LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN

LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 09/14

Bible Quotation For Today/The Remnant of Israel
Romans 11/01-10: "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.” And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”

Question: "Should a Christian be a Republican or a Democrat? Should a Christian be a conservative or a liberal/progressive?"
GotQuestions.org/Answer: As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit organization, Got Questions Ministries is not allowed to endorse political parties or candidates. We can, however, speak for or against certain political issues. In all actuality, though, few political issues are truly spiritual issues. As an example, we may prefer lower taxes, but the Bible does not endorse low taxes; all it says is that we are to pay our taxes honestly (Matthew 22:15-21; Romans 13:6-7). Taxes and many other issues (social security, universal healthcare, education funding, immigration, energy/environment, etc.) are not spiritual issues the Bible explicitly addresses. As a result, Christians can in good conscience have disagreements on these issues. Generally speaking, Republicans/conservatives prefer smaller government and more individual freedom, while Democrats/liberals/progressives prefer more governmental oversight of society and the economy. Conservatives argue for capitalism, that is free, for the most part, from governmental control, while liberals/progressives have more socialistic tendencies in regards to the government’s role. The Bible does not explicitly endorse either capitalism or socialism. God has given governments the freedom to have as much authority as is needed to fulfill their God-given roles of enforcing justice and building order in society (Romans 13:1-7). So, in regards to the size and scope of government, Christians can be libertarian, conservative, liberal, or progressive. None of those persuasions are inherently evil or ungodly. The argument should be over which system best enables the government to fulfill its God-given role. Politically conservative Christians will argue that as governments get bigger and more powerful, personal freedom decreases, and if left unchecked, government will bloat itself into a controlling, authoritarian, and oppressive dictatorship. Historically speaking, there is much evidence to support this argument. Liberals/progressives will argue that the government should be greatly involved in providing social services, caring for the poor, sick, orphans, widows, unemployed, etc., pointing to Scriptures such as James 1:27. If these social services result in more governmental control, liberals/progressives are willing to make that sacrifice. Conservatives argue that the more freedom a society/economy has, the more prosperous it becomes. Liberals/progressives argue that some prosperity should be sacrificed for the “greater good.” So, while one economic/societal/political system may be “better,” neither is inherently evil/immoral/sinful. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses, and, historically speaking, both systems have proven themselves capable of fulfilling the basic biblical responsibility of government. While issues such as the size/scope of government and economic systems are not explicitly addressed in Scripture, there definitely are some political issues the Bible does address, such as abortion (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; Exodus 21:22-25; Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:5) and gay marriage (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). For the Bible-believing Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image. Endorsing gay marriage is giving approval to a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Therefore, Bible-believing Christians should support issues/candidates that are pro-life and should support issues/candidates that oppose gay marriage and uphold the biblical/traditional understanding of marriage. Whether these two issues should trump all other issues is a matter of personal conviction. The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). This should apply to political leaders as well. If politicians are going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, they must have a basic morality and worldview on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, as Christians, we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates. No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not, the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them, but we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party—monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).
**Recommended Resources: Politics - According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem and Logos Bible Software.

Latest analysis, editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 08-09/14
The futility of violence/Ben-Dror Yemini/Ynetnews/November 08/14
Micheal Aoun's Hollow protests/Daily Star/November 08/14
A week of terrorist attacks/Mshari Al-Zaydi /Ashasrq Al Awsat/November 08/14
Yemen’s ex-President Saleh vs. America/Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya/November 08/14
Is the Middle East becoming less Arab/Hisham Melhem /Al Arabiya/ November 08-09/14

Miscellaneous Reports And News published on November 08-09/14
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warns world 'on brink of new Cold War'
Baghdadi's Fate Unclear as Airstrikes Hit IS Leaders near Mosul
UN: Iran stalling nuclear weapons probe
Iran contemplating nuclear compromise in return for US-backed regional role: sources
Obama to send 1,500 more troops to Iraq as campaign expands
Iran says nuclear deal within reach by Nov. 24
EU calls for Palestinian state as tensions soar
Report: European states threaten to recognize Palestinian statehood
ISIS suffering setbacks in Syria and Iraq
Car bombs kill 12 in Baghdad, Ramadi
Israel investigating shooting in Arab town
Hamas creates new 'People's Army'
All sides step up bloody battle for Aleppo
Al-Qaeda kills 'dozens' of Yemen Shiite rebels
Saudi council urges easing ban on women driving
Alabama ‘bans Shariah law’ in move decried by Muslims and liberals
Yemen announces new cabinet as UN sanctions Saleh, Houthis
Très profonde « Lettre ouverte au monde musulman » du philosophe musulman Abdennour Bidar

Below Jihad Watch Posts For Friday
Raymond Ibrahim: Exposed: Decade-Old Plan to Create Islamic State—and Obama Helped
CNN falsely claims that Islamic law does not justify slavery
US airstrike in Syria kills jihadi bombmaker, a French convert to Islam
UK jihadi cleric Anjem Choudary: Give me my passport and let me join the Islamic State
UK: Vice principal of “Muslim Eton” fired, told she would go to hell for opposing rules forcing girls to wear veils during lessons
UK Muslim calls emergency services to say he was on “jihad mission” and “wanted to blow up everyone in this country
Islamic State jihadi justifies massacres by invoking Muhammad, who “slaughtered 700 people”
UK “has sold its soul” with defense and security agreement with Hamas-supporting Qatar
UK: Armed police arrest four Muslims for jihad terror plot
Islamic State calls for jihad on Egypt, in Cairo itself, specifically targeting Christian Copts

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warns world 'on brink of new Cold War'
The Canadian PressBy Frank Jordans, The Associated Press | The Canadian Press – BERLIN - Tensions between the major powers have pushed the world closer to a new Cold War, former Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev said Saturday. The 83-year-old accused the West, particularly the United States, of giving in to "triumphalism" after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the communist bloc a quarter century ago. The result, he said, could partly be seen in the inability of global powers to prevent or resolve conflicts in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and most recently Ukraine. "The world is on the brink of a new Cold War. Some are even saying that it's already begun," Gorbachev said at an event marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, close to the city's iconic Brandenburg Gate. Gorbachev called for trust to be restored through dialogue with Moscow, and suggested the West should lift sanctions imposed against senior Russian officials over the country's support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. Failure to achieve security in Europe would make the continent irrelevant in world affairs, he said. Gorbachev's comments echoed those of Roland Dumas, France's foreign minister at the time the Berlin Wall fell. "Without freedom between nations, without respect of one nation to another, and without strong and brave disarmament policy, everything could start over again tomorrow," Dumas said. "Even everything we used to know, and what we called the Cold War." President Barack Obama appeared to share some of Gorbachev's concerns for Europe, though he blamed Moscow for the current tensions. Paying tribute to the East Berliners who pushed past border guards to flood through the Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, Obama said in a statement Friday that "as Russia's actions against Ukraine remind us, we have more work to do to fully realize our shared vision of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace."

Baghdadi's Fate Unclear as Airstrikes Hit IS Leaders near Mosul
Naharnet /Coalition forces launched airstrikes targeting Islamic State leaders near their northern Iraqi hub of Mosul, the U.S. military said Saturday, without confirming whether the group's chief was killed. The strikes, which destroyed a vehicle convoy of 10 IS armed trucks late Friday, targeted a "gathering of ISIL leaders" near Mosul, U.S. Central Command said. "We cannot confirm if ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was among those present," CENTCOM said in a statement, using another acronym by which the group is known.
"This strike demonstrates the pressure we continue to place on the ISIL terrorist network and the group's increasingly limited freedom to maneuver, communicate and command." The strikes came as President Barack Obama unveiled plans to send 1,500 additional troops to Iraq to help Baghdad government forces strike back at the extremist fighters, roughly doubling the number of U.S. soldiers in the country. To fund the growing war effort, Obama plans to request $5.6 billion from Congress, including $1.6 billion to train and arm the Iraqi forces, officials said. The move marked a deepening U.S. commitment in the open-ended war against the IS group, three months since American aircraft launched air strikes against the Sunni extremists. It also extends the U.S. training and advising mission to new areas as Iraqi and Kurdish forces prime themselves to recapture ground lost to the IS group, including in the volatile Anbar province in the west where the Iraqi army has been on the retreat. Obama had resisted keeping troops in Iraq earlier in his term, vowing to end the American presence that began with the 2003 invasion and continued as an occupation through 2011. IS militants briefly held Mosul dam in August but Kurdish forces and Iraqi army troops -- backed up by U.S. air strikes -- succeeded in retaking the structure later that month.
The large dam in northern Iraq is a crucial piece of infrastructure and IS has repeatedly tried to seize it back. The dam is the country's largest and if destroyed or dismantled, it could unleash major flooding of the city of Mosul and the capital Baghdad.
Agence France Presse

Lebanese Army bars wounded rebels until hostages freed
Nov. 08, 2014
Hussein Dakroub| The Daily Star
BEIRUT: The Lebanese Army Friday barred 11 wounded Syrian rebels from entering Lebanese territory through the southern Mount Hermon border region, demanding first the release of some servicemen held hostage by Islamist militants, security sources said.
The rebels were wounded during heavy clashes that erupted Thursday and continued until early Friday between Syrian government troops and opposition groups in the Mount Hermon area where the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Israel meet.
The wounded attempted to enter Lebanese territory after at least 40 people were killed in clashes between government forces and rebels, including the Nusra Front, according to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The Observatory said the fighting in Beit Tima, a majority-Druze region, left 26 pro-government forces and 14 rebels and jihadi fighters dead.
“The Lebanese Army has demanded the release of some of the soldiers and policemen held by militants in return for letting the wounded Syrians receive treatment in Lebanese territory,” a security source told The Daily Star.
A senior military official refused to comment on the border incident. He also declined to confirm if the Army had demanded the release of a number of hostages in exchange for letting the wounded rebels into Lebanese territory.
nd Nusra Front militants are holding 27 soldiers and policemen captured during the five-day fierce clashes with the Lebanese Army in the northeastern town of Arsal in early August. The militants are demanding the release of a number of Islamist detainees held in Roumieh Prison as well as several Syrian female prisoners held in Syria for freeing the hostages.
However, Lebanese Red Cross teams were allowed to give the wounded first aid at the border, medical sources told The Daily Star.
The wounded, including seven members of the rebel Free Syrian Army, were stopped at 700 meters from the Army checkpoint on the Rashaya crossing between the Syrian town of Beit Jin and Lebanon’s Arqoub in the Shebaa region.
The Army allowed three Red Cross ambulances to reach the wounded and provide them with first aid, but they were prevented from transporting them to hospitals, the sources said.
At least four of the wounded were in critical condition and were able to get assistance by the Red Cross teams backed by a medical doctor, the sources said, adding that the wounded were later returned to Syria.
Sheikh Mohammad Jarrar, who heads Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya in Shebaa, said that many FSA members were seriously wounded in battles with the Syrian army near the towns of Kfar Hawar and Beit Tima in the Mount Hermon area. In recent weeks, the area has seen recurrent battles between regime forces and the opposition.
Jarrar said that two of the wounded died en route, and seven arrived at the Lebanese border, one of them in a critical condition.
An FSA source confirmed that the wounded men were not affiliated with the Nusra Front, but were in fact fighting with the FSA.
Security sources said earlier that the Syrian rebels have been stranded at the border since Friday morning after being barred by the Army from crossing into Lebanon.
There has been fighting between regime and rebel forces in the region for more than a year, but Thursday’s toll is the highest in a single day since violence began there.
Syrian refugees and both civilians and rebels wounded in fighting have regularly slipped across the porous border between the two countries.
Lebanese authorities have been cracking down on Syrians attempting to enter the country illegally, with the government voting last month to stop accepting new refugees.Meanwhile, MPs Walid Jumblatt and Talal Arslan condemned the deadly fighting in the predominantly Druze area of Syria’s Mount Hermon. However, the two Druze leaders’ condemnations exposed their conflicting stances on the Syrian war. Jumblatt supports the anti-regime revolt, while Arslan is an ally of President Bashar Assad.
Jumblatt, head of the Progressive Socialist Party, warned against dragging the Druze into the Syrian conflict, while Arslan, Lebanese Democratic Party chief, said the Druze were paying the price for supporting a unified Syria.
“Beware of using the Druze to face the Syrian revolution,” Jumblatt wrote on his Twitter account.
In what appeared to be a message addressed to anti-rebel Syrian Druze, Jumblatt said: “I have already warned of the dangers of involvement with the Syrian regime. It’s time for reconciliation with the surroundings and to stand neutral,” he added. “Sooner or later the Syrian people will win.” But Arslan said Syria’s Druze were “paying the price for standing alongside a united Syria ... and for the sake of maintaining their dignity and honor and their existence.”
He said Druze villages in the eastern part of Mount Hermon were the target of a war waged by “terrorist supporters and those carrying the scheme to fragment the region.”
Separately, the Lebanese Army rounded up four Lebanese suspects believed to have been involved in attacks against troops in Tripoli and other areas in north Lebanon, a military statement said. – Additional reporting by Elise Knutsen

