Chemical Weapons Could Change the Game in Syria - Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Dany Shoham

by Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Dany Shoham

The Syrian regime unleashed full military grade chemical weapons against IS several weeks ago, a move that occasioned little response from the wider world. The assault demonstrated that the dismantling of the Syrian chemical arsenal has not been fulfilled. If repeated, the attack might precipitate a dangerous escalation of the conflict in which IS accelerates its own pursuit of WMDs.

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 344, June 7, 2016

On or about April 23, 2016, the Syrian regime launched a serious chemical attack against IS. The object of the attack was to prevent IS from occupying two essential military airfields east of Damascus. The attack involved standard military chemical weapons, probably including the sarin nerve agent in aerial bombs.

This attack was almost completely ignored by the outside world, but is nevertheless worthy of note. It marked the renewed use by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons that are far superior to the chlorine gas it usually employs (following an unverified deployment of a potent chemical warfare agent in late 2015). Assad used these military grade weapons to meet a critical strategic imperative, and his decision to do so was tolerated by the international community – an instructive result of which he no doubt took note.

The attack illuminates several points about the ongoing civil war. On the most practical level, it proves categorically that Assad — notwithstanding his commitment to eliminate the regime’s entire chemical weapons arsenal — still possesses chemical weapons of full military grade. The regime has dodged its commitment to dispose of them by outmaneuvering inadequate international control mechanisms.

The attack also highlights the weakened position of the US in the Middle East. Red lines firmly posed by President Obama regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria have been proven hollow. The failure of US policy on this issue, and the collapse of the US-Russian understanding regarding Syria’s chemical disarmament, are worrying developments.

For its part, Russia appears largely untroubled. It is indifferent to Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons, effectively offering the regime passive encouragement. The other strategic actor in Syria – Iran, along with its Hezbollah proxy – is likely to support the use by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons. The Russian-Syrian-Iranian radical axis remains the predominant alliance in the Syrian civil war, and both outside actors have a practical interest in maintaining a chemical weapons option for use by the regime.

In September 2015, an agreement was reached between Syria and Russia stipulating that Russia would supply the regime with military support for the fight against IS and the rebels. About two years earlier, under the terms of the Lavrov/Kerry agreement, Syria had undertaken to dismantle its chemical weapons arsenal. Yet while the dismantling was allegedly underway, the Syrian regime continued to use non-military grade toxic chemicals as weapons (for example, chlorine). The Russians showed no discomfort with this, even taking steps on occasion to obscure the incidents.

As things stand now, the full extent of the Syrian regime’s residual chemical weapons arsenal is unknown. The precise details do not really matter. Russia will probably refrain from supplying chemical weapons directly to Assad. But Iran – which is heavily invested in the Syrian civil war and the battle against IS – might fill the gap. Iran possesses a vast inventory of potent chemical weapons, including nerve agents. It may well prefer to supply some of that inventory to Assad rather than lose – together with Hezbollah – more and more military manpower on the Syrian front.

The destruction of IS is proving to be a long and painful effort for the Syrian regime. From the regime’s perspective, chemical weapons constitute an “efficient” alternative to conventional warfare against an enemy that a) is not yet capable of retaliating in kind; b) is inadequately prepared to defend itself; and c) continues tenaciously to pursue strategic assets.

From a purely military standpoint, chemical weapons appear to be a desirable alternative under these circumstances. International red lines that were shaky at best have evaporated completely, possibly because the intended target of the weapons is IS. The lack of any meaningful international will to interfere with the Syrian regime’s struggle against an unsavory common enemy simplifies the regime’s decision to unleash its chemical arsenal.

IS, meanwhile, is trying to advance its own WMD capabilities. There are concrete indications that the organization is seeking enhanced capacity, particularly in terms of nerve agents, and is attempting to procure radiological and biological agents. (It pursues nuclear terrorism capability as well, but is unlikely to attain it.)

IS’s motivation to employ WMD will probably increase if it is itself regularly targeted by chemical weapons, and the threat will remain even if IS suffers heavy losses. IS will likely persist as an extremely radical terror organization even if it loses its capital, Raqqa. Even in a weakened state, IS should be expected to attempt to carry out terrorist operations – including WMD attacks – anywhere it can.

The recent aggressive use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime against IS is a milestone. It suggests a possible transition to the repeated, effective, and scarcely acknowledged use of chemical weapons by the regime – a development that could eventually propel an equivalent response by IS. Such a transition, if realized, could reshape the conflict by redefining both the legitimacy and the practicability of using such weapons.
 
PDF

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family


Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Dany Shoham, a microbiologist, is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Recognized as a top expert on chemical and biological warfare in the Middle East, he is a former senior intelligence analyst in the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli Defense Ministry.


Source: http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/chemical-weapons-change-game-syria/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

IDF strikes Syria for first time under new defense minister - Daniel Siryoti, Lilach Shoval and Israel Hayom Staff

by Daniel Siryoti, Lilach Shoval and Israel Hayom Staff

Syrian website reports that Israeli planes hit Syrian military base over the weekend, destroying surface-to-air defense missiles • Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman: We have no plans beyond maintaining peace and quiet in the north, but don't test us.

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman with IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot at GOC Northern Command headquarters on Tuesday | Photo credit: Ariel Hermoni / Defense Ministry

The Israeli Air Force carried out an airstrike over the weekend against a military installation south of Homs, according to a report Tuesday by the Syrian website Zaman Al Wasl, which identifies with the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The report said the installation is a base for the Syrian army's air defense division and is also the location of its air-defense training school.

The Israeli planes bombed storage warehouses for Syrian surface-to-air defense missiles, destroying a considerable number and causing a great deal of damage, the report said. It also said the Israeli planes avoided targeting other air-defense systems located on the base.

The planes reportedly flew at a low altitude, likely to avoid being detected by radar, and were exposed to being hit by Syrian air-defense systems. According to the report, the Syrian defense establishment chose not to respond to the attack and did not try to shoot the Israeli jets down. 

Aside from the report by Zaman Al Wasl, no other sources in Syria or Arab media outlets reported the event. 

On Tuesday, meanwhile, newly appointed Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman visited GOC Northern Command headquarters, accompanied by IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot. It was Lieberman's first official visit to the field since entering office on May 30. 

The defense minister was briefed on his tour by Eizenkot, GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Commander of IDF Military Colleges and the Northern Corps Maj. Gen. Tamir Heiman, Commander of the General Staff Corps Maj. Gen. Yossi Bachar, and other sector commanders. 

Following the visit, Lieberman said, "Today I heard briefings about this area, which is always a sensitive area. I can say that our northern border is in good, secure hands."

He said he was "impressed with the army's preparations, planning and readiness. The IDF's job is to keep the northern border safe and calm, and that is what we are doing and will continue to do."

According to Lieberman, "We have no other plans beyond maintaining the peace and quiet, and I hope everyone understands this very well -- including our neighbors. In any case, I don't advise anyone to test us."

