Egypt's Blockade of Gaza - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

• Since the beginning of this year, the Egyptians have opened the Rafah border crossing for five days only. The international community and media often talk about Israel's responsibility for the ongoing blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, while ignoring that the Egyptians have been imposing severe travel restrictions on the 1.7 million Palestinians living there.
• "We understand Egypt's security concerns in Sinai, but it's time for the Egyptians to reopen the border crossing on a permanent basis, especially in light of the historic relations between Egypt and Palestine." — Salah Abdel Ati, Palestinian human rights activist
• It is shameful for the Egyptians and other Arabs that, while they are imposing various restrictions on Palestinians, Israel is helping patients from the Gaza Strip undergo surgery in Jerusalem. Ironically, the frustration and bitterness eventually translate into violence against Israel, not Egypt. The Palestinians are well aware that attacking Egypt would draw a very strong response from the Egyptian military.
• Instead of pointing the finger of blame at Israel, it is time for the international media and community to put pressure on Egypt and other Arab countries to help their Palestinian brethren and to stop torturing and humiliating them.
  

Yussra al-Najjar, a 65-year-old woman from the Gaza Strip, died this week while waiting to return from Egypt to the Gaza Strip. She and hundreds of Palestinians had been stranded on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing for the past few months.

Al-Najjar is the tenth Palestinian to die while waiting for the Egyptians to reopen the Rafah terminal. Her relatives said she lost consciousness while waiting inside the travelers' hall on the Egyptian side of the border and was rushed to an Egyptian hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

The story of the Palestinian woman who passed away after being banned from by the Egyptian authorities from returning home to the Gaza Strip is unlikely to make it to the pages of major Western newspapers. Her story would have won extensive media coverage had she been stranded on the Israeli side of the border for even one day.

But in this instance, al-Najjar was the victim of a months-long blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip by an Arab country, Egypt, and not Israel.

The Egyptians claim that they actually saved her life by quickly transferring her to an Egyptian hospital for first aid. They said that afterwards she was moved to a hospital inside the Gaza Strip.

This claim, however, did not stop some Palestinian media outlets from reporting that the "Egyptians killed an elderly Palestinian woman."

The Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza, January 2009. (Source: International Transport Workers' Federation)

Since the beginning of this year, the Egyptians have opened the Rafah border crossing for five days only.

This week, in a surprise move, the Egyptians reopened the Rafah terminal for three days, to allow Palestinians stranded on the Egyptian side of the border to return to their homes inside the Gaza Strip. Still, Palestinians were not permitted to use the terminal to leave the Gaza Strip. These include students who are studying in various universities around the world and laborers working mostly in Arab countries.

The international media and community often talk about Israel's responsibility for the ongoing blockade of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, while ignoring that the Egyptians have been imposing severe travel restrictions on the 1.7 million Palestinians living there.

The tough Egyptian measures include the closure of the Rafah border crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt -- a policy that has left thousands of Palestinian travellers stranded on the Egyptian side of the terminal for the past three months.

Meanwhile, thousands of Palestinians have been unable to leave the Gaza Strip for several months due to the continued closure of the Rafah border crossing by the Egyptian authorities.

In addition to the students and laborers, there are more than 3,500 Palestinian patients in the Gaza Strip who have been waiting for many months to cross the terminal to receive medical treatment in Egypt and other Arab countries.

Egypt's continued closure of the Rafah terminal has failed to attract the attention of many Western journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some of the journalists say they are unable to report about the plight of the Palestinian travellers stranded on the Egyptian side of the border because the Egyptian authorities will not allow them to reach the area. Other journalists find it easier to cover the story from the Israeli side, which allows them to put the onus of the blockade on Israel.

Palestinian human rights activist Salah Abdel Ati said that Egypt's continued closure of the Rafah border crossing was a form of collective punishment against the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. "The Rafah terminal is the only opening of the Gaza Strip to the outside world," he explained. "Its continued closure is a violation of human rights and causes grave suffering to thousands of people. We understand Egypt's security concerns in Sinai, but it's time for the Egyptians to reopen the border crossing on a permanent basis, especially in light of the historic relations between Egypt and Palestine."

While Egypt's security concerns may be justified, particularly in light of the war that the Egyptian authorities are waging against jihadi terrorists in Sinai, there is no reason why the Egyptians continue to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes in the Gaza Strip. There is also no reason why the Egyptians are continuing to punish thousands of university students, laborers and patients in need of urgent medical treatment.

It is shameful for the Egyptians and other Arabs that, while they are imposing various forms of restrictions on Palestinians, Israel is helping patients from the Gaza Strip undergo surgery in Jerusalem.

The Egyptians are capable of checking every passenger entering or leaving the Gaza Strip the same way Israel does on its border with the Gaza Strip.

Egypt's keeping the Rafah border crossing shut only aggravates the humanitarian and economic crisis in the Gaza Strip. The irony is that the frustration and bitterness eventually translate into violence against Israel, and not Egypt. The Palestinians are well aware that attacking Egypt would draw a very strong response from the Egyptian army. Instead of pointing the finger of blame at Israel, it is time for the international media and community to put pressure on Egypt and other Arab countries to help their Palestinian brethren and to stop torturing and humiliating them.

Khaled Abu Toameh    Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5847/gaza-blockade

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

On achievements and ideas - Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

It appears that in Iraq and Syria -- but more importantly, in the U.S. -- it is understood that the counterattack stage could turn out to be critical. If the group overcomes these strikes, it is hard to imagine what might stop it in the future, barring full-scale involvement by the U.S. military that would include heavy ground forces.

Lately it looks as though the Islamic State group has managed to rack up highly significant geographic achievements. These coups will lead to the group controlling the enormous expanse of territory west of Baghdad to the Syrian border beyond Palmyra by establishing rule in the north and east of the crumbling Syrian state. 

The occupation of Ramadi, one end of an arch that bridges between the Iraqi capital and Palmyra in the heart of northern Syria, serves as a base for future gambits of even greater importance. We shouldn't wonder if the group needs a little time to "digest" the new areas it has conquered, to take care of any local population that might resist, if any such remains, and to settle its rule on the rest of the residents and prepare for retaliatory attacks by the Syrian and Iraqi armies and their auxiliary militia forces. 

