Hollande, be a Champion of Morality

by Boaz Bismuth

The timing of French President François Hollande's visit could not have been better. About a week ago in Geneva, during the talks between the West and Iran, France derailed what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called "a bad deal." 

The warm reception afforded to Hollande this week is designed to show Israel's gratitude; but Jerusalem also hopes Hollande will be convinced to stay the course when the nuclear talks with Iran resume this week. 

A quick reminder: The talks are expected to resume on Wednesday; if you were to believe the sounds coming out of Washington and Moscow, there is a very good chance that this session would culminate with a signed agreement.

That is, unless the language of Molière once again carries the day. 

This week is going to be crucial. Torpedoing a deal would be no easy task because the Americans and the Russians want to have signing ceremony. In September, French jets were already in booster-ignition mode when the American-Russian dictate prevented an attack on Syria; as far as Russia and the U.S. are concerned, it is better to sign a deal with evil regimes than to flex your muscles. The talks will ultimately boil down to a clash between core values on the one hand, and political gain on the other hand. Netanyahu will ask Hollande to keep rooting for he moral high ground by being a champion of values. After all, France has copyrighted some of them -- "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." Israel and the Gulf States expect France to show some fraternité when the powers show up in Geneva. 

People may have high hopes for France, but Paris might have to fall in line with the zeitgeist. Russia and China have never been keen on imposing tougher sanctions on Iran. But the problem lies with the U.S., which has changed its position since the talks commenced a decade ago. The Europeans followed along (with the exception of France).

Washington caters to its own interests. (Just read Thomas Friedman's recent column in The New York Times.) The U.S. may pursue its own agenda; there is nothing inherently wrong with that -- except that it has repeatedly pleaded with Israel, over many years, to have faith in Uncle Sam. The New York Times, which has become one of the more vocal proponents of an agreement, believes it is "not the time to squeeze Iran." 

Over the weekend, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that the only thing left to do is come up with the exact language of the agreement; this suggests things are drawing to a close. Netanyahu will pay a visit to Moscow shortly after meeting Hollande, and he will make sure to stay in touch with the White House. 

For Netanyahu, the focus now is on damage control -- even if an agreement is reached, the persistence and steadfastness on the part of the French would, at the very least, make it into a somewhat better deal. Considering the current state of the talks, that would qualify as an achievement. 

The world is preoccupied with its own problems; as far as Israel is concerned, Iran is the main problem (and an existential threat), but world leaders have to attend to what is happening in their neck of the woods. Look at President Barack Obama, whose signature accomplishment -- the overhaul of the healthcare system -- turned into an embarrassing fiasco. 

Even Democratic lawmakers have come up against the implementation of "Obamacare." One of them, Democratic Congressman Nick Rahall (from West Virginia) said Obama's conduct on the matter deserved an F-. If there was someone who could promise Netanyahu that Iran's nuclear program would be as successful as Obamacare, he would have no problem sleeping at night. However, there is no guarantee that the two projects would share the same fate. 

Hollande's approval ratings are less than flattering. The latest Huffington Post-commissioned poll shows that support for the president dropped to 15 percent and that only 3% said his conduct as president was "very good." Such a nose dive is unprecedented. 

Perhaps Hollande should consider staying here a bit longer. His poll numbers in Israel will likely be through the roof in light of the French stance on Libya, Mali, Syria, and most importantly, because of his efforts in Geneva.

Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6361

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

Gulf States Face 'Fateful Choices': Experts

by Nadeen Shaker

Shifting regional, international alliances will force the Gulf to reconsider its long-term strategy in the Middle East, experts suggest

Roundtable held at Al-Ahram paper headquarters on 17 November titled: 

"The future of the Arab Gulf in light of current developments" (Photo: Nadeen Shaker)

Despite their regional prominence, Gulf states must reformulate their positions in line with recent strategic changes in the Middle East, experts suggested at a roundtable entitled "The future of the Arab Gulf in light of current developments."

"The Gulf will have to reinvent itself and flesh out a new vision. Many moves are being made, such as the US-Iran rapprochement, the Egypt-Moscow alliance, and talks about a deal between the Gulf countries and Israel. What is the Gulf's position regarding these changes?" Mohamed Idriss, Gulf affairs expert at Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies (ACPSS), said during the roundtable at Al-Ahram's headquarters on 17 November.

According to Idriss, the Gulf faces "fateful choices" in light of new regional and international alliances.

Following a détente between the US and Iran at October's UN general assembly, nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the US – kicked off on 7-8 November in Geneva. The talks appeared close to clinching a deal before being suspended due to lack of consensus.

Iranian overtures have been eyed with distrust by some, particularly Israel. Though the Gulf states have not been as vocal as Israel in their rejection of the talks, they share the same fears.

"The Gulf states lie in a red zone, shared by a very difficult neighbour: Iran, whose sharp speech and threats affect us on a daily basis," says Abdel Khalek Abdullah, a political science professor at the United Arab Emirates University and guest of honor at Sunday's event.

The experts agreed that the US-Iran rapprochement constitutes a major transformation in the region around which the Gulf must formulate a position. Many feared that a proposed Gulf-Israel alliance is on the horizon.

The Gulf's influential role with regards to the Arab Spring upheavals was also discussed.
Abdullah stated that the Arab world was undergoing what he dubbed a "Gulf moment," a reference to the enormity of the role played by the Gulf states in Arab Spring countries such as Syria, Egypt, and others.

However, the Arab Spring's influence on the Gulf states was weak, and at times, relative.

"The Arab Spring proved that powers representing incumbency and stability are much more dominant than powers of change and revolution, whereby the former can be recalled when they are threatened," Abdullah said.