Later in the day, Lieberman and Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan met with Judea and Samaria regional council heads. Lieberman's office issued a statement that he would work to provide residents security and normal lives.

Daniel Siryoti, Lilach Shoval and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=34225

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

In Search of Iranian Moderates - A.J. Caschetta

by A.J. Caschetta

Since Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad as Iran's president, all that has changed is U.S. policy towards Iran and the administration's willingness to lie to the American people about it.

• President Barack Obama personally guaranteed the peaceful nature of both Khamenei and Rouhani, saying: "Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon." To date, no such fatwa has been seen by anyone. Rouhani seems to have been lying.
• The Iranians also keep threatening to "walk away from the nuclear 'deal,'" even though there is no deal to walk away from as Iran has not signed anything yet.
• Within the leaders of Iran's regime, those who fail to live up to the Supreme Leader's expectations are impeached or killed.

Ever since Hassan Rouhani became president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Americans have been told that a fundamental change had occurred, that the latest Iranian election had been a once-in-a-lifetime event, and that Iran's formerly adversarial regime had been transformed into a moderate one.

In Iran, however, what has changed is precisely nothing. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is as powerful and dangerous as ever. Iranian support for terrorists has increased. And Iran's genocidal rhetoric regarding Israel ("the malignant Zionist tumor") and America (the great Satan) has not softened.

Since Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad, all that has changed is U.S. policy towards Iran and the administration's willingness to lie to the American people about it.

The assertion that Rouhani's government somehow brought "moderates" to power in Tehran, and that these are people the West can – and should – deal with, was proven to be false when Ben Rhodes spoke to The New York Times. The State Department has even taken steps to erase from the historical record evidence of its duplicity in promoting the narrative of "moderation." Not only were there no real changes in Tehran, but the "moderates" in the Iranian government never even existed. In the last election, any moderates who might have tried to compete were scrubbed by the regime as candidates.

Nevertheless, U.S. President Barack Obama himself personally guaranteed the peaceful nature of both Khamenei and Rouhani: he told us that "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon." To date, no such fatwa has been seen by anyone. Rouhani seems to have been lying.

The Iranians also keep threatening to "walk away from the nuclear 'deal,'" even though there is no deal to walk away from as Iran has not signed anything yet.

Like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, much has been written about the "moderates" in Iran's government. The problem is that, like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, the Iranian moderate is also a myth. Granted, moderate Iranians do exist, but a genuine moderate within Iran's government cannot exist: the Iranian system is designed to prevent it. When he set up his revolutionary government in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini saw to it that no one could rise to power without its consent.

Khomeini was careful not to run afoul of the Koranic prohibitions against "making partners with Allah" (in Arabic, "shirk"), so he came up with a solution. He formed the velayat-e faqih (rule of the jurisprudents) which, according to Christoph Reuter, is "a dictatorship of clerics." This arrangement allowed Khomeini to rule under the pretense that he was protecting Iran and all of Shia Islam until the return of the 12^th Imam, who went into hiding in the 7^th century. To ensure that the clerics could not challenge him, Khomeini created for himself the title of rahbar (supreme leader). According to terrorism expert Matthew Levitt, a 1986 U.S. Intelligence report on this system states that it "virtually equates Khomeini with the Mahdi -- the 12^th Imam."

The velayat-e faqih is comprised of the most important mullahs, all hand-picked by Khomeini. Only those who are approved by the rahbar are allowed to hold office and run in the phony elections that try to pass for Iranian "democracy." Every one of Iran's seven presidents has been selected by the same system.

The first president, Abolhassan Banisadr, might well have been a moderate: when he urged the release of the Americans held hostage after the embassy was stormed, he was impeached by Iran's Parliament (Majles). The second president, Mohammad Ali Raja'i, was less moderate than Banisadr, but after initiating negotiations to release the hostages, he was assassinated. The third president, Ali Khamenei, served from 1981 until 1989, when he succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and became the second rahbar of the Islamic Republic. From that point on, Khamenei selected those who ran (often uncontested) for the office.

The only possible way for there to be genuine change in this system is for it to be initiated by a new rahbar. However, as Khamenei has shown no tendency to deviate from his predecessor's vision, nothing has changed, and unless something prevents the 76 year-old Khamenei from selecting the next rahbar, nothing is likely to change.

Because Hassan Rouhani was hand-picked to run for president, there was never much of a chance that he could be a genuine moderate, and, if he were discovered to be one, zero chance that he could survive in the regime. Those who fail to live up to the rahbar's expectations are impeached or killed.

So what has changed in Iran? Only the government's image. Compared to the ravings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the calm demeanor of Rouhani might well appear moderate -- but that is an illusion. Compared to Ahmadinejad, Rouhani might look paternalistic, almost statesman-like in his elegant pressed robes. He always smiles; he never shouts. His rise to power shows only that the regime has learned the utility of outward appearances to an enemy obsessed with outward appearances.

Spot the "moderate." Hassan Rouhani (right) was hand-picked as Iran's president by Supreme Leader Khamenei (left). The calm demeanor of Rouhani might well appear moderate -- he always smiles; he never shouts. But that is an illusion. His rise to power shows only that the regime has learned the utility of outward appearances.

The government of Hassan Rouhani is but a more presentable face of the same regime that has continued its medieval sham trials, escalated torture and increased its already record-breaking execution rates. It is the same regime that arrests squirrels and pigeons for spying, and only now has turned its counter-espionage attention to Kim Kardashian. It is the same regime that has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and launch missiles at the U.S. -- only now the Obama administration has provided it the means to do so, if Iran has the patience to wait 10 years, maybe fewer. It is the same regime that came into power vowing to defeat the "Great Satan," only now the "Great Satan" is saying that Iran does not really mean it.

Since Hassan Rouhani came to power, the only thing that has changed is the American government's willingness to accept the Iranian government's lies and pass them on to the American people.

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Source:  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8205/iranian-moderates

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump and Democratic Political Incorrectness - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

If Democrats are truly outraged by Trump, they might want to try looking in a mirror.

Remember the time a presidential candidate suggested that Gandhi used to run “a gas station down in St. Louis.” No it wasn’t Trump. That was Hillary Clinton. Had Trump said it, we would still be hearing about it. But since Hillary Clinton was responsible for it, it went down the memory hole. 

Along with her more recent “Colored People Time” gag. 

And who can forget the time that Trump said, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” But that wasn’t Trump. It was actually Vice President Joe Biden.

But still it was indisputably offensive when Trump told the Asian Chamber of Commerce, "I don't think you're smarter than anybody else, but you've convinced a lot of us you are.”

Then he followed that up by joking, "One problem that I've had today is keeping my Wongs straight."

You would have to be ridiculously politically incorrect or an outright buffoon to say something like that to the Asian Chamber of Commerce. And this is exactly why Trump is… but wait, those lines actually came from Democratic Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

Reid recently popped up to call Trump’s comments racist. And he ought to know. Harry Reid believed that Obama was electable because he was “light-skinned” with ”no Negro dialect”. 