It appears that in Iraq and Syria -- but more importantly, in the U.S. -- it is understood that the counterattack stage could turn out to be critical. If the group overcomes these strikes, it is hard to imagine what might stop it in the future, barring full-scale involvement by the U.S. military that would include heavy ground forces. 

After the counter-strikes, the moment the organization feels secure in its new area, and we cannot know how long that will take, it will face the standard dilemma presented by such situations: What next? By nature, a group like this cannot refrain from action for long. It needs constant movement; it is thirsty for new gains and fears the "stagnation" that could affect it after a period of calm. The group is still in its dynamic stage, continuing to rise. It has four options for action, and no one knows which one its leaders will choose. It is possible that they themselves have not made up their minds and are still not ready to decide, at least until the results of any possible counterattack become clear. 

Islamic State's next "natural" effort could be toward Baghdad, to strengthen its rule of everything west of the Iraqi capital. The goal would be to strike a fatal blow to the Shiite government's operational ability in the Sunni regions the group has taken thus far, and maybe even to bring down the present Iraqi regime. 

Such a move would doubtless put pressure on the ruling Shiites and their Iranian allies, because when an organization like this approaches areas with a dense Shiite population, as well as the cities most holy to Shiites, the latter envision a mass slaughter. So there is no question that a move like that, if successful, would force the Iranians to make some tough decisions, mainly about whether to opt for direct military intervention. 

The group has another option in Iraq: to the north, beyond Kurdistan. If it managed to take control of the areas where the Kurds are currently extracting oil, it would enjoy maximal success, running nearly an entire country and putting heavy pressure on Turkey. That looks tempting, because the West hasn't taken care to adequately arm the Kurds, the only ones so far who have fought the group successfully. 

It is also possible that after its great success in Iraq, the group will prefer to entrench its rule over northern Syria -- in other words, seize control of Aleppo and Homs. That would be an ambitious plan given the size of the geographic area, but it appears any resistance there would be weaker than it would be in a metropolis like Baghdad or from the fierce Kurds. If Islamic State took Aleppo and Homs, it would improve its chances of eventually taking action against the Kurds, particularly their Syrian wing. 

In Syria, the main ones opposing the group would be President Bashar Assad's exhausted army. In that area, other Sunni groups from what is known as the army of insurgents might join Islamic State, granting it legitimacy in the eyes of the locals. A move like that could lead to a dramatic change in Assad's position and force Hezbollah to spread its forces even thinner. A loss of Hezbollah's strategic homefront and the presence of its Sunni haters breathing down the neck of the Alawite minority, on the coast of Latakia, means a threat to a region that is vital to Hezbollah and to the Iranians' position in Syria, and eventually in Lebanon. The Iranians and Hezbollah would do almost anything to protect these, because any threat to them is an existential one. If the Islamic State group acquires control of Alawite or Shiite areas, it will exterminate everyone there. This is a life or death struggle. That's clear to everyone. 

The ambitious option

 

And there is a fourth option, which for now seems less appealing and therefore less likely, although not impossible. It's possible that to avoid clashing with Shiite strength around Baghdad or with Alawite and Hezbollah desperation en route to Damascus, the group will turn its attention to Amman. 

All the residents of Jordan are Sunni, and some of them could begin to identify with a serious, successful Sunni group that purports to act on behalf of Sunnis, who are in distress because of the Shiite dynamic in the Middle East. The group could asses that it would be easier for it to operate against Jordan, and if it does so successfully it would have more convenient access to Saudi Arabia -- the crown jewel of the Muslim world. 

Saudi Arabia is the target that anyone who talks about an "Islamic caliphate" dreams of, because it is home to Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities for any Muslim. In acting against Jordan, the group could combine a military maneuver with an attempt to influence the kingdom from inside by exploiting the social and economic problems in Jordan that have worsened because of the mass influx of refugees from Syria. 

Today, the chances of the organization succeeding in Jordan appear very slim. The Jordanian army, unlike the armies of Iraq and Syria, is both serious and professional and among many Jordanians, the king is popular as well as legitimate. Jordan is no easy prey, and it would certainly have the help of everyone for whom the kingdom's stability is important. 

In any case, it is obvious that the American intervention thus far has not brought the U.S. any closer to the goal defined by President Barack Obama of "destroying the organization." The opposite -- it has grown stronger and expanded its area of control since the U.S. declared war on it. The last chance the U.S. has to continue its current policy, avoiding the deployment of massive American ground forces, is conditional upon its ability to give the Iraqi army the assistance it needs in the attack it is promising to execute, and possibly on helping the Syrian army indirectly. 

The Americans will take a look at themselves after these battles, when it becomes clearer whether the group's recent successes are the regular ups and downs seen in conflicts like these, or whether they have altered its standing, and Islamic State will now take advantage of the momentum to move on more ambitious targets.

Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12729

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hizballah Deepens Its Involvement in Syria - Jonathan Spyer

by Jonathan Spyer

-- the numerical advantage of the Sunnis in Syria is once more reversing the direction of the war. With the minority communities that formed the core of Assad's support no longer willing or able to supply him with the required manpower, the burden looks set to fall yet further on the shoulders of Assad's Lebanese friends.

^{Originally published under the title, "Born in Lebanon, Dying in Syria?"}

Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah declared in a May 24 speech that his Lebanese Shia movement's fighters will deploy to "all the places in Syria that this battle requires."

The latest reports from the Qalamoun mountain range in western Syria suggest that Hizballah is pushing back the jihadis of Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The movement claims to have taken 300 square kilometers from the Sunni rebels.

The broader picture for the Shia Islamists that dominate Lebanon, however, is less rosy.

The Iran-led alliance of which Hizballah is a part is better organized and more effectively commanded than its Sunni rivals. Its ability to marshal its resources in a centralized and effective way is what has enabled it to preserve the Assad regime in Syria until now.

When Assad was in trouble in late 2012, an increased Hizballah mobilization into Syria, and the creation by Iran of new, paramilitary formations for the regime recruited from minority communities, was enough to turn the tide of war back against the rebels by mid-2013.