Micheal Aoun's Hollow protests
The Daily Star/Nov. 08, 2014
As unhappy as Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement colleagues claim to be with the parliamentary extension, which he has slammed as illegal and unconstitutional, there are steps he and his party could take to change the situation. But his protests seem to be little more than meaningless outbidding and an effort to attract attention.
A genuine way to express his alleged discontent with the situation – that the parliamentary mandate has been extended for two and a half years – would be for FPM MPs to resign, and for those in the Cabinet to step down also.
This would not only send a real message but it would bring down the government, and so would actually change events on the ground.
But Aoun, who as everyone knows is preoccupied with becoming president nearly to the point of obsession, realizes he cannot do this, for that would minimize his already diminishing chances of reaching the throne. Were he to be elected tomorrow, he would have been voted in by a Parliament he has slammed as “illegal.” But it seems unlikely he would turn down the opportunity.
As it stands, another parliamentary extension in a couple of years seems likely. Until parliament can agree on a new president and then a new election law, the status quo will remain. And the person who is perhaps the most to blame is the person most critical of the situation. Without his intransigence and stubbornness, we may not have arrived at the deadlock we have now. If he were truly concerned with the good of the country, if he cared about stability, security and progress, Aoun would be a lot more flexible.

Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim: Negotiations with ISIS require more time
Nov. 08, 2014/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: Negotiations with Nusra Front have now taken a serious turn after the group handed over the list of demands but dealing with ISIS is a much difficult task and has not yet kicked off, Maj. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim said in remarks published Saturday. Ibrahim told a local daily that he hoped Damascus would assist Lebanon in the case of 27 Lebanese policemen and soldiers held by ISIS and Nusra Front separately as he noted the historic ties and continuous coordination between the Syrian and Lebanese armies. “The case of the soldiers' abduction is complicated and requires time and patience. Serious negotiations are about to start, especially after the kidnappers sent the list of demands,” Ibrahim, tasked by the Lebanese government to follow up on the hostage case, told Al-Akhbar.
He said negotiations became serious when Nusra Front sent the list of demands to the Lebanese government through the mediator, saying: “The three options are the start of serious negotiation because they specified their demands and now the ball is in their court.”
Ibrahim said there were two main points that Lebanon would not compromise: the safety of the soldiers and policemen and the prestige and dignity of the Lebanese state. While voicing optimism over negotiations with Nusra Front, Ibrahim said dealing with ISIS “was different and required more time but it is capable of reaching a solution.”
“We have not yet started negotiations with ISIS, but the Lebanese government and the group have an idea of what they want.” As for Syria’s role in the hostage crisis in light of the kidnappers’ demand for the release of female detainees in Syrian prisons, Ibrahim said "Damascus is ready to talk with us, but is it ready to offer us what [the government] did in the Maaloula case?” Syria agreed to release dozens of female detainees in exchange for the release of 11 nuns who were held by Nusra Front earlier this year.
“This case is different because it involves the Lebanese Army. The Syrian and Lebanese armies are tied through historic links and the Syrian army is a brotherly and friendly army regardless of politics. Add to that, the coordination between the two has never stopped a day.”He said he had sent a letter to the kidnappers through the Qatari mediator, saying that he wouldn't negotiate over the bodies of dead soldiers. “I told them that the price for soldiers who are alive is very high. ... We will not negotiate over bodies. The three bodies you have, I don’t want them, so act accordingly.” He said Nusra Front’s response to his letter was: “We will not execute anyone.”Ibrahim said indirect negotiations were the best way to deal with such cases, saying his previous cases, the Syrian nuns and a group of Lebanese pilgrims who were kidnapped by Syrian opposition groups, involved Qatar and Turkey. He said Lebanon only engaged in direct negotiations with the kidnappers of the Azaz hostages during the term of former Interior Minister Marwan Charbel when he held a meeting with some Qatari and Turkish officials as well as the kidnappers of the Lebanese. “That meeting blew up and then we moved to indirect negotiations,” he said.

Militant crackdown in north Lebanon pays dividends
The Daily Star/Nov. 08, 2014/TRIPOLI, Lebanon: The Internal Security Forces Saturday capitalized on the Army crackdown on militant suspects in north Lebanon, arresting 67 common criminals including Syrians who had entered the country illegally.
The ISF set up several checkpoints and carried out security measures in the northern city of Tripoli as part of a wider crackdown on gunmen who took part in last week’s clashes against the Army, a security source said. The ISF was able to arrest 67 people wanted for theft, drug dealing, murder and illegal residence. In the northern Akkar town of Bahsaa, the Lebanese Army raided two houses looking for two suspects accused of launching attacks against soldiers. The Army did not find the wanted men but detained three people from the Bahsaa family for interrogation.

Wahhab: Neutrality for Syrian Druze risky business
The Daily Star/Nov. 08, 2014/BEIRUT: The head of the Arab Tawheed Party, former Minister Wiam Wahhab, said that Druze should not remain neutral in the fight against “terrorism” or else they would pay a high price.
"There is no neutrality between terrorism and the Lebanese Army or the Syrian or the Iraqi army,” Wahhab told Al-Akhbar newspaper. “Our people in Mount Hermon were never the ones to attack, but they were contagiously in a defensive position.” “In this battle, whoever is neutral will pay a higher price, more than what the sides do.” Wahhab was referring to recent clashes between Syrian rebels and pro-regime forces in a Mount Hermon village where the borders of Syria, Lebanon and the Israeli-occupied sector of the Golan meet.
Reports said that the rebel Free Syrian Army launched an attack on the Druze-dominated villages in the border region and that the ensuring battle killed dozens of fighters from sides.
On Friday, the Lebanese Army prevented 11 wounded FSA fighters from seeking medical help in Lebanon but allowed Lebanese Red Cross teams to administer first aid on some who were in critical condition.
While MP Walid Jumblatt, a prominent Druze leader in Lebanon, warned against dragging Druze into the Syrian conflict, MP Talal Arsal, who is allied with the March 8 coalition, said the community was paying the price for their support of Bashar Assad.

Abu Faour warns Lebanon's health care system at risk of collapsing
Nov. 08, 2014/The Daily Star/BEIRUT: The health care system in Lebanon is at risk of collapsing due to the Syrian refuge crisis, Health Minister Wael Abu Faour warned Saturday, unless the international community rushes to assist the ailing sector.
“The increase in the numbers of Syrian refugees in Lebanon resulted in serious socio-economic repercussions, and we fear that the entire health care system in Lebanon will collapse if the country is not assisted,” Abu Faour told Tass, a Russian news agency, during his visit to Moscow with MP Walid Jumblatt. Abu Faour said Lebanon's hospitals no longer had the capacity to treat that many patients, particularly the emergency room units and that polio and syphilis were on the rise among Syrian refugees.
“The ministry only intervenes in emergency cases such as life or death. The ministry can only intervene and that costs the Lebanese government a lot of money annually,” he said. Health care for Syrian refugees at the state-run Rafik Hariri Hospital cost $6 million in the past three years in addition to medicines for chronic diseases provided by the ministry, the minister said. “There is a slight support for other ministries, but the Health Ministry has to receive any support except for the health care program in coordination with the World Bank ... and that does not even cover the needs of the ministry.” “This is the result of the international community's failure in dealing with the refugee crisis and failure to cooperate with Lebanon.”Abu Faour also spoke about measures the government was taking to combat the possible spread of Ebola, saying that Lebanon was at a high risk of such a breakout.He said the government has taken “harsh measures” with airlines and at the airport to screen passengers coming from Ebola-hit West African countries.

Defector to Nusra turns himself in to Lebanese Army
Antoine Amrieh/The Daily Star/Nov. 08, 2014
TRIPOLI, Lebanon: A Lebanese soldier who defected to the Nusra Front almost a month ago turned himself over to the Army in northern city of Tripoli Saturday, a security source told The Daily Star. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, identified the soldier as Omar Khaled Shamtieh and said he had turned himself over to Army Intelligence. Shamtieh appeared in late October in a video posted to a Nusra-affiliated Twitter account, saying he had defected and joined the group because the Army had become a tool in the hands of Hezbollah. Shamtieh had been stationed at the Army’s checkpoint in Madfoun, in north Lebanon, when he abandoned his post. A few soldiers have announced their defection this year, with some joining the ranks of militant groups such as the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front. One of the soldiers, who appeared in a video posted by extremist group, said he defected over what he said was the military’s discrimination against the Sunni community in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Army continued a crackdown on gunmen in Tripoli and north Lebanon that was launched after soldiers engaged last month in heavy clashes with militants in the city. Earlier in the day, police arrested a sniper who belongs to the Arab Democratic Party and wanted for his involvement in clashes between opponents and supporters of President Bashar Assad in the northern city of Tripoli, a security source told The Daily Star. The man, identified as Ahmad Hamad, was detained in the Tripoli neighborhood of Talaat al-Omari, and he is wanted for several arrest warrants including for his involvement in previous rounds of clashes in the city. Several rounds of clashes have erupted in the past three years between pro-Assad gunmen in the Alawite neighborhood of Jabal Mohsen and their rivals in the Sunni-dominated neighborhood of Bab al-Tabbaneh.
Clashes have subsided after the Army implemented a security plan to restore law and order to the restive city. Many militia commanders were detained as part of the crackdown while some were released later after serving their sentence.

EU calls for Palestinian state as tensions soar
Adel Zaanoun| Agence France Presse/Nov. 08, 2014
GAZA CITY: The top EU diplomat appealed Saturday for the establishment of a Palestinian state as the killing of a young Arab-Israeli by police fanned tensions following violent clashes in occupied Jerusalem. Federica Mogherini, the European Union's new foreign affairs chief, said the world "cannot afford" another war in the Gaza Strip."We need a Palestinian state - that is the ultimate goal and this is the position of all the European Union," Mogherini said during a trip to Gaza, devastated by its third conflict in six years.
Hamas and Israel fought a 50-day war in July and August which resulted in the deaths of 2,140 Palestinians and more than 70 Israelis. Palestinians are seeking to achieve statehood in Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank with East Jerusalem as the capital.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday that a draft resolution was on course to be submitted to the U.N. Security Council this month calling for an end date for Israeli occupation. The text is expected to be vetoed by permanent member the United States.
Mogherini's visit comes against a backdrop of surging Israeli-Palestinian tensions in annexed east Jerusalem where there have been near-daily clashes in flashpoint neighbourhoods. In the village of Kfar Kana in northern Israel, meanwhile, a 22-year-old was shot dead by security forces after intervening in the dawn arrest of one of his relatives, brandishing a knife, according to police. Dozens of angry youths later erected barricades and set fire to tyres on the outskirts of the village as police deployed reinforcements.
Arab Israelis, who account for about 20 percent of Israel's population, are the descendents of Palestinian Arabs who remained on their land when the Jewish state was established in 1948. The shooting followed another night of clashes in East Jerusalem pitting youths throwing stones and firecrackers against police who used rubber bullets, stun grenades and tear gas. The violence was particularly intense at the Shuafat refugee camp, a maze of alleys crammed with Palestinian homes along the separation barrier cutting off east Jerusalem from the occupied West Bank. The spike in violence came after one of the camp's residents ploughed a car into pedestrians in Jerusalem Wednesday, killing a policeman and injuring nine other people before he was shot dead.
On Friday, a young Israeli also died of injuries sustained in the attack - the second of its kind in a fortnight. The anger has been fuelled by Israel's settlement activities as well as efforts by far-right Jewish fringe groups to secure prayer rights at the Al-Aqsa compound which is holy to Jews as well as Muslims. Speaking Friday during her first official visit to Jerusalem, Mogherini said there was a real "urgency" to pick up and advance the moribund peace process.
She also flagged up Israel's settlement building on lands the Palestinians want for a future state as an "obstacle" to a negotiated peace. Shortly afterward, Mogherini met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who gave a terse statement dismissing all criticism of his settlement policy. "I reject the fictitious claim that the root of the continuous conflict is this or that settlement," he said. "Jerusalem is our capital and as such is not a settlement." Netanyahu ordered the security forces to either seal or demolish the homes of any Palestinian involved in anti-Israeli attacks, an official said Friday. Mogherini had been scheduled to meet Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah in Gaza but he canceled his trip after a series of bombs there Friday hit the homes and cars of Fatah officials.
Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, laid the blame on the Islamist movement Hamas, the de facto rulers in Gaza, as a new row broke out between the rival Palestinian factions. Hamas announced Friday it was forming a thousands-strong "popular army" in the devastated Gaza Strip in response to what it called "serious Israeli violations" at Al-Aqsa.