He added the effect of regional change on the Gulf countries was relative, with Bahrain and Jordon affected the most, followed by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and then by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

El-Sayed Yassin, an expert with ACPSS, noted that the real fate of the Gulf states will only be determined once the Arab Spring uprisings are completed.


Nadeen Shaker

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/86740/World/Region/Gulf-states-face-fateful-choices-Experts-.aspx

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

Palestinian Ambassador to Libya: Members of PA Security Forces Carried Out Most of the Attacks in Second Intifada

by MEMRI




MEMRI

Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4015.htm

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

Is Saudi Arabia Working with Israel on an Iran Strike?

by Thomas Lifson

That is the contention of the UK Sunday Times, as noted by the Times of Israel:

According to the Sunday Times, Riyadh has agreed to let Israel use its airspace in a military strike on Iran and cooperate over the use of rescue helicopters, tanker planes and drones.
"The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs," an unnamed diplomatic source told the paper.

While Israel and Saudi Arabia face a common mortal enemy in Iran, most observers of the Kingdom believe that any arrangement that does not have plausible deniability would mean the end of the Royal Family's rule. As Rick Moran pithily put it, "If it was ever confirmed the royal family would be dead meat."   Demonization of Israel has been a staple of life in the Arab world, nowhere more so than Saudi, custodians of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. After all, next in line in the "holy city" rankings is Jerusalem, or, as the Arabs call it, Al Quds.


But by Orthodox Sunni lights (and Saudi Arabia is the most Orthodox Sunni country on earth), the Shiites of Iran are dangerous heretics who split the ummah at the time of Mohammed's grandson's birth. Mor importantly, the mullahs of Iran want to seize not just Mecca and Medina but also the oil producing eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia, which most inconveniently have a large Shia population ruled by Sunnis in Riyadh.


Of Iran gets the A bomb, I believe they are more likely to attack Riyadh than Tel Aviv. When it comes to score settling, fights within a family are usually more vicious than fights outside. Look at the troubles they had in Northern Ireland, for instance. Or ask any cop about domestic disturbance calls.


I am no expert on the internal security of the Saudi regime, but suspect that if they think they can get away with covertly aiding an Israeli strike, they will do so. Perhaps not just overflight permission, but actual use of a remote airbase or two near the Iranian border, to allow multiple sorties buy Israeli craft. I am not sure how well they could make stick a denial of helping out the hated Jews,  but let's face it: The Israelis are no threat to the regime, and the mullahs would take great delight in hanging the entire Saudi Royal Family.

Rick Moran also points out that Saudi Arabia allowed Israeli overflights during the attack ont he Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq, and then hastily denoucned the attack as an outrage. That could be the model for an attack on Iran

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/is_saudi_arabia_working_with_israel_on_an_iran_strike.html

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

Legal Support for Terrorism at the University of Haifa

by Steven Plaut

 

In recent days the University of Haifa in northern Israel, where I am also employed,  has come under intensive criticism because the “legal clinics” operated by its School of Law here are assigning law students the task of counseling and defending convicted Arab terrorists and mass murderers of Jews.   The President of the University recently issued a statement defending the activities of these “clinics.”  The Dean of the Law School together with the head of the “clinics” went on the attack and denounced those who criticize the practice of the “clinics” to counsel and defend the terrorists.

The Dean, Prof. Gad Barzilai, is a radical active in leftist “human rights” groups and involved in academic politicization in Israel (Barzilai was a defender of the Department of Politics at Ben Gurion University – the worst anti-Israel agitprop center in the country – when an international panel of experts called for shutting it down).  He claims that all criticism of the law school for its involvement with terrorists is politically motivated.  In particular he denounced the Zionist student movement “Im Tirtzu” for criticizing the law school.  Several faculty members at the University called for filing SLAPP suits against the students to silence them, and one anti-Israel faculty extremist complained that the clinics were not defending the terrorists enough.

Im Tirtzu claims that 80% of the cases taken on by the University of Haifa legal clinic for “prisoner rights” involved Arab terrorists and spies.  One involved a terrorist and convicted rapist seeking a furlough.  Dean Barzilai insists that the law school is simply devoted to “repairing society” and defending the “weakened populations” of Israel.  In the past, the law school prohibited the singing of Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem, at its graduation ceremonies, claiming it would offend the sensitivities of Arab students.

On a discussion list for faculty members in the University of Haifa, I posted the following statement on November 13, 2013 as a response to the statement from the Dean of Law:

To:  The Segel-Plus Discussion List
From:  Prof. Steven Plaut
Re:  Some more Ideas for the Law Clinics to Achieve Social Justice and Help the Weak
Date:  November 13, 2013

I am sure we are all grateful for the amazing statement distributed by the Dean of Law and the head of the “law clinics” in the school of law.  It is chock full of impressive claims and arguments.  There we learn how the law school is dedicated to achieving reforms of and repairs of society without any need for students (or faculty?) to study social science.  We learn how the law school is dedicated to rehabilitation of prisoners without the need to take any courses or training in social work. We learn there is such a discipline taught at the law school entitled “feminist law,” as well as dedication to supporting “Palestinian Israelis,” whatever that is, and not only via prohibition of the singing of Hatikva, the national anthem.  How fortunate that, unlike the Im Tirtzu student group, the law school is not politicized!  And most importantly, we learn that the law school is dedicated to recruiting students to counsel and serve imprisoned terrorists and mass murderers because of the school’s concern for “weakened populations,” but clearly not counseling and serving the families of the victims of these terrorists.