Now, however, the numerical advantage of the Sunnis in Syria is once more reversing the direction of the war. With the minority communities that formed the core of Assad's support no longer willing or able to supply him with the required manpower, the burden looks set to fall yet further on the shoulders of Assad's Lebanese friends.

The Iran-led alliance is better organized and more effectively commanded than its Sunni rivals.

What this is likely to mean for Hizballah is that it will be called on to deploy further and deeper into Syria than has previously been the case.

In the past, its involvement was largely confined to areas of particular importance to the movement itself. Hizballah fought to keep the rebels away from the Lebanese border, and to secure the highways between the western coastal areas and Damascus.

The movement's conquest of the border town of Qusayr in June 2013, for example, formed a pivotal moment in the recovery of the regime's fortunes at that time.

But now, Hizballah cannot assume that other pro-regime elements will hold back the rebels in areas beyond the Syria-Lebanese frontier. This means that the limited achievement in Qalamoun will prove Pyrrhic unless the regime's interest can be protected further afield.

Hizballah looks set to be drawn further and deeper into the Syrian quagmire.

Movement Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged this prospect in his speech last Sunday, marking 15 years since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. In the speech, Nasrallah broadened the definition of Hizballah's engagement in Syria. Once, the involvement was expressed in limited sectarian terms (e.g. the need to protect the tomb of Sayida Zeinab in Damascus from desecration.) This justification then gave way to the claimed need to cross the border so as to seal war-torn Syria off from Lebanon and keep the Sunni "takfiris" at bay.

Nasrallah broadened the mandate of Hizballah's engagement in Syria in a May 24 speech.

On Sunday, Nasrallah struck an altogether more ambitious tone. Hizballah, he said, was fighting alongside its 'Syrian brothers, alongside the army and the people and the popular resistance in Damascus and Aleppo and Deir Ezzor and Qusayr and Hasakeh and Idlib. We are present today in many places and we will be present in all the places in Syria that this battle requires."

The list of locations includes areas in Syria's remote north and east, many hundreds of kilometers from Lebanon (Hasakeh, Deir Ezzor), alongside regions previously seen as locations for the group's involvement.

Nasrallah painted the threat of the Islamic State in apocalyptic terms. He described the danger represented by the group as one 'unprecedented in history, which targets humanity itself."

This language sounds fairly clearly like a preparing of the ground for a larger and deeper deployment of Hizballah fighters into Syria. Such a deployment will inevitably come at a cost to the movement. Only the starkest and most urgent threats of the kind Nasrallah is now invoking could be used to justify it to Hizballah's own public.

The problem from Hizballah's point of view is that it too does not have inexhaustible sources of manpower. The movement has lost, according to regional media reports, around 1,000 fighters in Syria since the beginning of its deployment there. At any given time, around 5,000 Hizballah men are inside the country, with a fairly rapid rotation of manpower.

Around 1,000 Hizballah fighters have died in Syria. Around 5,000 are inside the country at any given time.

Hizballah's entire force is thought to number around 20,000 fighters.

Faced with a task of strategic magnitude and ever growing dimensions in Syria, there are indications that the movement is being forced to cast its net wider in its search for manpower.

A recent report by Myra Abdallah on the Now Lebanon website (associated with anti-Hizballah elements in Lebanon) depicted the party offering financial inducements to youths from impoverished areas in the Lebanese Bekaa, in return for their signing up to fight for Hizballah in Syria. Now Lebanon quoted sums ranging from $500 to $2000 as being offered to these young men in return for their enlistment.

Earlier this month, Hizballah media eulogized a 15 year old boy, Mashhur Shams al-Din, who was reported as having died while performing his 'jihadi duties' (the term usually used when the movement's men are killed in Syria).

15-year-old Mashhur Shams al-Din was recently eulogized by Hizballah media for having died while performing his "jihadi duties" in Syria.

All this suggests that Hizballah understands that a formidable task lies before it, and that it is preparing its resources and its public opinion for the performance of this task.

As this takes place, Hizballah seems keen to remind its supporters and the Lebanese public of the laurels it once wore in the days when it fought Israel.

The pro-Hizballah newspaper Al-Safir recently gained exclusive access to elements of the extensive infrastructure Hizballah has constructed south of the Litani River since 2006. The movement's al-Manar TV station ran an (apparently doctored) piece of footage this week purporting to show Hizballah supporters filming a Merkava tank at Har Dov. Nasrallah in his speech also sought to invoke the Israeli enemy, declaring that ISIS was 'as evil' as Israel.

The Israeli assessment is that with its hands full in Syria, Hizballah will be unlikely to seek renewed confrontation with Israel.

It is worth noting, nevertheless, that a series of public statements in recent weeks from former and serving Israeli security officials have delivered a similar message regarding the scope and depth of the Israeli response should a new war between Hizballah and Israel erupt. IAF commander Amir Eshel, former IAF and Military Intelligence Head Amos Yadlin, Major-General Giora Eiland and other officials speaking off the record expressed themselves similarly in this regard.

Hizballah, clearly, has little choice regarding its deepening involvement in Syria, Nasrallah's exhortations notwithstanding. The organization is part of a formidable, if now somewhat overstretched regional alliance, led by the Islamic Republic of Iran. This alliance regards the preservation of the Assad regime's rule over at least part of Syria as a matter of primary strategic importance.

Hizballah and the Shia it is now recruiting are tools in this task. It would be quite mistaken to underestimate the efficacy of the movement. It is gearing up for a mighty task that it intends to achieve. Certainly, many more Hizballah men will lose their lives before the fighting in Syria ends, however it eventually does end. Given the stated ambitions of that movement regarding Israel and the Jews, it is fair to say that this fact will be causing few cries of anguish south of the border.


Jonathan Spyer is Director of the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author of The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict (Continuum, 2011).

