The Ayatollahs Back Assad and Al-Qaeda

by Majid Rafizadeh

 

According to several national and international news outlets, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the top Al Qaeda propagandist and Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, will be going on trial in 10 days in federal court in Lower Manhattan. 

Abu Ghaith, who used to be Al-Qaeda’s official spokesman and is married to bin Laden’s daughter Fatima, is facing charges including providing material assistance to terrorists groups and conspiracy to kill Americans, among others.

An unrecognized fact is that Abu Ghaith used to live in Iran and was allowed to leave the country freely. According to the Treasury Department, U.S. documents and officials, other members of Osama bin Laden’s family and inner circle besides Abu Ghaith lived in Iran as well.

Some prominent figures of this group are Saif al-Adel, the military commander of Al-Qaeda and a former Egyptian Special Forces officer, as well as Saad bin Laden, one of Osama Bin Laden’s older sons, who has played a crucial role in the leadership of Al-Qaeda.

More recently, in a report released this week, the US Treasury Department has charged Iran with assisting Al-Qaeda operatives based in the Islamic Republic. The charges have also been brought because Tehran has allowed senior Al-Qaeda members to conduct operations from various regions in Iran, according to the report.

The allegations also strongly indicated that some political figures in the Iranian government and its elite Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have been covertly and tacitly backing Al-Qaeda and other opposition groups in Syria’s civil war.

The Treasury Department, which is introducing new sanctions targeting Iranian terror links, reported that there was “a key Iran-based al-Qa’ida facilitator who supports al-Qa’ida’s vital facilitation network in Iran [and] operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities.” The report also adds, “the network also uses Iran as a transit point for moving funding and foreign fighters through Turkey to support al-Qa’ida-affiliated elements in Syria, including the al-Nusrah Front.” 

Olimzhon Adkhamovich Sadikov— also known as Jafar al-Uzbeki and Jafar Muidinov—is characterized by the Treasury Department as an Iran-based Islamic Jihad Union facilitator. This facilitator “operates there with the knowledge of Iranian authorities” and provides funding and logistical support to Al-Qaeda’s Iran-based network.

But it seems that some politicians, scholars and policy analysts are perplexed at how it might be possible for the Islamic Republic of Iran to be supporting Al-Qaeda. Particularly when it comes to Syria, logically, Iran cannot side with Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda-linked groups (including Islamic State of Iran and Lebanon and Jubhat Al-Nusra) are attempting to overthrow Assad’s regime, Iran’s staunchest geopolitical, geoeconomic and strategic ally. Even the Treasury Department’s report could not explain why Iran and Al-Qaeda, two seemingly odd bedfellows, would be working together.

The main reason that these politicians, scholars, and policy analysts cannot easily see the link is that they view Iran’s politics and the Ayatollah’s policies through a simplified and binary prism. Their main argument comes down to the fact that Al-Qaeda, a Sunni fundamentalist and extremist group, is against the Shiite and Alawite governments of Iran and Syria.

This very simplistic analysis does not highlight the complexity and nuances of the relationships between Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda and Middle Eastern politics. The link between Iran and Al-Qaeda, in fact, becomes rational when one looks at the objectives of the Aytaollah, Assad’s regime, and Iran’s foreign policy. Both Iran and Syria started this political game with the United States when the uprising started in Syria. They argued that the Syrian government was attacked by Al-Qaeda.

Several reports indicated that Assad, in fact, released many Al-Qaeda members from prison, with Iran assisting their network, in order to buttress the argument that the Assad regime was being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Reportedly, the Al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS have even been selling oil to the Assad regime in exchange for money and recruits with the assistance of Tehran.

In addition, the Islamic Republic can use Al-Qaeda’s Iran-based network to thwart US foreign policy objectives in the region and tip the regional balance of power in favor of Iran and against other regional powers such as Israel.

Iran is also looking for alternatives in case Assad’s apparatuses collapse in Syria. In other words, the Islamic Republic will support its ally as long as Assad can retain his power. If Assad falls, the Islamic Republic will take sides with the winning coalition. Currently, the most powerful groups in Syria are the Al-Qaeda-linked groups. The Islamic Republic will attempt to utilize any powerful extremist groups in order to accomplish its foreign policy goals and ideological and hegemonic objectives.

The perplexing fact is that, if US documents, officials and the Treasury Department have released a report indicating that Iran has been supporting Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda’s Iran-based network, how the United States is still releasing billions of dollars to the Islamic Republic, easing sanctions, and signing conciliatory nuclear deals through diplomatic ways. This seems to be the question that policy analysts, politicians and scholars should pay attention to, rather than debating how Iran can support two opposing groups.

