EU Blacklists Hezbollah: Not Really

by Soeren Kern

EU governments agreed only to blacklist the "military" wing of Hezbollah, thus maintaining the politically expedient fiction that a clear distinction can be drawn between Hezbollah terrorists and those members of the group's "political" wing. European officials are afraid of Hezbollah reprisals against European interests at home and abroad. They are especially worried that if they antagonize Hezbollah, the group may activate sleeper cells and carry out attacks in European cities.

After years of equivocating, a reluctant European Union agreed on July 22 to place part of Hezbollah on its terrorism blacklist, ostensibly to cut off the Shiite militant group's sources of funding inside Europe.

But the unanimous decision by the 28-member bloc is likely to have only a limited impact on the Lebanon-based, Iranian-financed Hezbollah.

In a classic European fudge, EU governments agreed only to blacklist the "military" wing of Hezbollah, thus maintaining the politically expedient fiction that a clear distinction can be drawn between Hezbollah terrorists and those members of the group's "political" wing.

A Hezbollah poster.

Blacklisting all of Hezbollah would have deprived the "Party of Allah" of potentially significant sources of fundraising by enabling the freezing of all of its bank accounts and assets in Europe. But by prevaricating on the true nature of Hezbollah, the EU has effectively limited the ability of law enforcement agencies to crack down on the group's shadowy fundraising activities in Europe.

Instead, the onus will be on European counter-terrorism police to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hezbollah monies -- which are often raised by entities masquerading as charities -- are being expressly destined for terrorist activities rather than for "political" purposes.

Because of this legal uncertainty, it remains unclear if the EU will actually target any of Hezbollah's assets or individuals in Europe.

The decision to list only a part of Hezbollah as a terrorist group comes more than five months after the Bulgarian government said it was clear that Hezbollah was behind a 2012 bus bombing in the Bulgarian city of Burgas that killed five Israelis and their driver.

In addition, a court in Cyprus recently sentenced Hezbollah operative Hossam Taleb Yaakoub to four years in prison for plotting to kill Israelis in the EU member state.

But the EU's decision to blacklist Hezbollah was not primarily in response to the group's terrorist activities in Europe. Instead, the EU has repeatedly cited its "concerns" over Hezbollah's growing involvement in the war in Syria.

European officials have long rationalized their lack of resolve against Hezbollah by claiming that the organization has both a military wing and a political wing, and that cracking down on the former would cripple the latter. This, they say, would lead to the destabilization of Lebanon and thus the broader Middle East.

Many analysts, however, say this rationalization is a smoke screen Europeans are hiding behind to conceal the real reason why they are reluctant to confront Hezbollah, namely, fear of reprisals.

European officials are afraid of Hezbollah reprisals against European interests at home and abroad. They are especially worried that if they antagonize Hezbollah, the group may activate sleeper cells and carry out attacks in European cities. (According to a leaked German intelligence report, there are more than 900 Hezbollah operatives in Germany alone.)

In addition, Europeans are afraid that Hezbollah may retaliate against European troops participating in the United Nations mission in Lebanon known as UNIFIL.

Consider Spain: After six Spanish peacekeepers were killed in a Hezbollah bomb attack in southern Lebanon, the Spanish government met in secret with Hezbollah militants to provide "escorts" to protect Spanish UNIFIL patrols. The quid pro quo was that Spanish troops would look the other way while Hezbollah was allowed to rearm for its next war against Israel.

More recently, the French Ministry of Defense acknowledged the increasingly visible assertiveness of Hezbollah vis-à-vis UNIFIL peacekeepers in Lebanon. A French official interviewed by the news site Al-Monitor said: "UNIFIL heavily relies on cooperation with Hezbollah. There is no way it could perform its mission without this form of tacit coexistence."

Italy, which is commanding UNIFIL, is also afraid of the potential repercussions of the EU taking a hard line against Hezbollah.

Europeans are also afraid of inciting the thousands of shiftless young Muslim immigrants in towns and cities across the continent. The fear of angry Muslims is, in fact, so pervasive in European capitals that in practical terms Islam has already established a de facto veto on European foreign policymaking.

The recent cases in Bulgaria and Cyprus have provided irrefutable evidence that Hezbollah is active across Europe, where it raises funds, launders money, traffics drugs, recruits operatives and plots attacks with impunity.

But European officials have signaled that they are eager to keep the peace with Hezbollah.
Only one EU country has had the courage to blacklist Hezbollah's entire organization: The Netherlands proscribed the group in 2004. In a recent statement, the Dutch Embassy in Israel said: "The Netherlands has been calling for Hezbollah to be included on the EU list of terrorist organizations since 2004, and has consistently urged its EU partners to support such a move."

But the EU has decided to follow the example not of Holland but of Britain.

The British government "banned" Hezbollah's military wing in 2008 after the group targeted British troops in Iraq. But the Labour government stopped short of curtailing Hezbollah's ability to operate in Britain, arguing that the military wing is separate from the political wing.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague has repeatedly urged the EU to replicate the British model and outlaw only Hezbollah's military wing.

Although this "fix" allows the EU to say that it has taken meaningful action against the group, Hezbollah leaders themselves make no such distinction.

Sheikh Naim Qassem, the second in command of Hezbollah, with the title of deputy secretary-general, has rejected Britain's attempt to separate the group into military and political wings. Speaking to the Los Angeles Times in April 2009, Qassem said: "Hezbollah has a single leadership. … The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads Jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu concurred, saying, "There is only one Hezbollah, it is one organization with one leadership."

Israel's Minister of Home Front Defense, Avi Dichter, had this to say: "To speak about [Hezbollah leader] Hassan Nasrallah as someone who is only political is ridiculous. … Asking if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is like asking if Paris belongs to France. Who is sleeping? Are we Israelis sleeping or are countries in Europe sleeping? There is no debate."

Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, put it this way: "Calling Hezbollah a charity is like calling al-Qaeda an urban planning organization because of its desire to level tall buildings. … The EU must find the moral and political courage to place Hezbollah on its list of terrorist organizations. It must find a clear message that Hezbollah can no longer target its citizens with impunity."

While the European Union continues to dither over Hezbollah, it has not been afraid to harass Israel, apparently because the Jewish state, unlike the Muslim terror group, poses no real threat to European interests.

On July 19, the European Union announced that it would boycott any Israeli businesses with a presence anywhere beyond the 1949 Armistice lines, including eastern Jerusalem.

The new directive titled "Guidelines on the Eligibility of Israeli Entities and their Activities in the Territories Occupied by Israel since June 1967 for Grants, Prizes and Financial Instruments funded by the EU from 2014 Onwards" forbids EU organizations and institutions from funding or cooperating with any Israeli entities based in Judea and Samaria, eastern Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. The directive will take effect on January 1, 2014.

A high-ranking Israeli official quoted by veteran Israeli journalist Gil Ronen described the European Union's move as a disproportionate "attack" on Israel and added: "When it comes to disputed territories, the Europeans prefer to attack a small country like Israel instead of taking on more powerful states, because they're afraid of retaliation."


Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3872/eu-blacklists-hezbollah

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

Islamism's Likely Doom

by Daniel Pipes


As recently as 2012, it appeared that Islamists could overcome their many internal dissimilarities – sectarian (Sunni, Shi'ite), political (monarchical, republican), tactical (political, violent), or attitudes toward modernity (Salafi, Muslim Brotherhood) – and cooperate. In Tunisia, for example, Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) types found common ground. Differences between all these groups were real but secondary, as I put it then, because "all Islamists pull in the same direction, toward the full and severe application of Islamic law (the Shari'a)."

Ali Khamene'i and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in better times.

This sort of cooperation still persists in small ways, as shown by a recent meeting between a member of Turkey's ruling party and the head of a Salafi organization in Germany. But Islamists have in recent months abruptly and overwhelmingly thrown themselves at each others' throats. Islamists still constitute a single movement who share similar supremacist and utopian goals, but they also have different personnel, ethnic affiliations, methods, and philosophies. Islamist internecine hostilities have flared up in many other Muslim-majority countries. Sunni vs Shi'i tensions can be seen in Turkey vs Iran, also due to different approaches to Islamism; in Lebanon, where it's Sunni vs Shi'ite Islamists and Sunni Islamists vs the army; Sunni vs Shi'ite Islamists in Syria; Sunni vs Shi'ite Islamists in Iraq; Sunni Islamists vs Shi'ites in Egypt; and Houthis vs Salafis in Yemen.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Fethullah Gülen, once close allies.

More often, however, members of the same sect fight each other: Khamene'i vs Ahmedinejad in Iran; the AKP vs the Gülenists in Turkey; Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq vs Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq; monarchy vs the MB in Saudi Arabia; Islamic Liberation Front vs the Nusra Front in Syria; Egypt's MB vs Hamas regarding hostilities toward Israel; MB vs the Salafis in Egypt; and a clash of two leading ideologues and politicians, Omar al-Bashir vs Hassan al-Turabi, in the Sudan. In Tunisia, the Salafis (called Ansar al-Sharia) are fighting the MB-style organization (called Ennahda).

Seemingly minor differences can take on a complex quality. Just try to follow a Beirut newspaper's arcane account of hostilities in the northern Lebanese town of Tripoli:

Clashes between the various Islamist groups in Tripoli, divided between the March 8 and March 14 political movements, are on the rise. … Since the assassination of March 14 figure and intelligence chief Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hasan in October, disputes between Islamist groups in Tripoli have been heading toward a major conflagration, particularly following the killing of Sheikh Abdel-Razzaq Asmar, an official from the Islamic Tawhid Movement, just hours after Hasan's death. The sheikh was shot dead … during an armed clash that erupted when supporters of Kanaan Naji, an independent Islamist figure associated with the National Islamist Gathering, attempted to take over the headquarters of the Islamic Tawhid Movement.

This pattern of fracturing brings to mind the 1950s divisions of pan-Arab nationalists. They aspired to unify all Arabic-speaking peoples, as the expression then went, "From the [Atlantic] ocean to the [Persian] gulf." However appealing the dream, its leaders fell out as the movement grew in power, dooming pan-Arab nationalism to the point that it eventually collapsed under the weight of kaleidoscopic and ever-more minute clashes. These included:

• Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt vs the Ba'th (or Baath) parties ruling in Syria and Iraq.
• The Syrian Ba'th party vs the Iraqi Ba'th party.
• The Sunni Syrian Ba'thists vs the Alawi Syrian Ba'thists
• The Jadidist Alawi Syrian Ba'thists vs the Assadist Alawi Syrian Ba'thists.

Omar al-Bashir and Hassan al-Turabi, also once close allies.

And so on. In fact, every effort at forming an Arab union failed – in particular the United Arab Republic between Egypt and Syria (1958-61) but also lesser attempts such as the Arab Federation (1958), the United Arab States (1958-61), the Federation of Arab Republics (1972-77), the Syrian domination of Lebanon (1976-2005), and the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait (1990-91).

Reflecting deep Middle East patterns, dissension among Islamists likewise prevents them from working together. As the movement surges, as its members approach power and actually rule, its cracks become increasingly divisive. Rivalries papered over when Islamists languish in the opposition emerge when they wield power.