Source: http://www.meforum.org/5271/hezbollah-lebanon-syria

http://www.meforum.org/5271/hezbollah-lebanon-syria

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Growing Sense Of Existential Danger, Crisis Of Confidence Between Hizbullah And Its Supporters - E. B. Picali and H. Varulkar

by E. B. Picali and H. Varulkar

Recent statements by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah regarding the existential danger faced by his organization and the resistance axis in the war against ISIS, and regarding the possible need for a general mobilization of Hizbullah members, reflect the deep crisis currently afflicting the organization and the deep distress felt by its leadership.

Introduction
 
Recent statements by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah regarding the existential danger faced by his organization and the resistance axis in the war against ISIS, and regarding the possible need for a general mobilization of Hizbullah members, reflect the deep crisis currently afflicting the organization and the deep distress felt by its leadership. This distress stems from the situation in Syria, namely the heavy losses sustained by Hizbullah in the fighting there and the defeat of the resistance axis in many areas, especially in the north and south of Syria. It also results from a decline in Hizbullah's standing among the Lebanese Shi'ites, who, according to many reports, have begun expressing a lack of confidence in Hizbullah and are reluctant to join its ranks.

In his statements, Nasrallah pointedly tried to persuade the Shi'ites in Lebanon that the war in Syria is an existential campaign that affects them directly, and therefore they must not only stand beside Hizbullah but refrain from expressing any criticism against it. He also clarified that in such a war everybody must do his part and must be willing to make great sacrifices.

In a May 23, 2015 meeting with Hizbullah soldiers who were wounded in action, Nasrallah said: "The danger we are facing is an existential one... the situation requires great sacrifice."[1] In a speech the next day, on the occasion of the 15th anniversary the Israeli army's withdrawal from South Lebanon, he said: "The day may come when we will call for a general mobilization [of Hizbullah members]...  [The present war] is more extensive, more dangerous and crueler than [the 1982 war with Israel], because it is [taking place] right inside our home. Whoever wants to defend [his] existence, survival, honor and homeland must be willing to make the [necessary] sacrifice."[2]  

This distress is also evident in articles in the pro-Hizbullah daily Al-Akhbar. The daily's board chairman Ibrahim Al-Amin wrote in an editorial that many people don't want to face the facts of the war in Syria, and have chosen to ally themselves with Hizbullah's enemies. "These people will pay a heavy price," he threatened. He stressed that "anyone who sees himself as part of the [resistance] axis should understand that the battle concerns him directly" and affects "his environment, family, children, neighbors, job, studies and health." This, he said, means that people must stop dithering, side with Hizbullah and trust its leaders to direct the campaign.[3] Another Al-Akhbar article, by columnist Nahed Hattar, stated: "It can be said that we are in a very difficult predicament not only militarily but also, and more importantly, from a geopolitical perspective."[4]

This report will review Nasrallah's statements and the Al-Akhbar articles that reflect Hizbullah's crisis, as well as the reports on the crisis of confidence between the organization and the Shi'ite public, which clarify the background for the organization's distress. 


Nasrallah delivering his May 24, 2015 speech (Source: Aljazeera.net, May 25, 2015)

Nasrallah To Shi'ite Public: We Are Facing An Existential Threat That Requires Many Sacrifices; General Mobilization May Be Necessary 

It seems that Nasrallah's distress – caused by the heavy losses to his forces in Syria, his people's reluctance to enlist, and the criticism of the Shi'ite public against him – has prompted him to make pointed statements reflecting the danger faced by his organization. He stated that the resistance axis is facing an existential threat, rebuked its critics, and tried to encourage his followers to enlist and whip up their fighting spirit and willingness to sacrifice. Much of his May 24 speech on the occasion of "Liberation Day" (the anniversary of the withdrawal of the Israeli army from South Lebanon) was devoted to these messages. He said: "The day may come when we will call for a general mobilization [of Hizbullah members]," and proclaimed: "[This is] an existential battle for the life of Iraq and the Iraqi people, for the life of Syria and the Syrian people, and for the life of Lebanon and the Lebanese people. Existential battles supersede struggles over interests, privileges, reforms and democracy. When any country in the world is facing an existential threat, the opposition keeps silent and does not speak out against the government, but rather cooperates with the government and even supports it... Today's existential battle requires many sacrifices. It is more extensive, more dangerous and crueler than [the 1982 war with Israel], because it is [taking place] right inside our home. Whoever wants to defend [his] existence, survival, honor and homeland must be willing to make the [necessary] sacrifice."[5]   

Even If Half Of Us Die In This Battle, It Is Still Better Than Defeat

One day earlier, in a meeting with wounded Hizbullah soldiers on the occasion of "Day of the Wounded", Nasrallah said: "The danger we are facing is an existential one... In this new phase, there is no place for frustration among our ranks. It a stage in which we will use all our force and all our capabilities against the takfiris... Even if every single city [in Syria] falls [to the enemy], this will not weaken our strong resolve... Had we not fought in Aleppo, Homs and Damascus, [today] we would have been fighting in Baalbek, Al-Harmel Al-Ghaziya and other places [in Lebanon]...

"We have three options. The first is to fight even harder than we fought in the last four years. The second is to capitulate to the massacre and let our women and girls be taken hostage. The third is to [flee] and wander from country to country around the world, humiliated and purposeless, going from crisis to crisis... Even if half of us are martyred in this war, and the other half goes on living a dignified, strong and noble life – that is a better option [than the other two]. In fact, even if three out of every four of us are martyred, and the rest go on living a dignified, strong and noble life, it will still be preferable. Allah willing, we will never have such a large number of martyrs, but the situation does require extensive sacrifices... Anyone who hinders us from getting up [and fighting], or speaks in a different vein, is a blind fool and a traitor... This is the time to enlist. Everyone can play a part, even [if only by] speaking in support [of the fighting]. Anyone who has credibility among the people must take part in this mobilization [campaign]. The clerics must support it, and anyone whose son has been martyred should speak up."[6]

About Shi'ites Who Oppose Him: They Are Traitors Serving The U.S., Shame On Them For Counting Our Martyrs 