Majid Rafizadeh

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-ayatollahs-back-assad-and-al-qaeda/

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

Abbas and the False Hope of Peace

by Jonathan S. Tobin


The dynamic of the Middle East peace process hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years. Americans and Israelis long for Palestinian leaders to enunciate moderate positions that might make peace possible but tend to misinterpret the mixed signals that are sent from Israel’s negotiating partners. They seize on ambivalent statements that give some inkling of a desire for peace but ignore those utterances that make it clear the Palestinians still have no interest in ending the conflict, especially those made in Arabic to very different audiences. That was what happened every time Yasir Arafat spoke in English when meeting with Americans or Israelis and the same is true for Mahmoud Abbas, his more presentable successor.

This dynamic was on display this weekend when Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president currently serving the 10th year of the four-year term to which he was elected, met with a group of Israeli students. As the Times of Israel reports, Abbas told the delegation of Israelis that he didn’t want to flood Israel with refugees or to re-divide the city of Jerusalem. Taken out of context and ignoring contrary statements from Abbas and other Palestinian leaders and you get the impression that this is a man ready to make peace. No doubt that will be the interpretation placed on these remarks by those seeking to push the Israeli government for more concessions to the Palestinians or to blame it for the ultimate failure of the current negotiations championed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. But a clear-eyed look at Abbas shows just how misleading that would be. Rather than moving closer to peace, Abbas is repeating the routine Arafat perfected in which Israelis and Americans are told what they want to hear while Palestinians get a very different message from their government.


A shift on the Palestinian stance on refugees would mean a lot. As long as the PA holds onto its demand for the so-called “right of return” for refugees and their descendants, it means their goal remains Israel’s eradication. Similarly, recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn would also herald a redefinition of Palestinian nationalism from a creed rooted primarily in rejection of Zionism to one oriented toward developing their own nation.

But even in this seemingly positive statement, Abbas left himself plenty of wriggle room. Saying that he doesn’t wish to “flood” Israel doesn’t mean he’s renounced the right of return. How many Arabs constitute a flood? The answer is amorphous much in the same way previous comments by Abbas have hinted at a change without really delivering it. The point being that nothing short of a concrete renunciation of this longstanding demand means anything.

But let’s assume for a moment that Abbas is actually interested in giving up the right of return. If he were to make such an earth-shaking turnabout, is it remotely possible that he would do so while speaking to an Israeli audience rather than to a gathering of his own people in their own language? 

The answer is no.

As it was with Arafat, who would say to Western reporters he had chosen peace with Israel while telling Palestinians that all he had done was to sign a temporary truce that would be followed by more conflict, Abbas is also playing a double game. Far from echoing Abbas’s moderate statements to the Israeli students, the Palestinian media continues to broadcast and publish a never-ending stream of incitement against Jews and Israel in which terrorism is praised. Indeed, as Palestine Media Watch noted, Abbas has recently personally praised acts of terror against Israeli students.

The same point applies to his pledge not to divide Jerusalem since in the same address he told the Israelis that he would never allow Israel to control the Western Wall, let alone the Temple Mount in the capital’s Old City. In other words, even in the unlikely event of a peace treaty, worship at Judaism’s most sacred places would be dependent on Fatah goodwill rather than Jewish rights.

Another key obstacle to peace is the same one that deterred Kerry’s predecessors from attempting to revive the talks with Israel: Hamas. Though Abbas pretends that the terrorist rulers of Gaza will go along with any agreement he strikes with the Israelis, they continue to exercise a veto over peace that will deter him in much the same way Arafat knew that his signature on a treaty would be a death warrant.

So what is Abbas doing?

It’s not much of a mystery. The Palestinian leader is orchestrating a campaign aimed at diverting Western attention from a negotiating stance based on intransigence rather than moderation. Just as Arafat’s occasional statements about peace distracted both the Western media and the government of the United States from the actual policies he was pursuing as well as the rejectionist culture he had further entrenched via his media and the schools run by the PA, Abbas is trying to do the same thing. In this case, it is part of a game of chicken he’s been playing with Israel’s government to avoid blame for Kerry’s inevitable failure.

Israel should remain open to the possibility that someday the Palestinians will undergo the sort of sea change that will enable their leaders to embrace peace with Israel. But until that actually happens, both the Jewish state and its American ally should ignore Abbas’s deceptions.


Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/17/abbas-and-the-false-hope-of-peace-palestinians-israel/

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

How Al Qaeda Is Winning the War on Terror

by Daniel Greenfield


 

There are two ways of looking at Osama bin Laden’s death. One is to see his end surrounded by wives, pornography and unanswered messages to Al Qaeda leaders who were no longer taking orders from him as the fall of the leader of a failed movement.

The other is to see his death in a walled compound at the heart of the Pakistani military order that had protected him as the fading away of a retired figure in a movement that had outgrown him.