Should the fissiparous tendency hold, the Islamist movement is doomed, like fascism and communism, to be no more than a civilizational threat inflicting immense damage but never prevailing. This possible limit on Islamist power, which became visible only in 2013, offers grounds for optimism but not for complacency. Even if things look brighter than a year ago, trends can quickly turn around again. The long and difficult job of defeating Islamism remains ahead.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2013 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

July 22, 2013 addendum: The 1950s subdivisions of pan-Arab nationalists recall a skit by American comedian Emo Philips (slightly adapted for reading):

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.
I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me."
"God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes."
"Me, too! Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."
"Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."
"Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist."
"Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist."
"Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
"Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
"Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

Daniel Pipes

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/13124/islamism-doom

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

Al-Qaeda Expands into Northern Syria

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

Introduction

In a post for Jihadology a few weeks back, I identified how the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) was playing an important role in the fighting on the outskirts of the city of Aleppo and in the surrounding countryside. Since that time, it has become apparent that the group has been seeking to expand outwards and to consolidate control over outlying towns in both the Aleppo and Idlib regions, particularly those of strategic importance along or near the border with Turkey.

Azaz

This initiative has already served to foster division. For example, in the town of Azaz, which is in close proximity to the Turkish border, a protest ocurred on July 1 against ISIS' entry into the town and its attempt to establish headquarters there. Yet on July 5, Azaz saw a counter-rally in favor of ISIS featuring a slogan common for such demonstrations—'Labbayka ya Allah' ('I am at your service, God')—accompanied by conspicuous numbers of ISIS flags.

It should be noted that this pattern of division—between those members of Syrian society who support ISIS vs. those who do not—is also observed in the city of Aleppo itself, where ISIS supporters have generally held separate rallies from those of other demonstrators. (I have found one notable exception: a rally on June 4 for the then-besieged city of Qusayr in the area of al-Firdus, featuring both ISIS and Free Syrian Army [FSA] flags).

Resentment over the ISIS presence in Azaz grows. One notable outlet for this disapproving sentiment is a youth activist Facebook page called 'The Youth of Aleppo—Azaz' which posted the following status: 'We ask the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham to establish their state from Iraq [meaning 'in Iraq'?] since the system of prostitution [there] has not yet fallen.'

The group has also circulated an alleged statement from a local council in the town of Tel Abyaḍ in Raqqah Governorate claiming that the ISIS has confiscated internationally-donated generators intended to provide drinking water for the residents of the town.

On the other hand, ISIS is attempting some outreach to the locals of Azaz, offering Qur'an and Sunnah recitation competitions—among other religious activities—for the population during Ramaḍān.

Jarabulus

As for other towns, here is a photo of the ISIS headquarters in the northern border town of Jarabulus. The banner reads: 'The Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham: Province of Aleppo. Emirate of Jarabulus.'



Another photo shows the flag of ISIS flying over Jarabulus:



One activist page on Facebook called 'Jabhat al-Nusra does not represent me' claims the following to give context to the first photo: 'Photo from Jarabulus following the seizure of it by al-Qa'ida after battles with the FSA. It is said that ISIS then killed scores of civilians, among them children, during al-Qa'ida's attempt to occupy the town.'

In a similar vein, on June 15, the Arabic news outlet al-Waie News claimed to cite a local source in Jarabulus on clashes between ISIS and a rebel battalion known as the 'Family of Jādir,' which uses the FSA flag.

The source claimed that the clashes started after a member of ISIS was wounded during a round of celebratory gunfire that followed a concord reached between the two groups, giving rise to a renewed violent battle between ISIS and the Family of Jādir for fifteen hours, resulting in ISIS' seizure of the town, as well as the killing of one ISIS fighter and several from the Family of Jādir.

On 13 June, the leader of the Family of Jādir—Yusuf al-Jādir—released video testimony in which he claimed that ISIS launched an attack on the home of Ahmad al-Jādir and then began shooting at dozens of innocent civilians, resulting in the deaths of several children: among them, Mahmoud Kerkaz, Sheikho Shawish, Ibrahim al-Ahmad, and a young Kurdish girl. He continues by documenting other alleged acts of ISIS aggression in the town.

It thus appears that ISIS seized control of Jarabulus by force. One thing that is important to note from the opposing testimony is the issue of naming. The source for al-Waie News from Jarabulus merely sees ISIS as a new name for Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) in the town, and Yusuf al-Jādir likewise deems the two names interchangeable.

Thus, even if my formulation for the city of Aleppo itself—that ISIS and JN are two separate entities—applies here, the perception of at least some residents of the town nevertheless differs. As in Raqqah, the two may well be interchangeable in Jarabulus.

The concept of interchangeability could make sense here in light of the fact that JN has had an active presence in the northern Turkish border areas in the past (cf. clashes with Farouq Battalions in April on the border in Raqqah Governorate). Certainly, Jarabulus has been known for a JN presence in the past: here is a video of a JN-led rally in Jarabulus from December 14, 2012, featuring the chant of 'We are Anṣar Allah.'

In this context, one should also note a revealing report from the Damascus Bureau, which actually visited Jarabulus. The reporter, Youssef Shaikho, explains that Jabhat al-Nusra in Jarabulus supported the announcement of ISIS, and most of its fighters in the town are native Syrians, providing a notable exception to the media narrative of ISIS as a group solely composed of foreign fighters.

Further blurring the lines of group-alignment and public sentiment, not all those who, like al-Jādir, use the FSA flag in Jarabulus are necessarily opposed to ISIS' ideological vision. For example, here is a Facebook activist page from Jarabulus that uses the FSA flag. Yet it has put up a status that laments the loss of the Khilafa (Caliphate) and denounces the UN and its decision-making as a mere front for occupation.

In any event, ISIS is now said to be operating an active Shari'a court in Jarabulus, which has allegedly executed three young men recently on charges of rape and murder. ISIS is also accused of detaining the son of a prominent martyr from the Family of Jādir known as Abu Furāt.

In terms of the reasons behind the Jādir-ISIS clashes, one should be cautious about presenting them as a simple ideological battle. It rather seems to have been a power struggle for control of an important border area. The Kurdish PYD, as the Damascus Bureau notes, also has a small activist presence in Jarabulus, yet it has been left untouched and tolerated by ISIS.