Car bombs kill 12 in Baghdad, Ramadi
Nov. 08, 2014/Ahmed Rasheed| Reuters
BAGHDAD: Car bombs killed 12 people, including five soldiers, in the Iraqi capital and the city of Ramadi to the west on Saturday, police and medical sources said, in attacks that resembled operations carried out by ISIS militants. Two bombs exploded in separate attacks in Baghdad's mainly Shiite Amil district, said a police source. "A driver parked his car and went to a cigarette stall then he disappeared. Then his car blew up, killing passersby," said the police source, describing one of the attacks. The attack by a suicide bomber on a checkpoint in Ramadi in western Anbar province killed five soldiers. "Before the explosion, the checkpoint was targeted with several mortar rounds. Then the suicide humvee bomber attacked it," said a police official. "Some troops came to the scene. They were attacked by mortars. A confrontation took place for one hour." There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombings. ISIS militants have in the past claimed responsibility for attacks in Baghdad and they have used bombings to fend off Iraqi security forces trying to retake Ramadi and other strongholds. Western and Iraqi officials say U.S.-led air strikesare not enough to defeat the Al-Qaeda offshoot that holds parts of Iraq and Syria and is fighting to expand what it calls a caliphate. Iraq must improve the performance of its army and security forces in order to eliminate the threat from the group, which wants to redraw the map of the Middle East, the officials say. President Barack Obama has approved sending up to 1,500 more troops to Iraq, roughly doubling the number of U.S. forces on the ground. They will advise and retrain Iraqis in their battle against ISIS, which faced little resistance from the army when it swept through the north in June. The United States spent $25 billion on the Iraqi military during the U.S. occupation that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003 and triggered an insurgency that included Al-Qaeda. The more hard-line ISIS made more rapid advances in the north in August but was pushed back in some areas by U.S. airstrikes launched after Western hostages were beheaded. The United States wants Iraq's Shiite-led government to revive an alliance with Sunni tribesmen in Anbar province that helped U.S. Marines defeat Al-Qaeda. Such an alliance would face a more formidable enemy in ISIS, which has more firepower and funding.

Iran says nuclear deal within reach by Nov. 24, no alternatives
Reuters/Nov. 08, 2014 /DUBAI: Iran sees no alternative to a diplomatic settlement with six world powers on its nuclear program and believes both sides are resolved to reach a deal by a self-imposed Nov. 24 deadline, its deputy foreign minister said Saturday.
Mohammad Javad Zarif is holding talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and senior European Union envoy Catherine Ashton in Oman Sunday to try to narrow big gaps before full negotiations formally resume in Vienna on Nov. 18.
The decadelong standoff over Western suspicions that Iran has covertly sought to develop the means to build nuclear weapons - something it denies - has raised the risk of a wider war in the turbulent Middle East.
"No middle solutions exist and all our thoughts are focused on how to reach a settlement," Abbas Araqchi, the deputy foreign minister and Iran's chief negotiatior, told the state news agency IRNA. "No one wants to return to the way things were before the Geneva Agreement. That would be too risky a scenario," he said, referring to the preliminary accord reached a year ago under which Iran has curbed some sensitive nuclear activity in exchange for limited relief from international sanctions.
"Both sides are aware of this, which is why I think a deal is within reach. We are serious and I can see the same resolve on the other side," Araghchi was quoted by IRNA as saying. The stickiest unresolved issues are Iran's overall uranium enrichment capacity, the length of any long-term agreement and the pace at which international sanctions would be phased out, according to Western diplomats involved in the negotiations. Kerry said Wednesday that the negotiations would get more difficult if the Nov. 24 deadline were missed, and the powers were not - for now - weighing any extension to the talks. His remarks seemed aimed in part at raising the pressure on Tehran to agree to the deal, which would include tougher U.N. inspections to verify Iran is complying with its provisions.
Iran says it is enriching uranium solely for a future network of civilian nuclear power stations and to yield isotopes for medical treatments.

Friends of American ISIS-held aid worker call for release
Agence France Presse/Nov. 08, 2014
TRIPOLI, Lebanon: Friends and former colleagues of a U.S. aid worker whom ISIS has threatened to execute appealed Saturday for his release. Twenty-six-year-old Peter Kassig, who converted to Islam and took the name Abdul-Rahman, has been an ISIS captive since 2013. "We call on ISIS ... to free Abdul-Rahman," Firas Agha, a Syrian refugee living in Tripoli who shared a flat with Kassig when he lived and worked in the northern Lebanese coastal city, told a news conference. "Islam does not allow Muslim to kill Muslim, especially if the Muslim in question has done good work," he said. In an Oct. 3 video showing British aid worker Alan Henning's beheading, the threat was made that Kassig would be next. The group says its brutal executions are in retaliation for U.S.-led airstrikes targeting jihadists in Syria and Iraq. Before traveling to rebel-held areas in Syria, Kassig worked in hospitals and clinics treating Syrians forced to flee their war-torn country to neighboring Lebanon and Turkey. He made two separate trips into rebel-held areas of Syria before traveling to the eastern province of Deir al-Zor in autumn 2013, when he was taken hostage. Kassig "was a very enthusiastic young man, so much that he would help refugees out of his own pocket," Agha said. The former U.S. soldier left the army after fighting in Iraq.
"He told us many times about his dismay over what he saw, both in terms of the killing and destruction," Agha said. Another Syrian, Dr. Ahmad Obeid, told reporters Kassig "cared a lot about giving humanitarian and medical aid to Syrian refugees."
A third refugee, who identified himself only as Mohammad and who now lives in Switzerland, made an emotional appeal. With the green, black, red and white flag Syrians opposed to President Bashar Assad's regime have adopted behind him, Mohammed said he warned Kassig about returning to Syria because he sensed his life would be in danger. "But Abdul-Rahman was convinced of the need to help the Syrians inside Syria, because they need that," he said. Hostages threatened at the end of four previous ISIS videos have all subsequently been murdered. Activists say the jihadists are holding hundreds of hostages, mostly Syrians.

The futility of violence
Ben-Dror Yemini/Ynetnews /Published: 11.07.14
Abbas once abhorred violence as self-defeating, but now backs the attacks in Jerusalem, Israel cannot be defined by a group of soccer hooligans, and Yigal Amir definitely did not achieve anything with his despicable murder of Rabin.
Amana Muna was sentenced to life imprisonment. She was part of a terror cell that in 2001 murdered Ofir Rahum, a 16-year-old high school student from Ashkelon. She lured him to a "romantic rendezvous." The other members of the cell shot and killed him.
Muna was released in the framework of the so-called Gilad Shalit deal. Shortly after her arrival in Turkey, Mahmoud Abbas went there to meet with her. Mohammed Daoud al-Akari, another killer released in the Shalit deal, is there in Turkey too. His brother, Ibrahim, was the individual who carried out the hit-and-run terror attack in Jerusalem this week.
Abbas has played a major role in toning down the violence in recent years. That same Abbas may now be changing his tune – his exaggerated demands in the negotiations with John Kerry, his increasingly extremist statements in recent weeks, his letter of condolences to the family of terrorist Muataz Hijazi (son of a Saudi family from the Hijaz region), who tried to assassinate Yehuda Glick.
Something may be changing. The hit-and-run attack in Jerusalem has the Palestinian leader's name written all over it. The voice is the voice of Abbas. The hands are the hands of Hamas. Pundits assess that he has no interest in the renewal of the violence. Of course not. The Palestinians can only come out losers. But since when, Goddamnit, do the Palestinians act only in keeping with their own interests?
The images were clear. Video footage was streamed from numerous angles. A crazy fan invaded the pitch and launched an assault on Maccabi Tel Aviv star Eran Zahavi. But look, almost all the reactions from the Hapoel fans included justifications, slurs against Zahavi and the like.
Soccer fans are not all violent hooligans; some are upstanding individuals. But they all vanished into thin air – because in an age of free-flowing information, in an age of live broadcasts, in an age in which the picture is crystal clear, integrity disappears too. Why was it so difficult to state in the clearest of ways: We love Hapoel, but violence doesn't have a place, and there's no justification for violence, and no ax to grind with Zahavi can excuse hooliganism on the field? Why is it so difficult?
It's not only in the soccer; it's in practically every field. Solidarity with the herd causes blindness. Does the left listen to the just (yes, there are some) arguments of the right? And does the right listen to the just (yes, there are some) arguments of the left? You've got to be joking. And no, it's not funny. It's sad.
Following the fiasco of the derby, the education minister said that Israel was suffering from a profound illness of violence. The president said the same three weeks earlier. Both men, and not only them, struggle to distinguish between violent phenomena and a sick and violent society. They are two different things. In practice, an inter-ministerial research team collects data from a series of entities, including the police, the education system, the Social Affairs Ministry, and support centers for victims of sexual assault. The result is the so-called Violence Index. This index is not based only on complaints, but also includes a survey, since many violent crimes are not reported at all.
So, let's see: Figures from the period 2004-2013 show a steady decline of around 1.2 percent a year in the number of violent incidents in the country. When compared with global data, Israel, in most areas, falls in line with the OECD average. In one area, violent assaults, Israel shows figures of seven incidents per 100,000 residents, compared to the OECD average of just three. As mentioned, however, the trend is declining. Education Ministry authorities confirm a similar trend – a decline in violent incidents in schools in recent years.
The president and education minister are entitled and even duty bound to speak out against violence. But before they turn Israeli society on the whole into a sick society, suffering no less from a "profound illness," would they kindly first check the figures, and would the education minister kindly review his own ministry's data. Yes, it has indeed become fashionable to speak of late about our "violent society." But the facts, one should recall, point in a different direction.
I wrote last week that Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir, didn't triumph. I received angry responses. There appears to be a consensus, voiced in numerous articles, surrounding the notion that the assassin is to blame for the absence of peace in Israel. Is this indeed the case?
The thing is, the person responsible for tripping up the chances for peace was the man who rejected the Clinton proposal. His name is Yasser Arafat, not Yigal Amir. The individual who again undermined the prospects for peace was the man who rejected Olmert's proposal. His name is Mahmoud Abbas, not Yigal Amir. The person primarily responsible for flunking Kerry's draft proposal was, as I outlined in previous articles, Abbas, and not Yigal Amir.
The same is true of the violence. Amir won? Oh, come on. Back then, after all, a left-wing politician couldn't even enter the Mahane Yehuda or Carmel markets. The mood was much more violent. A fired-up mob attacked the car of Labor's Benjamin (Fuad) Ben-Eliezer in what was almost a lynching. The situation has changed – only for the better. Yes, there is violence; there are hooligans; they raised their heads this week again at the soccer derby – but less, much less.
Another urban legend in the same vein states that Amir influenced the election results. Well, in the months before the assassination, the Labor Party was in free fall in the polls because of the wave of terror ("the victims of peace") at the time.
The assassination did indeed have an effect on the election results, but in the opposite direction. The Labor Party regained the lead in the polls – and by a considerable margin. It didn't help. The terror continued after the murder too. And the decline in the polls began – not because of Amir, but because of the terror. And still, the polls predicted a Labor victory. But then Operation Grapes of Wrath against the nests of terror in Lebanon came along. An errant Israeli shell caused the death of 100 innocent civilians in Kafr Kana. The Arabs of Israel were outraged, and many of them, as a sign of protest, chose not to vote for Shimon Peres, who narrowly lost out to Benjamin Netanyahu.
These are the facts. Yet the mantra, "Yigal Amir halted the peace process" is aired repeatedly and constantly. Peace is important; but why this stubborn adherence to self-deception? Amir is a despicable murderer. He didn't achieve a thing. He didn't halt any process. He didn't affect a regime change. Thus, it's unclear why so many insist not only on rewriting history, but also on crediting the despicable murderer with honor and respect and achievements. He doesn't deserve it. We don't deserve it.