The debate over whether Al Qaeda is on the path to victory or defeat is also a debate over what Al Qaeda is. A vocal school of thought among some foreign experts of the left was that there was no Al Qaeda. The updated version of that thesis was embraced by Obama and some of his subordinates looking to do an end zone dance and hang up the Mission Accomplished banner by celebrating victory over the core of Al Qaeda and dismissing its affiliates, some of which number in the tens of thousands and are fighting to take over entire countries, as Obama put it, as Jayvee players in Lakers uniforms.

But what if the decline of the core Al Qaeda and the growth of its affiliates is the next step? What if the Lakers decided that they don’t need one really good team, but a hundred smaller teams in every city because they want to capture the entire game?

The men hanging up the Mission Accomplished banner in the East Room of the White House say that Al Qaeda can no longer stage another September 11. They may be right, though as with the last attack, we may end up discovering that they are wrong the hard way, but they are also missing the point.

The handful of Al Qaeda still hanging around Afghanistan are probably not going to pull off another spectacular terrorist attack in America, if such an attack did happen it would come out of cells in Europe or the US by terrorists who were born in the West, but who have learned the business from the ground up in Syria or in training camps in Yemen.

Or it may come from one of the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria out to prove that it can wear the NBA Jihad uniform the same way that the original team did… by killing large numbers of Americans.

September 11 was a calling card that served its purpose for Al Qaeda moving it along to its next stage from a series of isolated terror groups to a global army with the manpower to launch full scale guerrilla wars seizing cities and entire regions. The core Al Qaeda doesn’t need another September 11. It will leave that to its affiliates, some of which are already playing with WMDs.

The Al Qaeda that we think we know, the terrorist group with cells lurking and plotting attacks, was only an intermittent stage in its growth strategy. The same is true of most terrorist groups. There was a time when the Communists were just another bunch of quarreling groups. Then they became an army and a country and a whole global union of countries. That is where Al Qaeda wanted to go all along.

Al Qaeda wants to destroy America, but it doesn’t need it to do it in the linear fashion that many imagined after September 11, by scaling up to more and more devastating attacks.

The ‘smaller and smarter’ drone strikes approach to Al Qaeda touted by Obama (if you don’t count the +1500 soldiers killed in Afghanistan) postdates a ‘smaller and smarter’ Al Qaeda approach to America.

Al Qaeda has crowdsourced terrorism to domestic “lone wolf” attackers like the Tsarnaev brothers and Nidal Hasan. Most of the attacks have failed, but as the Boston Marathon massacre reminds us, they only need to succeed once and Al Qaeda doesn’t lose any money or resources on them if they fail.

Its vision for Islamic terrorism in America is a domestic franchise, Al Qaeda in America, made up of American Muslims who are young, online and blend easily into a crowd the way the Tsarnaevs did.

Eventually it envisions Syrian style insurgencies in Western countries and while it may take a while before there are enough Muslims in America to make that a viable proposition, there are European countries whose Muslim demographics are severe enough that they have less time before the war.

This international Islamic revolution with franchises emerging everywhere, going from lone wolf attacks based on training manuals, graduating to terror cells and then to guerrilla armies and finally to emirates that swallow up entire countries is the transformative process that Al Qaeda was meant to undergo.

Al Qaeda has become less of a command center and more of a model to its franchises. Some terror experts read this as a decline, when it’s really a mission accomplished. It means that Al Qaeda has served its purpose as a base. It hasn’t lost, it has won. And the war moves on to the next stage.

There are Al Qaeda franchises, known and unknown, in conflict zones all over the map. Their numbers and their accomplishments have only continued to increase. It is tempting to look at over a decade without another 3,000 dead and declare victory, but that is missing the point. Al Qaeda hasn’t failed to carry out another September 11 because we beat it. It’s been busy doing something else.

A fundamental error of the War on Terror was a misreading of Islamic terrorists as reacting to us when in reality we were reacting to them and allowing them to shape the battlefield.

The foreign policy experts were unable to distinguish between motive and propaganda and assumed that Al Qaeda was motivated by grievances over American foreign policy when the terrorist group was listing any random argument it could throw together for a war that it was determined to start even if the United States had been governed by President Kucinich and his Department of Peace.

Al Qaeda attacked us because after the fall of its old enemy, the USSR, the United States was the only superpower left standing. Attacking America established its credibility, opened the wallets of wealthy Muslim oil millionaires and billionaires and allowed it to begin expanding its global network.

The United States of America was attacked as a representative of Western civilization for a Jihad that is meant to begin in the East and culminate in the West. The attacks on America allowed Al Qaeda to build its brand as the great enemy of the West and the champion of Islam. There was little that we could have done except fight back, but what we failed to do was fight intelligently and aim at the right targets.