At the same time, ISIS is trying to counter the allegations put out about its conduct in Jarabulus by emphasizing local support in the town for the group, including children.

al-Bab

Another town in rural Aleppo where ISIS is establishing its presence is al-Bab. On July 5, the outlet Saḍa ash-Sham al-Islami put up a set of photos of a meeting for Dawah held by the ISIS in al-Bab. [Da'wa means "invitation" and often refers to proselytism—the inviting of others to join Islam. In this case, it refers to outreach to Muslims to strengthen their faith.]



In contrast to what appears to have been a more aggressive approach in Jarabulus, ISIS seems to be engaging in an active outreach effort to the population of al-Bab. Thus, the local outlet al-Bab Press reported that ISIS is running school bus services for children who have seen their education disrupted for many months by Assad regime bomb attacks. A local FB page in al-Bab also gave an account last month from an ISIS fighter of clashes between ISIS and Assad regime soldiers aided by Hezbollah fighters in the wider Aleppo area.

Manbij

The town of Manbij offers a case contrasting with that of al-Bab. Recently, Manbij has seen a protest rally against ISIS. The demonstration was sparked by two grievances against ISIS: first, ISIS is accused by some local activists of destroying works of art in Manbij, and second, of kidnapping a local sheikh. Protests continued into Friday of last week, on which day ISIS had been holding a daw'ah meeting in Manbij featuring a number of locals in support of the group, as per the photo below.



Prior to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's announcement of the formation of ISIS in early April, Manbij had been known for an active JN presence in alliance with Ahrar ash-Sham, who together took on the Farouq Battalions in violent clashes in the town at the beginning of the month, resulting in the expulsion of the Farouq Battalions from Manbij.

The clashes began after Ahrar ash-Sham had arrested a certain Abu Khaldun, a friend of the leader of the Farouq Battalions in Manbij. Ahrar ash-Sham and its allies justified the arrest on the grounds that this man had been one of the leading criminal figures in Manbij and had to be put on trial by the Shari'a committee in Aleppo, while emphasizing that there was no fundamental conflict between them and those under the banner of the FSA.

Following the defeat of the Farouq Battalions, Ahrar ash-Sham held a victory rally in Manbij on 6 April with dozens of supporters and allies, featuring the al-Qa'ida flag and a banner reading 'The Ummah wants an Islamic Khilafa.' The person who uploaded the video described it as being held in celebration of the expulsion of 'gangs of thieves'- a common charge leveled against the Farouq Battalions in the north, which unlike the Ikhwaan-aligned Homs division lack ties to any major Islamist groups.

On a side note, the rally itself should illustrate that those who posit a strict dichotomy between supposedly 'nationalist' Salafists in Ahrar ash-Sham as opposed to transnational jihadists are mistaken. This rally in Manbij and Ahrar ash-Sham's statement on JN's pledge of allegiance to al-Qa'ida show that concepts of the transnational ummah that supersedes "artificial borders" and the nation-state of Syria are often blurred in Ahrar ash-Sham's ideological thought.

Of course, one also must not generalize in the opposite direction and portray all of Ahrar ash-Sham as bent on an international Khilafa. Yet whenever non-Islamists protest against groups like ISIS, as a rule Ahrar ash-Sham can be expected to side with the latter (cf. the case of Raqqah which I documented last month).

In the context of Manbij, therefore, one should not be surprised about a blurring of distinction between Ahrar ash-Sham's support base and what is now known as the ISIS presence. Indeed, it is also apparent that there is another virtual mirror front of ISIS active in Manbij: namely, Ansar al-Khilafa, which is composed of a mix of native Syrians and foreign fighters, though exact proportions are unclear.

Ansar al-Khilafa is most prominent in rural Aleppo and Latakia. In the April rally led by Ahrar ash-Sham, it is likely that there were Ansar al-Khilafa supporters among the crowd. Here is a recent mural put up in Manbij in support of the group:

ad-Dana

The final case we come to on the subject of ISIS' expansion is that of ad-Dana in Idlib, near the border with Turkey. Here, a protest rally is said to have taken place against ISIS (though no video footage of it has emerged so far), sparking violent clashes. Yet it is the only case where we have a mainstream media outlet allowing ISIS to give its full side of the story thanks to an al-Jazeera English report (H/T: @khalidelmousoui) from the town. In the report, ISIS fighters claimed that those denouncing their presence were actually agents of the Assad regime.

However, it appears that this testimony is contradicted in an account given by pro-ISIS activists in Idlib, who denounced the clashes as 'the work of some of the apostates of the Free Army.' Meanwhile, a pro-ISIS Twitter user complained at the time of the clashes that the 'malicious Free Army' was besieging ISIS and expressed concerns about the beginnings of a 'Sahwa' movement against ISIS.

As of now, the al-Jazeera report says that ISIS is the only remaining armed group in the town. This is corroborated by local Idlib activist testimony that there are now no armed clashes in the town and reconciliation initiatives are underway. At the same time, claims that ISIS executed dozens of supporters of those identifying under the banner of the FSA—stemming chiefly from an ad-Dana rebel leader's testimony were denied.

That said, both the rebel leader whose testimony is given by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the al-Jazeera report corroborate each other on the ISIS fighters as being from outside Syria.

Now in control of the town, ISIS is running a school for the children, and the ISIS presence as reported by al-Jazeera is corroborated by a video that has now emerged of ISIS fighters manning the entrance into ad-Dana.

Conclusion

In short, these various cases illustrate ISIS' growing power in the north of Syria. ISIS is clearly not a force to be dismissed as marginal without any real support on the ground, even as its presence is undoubtedly sparking backlash in many areas. Above all, these recent developments as regards ISIS' expansion vindicate to an extent my prediction in March in a guest post for Syria Comment about the emergence and establishment of jihadist strongholds in the north and east of Syria.

