strengthen his own position . The lesson in all this is : Never trust an ally of Israel whatever he says and however he behaves. Is there a lesson in this that the Syrian officials supporters of Marshall Field al Sisi can learn?

BREEDING TERRORISM / MODIFIED ISLAM

$
0
0

The sectarian warfare has turned into a war against Islam. It is Islam that is targeted in this war, and no Islam will be allowed to survive except the terrorist Islam. This Islam- if Islam there is- will be fed and nurtured and funded and supplied and boosted in every form . The war on Religion had started long ago; and now, this war will be waged against Religion in the name of secularity as well. From trying to alter the Religion, to trying to modify the teachings of the Religion , to the promotion of sectarianism , the multiple attempts at exposing Islam have never stopped. This has started with the Talibans who frequented the innumerable Taliban schools, sponsored by KSA, and with al Qa’ida -the joint Saudi / US endeavor- to use religion and hired jihadists to fulfill US political schemes, and carry on military tasks, designed and operated by world Intelligence .
For sure the World Order cannot co exist with true Islam, and cannot also win the battle against Islam . Therefore, Islam is to be exposed -as terrorist- and destroyed from within. What we are witnessing right now -in Iraq and Syria- is something similar whereby sectarian thugs are set against Muslims and against one another as well. This will not be the first time that the World Order uses a form of Religion in order to carry on inimical schemes that target peoples and nations . Previously, Judaism was used to further colonialism by creating an interpretation of Judaism – called Zionism – that gave the Jews license to create an Israeli state, on usurped Arab land, in order to fulfill a certain so called Godly promise, made to some chosen people .
In relation to this, Judaism became a religion that breeds terror . This has become true of Islam as well. What helped in this matter is that Muslims suffer from the same Jewish ailment that considers Islam superior to other faiths – or beliefs- and therefore, gives right to the adepts of the Religion to impose their view on others. This behavior – on behalf of Muslims- though not religiously justified- is widely spread , if not – so to say – unanimous .
This tendency manifested itself early in the way Muslims – in Asia – viewed the Hindu religion as unworthy, and the way they considered Hindus as worshipers of idols who are not fit to rule over pious Muslims . This unjustified feeling of superiority over Hindus, and this feeling of exclusiveness- as exploited by the British – was at the origin of the creation of the separate state of Pakistan ; separation that caused unimaginable bloodshed and unforgettable miseries . This same exclusiveness will be used later in fueling sectarian hatred between Sunnis and Shi’as, whereby Sunnis – posing as the true adepts of the Religion -will try to exclude and demonize and spill the blood of their Shi’a brothers , supported – in this- by their religious references and authorities, and by their sect in general. Terrorism in Islam has no other origin.
Thus, the world order has taken upon itself to reproduce Islam and create a modified version of Islam compatible with the schemes of expansion , domination and annihilation of the other, proper to the World Order..

YARMOUK CAMP UNDER SIEGE

$
0
0
Daniel Mabsout,
Some humanitarian aid and medication managed to find its way to the al Yarmouk camp that witnessed few deaths caused by starvation and dehydration when food supplies and water went missing from the camp where around 17000 people are still living .Few sick persons have also been evacuated . The biggest camp in Syria where more than half of the Palestinian refugees in Syria are living in addition to a great number of Syrians, has been subject to great destruction . Many fighting factions of the opposition have entered the camp and resumed from the camp their war against the Syrians causing the majority of the Palestinian refugees to flee the camp and great destruction in the camp itself . They have imposed a siege on the camp – as well- preventing any food and aid from entering the camp and shooting at the humanitarian UN convoys .
A gathering of the Palestinian armed factions asked the non Palestinian rebels to evacuate the camp and to let in food and medical supplies but this has failed and the convoys were shot at and prevented from entering the camp . Al Yarmuk is not the first camp to be destroyed . This happened in year 2007 to Nahr al Bared -one of the biggest Palestinian camps in Lebanon – that was totally destroyed by fanatic extremists and partially rebuilt due to the battles that confronted the Lebanese army with the thugs of Fateh al Islam . This seems to be part of a scheme to destroy camps as part of settling the Palestinian problem by dropping the right of return whereby Palestinians will be scattered and absorbed in hosting countries and will stop claiming the right of return .