Al Qaeda is now on its path to victory. That doesn’t mean that it will win, but an organization that has successfully evolved to launching crowdsourced terrorism against America while fielding guerrilla armies to capture cities in its next stage of warfare in the Middle East is not on a path to defeat. Instead it is moving through the second of Mao’s three phases of insurgency. The third stage is conventional war.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/how-al-qaeda-is-winning-the-war-on-terror/

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

Official: Palestinian Bid to Haul Israel before Court would 'Suck Air' out of Peace Process

by Herb Keinon

Tal Becker, the Foreign Ministry's deputy legal adviser, said the challenge of the Palestinians joining the ICC and then taking Israel before the court is “potentially very significant.”

International Criminal Court in The Hague Photo: REUTERS

If the Palestinians take Israel to the International Criminal Court it would fundamentally alter the relationship with Jerusalem and likely “suck the air” out of the diplomatic process, the Foreign Ministry’s deputy legal adviser said Monday.

Tal Becker, speaking at the annual meeting in Jerusalem of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said the challenge of the Palestinians joining the ICC and then taking Israel before the court is “potentially very significant.”

“One of the main problems with the ICC is the attempt to put Israel in the chair of the accused,” he said, adding that this would give a huge boost to the de-legitimizers and the Boycott and Divestment (BDS) movement. Becker is considered a confidant of Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, and was closely involved with her in the negotiations with the Palestinians that followed the Annapolis Conference in 2007.

“The risk of criminal process would fundamentally alter the relationship and suck the air out of the political process,” he said. “No Israeli government would engage in the process with that threat over its head.”

One of the dangers of the Palestinians seeking admission to the ICC, he said, was that terrorists would attempt to draw IDF soldiers into “impossible” situations, and then take them to the ICC.

Regarding the threat of boycotts, Becker said that the boycott and divestment movement presents Israel with the challenge of not giving it too much significance, while at the same time not being dismissive of it. There is no better gift to someone engaged in the BDS efforts than to describe it as a “great threat” facing Israel, he said.

Yossi Kuperwasser, the director-general of the Intelligence Ministry, said that the boycott efforts were part of the actions by “a formidable group of organizations” who aim to weaken Israel’s ability to defend itself by weakening its legitimacy in international fora. His ministry is involved in drawing up plans to combat these efforts.

“Israel is not going to change policies on the peace process because of threats of economic pressures,” Kuperwasser said. “If the purpose of establishing Israel was to have a prosperous economy, we would not have come here. We came here because this is our ancestral homeland.”

Kuperwasser said he did not expect “significant economic pressure” from the European Union or individual states at a structural level, but would rather face sporadic “events” from various institutions.

Kuperwasser, who has been active in Israel’s campaign to get support for its demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, said that while it was difficult to convince the US of this at first, “they have adopted the idea and now understand that it is very critical.”



Herb Keinon

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Official-Palestinian-bid-to-haul-Israel-before-court-would-suck-air-out-of-peace-process-341710

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

Water for Israelis and Palestinians

by Michael Curtis

One sadly takes for granted the ignorance and the biased perspective of critics of the policies of the State of Israel, such as Oxfam, Amnesty International, the World Council of Churches, the Near East Council of Churches, and the other supporters of the boycott of the state. It is more surprising to find inaccurate information coming from a prominent German Social Democrat and president of the European Parliament, one regarded as a friend of Israel and one who argues that a boycott is not a solution for anything. Sadly, his words on a complex issue echoed the bias of the fallacious Palestinian narrative of victimhood.

On February 12, 2014 Martin Schulz, speaking in German in the Israeli Knesset supported Israel's right to exist and the right of the Jewish people to live in security and peace. He admired the present Israel with its hundreds of startup companies and high-tech research centers with their innovations in microchips, computer tomography, and ultrasound scanners. He also condemned increasing European anti-Semitism, a way of thinking that he thought had been consigned to history. 

Unfortunately, Schulz also spoke of a conversation with unnamed young people who said that an Israeli is allowed 70 liters of water a day, but a Palestinian only 17. Schulz confessed he had not checked the exact figures, but his remark was unfortunately inflammatory because of the disproportionate figures. Schulz, during his visit to Israel was speaking personally and not as an official representative of the EU. Yet his words were a reminder of the declarations and decisions of the European Union which have been prone to bias against Israel. Particularly the guidelines the EU issued for boycott of goods from about Israeli settlements. 

Even on the water issue the EU has not been impartial. The EU funds some of the members of EWASH, the coalition of 30 NGO groups set up in 2002, concerned with the water issue in the West Bank. This group, with which Oxfam is connected, also presents inaccurate information about water policies and statistics. Oxfam had already stated absurdly that the Israeli settlers used six times the amount of water used by Palestinians. There are disparities, which are declining, in access to water between Israelis and Palestinians, but this does not excuse the unfounded claims of Palestinians and the boycotters of Israel that Israel is denying Palestinian water rights.