Memories are short when it comes to Democratic racial and ethnic stereotypes. Not to mention slurs.

Trump is certainly not the only prominent politician who says wildly politically incorrect things. Democrats do it all the time. And they do it in more pointed ways.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is running for the Senate. Sanchez is a racist who accused the “Vietnamese” of “trying to take this seat” when running against a Vietnamese-American candidate. Last year she managed to ridicule both Hindus and Native Americans with one slur.

There was the time that Bill Clinton suggested that, Obama “would have been getting us coffee”. Or when Biden described his future boss as the, “first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.” Despite two terms in which Republicans were accused of racially stereotyping Obama with secret dog whistles, nothing any major Republican figure said was anywhere as bad as what Obama’s Democratic predecessor and his own Senate ally had said about him.

Democrats actually say politically incorrect things all the time. Trump has become famous because he’s one of the few Republicans who talks like a Democrat and says the sort of things that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid have no problem saying in private and even in public speeches.

A Republican who told the Asian Chamber of Commerce that he had trouble “keeping my Wongs straight” would have been forced out in disgrace by a combination of media pressure and Republican shame. And having standards of respectable civic discourse is not a bad thing. But standards that are applied unilaterally to one side are not standards, they’re weapons.

Political correctness is a weapon brought out to punish political opponents for statements that run the gamut from offensive to those whose offensiveness is entirely manufactured by the media’s political echo chamber, such as Romney’s comments about having binders of qualified female candidates. Challenging political correctness does more than challenge these standards. It challenges the dishonest ways in which they are applied for political purposes.

Any of the above comments would have disqualified a Republican, but barely rate mention for Democrats. The truth about Trump is that he hasn’t said anything that plenty of Democrats haven’t said.

Long before Trump’s call for a Muslim ban, President Carter responded to the Iran hostage crisis by banning Iranians from America. Harry Reid had also proposed eliminating birthright citizenship long before Trump did. Building a wall with Mexico? Hillary Clinton called for it back in the Senate. Before she was condemning “talking about building walls”, she was talking about building walls. And warning that, "A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations”.

The media has made a game out of pretending that everything Trump says is shocking. When Trump poses with a taco bowl and posts, “I love Hispanics”, the media gets giddy with outrage. But when Hillary Clinton foolishly panders to black voters by claiming to carry around hot sauce in her purse or posts, “7 Things Hillary Clinton has in Common with Your Abuela”, there are shrugs. 

All politicians have their cringeworthy pandering moments. But the media chooses which of them it plays up and which of them it plays down.

That’s why Trump is shocking only in contrast to a Republican field that had been trained to carefully avoid even the faintest suggestion of insensitive or politically incorrect remarks. And that training did no good whatsoever with a media establishment that insisted on manufacturing gaffes no matter what. 

Trump is often just as unrestrained as Democrats are. He feels the same freedom to speak his mind that is enjoyed by Joe Biden or Bill Clinton. He pays as little attention to political correctness as Harry Reid. 

And it’s time that we were honest about that.

Sensitivity is not a bad thing. But what we have is not sensitivity as a value, but as a weapon. When one side is free to be as offensive as it wishes to be with no consequences whatsoever, then eventually the other side will escalate to match it. When oversensitivity becomes used to enforce an agenda that limits basic personal freedoms then the reaction to that will run roughshod over any and all sensitivities. 

Political correctness, like all forms of censorship, is about power. Not fairness, sensitivity or decency. Trump is taking the license to be politically incorrect back from Democrats. The ability to determine what may or may not be said is the essence of power in a system where discourse dictates elections.

If Democrats are truly outraged by Trump, they might want to try looking in a mirror.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263128/trump-and-democratic-political-incorrectness-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Why the Islamic State Is in Retreat - Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah

by Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah

Are we witnessing the “beginning of the end” of the Islamic State, or is it a prelude for a resurgence in a new geographic area such as the failed state of Libya or even in a torn state such as Afghanistan?

Institute for Contemporary Affairs

Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 16, No. 8

• Two years ago the Islamic State’s blitz assault across a swath of land as big as the United Kingdom led to the establishment of the self-proclaimed Caliphate and fragmented both Syria and Iraq.
• Today, the American-led and the Russian-led coalitions succeeded to contain the advance of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq because of several factors:
• Attrition: Since August 2014, when the U.S.-led coalition initiated its air campaign against the IS, the coalition has succeeded in eliminating thousands of Islamic fighters, but more important, it has struck and shaken the command and control structure of the IS.
• Manpower: Countries from where IS volunteers have been recruited have adopted new rules of conduct and restricted the flow of volunteers to the IS. Aware that most of the fighters would come back to their native countries and become dormant members of IS agent cells, these countries now closely monitor Salafist organizations.
• Firepower inferiority: Unwilling to put “boots on the ground,” the U.S. and Russians chose to crush IS forces as well as rebels from the air, targeting their equipment, logistics, leaders, and military formations.
• Diminishing financial support: When IS captured Mosul, it looted Mosul’s central bank, absconding with $500 million. In the last year, U.S. aircraft unleashed a new and effective financial measure: blowing up the coffers of the Islamic State.

Two years ago the Islamic State’s blitz assault across a swath of land as big as the United Kingdom led to the establishment of the self-proclaimed Caliphate and fragmented both Syria and Iraq. The recent defeats inflicted on the Islamic radicals, however, have considerably shrunk the areas under IS control in both countries.

ISIS children conducting executions of 25 Syrian soldiers in ancient Palmyra, in July 2015. (AFP)

Indeed, under the pressure of the Syrian-Iranian-Russian-Hizbullah coalition on the one hand and the American-Western-Iraqi and moderate-Arab coalition on the other, the Islamic State suffered enormous losses in manpower (according to the French minister of defense, 20,000 IS fighters have been killed during the last year) and more significantly, the IS has lost an estimated 40 percent of its territory, conquered only a few months earlier. The most symbolic loss was Palmyra, retaken by Bashar Assad’s loyal forces with the active assistance of Russian air power and the infantry support of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Afghani paramilitary units.

The Russian Mariinsky Symphony Orchestra conducted by Valery Gergiev in Palmyra, May 2016. (Russian Insider)

Likewise, in Iraq, the regime scored a huge success in recapturing key cities that had fallen under the IS control such as Ramadi and Beiji. Currently, the Iraqi regime is trying to reconquer a key Sunni city, Fallujah, north of Baghdad, while continuing to prepare an assault on Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. A Kurdish coalition, reportedly assisted by U.S. Special Forces, is approaching the outskirts of Raqqa in Syria, the unofficial capital of the IS Caliphate.

Based on the latest advances of loyalist troops and militias both in Syria and Iraq, some fundamental questions arise: What has changed today that did not exist two years ago? What were the factors that brought that change in fortune, and what are the future prospects for the Islamic State? Are we witnessing the “beginning of the end” of the Islamic State, or is it a prelude for a resurgence in a new geographic area such as the failed state of Libya or even in a torn state such as Afghanistan?