Alongside his persuasion efforts and fear campaign among his Shi'ite supporters, Nasrallah and the pro-Hizbullah media have renewed their threats against their political opponents – especially against the independent Shi'ites, whom Hizbullah calls "the U.S. embassy's Shi'ites," implying that they are collaborators and traitors serving the U.S., the West and even Israel.[7] These threats are presumably a response to the extensive anti-Hizbullah media campaign waged by these Shi'ites, which has gained momentum lately, especially on the Lebanese news website Janoubia.com. The site is directed by Shi'ite Lebanese journalist 'Ali Al-Amin, a well-known Hizbullah opponent and the son of Shi'ite cleric Muhamad Hassan Al-Amin, who is also an opponent of Hizbullah. The site, which posts articles by Al-Amin and other Shi'ite writers, constantly stirs up anti-Hizbullah sentiment by publishing the number of Hizbullah soldiers killed in Syria and various reports aimed at embarrassing the organization and outraging its supporters. One such report claimed that a 15-year-old Shi'ite boy had died while fighting for Hizbullah in Syria, and condemned Hizbullah's recruitment of minors in general.[8]
 
In his meeting with the wounded soldiers, Nasrallah harshly attacked anti-Hizbullah Shi'ites, saying: "The Shi'ites of the American embassy are traitors, agents and fools... From now on we will no longer keep silent. Anyone who speaks out [against us], we will look him in the eye and say, 'you are a traitor.'"[9] In his speech the next day, Nasrallah again delegitimized these Shi'ites by claiming that they are funded by the U.S. Hinting at Janoubia.com, he said: "I say to some of the Lebanese: It's a disgrace that you count the number of our martyrs in this war of ours. Shame on you... We are facing a psychological war funded by the U.S. embassy and certain countries. These days [certain] countries pay money so people will say 'Hizbullah is in crisis'... 'Hizbullah is experiencing internal problems'... 'Hizbullah is having trouble [recruiting] young men, so it recruits minors instead.' They exploit the issue of a young boy from one of our training groups for boys who was martyred. We do have a program for boys aged 15-16. We take them on a camp and teach them survival skills in nature. Accidents happen. When a boy is killed in an accident we consider him a martyr. [Did you think] that we have no men and therefore we recruit boys? Shame on you!" [10]

Board Chairman Of Pro-Hizbullah Daily 'Al-Akhbar': The Supporters Of The Resistance Must Understand That This Campaign Concerns Them And Stop Talking Nonsense

In a similar vein, Ibrahim Al-Amin, the board chairman of the daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hizbullah, wrote an aggressive and threatening editorial reflecting the crisis of confidence between Hizbullah and its supporters: "It seems like the army of ditherers in our region has recently grown. Many people don't want to face the facts that the current conflict [presents us with]. Some of them have decided to tie their fate to the decision of the choir of those who collaborate [with Hizbullah's enemies]... These people will pay a heavy price... Since things are so crystal clear, Nasrallah had to take a firm position that is not open to interpretation. This obligates the public [that supports the] resistance [i.e., Hizbullah] not only to be enthusiastic about [Nasrallah's] loud and clear words but to stop regurgitating [the same talk over and over again]. Stop analyzing and spouting adolescent nonsense. Clearly, anyone who sees himself as part of this axis should understand that the battle concerns him directly. Even before it concerns his freedom and honor it concerns his environment, family, children, neighbors, job, studies and health. This means that he must stop searching futilely for unfeasible options... In brief, now is the time for resoluteness; for getting up and joining the direct battle, for choosing between two lines and paths... This stage obliges us to take a resolute stance, no matter how difficult and painful it is... In this time of resoluteness, people must choose the party [Hizbullah] and trust [its] leadership to lead the campaign. At this point there is no room for additional searching and careful inspection... Whoever sees himself as part of this battle, out of either interest or faith, must look towards its final outcome, not at details that may cause him frustration, weakness and retreat. Whoever cannot join... let him at least keep silent."[11]
 
Al-Amin: We Will Use Every Means Against Our Enemies; 'Al-Akhbar' Columnist Nahed Hattar: Whoever Is Not With Us Is A Traitor; Saudi, Qatari And Turkish Interests Must Be Targeted

In another Al-Akhbar editorial, Al-Amin continued his attack on Hizbullah's political opponents inside and outside Lebanon, clarifying that anyone coming out against Hizbullah is a traitor and a collaborator, and that coexistence and dialogue with other sects and factions in Lebanon are not a priority at the moment. He wrote: "This is the stage of a cruel and ruthless response to anyone who abets this evil axis [i.e., Hizbullah's opponents] in word or deeds or by joining [them]... In fact, we will use every [means we have] against our enemies and force them to shed what the remains of their camouflage and come out into the open. We will not go on playing a quiet game for the sake of national responsibility or coexistence, neighborliness, politeness or nostalgia. We will give [our enemies] the cruel [treatment] they deserve as filthy collaborators..."[12]

Another Al-Akhbar columnist, Nahed Hattar, wrote in a similar vein: "It can be said that we are in a very difficult predicament not only militarily but also, and more importantly, from a geopolitical perspective... This war must be declared a national war... requiring a general mobilization of forces, efforts and resources... In a war for national liberation, there is no opposition, dialogue, reconciliation or clemency, but only a single political yardstick by which everyone is measured. Those inside the country are either patriots or traitors; those outside the country are either allies or enemies. National war requires... the announcement of a state of emergency and a general mobilization... The circle of war must be expanded to target Saudi, Qatari and Turkish interests."[13]

The Background To Hizbullah's Distress: A Crisis Of Confidence Between Hizbullah And Its Support Base

Numerous reports in recent weeks by the media identified with Hizbullah's opponents indicate that Shi'ite disgruntlement over Hizbullah's military involvement in Syria[14] is on the rise again, due to the growing losses sustained by the organization in Syria, especially in recent battles in the Al-Qalamoun area in the west of the country, where Hizbullah has already lost four senior commanders and scores of fighters.[15] The frustration is also due to the military defeat of the Syrian army and Hizbullah's forces in many parts of the country, mainly in the north and the south, with no victory in sight and with increasing talk about the partition of Syria. 