Syria’s Valley of the Christians Under Fire

$
0
0

Syrian Christians take part in a rallye organized by the Syriac Union Party, under the protection of Christian militias, to protest against abductions among Christians committed they said by forces loyal to the Syrian regime and members of radical Islamist groups on August 30, 2013. (Photo: AFP - Benjamin Hiller)
Published Wednesday, February 5, 2014
The fierce battles between the Syrian army and armed extremist groups in the town of Zara, surrounding the Krak des Chevaliers, are echoing throughout Wadi al-Nasara, which is Arabic for the Valley of the Christians. Each day, the villages in the valley bury new victims. Those who have not fled have now resolved never to abandon Syria.
The driver’s voice mixed with the sound of the snowy wind pounding our speeding car as it traversed the Hawash-Zara road, in Wadi al-Nasara, west of the city of Homs. “This road is dirty at night,” the man remarked.
There were two men in the back, sticking their rifles out the window. You feel fear, but you try to pull yourself together.
It was pitch black outside, and the Syrian opposition militants holed up in the Krak des Chevaliers crusader castle are known to target this road. But according to the driver, the situation is now safer, after the Syrian army established new positions and stepped up its security measures. The minutes passed heavily, with the images of gratuitous death and beheadings in Wadi al-Nasara playing over and over again in your head.
Those fighting alongside the Syrian army have made their peace with death. They talk about their comrades who have been killed in a sad, matter-of-fact tone. The residents sheltered in their homes in the valley might not be facing certain death like them, but the odds of being killed from random shelling and the almost daily sniping by the militants remain high. And while army reinforcements in preparation for the liberation of Krak Des Chevaliers improved conditions along the road in the past two weeks, travel by night is still risky.
The cold weather is not the biggest concern behind the sand barriers. Nizar, a pro-regime fighter, adjusts his wooly hat and blows warm air into his palms, as he divides his gaze between his night vision scopes and us. “You can’t afford to be cold or to close your eyes. The militants are trying to sneak in every hour. I hope they do, so I can show them to you on the scopes.”
The fighters stationed here include Syrian army soldiers, National Defense Forces members, and fighters from theSyrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). But the majority of them are in truth residents of nearby villages.
The Scourge of Beheadings
Most of the Christians who remain in the region are not banking on salvation to come from Western Christendom. Those who have not fled say they now prefer to die here as opposed to receiving the “White Man’s charity,” anyway.
Tony, who works at a shawarma restaurant in the village of Hawash, does not want to leave. Like him, the mother of Hossam, from the village of Hanbara, who was killed in the conflict, wants to stay close to his grave so she can visit him every day. Countless others like them want to stay, too. Syria is the only home they have.
During a January 29 attack on a National Defense checkpoint in the town of Ammar al-Hosn, the militants took great joy in mutilating the bodies of the troops who had been manning the checkpoint. They gouged the eyes of one corpse and beheaded another, taking the head with them.
Over the past several weeks, the militants beheaded many others, including fighters from the National Defense Forces, an SSNP fighter named Hanna Karam, and also civilians, most recently a young man named Fadi Matta, from Marmarita.

Iranian - Turkish rapprochement .. Between "Arab nationalists" fears and the illusions of "Brotherhood"

$
0
0
التقارب الإيراني – التركي.. بين مخاوف “القوميين العرب” وأوهام “الإخوان”The below Arabic article, tackles the unjustified fears of Arab nationalist, and the illusions of "Brotherhood" that the Iranian - Turkish rapprochement would save Edroghan, their last life support.

It explains the sudden change of  the attitude of Daniel Mabsout towards Syria from Praising Assad, smearing the betrayal of Hamas, and the sectarian agenda of MB's

He moved to spread lies about Syria and its Assad, who according to Rassia's instructions has already started in approving of the Egyptian military coup in Egypt . 
The real outcome (Geneva 2) is being cooked elsewhere and the choices are not many . In order to continue to rule , Assad who agreed to shift the battle – according to Russia’s instructions – would have to present concessions not only to US but to Russia as well and this has already started in approving of the Egyptian military coup in Egypt and in turning the war against NATO and Israel into a war against Terrorism.
Out off sudden nationalism and secularism has become the enemy, and the non-Muslim made a U-turn and started to Justify Muslim brothers treason. If the MB just coordinated with US, the Egyptian the Military Council did the same. In short, Assad should reconcile with Muslim Erdugan, the thief of Aleppo 
It is shameful really how some pro Assad thinkers and intellectuals are trying to implicate the Muslim Brothers of Egypt and HAMAS in everything bad or controversial or even criminal , and they do this openly in the media and everywhere else …….They are exposing HAMAS and the Muslim Brothers of Egypt labeling them as terrorists or pro US and at the same time they are promoting rulers like al Sisi who was chief of Intelligence under Mubarak, justifying his acts and his military coup and his oppressive means, seeing in him a national hero and seeing in the Egyptian army, a par to the Syrian army . 
This is frankly dishonest and serves an agenda The MB coordinated with US administration alright, but so did the Egyptian officers and the Military Council by cooperating fully with the Pentagon with the difference that – now- the Muslim Brothers of Egypt have been prohibited and their assets frozen and their leaders under lock while the Military Council and the minister of Defense – who is non other than al Sisi- have seized power. In order to go around this matter , the pro Assad intellectuals are saying that US is putting pressure on al Sisi and withholding aid to the army because Egypt has opted to open up to Russia . Well, now that the US aid has been resumed , what are they going to say ?
According to Mr Mabsout the enemy is Nasserist and secularists who Paved the way for Sisi, the new Pharaoh. The World Order is now supporting the Arab armies in their war against Terror. 
To smearing the so-called pro-Assad (Nationalists, Nasserists, seculars...)
He claimed that they supported the MB's sectarian agenda, that Secular Turkey is not better than Muslim brother's Turkey...
Syria should retrieve its will and its decision and not serve any force that is alien to the basic Arab / Israeli struggle .The terrorists are Israel and the world order and their tools and not some destitute Muslim Brother leader rotting in jail . And military secularism is not an answer to our problems but all our problems will be solved when we direct our weapons to the real enemy.

The "honest" Daniel lost his temper when I shred his theory into pieces by publishing the Interview of Al-manar with Al-Husaini.