UN: Iran stalling nuclear weapons probe
Ynetnews/Reuters/Published: 11.07.14
New report by atomic energy watchdog may negatively impact diplomatic efforts to reach deal with Tehran.
Iran is failing to address suspicions it may have worked on designing an atomic bomb, according to the latest report by a UN watchdog, potentially complicating efforts by world powers to reach a deal with Tehran on its nuclear program. The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tehran had still not provided information it was due to produce more than two months ago to help advance a long-running IAEA inquiry into suspected nuclear weapons research. The confidential document was issued to IAEA member states less than three weeks before the November 24 deadline by which Iran and six global powers are seeking to end a decade-old standoff over the Islamic Republic's atomic activities. "Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures," it said. The IAEA was referring to two steps that Iran had agreed to carry out by late August, by providing information concerning allegations of explosives tests and other activity that could be used to develop nuclear bombs. Iran denies any intention of seeking atomic weapons, saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity. The UN agency said the two sides last met on November 2 in the Iranian capital and had agreed to meet again as soon as possible, but not before November 24. "There is no progress, basically," one diplomat familiar with the Iran file said. The continuing deadlock in the IAEA's investigation suggests that any renewed headway will probably have to wait until after the negotiations between Iran and the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia are concluded. Iran wants the talks to lead to a removal of international sanctions on its oil-dependent economy, but Western officials say it must step up cooperation with the IAEA to help clarify longstanding concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Even though it has long been clear that the IAEA's inquiry into the possible military dimensions of Iran's program will not be completed before the target date for a deal with the powers, Western diplomats had hoped for more progress by now. Iran and the powers will meet in Vienna from November 18 to try to seal a long-term agreement resolving a stand-off that over the last decade has raised fears of a new Middle East war. Experts differ on the need for Iran to come clean about all its alleged bomb-related work: some say that full disclosure is necessary to make sure that any such research has since ceased, while others argue this objective can be achieved without a full "confession". Iran's arch-enemy Israel and hawkish US lawmakers may pounce on any accord if they feel it does not sufficiently resolve the issue. "Concrete progress is needed on the central issue of whether Iran has worked on nuclear weapons and is maintaining a capability to revive such efforts," said US expert David Albright and former IAEA chief inspector Olli Heinonen said in a commentary this week. The US-based Arms Control Association said it would be naive to think that Iran's leaders would admit to any bomb work. The main goal should be for an agreement to ensure that the IAEA obtains sufficient information to determine that Iran has halted any such activity, the research and advocacy group said.

Analysis: Obama's legacy now depends on the Middle East
By: AMOTZ ASA-EL/11/08/2014 /J.Post
Humbled, embattled and living on borrowed political time, the waning American president will now seek a place in history somewhere between Iran and Iraq. Unseasonable snowflakes emerged last week in Illinois, Indiana and Vermont, staining New England’s foliage white and adding ice to Halloween’s spooky atmosphere. The unusual weather soon proved a fitting setting for winter’s premature landing on the presidency of Barack Obama. What began six years ago as the political Cinderella tale of the century has given way to an epic tragedy, whose last act began this week with an electoral trouncing that is its supreme victim’s doing as much as it is his undoing. Obama is not alone; Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford also lost midterm elections. Yet Clinton’s loss of Capitol Hill in 1994 was followed by six more years in power – years which, though marred by scandal, went down in memory as a time of prosperity at home and supremacy abroad. And Ford’s midterm loss in 1974 was not about his own performance – it had been barely two months since he replaced Richard Nixon – but that of his predecessor. Clinton’s presidency had no sad ending, and Ford’s had no happy beginning.
Obama, by contrast, has just missed his last electoral train, and the happiness of his original victory now seems like an archeological relic. The most anticlimactic presidency in US history has its protagonist’s name written all over his party’s loss this week of 288 congressional and gubernatorial races. One might expect such a spectacular debacle to be caused by some cataclysm – say, a military defeat, economic fiasco or poorly handled natural disaster. This has not been the case.
Instead, Obama’s loss of public favor was caused by a growing sense of American decline that the president seemed to deny, embody and accelerate. Imperial decline is never one leader’s fault, and Obama is no exception. Empires are undone by the burden of their overreach, as historian Paul Kennedy observed before the final fall of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the relationship between the distant wars and the economic crisis Obama inherited from George W. Bush will be the subject of scholarly debate in future generations. Some will say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should never have been waged, others will say they should have been but one at a time; some will say their aims were unrealistic, others that their tactics were misguided – and all will ridicule their reckless financing.
There will be no arguing, however, that following last decade’s traumas, the American people needed a leader with a sense of history and an ability to act.
In his sudden rise to power, Obama aroused hopes he possessed both. In reality, he delivered neither.
The lack of historical sensitivity emerged already at his inauguration, when a euphoric Obama spent $50 million on balls, concerts and other victory celebrations – in utter disregard of Main Street’s sense of economic insecurity following the financial meltdown that was the very cause of his improbable victory. The lack of effectiveness emerged as the healthcare saga unfolded, and the president asked Congress to prepare the plan he had failed to prepare himself. Both failures, the atmospheric and the practical, were the perfect opposites of Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s arrival in the White House during the Depression, when a brief and austere inauguration quickly gave way to the legislation and activation of previously prepared action plans.
ObamaCare, by contrast, took more than a full presidential term to pass, then proved administratively deficient and electorally irrelevant, if not counterproductive.
Finally, Obama’s historical insensitivity and political ineffectiveness coincided in the Middle East. Subsequent events now render his 2009 Cairo Speech a display of aloofness, second in its gullibility only to Vogue magazine’s celebration of Syria’s first lady as “a rose in the desert” and her husband’s household as “wildly democratic,” moments before he drowned “the safest country in the Middle East” in rivers of blood. Obama’s failure to deliver on his televised threat to attack Syria should it use chemical weapons underscored suspicions that he was unfamiliar with the world he was expected to lead, and inattentive to the history he was assigned to reshape. The confrontation in Ukraine further enhanced such impressions, as the White House again spoke endlessly while offering neither leadership nor impact – for the leadership was Europe’s, and the impact Russian President Vladimir Putin’s.
The new troubles in Iraq were the capstone of a confused foreign policy’s tragedy of errors, animating Washington’s loss of Cairo’s alliance and Riyadh’s trust. Nothing symbolizes the humbling of Obama more than his return these days to a stubbornly unreconstructed Middle East, where he has no choice but to fight a war which in many ways is but an extension of the two wars he had prided himself on ending.
The voters wouldn’t have minded all this, had it not stood in such stark contrast to the high rhetoric that preceded it. True, Americans appreciate a good speech, and their politicians are often good at delivering one. Yet Americans appreciate deeds more than words, and can’t stand it when words come at the expense of deeds.
This, then, is how Obama ended up where he finds himself today.
Where, then, does he go from here? Like french presidents in similar situations, Obama may seek a separation of duties – whereby the legislature focuses on the economy while the president focuses on foreign affairs. This is what happened in 1986, when François Mitterrand lost the legislature to the conservatives and prime minister Jacques Chirac cut the taxes the president had raised and sold the companies the president had nationalized. Mitterrand, at the same time, invested himself in unifying Europe. Similar dynamics unfolded when Chirac, as president, faced socialist premier Lionel Jospin, and before that when Mitterrand faced Edouard Balladur .Yet Obama’s situation will be different, because his focus will be not on his political survival – but on his historical record.
There is very little time and only narrow maneuvering space left for Obama to treat his place in history, and this will first require defensive action on his part. In this regard, Obama will struggle to preserve his healthcare reform while Congress tries to dent, and maybe altogether undo, what Obama sees as his main accomplishment. While reportedly resigned to shelving his original hopes to create new funding for things like pre-kindergarten tuition, Obama may win the Hill’s cooperation on issues like infrastructure, foreign trade and even taxation. Still, there is nothing domestic that Obama can now make happen, and make the emblem of his legacy.
This is not the case on the diplomatic front.
One arena where Obama might theoretically be effective is Ukraine, but the way to do so is to call that conflict an internal European affair and steer clear of it. Like most American politicians, there is no chance Obama will do this, as the knee-jerk American reaction to that crisis is to think, wrongly, that it is the Cold War all over again.The foreign arena where Obama will seek to have an impact is the Middle East. Within the region, he has three conflicts to consider: Israel and the Palestinians; Iran and the rest of the Middle East; and Islamic State and the rest of the world. On the Palestinian front Obama has already learned that he is no position to make history, having seen his administration’s brave effort to change local hearts yield little but the breaking of the heart of Secretary of State John Kerry.
On the Iranian front, Obama is in for a collision with the new Congress – whose agreement he must secure to lift American sanctions. An attempt to back a deal in which the goods would be delivered by other nations sanctioning Iran, from Europe to the UN, may yield an agreement, but not a place in history – because a deal with Iran against the will of the American people will not stand. Instead, it will be exposed as a capitulation, with its architects recalled as Chamberlains.
This leaves us with Islamic State. Here, the die has already been cast. Obama is already in that war, and will likely be drawn deeper into it with full Republican support. Here, somewhere between Baghdad and Nineveh, Obama may find his place in history, providing he finally musters the vision, prudence, poise and resolve that most voters thought his first six years in office lacked. On this front, the war effort Obama is in the process of launching may generate true victory over a true enemy representing a real problem for the entire world.
Should that happen, the man who took to the podium in Cairo eager to appease the Muslim world, will end up etched in millions of Muslim minds as Enemy No. 1 – a humbled statesman as bewildered as a Halloween pumpkin at October’s snow.
www.MiddleIsrael.net

Sunni extremism vs. Shiite extremism
Saturday, 8 November 2014
Abdulrahman al-Rashed /Al Arabiya
The only argument that I have heard in response to what I wrote two days ago about the dangers of extremism – which is still spreading despite the huge magnitude of the chronological events – is why would we seek to contain extremists in our community while there are extremists of all nationalities and religious doctrines out there? Some were even more pronounced when discussing this issue with me. They told me that overriding Sunni extremism would help countries like Iran, which is supporting its brand of Shiite extremism everywhere!
Firstly, this whole notion is wrong because extremism is dangerous foremost to the community that creates and hosts it. Secondly, those who think that there is an unquestionable state of extremism and that is safer to accept it lest it devastate them – or those who say that maybe it’s better to employ extremism the way Iran and the Syrian regime have used it – will find out the true cost only later.We paid a heavy price in the past when we tried to ride the monster of rampant extremism; we got burned at the beginning in Afghanistan.
Fire against fire
What about the theory of letting extremism deal with extremism? “At the end, meddling and twisting religious doctrines – and the acceptance of this by individuals – has proven to be the most dangerous of all weapons used in wars”Over the past 30 years we have witnessed different experiences in dealing with terrorist groups that committed acts in the name of religion. In the early eighties these groups were Shiite, namely Hezbollah, that instigated political violence in the name of defending Islam and resisting the Zionist enemy.
They were all in fact part of a project to export Khomeini’s Iranian revolution to the rest of the Muslim world. The events in Afghanistan came along and Sunni extremists emerged as the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan, Mujahideen.
It is worth mentioning that many of those arrived after the evacuation of Soviet troops and were involved in the fighting there.
Targeted Most of the Sunni extremism remained, and is still directed against Sunni communities in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria and Morocco, which have been targeted by Sunni terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Bayt al-Maqdis.
Sunni extremism often hurts the Sunni, rather than the Shiite community, unlike Shiite extremist organizations which rarely attack their institutions, communities and people. The reason is that extremist organizations like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iraq’s Asaib Ahl al-Haq are linked to governments and abide their policies of extremism management. It is impossible to do the same in Sunni communities because terrorist groups there, like al-Qaeda, are against governments and seek their overthrow.
Therefore, the call to accept these groups under the pretext that the region is bursting with extremism and terrorism led by other communities is an irrelevant argument invented by extremists who then pounced on the society and the country they live in.
Temporary truce
Shiite extremism is witnessing a temporary truce and will take the same direction as the Sunnis because their terrorist factions – such as the ones growing in Iraq – will fight each other and seek to control the Shiite community.
Many Shiite extremist groups currently are raising their voices and threatening Shiites who disagree with them. In response to the argument stating that “it is not wise to restrain Sunni extremism as long as Iran and its affiliates do not restrain Shiite extremism,” the results say it all. Most Sunni extremists have attacked their own country and communities, despite their provocative doctrines held against other communities and religions. More than 90 percent of terrorist operations by Sunni groups are directed against Sunni communities in seven countries that have witnessed acts of violence of varying degrees. At the end, meddling and twisting religious doctrines – and the acceptance of this by individuals – has proven to be the most dangerous of all weapons used in wars as it often has a boomerang effect on the society that has been used as a breeding ground for it.

