Al Jazeera Wishes Syrian Army Was Moral Like France… or Israel

by Daniel Greenfield


The first part of this is a nostalgic recollection of how nice the French were during the Mandate, refusing to follow Jihadist fighters into mosques and summoning an Imam before making a home arrest allowing the terrorist to escape.



There are probably similar recollections of how nice the Americans were in Iraq and Afghanistan. But nice in this case is a synonym for suckers. Before long, under the theory of “the enemy of my enemy is not as much of my enemy right this second”, there’s even a defense of Israel’s tactics in Lebanon against Hezbollah.

“Why don’t they learn from the Israeli army which tries, through great efforts, to avoid shelling areas populated by civilians in Lebanon and Palestine? Didn’t Hezbollah take shelter in areas populated by civilians because it knows that Israeli air force doesn’t bomb those areas? Why doesn’t the Syrian army respect premises of universities, schools or inhabited neighborhoods? Why does it shell even the areas of its supporters? …
“The Israeli army, if it wanted to break up a demonstration, would have used water cannons or rubber bullets, not rockets or explosive barrels as happens in Aleppo today.
“I will also give you the example of France. All Syrians remember that the French forces, when they occupied Syria tried to avoid, when rebels entered mosques or schools, they stopped. The people would prefer that France come back! For god’s sake, if a referendum were to be held… if people were to be asked, who would you prefer the current regime or the French, I swear by God they would have preferred the French.”

Don’t give Hollande any ideas. The French are much more prone to sudden occupations than the United States is, especially where their former colonies are concerned.

Muslims are well aware of the efforts that Israel goes to, to avoid killing civilians. It’s just compartmentalized information in a culture where every social relationship and idea is compartmentalized. When denouncing Syria, the information that Israel avoids civilian casualties is useful and comes out into the open. The rest of the time, it’s carefully stored away for strategic application.

There’s no intellectual integrity because there is no intellectual integration.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/al-jazeera-wishes-syrian-army-was-moral-like-france-or-israel/

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

The Truth Hurts

by Caroline Glick


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post. 
 
To hear it from the White House, and from Israel’s leftist media, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon is a major liability. As half the planet now knows, Ya’alon is harshly critical of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s persistent efforts to force Israel to surrender its land and ability to defend itself to the PLO.

In a private conversation that Ya’alon did not expect to be made public, he criticized Kerry’s so-called security plan that offers Israel advanced technology in exchange for PLO control over its eastern border. Ya’alon also rejected the notion that the PLO is interested in making peace. And he stated the inconvenient fact that PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas is only in power because Israel has security control over Judea and Samaria.

Ya’alon also said, again in a private conversation, that Kerry’s razor-sharp focus on Israel and the PLO owes to an “incomprehensible obsession,” and that by neurotically pushing for a deal that has no chance of being concluded or achieving peace, Kerry is exhibiting “messianic” character traits.

Ya’alon’s private statements about Kerry were no harsher than public statements that the Saudis have made regarding the Obama administration’s regional policies. Last November, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal. According to Goldberg, the Saudi royal attacked US President Barack Obama “with a directness that would make Benjamin Netanyahu blush.”

Among other things, Alaweed said, “There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran. We’re really concerned – Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle Eastern countries about this.”

Alaweed questioned Obama’s motives in negotiating with Iran, saying the president is “wounded,” and appeasing Iran in order to win back the support of Democratic lawmakers who oppose Obamacare. In his words, “Thirty-nine members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on Obamacare. That’s scary for him.”

It is hard to think of harsher criticism than Alaweed’s. And yet, the administration had nothing to say about it. Neither he, nor his fellow Saudi prince Bandar Bin Sultan al-Saud, the Saudi intelligence chief who said last month that he is scaling back intelligence cooperation with the US, was personally attacked by the administration.

No umbrage was taken at their statements.

And again, their public statements were no less harsh than what Ya’alon said in a private conversation about Kerry.

Neither the Israeli people, nor the US’s traditional Sunni Arab allies support Obama’s policies in the region. They believe Obama’s policies are dangerous for them, and antithetical to US interests.

Indeed, Ya’alon’s assessments of the administration are not only in line with regional opinion, the vast majority of Israelis share his views.

According to a poll published last week by Makor Rishon, 80 percent of Israelis think that Kerry’s peace plan has no chance of bringing peace. Seventy-three percent oppose his security plan for the Jordan Valley. And 53% object to the entire premise of his talks – that Israel should surrender almost all of Judea and Samaria to the PLO.

Moreover, the average man on the Israeli street sees the destruction wreaked by the Obama administration’s policy throughout the Middle East, and he cannot figure out what Kerry wants with us.

Syria is a humanitarian and geopolitical nightmare with global implications.

Rather than do everything possible to strengthen moderate forces in Syria, like the Kurds, and cultivate, train and arm regime opponents who can fight both the Assad regime and al-Qaida rebels, Kerry has devoted himself to demanding that Israel release more Palestinian terrorist murderers from prison.