Bearing in mind the Obama administration’s policy of “No boots on the ground,” the two main anti-Islamic State coalitions (one American-led, the other Russian-led) succeeded to contain the advance of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq due to the following factors:

1. Attrition: Since August 2014 when the U.S.-led coalition initiated its air campaign against the IS the coalition has succeeded in eliminating thousands of Islamic fighters, but more important, it has struck and shaken the command and control structure of the IS. Notorious field commanders (such as Jihadi John, “the butcher,” of the western hostages) and leaders of the Islamic state (red-haired Izzat Ibrahim) have been killed in the air campaign. “Caliph” Abu Bakr el-Baghdadi might have also been seriously injured in the course of a drone attack.
   The addition of the Russian task force was but another element in eroding the IS ability to withstand the growing firepower of its enemies.  Due to the immense capabilities of  U.S. and Russian intelligence, the self-proclaimed Caliph and the different commanding officers of his troops are constantly on the run knowing almost for certain that the moment they reappear they become the favorite targets of Coalition airpower. Bearing in mind that part of the IS commanding pyramid (according to some estimates up to 25 percent of the commanding officers) were former officers of Saddam Hussein’s army, their disappearance has taken a severe toll on the control and command structure of the IS. Their replacements suffer from lack of field experience and military education. Finally, considering the different assessments given by the Coalition spokesmen, it is believed that at least 20,000 IS fighters have been killed in the last two years, a very heavy burden to carry.
   
2. Problems of manpower: The Islamic State’s ideology, territorial successes, and Western opposition were ingredients in the melting pot that attracted thousands of volunteers who flocked from all over the globe to join the ranks of the IS and other radical organizations. However, two years after the birth of the Caliphate, countries from where IS volunteers were recruited have adopted new rules of conduct and restricted the flow of volunteers to the IS. Aware that most of the fighters would come back to their native countries and become members of dormant IS agent cells, Western countries as well as countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon now closely monitor the Salafist organizations in their countries to prevent illegal acts and the departure of volunteers to the IS. Of late, Turkey has also hardened its lenient attitude towards allowing volunteers to cross its borders to Syria and Iraq.
   Finally, the bestial and barbaric videos spread via social media brought about a different reaction. While some recruits were hypnotized by the cruelty of the IS, the majority opted not to identify with the goals of the IS and refrain from being recruited by the IS professional networks. As a result, the Islamic State has been recruiting children and youngsters to its ranks hoping to fill the void created by the death of thousands of its fighters and the impossibility of replacing them with substantial “fresh troops” coming from abroad.
   
3. Firepower inferiority: When the IS took control of Mosul, it captured hundreds of Iraqi vehicles, military equipment, tanks, APCs, self-propelled artillery, ground-to-ground missiles, and ammunition. The same applies to areas conquered by the IS in Syria where most probably the IS also captured Syrian chemical ammunition that was not evacuated from areas where the weapons were hidden. Even though the IS obtained several warplanes, they were obsolete and in no state to fly.
   This reality on the ground favored the IS as long as the coalitions (U.S. and Russian) did not intervene with their airpower. Unwilling to put “boots on the ground,” the U.S. and Russians chose to crush IS forces and the rebels from the air, targeting their equipment, logistics, leaders, and military formations. The choice was to pinpoint the strikes, sometimes through the use of laser-pointing artillery officers on the ground rather than using the strategy of “carpet bombing,” making the process of elimination rather slow and sometimes ineffective. However, in the long run, the U.S. and Russian effort worked. Having no adversary in the skies and no weapon systems capable of downing combat planes, after two years the coalitions succeeded to reduce IS military power and to force it into retreat.
   The IS had no answer to the air campaign since the aircraft flew and bombed from above the ceiling of performance of its shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles. However, on the ground, the IS adopted impressive anti-personnel and vehicle mining tactics and excelled in urban warfare in which a small number of combatants could withstand large regular army formation. Instead of a viable air force, the IS used human bombers to penetrate the defenses of its enemies, a tactic used in Kobane, Tikrit, Palmyra and dozens of other places. These tactics did not change the balance of forces on the ground, and the IS kept fighting while in a position of inferiority, which in turn translated to the loss of territory it suffered in recent months.
   
4. Diminishing financial support: When IS captured Mosul, it looted Mosul’s central bank. According to various reports, the IS absconded with $500 million. There have also been reports of the IS sale of oil via Turkey and even selling directly to the Assad regime. But air attacks on oil truck convoys have cut into IS earnings.  IS obtained funds from trafficking stolen antiquities, but efforts are made to block the sales. It seems that of late their principal income comes from monies raised in private circles in the Gulf States that are insufficient to maintain the structure of the state. Taxes imposed on IS citizens, as well as fines imposed on non-Muslims,  are another source of revenue, insufficient as well, but they still allow maintaining the basic infrastructure of the IS.  
   In the last year, however, U.S. aircraft unleashed a new and effective financial measure: blowing up the Islamic State’s coffers.  In January 2016, the American-led coalition claimed to have destroyed nine depots where “tens of millions of dollars” were stashed.
   These controls on the flow of monies carried out by the United States are forcing the IS to find alternatives. Without that money, the IS cannot recruit new fighters nor pay monthly salaries to its fighters and administration. The question remains: how long can the IS sustain such a basic economy without pushing its citizens and fighters to despair and desert.
   

The Islamic State’s Retreat

Two years after the proclamation of the Caliphate and after stunning victories in Iraq and Syria, the IS is retreating. Still, the IS has made some territorial progress in northwest Syria (Aleppo, Homs) and in Syria’s far east (Hasakeh). However, those key cities have not fallen to the IS while the Islamic State’s two main cities – Mosul and Rakka – have become the next targets of the coalition forces. It is clear that as long as coalition leaders will not engage in ground forces, Rakka and Mosul will remain IS bastions until local forces (Syrian and Iraqi) dislodge the IS from its strongholds. This is not about to happen in the coming weeks or months. It is a process that will eventually occur, slowly and painstakingly.

Therefore, the Islamic State is looking for alternatives: Libya is a place of choice because of its disintegration. However, its closeness to Europe makes a takeover by the IS improbable because it will inevitably ignite a military reaction. Europe and the United States are already discussing their reactions. Afghanistan and Yemen may be alternatives for the IS. Recently the IS has been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, which it opposes ideologically, and has taken control of remote areas in the eastern part of the country.  In Yemen, the IS has found a fertile environment in the Governorate of Hadramaut.

A cautionary note: One should not underestimate the IS appeal in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. A symbiosis has been created between the IS and local radical Muslim organizations whose aim is to spread havoc and install an Islamic Caliphate in lieu of the acting regimes. In the meantime, the Arab nation-states have the upper hand at a very high price. They must be vigilant and aggressive in their pursuit of the destabilizing forces that threaten their regimes. An eventual defeat of the IS will not translate immediately into an elimination of the radical Muslim movements. Such a development can occur only when the Arab nation-states will offer a viable ideological alternative and champion a socio-economical welfare doctrine.


Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, a special analyst for the Middle East at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was formerly Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Head for Assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence.

Source: http://jcpa.org/article/islamic-state-retreat/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Arrests Show Jihadists Infiltrating Syrian Refugees - Abigail R. Esman

by Abigail R. Esman

Jihadists, we now know, have been among them. They have gotten through. And now those same officials are starting to admit things might get even worse.

When Europe agreed to open its borders to Syrian refugees in response to one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our age, officials assured the Western world: we've got this. There will be no jihadists among them; and if there are, we'll be sure they won't get in.

But it wasn't exactly true. Jihadists, we now know, have been among them. They have gotten through. And now those same officials are starting to admit things might get even worse.

On Saturday, only weeks after Germany's national security agency confessed it had been alerted to the presence of jihadists who posed as asylum-seekers, German police arrested three Syrians on charges of planning a major attack in Dusseldorf. The arrests followed a confession by a fourth suspect, arrested earlier in France, who had informed officials there about the plot. All four suspects, reported the Washington Post, had traveled to Europe along the well-worn, so-called Balkan Route. Prosecutors say the attack aimed to kill "as many bystanders as possible with guns and other explosives," as had a plot foiled days earlier in Antwerp.
Europeans already are on edge as a result of the multiple terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels over the past 18 months. But news of these arrests, coupled with heightened concerns among German intelligence officials, alarmed communities both in Germany and in neighboring countries. Yet despite this development, intelligence officials in the Netherlands, which shares a border with Germany, maintained until just last week that there is minimal chance that any asylum seeker there is a terrorist.

That changed suddenly on Tuesday, with the disclosure by the same French suspect that the militants arrested in Dusseldorf had been part of a group of 20, divided between asylum centers there and in the Dutch city of Nijmegen.

Not that this should be a surprise. Since the beginning of the crisis, Holland's screening of migrants has been sloppy. A report released in May by Holland's Ministry of Security and Justice noted that several screening centers were careless and inadequate, failing to meet established standards. Perhaps as a result of hastened procedural demands as the stream of refugees has increased, neither computer systems nor inspectors seems prepared to meet the challenges: as Dutch daily the Telegraaf observed, the system for checking fingerprints crashes daily; document screeners fail several times a week; and "it is unclear whether all baggage of the asylum-seekers is being properly inspected."

Moreover, documents are rarely examined for authenticity – a risky oversight given the huge ISIS-based industry in falsified Syrian passports, a business which, in turn, helps fill Islamic State coffers. Indeed, one of the Paris bombers used such a passport to enter Europe, leading the former French intelligent chief to remark, "It's obvious now: amongst the migrants, there are terrorists."

These problems are not limited to Europe. In Canada, a $16 million effort to screen refugees was recently termed an "expensive security flop." An internal evaluation of the effort, CBC News reported, determined that "the screening project delivered information too late, strayed beyond its mandate, and in the end did almost nothing to catch refugees who might be linked to criminal or terrorist groups."

Such errors have not gone unnoticed by American intelligence. As early as November 2015, a Homeland Security report called Europe's open borders a "cause célèbre for jihadists" and described Europe's asylum and refugee screening processes as "rife with security holes."

"Foreign officials in Western Europe ... said that already some asylum seekers had been identified as having potential terrorism ties," the report notes, "but by the time they were flagged the individuals had already left the area." As a result, "Europe's 26-country Schengen area is ground zero for the continent's terrorist travel woes."

True, the United States enjoys elements of security that Europe does not. While nationals and citizens of EU countries can travel to the U.S. visa-free, those who are also nationals or citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, or the Sudan can not. And all foreign visitors are required to register with the Homeland Security Department's Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to arrival.

Still, even with such measures in place, the Homeland Security report recommended a temporary suspension of the Syrian refugee program in the U.S. "until the nation's leading intelligence and law enforcement agencies can certify the refugee screening process is adequate to detect individuals with terrorist ties." In January, however, Democratic senators blocked a bill that would do just that.

Now the country faces a crossroads. In the first half of 2016, only a fraction of the 9,000 refugees America agreed to take in this year had actually been accepted, in part, NBC News reported, because "a lack of preparedness for the sudden increase in refugee applicants and resources to vet them has led to backlogs in the process." To rectify the situation, "the administration has begun to ramp up operations, both at home and abroad, to review a greater volume of refugee applicants and stay on track to meet its commitments." Since then, the number of refugees approved for resettlement has increased markedly, to almost 5,000.

But at least as important as its commitments to refugees is America's commitment to the safety and security of its own people. And if Europe's example is anything to judge by – and Homeland Security agents seem to believe it is – then "ramping up operations" likely will put the country at an increased risk of terrorism. After all, if the U.S. suffered a "lack of preparedness and resources to vet" the refugees until now, it is hard to imagine that speeding the procedure would in any way benefit the nation's security. And "haste," as a Moroccan proverb says, "is the sister of repentance."

We save no one, not even the refugees, from danger, if we only increase our own.


Abigail R. Esman is an award-winning freelance writer based in New York and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, with more than 20 years of experience writing for national and international magazines including Salon.com, Vogue, Esquire (Holland), Town & Country, Art & Auction (where she is a contributing editor), The Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, The New Republic, Artnews and others.

Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/5414/arrests-show-jihadist-infiltrating-syrian-refugees

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Anthropology and Anti-Semitism - Philip Carl Salzman

by Philip Carl Salzman

Notwithstanding the membership's rejection of the boycott this year, the AAA Executive Board is moving ahead with a number of measures to punish the Jewish State

One of the core principles of modern anthropology is cultural relativism, the idea that researchers must not make value judgements about the societies they study. Anthropologists think of themselves as setting aside their biases and preferences in order to see a society and culture "from the native's point of view." Whether studying the raiding activity of Bedouin tribal nomads, witchcraft by African villagers, or head-hunting by grieving Philippine tribesmen, anthropologists embrace the sentiment that "nothing human is alien to me."

Except when it comes to Jews. Once again, Jews and the Jewish state have been uniquely selected for official opprobrium by the American Anthropological Association (AAA). A motion to boycott Israeli academic institutions, an initiative reminiscent of anti-Jewish boycotts of the 1930s, was presented this spring to the membership, which voted online. The resolution, which claims that "the Israeli state has denied Palestinians – including scholars and students – their fundamental rights of freedom, equality, and self-determination through ethnic cleansing, colonization, discrimination, and military occupation," was defeated, according to the official tally released on June 6, by a vote of 2,423 against and 2,384 in favor.

By the narrowest of margins, AAA will not formally join the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This was surely a great disappointment to its Middle East Section, which has long been obsessed with defaming Israel. While the U.S.S.R. was invading Afghanistan and slaughtering its people in 1979, the Middle East Section discussed only Palestine, and condemned only Israel.