Exposed: Decade-Old Plan to Create Islamic State—and Obama Helped
Raymond Ibrahim/Nov 7, 2014
FrontPage Magazine
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/raymond-ibrahim-exposed-decade-old-plan-to-create-islamic-state-and-obama-helped?utm_source=Jihad+Watch+Daily+Digest&utm_campaign=377e091df1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ffcbf57bbb-377e091df1-123531529
Although the birth of the Islamic state and the herald of the caliphate are often regarded as some of 2014’s “big shockers,” they were foretold in striking detail and with an accurate timeline by an al-Qaeda insider nearly one decade ago.
On August 12, 2005, Spiegel Online International published an article titled “The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaeda Really Wants.” Written by Yassin Musharbash, the article was essentially a review of a book written by Fouad Hussein, a Jordanian journalist with close access to al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who pioneered the videotaping of beheadings “to strike terror into the hearts” of infidels (Koran 3:151).
As Hussein explained in the introduction of his book Al Zarqawi: Al Qaeda’s Second Generation: “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaeda members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.”
And in fact the book details the master plan of al-Qaeda—in its “second generation” manifestation known as the “Islamic State” which follows much of Zarqawi’s modus operandi—to resurrect a caliphate. This plan is sufficiently outlandish that Yassin Musharbash, the author of the Spiegel article reviewing Hussein’s book, repeatedly casts doubt on its feasibility. Thus al-Qaeda’s plan is “proof both of the terrorists’ blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness”; there is “no way” al-Qaeda can follow the plan “step by step”; “the idea that al-Qaeda could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd”; and the following “scenario should be judged skeptically.”
Yet it is all the more remarkable that much of this plan—especially those phases dismissed as infeasible by Musharbash (four and five)—have come to pass.
In what follows, I reproduce the seven phases of al-Qaeda’s master plan as presented in Musharbash’s nearly ten-year-old article (in bullet points and italics, bold for emphasis), with my commentary interspersed for context. Phases four and five are of particular importance as they describe the goals for recent times, much of which have come to fruition according to plan.
An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps
◾The First Phase Known as “the awakening”—this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby“awakening” Muslims. “The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaeda as very successful,” writes Hussein. “The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target.” The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard “everywhere.”
Much of this is accurate and makes sense. Sadly, if any eyes were opened after the 9/11 attacks on American soil, they weren’t Western eyes—certainly not the eyes of Western leadership, mainstream media, and academia. But to many Muslims, the strikes of 9/11 were inspiring and motivating, giving credence to Osama bin Laden’s characterization of America as a “paper tiger.” A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11, Americans responded by electing a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president, even as he continuously empowers in a myriad of ways—including banning knowledge of Islam—the same ideology behind the strikes of 9/11. Meanwhile, the average Muslim relearned the truths of their religion, namely that the “infidel” is an existential enemy and jihad against him is a duty, as al-Qaeda and others had successfully shown.
◾The Second Phase “Opening Eyes” is, according to Hussein’s definition, the period we are now in [writing in 2005] and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the “Islamic community.” Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaeda wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an “army” set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.
This too is accurate. Among other things, the “Islamic community,” the umma, began to be more visible and vocal during this time frame, including through a rash of attacks and riots following any perceived “insult” to Islam, growing demands for appeasement, and accusations of “Islamophobia” against all and sundry. If there weren’t any spectacular terror attacks on the level of 9/11, young Muslim men were quietly enlisting and training in the jihad—or in western parlance, “radicalizing.” Al-Qaeda went from being an “organization” to a “movement”—international “radicalization.” Most importantly, Iraq, as the world now knows, certainly did become the “center for all global operations” with an “army” of jihadis set up there.
◾The Third Phase This is described as “Arising and Standing Up” and should last from 2007 to 2010. “There will be a focus on Syria,” prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and—even more explosive— in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaeda’s masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.
Much of this third phase as described and transpired seems to have been an extension of phase two. In retrospect, there certainly appears to have been a focus on Syria, even if the jihad started there one year behind schedule (2011). And many of the jihadis were “already prepared” and “some are in Iraq.” None of this was a surprise, of course, as U.S. intelligence always indicated that if American forces withdrew from Iraq, the jihadis would take over.
◾The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaeda will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that “the creeping loss of the regimes’ power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaeda.” At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.
This is immensely prophetic. Recall that the timeline given (2010-2013) coincides remarkably well with the so-called “Arab Spring,” which culminated with Islamic terrorists and their allies taking over the leadership of several Arab countries formerly ruled by secularized autocrats: Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (which plays Dr. Jekyll to al-Qaeda’s Mr. Hyde); Libya, al-Qaeda/Islamic jihadis; ongoing Syria, al-Qaeda/Islamic jihadis (or their latest manifestation, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda’s “second generation”), etc. It should be remembered that in each of these nations—Egypt, Libya, Syria—the Obama administration played a major role in empowering the jihadis, though in the name of “democracy.”
◾The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaeda hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.
Again, right on time: the “Islamic State” declared itself the “caliphate” in 2014, with many Muslim organizations and persons around the world pledging their allegiance, if not imitating their slaughter, with inspired “lone wolves” already beheading “infidels” in Western nations. And if the administration helped empower jihadis during the “Arab Spring” and in the name of “democracy” in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, it helped the creation of the Islamic State by withdrawing U.S. military forces that were keeping al-Qaeda at bay in Iraq. Recall that in 2007 George W. Bush said that “To begin withdrawing [military forces] before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” All of these predictions have proven remarkably prescient—not because Bush was a prophet but because U.S intelligence clearly understood the situation in Iraq, and briefed Obama on it just as it did Bush. Yet, in 2011, Obama declared the Iraq war a success and pulled out American troops, leaving the way wide open for the jihadi master plan of resurrecting the caliphate to unfold.
◾The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.
This needs clarification. While many assume that the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” is between Muslims and non-Muslims, this is not always the case. Soon after the announcement of the caliphate, the Islamic State made clear that it was in the phase of waging jihad on “apostates” and “hypocrites,” meaning all the “apostate” or “infidel” Arab leaders like Bashar al-Assad, as well as Muslim populations that are insufficiently “Islamic.” It is for this reason that the new caliph took on the name of “Abu Bakr”—the name of the first historic caliph (632-634) whose caliphate was characterized by fighting and bringing back into the fold of Islam all those Arabs who broke away after Muhammad died. Afterwards, when all the Arab tribes were unified under the banner of Islam, the great historic conquests, or jihads against neighboring “infidels,” took place.
◾The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half billion Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.
Phase seven remains to be seen, as it is has another five years to go. As for the world being “so beaten down by the one-and-a-half billion Muslims,” actor Ben Affleck reflected this sentiment recently when he kept apologizing for Islam by saying Muslims “are a billion and a half.” At any rate, considering that the preceding phases have all largely come to pass—with a passive West doing nothing to prevent them, that is, when not actively aiding them—there is certainly no good reason to think Western leadership will stop the final phase from occurring: a unified, aggressive, expansionist, and eventually possibly even nuclear armed caliphate preparing to terrorize its neighbors on a grand scale—just like its historic predecessor did for centuries.

CNN falsely claims that Islamic law does not justify slavery
Robert Spencer/Jihad Watch
Nov 7, 2014 /daesh-girls-slaves-isis-4“The CNN Freedom Project: Ending Modern-Day Slavery” has published a piece entitled “ISIS says Islam justifies slavery – what does Islamic law say?,” by Professor Bernard Freamon, who “teaches courses on modern-day slavery and human trafficking at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey and also specializes in Islamic Legal History.”
We do not have a free press. On the issue of Islam and jihad the mainstream press is a one-party state, with a few dissenting voices allowed now and again on Fox. Another aspect of this is that what the mainstream does present about Islam is very often flatly false, as here. Professor Bernard Freamon claims that “the Quran established an entirely new ethic on the issue of slavery and ISIS’s selective use of certain Quranic texts to justify contemporary chattel slavery ignores this fact. First, consistent with the new ethic, the emphasis in all of the revelations on slavery is on the emancipation of slaves, not on their capture or the continuation of the institution of slavery. (See, for example, verses 2:177, 4:25, 4:92, 5:89, 14:31, 24:33, 58:3, 90:1-12.) There is not one single verse suggesting that the practice should continue.”
None of these verses actually calls for the freeing of all slaves. These verses all call for or recommend the freeing of slaves under certain specific circumstances. For example, 58:3 says: “And those who pronounce thihar from their wives and then [wish to] go back on what they said – then [there must be] the freeing of a slave before they touch one another. That is what you are admonished thereby; and Allah is Acquainted with what you do.” That is, those who divorce their wives but want them back have to free a slave before they can restore their marriage. This is not a call for universal abolition; none of the other verses he cites are, either.
What’s more, there is considerable evidence on the other side that Freamon ignores:
The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)
Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:
Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.
But these facts don’t fit what the mainstream media wants you to think about Islam, so you will never see them on CNN. If CNN’s “Freedom Project” really wants to end modern-day slavery, it should stop spreading falsehoods about how that slavery is justified by those who perpetuate it.