Rather than protect Lebanon from the predations of Iran and Syria to ensure its independence, Kerry is holding marathon meetings with Netanyahu to try to coerce him into helping the PLO build another Jew-free terrorist state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

Rather than try to blunt the growing power of Hezbollah – Iran’s terrorist army – in Syria, the US’s policy is inviting Iran, the party most responsible for the war, to join the phony peacemakers club at Geneva.

As for the rest of the region, from Tunisia to Bahrain, from Egypt and Libya to Iraq, and Yemen, Kerry and the Obama administration as a whole are content to watch on the sidelines as al-Qaida reemerges as a significant force, and as Iran undermines stability in country after country.

Then of course, there is Iran itself, and its nuclear weapons program.

After the six-party nuclear deal with Iran was concluded on Monday, Iran’s leaders declared victory over the US. They boasted that the most dangerous components of their nuclear weapons program are unaffected by the deal they just concluded with the Americans. They laid a wreath on the grave of Hezbollah arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh, who masterminded the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 243 US servicemen. And they forced Lebanon’s Sunnis to accept a Hezbollah-dominated government.

For its part, the Obama administration continues to insist that the greatest threat to peace is the US Congress, because its members wish to pass an additional sanctions bill against Iran that would only come into force in a year if the Iranians do not abide by the agreement.

The only parties whose lot is improved by the Obama administration’s Middle East policies are Iran, the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood. But none of them will praise those policies, because they all hold the US in contempt.

This is why the Palestinian leadership continues to incite against Israel and reject the Jewish state even as the US is acting as their surrogate in talks with Israel.

This is why the Iranians mock the US, even though the White House just cleared the way for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and develop its economy and has allowed it to take over Iraq and Lebanon, and defend its puppet regime in Syria.

This is why the Muslim Brotherhood condemns the US even as the Obama administration upended the US alliance with Egypt in order to support the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Obama administration has responded to these demonstrations of contempt and bad faith with extreme reticence. Either it issues written, general condemnations, or it claims, as in the case of Palestinian incitement, that it doesn’t believe it is productive to publicly criticize the Palestinians.

Given this behavior, the Obama administration’s response to Yediot Aharonot’s publication of Ya’alon’s private statements can be fairly describe as apoplectic. It was also mean-spirited.

Shortly after Yediot published his private remarks, the administration launched a full-bore public attack on Ya’alon, and by implication, the government. As White House spokesman Jay Carney put it, “The remarks of the Israeli defense minister, if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate, especially in light of everything that the United States is doing to support Israel’s security needs.”

In other words, the Obama administration just accused Israel of ingratitude.

But there is nothing ungrateful about Israel’s treatment of the US.

Americans are getting the same message from allies throughout the Middle East. Under Obama, America’s regional policies are so counterproductive that the US has come to be seen as the foreign policy equivalent of a drunk driver.

As the US’s strongest ally, and also as a country that has depended for decades on US support, Israel is a passenger in the back seat of the car. On the one hand, we are happy for the ride. On the other hand, the administration’s driving is endangering our survival.

It is only because our leaders are grateful to the US for its support that the government is going along with Kerry’s ridiculous peace-processing.

More important, what is gratitude, exactly? Is it shutting up and watching your closest friend drive both of you over a cliff? Of course not.

To be a good ally – and a grateful one – requires you to warn your ally when his actions are ill-advised and dangerous. And that is precisely what Israel has done. Israel’s behavior is the definition of proper behavior.

Aside from being dead wrong, the anti-Semitic undertones of the administration’s castigation of the Jewish state as ungrateful are hard to miss.

State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki lashed out at Ya’alon saying, “Secretary Kerry and his team, including General John Allen, have been working day and night to try and promote a secure peace for Israel, because of the secretary’s deep concern for Israel’s future.”

These words, and nearly identical ones intoned by Carney, play into the anti-Jewish stereotype according to which Jews are quarrelsome but hapless wretches.

The flipside of this stereotype is the all-powerful Jewish conspiracy that manipulates non-Jews into doing its dirty work. That slur reverberated strongly in the administration’s condemnations of Netanyahu and US Jewish groups for advocating the passage of additional sanctions against Iran.

In both cases, the White House’s message is the same. Unlike other groups critical of US policies, Israel and supporters of the Jewish state have no right to speak.

Presumably the administration’s resort to these anti-Jewish tropes is inadvertent, but the fact that they have been used repeatedly is deeply disconcerting, and bespeaks, at a minimum, alarming insensitivity.

Under tremendous pressure from the administration, Ya’alon apologized for his leaked remarks and Netanyahu took to the Knesset podium to praise Israel’s ties to the US and thank the US for its support for Israel.

But this was not enough for the Obama administration.

They want Netanyahu disavow Ya’alon’s thoughts and withdraw the defense minister from the negotiations.