Numerous questions arise from reading the distinguished statement by the Dean of Law and the head of the “clinics.”  First of all, we would all like to know whether the University’s law clinics will be defending the gentleman who stabbed the soldier Eden Atias in the neck this morning in Afula, after which he bled to death.  It goes without saying that the law school will not be sending any students to help the family of Atias defend itself or litigate.  After all, they live in Upper Nazareth and so are not part of any “weakened population.”  After that, can we expect the law clinics to be sending out students to counsel and defend the convicted murderers of the child Dani Katz, who was kidnapped and murdered by Arab terrorists just a few steps from the campus? Surely they are as deserving of such counseling as the other terrorist clients of the law school clinics.  And since the family of Dani Katz lives in Denya (a luxurious upscale neighborhood), they clearly are not part of any “weakened population” in need of any special attention from the clinics.

But why stop here?  What about the terrorists who participated in the massacre of children in Maalot in 1974?  I do not know if any of the perps are now in prison or will ever be, but – if they are – surely they are deserving of a special clinic in which students are sent out to promote social justice by defending them.  As for the victims of the massacre and their families, these are no doubt well entrenched in the middle class these days and so there is no need for them to be treated as clients of the clinics.  And why not get ahead of current events?  Why should not the law school clinics offer their services to the leaders of Iran, so that, if Iran ever uses nuclear weapons against Israel, those Iranian leaders will know they can expect to get qualified legal counseling and representation from the clinics?

Among the folks who clearly can never be part of the “weakened population” are settlers, Ultra-Orthodox Chareidim, Russian immigrants, soldiers, and members of SHAS (religious party of Oriental Jews). More generally, would it not be simpler just to announce openly that the test for being part of a weakened population is participation in anti-Israel activities, while the test for being in a non-weakened population is to be the victim of any of the former? And since all anti-Israel political groups in the universe these days define themselves as “human rights defenders,” while never of course defending the Jewish victims of Arab terrorism because clearly those folks are entitled to no human rights, the law school can form alliances with such anti-Israel groups in the name of human rights.  Just as long as it never forms any alliances with any non-leftist or pro-Israel NGOs.

Finally, it is always refreshing when people openly promote the idea that the purpose of a university is to indoctrinate students in far-Leftist ideology and to engage in political advocacy.  It helps prevent confusion of purpose. It helps to convey the single correct point of view.  After all, alliance, collaboration, and semi-merger with far-Leftist anti-Israel activist groups is not political at all for a university department.  Only the Im Tirtzu student group is political.


Steven Plaut

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/steven-plaut/legal-support-for-terrorism-at-the-university-of-haifa/

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

Syria’s Kurds: In or Out?

by Sherzad Shekhani

The announcement of an autonomous Kurdish government in Syria has raised questions about their post-war plans for their territory

 

 

The silhouette of an armed fighter with the Kurdish Peoples’ Protection Units (YPG) is seen as he runs to take position along the front line on October 16, 2013, in the Syrian town of Ras Al-Ain, close to the Turkish border. (AFP PHOTO/STR)

Erbil/Beirut, Asharq Al-Awsat—Following military gains in northeastern Syria, the war-torn country’s Kurds have taken steps towards bolstering their geopolitical presence this week. On November 12, the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) released a statement announcing that a transitional civil administration would be established in northeastern Syria. 

The announcement appears to have irritated the Syrian National Coalition, the main umbrella organization for groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. On November 12, the Coalition welcomed into its ranks the Kurdish National Council, a collection of Kurdish political parties that has a troubled history with the PYD despite being its sometime ally in the Kurdish Supreme Committee. The following day, the Coalition issued a statement condemning the PYD’s decision to establish an autonomous administrative region, declaring that “their actions represent collusion with the Assad regime, regardless of their slogans.”

Every group in Syria has a different opinion about how the next stage of the conflict will and should unfold, but the PYD’s recent decision—and the criticism that followed it—is a clear sign that Syria’s Kurds do not have a unified vision of their place in Syria, either during the civil war or after. Some Syrian Kurds agree with the Syrian National Coalition’s opinion that any move towards independence from Syria only bolsters Assad’s position, but other Kurds deny this just as fervently. As the civil war rages on, the situation in the Syrian Kurdish regions—which the Kurds consider to be the western part of Greater Kurdistan—could lead to startling developments that will have repercussions on the wider revolution in the near future. Indeed, the conflict has already brought about changes in the political map.

Kurds and the Syrian crisis

The most prominent Kurdish player in the Syrian crisis thus far has been the PYD, which is considered the Syrian wing of the powerful Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) based in Turkey, which has fought for Kurdish rights and an independent state in Kurdish parts of Turkey since the 1970s. But despite the civil war in Syria and the uncertain political situation in Kurdish-dominated areas of the war-torn state, this party’s impact at the grassroots level has unexpectedly surpassed that of most other long-established political powers in this part of Syria. 

The party has already announced the formation of a temporary government, and is moving quickly to make that a reality. According to some observers, the transitional authority could eventually evolve into the first fully independent Kurdish state. At the very least, it could create conditions favorable to the establishment of a semi-autonomous Kurdish state along the lines of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq. 

Such autonomy for a Kurdish region would inevitably affect all of Syria, but in such uncertain times very few are focusing on the future. For now, the attention is on the military position of the group, and especially the dual war the Kurds have been fighting—one against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, and another against Islamist groups including the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

Speaking with Asharq Al-Awsat, Nawaf Khalil, a member of the PYD’s media committee, pointed out that the Kurds in Syria are at the forefront of the opposition to the regime, saying, “We are in communication with the militarized opposition, led by the Free Syrian Army, and we stand with every group that accepts our existence and our rights. . . . We are waging fierce battles against some of the Islamist groups, especially Al-Nusra Front and ISIS.” 