Lebanese and Arab anti-Hizbullah media claim that Hizbullah – which is reportedly operating not only in Syria but also in Iraq and Yemen – is feeling a shortage of fighters, which it seeks to overcome by offering recruits tempting wages, by recruiting boys aged 15 and 16, and also by hiring mercenaries, some of them improperly trained.[16] The sources report, however, that the organization's recruitment efforts have met with little response and even open rejection by the Shi'ite public. For example, the Lebanese news website Now Lebanon, identified with Hizbullah's political rivals, the March 14 Forces, cited a Druze woman who is married to a Shi'ite and is a Hizbullah supporter. She said that, in light of Hizbullah's numerous losses in Syria, which do not seem to herald a victory, she would not send her son to fight there for all the money in the world.[17] The website New Lebanon reported in September 2014 that Hizbullah was surprised to discover that only about 150 young men from the Beqaa region in northeast Lebanon had signed up to join its ranks, when it was expecting about 600. The report claimed that this stemmed, inter alia, from the Shi'ite public's opposition to Hizbullah's involvement in various parts of the Middle East, including Syria, and its feeling that Hizbullah senior officials in the Beqaa region were living a life of luxury while more and more soldiers were dying in Syria and Iraq.[18] According to the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, no few Hizbullah reservists expressed reservations regarding the general mobilization Hizbullah may announce. They said that such a mobilization was binding only in the case of a war against Israel, and that they were not willing to die for Bashar Al-Assad.[19]
 
Another problem straining the relations between Hizbullah and its support base – especially its relations with the families of the fallen – is the financial crisis. About a month ago Hizbullah circulated fliers among its supporters in the south Beirut Dahiya, in South Lebanon and the northern Beqaa soliciting donations to meet the needs of Hizbullah soldiers.[20] The Syrian opposition website Orients New claimed that some 20 families of the organization's fallen had not received compensation from Hizbullah, and in response had kept other Hizbullah soldiers in their family from reporting for duty in Syria.[21]
 

Hizbullah flier soliciting donations for the organization's soldiers (Source: Al-Mustaqbal, Lebanon, April 24, 2015)
In addition, a series of tweets by a woman called "Umm Al-Hasan," who identified herself as a Shi'ite from the Dahiya, recently sparked an uproar in Lebanon. Umm Al-Hasan said that her son had been killed in Syria, and charged Nasrallah to bring back her other son, along with all other Hizbullah soldiers, since Hizbullah had no stake in the Syrian war.[22] In another tweet she wrote: "Please, Nasrallah, I want my son [to come back] from Al-Qalamoun. It's enough that one [of my sons] died. Take pity on our children..." Though the Twitter account may well be fake, the tweets got a lot of attention in the Lebanese press, which further exacerbated the criticism of Hizbullah and swayed public opinion against it.


One of Umm Al-Hasan's tweets
*E. B. Picali is a research fellow at MEMRI; H. Varulkar is director of research at MEMRI.

Endnotes:

[1] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 23, 2015.

[2] Moqawama.org, May 24, 2015.

[3] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 25, 2015.

[4] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 22, 2015.

[5] Moqawama.org, May 24, 2015.

[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 23, 2015.

[7] On the independent Shi'ites in Lebanon and their struggle against Hizbullah in 2012-13, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 938, Independent Shi'ites In Lebanon Challenge Hizbullah,  February 22, 2013.

[8] Janoubia.com, April 28, 2015.

[9] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 23, 2015.

[10] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 23, 2015.

[11]  Al-Akhbar  (Lebanon), May 25, 2015.

[12] Al-Akhbar  (Lebanon), May 25, 2015.

[13] Al-Akhbar  (Lebanon), May 22, 2015.

[14] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1021, Rift In Hizbullah And Among Its Shi'ite Supporters Due To Its Military Involvement In Syria, October 3, 2013.

[15] For example, the Lebanese daily Al-Mudun, known for its opposition to Hizbullah and the Syrian regime, claimed recently that the number of Hizbullah casualties was very high, and that the organization was keeping their number a secret and burying some of them in Syria itself. Al-Mudun (Lebanon), April 20, 2015.

[16] Mmedia.net, May 6, 12, 2015.

[17] Mmedia.net, May 12, 2015.

[18] Newlebanon.info, September 16, 2014

[19] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), May 25, 2014.

[20] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), April 24, 2014.

[21]  Orient-news.net, April 8, 2015.

[22] Twitter.com/umalhasan70.

E. B. Picali and H. Varulkar

Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8584.htm

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

PMW: PA continues to pay salaries to convicted terrorists, despite assurances to Western donors - Anil Dawar

by Anil Dawar


Hat tip: Sefton Bergson

Foreign aid scandal: UK money is 'STILL going to convicted Palestinian terrorists'

TAXPAYERS' cash given to help rebuild Palestine is being used to "reward and incentivise" terrorists, it has been claimed.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has taken around £130million in foreign aid from the Department for International Development over the past five years.

The public cash is being used to help it fund its estimated £84million annual wage bill for convicted terrorists locked up in Israel, according to campaigners.

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) claims that Britain may have been "intentionally misled" by the PA which last year claimed to have stopped the controversial payments but was later discovered to be

British taxpayers will be appalled to discover that the Palestinian Authority is handing their hard-earned money to convicted Palestinian terrorists Statement by Tory MPs Guto Bebb, James Morris and Andrew Percy

channeling the cash through another political group.

MPs today called for the Government to suspend all aid to the PA until payments to convicted terrorists cease.

In a joint statement, Tory MPs Guto Bebb, James Morris and Andrew Percy said: "British taxpayers will be appalled to discover that the Palestinian Authority is handing their hard-earned money to convicted Palestinian terrorists.

"The PA should be strongly condemned for deceiving well-intentioned donor countries into thinking that it had ended this shocking practice.

"The British Government must seriously reconsider its provision of aid to the PA's general budget until it ceases this abhorrent practice of financially rewarding and incentivising terrorism."

The PA's practice of paying huge salaries to jailed terrorists was exposed by PMW in 2011.

The money is reserved for those "resisting the occupation" of lands Palestinians regard as theirs but which are part of the Israeli state.

Around 5,500 Palestinian terrorists could be drawing salaries and bonuses.