According to AFP, a senior State Department official said, “We expect the prime minister to put this right by expressing publicly his disagreement with the statements against Secretary Kerry, the negotiations with the Palestinians and Kerry’s commitment to Israel’s security.”

For his part, Kerry said he will only speak to Israeli leaders who agree with him. In his words, “I will work with the willing participants who are committed to peace and to this process.”

In other words, the Obama administration is using Ya’alon’s private remarks, leaked by an unidentified source to a newspaper with an anti-Netanyahu editorial agenda, as a means to neutralize the most powerful voice opposing Kerry’s obsessive, messianic behavior in the Israeli government. They want to use American umbrage at the tone of Ya’alon’s private statements to upend Israeli policy and force Israel to embrace the substance of the Obama administration’s delusional and destructive actions. And to advance this goal, they are using anti-Semitic signals to castigate Israel and deny it the right to speak on its own behalf.

Israelis love America. And for that reason, it is compelled to do what anyone strapped into the back seat of a car driven by a drunk would do: try to convince him to stop driving. As a grateful ally of the United States, Israel should publicly tell the Obama administration that what Ya’alon said in private is the truth.

And yes, sometimes the truth hurts.


Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/the-truth-hurts/

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

The Existential Elephant in the 'Christian Persecution' Room

by Raymond Ibrahim


Open Doors USA recently released its widely cited 2014 World Watch List—a report that highlights and ranks the 50 worst nations around the globe persecuting Christians.

The one glaring fact that emerges from this report is that the overwhelming majority of Christian persecution around the world today is being committed at the hands of Muslims of all races, languages, cultures, and socio-political circumstances: Muslims from among America's allies (Saudi Arabia) and its enemies (Iran); Muslims from economically rich nations (Qatar) and from poor nations (Somalia and Yemen); Muslims from "Islamic republic" nations (Afghanistan) and from "moderate" nations (Malaysia and Indonesia); Muslims from nations rescued by America (Kuwait) and Muslims claiming "grievances" against America (fill in the blank __).

A common denominator, a pattern, exists, one that is even more extensive than Open Doors implies. According to that organization's communications director, Emily Fuentes, "of the 50 worst nations for persecution, 37 of them are Muslim," or 74%.

In fact, while this number suggests that the other 13 countries making the top 50 are not Muslim—for example Kenya and Ethiopia—those doing the persecution there are.

In other words, those persecuting Christians in 41 of 50 nations are Muslims; that is, a whopping 82% of all persecution around the globe is being committed by the adherents of Islam—sometimes in Christian majority nations; for example, the Central African Republic which, after the 2013 Islamic takeover, now ranks #16, "severe persecution" (the Christian-majority nation did not even appear in the previous year's top 50).

As for the top ten absolute worst nations, where, according to the 2014 World Watch List, Christians suffer "extreme persecution," nine—that is, 90%—are Muslim. (Indeed, Open Doors' global map of Christian persecution can easily be confused with a global map of the Islamic world, with the exception of China (ranked 37, "moderate persecution") and some sporadic countries dominated by crime and godless tyranny, Columbia, North Korea, etc.)

Similarly, a recent Morning Star News report listing 2013's ten most horrific anecdotes of Christian persecution around the world finds that nine out of ten—again, 90%—were committed at the hands of those professing Islam.

Still, considering that the 2014 World Watch List ranks North Korea—non-Islamic, communist—as the number one worst persecutor of Christians, why belabor the religious identity of Muslims?

Here we come to some critically important but blurred distinctions. While Christians are indeed suffering extreme persecution in North Korea, these fall into the realm of the temporal, the aberrant, even. Something as simple as overthrowing the North Korean regime would likely end persecution there almost overnight—just as the fall of Communist Soviet Union saw religious persecution come to a quick close.

In the Islamic world, however, a similar scenario would not alleviate the sufferings of Christians by an iota. Quite the opposite; where dictators fall—Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Qaddafi in Libya, and ongoing attempts to oust Assad in Syria—Christian persecution rises.

The reason for this dichotomy is that Christian persecution by non-Muslims (mostly communists) is often rooted to a temporal regime or ideology. Conversely, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends this or that regime or ruler. It is part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam—hence its tenacity; hence its ubiquity.

Still, the significance of all this is often overlooked. Thus, "Dr. David Curry, CEO and president of Open Doors USA, told The Blaze 'Not every circumstance is the same. For example, in North Korea, you have a quasi-Stalinist government that is the most difficult place to call yourself a Christian on the planet — and has been for the last 12 years,' he noted. But while North Korea's government is the real culprit, in places like Iraq, 'roving extremist groups' are waging attacks against Christians, while government officials are seemingly powerless to stop the carnage, he explained."

True; but atheistic Stalinism/communism is a relatively new phenomenon—about a century old—and, over the years, its rule (if not variants of its ideology) has greatly waned, so that only a handful of nations today are communist.