التقارب الإيراني – التركي.. بين مخاوف “القوميين العرب” وأوهام “الإخوان”

لا شك أن الأزمات السياسية عموماً، على الصعيدين الداخلي والخارجي، وتراجع الوضع الاقتصادي على وجه الخصوص، هم الذين دفعوا رئيس الحكومة التركية رجب طيب أردوغان إلى زيارة طهران الأسبوع الماضي، لكن المحلّلين يحمّلون الزيارة أهمية أكبر مما تحتمل، ويركّزون على تبيان أبعادها الاستراتيجية، ويغالون في مدى تأثيرها على تعزيز الدور الإقليمي للدولتين في حل الملفات المستعصية لمصلحة دول المنطقة وشعوبها، والحد من آثار التدخل الخارجي.
الأمر المؤكد بالنسبة إلى زيارة أردوغان لطهران أنها جاءت في سياق ترميم العلاقات الثنائية المتواصلة منذ عقود عديدة، خصوصاً على صعيد المصالح الاقتصادية المشتركة، وما عدا ذلك يندرج في باب التكهّنات السياسية والرهانات الاستراتيجية الخاطئة، فقد شهد التبادل التجاري تراجعاً نسبياً في أوج الأزمة السورية، فجاءت الزيارة خصيصاً لإنعاشه ضمن خطط تستهدف رفعه إلى مستوى 30 مليار دولار خلال عامين، بعد أن انحدر من 21 مليار لعام 2012 إلى 13 مليار دولار لعام 2013.
لقد شهدت سياسات تركيا الخارجية في عهد حزب “العدالة والتنمية” بقيادة أردوغان؛ تبدلات عديدة ذات أوجه شديدة التناقض، فراهنت بعض القوى العربية والإسلامية على تلك التبدلات لتعديل موازين القوى الإقليمية، خصوصاً على صعيد الصراع العربي – الصهيوني، وتحقيق طموحات دول المنطقة بالتكامل الاقتصادي والسياسي، ثم جاءت النتائج محبطة وعكسية.
ومرة أخرى يبالغ المراقبون والمحللون في تقييم دوافع التقارب الإيراني – التركي، ويتناسون أن الإدارة الأميركية هي التي سمحت لتركيا بأن لا تلتزم حرفياً بتنفيذ العقوبات الاقتصادية ضد إيران، بل استخدمتها وسيطاً في معالجة الملف النووي، بينما ظلت تتآمر على البلدين بما يتناسب مع توجهات الكيان الصهيوني وسياساته التوسعية في المنطقة.
إن توقعات القيادة الإيرانية الرفيعة، كما يتبين من حماسها الشديد للزيارة، لا تتوازى مع الأهداف والغايات المحدودة التي تحكم موقف تركيا، رغم قيام هذه الأخيرة بخطوات تعكس إدراكها أنها الهدف التالي، بعد سورية، لهجمة التقسيم والتفتيت الجارية في المنطقة، وأن عليها أن تكون جادة في تغيير سياساتها الإقليمية، لكن تصريحات وزير الخارجية التركي أحمد داود أوغلو، في مؤتمر ميونيخ الأمني منذ أيام، لا تصب في هذا التوجه، إذ تلاقت مع الخطاب الأميركي المتشدد ضد الرئيس بشار الأسد.
وقد تضاربت مواقف القوى السياسية في المنطقة من الزيارة، فمن  جهة، يرى المتخوفون على مستقبل المصالح العربية والأمن القومي، أن تعزيز الدور الإقليمي من خلال التقارب التركي الإيراني، إنما ينقصه البعد العربي، كما عبر بعض السياسيين والمحللين على الساحة المصرية، معتقدين بأن جلّ ما تريده تركيا من علاقاتها مع إيران هو التعويض عن خسارة “الإخوان المسلمين”، وتراجع دورهم في مصر وسورية.
ومن جهة أخرى، لا يرى أنصار “الإخوان المسلمين” في هذا التقارب فرصة لاستعادة المبادرة فحسب، بل يذهبون إلى الاعتقاد الواهم بإمكانية “تشكيل وحدة فدرالية بين تركيا وإيران، لتكون خطوة في اتجاه توحيد الأمة الإسلامية، وتشكيل قوة إقليمية فاعلة وقادرة على تحدي الغرب، وصد عدوانهم المتواصل ضد بلدان المنطقة وشعوبها”.
صحيح أن القيادة الإيرانية عبّرت عن ضرورة إدخال “البعد العربي” في التحالفات الإقليمية، وسعت إلى الشراكة مع الحكومة السعودية لحل الملفات العالقة بينهما على صعيد المنطقة، لكن التقارب السعودي يتم في الواقع مع الكيان الصهيوني إما كردة فعل وخوف تثيره سياسات الإدارة الأميركية الخادعة تجاه إيران، أو بمكر قادة الكيان الصهيوني بتوظيف الخلافات الداخلية للعائلة المالكة، واقتناصهم الفرص السانحة، والنتيجة أن الأمة تقف عاجزة أمام معادلة غريبة: “كلما أحرزت إيران خطوة واعدة على الصعيد الإقليمي أو الدولي، اقتربت السعودية وحلفاؤها من إسرائيل”، فنرى تركي الفيصل يعبر في مؤتمر ميونيخ عن “سعادته بلقاء الوزيرة الإسرائيلية، تسيبي ليفني”، ويصرّح بـ”أن لإسرائيل دوراً هاماً إذا أنجز اتفاق السلام”، حتى ولو تم على حساب القضية الفلسطينية، ذلك أن بعض القادة السعوديين مهووسون بـ”الخطر الإيراني”، ومستعدون للتحالف مع الشيطان لمواجهة “نظام الأسد والتمدد الشيعي المزعوم”.
عدنان محمد العربي – الثبات

Kerry Admits: President Assad’s Position Improved

$
0
0



Local Editor


Secretary of State John Kerry made a rare admission that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has gained ground.