Water control has always been a problem in the Middle East; it was so under both the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. For Israel and the Palestinians the control concerns three main sources of water: the Sea of Galilee; the Coastal Aquifer along the coastline, between Haifa and Gaza, and the Mountain Aquifer, which is divided into three areas and part of which is Israel's main source of high quality drinking water.

In 1953-55, Eric Johnston, the special envoy of President Eisenhower, formulated a unified water resource development plan of the Jordan River system, allocating quantities of water to the different political states. The plan was accepted by Israel and Jordan, but rejected by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine, the organization headed by the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, the violent opponent of Israel. Already in 1953 the Israeli water carrier had been constructed to take water from the Sea of Galilee to the south of Israel. After 1967 Israeli settlements were connected to the Israeli National Water Carrier by long pipelines. Palestinian towns and villages located along the pipelines were connected to running water.

By the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994 the two countries agreed on a water agreement to share the Jordan River system. Around the same time in the Annex III of the Oslo II Accord of September 1995, Israel recognized Palestinian water rights in the West Bank. There was a partial arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians for the equitable use of joint water and sewage resources and joint management. The agreement detailed the amount of water from each of the West Bank aquifers (Eastern, Northeastern, and Western) to be allocated to Israel and to the PA. A Joint Water Committee, comprised of an equal number of representatives of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and operating through four subcommittees, was set up to deal with approving water supply systems and sewage instillations. It makes decisions by consensus. Israel transferred control, power, and responsibilities, to the Palestinian Authority of Palestinian water supply in the Gaza Strip, except for the Israeli settlements in Gaza at that time, and in the part of the West Bank it controls. This was an interim agreement: the issue of ownership of water and sewage-related infrastructure in the West Bank was to be addressed in the permanent status negotiations.

Under the Oslo Accord of October 1995 Israel agreed to supply Palestinians with 28.6 million cubic meters (MCM/Y) a year: in fact it has been supplying more than 60 MCM/Y. Data on the issue is imperfect and different data are provided by the Water Authority and the World Bank. At present, Palestinians in the West Bank have 127,000 liters of fresh water available per capita a year, while Israelis have 154,000 liters available. In 2009, Palestinians consumed 95,000 liters per capita a year compared to the Israeli 137,000. 

It needs to be said that an accurate comparison depends on the calculation of the size of the Palestinian population in the West Bank. A study by Professor Haim Gvirtzman shows there is now little difference in per capita consumption of natural water between Israelis and Palestinians. The per capita domestic water consumption of Palestinians is much higher than the minimum needs defined by the World Health Organization. 

The Palestinians have been delinquent in building sewage treatment plants. They have lost large amounts of water because of leaky pipes; these losses amount to about a third of the total availability. Palestinian farmers have engaged in water theft. Palestinians have drilled more than 250 unauthorized wells in the West Bank, and 3000 in Gaza, all causing harm to the underground water table. They have also engaged in unauthorized connections to the Israeli water supply pipelines, especially Mekorot, the Israeli National Water Company. 

Nevertheless, nearly all Palestinians are connected to running water. Before 1967, only 4 of the 708 Palestinian towns and villages were connected to a running water network: in 2012 96% of the 708 were connected. All will benefit from the extraordinary increase in desalination that Israel began in 1973. The desalination plants at first supplied only the Dead Sea and Eilat areas. Now, through the five plants along the Mediterranean coast, Israel produces 505 million cubic meters of water a year. By 2020 the amount will be 750 million.

No doubt, for many commentators differences on the water issue are more political than technical. What is important is that Palestinians are responsible for water resources in the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank. It is a major step towards self-government. It is distressing and self-defeating for Vitens, the largest Dutch drinking water supplier, to withdraw from working with Mekorot. If Jordan and the Palestinians can work with the Israeli carrier, why should Vitens and Oxfam and the other boycotters do otherwise unless they want to harm the Palestinians?


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

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/water_for_israelis_and_palestinians.html

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

Netanyahu: Iran Engaged in 'Subversive Activities' in Latin America, World

by Herb Keinon

In meeting with Peruvian president, PM claims that nuclear talks have already allowed Iran to escape from sanctions.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with Peruvian President on Monday in Jerusalem, where the two discussed relations between Israel and Peru and spoke of recent developments with regards to the Iranian nuclear program.

Speaking about Iran's global influence, especially in Latin America, Netanyahu accused Iran of inflammatory behavior, saying  that "Iran is engaged subversive activities around the world, including in Latin America."

The two leaders met on the eve of nuclear talks between world powers and Iran due to re-start Tuesday in Vienna, and Netanyahu told the Peruvian president that a different policy is required than what is currently in place.

"A policy that requires Iran to stop its aggression, to stop its nuclear military program, and to become a nation among the nations, not a rogue state that arms itself with nuclear weapons." he said.

The prime minister continued: "I think it is important for Israel, I think its important for Peru and I think its important for world peace."