On the other hand, "roving extremist groups" (also known in other contexts and countries as "Islamists," "terrorists," "mujahidin," "mobs," "radicals," "people-with-grievances," etc.) attacking and killing "infidel" Christians have been around since the dawn of Islam. It is a well-documented, even if suppressed, history.

To further understand the differences between temporal and existential persecution, consider: Russia, once a staunch Orthodox Christian nation, led the communist movement and persecuted its own Christians; yet today, a century later, it is becoming more orthodox again, prominent among Western nations for showing support for persecuted Christians.

North Korea—where its leader, Kim Jong-Un, is worshipped as a god and the people are shielded from reality, including outside their borders—seems to be experiencing what Russia did under the Soviet Union and thus living in a delusional state.

But if the once mighty USSR could not persevere, surely it's a matter of time before tiny North Korea's walls also come crumbling down, with the resulting religious freedom that former communist nations have experienced. (Tellingly, the only countries that were part of the USSR that still persecute Christians are Muslim, such as Uzbekistan, ranked #15, "severe persecution," and Turkmenistan, ranked #20, also "severe persecution.")

Time, however, is not on the side of Christians living amid Muslims; quite the opposite. Since the 7^th century, when Islam came into being, Muslims have been invading and conquering Christian lands, so that more than half of the territory that was once Christian in the 7^th century—including all of North Africa and the Levant—are today the heart of the "Muslim world."

Muslim persecution of Christians exists in 41 nations today as part of a continuum that started nearly 14 centuries ago. As I document in Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians, the very same patterns of Christian persecution prevalent throughout the Muslim world today are often identical to those from centuries past. The facts speak for themselves.

A final consideration: North Korea, the one non-Muslim nation making the top ten worst persecutors list, is governed by what is widely seen as an unbalanced megalomaniac (hence the "aberrant" persecution); conversely, the other nine nations are not dominated by any "cults-of-personalities" and are variously governed, including through parliamentarian democracies (Iraq), republics (Maldives, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Yemen), Islamic republics (Afghanistan, Iran), and monarchies (Saudi Arabia).

The common denominator is that they are all Islamic nations.

Thus, long after North Korea's psychotic Kim Jong-Un has gone the way of the dodo, Islam will still be here and—short of a miraculous "reformation"—still treating Christians and other "infidels" like it did for centuries.

Confronting this understandably discomforting and better-left-unsaid fact is the first real step to alleviating the sufferings of the overwhelming majority of Christians around the world.

Unfortunately, however, while some are willing to point out that Christians are being persecuted around the Muslim world—why that is the case, why 82% of the world's persecution is committed by Muslims from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances—is the great elephant in the room that few wish to address. For doing so would cause some long held and cherished premises of the modern West to come crashing down.


Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (Regnery, April, 2013) is a Middle East and Islam specialist, and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
 
Source: http://www.meforum.org/3718/christian-persecution

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

Iran still Playing for Time

by Boaz Bismuth

This week, the interim deal signed last November with Iran will go into effect. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency landed in Tehran on Saturday to ensure that Iran has ceased enriching uranium to levels of 20 percent, as per their obligation according to the agreement.

We can assume that the Iranians will fulfill their end: Why would they complicate matters for themselves by torpedoing a deal that is so favorable to them? They struck a deal that allows them to continue nuclear research (the interim deal does not prohibit them from developing advanced centrifuges); lifts a portion of the economic sanctions, which will prevent the collapse of the country's economy (which could incite the street and destabilize the regime); and also provides immunity from any type of military option, because U.S. President Barack Obama feels like talking. With Iran. …

At least 59 senators, among them 16 Democrats, are convinced that the deal will help Iran become the nuclear power it intends to be. They don't trust the administration. They don't believe in the interim deal or a final deal, which will be signed -- if at all -- in about six months.

Iran, suffice it to say, will continue to "play for time." The Obama administration, as revealed in the new book by former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, does not believe in the military option. The Iranians realized this a long time ago. Iran can also allow itself a bit of leeway with the West. For example, if they decide to act offended and derail the talks, they still won't be too worried: The Americans will make sure to sit them back down at the table. 

The main problem with Iran, from the American's perspective today, is that there are two bad options: A military strike is a bad option. However, a nuclear Iran is no better. What then, can be done? You sign an interim deal and hope for the best.

Obama's foreign policy up to this point in the Middle East -- in Egypt, Syria and Libya -- has not helped reassure the 59 senators who are skeptical about the negotiations with Iran. They are expressing the view of many in Israel and in the Persian Gulf. 

In the meantime, if nothing changes, the White House will continue hoping for the best and Congress will continue expecting the worst.

Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7073

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

Yes, the Taliban Are Terrorists

by Michael Rubin


Diplomacy often obstructs moral clarity. After the Clinton administration launched its high-profile engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), for example, State Department officials bent over backwards to ignore the complacency of PLO leaders in financing and ordering acts of terror. As I document in my new book, a comparison of intelligence available to the State Department and the concurrent testimony of senior State Department officials to Congress shows that the diplomats simply lied about the character of their partners in order to avoid U.S. law that would mandate a cessation of aid should the PLO be involved in terror.