"It's fair to say that Assad has improved his position a little bit, yes,” Kerry said in an exclusive interview with CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper. “But he's still not winning. This is a stalemate.”

John Kerry
But Kerry denied that Obama administration’s policy is failing.

"I don't want to make any excuse whatsoever. We want this to move faster. We want it to do better," said Kerry. "But the point I'm making is that diplomacy is tough, slogging, slow work and hard work. But we're beginning to see the shaping of how you might potentially get somewhere.”

“And we are always in the process of reevaluating whether there's more we can do, should do. We'll work with Congress. We're working internally to figure out if we should if there's a way to get more response from the Russians, more response from Assad," he added.

Kerry argued last year that more needs to be done to topple Assad, including arming the foriegn-backed militants.

"The President has said the same thing, I mean this is not a divergence," Kerry said.

This week, Kerry reportedly told some members of Congress behind closed doors that he has grave concerns about President Barack Obama's Syria policy.

Source: Agencies
06-02-2014 - 11:49 Last updated 06-02-2014 - 11:4

Anis Naqash: On Sectarianism, Nationalism and the regional political scene

"Saudi Royal Family Member behind ISIL Crimes in Syria"

$
0
0

Local Editor

Syria militant groupsA captured member of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant said that the ISIL and other militant groups in Syria not only are supported by a member of the Saudi royal family but the individual actually heads the ISIL, Al-Alam website posted.

In a video admission, the member of the ISIL said the radical group actually is led by Prince Adbul Rahman al-Faisal, the son of the late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and the brother of the current Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the WorldNetDaily reported on Thursday.

The revelation suggests a high level of direct involvement by the Saudi royal family in terrorist activities not only in Syria but in other locations where Takfiri militants are operating.
The arrested ISIL terrorist said his group was monitoring the movements of the so-called Free Syrian Army, which forms the main opposition to the Syrian government.

The captive said he was under orders to do so “from the leadership of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”

Asked who in the leadership of the ISIL gave him the orders, the captured militant said without hesitation, “Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, who is also known as Abu Faisal.”

The revelation that high levels of the House of Saud are behind the militant groups in Syria and elsewhere comes as President Barack Obama prepares to visit Saudi Arabia in March in an effort to smooth out US-Saudi relations strained over the US stance on Syria and Iran.

Source: Websites
06-02-2014 - 17:15 Last updated 06-02-2014 - 17:15

Related Articles


Why Sisi Can’t Imitate Nasser’s Model

$
0
0

Protesters cheer with Egyptian flags and a banner of army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, seen between former presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, as they gather for a mass protest to support the army in front of the presidential palace in Cairo, July 26, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Asmaa Waguih)