He added: “We succeeded in expelling the regime’s forces, and today we work to do the same to the Islamists. We know that we are defending ourselves, and not attacking anyone.” 

Bezor Berik, a Kurdish activist from Qamishli, also told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Kurds were fighting a two-front war, adding there “is a clear division of northern Syria between the PYD and the Islamist opposition forces.”

Field reports suggest that the PYD’s forces control more than two-thirds of Kurdish lands in Syria, most of which are in the governorate of Al-Hasakah in the north of the country, where Kurds make up 70 percent of the population. 

Observers have also reported that the PYD’s forces are trying to establish a presence in some northern towns in which Kurds are a minority and Arabs a majority, including the strategic border towns of Jarablus and Azaz, which opposition fighters have used as routes to transport supplies from Turkey. A step like this would likely provoke a violent response from certain opposition groups. 

Redor Khalil, the spokesperson for the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a militia tied to the PYD, denied this in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat. “I’m not saying that we will do that…let us wait to see if the opposition groups in these areas will guarantee the Kurds safe movement in that area first.”

Regional repercussions?

Kurdish military gains in Syria mean that there is growing confidence that attempts to set up a transitional governmental authority in Kurdish-dominated areas will succeed. This could threaten not only the unity of Syria, but also potentially destabilize neighboring countries, which suffer from similar ethnic and sectarian divisions. With approximately one fifth of its population claiming Kurdish ethnicity and a long history of armed conflict with its Kurdish minority that it is only now beginning to resolve, Turkey in particular has been increasingly concerned by the growing independence of Syria’s Kurds.

Perhaps the biggest fear is that a repeat of the Kurdish experiment in Iraq might tempt the remaining two parts of Kurdistan—in Turkey and Iran—to move towards a similar goal, in the greater hope of establishing an independent and unified Kurdish state. 

Last month, the Turkish government broke ground in a project to construct a wall along its borders with Syria, saying it was needed to ensure border security. The project, however, sparked protests. The Kurds claim that it aims to prevent closer relations between the Kurdish regions across the border in the two countries, and most Syrian Kurdish leaders believe that Turkey is seeking to isolate its Kurdish population from the Syrian population by erecting the wall. 

Moreover, many Syrian Kurds consider the developments taking place on the ground in Syria, especially bloody war waged against the Kurdish citizens of Syria by the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS, as being driven by Turkey. Kurdish leaders support these claims by arguing that these forces are using armored vehicles and heavy artillery in their battles, implying that these are provided—or at least tolerated—by Turkey. The Syrian Kurdish leadership also accuses Turkey of opening its border crossings to allow Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Arab countries to use Gaziantep and Antakya as a starting point in their journey to Syrian Kurdistan. 

The fierce ongoing war between Islamic militants and popular defense forces associated with the PYD suggest that the success of the Kurdish forces in rolling back the gains achieved by the Al-Nusra Front and ISIS is due in large part to the loss of popular support for the Islamists, in favor of the Kurdish forces.

Fighting, inside and out

The situation on the ground in Syria and the growing uncertainty over the Turkish position on its Kurdish minority have created difficulties for the region’s many Kurdish political parties. Growing disputes over the goals of the Kurdish movement present yet another obstacle to the Kurdish side, and none more noticeably so than the clash between the PYD and parties loyal to Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani. 

There are efforts to achieve reconciliation between the two parties to allow them to present a united front at the long-delayed Geneva II peace conference. However, the national Kurdish conference that was scheduled for November 24—and which was expected to assume responsibility for the reconciliation efforts—was postponed due to a dispute arising from Iraqi Kurdistan’s decision to refuse entry to PYD leader Salih Muslim in late October. 

Only a few months ago, relations between Barzani’s followers and the PYD were markedly more positive. During a fierce confrontation between the PYD and the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, the Iraqi Kurdistan president gave his strong support to the Kurdish militias. In a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat, the spokesperson for Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party, Jaafar Iminki, said that the support Iraqi Kurdistan would give to Kurds in Syria would be “comprehensive, including logistical support for the fighters of the PYD and all revolutionaries who are defending the land of Syrian Kurdistan.”

While tensions between the two sides are certainly not new, they have transformed into something that today resembles open hostility. The PYD and Barzani’s Syrian followers, represented by the Kurdish National Council, have taken opposing approaches to the Syrian crisis, and tensions have become so disruptive the two sides began the mediation process to allow them to sit side-by-side at Geneva.

Forging a new administration, despite divisions

The infighting between different Kurdish groups has not prevented the PYD’s leadership from proceeding with its plan to establish a local government in the areas under its control. Sherzad Al-Yezidi, the spokesperson of the People’s Council of Western Kurdistan, which is aligned with the PYD, views the project as “an imperative matter, as the citizens of the Kurdish areas are in dire need of a local government to organize their affairs and to help prepare the new phase of their political lives.” 

Dr. Jafar Akash, a representative of the PYD, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Kurds are determined to form a new administration despite the split between his party and the Kurdish National Council: “We are going to the peace conference [Geneva II], but prior to that, we will announce the formation of an administration responsible for our regions,” adding, “This new administration will be a regional government responsible for the management of affairs in the regions liberated from the Damascus-based regime. Representatives of every political and religious power, including the parties associated with the [Kurdish] National Council and the Kurdish Supreme Committee, have joined Assyrian, Syriac and Arab representatives. This administration will select members of the Syrian delegation who will participate in the Geneva II conference.”

Many questions remain about what this new transitional authority aims to do. It seems nobody can really agree on what an administrative body for Syrian Kurdish areas would do, whom it would work with, or how it would fit into post-conflict Syrian society and politics.