In terms of the future, one needs to be skeptical of the narrative being put out by Supreme Military Command (SMC) supporters of a looming, grand-scale FSA effort to take on ISIS in the north of Syria in a fundamental clash of ideologies. Resentment at the ideological level is more to be expected from civilian protestors rather than armed rebels.

One should particularly note my distinction here between SMC supporters and those in general who go by the banner of the FSA. While SMC supporters would like to portray all of those under the banner of FSA as opposed to ISIS, the evidence speaks otherwise, exemplified in this recent statement by an FSA military council in Aleppo denying rumors of clashes between their 'brothers' in ISIS and JN.

SMC supporters are likely the source of at least some of the allegations against ISIS, including the recent claim that ISIS is planning to declare a wider northern state after Ramaḍān: plausible in light of ISIS' expansion in northern Syria but as of now uncorroborated in pro-ISIS circles.

Other rumors likely originating from pro-SMC sources include an alleged statement by JN distancing itself from ISIS (not released through JN's official channel al-Manārah al-Bayḍā, so therefore suspect) and claims that ISIS killed Abu Furāt of Jarabulus, when his funeral actually took place a few months before ISIS was announced.

In particular, the reports attempting to portray JN in open conflict with ISIS are building on a narrative stemming from a Reuters piece in which JN was portrayed as a group of native Syrians disillusioned with the machinations of the foreign fighters of ISIS, hinting at the possibility of JN teaming up with other rebels to take on ISIS.

The motivation for spreading rumors about ISIS is quite apparent: namely, the SMC's bid to secure Western arms, which will then be supposedly used to take on what Western nations like the UK perceive to be the number-one threat emanating from Syria.

In any case, the current PR war between SMC supporters and ISIS supporters will continue. Feeling the pressure, the latter have recently announced the formation of a new forum intended to counter purported media disinformation about the group. Thus can the exchange of claims and counter-claims be expected to intensify. Ascertaining the full truth short of getting on the ground will remain elusive.


Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/3558/al-qaeda-northern-syria

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

Academia’s Love Letter to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

by Cinnamon Stillwell


 

Now that Egyptians have overthrown the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government of former president Mohammed Morsi, how have scholars of the Middle East responded? With encomia, nostalgia, and conspiracy theories. (Click here for a full collection of quotes).

Instead of acknowledging the ineptitude and dictatorial behavior that led to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ouster, some alluded to shadowy conspiracies involving the U.S. This despite the Obama administration’s open support for the Brotherhood and its push for MB participation in a new democratic political process, much to the consternation of the Egyptian street, not to mention many Americans.

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University and grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, claimed that “the decision to overthrow President Mohamed Morsi had been made well before June 30.” The Egyptian people, he alleged, “have been unwitting participants in a media-military operation of the highest order,” and, he concluded ominously, “The silence of Western governments tells us all we need to know.”

Similarly, Amer Araim of Diablo Valley College claimed that, “The Egyptian military authorities . . . could not have staged the coup without a nod from Washington,” while Abdullah Al-Arian of Wayne State University, the son of former professor and North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Sami Al-Arian, maintained that, “The U.S. likely gave some kind of endorsement, or at least did not object to removing the democratically elected president.”

Taking it a step further, As’ad AbuKhalil, a political scientist at California State University, Stanislaus, posted the following at his “Angry Arab” blog: “[I]nteresting that while Obama was in deep trouble over the NSA spy scandal suddenly a revolution in Egypt bursts out . . . wiping out or at least putting lower on the front page news about the NSA spy scandal.”

Hatem Bazian, who lectures in Near Eastern studies and directs the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, tweeted, “The ME, it’s [sic] oil, and wealth are far too valuable to be left to the Egyptians on the street to determine are the words said behind doors.”

Other scholars, reiterating their long-standing affection for so-called “moderate Islamist” parties across the region, from the MB in Egypt to the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey and Ennahda in Tunisa, continued to hold out hope for Islamist rule.

Khaled Abou El Fadl, who teaches Islamic law and chairs the Islamic Studies Interdepartmental Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, lamented that, “What has been dealt a deathblow after the Egyptian coup is moderate Islamism.” The Muslim Brotherhood, he claimed, “believed in the political process and tried to practice it. . . . They believed that democracy and Islamism are reconcilable.”

Exhibiting a similarly wistful tone, Abdullah Al-Arian, who wrote his dissertation on the MB at Georgetown University, imagined the Islamist party’s disappointment at not losing power via an election: “One of the many tragedies of these latest events is that we have lost . . . the opportunity to witness the Muslim Brotherhood humbled through its preferred method of political contestation.”

Comparing the MB to Tunisia’s ruling Islamist party Ennahda, Noah Feldman of Harvard Law preposterously and incoherently opined:

Both parties believe in combining Islamic values with democratic practice. Both accept a political role for women and equal citizenship for non-Muslims, even if in practice they are both socially conservative and seek the gradual, voluntary Islamization of society.

Meanwhile, Michigan’s Juan Cole, having previously downplayed the MB’s extremism, pointed to Turkey’s ruling Islamist party as a role model for the Brotherhood (this despite the recent massive protests in Turkey and the AKP’s heavy handed response):

[I]t depends on whether the Muslim Brotherhood is wise and mature enough to roll with this punch and to reform itself . . . If they take this course, they have a chance of emulating Turkey’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) and one day coming back to power.

Whether invoking conspiracy theories or advocating “moderate Islamism” as a solution to the region’s ills, these scholars do little to instill confidence in America’s Middle East studies establishment. Time and time again the field is proven wrong, making it an unreliable guide for students, government, business, the media, and the wider public. When next the “experts” purport to explain events in the Middle East, be afraid, be very afraid.