Tory MPs Guto Bebb, James Morris and Andrew Percy condemned the payments

Among those now eligible are Abdullah Barghouti, Hassan Salameh and Jamal Abu Al-Hijja who are serving 122 life sentences between them for planning suicide bombings.

The number of those being paid could rise to 200,000 when the families of suicide bombers and the wounded are added.

Some of the longest serving prisoners will be getting up to £2,000 a month plus bonuses for their wives and children.

PMW said grants on release can be as much as £50,000, which dwarfs the £300 average monthly wage in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian Authority has said the money is not salaries but welfare payments.

Itamar Marcus, director of PMW, this week presented a report on the issue to the British, Dutch and German parliaments.

He told MPs at Westminster that Palestinian political leaders last year ordered the payments be halted after an outcry from Western donors which give around £640million a year to help rebuild the state.

Although President Mahmoud Abbas publicly ordered the Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs to halt the payments, he then passed on the duty to the specially created Commission of Prisoners' Affairs run by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, meaning the money is still being paid out.

Mr Marcus said: "The PA's creation of a PLO Commission of Prisoners' Affairs to fulfil the same services previously supplied by the PA Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs, was done solely to satisfy Western donors' demands that the PA cease paying salaries to terrorist prisoners.

"The existence of the PLO Commission has not changed the PA practice of paying salaries to terrorists.

"The PA continues to reward and pay salaries to terrorists in prison in spite of European and US demands that donor money to the PA not be used to reward terrorists."

Last night, a DFID spokesman said: "UK aid to the Palestinian Authority is used for the sole purpose of paying the salaries of civil servants, who are responsible for providing health, education and other essential services."

Anil Dawar

Source: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=14909

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Egyptian Sheik Khaled Kholif: We Must Commence Our War with the Shiites - MEMRI

by MEMRI

Our war with the Jews is a simple one, but our war with these [Shiites] is very serious, and we must commence it.

In a May 15 Friday sermon titled "Let's Start with the Shiites, before the Jews," posted on the Internet, Egyptian cleric Khaled Al-Kholif said that Sunni Muslims should commence their war with the Shiites or else "the Jews and Crusaders will become the decision-makers" in our own countries.
Following are excerpts:
Khaled Khalif: Our problem with the Jews and Christians in this world is ongoing. You get rid of the Christians, and along come the Jews, and so on. Our war with them is a war of religion and of existence. This is not a war over Arab identity, over some regional issue, over petroleum, or over border crossings. It is much more serious than that. It is a war over religion and its basic principles. It is a war between us and them over religious creed.

[...]

Is it justified to be worried about modern Shiite ideology? The answer is: Yes. It is justified a thousand times over. Anyone who does not know and feel this should remember history. We don't want another [Shiite conquerer] like the Fatimid Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah.

[...]

If those [Shiites] gain power and become firmly established, the Jews and the Crusaders will become the decision-makers in our own countries. We will become foreigners in our own countries. The nation must confront these [Shiites] by all possible means.

[...]

Our war with the Jews is a simple one, but our war with these [Shiites] is very serious, and we must commence it.

[...]

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the Middle East media and original analysis and research on developments in the region. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.
The Middle East Media Research Institute
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: [202] 955-9070 Fax: [202] 955-9077 E-Mail: memri@memri.org


MEMRI

Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4919.htm

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Senior Negotiator Categorically Rejects Inspection of Iran's Military Sites - Fars News Agency

by Fars News Agency

"They (the foreigners) shouldn’t be allowed at all to penetrate into the country's security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of supervision, and the country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection," Ayatollah Khamenei said

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi said differences still remain between Tehran and the world powers on the implementation of the Additional Protocol to the NPT, yet, he strongly rejected any possibility for the inspection of Iran's military sites and interview with nuclear scientists by outsiders.

 

"Interview with scientists and inspection of military centers are fully rejected, but talks continue within the framework of the procedures envisaged in the Additional Protocol," Araqchi told Iran's state-run TV on Saturday before Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his US counterpart John Kerry started a new round of nuclear talks in Geneva.

"The methods for implementing the Additional Protocol are among the issues of difference and we are discussing them," he added.

Araqchi referred to the Saturday talks between Zarif and Kerry in the presence of EU deputy foreign policy chief Helga Schmidt, who also represents the Group 5+1 (the US, China, Russia, France and Britain plus Germany), and expressed the hope that the remaining problems would be resolved during the one-day negotiations.

Zarif arrived in Geneva a few hours ago to take part in the ongoing nuclear talks between Tehran and the six major world powers.

"We will discuss the latest conditions of the negotiations and we will then decide (how to proceed)," Zarif said upon his arrival in Geneva earlier today.

"Last night, my colleagues met the representatives of the Group 5+1 and also with the US experts in Vienna, and tomorrow we will continue talks with participation of Secretary of State John Kerry," he added.

Araqchi's remarks came after Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei reiterated Iran's opposition to the inspection of sensitive military sites and interview with the country's nuclear scientists.

"As said before, no permission will be given for inspection of any military centers and talks with the nuclear scientists and other sensitive fields of study and intrusion into their privacy," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing the Iranian cadets at Imam Hossein University - a renowned military academy of the IRGC - in Tehran last week.

"I will not allow the aliens to hold talks and interrogate the dear and distinguished scientists and sons of this nation," he stressed.

Ayatollah Khamenei also referred to the nuclear talks underway between Iran and the world powers, and said one of the challenges facing the talks was the other side's bullying and excessive demands.

But he stressed that the enemies should know that the Iranian nation would not bow to the pressures and excessive demands.

In relevant comments on April 9, Ayatollah Khamenei specified conditions for a final nuclear deal with the world powers, and underlined that Iran doesn’t allow any inspection of its defensive and military centers.

"They (the foreigners) shouldn’t be allowed at all to penetrate into the country's security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of supervision, and the country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing a large number of Iranian people in Tehran in early April.

Elaborating on his position on the recent nuclear statement issued by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Lausanne, Switzerland, he said, "I am neither in favor nor against it since nothing has happened yet and no binding issue has occurred between the two sides."