Très profonde « Lettre ouverte au monde musulman » du philosophe musulman Abdennour Bidar
Abdennour Bidar est normalien, philosophe et musulman. Il a produit et présenté tout au long de l’été sur France Inter une émission intitulée « France-Islam questions croisées ». Il est l’auteur de 5 livres de philosophie de la religion et de nombreux articles.
Cette lettre ouverte au monde musulman fait suite aux événements des jours passés, notamment l’assassinat de Hervé Gourdel. De nombreux musulmans ont manifesté leur indignation nécessaire et salutaire (en France et dans le monde, avec le mouvement #NotInMyName – « pas en mon nom »). Au delà de cette dénonciation indispensable, Abdennour Bidar pense qu’il faut aller plus en profondeur, et entrer dans une autocritique de l’Islam comme religion et civilisation dans ce moment de transition cruciale de sa longue histoire. Pour le meilleur de l’Islam.
Dans un esprit de fraternité entre croyants de bonne volonté, c’est avec joie que nous pouvons lire ce texte, découvrir un autre visage de l’Islam, et peut-être prendre nous aussi quelque chose de cette sagesse qui consiste à vouloir se réformer pour être plus fidèle.
Lettre ouverte au monde musulman
Cher monde musulman, je suis un de tes fils éloignés qui te regarde du dehors et de loin – de ce pays de France où tant de tes enfants vivent aujourd’hui. Je te regarde avec mes yeux sévères de philosophe nourri depuis son enfance par le taçawwuf (soufisme) et par la pensée occidentale. Je te regarde donc à partir de ma position de barzakh, d’isthme entre les deux mers de l’Orient et de l’Occident !
Et qu’est-ce que je vois ? Qu’est-ce que je vois mieux que d’autres sans doute parce que justement je te regarde de loin, avec le recul de la distance ? Je te vois toi, dans un état de misère et de souffrance qui me rend infiniment triste, mais qui rend encore plus sévère mon jugement de philosophe ! Car je te vois en train d’enfanter un monstre qui prétend se nommer Etat islamique et auquel certains préfèrent donner un nom de démon : DAESH. Mais le pire est que je te vois te perdre –perdre ton temps et ton honneur – dans le refus de reconnaître que ce monstre est né de toi, de tes errances, de tes contradictions, de ton écartèlement entre passé et présent, de ton incapacité trop durable à trouver ta place dans la civilisation humaine.
Que dis-tu en effet face à ce monstre ? Tu cries « Ce n’est pas moi ! », « Ce n’est pas l’islam ! ». Tu refuses que les crimes de ce mon‐stre soient commis en ton nom (hashtag #NotInMyName). Tu t’insurges que le monstre usurpe ton identité, et bien sûr tu as raison de le faire. Il est indispensable qu’à la face du monde tu proclames ainsi, haut et fort, que l’islam dénonce la barbarie. Mais c’est tout à fait insuffisant ! Car tu te réfugies dans le réflexe de l’autodéfense sans assumer aussi et surtout la responsabilité de l’autocritique. Tu te con‐tentes de t’indigner alors que ce moment aurait été une occasion his‐torique de te remettre en question ! Et tu accuses au lieu de prendre ta propre responsabilité : « Arrêtez, vous les occidentaux, et vous tous les ennemis de l’islam de nous associer à ce monstre ! Le terrorisme ce n’est pas l’islam, le vrai islam, le bon islam qui ne veut pas dire la guerre mais la paix ! »
J’entends ce cri de révolte qui monte en toi, ô mon cher monde musulman, et je le comprends. Oui tu as raison, comme chacune des autres grandes inspirations sacrées du monde l’islam a créé tout au long de son histoire de la Beauté, de la Justice, du Sens, du Bien, et il a puissamment éclairé l’être humain sur le chemin du mystère de l’existence… Je me bats ici en Occident, dans chacun de mes livres, pour que cette sagesse de l’islam et de toutes les religions ne soit pas oubliée ni méprisée ! Mais de ma position lointaine je vois aussi autre chose que tu ne sais pas voir… Et cela m’inspire une question – LA grande question : pourquoi ce monstre t’a-t-il volé ton visage ? Pourquoi ce monstre ignoble a-t-il choisi ton visage et pas un autre ? C’est qu’en réalité derrière ce monstre se cache un immense problème, que tu ne sembles pas prêt à regarder en face. Il faudra bien pourtant que tu finisses par en avoir le courage.
Ce problème est celui des racines du mal. D’où viennent les crimes de ce soi-disant « Etat islamique » ? Je vais te le dire, mon ami. Et cela ne va pas te faire plaisir, mais c’est mon devoir de philosophe. Les racines de ce mal qui te vole aujourd’hui ton visage sont en toi-même, le mon‐stre est sorti de ton propre ventre – et il en surgira autant d’autres monstres pires encore que celui-ci tant que tu tarderas à admettre ta maladie, pour attaquer enfin cette racine du mal !
Même les intellectuels occidentaux ont de la difficulté à le voir : pour la plupart ils ont tellement oublié ce qu’est la puissance de la religion –en bien et en mal, sur la vie et sur la mort – qu’ils me disent « Non le problème du monde musulman n’est pas l’islam, pas la religion, mais la politique, l’histoire, l’économie, etc. ». Ils ne se souviennent plus du tout que la religion peut être le cœur de réacteur d’une civilisation humaine ! Et que l’avenir de l’humanité passera demain non pas seulement par la résolution de la crise financière mais de façon bien plus essentielle par la résolution de la crise spirituelle sans précédent que traverse notre humanité tout entière ! Saurons-nous tous nous rassembler, à l’échelle de la planète, pour affronter ce défi fondamental ? La nature spirituelle de l’homme a horreur du vide, et si elle ne trouve rien de nouveau pour le remplir elle le fera demain avec des religions toujours plus inadaptées au présent – et qui comme l’islam actuellement se mettront alors à produire des monstres.
Je vois en toi, ô monde musulman, des forces immenses prêtes à se lever pour contribuer à cet effort mondial de trouver une vie spir‐ituelle pour le XXIème siècle ! Malgré la gravité de ta maladie, il y a en toi une multitude extraordinaire de femmes et d’hommes qui sont prêts à réformer l’islam, à réinventer son génie au-delà de ses formes historiques et à participer ainsi au renouvellement complet du rapport que l’humanité entretenait jusque là avec ses dieux ! C’est à tous ceux-là, musulmans et non musulmans qui rêvent ensemble de révolution spirituelle, que je me suis adressé dans mes ouvrages ! Pour leur donner, avec mes mots de philosophe, confiance en ce qu’entrevoit leur espérance !
Mais ces musulmanes et ces musulmans qui regardent vers l’avenir ne sont pas encore assez nombreux ni leur parole assez puissante. Tous ceux là, dont je salue la lucidité et le courage, ont parfaitement vu que c’est l’état général de maladie profonde du monde musulman qui ex‐plique la naissance des monstres terroristes aux noms de Al Qaida, Al Nostra, AQMI ou « Etat Islamique ». Ils ont bien compris que ce ne sont là que les symptômes les plus visibles sur un immense corps malade, dont les maladies chroniques sont les suivantes : impuissance à instituer des démocraties durables dans lesquelles est reconnue comme droit moral et politique la liberté de conscience vis-à-vis des dogmes de la religion; difficultés chroniques à améliorer la condition des femmes dans le sens de l’égalité, de la responsabilité et de la liberté; impuissance à séparer suffisamment le pouvoir politique de son contrôle par l’autorité de la religion; incapacité à instituer un respect, une tolérance et une véritable reconnaissance du pluralisme religieux et des minorités religieuses.
Tout cela serait-il donc la faute de l’Occident ? Combien de temps précieux vas-tu perdre encore, ô cher monde musulman, avec cette ac‐cusation stupide à laquelle toi-même tu ne crois plus, et derrière laque‐lle tu te caches pour continuer à te mentir à toi-même ?
Depuis le XVIIIe siècle en particulier, il est temps de te l’avouer, tu as été incapable de répondre au défi de l’Occident. Soit tu t’es réfugié de façon infantile et mortifère dans le passé, avec la régression obscuran‐tiste du wahhabisme qui continue de faire des ravages presque partout à l’intérieur de tes frontières – un wahhabisme que tu répands à partir de tes lieux saints de l’Arabie Saoudite comme un cancer qui partirait de ton cœur lui-même ! Soit tu as suivi le pire de cet Occident, en pro‐duisant comme lui des nationalismes et un modernisme qui est une caricature de modernité – je veux parler notamment de ce développement technologique sans cohérence avec leur archaïsme re‐ligieux qui fait de tes « élites » richissimes du Golfe seulement des vic‐times consentantes de la maladie mondiale qu’est le culte du dieu argent.
Qu’as-tu d’admirable aujourd’hui, mon ami ? Qu’est-ce qui en toi reste digne de susciter le respect des autres peuples et civilisations de la Terre ? Où sont tes sages, et as-tu encore une sagesse à proposer au monde ? Où sont tes grands hommes ? Qui sont tes Mandela, qui sont tes Gandhi, qui sont tes Aung San Suu Kyi ? Où sont tes grands penseurs dont les livres devraient être lus dans le monde entier comme au temps où les mathématiciens et les philosophes arabes ou persans faisaient référence de l’Inde à l’Espagne ? En réalité tu es devenu si faible derrière la certitude que tu affiches toujours au sujet de toi-même… Tu ne sais plus du tout qui tu es ni où tu veux aller, et cela te rend aussi malheureux qu’agressif… Tu t’obstines à ne pas écouter ceux qui t’appellent à changer en te libérant enfin de la domination que tu as offerte à la religion sur la vie toute entière.
Tu as choisi de considérer que Mohammed était prophète et roi. Tu as choisi de définir l’islam comme religion politique, sociale, morale, de‐vant régner comme un tyran aussi bien sur l’Etat que sur la vie civile, aussi bien dans la rue et dans la maison qu’à l’intérieur même de chaque conscience. Tu as choisi de croire et d’imposer que l’islam veut dire soumission alors que le Coran lui-même proclame qu’« Il n’y a pas de contrainte en religion » (La ikraha fi Dîn). Tu as fait de son Appel à la liberté l’empire de la contrainte ! Comment une civilisation peut-elle trahir à ce point son propre texte sacré ?
De nombreuses voix que tu ne veux pas entendre s’élèvent aujourd’hui dans la Oumma pour dénoncer ce tabou d’une religion autoritaire et indiscutable… Au point que trop de croyants ont tellement intériorisé une culture de la soumission à la tradition et aux « maîtres de religion » (imams, muftis, shouyoukhs, etc.) qu’ils ne comprennent même pas qu’on leur parle de liberté spirituelle, ni qu’on leur parle de choix personnel vis-à-vis des « piliers » de l’islam. Tout cela constitue pour eux une « ligne rouge » si sacrée qu’ils n’osent pas donner à leur propre conscience le droit de le remette en question ! Et il y a tant de familles où cette confusion entre spiritualité et servitude est incrustée dans les esprits dès le plus jeune âge, et où l’éducation spirituelle est d’une telle pauvreté que tout ce qui concerne la religion reste quelque chose qui ne se discute pas !
Or cela de toute évidence n’est pas imposé par le terrorisme de quelques troupes de fous fanatiques embarqués par l’Etat islamique. Non ce problème là est infiniment plus profond ! Mais qui veut l’entendre ? Silence là-dessus dans le monde musulman, et dans les médias occidentaux on n’entend plus que tous ces spécialistes du terror‐isme qui aggravent jour après jour la myopie générale ! Il ne faut donc pas que tu t’illusionnes, ô mon ami, en faisant croire que quand on en aura fini avec le terrorisme islamiste l’islam aura réglé ses problèmes ! Car tout ce que je viens d’évoquer – une religion tyrannique, dogmatique, littéraliste, formaliste, machiste, conservatrice, régressive – est trop souvent l’islam ordinaire, l’islam quotidien, qui souffre et fait souffrir trop de consciences, l’islam du passé dépassé, l’islam déformé par tous ceux qui l’instrumentalisent politiquement, l’islam qui finit encore et toujours par étouffer les Printemps arabes et la voix de toutes ses jeunesses qui demandent autre chose. Quand donc vas-tu faire enfin cette révolution qui dans les sociétés et les consciences fera rimer définitivement spiritualité et liberté ?
Bien sûr dans ton immense territoire il y a des îlots de liberté spirituelle : des familles qui transmettent un islam de tolérance, de choix personnel, d’approfondissement spirituel ; des lieux où l’islam donne encore le meilleur de lui-même, une culture du partage, de l’honneur, de la recherche du savoir, et une spiritualité en quête de ce lieu sacré où l’être humain et la réalité ultime qu’on appelle Allâh se rencontrent. Il y a en Terre d’islam, et partout dans les communautés musulmanes du monde, des consciences fortes et libres. Mais elles restent condamnées à vivre leur liberté sans reconnaissance d’un véritable droit, à leurs risques et périls face au contrôle communau‐taire ou même parfois face à la police religieuse. Jamais pour l’instant le droit de dire « Je choisis mon islam », « J’ai mon propre rapport à l’islam » n’a été reconnu par « l’islam officiel » des dignitaires. Ceux-là au contraire s’acharnent à imposer que « La doctrine de l’islam est unique » et que « L’obéissance aux piliers de l’islam est la seule voie droite » (sirâtou-l-moustaqîm).
Ce refus du droit à la liberté vis-à-vis de la religion est l’une de ces racines du mal dont tu souffres, ô mon cher monde musulman, l’un de ces ventres obscurs où grandissent les monstres que tu fais bondir depuis quelques années au visage effrayé du monde entier. Car cette religion de fer impose à tes sociétés tout entières une violence insoutenable. Elle enferme toujours trop de tes filles et tous tes fils dans la cage d’un Bien et d’un Mal, d’un licite (halâl) et d’un illicite (harâm) que personne ne choisit mais que tout le monde subit. Elle emprisonne les volontés, elle conditionne les esprits, elle empêche ou entrave tout choix de vie personnel. Dans trop de tes contrées tu associes encore la religion et la violence – contre les femmes, les « mauvais croyants », les minorités chrétiennes ou autres, les penseurs et les esprits libres, les rebelles – de sorte que cette religion et cette violence finissent par se confondre, chez les plus déséquilibrés et les plus fragiles de tes fils, dans la monstruosité du jihad !
Alors ne fais plus semblant de t’étonner, je t’en prie, que des démons tels que le soi-disant Etat islamique t’aient pris ton visage ! Les mon‐stres et les démons ne volent que les visages qui sont déjà déformés par trop de grimaces ! Et si tu veux savoir comment ne plus enfanter de tels monstres, je vais te le dire. C’est simple et très difficile à la fois. Il faut que tu commences par réformer toute l’éducation que tu donnes à tes enfants, dans chacune de tes écoles, chacun de tes lieux de savoir et de pouvoir. Que tu les réformes pour les diriger selon des principes universels (même si tu n’es pas le seul à les transgresser ou à persister dans leur ignorance) : la liberté de conscience, la démocratie, la tolérance et le droit de cité pour toute la diversité des visions du monde et des croyances, l’égalité des sexes et l’émancipation des femmes de toute tutelle masculine, la réflexion et la culture critique du religieux dans les universités, la littérature, les médias. Tu ne peux plus reculer, tu ne peux plus faire moins que tout cela ! C’est le seul moyen pour toi de ne plus enfanter de tels monstres, et si tu ne le fais pas tu seras bientôt dévasté par leur puissance de destruction.
Cher monde musulman… Je ne suis qu’un philosophe, et comme d’habitude certains diront que le philosophe est un hérétique. Je ne cherche pourtant qu’à faire resplendir à nouveau la lumière – c’est le nom que tu m’as donné qui me le commande, Abdennour, « Serviteur de la Lumière ». Je n’aurais pas été si sévère dans cette lettre si je ne croyais pas en toi. Comme on dit en français, « Qui aime bien châtie bien ». Et au contraire tous ceux qui aujourd’hui ne sont pas assez sévères avec toi – qui veulent faire de toi une victime – tous ceux-là en réalité ne te rendent pas service ! Je crois en toi, je crois en ta contri‐bution à faire demain de notre planète un univers à la fois plus hu‐main et plus spirituel ! Salâm, que la paix soit sur toi.
http://blog.oratoiredulouvre.fr/2014/10/tres-profonde-lettre-ouverte-au-monde-musulman-du-philosophe-musulman-abdennour-bidar/