Shalal Gado, a leader of the Kurdish Democratic Left Party, which is part of the Kurdish National Council, spoke of the Kurds’ goals, saying, “The rumors spreading that the Kurds aim to secede from Syria and divide it are complete fabrications. . .  There is not a single Kurdish political faction in Syria demanding secession. Rather, the Kurds are generally proud of belonging to this nation, even though others are trying to ensure that we remain second-class citizens in Syria after the war, which our people obviously completely reject.”

From the other side of the Kurdish divide, PYD representative Dr. Jafar Akash told Asharq Al-Awsat that through the transitional authority, the Kurds will work on “achieving democracy, establishing legitimate national rights for the Kurds, confirming the principle of political partnership and the right of the Kurds to practice their customs and traditions, ending the injustice inflicted on the Kurdish people throughout history, and confirming their participation in future governments based on popular representation and in accordance with the size of their population.” 

In his conversation with Asharq Al-Awsat, Gado spoke of more everyday goals for the transitional authority: “At this crucial point, founding a joint transitional administration made up of the different groups in Syrian Kurdistan is most important. Most Kurdish cities are outside of the regime’s control, and this leaves a substantial administrative, financial, security and legal vacuum. We must work to fill this vacuum by forming a cooperative transitional administration, tasked with setting a draft constitution and preparing for transparent and fair parliamentary elections under international observation. The four million residents of this region need a local government to manage their affairs.”

Asharq Al-Awsat also spoke with Louay Al-Mokdad, a media and political coordinator for the Free Syrian Army and member of the Syrian National Coalition. He said: “The Free Syrian Army and the Syrian opposition look to the Kurds as an essential component of the Syrian community, and they have shared in the nation’s suffering under Assad’s regime, both father and son, for decades. We fully understand how the regime has abused them, and how it denied them their rights for many long years, and we fully respect their unique character.” 

Al-Mokdad pointed to “the existence of many Kurdish military units, like the Mashaal Temmo Brigade, fighting alongside the FSA.” However, he also noted that “some of the armed Kurdish units have committed violations of the rights of citizen since they have made agreements with the regime. This is similar to what the PYD’s units did when they oppressed certain groups of Kurdish protesters who came out in their regions.” 

Al-Mokdad said: “We stand firm against the abuse and murder of Kurdish people, just as we reject such crimes against Arabs. We absolutely reject the crimes that have been committed against our Kurdish brothers by Al-Nusra Front, ISIS, as well as some other undisciplined militias. At the same time, we implore our Kurdish brothers of all parties and groups to respond to the call of the nation, and to put the Syrian cause before narrow interests and short-sighted thinking.”

Al-Mokdad expressed hoped that the coming period, after the signing of an agreement between the FSA and the Kurdish Supreme Committee, “will be one of harmony among the different groups that make up the Syrian people, and that they will fight together against Assad’s regime.” He stressed that “the FSA sees Syria as single bloc, without distinguishing between the Kurdish, Alawi, or coastal regions, because we are all revolting against the same regime, from the various lands of Syria.” 

He said he rejects “the secession of any group from Syria, whether Kurdish, Alawite, Druze, or Sunni,” explaining that “we will not accept cross-border organizations nor the division of Syria into several entities. However, at the same time we insist on equal rights for Arabs and Kurds, who ought to enjoy full respect for their unique national characters.” 

Nawaf Khalil, PYD media committee member, expressed hope that the opposition forces re-examine their policy and draw up plans to unite all groups to reach a free and democratic Syria. He denied that Syria’s Kurds have any “separatist goals,” saying that “our project today is self-administration to meet the needs of our people, and not secession.” 

After the downfall of the regime and elections, Kurds will accept only that they be like any other citizen of Syria, while holding on to our national identity and getting our rights.”

Layal Abu Rahal, Caroline Akoum and Nazeer Rida contributed reporting from Beirut.


Sherzad Shekhani

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2013/11/article55322528

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

Saudi Arabia Enters the Theater of the Absurd

by Michael Curtis

Saudi Arabia may not be an enigma, but its opaque diplomacy is a "puzzlement," with seemingly contradictory relationships with two units of the international community: the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council.  In a paraphrase of the old song, "Undecided," Saudi Arabia said it won't to the first unit and that it would to the second.


On October 18, 2013, Saudi Arabia surprised the world by saying it would not take the non-permanent two-year seat on the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) to which it had been elected.  This action followed the cancelation by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, on October 2, 2013, of his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.  The October 18  decision seemed inexplicable, because Saudi Arabia appeared to have been trying for many years to obtain a seat on the council.  The Saudi representative at the U.N. had even said that when his country was elected to a seat it would be a sign of moderation, and of support for resolving disputes by peaceful means.


The second surprise is that on November 12, 2013, Saudi Arabia was elected and agreed to take its place as one of the 47 members of the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for a three-year term.  Saudi Arabia was elected along with five other countries that have equally dubious credentials in relation to human rights: Algeria, China, Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam.  Two other countries, Syria and Iran, also not prominent among states that uphold human rights, had expected to be candidates for admission but pulled out at the last moment.


To her credit, Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., commented on the election of the six countries: "Some commit significant violations of the rights the UNHRC is designed to advance and protect."  She might have gone farther and argued for the withdrawal of the U.S. from the organization of which it recently became a member when the Obama administration decided to join it four years ago.  In the UNHRC theater of the absurd, known mostly for its repetitive anti-democratic and anti-Israeli resolutions, these six countries can continue the histrionic role of anti-Western antagonism that is a major part of the UNHRC's normal script.