For the past five years, both senior military officials (up to and including Gen. David Petraeus) and senior diplomats (up to and including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) have advocated for talks with the Taliban. At no time did policymakers consider the Bill Clinton administration’s sorry, five-year experience talking to the Taliban, an episode that caused diplomats to become distracted from the Taliban’s true aims and goals in the years leading up to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

Time launders terrorists, after all. While the press and many policymakers once mocked Secretary of State Colin Powell for wanting to work with “moderate Taliban,” by the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, that had effectively become the policy of the White House.

The Taliban’s attack on a Kabul restaurant frequented by foreigners is tragic, but should be a reminder of just who the Taliban are and what they represent. To call them an insurgent force is inaccurate: insurgents battle armies; they do not bomb restaurants and then shoot unarmed civilians. The Taliban are terrorists, plain and simple, and America’s premature withdrawal will empower them. The Taliban are not simply a Pashtun movement, as the late Richard Holbrooke once implied. True, many Taliban might be Pashtun, but not all Pashtun are Taliban and, indeed, many Pashtun have spent decades resisting the ignorant thugs who flocked to the Taliban.

It is time to put objective fact above diplomatic wishful thinking. The Taliban are terrorists, and seeking to include them in any post-withdrawal order is akin to negotiating with terrorists. Negotiating with the Taliban has not worked in the past, and there is no reason to believe any compromise will be possible in the future. Not talking to the Taliban, but allowing them to fill the vacuum created by America’s withdrawal is just as bad. Sometimes, adversaries simply need to be defeated, an accomplishment not possible when the White House constrains the military.

If the Taliban responsible for the restaurant attack had direct links to Pakistan—and they likely did—then it is time to designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism, no ifs, ands, or buts: diplomatic nicety does not benefit the United States; it makes them think America is weak and risible. Perhaps American diplomats and former senators find such talks sophisticated. Regardless, beyond the Pakistani Taliban and the Haqqani Network which are already designated, it is long past time to designate every other Taliban group which conducts attacks on civilians to be terrorists, and their foreign government sponsors to be state sponsors. While the Taliban has said that the attack on the Kabul restaurant was retaliation–a claim picked up and amplified by the New York Times–my colleague Ahmad Majidyar pointed out that the Taliban makes such excuses for external consumption only. What the Taliban did not mention was that it also killed three young civilians in a rocket attack in Kandahar, an attack that had everything to do with the character of the movement and nothing to do with feigned grievance.

Perhaps it will remain the policy of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to compromise with and perhaps even empower terrorists through the policies they advocate. But if so, they should acknowledge it openly and be accountable for the strategic and moral vacuity of their position.


Michael Rubin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/01/19/yes-the-taliban-are-terrorists/

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

Wounded Syrian Couple Treated in Israel

by Danny Brenner

Wounded Syrian woman: "We hesitated coming to Israel, because we were taught to hate it. We were taught this is a brutal enemy state, but we learned that reality is different. People here have a conscience. Our enemy is in Syria, not in Israel."

"If only we could stay here." The Syrian couple at Poriah Hospital, Friday | Photo credit: JINI

Israel Defense Forces troops brought a wounded Syrian couple to Poriah Hospital near Tiberias Thursday night. The couple, residents of the embattled town Daraa, arrived with gunshot wounds in their legs. The male is 27 years old and his wife is 23 and in the early stages of pregnancy. 

While the two did not have life threatening wounds, the two have been through an immense amount of duress recently: Two months ago, the couple lost their daughter two weeks after she was born. "Because of the gunfire and the siege on our town in the Daraa area, we were left with no choice but to deliver the child at home -- and the medical condition of my baby deteriorated," the woman told Israel Hayom. "All our pleading at the [Syrian] army checkpoint to go to the hospital did not help. We went back home and our daughter died there."

Eight days ago, the couple was struck with another tragedy. Their village came under attack, "artillery bombardment, gunfire, and planes bombing from above," the woman said. "In the evening my brother came and took us, my mother and two other wounded people and we tried to flee the village. During our exit from the village we were fired on by the army and my brother was killed before my eyes. We managed to escape back to the village and were treated in a field hospital. But the wounds got worse -- until my cousin took us to the border and we got into Israel for treatment," the woman said. Her brother, 19, fought with rebels trying to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.

Currently the couple remains hospitalized, both in the same room. The woman is struggling with being away from her family, but admitted that she did not expect such friendly treatment from her enemy. "We were surprised by the treatment and dedicated medical care we got in Israel," she said. "We hesitated coming to Israel, because we were taught to hate it. We were taught this is a brutal enemy state, but we learned that reality is different. People here have a conscience. Our enemy is in Syria, not in Israel. If only we could stay here."