Cinnamon Stillwell  is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/cinnamon-stillwell/academias-love-letter-to-egypts-muslim-brotherhood/

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

Tehran is playing a double game

by Tariq Alhomayed


The Iranians hastened to sacrifice the Muslim Brotherhood, not out of love for the Egyptians but out of hatred of the Turks, aiming to isolate Turkey in view of Erdogan’s recklessness toward Egypt. Iran’s attitude is also aimed at furthering détente with the new Egyptian regime. After a year backing Mursi, the Iranians have now sold out and sacrificed the Muslim Brotherhood and are singing the praise of the “Tamarod” (Rebellion) movement. 

Overnight, the Iranians now demand respect for the Egyptian people’s desires, and advise Turks not to side with Mursi or the Brotherhood. According to the Turkish Zaman newspaper, Hussein Nakawi, spokesman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Politics Subcommittee, said more Turkish support to Morsi could be harmful to Turkish interests. He added that the Iranian Foreign Minister has recently advised the Turks to “take into consideration the Egyptian people’s demands from Mursi’s opposition,” yet Ankara seems to be deaf. 

The Iranian criticism of the Brotherhood did not stop here, as one of Tehran’s Friday clerics, Ahmed Janati, during his most recent sermon last Friday, accused the Muslim Brotherhood of offering aid to Israel, and highly praised the Tamarod movement. Maher News Agency cited Janati as saying: “The situation in Egypt is bad. We were hopeful that this revolution would be fruitful, as we had pinned great hope on it. Yet, they [The Muslim Brotherhood] provided assistance to Israel by shutting Gaza’s tunnels, championing the Camp David Peace Treaty and continuing to provide Israel with gas. This all continued to happen until the Tamarod movement emerged.” 

Janati praised the movement by saying that “60 percent of the Egyptian people are members of Tamarod, and they are emphasizing that they are Muslims and are against the US and Israel, and want to remain independent. Yet, some are standing against them on the other side.” 

Well, what does this all mean? This simply means that Iran is now is abandoning the Brotherhood and are exploiting the Turkish recklessness towards Egypt. Furthermore, Iran also aims to achieve political penetration, something it failed to accomplish throughout a full year of the Brotherhood’s rule, despite Ahmadinejad’s visit to Cairo, and despite all the Egyptian delegations which the Brotherhood sent to Iran, and despite the Iranian-Brotherhood statements about identical viewpoints towards Syria as well as other issues, and despite all the promises of transporting Iranian expertise to aid Mursi and the Brotherhood. Today, Tehran is trying to kills two birds with one stone. Tehran, by displaying courtship to the new Egyptian regime, is hopeful that it will open political channels with Egypt and isolate Turkey in the region.

Of course, Tehran will return to the Brotherhood either after they have rearranged their cards, or in case a détente is achieved in Egypt. Iran’s policy in the region relies on the principle of “divide and rule” as well as on exploiting crises and divisions. This is what Iran will also do to its Shi’ite adherents in the region and even to Al-Assad in a certain point. Iran’s allies in our region are mere tools which it uses for some time and then throws them away. This is how Iran is playing, but who will learn the lesson?


Tariq Alhomayed

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2013/07/article55310649

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

The IRS Intervened in Tea Party Elections

by Jonathon Moseley

Did the IRS intervene in Federal election campaigns for Congress? According to the Washington Times, U.S. Treasury investigative special agent Dennis Martel has uncovered a new example of political abuse.  


On March 9, 2010, Christine O'Donnell's personal income tax records were illegally accessed by a Delaware public official. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) reports that a previously-undisclosed "back door" to the IRS computer system was used to invade the privacy of Christine O'Donnell's tax records.


Who knew? It turns out that state government criminal investigators can directly -- though illegally -- access IRS records through a "back door." Along with O'Donnell, at least four other political candidates and four conservative donors have been identified so far as victims of this abuse.


A Congressional investigation of the IRS "back door" conducted by Sen. Charles Grassley [R - IA] is now under way. However, even Grassley, Martel, and the Washington Times have not yet put all the pieces together.


Dennis Martel and Sen. Grassley are missing details of how this IRS abuse cleverly sabotaged a U.S. Senate campaign. In this column, we connect the dots using this author's personal knowledge of the O'Donnell campaign.


In May 2013, the IRS was forced to admit that it had been targeting tea party organizations. Details have slowly dripped out concerning the involvement of IRS headquarters in Washington in the persecution of conservative activists. Cincinnati IRS staffer Elizabeth Hofacre has identified IRS attorney Carter C. Hull as supervising the inquisition of tea party applicants.


Then, in a July 18 hearing before Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee, Hull dropped a bigger bomb, revealing that the targeting of tea party groups and other conservatives was directed by the IRS Chief Counsel's office headed by Obama's political appointee William J. Wilkins.


Now, Dennis Martel's new revelation takes the scandal even farther, to individual conservatives and election campaigns. We have discovered how paranoid the IRS was about the tea party. After all, the tea party's mission was to fight taxes. The IRS took that very personally, it now appears.

In March 9, 2010, Christine O'Donnell issued a press release concerning he kickoff of her senate campaign the next day. On that same March 9, an unidentified Delaware public official accessed O'Donnell's confidential income tax records at the IRS.


Many had tried to intimidate, threaten, and smear O'Donnell to keep her from running. So her March 9, 2010, press release was "Game on!" -- a signal that O'Donnell was actually in the race for real. So March 9, 2010, became a politically significant day in Delaware politics.


Next, also on that same March 9, 2010, the IRS unlawfully issued a tax lien upon a house which Christine O'Donnell did not own. This lien was absolutely illegal because the IRS was not finished yet with its highly-suspicious audit of O'Donnell's 2005 tax return. No tax was legally due because no final decision had been made yet. Imagine collecting money when maybe no money is owed! The IRS cannot legally issue a tax lien without first finalizing the amount owed. Yet they did.