August 4, 2013
TRANSLATOR(S)Sahar Ghoussoub
This may not be a logical issue; history often repeats itself where the first time is a tragedy and the second time is a comedy. Yet, the popular urge and massive support in the street for Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi justify the discussion of the possibilities of realization of this approach, in which mobilization by the media played a major role. This role reawakened the dream of the majority of Egyptians and perhaps Arabs of restoring the vision [Gamal] Abdel Nasser had for Egypt as at once a powerful and authoritarian state. What is ironic is that this dream is reduced to the figures that are Abdel Nasser and Sisi, despite their differences.
These differences are not only limited to the experience, education and culture of Sisi and Abdel Nasser, but they are also related to the historical circumstances and the choices made by each of them, making it practically impossible for Sisi to repeat Abdel Nasser’s experience. However, Sisi does not hide his Nasserism, in the sense that he admires Abdul Nasser’s national positions and eagerness to safeguard Egyptians’ pride and dignity. This admiration is shared by most of the Egyptians who believe Nasserism galvanized Egyptian nationalism during the Cold War and represented an attempt to build an independent development model. On the other hand the Nasserist vision and position on democracy has been a contentious issue that divided the Egyptians, even among Nasserites themselves. Moreover, Sisi’s coup backed by popular support intersects with the values ​​and mechanisms of democracy, regardless of the lack of democracy of the Brotherhood’s rule, their failure to run the state’s affairs and their urge to Brotherhoodize and divide Egyptian society, likewise disregarding the popular illusion of a saving hero who will safeguard the unity of the homeland and its national security.
Certainly, reducing history and the future to any specific person reflects the weakness of the masses and the elite’s culture of democracy. Political conflict and a lack of security have exhausted most of the Egyptians and pushed them to search for a saving hero who has the support of a national disciplined institution such as the army. Yet, the irony is that Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi could have fulfilled this role two years ago, but the errors of the military council in terms of administration of the transitional period ruled him out. On the other hand, the elites renounced their principles and retracted the claims they had requested from Morsi and his group. They demonstrated their double standards by calling the army to intervene then by justifying the gross violation of public freedoms and the use of excessive violence against the Brotherhood. In this context, hypotheses have arisen justifying an alliance between civil forces and the army, which shall rule alone, eradicate the Brotherhood and the Islamic forces, and impose on them a non-negotiable prerequisite for national reconciliation that allows them to play a political role. In practice, this means that the alliance between the army and civil forces mimics the Brotherhood’s strategy and methods in dealing with their opponents, on an equal footing with the other opposing party.
Yet, as I pointed out two weeks ago, the army-civilian alliance has maintained the cultural and political division of society, and perhaps even deepening it. This alliance is very vulnerable and likely to collapse due to the opportunism of the civil parties’ elites and their internal conflicts, as well as their failure to bring in new members or reach a consensus on a presidential candidate from outside the army. It is worth mentioning that these elites are aware of their weakness and of their defiance by the popular masses, which make them unable to impose conditions for an alliance or for setting the objectives for such alliance. Thus they acknowledge their subordination to the army, especially after Sisi’s success in calling millions of Egyptians to renew his delegation to fight terrorism, without resorting to the political parties or even obtaining the authorization of the interim prime minister and his government. There is no doubt that all of these parties would not have been able to object or oppose the call made by Sisi, since he proved his ability to build a relationship based on direct and rapid communication with the masses. This relationship increases Sisi’s charisma and is somewhat similar to the relationship between Abdel Nasser and the popular masses. If this relationship were to persist, the most important condition for the emergence of the authoritarian leader would be met.
The truth is that luring the public’s support and encouraging the civilian and military elite benefiting from the new ruling formula may push Sisi to repeat the experience of Abdel Nasser, or at least some of it, particularly in terms of dealing with the Brotherhood and safeguarding the rule of law, citizenship and national independence. However, this mission appears to be difficult or even almost impossible, due to the following reasons:
1. The mechanism to mobilize the masses by making public calls and without relying on any given organization proved to be successful since it led to the ousting of the Brotherhood and was then retained by Sisi to ensure [the success of] his delegation to fight terrorism. Yet, this mechanism may not always be relied upon. It raises the aspirations of the masses regarding the leader’s capacity to meet their demands in terms of social justice, the most pressing matter for Egyptians. However, the Egyptian economic situation is not living up to the expectations of the people. This implies that the direct relationship between the leader and the masses has an economic and political cost, which Nasser was able to deal with in light of the Egyptian economic and social situations and international environment during his term. As for Sisi, the constraints of globalization and the deterioration of the economic situation after the revolution may prevent him from giving real social benefits to the poor.