Danny Brenner

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=14843

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

Kurdistan Goes it Alone

by Ranj Alaaldin


Iraq’s Kurds have taken another step toward independence with the creation of a pipeline that will give them an independent export capacity. Over the past five years, the region has dramatically transformed its oil and gas sector, both to enhance its autonomy from the rest of Iraq and to build on the stability and prosperity it has enjoyed post-2003.

The Kurdish position, put forward last month in Erbil at the Kurdistan–Iraq Oil & Gas Conference, which I attended, is simple: Kurdistan will not allow itself to be shackled by Arab Iraq’s turmoil and dysfunctional politics. Nor will it allow a return to the past, when the Kurds suffered under dictatorship and the centralization of power. With or without Arab Iraq, Kurdistan will move forward.
The pipeline connecting Kurdistan and Turkey means that the former can start exporting its oil to the latter, and then on to international markets, in an efficient and sustainable manner, thus allowing it to maximize on its oil and gas reserves. This is a marked change from the past, when Kurdistan could only send its oil to Turkey by truck, as Baghdad controlled the national pipeline. Tried and tested, the Kurdish pipeline will export up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day in 2014, which could rise to 2 million barrels per day in the coming years.

How sustainable this arrangement is and how far the Kurds’ autonomy goes depends on the Kurds’ relations within Iraq and with the rest of the region. The most unlikely of regional powers helping it to take the region forward is Turkey, which has put its full support behind the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and its efforts to become an international hydrocarbons player.

For decades, the Turkish state suppressed Kurdish rights within its own borders and waged war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Kurdish rebel group that has fought the Turkish state for thirty years in search of a combination of political, territorial and human rights for Turkey’s marginalized Kurds. Historically, Ankara has feared and suppressed the ascendancy and autonomy of the Iraqi Kurds, lest it encourage Turkey’s own restive Kurdish population to push for similar rights.

Times have changed. Turkey has given up on Arab Iraq in many respects. Instability and sectarian conflict, exacerbated by the civil war in Syria, means that it will be some time before Iraq can fulfill its economic potential and maximize on its colossal oil and gas reserves.

Ankara believes Baghdad is too far into the orbit of Iranian influence for it to give up on the Kurds and develop a closer strategic relationship with Baghdad. Iraq’s Kurds constitute a useful counterweight against Iranian influence, and they are important allies in a volatile Middle East. Ankara also sees the Iraqi Kurds as useful allies in an uncertain and unstable Syria.

While stronger KRG–Turkey ties may further undermine Ankara’s relations with Baghdad, they would not necessarily have to eliminate ties completely. Differences can, in fact, be reconciled, and have been before. Further, economic ties between Turkey and Iraq remain strong, despite recent differences. Turkish companies are important players in Arab Iraq and receive some of the biggest and most lucrative contracts.

Politics in Baghdad are also likely to remain so fluid and volatile that it will be difficult for the Kurds’ Arab counterparts to form a unified front on the Kurdish energy issue. At the same time, neither are they likely to present a unified or tough stance on relations with Turkey. Kurdish hydrocarbon revenues will be distributed to the rest of Iraq on a per capita basis, and the Kurds remain important players in Baghdad’s politics. They are likely to once again influence the shape of the next Iraqi central government come parliamentary elections later this year, and their Arab counterparts will look to them for support.

Turkey, on the other hand, will remain an important regional player that cannot be ignored by Baghdad. The matter is predominantly one of economics. Turkey will permit pipeline exports regardless of Baghdad’s opposition, since it desperately needs a reliable source of energy to fuel its economic growth and decrease dependence on other suppliers. A recent agreement on gas exports between Turkey and the KRG, which paved the way for pipeline exports, includes a commitment on the part of the Kurdistan Region to provide 20 billion cubic meters annually to Turkey, which will meet half of Ankara’s current demand, at a price that undercuts existing suppliers.

This article was originally published in The Majalla.



Ranj Alaaldin is a Senior Analyst at the Next Century Foundation, a policy-making think-tank that works in conflict zones.

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55327246

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

Syria -- Battleground of America and Russia

by Gregory Gounev

On September 12, 2001, the prestigious French newspaper Le Monde published an article by Jean-Mary Colombani. The main message reverberated around the world in just one memorable phrase: "We are all Americans." The Russian government didn't make any exception in expressing their solidarity with the victims of the Islamo-Totalitarian assault on New York City. 

There are two important questions born out of the developments that took place during the decade that followed 9/11. The first one is: What were the main factors for the drastic deterioration of bilateral relations between the United States and Russia? Secondly: Is there a positive scenario for the United States to find an exit out of the seemingly hopeless situation involving the catastrophic loss of American influence in the Middle East? 

Undoubtedly, there was a short period of brief mutual understanding between Washington and Moscow coinciding with the early stage of the presidencies of George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Russian leader turned out to be the first foreign statesman who offered his country's condolences to a shocked and grieving America. Vladimir Putin was also immensely helpful during the first victorious round of the American military involvement in Afghanistan during the fall of 2001. In the period encompassing the end of 2001 and early part of 2002, it seemed that the personal relationship between George Bush and Vladimir Putin had almost reached the gates of friendship.