Ayatollah Khamenei underscored that he will support a final deal which would guarantee the Iranian nation's honor and interests, and added, "I am not indifferent to the negotiations but I have not interfered in the details of the negotiations by now and will not interfere in the future either."

Ayatollah Khamenei stressed the necessity for continued progress in the country's nuclear Research and Development (R&D) and development of the nuclear industry, and said another important issue in the final deal is that "the sanctions should be removed completely on the same day (of the implementation) of any agreement".

Also in April, Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi said there is no paragraph or article in the additional protocol to NPT to allow inspection of non-nuclear sites.

Salehi said that Paragraph 30 under Article 5 of the NPT Additional Protocol (which has not been yet accepted by Iran and should be approved by the parliament for implementation) allows the inspectors to inspect the vicinities of the non-nuclear sites, but they misinterpret that and intend to enter those sites, which will not be allowed.

"Everyone wishes to present their own interpretations of the nuclear negotiations, but the point to be kept in mind is that the Iranians have still not signed any agreement. The accomplished job so far is the shared understanding over various issues," he went on to say referring to the Iran-Powers nuclear understanding reached in Lausanne on April 2.

After nine days of hard work in Lausanne, Switzerland, Iran and the G5+1 reached an understanding on April 2 which laid the ground for them to start drafting the final nuclear deal over Tehran's nuclear energy program ahead of a July 1 deadline.

Reading out a joint statement at a press conference with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in Lausanne on April 2, Zarif said according to the agreement, all the US, EU and UN Security Council sanctions against Iran would be lifted under the final deal.

Talks are underway among the delegations of the seven nations to draft the final deal.

Fars News Agency

Source: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940309001240

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

8 principles for dealing with the Iran nuclear threat - Sen. Lindsey Graham

by Sen. Lindsey Graham

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham writes for Israel Hayom: Allowing this pariah nation to acquire nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy them -- and to share them with radical Islamist organizations -- would constitute an incalculable threat to the security of the U.S. and its allies.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham | Photo credit: Photo credit: Lior Mizrahi

President Barack Obama reluctantly signed into law the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. He was forced to accept, by overwhelming votes in both chambers, Congress' constitutional role in reviewing any nuclear deal with Iran and the lifting of any congressionally imposed sanctions.

Now the toughest work begins. 

The U.S. and Israel both understand that the Iranians, despite their repeated denials, continue to pursue a nuclear weapons capability. We also both understand that Iran has a long and troubled track record of sharing military technology with terrorist organizations. 

It's important that Obama now negotiate an agreement that will permanently prevent an untrustworthy Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons -- or walk away. If he instead commits to a plan that will lead to a nuclear Iran, it is imperative that Congress stop it.

Iran is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and the world. It sits at the nexus of nearly every major global threat: the Syrian crisis, the rise of the Islamic State group, the resurgence of al-Qaida, the crisis in Iraq that threatens gains won with U.S. blood, the chaos in Yemen that is adding to the threat of an all-out regional war and renewed weapons trade with Russia's Vladimir Putin.

To allow this pariah nation to acquire nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy them against us and our allies -- and to share them with radical Islamist organizations -- would constitute an incalculable threat to both our nations' security. It would set off a nuclear arms race that would virtually guarantee a regional war with global implications.

Alarmingly, our negotiators and the Iranians have offered wildly differing interpretations of the negotiated framework. On every principle, Iran insists it will never accept our terms. Serious questions remain about how this deal can prevent a nuclear Iran.

Will international sanctions be lifted before proof that Iran is in compliance? How and when would sanctions be restored if there are violations? Can we have an agreement in good faith with a regime that for decades has lied and cheated and has never come clean about its past efforts to weaponize nuclear technology? Will Iran be required to demonstrate changed behavior with respect to its nuclear ambitions and its sponsorship of terrorism?

I have brought forward eight principles to ensure we get the right answers and achieve a sound, enforceable deal:

• Iran must not be allowed an enrichment capability greater than the practical needs to supply one commercial reactor. The Iranians should have access to peaceful nuclear power, but the infrastructure should be aligned to support the needs of a single nuclear reactor.

• Closure of all hardened and formerly secret sites. Iran must come clean on all outstanding issues raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, particularly concerning the possible military dimensions of Iran's civilian nuclear program. The history of Iran's nuclear program has been marked by deception. Sites like Fordo have no role in an Iranian civilian program. Iran must account for the full inventory of centrifuges, production facilities for components, the total number of components, assembly workshops and storage depots for centrifuges.

• Anytime, anywhere inspections of all Iranian military and nonmilitary facilities. Iran shouldn't have veto power over when inspectors visit its facilities, including the ability of independent parties to monitor and report on Iran's compliance.

• Sanctions relief and access to funds currently in escrow must be phased in and fully conditioned on IAEA certification that Iran is in full compliance and has demonstrated sustained compliance over time. Allowing Iran access to these tens of billions of dollars in funds before it has fulfilled its portion of the agreement is unacceptable.

• There must be an explicit process for the "snapback" re-imposition of sanctions if Iran violates the deal. It took years to impose the sanctions which brought Iran to the negotiating table.

• Iran must not be allowed to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges. Mastery of this technology will allow Iran to reduce its breakout time toward a nuclear weapon.

• Removal of all enriched uranium from Iran. There is no need for Iran to possess a large stockpile of low enriched uranium or any highly enriched uranium. With the exception of the small amounts enriched to 3.5% that will be created as part of Iran's civilian enrichment process, all enriched uranium must be shipped out of Iran.

• Certification by the president that, before any restrictions on Iran's nuclear program are lifted, Iran has changed its aggressive behavior in the region and no longer meets the qualifications to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism.

These eight principles largely reflect Obama's negotiating position at the start of the process (demonstrating how far he has strayed from his original intentions). Adhering to these eight principles will ensure that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons or has the means to spread nuclear technology to radical Islamist groups. 

They will protect our national security and that of our close allies. Above all, they will reassert American leadership in the Middle East and reassure our allies in the region. 

Any deal that does not adhere to them will fail, with dire consequences for global security. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (Republican) is the senior U.S. senator from South Carolina.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=25799

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.