LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 16/19

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.february16.19.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Bible Quotations For today
For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?’For from him and through him and to him are all things
Letter to the Romans 11/25-36: “So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, ‘Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.’‘And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.’As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?’ ‘Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?’For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on February 15-16/19
Family of Imam Sadr visits Pope Francis, solicits support for Imam’s cause
Govt. Wins Confidence Vote as Hariri Says CEDRE Not Aimed at 'Naturalization'
Berri Praises as ‘Moderate’ Hariri’s February 14 Speech
Ammar Lauds Hariri's 'Efforts', Says Hizbullah 'Not Fond of Weapons'
Fadlallah: Ex-PMs May be Held Accountable over Missing Funds
Raad Apologizes for Moussawi Remarks after FPM-LF-Kataeb Talks
Kataeb, LF Officials Laud Raad Apology over Moussawi Remarks
Sayyed Clashes with Hariri, Fatfat as Parliament Resumes Policy Statement Debate
Judge Says Abu Diab Not Killed by ISF, Tawhid Party Slams 'Political' Report
Hassan to Euronews: Determined to Get the Truth Behind Hariri’s Assassination
Molotov Cocktail Hurled at Kataeb Office Overnight
Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel: We Are Ready for Openness, But Won't Give up the Country
Sayegh: Corruption and Arms Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Litles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on February 15-16/19
U.N. Envoy Says Seeking 'Door-Opener' for Syria Peace
Israel Leaked Video of Gulf Ministers at Anti-Iran Meet
Trump Declares 'Emergency' to Build Wall, Democrats Slam Unlawful 'Power Grab'
U.S. Struggles to Convince Anti-IS Allies to Secure Syria after It Leaves
Yemen FM Says Seated Next to Netanyahu in 'Error'
Maduro Blasts U.S. for 'Stealing' Billions and Offering 'Crumbs'

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 15-16/19
Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel: We Are Ready for Openness, But Won't Give up the Country/Kataeb.org/February 15/19
Pompeo to Netanyahu: Confronting Iran Key to Mideast Stability, Peace/Noa Landau/Haaretz/February 15/19
Mullahs Masquerading as Patriots: Will it Work/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/February 15/19
The European List and the Injustice Towards Saudi Arabia/Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al Awsat/February 15/19
May’s Brexit Plan Found at the Bottom of a Glass/Therese Raphael/Bloomberg View/February 15/19
Syrian Opposition: Arab Rapprochement With Assad Legitimizes His Crimes, Strengthens Iran/MEMRI/February 15/19
Religion vs. Free Speech/Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/February 15/2019
Islamic Necrophilia: Or, “Every Hole Is a Goal”/Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/February 15/19
As Iran sinks financially, Iraqi militias generate funds via protection rackets/Michael Flanagan/Arabiya English/February 15/19

 The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on February 15-16/19
Family of Imam Sadr visits Pope Francis, solicits support for Imam’s cause
Fri 15 Feb 2019/Family of Imam Moussa al-Sadr at the Vatican, whereby he assured that their "good deeds were a concrete interpretation of their words which stem from love for those in need," according to a statement by the family. The Pope welcomed the family delegation headed by Rabab al-Sadr, the sister of the disappeared Imam, and listened with great interest to their narration of the "the exceptional personality of Imam Sadr, his thought, his approach and his achievements.”The delegation also relayed the story of the Imam's forced vanishing in Libya, along with his two companions. The family explained in its statement that "the visit comes within the framework of following up on the issue of Imam al-Sadr's disappearance, in an attempt to obtain the support of the Holy See for this just cause, and to emphasize that it is not a family cause or a sect cause, but an international humane cause concerning the first Muslim religious figure to ever be invited to the Vatican to attend the coronation ceremony of the Pope in 1963. He prayed on the altar of the Church of the Capuchins Fathers in 1975 for the unity of Lebanon and the Lebanese."The family said it intended to solicit the Supreme Pontiff’s support to the cause, reassured that "the Pope, who recently signed the brotherhood and humanity document in the United Arab Emirates with the Sheikh of Al-Azhar will not hesitate to uphold the cause of a Muslim cleric who respected the right of difference, and who was confident that the message of the Lebanese was that of co-existence."

Govt. Wins Confidence Vote as Hariri Says CEDRE Not Aimed at 'Naturalization'
Naharnet/February 15/19/Saad Hariri’s new government won a vote of confidence in parliament on Friday as the premier stressed that the CEDRE economic conference is not a “bribe” for naturalizing Syrian refugees in the country. 111 out of 128 MPs gave the government their confidence. Six lawmakers meanwhile withheld confidence -- Kataeb’s three lawmakers in addition to Osama Saad, Jamil al-Sayyed and Paula Yacoubian. “Unfortunately some see the CEDRE conference as a bribe for naturalizing refugees and these are baseless political illusions,” Hariri said in a speech in parliament that preceded the vote. “We cannot blame all our problems on the refugees,” he stressed. “The year 2019 is the year for finding a serious solution for electricity and if this does not happen, we will all fail as government, parliament and presidency,” Hariri added. The PM also lamented that “some parties criticize as if they were not present in the previous governments.”The government’s Policy Statement calls for reforms in state finances, the economy and the crumbling electricity sector, which costs state coffers about $2 billion a year. The statement also says that “Lebanese citizens” have the right to "resist Israeli occupation and repel its aggression."The new Cabinet was announced late last month, breaking a nine-month deadlock that had deepened Lebanon's economic woes.