The futility of violence
Ben-Dror Yemini/Ynetnews /Published: 11.07.14
Abbas once abhorred violence as self-defeating, but now backs the attacks in Jerusalem, Israel cannot be defined by a group of soccer hooligans, and Yigal Amir definitely did not achieve anything with his despicable murder of Rabin.
Amana Muna was sentenced to life imprisonment. She was part of a terror cell that in 2001 murdered Ofir Rahum, a 16-year-old high school student from Ashkelon. She lured him to a "romantic rendezvous." The other members of the cell shot and killed him.
Muna was released in the framework of the so-called Gilad Shalit deal. Shortly after her arrival in Turkey, Mahmoud Abbas went there to meet with her. Mohammed Daoud al-Akari, another killer released in the Shalit deal, is there in Turkey too. His brother, Ibrahim, was the individual who carried out the hit-and-run terror attack in Jerusalem this week.
Abbas has played a major role in toning down the violence in recent years. That same Abbas may now be changing his tune – his exaggerated demands in the negotiations with John Kerry, his increasingly extremist statements in recent weeks, his letter of condolences to the family of terrorist Muataz Hijazi (son of a Saudi family from the Hijaz region), who tried to assassinate Yehuda Glick.
Something may be changing. The hit-and-run attack in Jerusalem has the Palestinian leader's name written all over it. The voice is the voice of Abbas. The hands are the hands of Hamas. Pundits assess that he has no interest in the renewal of the violence. Of course not. The Palestinians can only come out losers. But since when, Goddamnit, do the Palestinians act only in keeping with their own interests?
The images were clear. Video footage was streamed from numerous angles. A crazy fan invaded the pitch and launched an assault on Maccabi Tel Aviv star Eran Zahavi. But look, almost all the reactions from the Hapoel fans included justifications, slurs against Zahavi and the like.
Soccer fans are not all violent hooligans; some are upstanding individuals. But they all vanished into thin air – because in an age of free-flowing information, in an age of live broadcasts, in an age in which the picture is crystal clear, integrity disappears too. Why was it so difficult to state in the clearest of ways: We love Hapoel, but violence doesn't have a place, and there's no justification for violence, and no ax to grind with Zahavi can excuse hooliganism on the field? Why is it so difficult?
It's not only in the soccer; it's in practically every field. Solidarity with the herd causes blindness. Does the left listen to the just (yes, there are some) arguments of the right? And does the right listen to the just (yes, there are some) arguments of the left? You've got to be joking. And no, it's not funny. It's sad.
Following the fiasco of the derby, the education minister said that Israel was suffering from a profound illness of violence. The president said the same three weeks earlier. Both men, and not only them, struggle to distinguish between violent phenomena and a sick and violent society. They are two different things. In practice, an inter-ministerial research team collects data from a series of entities, including the police, the education system, the Social Affairs Ministry, and support centers for victims of sexual assault. The result is the so-called Violence Index. This index is not based only on complaints, but also includes a survey, since many violent crimes are not reported at all.
So, let's see: Figures from the period 2004-2013 show a steady decline of around 1.2 percent a year in the number of violent incidents in the country. When compared with global data, Israel, in most areas, falls in line with the OECD average. In one area, violent assaults, Israel shows figures of seven incidents per 100,000 residents, compared to the OECD average of just three. As mentioned, however, the trend is declining. Education Ministry authorities confirm a similar trend – a decline in violent incidents in schools in recent years.
The president and education minister are entitled and even duty bound to speak out against violence. But before they turn Israeli society on the whole into a sick society, suffering no less from a "profound illness," would they kindly first check the figures, and would the education minister kindly review his own ministry's data. Yes, it has indeed become fashionable to speak of late about our "violent society." But the facts, one should recall, point in a different direction.
I wrote last week that Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir, didn't triumph. I received angry responses. There appears to be a consensus, voiced in numerous articles, surrounding the notion that the assassin is to blame for the absence of peace in Israel. Is this indeed the case?
The thing is, the person responsible for tripping up the chances for peace was the man who rejected the Clinton proposal. His name is Yasser Arafat, not Yigal Amir. The individual who again undermined the prospects for peace was the man who rejected Olmert's proposal. His name is Mahmoud Abbas, not Yigal Amir. The person primarily responsible for flunking Kerry's draft proposal was, as I outlined in previous articles, Abbas, and not Yigal Amir.
The same is true of the violence. Amir won? Oh, come on. Back then, after all, a left-wing politician couldn't even enter the Mahane Yehuda or Carmel markets. The mood was much more violent. A fired-up mob attacked the car of Labor's Benjamin (Fuad) Ben-Eliezer in what was almost a lynching. The situation has changed – only for the better. Yes, there is violence; there are hooligans; they raised their heads this week again at the soccer derby – but less, much less.
Another urban legend in the same vein states that Amir influenced the election results. Well, in the months before the assassination, the Labor Party was in free fall in the polls because of the wave of terror ("the victims of peace") at the time.
The assassination did indeed have an effect on the election results, but in the opposite direction. The Labor Party regained the lead in the polls – and by a considerable margin. It didn't help. The terror continued after the murder too. And the decline in the polls began – not because of Amir, but because of the terror. And still, the polls predicted a Labor victory. But then Operation Grapes of Wrath against the nests of terror in Lebanon came along. An errant Israeli shell caused the death of 100 innocent civilians in Kafr Kana. The Arabs of Israel were outraged, and many of them, as a sign of protest, chose not to vote for Shimon Peres, who narrowly lost out to Benjamin Netanyahu.
These are the facts. Yet the mantra, "Yigal Amir halted the peace process" is aired repeatedly and constantly. Peace is important; but why this stubborn adherence to self-deception? Amir is a despicable murderer. He didn't achieve a thing. He didn't halt any process. He didn't affect a regime change. Thus, it's unclear why so many insist not only on rewriting history, but also on crediting the despicable murderer with honor and respect and achievements. He doesn't deserve it. We don't deserve it.

A week of terrorist attacks
Mshari Al-Zaydi /Ashasrq Al Awsat
Saturday, 8 Nov, 2014
In just one week, we have seen terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Iraq.
In Saudi Arabia, a group of militants attacked citizens in Al-Ahsa, killing and injuring a group of people who had gathered at a Shi’ite Husseiniya (meeting house). The gunmen, along with those who assisted this terrorist operation, were quickly pursued by Saudi security forces. One police officer and two soldiersᰬdefenders of the nation—were killed in the subsequent counterterror response. In Tunisia, we saw a new form of terrorism with gunmen targeting a bus transporting soldiers, resulting in the death of five.
In Egypt, there has been a series of explosions and attacks this week, not least an attack on a train that killed at least four people. This is a summary of the events of just one week in our region. However, the most striking thing is that while terrorism is nothing new, the terrorist acts that we have seen this week have all been unprecedented in one form or another. In Saudi Arabia, we witnessed an excellent response to the Ahsa crime from the state and the people. Saudi security forces, utilizing two decades of counterterror experience, did their duty competently while the media also played a crucial role. Saudi Arabia’s judiciary has also played an important role and we have noticed the stringent sentences that have been issued recently against terrorism-related crimes after years of deliberation.
To be frank, the weakest link in Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism program lies in our dawa (religious proselytism) culture and what our sheikhs are being allowed to say. The authority that is charged with overseeing what is happening in our mosques is the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. In comments to Asharq Al-Awsat this week, Ministry of Islamic Affairs Undersecretary Dr. Tawfiq Al-Sudairi said that the ministry had called on all mosque preachers to explicitly condemn the Ahsa terrorist attack in order to strengthen and confirm Saudi national cohesion. “Whoever fails to abide by this, has no place among us,” he added.
This is all well and good, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. The response to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs’ decree did not meet the required level and this is hardly surprising when we consider that there are 94,304 mosques in Saudi Arabia.
How can any party monitor all of these mosques? How can any organization oversee every single word that is said by a mosque preacher to his congregation?
More than this, who is monitoring the television channels that allow sympathizers of Al-Qaeda, or Al-Nusra Front, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to appear and spread their repulsive message?
There are some Arab states that have put a lot of restrictions, both procedural or constitutional, in place in order to ensure that mosques—and what preachers say there—fall firmly under the gaze of the state. This includes Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and most recently Egypt. However ultimately each country must follow its own course according to the country’s own specific circumstances.
Let me give you one clear example of the gap between what the ministry wants and the reality on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The Ministry of Islamic Affairs issued a famous decision banning external speakers on mosques, with the exception of the adhan (call of prayer), of course. A fatwa supporting this decision was even issued by the late Sheikh Mohamed Bin Uthaymeen, who was one of the most prominent clerics in the country at the time.
Despite all this, this decision has never been applied on the ground in Saudi Arabia while many mosque preachers even deny ever receiving this order. Every year, the ministry’s leadership confirms that yes, this decision is in place, but to no avail.
So, I am sorry to say that presently the Ministry of Islamic Affairs is the weakest link in Saudi Arabia’s counter-terrorism efforts.