The addition of Saudi Arabia will only strengthen the members of the UNHRC who violate human rights rather than support those willing to be their protector.  At present, 12 of the 47 members of the UNHRC can be described as "not free."  One of them is Mauritania, in which about 800,000 of the population of 3.5 million are reputed to be slaves or chattel, but which is a vice president of the UNHRC.  Of the other members, 11 are "partly free," and 24 are "free."  Five of the new elected members have refused to allow U.N. investigators to visit their countries to determine the existence and extent of alleged abuses.


The explanation given by Saudi Arabia not to take the seat on the U.N. Security Council seems specious rather than inexplicable.  Saudi Arabia declared that the United Nations had to be reformed first.  "Double standards," which the Saudi representative left undefined, had prevented the UNSC from carrying out its duties and meeting its responsibilities to preserve world peace and security.  


In a speech to the UN General Assembly on November 8, 2013, the permanent representative of Saudi Arabia to the U.N., Abdallah Y. Al-Mouallimi, repeated this argument.  He called for comprehensive reform of the U.N. system based on universality, equity, and regional balance.  He did not mention human rights, freedom of speech and religion, or the empowerment of women.  Nor did he propose that since his country was interested in world peace, it would stop funding the madrasas where their extreme Islamist imams propagate the Wahhabi version of Islam.


The Saudis criticized the U.N. on a number of specific issues.  They said the U.N. had failed to take action against the Syrian government for killing its own people with chemical weapons.  In what appeared to be strong disapproval of President Obama , the Saudis complained that the U.N. had not confronted the Syrian regime or imposed any deterrent sanctions.  In particular, they were disappointed that the U.S. supported the U.N. resolution because the resolution did not require military action against Assad.


Not surprisingly, the Saudis also criticized the U.N. for not finding a solution "to the Palestine cause for 65 years," a failure leading  "to numerous wars that have threatened world peace."  They declared that the U.N. had not solved the situation in the Palestinian and Arab occupied territories.  They also criticized the U.N., but really implicitly referring to Israel, for failure to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East.


Will there really be a "major shift" of Saudi relations with the U.S.?  The Saudi view is that the U.S. has failed to address major problems.  Obama refused to honor his commitment of  the "red line" on the use of chemical weapons and had not authorized a strike against Bashar Assad.  Obama abandoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he was challenged in 2011.  Then the  U.S. offered little support for the interim military government in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood and President Mohammed Morsi were ousted and, further, suspended part of the $1.3 billion in annual American aid.  Nor did the U.S. aid Saudi Arabia in supporting the Bahrain regime's attack on protesters.


Above all, Saudi Arabia fears that the U.S. has been too hasty in trying to reach an agreement with Iran.  In particular, it is worried that the U.S. will not act sufficiently strongly to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, which, among other things, will empower Iran to become a strong, perhaps the hegemonic, power in the Persian Gulf.  Saudi Arabia, the Sunni power, and Iran, the Shiite power, have long been strategic rivals in the area, as well as competitive religious rivals in their claim for leadership of the two branches of Islam.


The Saudi decisions may be puzzling.  But they are based on the reality that the U.S. administration under Obama has been unreliable.  The U.S. seems to be eager for a rapprochement with Iran.  It has been weak in reacting to the brutality in Syria.  It has been hesitant in the war against Islamist terrorism.


Saudi Arabia may not be the most likely ally, but it has pointed out the stumbling nature and the inadequacies of U.S. policy in the Middle East.  Other nations should step up to warn the U.S. to be more resolute on behalf of democratic ideals, freedom of expression, and the end of discrimination against women.


Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/saudi_arabia_enters_the_theater_of_the_absurd.html

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

The Emperor’s New Rules

by Matthew Vadum



 

Stung by public anger and his rapidly plunging approval ratings, President Obama wants to delay the cancellation of existing health care insurance policies for one year.

It has nothing to do with the public interest. It has everything to do with crass political calculations.

As an electoral tsunami gradually develops that threatens to drown Democrats and give Republicans a healthy majority in the Senate, Democrats remain focused. They are clinging to the increasingly unlikely prospect of recapturing the House of Representatives in next year’s elections, a move that would allow them to ram through more America-killing legislation. This, of course, assumes the Democrats keep control of the Senate, something that at the moment seems quite impossible.

President Obama yesterday played out a tableau that could easily have come from Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Obama preyed on the most gullible Americans, the lowest of low-information voters, putting on a show for their benefit.

But even Americans who can’t name the Vice President of the United States know something about Obamacare, so they are not likely to be easily manipulated.

Obama might have gotten away with such a dimwit-friendly tack but for the fact that everyone in the country knows Obama lied about Obamacare allowing Americans to keep their health plans and their medical doctors. In addition, too many people are experiencing real hardship as the Affordable Care Act causes their insurance to be canceled — and they know who to blame for their pain and suffering.

In the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, the president and press corps may as well have been surrounded by unicorns, leprechauns, and satyrs as Obama threw pixie dust in the air and waved his magic wand after mispronouncing incantations in Austrian.

Obama exposed the residents of all 57 states of the nation to his lies yet again, promising that even now Americans would be able to keep their health insurance plans if they liked them.

“I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked, they could keep it,” Obama said in his by-now tiresome fake sympathy routine.

“And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I’m offering an idea that will help do it.”

Obama explained that a grandfather clause in the Affordable Care Act already allows people whose insurance plans don’t change to keep their plans. He didn’t bother to explain that that consumer protection measure is more or less moot because insurance plans change constantly.

“Today, we’re going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law took effect, and to people who bought plans since the law took effect,” Obama said.

Except that His Imperial Majesty is doing no such thing. While taking credit on live television for appearing to do something about the cancelation crisis caused by the Obamacare law, Obama passed the buck to insurers and state regulators.