It is true that followers of the postmodern turn in anthropology have taken up a more critical approach to society and culture, in some cases siding with the underprivileged, such as women, untouchables, and native minorities. But until now the AAA has not considered boycotting a particular people or country. It has not considered boycotting Turkey for its military invasion and occupation of Cyprus or its war against its Kurdish minority. It has not considered boycotting Lebanon for keeping Palestinians as stateless pawns. It has not considered boycotting Gaza, although Hamas shot 12,000 rockets at Israeli civilian targets. It has not considered boycotting Saudi Arabia for its suppression of human rights, or Iran for hanging homosexuals from cranes in public places, or Russia for invading Ukraine, or China for its military occupation of Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang Uigur Turkestan, and Tibet.

Indeed, even Palestinian suffering merits action only when Jews are the alleged victimizer. This year the Middle East Section awarded its book prize to an excellent ethnography describing the marginalization and sufferings of Palestinians in Lebanon, but no boycott of Lebanon has been proposed.

Meanwhile, all around the Jewish state, in the Middle East and the Islamic world, are taking place the vilest atrocities of monumental scope. Next door to Israel, some 400,000 or more have been murdered in Sunni-Shia warfare, while the recently formed Islamic State has revived the Islamic practice of enslaving "infidels," Christians and other minorities, gang raping the girls and women, and selling them (even on Facebook!) as sex slaves, while beheading any opposition and those not sufficiently conforming.

Notwithstanding the membership's rejection of the boycott this year, the AAA Executive Board is moving ahead with a number of measures to punish the Jewish State, such as issuing a "statement of censure of the Israeli government" and sending a letter to the American government "identifying the ways in which U.S. resources and policies contribute to policies in Israel/Palestine that violate academic freedom and disenfranchise Palestinians."

Remarkably, this compulsion to punish the Jewish state comes at a time when Palestinian youth, incited by the Palestinian authority and media, are engaged in a "stabbing intifada," killing Jewish mothers, children, and elders. Palestinian Hamas, formally dedicated to destroying Israel and killing its Jews, continues to build tunnels from Gaza to attack Israel.

But for the AAA Executive Board and half its membership, only the world's sole Jewish state is worthy of condemnation and denunciation. There is only one word for this selective demonization: anti-Semitism.


Philip Carl Salzman is a professor of anthropology at McGill University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. This essay was sponsored by Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


Source: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/15856

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Swedish Politicians: "Islam is Definitely Compatible with Democracy!" - Ingrid Carlqvist

by Ingrid Carlqvist

"Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah... it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being..." — Sheik Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, in fatwa number 07166.

• With their goodhearted eagerness to be inclusive, not to discriminate and to defend freedom of religion, Swedish politicians are easy prey for Islamists with an anti-democratic agenda.
• "The presumption is that Muslims want nothing more than to adapt to a Western way of life and Western values. ... the presumption is also that Islam can be tamed..." — Jimmie Åkesson, Sweden Democrats party leader.
• Everyone knows what happens to anyone who criticizes Islam -- first, you get labeled an "Islamophobe racist," then, like the artist Lars Vilks, you might get a fatwa of death on your head.
• The question is where the democratic Muslims will be when Islam has gained even more influence in Sweden -- will they stand up for Swedish democracy if that means openly going against the tenets of Islam?

It should not be a mystery whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not. All you have to do is look at the Islamic sources or call any imam and pretend to be impressed that Islam does not separate religion and politics.

Yet, when Gatestone Institute called Swedish politicians at all levels to ask if Islam and democracy were compatible, they gave assurances that there were no problems whatsoever with Islam's capacity for democracy -- or they hung up.

The two most common answers given were:

1. Islam is definitely compatible with democracy!
2. I cannot discuss this matter right now.

The question cuts through all parties; apparently no one dares to face the facts. So far, throughout history, and now in the world's 57 Muslim countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), nowhere has Islam been compatible with democracy, freedom of speech, human rights and legal certainty. These Muslim states have not signed the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, a document Swedish politicians seem to cherish. Instead, those countries have joined the Cairo Declaration, which stipulates that sharia is the only foundation for human rights. In short, human rights are all well and good so long as they do not conflict with sharia -- if they do, sharia wins. In practice, this means that in the Islamic world, there are, in the Western sense, no human rights.

Then why do Swedish politicians believe they will be able to democratize Islam? Do they know something the rest of the world does not? Or, as the alternative is so terrifying, are they just pretending?

In 1985, Sweden was still a homogenous country. There was no doubt that Sweden belonged to the Swedes. We were proud of the country that our forefathers created, and the welfare state given to us by the Social Democrats. Women in veils and men in Middle Eastern clothes did not walk the streets, and Islam was still considered exotic. It was, as the analyst Ronie Berggren recently put it, "Arabian nights, or [the children's book] Tam Sventon with his manservant, Mr. Omar, and the flying carpet. Olof Palme was still alive and Sweden thought itself a safe and functioning nation."

But in 1985, the Swedish History Museum published an anthology, "Islam: religion, culture, society," in which a diplomat, Dag Sebastian Ahlander, expressed concerns:

"Islamic immigration to Sweden can also lead to new conflicts within Swedish society. The Swedish perception is that there is freedom of religion in Sweden, but that perception is built on a private view of religion. To a Muslim, a large part of the rules regarding everyday activities is based on Islam; co-education of boys and girls, sex education, the view on the status of women, the demand that the slaughter of animals should be performed according to certain rituals, the demand that Friday should be a public holiday -- all of these things are potential sources of conflict to Muslim immigrants in Swedish society, and they are all ultimately founded on religion."

Sadly, the anthology fell into oblivion. All at once, while the Swedes were busy tending their gardens or repainting their summer houses, and feeling safe in the knowledge that our politicians surely were not lying to us, Islam was everywhere. The problems sketched out by Dag Sebastian Ahlander are now affecting all of us -- but still the politicians refuse to address the most basic question.

In calls to politicians, Gatestone also encountered an incantation: Islam is democratic because it has to be democratic, because what will happen to Sweden otherwise?

Many politicians are, evidently, frightened to death to talk about Islam. They seem to do everything in their power to avoid giving an answer. They claim they are the wrong person to talk to; they hang up the phone -- anything to skirt a discussion.

The reason may well be that no matter what they say, everyone knows what happens to anyone who criticizes Islam -- first, you get labeled an "Islamophobe racist," then, like the artist Lars Vilks, you might get a fatwa of death on your head.