This gate turned out to be too narrow for the wildly escalating problems and conflicts that suddenly made their appearance. The alliance between Washington and Moscow which Boris Yeltsin had dreamed about, and the potential friendship between Bush and Putin, was engulfed by the fire of the Iraq War. In addition, the deterioration of relations between the United States and Russia was heavily influenced by the conflicts that erupted in the Balkans and Georgia. In both cases the United States and Russia found themselves on opposite sides of the political divide. The confrontation between Washington and Moscow acquired particularly acute dimensions with the outbreak of the civil war in Syria. 

It was at this moment when American and Russian policymakers had to determine their priorities and the strategy designed to achieve them. The difference between the choices related to the Syrian conflict made by Moscow and Washington had a very important, completely unexpected, but impeccably logical consequence involving both the prestige and the ratings of the leaders involved. 

The polls taken throughout different parts of the world were unanimous, although ignored by the mainstream American media. It turned out that Vladimir Putin had acquired the image of the most successful statesman in the world, while public opinion was also unanimous with regard to the lower ratings of President Obama and the decrease of the American influence, particularly visible in the Middle East.

The most obvious consideration for President Putin with regard to the Syrian crisis was connected with the preservation of the long and close relationship established decades ago between the Soviet Union and the founder of the Assad dynasty, Hafez Assad.

A very important factor shaping President Putin's policy towards Iran and Syria is the role of the internal problems of Russia. The most serious issue the country is facing is the intense terrorist activities of the Islamists in the area of the Caucasus. 

In short, the situation President Putin definitely doesn't want to face would be an increase of the Islamo-totalitarian threat by adding a Shiite component supported by Iran to the fanatical Sunni insurgents acting in the Caucasus. In order to prevent such a danger the maintenance of normal relations with Iran would be a minimum requirement for Moscow.

Last but not least, an important reason for Russian support of the Assad regime is the fear that the most probable consequence of its potential fall will be the establishment of an anti-Russian Islamic state in Syria. Let's not forget the fact that hundreds of Jihadists from the Caucasian areas of Russia are fighting against the army of Bashar Assad.

Nobody can deny that all Russian actions with regard to the Syrian crisis were and are based on a carefully planned and masterfully executed strategy. Some examples: the connection between Moscow and Teheran within the context of the Syrian crisis didn't affect at all the relationship between Moscow and Tel Aviv, which has not been any better. Another impressive achievement of Russian diplomacy was the way it managed to fill the void created by deterioration of the relations between Washington and Cairo in the aftermath of the removal of the Islamic regime of Morsi by the leaders of the Egyptian Army.

Speaking about American actions with regard to the Syrian crisis, even the most superficial look at Washington's involvement in Syria would reveal the stunning fact that there was no consistent strategy designed to protect American interests. The deliberate blindness, typical of the Obama administration, to the main danger epitomized by radical Islam, determined the lack of effective Syrian strategy. The change of leaders at the State Department didn't produce any improvement. The difference between Hillary Clinton and John Kerry was a difference in style not in the substance.

Both top diplomats of America remained fixed on the mantra expressed by Clinton with the words "Assad must go!" Madam Secretary never revealed what her expectations were in case her dream came true. Wasn't she worried that the Jihadists, who would have been the main beneficiaries amidst the inevitable chaos, would have seized the country? As far as the intentions of Kerry during the intense summer of 2013 were concerned, people like him and Senator McCain were ready to involve the United States in an extremely dangerous action with outright negative consequences. An American missile attack on Syria would have helped the Jihadists and would have flooded the neighboring countries (primarily Lebanon and Jordan), with even more refugees than they are coping with right now. 

This disaster was prevented not by the vacillating President of the United States, who didn't know what to do or how to do it, while the entire world was watching, but only by the initiative of President Putin to eliminate the stockpile of chemical weapons that were in possession of Bashir Assad. 

The only area of similarity between American and Russian foreign policy strategy is the tragic lack of understanding of the scope of the Islamo-totalitarian danger which threatens both countries. The moment Washington finally realizes there is a far more serious threat to the United States than Russia, and the top decision makers in Moscow grasp the fact that the United States is not the main enemy of Russia, it will have an enormous impact on the entire system of international relations.

The realization of this truth will offer opportunities for the solution of the problems dividing both countries, including the ones related to the future of Syria.


Georgy Gounev, Bulgarian-born historian, received his PhD from the Institute of Foreign Relations in Moscow, Russia. His most recent book, The Dark Side of the Crescent Moon, is to be released later in 2014.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/syria_--_battleground_of_america_and_russia.html

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

Plenty of Muslim Militants. Where's the Church Militant?

by Robin Mitchinson

All hell would break loose if anyone was doing to Muslims throughout the world what Muslim extremists are doing to Christians. But our governments and the Church are largely turning a blind eye

 

Imagine the brouhaha if non-Muslim countries persecuted Muslims by torching mosques, destroying holy books and relics, kidnapping and murder. All hell would break loose. Embassies would be blown up, diplomats assassinated, and general mayhem. 