The president said state insurance commissioners retain authority to decide which plans can be sold in their states and insurance companies “can extend current plans that would otherwise be canceled into 2014, and Americans whose plans have been canceled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.”

Except that they can’t. The Obamacare statute says they can’t and the economics of the situation won’t allow it. The legal infrastructure of the health care insurance market has been changed. Policies were canceled because they don’t subsidize all the new services that Obamacare mandates. Those policies no longer exist for a reason. Insurers can’t just push a button and bring them back into existence.

Obama’s bizarre pronouncement reflects leftists’ disdain and ignorance of market processes, and the president’s determination to proceed in defiance of those processes. A locomotive going 60 miles per hour can’t stop instantly when brakes are activated. Similarly, the Obamacare juggernaut has so many moving parts spread out over such a wide area that locking up one part of the beast won’t stop it from continuing to barrel forward.

Continuing his lunchtime stroll through La-La Land, Obama said,

“We’re also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers about two things. One, that protections — what protections these renewed plans don’t include.  And number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.”

It’s pure fantasy, of course, but lying, stalling, misdirecting, and stonewalling have served the Obama administration well over its first five years. Besides, extravagant healthcare subsidies begin to kick in next year, and all that free money floating around is bound to calm at least some irate consumers.

When consumers find out they’ve been hoodwinked, the Left is counting on them to blame the corporate world. Obama and desperate Democratic lawmakers are already blaming insurance companies for en masse cancelations, and saying insurers should let consumers keep their plans, seemingly oblivious to the fact that all this upheaval was caused by the Obamacare law.

Obama’s fanciful fix requires cooperation from insurance companies and state regulators, and so far he’s not getting it from either.

Health care insurers promptly slapped down Obama’s proposal and refused to accept the blame.

“This doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration,” said one insurance industry source. “So now when we don’t offer these policies the White House can say it’s the insurers doing this and not being flexible.”

“The only reason consumers are getting notices about their current coverage changing is because the ACA requires all policies to cover a broad range of benefits that go beyond what many people choose to purchase today,” said Karen Ignagni, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers. Premiums have already been set for next year based on an assumption of when consumers will be transitioning to the new marketplace. If now fewer younger and healthier people choose to purchase coverage in the exchange, premiums will increase and there will be fewer choices for consumers. Additional steps must be taken to stabilize the marketplace and mitigate the adverse impact on consumers.”

State insurance regulators also threw cold water on the crazy proposal.

Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, a Democrat, said allowing state residents to keep their non-ACA-compliant policies would wreck his state’s health insurance exchange so the state won’t permit it. District of Columbia Insurance Commissioner William P. White, who was appointed by the city’s Democratic mayor Vincent Gray, said the proposal “undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s D.C. Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate.”

All of this chaos created by Obamacare and President Obama’s admission that his system isn’t working, vindicates the aggressive approach taken by conservatives who pushed hard to defund Obamacare before the partial shutdown of the federal government last month.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, which has been at the forefront of the fight, loosed a mass email after Obama’s speech yesterday, boasting that, “Ted Cruz was right. Republicans should have refused to fund Obamacare.”

According to the SCF,

“The president’s health care law is an unmitigated disaster and now Democrats in Washington are running for political cover. If Republicans had listened to Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), they could have won this fight and stopped Obamacare. Instead, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sabotaged the effort and now Americans are paying the price.”

The SCF points out that Congress will have another opportunity to defund Obamacare two months from now. “Obamacare funding expires January 15 and Republicans should not renew it,” the political committee says in the email. “If Democrats cause another government shutdown to protect this terrible law, Republicans should hold firm and use the showdown to push for full repeal.”

Although the House is expected today to take up Congressman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) largely symbolic legislation that would supposedly allow Americans to keep their insurance plans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged repeal. “There is no way to fix this,” he said following Obama’s presser.

Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is now calling for the repeal of Obamacare. Just weeks ago McCain labeled those fighting Obamacare as “wacko birds.”

It should be noted that Obama’s midday press conference yesterday, which started more than a half hour late, came the day after the the administration’s latest lies about enrollment numbers were made public.

Leftist Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, ever the patient Obamacare cheerleader, eagerly conveyed the administration’s lies, claiming “[a]round 106,000 enrolled in new plans during October.” He linked to a grossly misleading flow chart at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that tries to justify the make-believe enrollment figure.

The chart states with lawyerly precision that “106,185 have selected a Marketplace plan,” and that “396,291 Americans were determined or assessed eligible for Medicaid/CHIP.”

Therefore, the chart concludes, “For October 1-November 2, 502,446 (396,261 + 106,185) Americans are positioned to have health coverage in 2014 through the Marketplace, Medicaid and CHIP.” The 502,446 figure is interesting but irrelevant.

The indispensable Avik Roy of Forbes says the real enrollment figure (as of Nov. 8) was a pathetic 45,865 spread out over 19 states. That represents a laughable 0.7 percent –that’s seven-tenths of one percent– of the total first year enrollment goal of 7 million by March 15, 2014. There have been about 5 million cancellations nationwide, according to Roy.

Visiting healthcare.gov or a state exchange website, creating an an online account, applying for coverage, and choosing a government-approved exchange plan, doesn’t count as an enrollment, Roy reminds us. An insured person has to pay the initial premium to have coverage begin and for the action to count as an enrollment.

Unless the government meets its enrollment goal, tricking young, healthy persons into agreeing to heavily subsidize older, sicker persons, the Affordable Care Act cannot succeed, Roy writes. “Low exchange enrollment results in higher premiums for those who do enroll, as the costs of coverage and care are spread out among premium-paying enrollees.”