Not one of the politicians or officials was able to name a single Muslim-majority country that has a decent democracy with legal certainty and freedom of speech. Not one could see any danger coming from an increasing Islamization of Sweden. Typical answers were:

"Yes, Islam is definitely compatible with democracy. At least, that is my interpretation." — Beatrice Ask, Conservative (Moderaterna), former Minister of Justice.
"Of course if you read the words in the Quran, and the movements and schools that are leading around the world, then Islam is difficult to merge with the Swedish version of democracy. But I try to avoid talking categorically about Islam as a whole. Many people have Islam as their personal faith." — Paula Bieler, Sweden Democrats.
"I have nothing against that. People can believe what they want in a democracy." — Nooshi Dadgostar, Left Party (Vänsterpartiet).
"Islam as a religion is compatible with democracy, why wouldn't it be? I don't think there is any religion not compatible with democracy. As long as you don't use religion to hurt each other, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all democratic in their basic perspective." — Jamal Mouneimne, Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterna).
"[Mehmet] Kaplan is a practicing Muslim in a democratically elected government, so of course both he and I believe Islam is compatible with democracy. He is also an anti-racist, a feminist and he stands up for human rights." — Mikaela Kotschack, Green Party (Miljöpartiet), Press Secretary for the recently resigned Mehmet Kaplan.
"I cannot answer that I'm afraid. This calls for a longer discussion, you cannot just answer yes or no to that question. ... No, the question does not make me nervous, but it demands knowledge and a longer discussion." — Larry Söder, Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna).

The civil servants, who are supposed to give the politicians more insight into current political issues, seem no more knowledgeable than the politicians. Deputy Assistant Göran Ternbo, the Government Offices' expert on democracy and human rights, was also asked if Islam is compatible with democracy:

"Eh, ah ... that's a controversial issue, it is. I don't know. You cannot be that categorical answering one way or the other. Why are you asking these questions? It feels ... where are you going with this?"
Gatestone: We just want to know what the government's view on Islam is. Are you aware of the Islamic agenda?
Ternbo: "We have freedom of religion in Sweden."
Gatestone: Can you say that Islam fits into democratic Sweden?
Ternbo: "Yes, if they follow our laws."
Gatestone: But many say they want sharia?
Ternbo: "I have never heard that."
Gatestone: Can you mention one democratic Muslim country?
Ternbo: "I do not understand where this is going. If you want to discuss Islam, I advise you to contact the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, they have experts on Islam."
Gatestone: But the politicians are filling the country with Islam right now, how does that affect Sweden's future?
Ternbo: "My job is to deal with completely different issues, so I cannot answer that. Right now, I'm working on the Nordic Sami Convention."
Gatestone: You work with human rights, have the Muslim countries accepted the UN Declaration on Human Rights?
Ternbo: "Yes, they've accepted a number of declarations, including the Cairo Declaration."
Gatestone: Does the Cairo Declaration view human rights the same way we do?
Ternbo: "I don't want to continue this discussion, it feels like an interrogation. We have freedom of religion in Sweden."
Gatestone: Is it possible to use Swedish democracy to abolish democracy?
Ternbo: "This is going too far. I have a meeting now. Goodbye."

The Swedes are highly secularized. They have never asked to be invaded by fierce religious rules. However, the huge immigration of asylum seekers, mainly from Muslim-majority countries, has turned everything the Swedes take for granted upside down -- such as the idea that people mind their religious business in private, and that you can trust what other people tell you.

Can you trust what Muslim politicians are saying? In the Nordic culture, telling the truth is a virtue. The Aesir clan of the gods in Norse mythology listed nine noble virtues: courage, love of the truth, honorable living, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, confidence, diligence and endurance. In Islam, however, love of the truth does not seem to be a prominent virtue -- in some circumstances, not only is lying allowed, it is compulsory to lie if it benefits Islam.

The question of whether Islam and democracy are compatible is probably the most important one that Sweden has faced in modern times. If Islam is not compatible with democracy, while the number of Muslims in Sweden grows week by week, then Sweden as a democratic country may soon be but a memory.

With their goodhearted eagerness to be inclusive, to defend freedom of religion, and not to discriminate against any group, Swedish politicians are easy prey for Islamists with an anti-democratic agenda.

Islam has its own system of justice, built on divine law (sharia); a ban on any and all criticism of Islam, and laws regulating virtually everything in everyone's life. Moreover, there seems to be no interest on the part of the newcomers in abandoning these traditions in favor of the traditions of the West.

The fact that all political parties apart from the Sweden Democrats (who are critical of immigration) have Muslim representatives might lead people to think that if there are Muslims working within our democratic system, they must be democrats.

Yet Swedish imams make no secret that in Islam, politics and religion are branches on the same tree. If you phone an imam, and say you are a Swede who has grown tired of the Swedish Church's compliance on political issues, and that you have thought about converting to Islam, you might hear, as imam Ali at the Islamic Cultural Center in Lund, said, "No, you cannot take politics out of Islam, it is a part of our religion. Islam is a complete system, which people need."

Of course, if you are critical of Islam mixing politics and religion, you will not get answers like that -- the imams evidently know that such answers are not popular in Sweden -- anyway, not yet.

Anyone who thinks that these candid imams might be mistaken can study the official pronouncements on the subject. In fatwa number 07166, for instance, entitled, "Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system," Sheik Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, one of the most respected scholars in Sunni Islam, writes:

"Praise be to Allaah. Firstly: Democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Allaah, the Most High, the Almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being, no matter who he is."

His fatwa number 98134, "Concept of democracy in Islam," states:

"Democracy is a system that is contrary to Islam, because it gives the power of legislation to the people or to those who represent them (such as members of Parliament). Based on that, in democracy legislative authority is given to someone other than Allah, may He be exalted; rather it is given to the people and their deputies, and what matters is not their consensus but the majority. Thus what the majority agree upon becomes laws that are binding on the nation, even if it is contrary to common sense, religious teaching or reason. In these systems legislation has been promulgated allowing abortion, same-sex marriage and usurious interest (riba); the rulings of sharee'ah have been abolished; and fornication/adultery and the drinking of alcohol are permitted. In fact this system is at war with Islam and its followers."

In fatwa number 111898, he answers a question on whether it is permissible to participate in non-Muslim, democratic elections:

"The Muslim participants should intend thereby to serve the interests of the Muslims and ward off evil and harm from them. The Muslim participants should think it most likely that their participation will have positive effects that will benefit the Muslims in that country, such as supporting their position, conveying their requests to the decision makers and those who are in charge of the country, and protecting their religious and worldly interests. The Muslim's participation in these elections should not lead to him neglecting his religious duties."

In fatwa number 178354, the Sheik is asked, "What is the ruling on one who reviles the Muslims and praises the kuffaar [infidels], and even wishes to be one of them?" He replies:

"Allah, may He be exalted, has instructed His believing slaves to love one another and to take one other as friends, and He has instructed them to hate His enemies and regard them with enmity for the sake of Allah. He has stated that friendship can only be among the believers and enmity is to be between them and the kaafirs; disavowing them is one of the basic principles of their faith and is part of perfecting their religious commitment. There are very many verses, hadeeths and comments of the early generation to that effect."