There would be mass rallies in London, Bradford and other places with large Muslim concentrations. There would be outrage amongst politicians and the religiosi. There would be angry UN denunciations and Security Council resolutions.

All this is happening in Islamic countries; persecution of Christians is rife. It is estimated that 100,000 Christians have been killed, mostly in Islamic countries, each year for the past 10 years.

And what has been the reaction in the Christian world?

Hardly any; an indifferent shrug of the shoulders. The Archbishop of Canterbury had a few words to say about persecution of Christians. It went largely unreported -- in the blink of an eye the whole issue was dropped. Serious media coverage has been almost zero, apart from the devastating revelations in The Commentator (‘Terror of Christian Coptic kids abducted in Egypt’).

The Church of England has merely reverted to its default mode of focusing on fashionable issues that will please the liberal-Left establishment such as homosexual vicars and women bishops. It's up to you what you think about such mattters. But fellow Christians are being mutilated, killed and abducted. What would you prioritise?

The Churches give unstinted and unquestioning support to Palestinians, even when they are lobbing bombs into Israel, and they're indulging in virulent condemnation of Israel over its legitimate self-defence.

Saudi Arabia heads the list of persecuting countries, although this manifests itself largely as repression underpinned by the threat of a death sentence for converts and apostates. Next are Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and the Maldives.

The Arab Spring brought no joy for Christians. They have been leaving Egypt in droves. 5th Century churches have been destroyed. A wedding party in Cairo was bombed, leaving many dead. There have been over 150 kidnappings in a single area. Christians are routinely beaten and their houses destroyed.

The latest outrageous development has been the kidnapping of children for ransom (see link above). This often amounts to more than £100,000, and if not paid the child will be found with its throat cut. Many young Christian girls have been kidnapped, forced to convert and then sold into marriage.

Under Saddam Hussein and Asad, they were generally safe, at least from religious persecution. The Gulf War and the Syrian uprising has put an end to all that. The West let loose Islamic fundamentalism because no thought had been given to the appalling consequences when they were obvious for all to see in 2003.

Neither has it any proposals for a post-Assad Syria nor much to say about the murder or forced conversions of Christians by the rebels trying to replace Assad.

I can find no substantial reference to a leading Western politician condemning Pakistan for sentencing Asia Bibi to death for daring to drink out of a well and thus, as a Christian, polluting it for true believers.

Eighty Christians were killed at worship in Peshawar by a single bomb. Murder, rape and arson are commonly used against Pakistani Christians with the connivance of authority. Foreign aid continues to flow.

Vast numbers of Christians have been killed in Sudan since the the civil war began in the early-mid 1980s. Boko Haram vows to cleanse the whole of Northern Nigeria of "infidels".

So where are the UN resolutions; the protest marches; the trade sanctions; the tourist boycotts?

Only a fool would interpret what I am saying as a call for Christians to emulate the behaviour of their persecutors. But in the sense of a thoroughgoing campaign to help Christians in dire need of support, one is forced to ask: Where is the Church Militant?
 

Robin Mitchinson is a Contributing Editor to The Commentator. A former barrister, he is an international public management specialist with almost two decades of experience in institutional development, decentralisation and democratisation processes. He has advised governments and major international institutions across the world

Source: http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4618/plenty_of_muslim_militants_where_s_the_church_militant

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

Egyptian Army Kills Military Commander of Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad in Sinai

by Ahram Online


Military spokesperson Ahmed Ali has announced that the military commander of Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad group in Sinai was killed Sunday during army operations aimed at securing the peninsula.

Egypt's armed forces in cooperation with the police have stepped up a campaign against militant Islamists in Sinai whose attacks on the army and police rose dramatically following the ouster of Islamist president Mohamed Morsi last July.

According to Al-Ahram Arabic news website, 175 members of the armed forces have been killed in terrorist attacks, with 185 militants killed during security operations.

Ali said in a statement posted Sunday on his Facebook page that the death the military commander of Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad group — Ahmed Hamdan Harb Malki, also known as Abu Mariam — is confirmed.

In the statement, Ali also said: "The military was able to kill three Islamist figures in an exchange of fire between the militants and the army."

Attacks by Islamist militants have spilled into the capital and Nile Delta cities, with the most deadly bombing happening in Mansour in December.

Gas pipelines in Sinai have come under attack several times over the past three years, since the 2011 downfall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad is among the most active militant groups in Sinai, alongside with other jihadist groups such as Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis and Al-Furqan, all of whom have claimed multiple attacks since Morsi's ouster.


Ahram Online

Source: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/91920/Egypt/Politics-/Egyptian-army-kills-military-commander-of-AlTawhid.aspx

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