Furthermore, on March 9, a copy of that tax lien was illegally leaked to the news media -- before it reached O'Donnell herself. At O'Donnell's March 10, 2010, campaign kickoff news conference, reporters already had a copy of the March 9, 2010, tax lien in their hands. So the IRS notified reporters before the taxpayer was notified, while the document was still traveling through the mail. O'Donnell was asked about a tax lien by reporters without her knowing anything about it. This was carefully designed to try to wreck the kickoff of her U.S. Senate campaign.


Remember: the open U.S. Senate seat in Delaware in November 2010 was Joe Biden's seat. Uncle Joe held the seat from January 1973 to January 2009. So the full force of the White House was interested in the Delaware U.S. Senate race. Obama's U.S. Senate seat in Illinois was won by Republican Mark Kirk that same year. A double embarrassment of both Obama's and Biden's seats going Republican would have been a problem.


Christine O'Donnell ran against Joe Biden for that same office in 2008. Most of O'Donnell's extended family got audited by the IRS right after Uncle Joe was sworn in as V.P. in January 2009. She is one of six siblings. The statistical probability of so many relatives being suddenly audited all together is like a dozen lightning strikes.


Was this fair? H&R Block prepared O'Donnell's tax returns and stood behind their computation of the tax she owed. O'Donnell trusted in H&R Block's audit guarantee. 


O'Donnell paid her 2005 taxes on time in April 2006, in full. The instant the IRS finally decided she should pay another $1,100, she paid immediately. Both H&R Block and O'Donnell thought the IRS was wrong. But there were never any taxes overdue.


People ask why would they smear Christine O'Donnell and help Mike Castle win the GOP nomination? You mean they have to attack only one? Why not smear all Republicans? The pattern is to attack all Republicans one after another. Liberals build a narrative and then try to paint all Republicans with the same broad brush.

The accidental unmasking of this abuse began with a complaint to the IRS by Christine O'Donnell gadfly David Keegan. In March 2012, this same Dennis Martel kept asking to meet me (the author), but wouldn't say why. We compromised on a restaurant north of Baltimore along I-95 in April 2012, as I drove home from a deposition in Delaware.


Dennis Martel and his female partner explained that someone had illegally accessed David Keegan's income tax records. Keegan suspected me (this author). But they eventually volunteered that my voice did not match the caller's accent (which shall remain secret). I tried to help them as best I could and explained all the players, the politics, and the context.


David Keegan had worked briefly for Christine O'Donnell's 2008 campaign. In September 2010, Keegan signed an affidavit accusing O'Donnell of diverting campaign funds to personal use. Keegan claimed to have this knowledge because of his role as a financial advisor. But O'Donnell objected that Keegan knew nothing about her personal finances or the campaign's and wasn't trained or experienced as a financial advisor.


I was hired on November 19, 2010, to help O'Donnell with an unremarkable public relations wrapup after her campaign staff disbanded. That work dramatically evolved when accusations against O'Donnell erupted. So I was researching Keegan and whether his accusations were credible. (During my research, Keegan admitted that he merely had strong suspicions he vehemently wanted explored. But he never intended to claim that he had actual knowledge of any wrongdoing.)


Somehow the trail led Dennis Martel to discover that Christine O'Donnell's tax records had also been illegally accessed. So Obama's Chicago-style politicization has gone farther than we dreamed. The Articles of Impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon never went so far.


This issue needs to be exposed, because much more is at stake than any individual. Christine O'Donnell is important as a person and a friend, far more capable and talented than she is portrayed. And yet it is vastly more important what kind of country we will leave to our children, nephews and nieces, etc. When the IRS scandal broke, I urged O'Donnell to tell her story, because it affects our whole country. However, cynical staff wanted to squelch the topic. But without protecting the political process and exposing efforts to undermine it, how will we preserve the country that our parents carefully handed to us? 

Jonathon Moseley

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_irs_intervened_in_tea_party_elections.html

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

Israel is Falling into a Trap

by Benny Katzover

We are headed for peace talks again, with Israel insisting on no preconditions. Why, then, is Israel paying a fee again, using the terrible currency of freeing Palestinian murderers and making diplomatic concessions before the talks have even begun (if the media reports are true)?

Palestinian murderers may not be released prior to the first meeting of the two delegations, but it seems that they certainly will be released at some point down the line. And thus, regardless of how the talks progress, we will once again be the only country in the world where the worst possible crime -- murder -- becomes less offensive when the victims are Jews. Wasn't the State of Israel supposed to be a safe haven for the Jewish people? We have now become a state that scoffs at the law, the Shin Bet security agency, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel Police. 

Is it true that the government does not plan to impose a moratorium on settlement construction? Why, then, have there been nearly no new construction tenders issued since the current government was sworn in -- not in Samaria, not in Judea and not even in Jerusalem? 

Is it true that Israel will not make any diplomatic concessions? The prime minister stood as steady as a rock and declared "we will not agree to hold talks on the basis of 1967 borders." But could the Palestinians really have agreed to return to the negotiating table without an American guarantee that this issue would be discussed? 

And worst of all is the fact that the prime minister is starting to adopt the terminology of the Israeli Left -- which he once rejected with disgust -- stating that Israel's strategic goal is to prevent a binational state. If this is his way of adopting the view that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria undermines key Israeli interests, then he has lost sight of the Jewish character of this country. This approach means that the 400,000 Jews currently living in Judea and Samaria, or at least the 150,000 who live outside the large settlement blocs, will be forced to leave their homes. Could we be the only country in the world where our sons and pioneers are driven out rather than our enemies? A county whose leaders are willing to hand over the heart of the nation -- in both the geographical and emotional sense -- to those who consistently teach their children that "Palestine stretches from the sea to the Jordan River?"

One can only hope that these talks will amount to nothing. But the very existence of the talks, including the understandings that precede them, puts Israel deeper into a trap and serves to increase diplomatic pressure on us rather than easing it. And even worse, it casts doubt on our justifiable right to the heart of our land, even among the Israeli public, and especially among Israel's youth, now that the secular schools have abandoned any effort to educate the students to feel a strong, natural connection to their land. 