Iran is believed to have bases in Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

Humala, in his comments, spoke warmly about increasing economic and global cooperation with Israel, but steered clear of Iranian issue.

Netanyahu rebuffed comments Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made Monday. 

Khamenei said he was not against nuclear talks with western powers but he didn't think they would lead anywhere. 

In response, Netanyahu jested that the nuclear talks had indeed already gone somewhere, allowing Iran to escape from sanctions. 

Netanyahu thanked the Peruvian president for supporting Israel's recent inclusion as an observer in the Pacific Alliance, a Latin American trade bloc comprised of  Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. Netanyahu said its beneficial for both Israel and Peru. 

Netanyahu recalled the meaningful relationship between the two allies. "We remember that Peru supported Israel's bid for statehood is 1947. This is a relationship with roots, and I believe it will have big branches in coming years."

Herb Keinon

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Netanyahu-Iran-engaged-in-subversive-activities-in-Latin-America-world-341660

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

Nigeria: Jihad Mass Murder Death Toll at Christian Village Reaches 106

by Robert Spencer


 

The unimaginable horror of this is compounded by the world’s indifference. The few who dare to call attention to jihad attacks like this one are vilified, mocked, shunned, ridiculed, and defamed, even as such attacks multiply and the body count mounts ever higher. Right now Western governments have apparently decided that jihad attacks like this one can’t happen in their countries, and so don’t matter, and that when they take place in faraway lands such as Nigeria, they need not disturb the comforting fictions about Islam’s jihad doctrine that form the cornerstone of so much of their domestic and foreign policy.

An update on this story. “Over 100 killed in Islamist attack in northern Nigeria,” from AFP, February 16:

Kano (Nigeria) (AFP) – Suspected Boko Haram Islamists killed more than 100 people in an attack on a village in Nigeria, a local senator said on Sunday.
The attackers stormed the village in Nigeria’s restive northeastern Borno state on Saturday, slaughtering scores of civilians and sending many others fleeing.
“A hundred and six people, including an old woman, have been killed by the attackers, suspected to be Boko Haram gunmen,” senator Ali Ndume told AFP.
“Sixty of the dead have been buried while the rest are awaiting burial,” he said, adding the attacks in the area were becoming “deadlier and more frequent by the day.”
The raid took place on Saturday in the mostly Christian village of Izghe in Borno, which has been under emergency rule since May last year in a bid to stop an Islamist rebellion that has claimed thousands of lives since 2009.
A local farmer who escaped by scaling the fence of his house and crawling on his belly for 40 minutes said the attackers had gone door-to-door looking for those hiding in their houses.
“The attackers came around 9:30 pm (20.30 GMT) in six trucks and some motorcycles. They were dressed in military uniform,” Barnabas Idi said. “They asked men to assemble at a place, and began hacking and slaughtering them.”
There were no security forces in the town at the time of the attack, he said.
The head of the local government in the area, Maina Ularamu, earlier told AFP: “From the latest information I have gathered, more than 60 people have been killed.”
“We suspect that the gunmen were members of Boko Haram. They have taken over the village,” said Ularamu.
“They looted businesses and food stores and loaded all their spoils into vehicles owned by residents and fled into the bush,” he added.
The official was speaking from Abuja and said he was preparing to return to Maiduguri, the state capital, to deal with the fallout of the attack.
Hundreds of villagers in Borno had already fled to Maiduguri after Boko Haram militants last week killed 43 people in two separate attacks.
The militant sect has said it is fighting to create a strict Islamic state in Nigeria’s mainly Muslim north.
The southern half of the oil-rich country, Africa’s most populous, is mainly Christian.
Gunmen also attacked a fishing village on Lake Chad on Saturday, killing an unspecified number of residents.
A survivor said several people had drowned in the lake while trying to escape the gunmen.
Military spokesman Mohammed Dole confirmed the attack but declined to comment further saying the area fell under the jurisdiction of a multinational task force comprising troops from Nigeria, Niger and Chad.
Boko Haram militants have carried out frequent attacks in both cities and remote areas of the northeast, despite a military operation launched when emergency rule was declared….

Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/02/nigeria-jihad-mass-murder-death-toll-at-christian-village-reaches-106

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

American Cancer

by D.L. Hammack

An imperial presidency? "Actions that would normally be seen in a banana republic" as Dr. Charles Krauthammer put it in a recent Fox News segment? Call it what you will, but regardless of the moniker we give it, know this: The lawless behavior of our president and his administration is nothing less than a cancer buried deep in the belly of America; a cancer that metastasizes daily consuming the good cells that were once the foundation of this nation. 

The first contact with the disease came with the appearance of a benign organism interested only in uniting us. That's how cancer starts out; under the radar, soft spoken... nothing to see here. Now we find unquantifiable damage from an organism that turned on us the day after it was sworn into office. His brazen disregard for the laws only serve to reveal his true intentions: to infect this land and bring her down from within.