With all this news of Obamacare-created chaos descending on the nation, now is not the time to be cutting deals with pitiable Democrats.

Although Obamacare may already contain within itself the seeds of its eventual self-destruction, Americans who care about the future of this country have to keep the pressure on. We can’t assume this hideous program will go away on its own.

Conservatives have to keep pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes until they are blue in the face and ready to drop from exhaustion.

Now is the time to go on offense.


Matthew Vadum

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/the-emperors-new-rules/

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

Deals of the Century for Iran: Carter vs. Obama

by Majid Rafizadeh

 

The Obama administration has been so anxious and eager to strike a nuclear deal with Iran— regardless of whether that nuclear deal be detrimental, flimsy, or one-sided— and President Barack Obama has been so fearful of taking other actions or alternatives, that the theocratic and Islamist state of Iran has been mocking the US, playing a game with the American administration by tossing it around in international talks and enjoying how it will soon gets its second deal of the century by announcing itself as “The Islamist Nuclear-Armed State.”

The mismanaged and misinformed foreign policies of the Jimmy Carter administration significantly contributed to the first Iranian deal in 1979, the deal that would change the 20^th century for the nation and for the Islamists, Ayatollah, and Mullahs in the Islamic Republic of Iran. When the Shah— an American ally— was deposed, Carter constantly tried to view the ruling Islamist cleric and Ayatollah Khomeini as a rational and constructive force in government. The soft talks and the weak position that the Carter administration took were a blessing for the Mullahs, who were capable of creating their own Shiite, Islamic, Muhammadian-style state, recreating a 1400-year-old Shiite Shari’a law-based political and social order.

The next deal of the century, the 21^st century reward, is going to be given to Iran by the Obama administration. Although the first deal assisted Iran in becoming an independent sovereign state, along with implementing their Islamic laws, increasing their influence in the world, and funding terrorist groups with oil revenues from illegal sales on the black market, the second deal is much more pivotal, substantial, and vital.

This Iranian deal will provide the required platform that the Mullah and Ayatollah need to make a weapons-grade nuclear breakthrough in roughly the next few months. According to nuclear experts, the longest period it could take to reach capability will be six months. Meaning during the Obama administration, we will see the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, announce that Iran is armed with nuclear weapons. By that point, nothing can be reverted back. Through this, the Islamist state of Iran would be mocking the international community, efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency, p5+1, etc.

The recent breakdown in the talks revealed that it was the Obama administration’s nuclear team that was armed with packages of deals for the Rouhani nuclear team. As the Obama administration “desperately” looked to make any kind of nuclear deal with the Islamist Iranian leaders, the Iranian leaders proceeded to refuse each of the deals, showing superiority and looking down on the US. The Iranians refused every deal that Secretary of State John Kerry provided.

The reason that I put the word “desperately” in quotation marks is to emphasize that Obama administration has been so frightened to take alternative actions, that it is damaging the American image by almost pleading with, and begging, the Iranian leaders to just sign any deal.

Iranian leaders, including the Supreme Leader Khamenei, President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, have masterfully and shrewdly captured the desperate situation that the Obama administration is in, taking advantage of the weak position of the American government and playing games with the US while waiting for next talks, next talks, and next talks.

The intriguing thing is that the desperate status of the Obama administration has made the Iranian Mullahs, Ayatollahs, and Leaders, so much bolder that they believe they are entitled to their explicit terms. It was the Iranian leaders who have been walking out of the talk because they did not approve the presented deals. The Iranian deal has been made clear to be one that would allow for the enrichment of uranium, processing of plutonium, and for the West to remove economic sanctions on the Mullahs. The Iranians want to have their cake and eat it too, to be offered a deal that they fully agree with, without compromise.

Iran, according to experts on nuclear enrichment, only needs less than a year (roughly 6 months) to achieve their ambition. The country currently possesses near 440 pounds of highly enriched uranium at 20 percent. In order to create a nuclear warhead, nearly 550 pounds of the highly enriched uranium is needed. Secondly, Iran has initiated a reactor to process plutonium. There is no incentive— such as for civilians or for fuel— in processing plutonium other than really developing nuclear weapons-grade material. There are two methods to creating nuclear weapons-grade material, either by enriching uranium at a high percentage or by processing plutonium. The crucial issue is that as this reactor operates, it will be hard to even military damage the installation due to the dangerous material that will be released into the environment, and the danger this material poses to human beings. According to experts, processing plutonium requires approximately a year to turn to a nuclear breakaway capacity.

The major issue comes down to why the Obama administration is so frightened of the prospect of not making a deal with Iran. A crucial reason is that the Obama administration does not want to take action through finding alternatives that would call for the United States to take a true stance. The alternative would be to stop the Mullahs from mocking the international community, taking tough measures. However, President Obama prefers a much more docile approach, using submissive policies in order to prevent the Mullahs from getting upset at him.

It is puzzling to attempt to comprehend what it would take for the Obama administration to accept that the Iranian government will never give up its nuclear program. It is truly confounding that even when the Iranian president and his foreign minister have repeatedly announced in the English language that they will not relinquish their uranium enrichment programs, the Obama administration continues to plead with Iran to sign a deal— no matter how detrimental that deal would be to world security. Iranian leaders have already accomplished their goal to buy time for at least an extra year, and are now a hundred percent confident that the Obama administration is too weak and docile to take any real action.

Yes. Carter gave Iran the first deal, and the second (more fundamental) deal has been given by the Obama administration.


Majid Rafizadeh

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/majid-rafizadeh/the-deals-of-the-centuries-for-iran-carter-vs-obama/

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