Is the Middle East becoming less Arab?
Saturday, 8 November 2014
Hisham Melhem /Al Arabiya
President Obama’s letter to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in which he laid out the foundation of a new relationship emanating from a nuclear compromise, and stressed shared U.S.-Iranian interests in combatting the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is emblematic of a gradual and subtle shift in Washington’s attitudes towards the region in general and its Arab actors in particular. In this rapidly changing Middle East, the U.S. sees a diminishing Arab influence brought about by the erosion of the state system, lack of political legitimacy, decades of autocracy, and the rise of identity politics that is fueling an unprecedented sectarian bloodletting on a wide front stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.
In this new, not necessarily brave or promising Middle East, where non-state actors like ISIS and Hezbollah are challenging century-old state boundaries, the U.S. finds itself compelled to cooperate and rely more on non-Arab actors, like Iran, the Kurds and to a lesser extent Turkey, to solve what seems to be the intractable problems that the Arabs themselves have created over the years, and yes, made worse with a little help from the U.S. and some in the neighborhood.
The Arab decline?
Analyzing, how the U.S. is leading and conducting the war against ISIS, a savvy European diplomat observed, before the Wall Street Journal revealed Obama’s secret letter to Khamenei, that the U.S. is increasingly tempted to rely on Iran’s considerable influence in Iraq and Syria. While he did not say it explicitly, the implication of his observation is that Iran, directly and or by proxy is the country with the most sway in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and that it is on its way to play a similar role in Yemen. The seasoned diplomat noted with fascination America’s increasing reliance on Kurdish muscle to check and repulse ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.
“President Obama has been a dogged suitor in his pursuit of Iran's affection”
Hisham Melhem
Not only the U.S. is supporting and arming the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, but also aiding and arming the Syrian Kurdish militia the People’s Defense Corps (YPG), which is valiantly defending the town of Kobani in Syria against ISIS’s relentless attacks, even though the YPG is allied with the Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party PKK which was designated years ago by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. The rise of Iran’s influence in Iraq and the Levant, its extensive support and collaboration with Shiite militias in the three Arab states, and the increasing assertiveness of Kurdish power and influence in Iraq, Syria and Turkey, their growing, and effective military role in blunting ISIS’s military machine, in northern Iraq and northern Syria signified to the European diplomat that the “Middle East is becoming more Iranian, more Kurdish, more Turkish…” and when I interjected “ and less Arab?” he replied “yes, less Arab”, stressing that he was just describing the new reality. In the last few years, I have written about the diminishing influence of the Arabs in their own world, where they find themselves chafing under the shadows of their more powerful – but not necessarily magnanimous - neighbors.
From states to sects
The depredations of Arab autocrats have gutted their states and societies, lead to the erosion of state authority and weakened the Arab state system that dominated politics and regional rivalries during the decades that followed the Second World War. Arab states competed among themselves and with their non-Arab neighbors for regional leadership and formed alliances with regional non-Arab and outside powers. There was a long Arab cold war, and some short hot ones, Iraq invaded Iran and triggering the longest conventional war in the 20th century. There were five Arab-Israeli wars involving states (including the invasion of Lebanon), although Israel’s recent wars were waged against non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas.
Throughout these years the state was the dominant actor, and Arab identity was the prominent one, projecting a veneer of secularism in countries like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, at the expense of the identity (ethnic, linguistic or religious) of other important groups living in majority Arab states. That old Arab world with its clear political and ideological divisions based on rational states competing for leadership that was chronicled by scholars like Malcolm Kerr, Patrick Seale, Michael Hudson, and others, is no more.
Today, Iraq and Syria are convulsed by brutal internal wars and drawing to their maelstrom other Arab actors, Iran, Turkey the U.S. the Europeans and Russia. These states as well as other brittle ones like Yemen, Libya and Lebanon, are being threatened and or controlled by armed militias or very powerful non-state actors like ISIS and Hezbollah. Even old resilient states, like Egypt are no longer cohesive or as strong as they used to be. In 1973 the Egyptian army crossed the Suez Canal, to do battle with the Israeli army occupying Sinai. Today, the Egyptian army is still fighting in Sinai, but today the enemy is a home grown Islamist insurgency.
With the fragmentation of some states, the diminishing appeal and power of the Arab identity, which is being undermined further by rising toxic sectarianism, the category “Arab”, the cultural identity of generations in the modern history of the Arab Middle East, is being sidelined as a category of analysis, and being replaced by more visceral primordial identities such as “Sunnis” and “Shiites”. Ironically, these identities, that are as old as Islam itself, are making the Middle East today more sectarian and “less Arab”.
Iran, the center of the Middle East
President Obama has been a dogged suitor in his pursuit of Iran's affection. From the beginning of his tenure he extended a friendly hand to the Islamic Republic, only to be greeted with the clenched fist of the leader of supreme rejection. For all of his lofty general rhetoric about a new beginning with the Muslim world, his early –genuine, but tentative- attempts at pursuing peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, his early support for the goals of reforms and empowerment generated initially by the season of Arab uprisings, Obama’s supreme objective in the Middle East was and still is a historic opening to Iran that would be initiated by a nuclear accord that would prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.
If some Iranians have the tendency to see their country as “the center of the universe“, President Obama views Iran as the center of the Middle East. Last March, Obama told author and journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Iran is a rational actor seeking to play a major role in the world. One could see a tinge of admiration of Iran in Obama’s observation to Goldberg “What I’ll say is that if you look at Iranian behavior, they are strategic, and they’re not impulsive. They have a worldview, and they see their interests, and they respond to costs and benefits. And that isn’t to say that they aren’t a theocracy that embraces all kinds of ideas that I find abhorrent, but they’re not North Korea. They are a large, powerful country that sees itself as an important player on the world stage, and I do not think has a suicide wish, and can respond to incentives.”
Letters in a bottle
According to the Wall Street Journal “the letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.” The Journal added “Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline.” The letter, along with reports in the Iranian media that the U.S. is willing to be more forthcoming regarding the number of uranium-enriching centrifuges that it will allow Iran to have, shows that the Obama administration is very eager to get a deal, probably more eager than Iran.
However, the most disturbing passage as Fred Hof, one of America’s best analysts of Syria told me, was the one saying that President Obama "sought to assuage Iran's concerns about the future of its close ally, Bashar al-Assad of Syria" by assuring the Supreme Leader that "the U.S.'s military operations inside Syria aren't targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces." This is the same Iran that has helped the Assad regime build an impressively repulsive portfolio of war crimes and crimes against humanity. President Obama is well aware of what Assad has done to the people of Syria and how Iran has assisted him. As Hof puts it “The President of the United States should be the last person on earth to assure the Supreme Leader that his criminal client is immune. Principle and decency aside, such an assurance would be bad tactically. Why should the United States worry about Iran and not vice versa? With such an assurance in hand why would the Assad regime exercise any restraint in terms of barrel bombs? How would we expect Iran to react to such an extraordinary attempt to reassure it on Syria?”
According to the WSJ, Obama’s October letter to Khamenei is the fourth since he took power in 2009. There is no indication that Khamenei ever responded to Obama’s repeated entreaties. It is as if the American president is sending his letters in bottles and none of them was picked up by the supreme leader, or if he was given the letters he might as well have stamped them: return to sender.
Vast sea of Sunni anger
The letter, as one Arab diplomat observed is stunning in its total disregard of the feelings of the majority of the people in Syria and the neighboring Arab states at the spectacle of the United States enlisting the Shiite regime in Iran which has been aiding and abetting the anti-Sunni policies of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Syria’s Assad. For the Obama administration to lose sight of this point is instructive since senior military and political leaders have been warning publicly, that the U.S. should not do anything that will deepen the alienation of more than 20 million Sunni Arabs inhabiting the area stretching from Damascus in Syria to Diyala in Iraq. Explaining the administration’s campaign to counter ISIS, deputy national security advisor Tony Blinken stressed the need to address the legitimate grievances of these Sunnis, since “ this is the vast sea in which ISIL swims, and it must inform the combination of determination, patience and humility we bring to the task of defeating it”.
The growing talk of American-Iranian détente, the shared interest in combatting a common enemy like ISIS, and president Obama’s stubborn refusal to accelerate the demise of the Syrian regime have combined to convince many Sunni Arabs that the U.S. is in collusion with Iran in Iraq and Syria, and that Washington is tolerating what amounts to an Iranian suzerainty over Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The alienation of the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq has reached a traumatic level leading some of them to throw their lot with ISIS in Iraq and the Sunni extremist Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. For the U.S. to attack al-Nusra, without actively and seriously working to topple the Assad regime will be seen by a lot of Sunnis in Syria and Lebanon as another U.S. affront to the Sunnis, who see al-Nusra as the major force on the ground fighting the Assad regime, and Hezbollah while being attacked by the U.S. These Sunnis are familiar with al-Nusra’s brutal side, but they are willing to suspend their judgment until the demise of Assad and his regime. The worst thing the U.S. could do now is to drive the Sunnis of Syria and Lebanon to the arms of al-Nusra. Obama’s letter to the supreme leader will do just that.

Yemen’s ex-President Saleh vs. America
Saturday, 8 November 2014
Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya
A few days ago the United States decided to slap former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Houthi movement with U.N. sanctions.
The timing could not have been worse and that decision fell right into the hands of Saleh. The Americans literally extended a lifeline to the former Yemeni strongman, pushed him to the limelight, and emboldened his supporters to chant his name again. Saleh’s thirty-three year rule has been the source of most ills we see in Yemen today, but America seems to see more of that.
American mistakes in the region are becoming the norm. Wherever you look the trails of failure are clear, most of the time imprinted with the blood and suffering of the peoples of the region. It failed – and continues to do so – in Iraq. The facts there speak for themselves. It failed during the so-called Arab Spring. Look at Libya and Syria. It had multiple failures in Egypt: first by the way it quickly estranged a thirty year ally; second by quickly supporting the Islamic totalitarianism of the Muslim Brotherhood; third by failing to recognize the changes which brought President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi to power.
Failed relationship
It failed in its relationship with its Gulf allies. All the Gulf could see was an administration keen on quickly moving away from old alliances - Mubarak and them - and rushing to establish new ones with the adversary of the Gulf States - Iran. I can go on but my purpose is not to count those failures; rather to place the latest American blunder in Yemen in the wider context of failures in the region.
“Saleh knew that America’s position makes him a hero. He’s already being hailed as such. Even the Houthis might look up to him despite their past wars”
Abdullah Hamidaddin
Saleh has indeed been playing a dangerous game. It is enough to imagine that he put his life in the hands of the Houthis; a group he had waged war against for seven years, killing and injuring thousands. Him and his former allies supported the Houthi advance to Sanaa; knowing very well that he would be then at their mercy. This is as crazy as it goes! It was on his side a calculated risk to advance his interests; and in the process he actually served Yemen. Two of Yemen’s main obstacles to stability were General Ali Muhsin al-Ahmar and multimillionaire businessman and politician Hamid Abdullah al-Ahmar (not related to each other).
Good for all
The Houthi takeover of Sanaa ousted them both from Yemen. This is a good thing for Yemen and the region. Moreover the Houthi takeover has also resulted in a removal of all Muslim Brotherhood members from the main centers of power. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is being pushed back. Foreign Salafists in Yemen being sent home; all of this is good for Yemen and the region.
Saleh of course is not doing anything for Yemen. He simply wanted to clear the playing field from all capable contenders; which he in fact did. Then he directed his attention to President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi - who in my view is doing his best in a very difficult situation. At this point international and regional actors had choices. One is to support the arising configuration of power; thus supporting Saleh.
Two is supporting the legitimate president but without showing animosity to Saleh and his camp. Three is supporting Hadi by lifting a stick against Saleh. Four is sitting on the fence. The Americans chose the third option which I think is exactly what Saleh wanted; or at least he saw in it a great opportunity.
Un-American hero
Saleh knew that America’s position makes him a hero. He’s already being hailed as such. Even the Houthis might look up to him despite their past wars. The whole Houthi movement had actually started in order to confront American interventionism in the region. Moreover most Yemenis view America through the drone prism; which is a continuous source of energy for all sorts of hate towards America.
There is an unwritten norm in many countries that had suffered from America’s military: “If America is against someone then that someone is doing something good. And whoever America supports is a traitor.” Today Saleh is seen as a hero, some may even consider him Yemen’s Castro. On the other hand Hadi is now being branded as a traitor even by leaders in his own party; there is an upcoming government meeting to recommend he be ousted from it! Demonstrations will be held today - Friday - in support of Saleh. He is now David. America is Goliath. And Yemenis will always support David regardless of who he is or was. Saleh is now on the comeback.
Thank you America!