Some will disregard this comparison as outlandish and overstating the facts. I ask you merely to heed the words of a cancer survivor; as I am fully aware of the symptoms and the results of a disease that spreads uncontrollably and unregulated. Unchecked, it will kill you. Unchecked, the actions of this president will allow the spread of a disease that will consume every fiber of the country. Again, take this from one who has felt the devastation that cancer leaves in its path.

One definition of cancer describes it as "a fast-spreading bad phenomenon: usually something negative that develops or spreads quickly and usually destructively." Unchecked, cancer can and will devastate the body and grow exponentially without treatment or removal. What we are witnessing with the daily actions of the president's "pen" are nothing more than the spread of the disease. With each unchecked, unconstitutional action you are given a front row seat to watch it grow in its reach and destruction. Sure, some are voicing their concern over the pain in our gut, but won't go so far as to determine how to get rid of the disease.

It started out with DOMA, when the president stated that his justice department would no longer defend this law. Then came the DREAM act, and now we have 28 unconstitutional changes to the PPACA health care law. That is exactly how cancer starts out: Slowly at first and then when the disease realizes that its presence has gone unnoticed, it spreads out to the next cell (law) and the next and so on. Before you know it, the body no longer recognizes the difference between the bad cells and the good ones. This president has recognized that, for whatever reason, his unlawful acts are not being challenged. The media, years ago, used to be the "sunshine disinfectant" by keeping our leaders in check. They were the MRI that would expose the cancer to the public. Now they blindly dismiss the growth as nothing more than a figment of our imagination. We're all hypochondriacs now! This cancer now spreads and grows bolder each and every day.

Most of us who pay attention recognize that something is seriously wrong at this juncture in our history. There are far too many "scandals" and usurpations of power to simply dismiss as "something other presidents have done." Far too many have retreated in their outspoken criticism of this administration, for fear of reprisal from the arms of government. My wife has actually begged me to abstain from penning my words for fear of retaliation.

My lymphoma cancer spread to stage four because the lymphocytes in my body didn't recognize the cancer cells as enemies. At what point do we realize that there is a cancer in our society and if we don't address it immediately it will spread its tentacles throughout the land and destroy what was the greatest civilization in the history of the world? My cancer was forced into submission only through a stem cell transplant. This was a last resort to thwart the spread of a devastating disease that would have killed me. In my estimation, it would appear that America is in stage two of her cancer. There is still time to remove these bad cells, but it will take great fortitude, an iron will, and reckless disregard for the consequences of acting now.

As quickly as this disease spreads, the last two years of this president's term could be the difference between the survival of the country and its painful death. I chose to survive - perhaps because I was just too stubborn to die. Does America have that same will?

D.L. Hammack

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/american_cancer.html

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

Will Tunisia Defy Arab Spring Pessimism?

by Michael Rubin


Many writers at COMMENTARY cautiously welcomed the Arab Spring, myself included, even with a dose of caution about what might happen should the Muslim Brotherhood hijack the popular uprising that caught them as much as the regimes against which they plotted by surprise.

It was not long before the Arab Spring turned chilly. The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates rose to dominate Egypt and Tunisia. Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, and Syria descended into violence. While some analysts pointed out that the monarchies—Bahrain excepted—showed particular resilience amidst the winds of the Arab Spring, this might have less to do with fundamentals and could instead have been sheer dumb luck. Jordan, for example, remains highly susceptible to an uprising that could challenge if not unseat the regime. Stability in Saudi Arabia remains far from assured.

The fundamental problem has been that both governments and opposition movements have embraced the rhetoric of democracy, but not its spirit. Opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have looked at the Arab Spring as an opportunity to seize power and replicate the same dictatorship against which they once fought.

The exception, of course, has been Tunisia. Ennahda, an Islamist party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, won a plurality in elections to form the government which would oversee drafting of a new constitution but, against the backdrop of popular discord with its conservatism, it agreed to step down last month in favor of a caretaker government rather than seek to dominate as have Islamist parties elsewhere in the Middle East. Today, polls show that 70 percent of Tunisians believe their country is heading in the right direction, a sharp uptick since only 15 percent believed it was before Ennahda agreed to step down.

Tunisia isn’t out of the woods yet. Oussama Romdhani, a former communications minister under the Ben Ali government, yet a figure widely respected as a self-made and honest man despite his association with the previous regime, has a must-read column in Al-Arabiya assessing the current state of Tunisian politics and the dangers which lurk ahead. Every post-Arab Spring government, even the best intentioned, has had to confront unrealistic expectations of supporters and the conspiracy theories of critics. Still, rather than give into America’s new isolation trend, it is important to support Tunisia as it moves forward, because if one Arab state can navigate Arab Spring turbulence into a more tranquil future, then it can become a model for others who otherwise might teeter between Islamist dictatorship or regression to more secular authoritarianism.