2. Despite the weakness of the culture of democracy among the masses and the elites, the January 25 revolution produced profound changes in the political awareness and patterns of participation, especially among the youth of the revolution. These changes do not justify the continuation of military rule, just as they did not with the Brotherhood to rule. This means that Egypt has been freeing itself of the dual grip of the army and the Brotherhood since 1952 toward the emergence of new liberal, leftist and national political entities whose role will not be limited to supporting the army, relying on it or reluctantly allying with the Brotherhood against the tyranny of the state with military roots (i.e., the Mubarak state model). It is worth mentioning in this respect the refusal of the April 6 Movement and some participating leftist groups to delegate Sisi to fight terrorism and their condemnation of excessive violence in confronting the Brotherhood, which threatens to reproduce a police state, which may finish with the Brotherhood only to chase after every person with a free or opposing opinion.
3. Egypt was under a different international and regional climate, which conferred to Abdel Nasser a wider scope of freedom of movement and maneuvering between the two Western and Soviet camps. Moreover, the circles of the non-aligned countries and the national liberation movements in the third world supported Egypt's ability to play an independent international and regional role. Yet, these variables were undermined by history and by the decline of Egypt's role in its Arab and African surrounding. Moreover, it is difficult to restore this role under the heavy legacy of Mubarak's foreign policy, Camp David’s restrictions and the relations with Washington, that Sisi may have partly succeeded in defying without being able to dramatically change the pattern of dealing with Washington in the foreseeable future. It is worth mentioning in this respect that the parties to the conflict in Egypt are betting heavily on the position to be taken by Washington and the EU, which will lead either to settling the battle or reaching a formula of coexistence and reconciliation. This means that the internal arena will be vulnerable and exposed to the pressures of the other party, in addition to the pressures imposed by globalization mechanisms. There is no doubt that this correlation between the external and the internal arenas did not have the same degree of importance during the era of Abdel Nasser.
4. The complex correlation between the internal and the globalized external arenas is not only imposed by the requirements of the Egyptian economy in crisis but by the globalized media and social networking mechanisms. This is due to the fact that it became difficult to implement propaganda in the broadcasting and shooting of events, to prevent their broadcasting or impose a media blackout.
This could have been possible during the 1950s and 1960s, given the social gains that Nasser provided for the majority of Egyptians. This is not to mention the strong grip of the state and massive sophisticated propaganda, which the Muslim Brotherhood and its regional allies failed to stand up against.
Nevertheless, this situation has completely changed as a result of the communication and information revolution, which ended the state's monopoly on media and its ability to do away with facts. The media was a key player in the Egyptian scene, which affected the turn of events. The Muslim Brotherhood was mobilizing and connecting with the public at home and abroad via the media. Photos and videos depicting the Muslim Brotherhood as oppressed and persecuted were diffused, as opposed to the state's media and businessmen’s channels, where they were portrayed as criminals and aggressors.
Morally and politically speaking, an all-out war against the Muslim Brotherhood and groups of political Islam is not possible as was the case under the reign Abdel Nasser in 1950s and 1960s. The Islamic group has grown bigger and gained social presence, and organizational, political and media experience, which does not compare to its status during the Nasser era. Thus, rushing to clash with it would lead to major losses, dealing a severe blow to the economy. Yet, a confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies would not drag Egypt into a civil war, as was the case in Syria and Algeria in the 1990s.
Today, the problem lies in the fact that a small segment of the population, supported by political activists, has been calling for an open confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam groups, along the lines of Nasser half a century ago. There are fears that the army and the new ruling power might respond to these calls.
In light of the foregoing, Sisi is unlikely to be dragged in a confrontation with the Muslim Brotherhood, as was the case with Nasser, because the economy cannot offer social gains to the poor, who represent the public of the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islamists.
Even if Sisi won the presidency in fair elections, he cannot repeat human rights violations against the Muslim Brotherhood, which suffered during the era of Nasser and Sadat, and even under the rule of Mubarak. The world has changed, and most importantly, the Egyptian people have changed. They cannot tolerate any return to the police state.
It is likely that Sisi will firmly and transparently ward off the seduction of power and the image of Nasser. Perhaps, contrary to the people's expectations, he would declare that he will not fight the battle of the presidency, which some would perceive as contradictory to Sisi's rights in politics, should he leave military service. However, if he made such a sacrifice, Sisi would firmly be steep in history, by completing the process of democratization, reconciliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and integrating them in political action. He would have also had to pledge along with his military colleagues not to toss their hats in the ring, and run for presidential elections, which are unlikely to take place in six months.