I will take a risk and say that the core principle that links the desire to "preserve the Jewish character of the state" and the willingness to vacate the heart of the Jewish state is starting to erode.

Benny Katzover is chairman of the Samaria Residents' Council.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5079

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

Europe Hypocritically Lashes Out Against Israel

by Isi Leibler

The European Union has disposed of any pretense of even-handedness with Israel, and has effectively repudiated the concept of disputed territories, which will be one of the principal issues of contention at the forthcoming peace talks sponsored by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

Newly issued EU guidelines prohibit the issuing of funding, grants, prizes or scholarships to Israeli institutions located beyond the Green Line. Part of a 2014-20 financial framework, they cover all areas of cooperation between the EU and Israel, including economic, science, culture, sports and academia. While they do not directly affect trade agreements, the move is a clear penalty that could, in the future, extend to goods produced in the settlements, and launch of a new European anti-Israeli offensive.

The EU is Israel’s most significant trade partner. In 2012, Israel imported $22.4 billion and exported $14.2 billion to the EU. Thus, the material and symbolic implications of the exclusion of settlements from EU trade agreements should not be underestimated.

By no longer recognizing “disputed territories” the EU is demanding that Israel acknowledge that “settlements” and all territories occupied after 1967 are not part of the sovereign Israeli state. This not only incorporates the major settlement blocs that will never be forfeited, but also the officially annexed Golan Heights, the Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem and the Old City, including the Western Wall.

It means that the EU has abrogated its own Quartet Roadmap by unilaterally determining that the borders of Israel will be the 1949 armistice lines. It is also in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which stipulates that these are not deemed to be legal or permanent borders and specifies that Israel should have “secure and recognized boundaries.” Rather than supporting direct negotiations with the Palestinians, the EU is now imposing upon us indefensible borders that will endanger our future existence.

This EU policy is utterly perverse and certainly will not advance the cause of peace. On the contrary, it will undermine the forthcoming peace talks, and provide an incentive to the Palestinians to reject any compromise knowing that intransigency will be rewarded by intensified European and global pressure on Israel to make additional unilateral concessions.

Ironically released on the fast of Tisha B’Av, the EU announcement caught the Israeli government by surprise. But the writing has been on the wall for a long time. Moral relativism has dominated European thinking since World War II. This, combined with post-colonial guilt and mounting pressure from powerful Moslem groups, has encouraged Europeans to treat Jews, and in particular the Jewish state, as their scapegoats.

But it goes further. The traditional anti-Semitism rooted in European culture throughout two millennia that went into remission after the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust is now rapidly re-emerging and actively directed against the Jewish nation-state. Many Europeans are deeply offended and agitated by suggestions that their policies towards Israel are motivated by bias or anti-Semitism. Yet the April 2004 Berlin Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) specifically defines anti-Semitic behavior as the application to Israel of “double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “describing Israel as ‘a racist endeavor’.”

Opinion polls consistently show that Europeans are convinced that Israel represents an equal or greater threat to world peace than North Korea or Iran. More ominously, a recent European poll indicated that 150 million Europeans endorse the view that Israelis treat Palestinians like the Nazis treated Jews.

It is almost surreal that the EU is taking a punitive stand against Israel at a time when the civil war in Syria has cost more than 120,000 lives, Iran seeks to become a nuclear power, and Egypt and most of the region is in total flux. At the same time, the EU has been agonizing for more than a year whether or not to proscribe the so-called “military” wing of Hezbollah as a terrorist entity. In this context, it is obscene for the EU to flex its muscles against Jews living in the Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem.

Moreover, the EU knows that 90% of Palestinians in the West Bank already live under the authority of the Palestinian Authority and that Gaza is totally controlled by Hamas. The Europeans are also aware that, despite Israel’s repeated offers to negotiate without preconditions, the Palestinians have been the intransigent party, increasing their demands for unilateral concessions as a precondition and treating Israel as a supplicant.

But the double standards applied against Israel have always been blatant. The EU has never made similar demands of China’s occupation of Tibet, India’s occupation of Kashmir or even Turkey’s control of one third of Cyprus. It is only toward Israel that it seeks to impose such extreme discriminatory measures.

It is unclear where the Obama administration stands on this matter. Theoretically, the White House and State Department should be opposed to the new EU policy because it undermines even the remote prospects of a successful outcome to the forthcoming negotiations with the Palestinians. But neither the White House nor the State Department have criticized the initiative, and there is a lurking suspicion that there are those in the administration who welcome and may even have encouraged this move to exert pressure on Israel.

Indeed, in his efforts to court the Palestinians to agree to negotiations, Kerry has been ominously hinting that the “disputed territories” should be substituted by the terminology used in the Arab League peace proposal. This could pave the way for the US to blame Israel for a breakdown in negotiations if we refuse to consider Arab demands for using the 1949 armistice lines as the benchmark for territorial negotiations.

In combating this new European challenge, the need is greater than ever for our government to speak with one voice. Recent provocative statements by government ministers repudiating a two-state solution under any circumstances and calling for annexation of the territories in direct contradiction to official government policy provided a rationale for dispensing with the concept of disputed territories, which made it respectable for the EU to do the same.

We must not concede to this malevolent, new EU demand which, if played out further, would entail abandoning hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens. We must make every possible effort to prevent the EU from expanding this move toward broader sanctions. And we must make clear that whilst this discriminatory clause remains in effect, we can no longer consider the EU an honest broker or an intermediary in peace negotiations.

The European initiative is a wake-up call. While Israel has a powerful and resilient economy that can withstand trade restrictions, it cannot endure further isolation. We cannot write off Europe, but instead must exploit all our resources to shame the EU and more aggressively expose the double standards and bias it continues to employ against us.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com

He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom


Isi Leibler

Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4741

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