Michael Rubin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/17/will-tunisia-defy-arab-spring-pessimism/

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

Iran: Behind Rouhani's Smile, Reza Shahabi Tortured In Prison

by Shadi Paveh

"Things have become worse since Rouhani came to power. Our only hope is human rights organizations outside Iran. Please do something to help us.... Please do something quickly." — Reza Shahabi, bus driver who wanted fair wages and safe working conditions.
Additionally, Mr. Shahabi has been ordered to pay an extortionate fine of 70 million Rials (US$5,700) or his release date will be delayed by two years.

Since the Islamic Republic of Iran has continuously violated labor laws, workers have been fighting for unions, fair wages and safe working conditions inside the country. As a result, a number of labor activists have been arrested, tortured and given long prison sentences on charges of acting "against the regime and national security."

Mr. Reza Shahabi was a city bus driver when, along with many of his colleagues, he formed a labor rights group for The Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company. He was arrested in 2010 and subsequently sentenced to six years imprisonment by the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Tehran—five years for "gathering and colluding against state security," and one year for "spreading propaganda against the system."



He was initially kept in the most feared section of Evin prison -- Ward 209 -- where prisoners are systematically tortured until they confess to the arbitrary and vague charges chosen by the authorities. According to Mr. Shahabi's family and many human rights groups; Mr. Shahabi now therefore suffers from debilitating chronic pain due to damaged discs in his neck and upper back and is experiencing numbness in his left leg.

Although he was approved for spinal surgery by prison authorities in May 2012 -- thanks to an international outcry from various human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, the Campaign to Free Political Prisoners in Iran [CFPPI], and the International Federation for Human Rights [FIDH], to name just a few -- Mr. Shahabi was returned to prison shortly after surgery, despite his doctor's orders that the patient must have strict bed rest for three months outside prison conditions. The return to prison has obstructed his recovery.

To protest the deliberate withholding of medical treatment for political prisoners, he has gone on frequent hunger strikes. As a result, according to an Amnesty International report, Mr. Shahabi was granted a brief medical leave in early 2013, but was soon sent back.

The quality and nature of the treatments, if any, that Mr. Shahabi received during his furlough are unknown. What is known, is that Mr. Shahabi's condition has worsened to the point that he is incapable of moving without the help of his cellmates. Hospital doctors have stated that he needs further spinal surgery along with physiotherapy. The doctors have further warned authorities that without treatment, Mr. Shahabi's condition will lead to complete paralysis of his entire left side.

On August 10, 2013, security forces attacked prisoners of ward 350 of Evin prison where Mr. Shahabi is being held. Mr. Shahabi was grabbed and thrown on the floor even though other prisoners warned the agents about Mr. Shahabi's fragile condition. This attack seriously intensified it. On September 4th, 2013, the Tehran Coroner's Office examined Reza Shahabi at Evin prison. Based on a MRI scan it was confirmed a disc connected to three vertebrae was critically damaged, and that he should be immediately transferred to hospital for surgery.

Although Mr. Shahabi was technically approved for medical furlough by prison authorities, and taken to a hospital, according to HRANA News Agency's February 7, 2014 report, he was promptly returned to prison without treatment and his medical furlough revoked -- a tactic apparently often used by the regime to make it look as if the prisoner received medical treatment in order to appease the public and human rights groups.

According to reports from reliable sources inside Iran, including Mr. Shahabi's family, his condition is deteriorating rapidly and yet the prison authorities and the attorney general, despite published news to the contrary, deny him medical leave from prison. In an extremely rare and daring phone call from Evin prison in November of 2013, Mr. Shahabi told CFPPI:

"The condition for those inside prison who need medical intervention is getting worse daily. Things have become even worse since Rouhani came to power. We are denied all medicine and help. ... no matter what our medical ailment is they just give us a shot of cortisone ... which does not help many of our conditions. Please do something quickly… things are getting worse daily for us. ... You are our only hope. Our only hope is human rights organizations outside Iran. Please do something to help us."

Additionally, Mr. Shahabi has been ordered to pay an extortionate "fine" of 70 million Rials (US$5,700) or his release date will be delayed to May 2016 from May 2014. The prosecutor is also seeking to bring the new charge of "enmity to God" for alleged involvement with a banned opposition group that advocates overthrowing the Islamic Republic. This new charge can bring forth the death penalty or decades more in prison. It is believed that the authorities are trying heavily to punish Mr. Shahabi and his family, for reporting to international human rights organizations regarding the regime's unremitting human rights violations.

Much like the North Korean government; the Islamic Republic is known to be highly sensitive to any news regarding the situation inside Iran reaching the West and stops at nothing to prevent it, including blocking websites, disabling the internet, jamming foreign satellite systems and silencing all opponents.


Shadi Paveh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4176/iran-reza-shahabi-tortured

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