Obama Shifts Closer to War on Syria

$
0
0
Syria
Stephen Lendman

In March 2011, Obama launched proxy war on Syria. Regime change remains policy.
Peace talks are subterfuge. They’re fake. Geneva II reflects more sideshow than substance.
Washington abhors peaceful conflict resolution. Human suffering doesn’t matter. Conflict continues unabated. January perhaps was the deadliest month so far. An estimated 6,000 or more died.
So-called “humanitarian war” was planned years ago. Full-scale implementation could come any time.
On the sidelines of the just concluded Munich Security Conference, John Kerry met privately with 15 congressional members.
He acknowledged diplomatic failure. He stopped short of saying Washington planned it that way.
On February 3, the Washington Post headlined “Senators say John Kerry admitted US failure in Syria.”
John McCain (R. AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R. SC) said he acknowledged failing diplomatically.
So-called “new approaches” are needed, he stressed. According to Graham:
“He acknowledged that the chemical weapons (removal) is being slow-rolled, the Russians continue to supply arms, (and) we are at a point now where we are going to have to change our strategy.”
Obama launched conflict for regime change. Tactics shift to meet policy. Washington’s proxy war failed. Will direct US intervention follow?
Assad continues to be wrongfully blamed for insurgents’ crimes. So-called peace talks were designed to fail.
Syrian National Coalition (SNC) delegates are US stooges. They’re self-serving. They represent Washington. They’re mindless of what Syrians want.
They support war. They deplore peace. Extremist elements aren’t involved in talks. They comprise Washington’s main fighting force.
What chance have talks to succeed with main anti-Assad elements not participating? So-called SNC/Free Syria Army fighters are minor players in what’s going on.
Terrorists comprise Assad’s main opposition. Moderates practically don’t exist. Washington relies on Al Qaeda and similar insurgent groups. Assad gets wrongfully blamed for their worst atrocities.
Kerry supports escalated aggression. He wants greater US involvement. He wants arms flowing more freely.
“This is not surprising because all along (he) wanted more vigorous action,” said McCain. “I said to John on the way out: ‘Don’t make it a half measure.’ I said you’ve really got to do something to change the momentum.”
State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki disputes what McCain and Graham said. Her job entails damage control.
“This is a case of members projecting what they want to hear and not stating the accurate facts of what we discussed,” she claimed.
A previous article said what’s ongoing bears eerie resemblance to events preceding Bush’s Iraq war. It’s much like what led up to Obama’s Libya war.
Lies substituted for truth. All wars are based on them. Kerry addressed Munich Security Conference attendees.
He threatened Assad. He suggested invoking UN Charter Chapter 7 authorization for military force to “restore international peace and security.”
Doing so would launch aggressive war. Intervention requires Security Council approval. Russia and China won’t permit it.
A previous article said America wages wars without UN authorization. Presidents act without congressional approval.
Does Kerry have this in mind now? Does Obama? Is another major false flag planned? Wars require pretexts to wage them.
They’re easy to invent. They’re a US tradition. They date from the mid-19th century. America waged war on Mexico this way.
It repeated against Spain in Cuba. Woodrow Wilson used convenient pretexts for America’s WW I involvement.
Roosevelt manipulated Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. He did it to get the war he wanted. Truman acted the same way against North Korea.
South Korean cross-border incursions provoked Pyongyang’s June 1950 response. Truman waged war without declaring it.
Johnson’s Southeast Asian war followed the fake August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.
In October 1983, Reagan invaded Grenada for contrived reasons. In December 1989, manufactured incidents preceded GHW Bush’s Panama war.
In August 1990, he colluded with Kuwait against Saddam. He manipulated him to invade. Bush got the Gulf War he wanted.
Destroying the cradle of civilization followed later. The 9/11 false flag Big Lie launched wars without end.
Plans call for ravaging and destroying one country after another. Multi-trillions of dollars are spent doing so.
Imagine how much beneficial social change a small portion of what’s spent on militarism and wars could achieve.
Imagine sustained peace in our time becoming official US policy. Imagine the enormous difference it would make.
Imagine the millions of lives saved. Imagine America a fit place to live in. Imagine political Washington dedicated to nothing less.
Imagine populism replacing plundering the world for profit and dominance. Imagine a real American dream.
Imagine it coming true. Imagine humanity benefitting. Maybe some day. For sure not now. Not anytime soon. Maybe never. Who knows.
Multiple direct and proxy wars continue. Waging them is longstanding US policy.
Is direct US intervention against Syria next? Will other wars follow? Will Iran be targeted?
Will Obama’s Asia pivot initiate them in new theaters? Will Russia and China be targeted? Will advancing America’s military footprint risk WW III?
Obama already is America’s most reckless warrior president? Does he plan adding more bloodletting to his rap sheet?
Peace is verboten. Permanent war is official policy. They persist without end. Post-9/11, Dick Cheney said they’ll continue throughout our lifetime.
The Pentagon calls it America’s “long war.” Gore Vidal called it “perpetual war for perpetual peace.”
“Our rulers for more than half a century have made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that our government has done to other people, not to mention our own,” he said.
Imperial priorities matter most. America’s entire history is blood-drenched. Waging war for peace is a convenient illusion.
Enemies are invented to initiate conflicts. America spends more on militarism than the rest of the world combined. Popular needs go begging.
Wars segue to new ones. An endless cycle of mass slaughter, destruction and human suffering follow.
The business of America is war. It’s the national pastime. It’s heading America for full-blown tyranny and ruin.
Militarists run things. They’re ideologically over-the-top. They make peace impossible. What’s ahead bears close watching. Signs suggest plenty of reasons to worry.
A Final Comment
Anti-Assad media wars rage. Readers and viewers are carpet bombed with misinformation. Accurate news and views are nonexistent. Propaganda substitutes.
Major media bias is longstanding. It’s relentless. It’s blatant when America goes to war or plans one.
Washington Post editors are notorious hawks. They’re militantly anti-Syrian. On February 3, they headlined “The US must reconsider its failed Syrian policy.”
They accused Assad of “refus(ing) to engage in the discussion of a new government…” Geneva II has nothing to do with arranging his departure.
It’s about fighting terrorism. It’s to end conflict. It’s to restore peace. It’s to let Syrians decide their future.
International law supports them. They alone have sole right to decide who’ll lead them. Outside interference is prohibited.
WaPo editors wrongfully accused Assad of “deliberately starv(ing) (civilians) of food and medicine.” He’s committed to supplying what’s needed.
US-supported death squads prevent delivering humanitarian aid. They bear full responsibility for what’s happening. Don’t expect WaPo editors to explain.
They barely stopped short of urging bombs away. They’ve been hawkish throughout many months of conflict. They consistently point fingers the wrong way.
David Edwards is Media Lens co-editor. It’s an invaluable resource. It “offers authoritative criticism of mainstream media bias and censorship, as well as providing in-depth analysis, quotes, media contact details and other resources.”
On February 4, Edwards said:
“If corporate media performance on Iraq was shocking, the response to Syria is made worse precisely because the lessons from Iraq could hardly be more obvious.”
“We know how the Iraqi ‘threat’ was demonised with hyped atrocity tales, invented ‘links to al Qaeda’ and non-existent WMD(s).”
“We know the West was all along the real threat, using ‘diplomacy’ to achieve, not avoid, a war for control of Iraq and its oil.”
The same scenario repeated in Libya. Syria is Act 3. Are ordinary people so out of touch with reality not to understand?
Maybe it’ll take war at home to awaken them? Maybe they need to experience war horrors up close and personal.
America’s war on humanity won’t end without massive public opposition.
It’s long past time imperial Washington got slapped down hard. Survival depends on it.

UNITED AGAINST KERRY...

$
0
0

Comment by Gilad Atzmon: If you really want to understand the current Israeli Rabbis attack on Secretary of State John Kerry and the special occasion in which it takes place, please review my article on the meaning of Purim and the Book of Esther - Counterpunch's 2007 Purim Special -  From Esther to AIPAC. 


As the Rabbis confirm below, the Book of Esther is there to teach the Jew how to dominate Goyim’s politics. Back in 2007 I was denounced for exposing the true meaning of Purim and The Book Of Esther. However, the Rabbis Letter's  closing paragraph confirms that my analysis was spot on.  We are dealing here with a totalitarian identity discourse that is driven by crude Judeo-centric supremacy.