That Islam combines religion and politics, with a view to using politics to advance the religion, and further these views, which are clearly stated, appears a totally foreign concept to Swedish politicians. Perhaps this is the reason that a Turkish-born Muslim, Mehmet Kaplan, could become Minister for Housing and Urban Development, all the while rubbing shoulders with the Islamists of Turkish groups Milli Görüs and the neo-fascists of the Grey Wolves -- he was convinced no one would ever question him or his agenda, as questioning him about such alliances would be considered "Islamophobic."

When pictures of him consorting with these groups were leaked to the media, a video clip also emerged in which Kaplan compared Israel's actions with the Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews. That remark, in 2016, crossed the line for what an Islamist may say and do in Sweden. In Sweden, it is incredibly important not to question the Holocaust. Disapproval may possibly have come as a surprise to many, who perceive Sweden's Israel policy under Minister for Foreign Affairs Margot Wallström as extremely critical of Israel. Wallström and the government's criticism of Israel stems mainly from a view of Israel as the stronger party in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, and from not recognizing that the Muslims and Arabs in the larger conflict perpetually threaten genocide against Israel and the Jews.

Mehmet Kaplan's remark forced him to resign. Alas, anyone thinking that the Kaplan affair would lead to a discussion of the role of Islam in Swedish politics, is mistaken. Nothing in the public debate so far suggests that Swedish politicians will seriously start looking into a possible underlying agenda among Muslim politicians, such as that they might in fact be working to spread Islam in Sweden, as Sheik Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid encourages. Such fatwas can be found in his IslamQA.info, one of the world's most popular websites on Islam.

Mehmet Kaplan, a Turkish-born Muslim, became Sweden's Minister for Housing and Urban Development, all the while rubbing shoulders with the Islamists of Turkish groups Milli Görüs and the neo-fascists of the Grey Wolves -- he was convinced no one would ever question him or his agenda, for fear that doing so would be considered "Islamophobic." Kaplan was only forced to resign in April after revelations that he compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Jan Ainali)

Mehmet Kaplan had only just resigned, when, within the Green Party, the next scandal broke. Yasri Khan, chairman of Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice (Svenska muslimer för fred och rättvisa), was also a would-be member of the Green Party executive committee. In a news report on Sweden's TV4, viewers watched in amazement as Khan refused to shake the female reporter's hand. Was a man who did this really a good representative for the "feminist" Green Party?

When the Green Party's spokesman, Gustav Fridolin, tried to explain Khan's actions and why he had been recommended for the party's executive, he only made matters worse. On a morning television show, Fridolin said that he "did not understand that women could feel so offended by someone refusing to shake hands." The same evening, Fridolin apologized for the apology.

The Green Party may be the easiest party in which Islamists can act as entryists. The party appears particularly fond of physical diversity and seems willing to accept just about anybody who appears to be not an ethnic Swede. Possibly the Green Party never counted on the Swedish people, including their own constituents, having a completely different view of religion, politics, gender equality and handshakes.

After these scandals, the scholar Lars Nicander of the Swedish Defense University warned in Aftonbladet that the Green Party might have been infiltrated by Islamists:

"I see a resemblance with how the Soviet Union acted during the Cold War, when it tried to infiltrate various democratic parties, and these methods are similar to what we see today, when people close to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist party, apparently have gotten a strong foothold within the Green Party."

A few days later, the Social Democratic politician Nalin Pekgul, a Kurdish Muslim, told the public-service Sveriges Television that she believes the Green Party is rife with Islamists: "The Green Party has for a long time become an arena for many Islamists to involve themselves in. That is the party where they have been strongest and most successful."

She also said that while other parties have been exposed to Islamists, the Green Party has been affected the most:

"The Islamists in the Green Party are members of the party executive, they are in City Halls around the country, in the District Councils, and they have friends in the Government Offices who push their issues and make sure their organizations get lots of money."

The key issue is what, if any, lesson Swedish politicians have learned from the Islamist revelations this spring. If Sweden is to survive as a secular democracy, then all politicians need to understand what Islam actually is. The fact that there are democratic Muslims does not mean that Islam itself is compatible with democracy. Individual Muslims may make a distinction between politics and religion, but this does not mean that Islam accepts this division. The question is where the democratic Muslims will be when Islam has gained even more influence in Sweden: Will they stand up for Swedish democracy if that means openly going against the tenets of Islam?

In 2009, the year before the Sweden Democrats party entered parliament, party leader Jimmie Åkesson published an opinion piece, headlined "The Muslims are our greatest foreign threat," in the newspaper Aftonbladet:

"This is the reason today's multicultural Swedish power elite is so totally blind to the dangers of Islam and Islamization. The presumption is that Muslims want nothing more than to adapt to a Western way of life and Western values, and that Islam is essentially the same as Christianity, the only difference being that Muslims have another name for God. Thus, the presumption is also that Islam can be tamed, the same way secular forces have tamed European Christianity and relegated it to the private sphere."

Åkesson further wrote that Islam has affected the Swedish society to a much higher degree than Swedish society has affected Islam. He listed several areas where Islam has made an impact. People who have made fun of Islam are forced to live under constant police protection; Muslim terrorist organizations are growing stronger; Muslim representatives are demanding sharia laws; taxpayer money is being spent on circumcising baby boys; public swimming pools separate men and women; demands for halal meat at supermarkets while schools should no longer serve pork, and so on.

Not even the Sweden Democrats seem to have focused on Islam's demands for political influence. Party leader Jimmie Åkesson asked what things will look like in another few decades, when the Muslim population has increased several times over, and cities such as Malmö most likely have a Muslim majority. He concluded the article with a promise:

"The multicultural societal elites may see this future as a colorful, interesting change for a Sweden and a Europe one usually denies has ever been 'Swedish' or 'European'. As a Sweden Democrat, I see this as our greatest foreign threat since World War II, and I promise to do everything in my power to reverse this trend when we go to the polls next year."

Åkesson's article ignited a firestorm. Members of the "establishment" swore they had never read anything so vile, and the article was reported to the Chancellor of Justice as suspected "hate speech." However, the Chancellor at the time, Göran Lambertz, did not open an investigation into the case. He noted that the law allows for "criticism of ethnic groups or circumstances pertaining to those groups."

"There is no doubt whatsoever that this does not cross the line for criminal behavior. You are allowed to say a lot of things that can be considered offensive and annoying and in many ways unpopular. That goes with freedom of speech."

Seven years have passed. The Muslim population of Sweden is approaching one million (out of 9.8 million inhabitants), but even the Sweden Democrats do not mention a threat from Islam.
But whether the politicians' unwillingness to discuss a threat stems from ignorance or fear, to answer a question by hanging up the phone is simply not good enough. It is the politicians who have filled the country with Islam, and the Swedish people have a right to know the result. Above all, they have a right to demand that the politicians know the consequences of their decisions for the Swedes, who are secular and who love their democracy.

Ingrid Carlqvist is a journalist and author based in Sweden, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute.  Follow Ingrid Carlqvist on Twitter
 
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8190/sweden-islamization-democracy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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