Israeli Arutz 7 reports

Rabbis Threaten Kerry with 'Divine Wrath'

"A group called Rabbis from the Committee to Save the Land and People of Israel sent a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry this Sunday, warning him to end his "antagonism" towards Israel.
The rabbis sharply criticized Kerry for his plans to establish anArab capital in Jerusalem for Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and to have Israel withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines. On Saturday, Kerry threatened Israel with an international boycott if peace talks fail, in addition to previous threats of a "Third Intifada" last year.
"Your incessant efforts to expropriate integral parts of our Holy Land and hand them over to Abbas’s terrorist gang, amount to a declaration of war against the Creator and Ruler of the universe. For G-d awarded the entire Land of Israel to our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in order that they bequeath it, as an everlasting inheritance, to their descendants, the Jewish people, until the end of all time," opens the rabbis' letter.
The letter was signed by Rabbi Gedalya Axelrod, emeritus head of the Haifa Rabbinical Court, Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, Chairman of the Temple Institute, Rabbi Ben Tziyon Grossman of Migdal Haemek, Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpo, Dean of the Institute for the Complete Code of Maimonides, and Rabbi Yigal Pizam, Dean of Yeshivat Kiryat Shmuel.
Warning of the imminent security threat that Kerry's plans would place Israelis in, and bringing the example of Gaza's having turned into a launching pad for rockets, the rabbis slammed the plan for seeking to immediately uproot "20% of the Jews now living productively in Judea, Samaria and the Jordan valley."
The letter adds that Kerry's plan "would force tens of thousands of Jews to be evicted from their homes and livelihoods, devastating their lives financially, economically and psychologically, as happened to those expelled from the flourishing Gaza settlements, most of whom still suffer from the expulsion’s ruinous after-effects."
Drawing on Jewish history, the letters declares to Kerry: "If you continue on this destructive path, you will ensure your everlasting disgrace in Jewish history for bringing calamity upon the Jewish people – like Nebuchadnezer and Titus who destroyed, respectively, the first and second great Temples and the entire Holy City of Jerusalem, and who, by Heavenly punishment, brought eventual disaster upon themselves, too."
"By the power of our Holy Torah, we admonish you to cease immediately all efforts to achieve these disastrous agreements – in order to avoid severe Heavenly punishment for everyone involved," warned the rabbis.

The letter closed with a reference to the upcoming Jewish holiday of Purim, in which the Book of Esther records Haman's genocidal plots against the Jewish people were turned against him and he was "hung on the very same gallows he had prepared for Mordechai, the Jew."File:Book of Esther Chapter 9-3 (Bible Illustrations by Sweet Media).jpg




undefined
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics,  Jewish Power and the meaning of Purim in particular - available onAmazon.com  &Amazon.co.uk

US, Israel plan to occupy south Syria

$
0
0


File photo shows militants with the so-called Free Syrian Army in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo.
File photo shows militants with the so-called Free Syrian Army in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo.
Feb 4, 2014, Press TV
An independent Jordanian news agency says the United States and the Israeli regime are working on a joint plan to occupy southern Syria.
The JBC News said the militant groups, which the US calls moderate opposition, will help occupy two regions in southern Syria.
The regions will then unite to finally create a security belt around Israel.
The report said the groups picked by Washington will be equipped with US-made arms such as Tow anti-tank missiles.
They will also be provided with intelligence gathered by Israeli and US spying agencies.
‘Moderate groups’ is a term used by the US administration for part of the militants fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Washington had used the same term for Taliban militants in Afghanistan, in an effort to give them legitimacy in the face of the former Soviet Union forces.
On Tuesday, a US airplane carrying a weapons cargo for foreign-backed militants fighting in Syria reportedly landed in Jordan’s Mafraq Airport, some 80 kilometers Amman.
In January, US security officials disclosed that the Congress has funded the delivery of weapons, in votes behind closed doors, through the end of government fiscal year that is September 30, 2014.
Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies — especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.
Reports indicate that over 130,000 people have been killed in the violence.
The foreign-backed militancy has also displaced a total of 7.8 million Syrians, more than 1.8 million of whom are living in neighboring countries, mainly in Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.

WELCOME TO THE UNITED KING-DOOM

$
0
0

By Gilad Atzmon 
Dieudonné M'bala M'bala , the genius outspoken French comedian who rebelled against the primacy of Jewish suffering has been banned from entering Britain.
The Home Office has declared the performer persona non grata and warned he will not be allowed into the country. It has alerted airlines, other transport companies and border officials that the performer, whose stage name is Dieudonné, is an "excluded" individual. A spokesperson said: "We can confirm that Mr Dieudonné is subject to an exclusion order. With 80% of out Tory MPs being Conservative Friends Of Israel you would expect England becoming a ghetto.  
As we all know, in recent years the British governments have launched more than just one  immoral Zionist  interventionist war. In the name of elementary ‘freedom’ we dropped bombs and killed over a million of innocent Muslims. Hence, I am curious to know how the UK Home Office justifies its latest measure against freedom of speech. Do they really believe that a French comedian who hardly speaks English endangers our homeland security?
Humour is seemingly the last pocket of resistance.  They are really afraid of being laughed at, after all, Dieudonne is telling the truth that The Guardians Of Zion can no longer suppress.


undefined
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular - available onAmazon.com  Amazon.co.uk
Viewing all 27504 articles
Browse latest View live