Berri Praises as ‘Moderate’ Hariri’s February 14 Speech
Naharnet/February 15/19/Speaker Nabih Berri on Friday praised as “moderate” the speech delivered by Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Thursday marking the 14th assassination anniversary of his slain father ex-PM Rafik Hariri. “The speech was moderate, good and understanding of the deputies' speeches during the government policy discussions,” said Berri. "The Parliament will give confidence to the government either today or tomorrow at the latest, and I hope that the speech we have heard will be put into action," said the Speaker. “After completion of the confidence sessions, the parliament is determined to start holding legislative and monitoring sessions on a monthly and periodical basis,” he added. "I was very pleased with the positions uttered by Prime Minister Hariri as he noted that the cabinet may be called to convene twice to thrice a week," Berri added, underlining "the importance of what Hariri had addressed in his speech touching on the file of corruption." "In my opinion, the implementation of laws is in itself an end to corruption. There are 39 laws still pending in the council awaiting implementation. I am certain that the implementation of these laws will put an end to 90% of corruption," the Speaker concluded.

Ammar Lauds Hariri's 'Efforts', Says Hizbullah 'Not Fond of Weapons'
Naharnet/February 15/19/MP Ali Ammar of Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc on Friday voiced appreciation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri and said that Hizbullah is not “fond of killing and weapons.”“When I read the government's Policy Statement I felt that it rises to the level of national responsibility in its best form,” Ammar said in parliament during a session to debate the Policy Statement. “Hariri exerted strenuous efforts in exploring the viewpoints of all parties,” Ammar acknowledged. He added: “The country needs us all and anyone who thinks that they can eliminate the other would be extremely delusional.”Referring to Hizbullah's controversial arsenal of arms, he said: “We are not fond of killing and weapons and we ask you for a quick (national) defense strategy.”

Fadlallah: Ex-PMs May be Held Accountable over Missing Funds
Naharnet/February 15/19/MP Hassan Fadlallah of Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc on Friday announced that “there are manipulated and missing documents” that could land some ex-PMs in jail. “There is a 2007 grant worth $10 million and its documents are missing according to auditors,” Fadlallah said ahead of a parliamentary session for debating the new government's Policy Statement. “There are ex-PMs who might be held responsible and accountable,” the MP said. “We are facing a disastrous and dangerous situation and we thank the Finance Ministry for finalizing the auditing,” Fadlallah stated. He added: “There are a lot of documents that could land a lot of people in jail and we want the judiciary to shoulder its responsibilities.”

Raad Apologizes for Moussawi Remarks after FPM-LF-Kataeb Talks
Naharnet/February 15/19/The head of Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc, MP Mohammed Raad, on Friday apologized on behalf of the bloc over remarks voiced Wednesday by MP Nawwaf al-Moussawi. “An undesired debate erupted between some colleagues in the previous session and entailed rejected remarks that were voiced by one of our brothers in the bloc,” Raad said, describing Moussawi's statements as “a personal reaction that exceeded limits.”“I apologize to you and in the name of the Loyalty to Resistance bloc and I ask for omitting those remarks from the minutes of meeting,” Raad added, addressing Speaker Nabih Berri. Raad's stance follows a reported mediation that the Free Patriotic Movement led with the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb parties, according to OTV. “The FPM is reportedly carrying out a mediation to contain the repercussions resulting from Nawwaf al-Moussawi's remarks,” OTV reported.
Earlier in the day, MPs from the FPM, the LF and Kataeb held a meeting on the sidelines of the confidence session in parliament to discuss Moussawi's remarks.During a speech by MP Sami Gemayel in parliament on Wednesday, Moussawi said “it honors the Lebanese that President Michel Aoun was elected through the rifle of the resistance while others reached the presidency on an Israeli tank.”Nadim Gemayel hit back during the session, saying “no one reached the presidency on the top of an Israeli tank.”“You were throwing rice on the Israelis and most of you voted for President Bashir in this parliament,” he added, apparently referring to some Shiite citizens and ex-MPs. Moussawi snapped back, saying: “Your size is equivalent to an Israeli tank.”

Kataeb, LF Officials Laud Raad Apology over Moussawi Remarks
Naharnet/February 15/19/Officials from the Kataeb Party, the Lebanese Forces and other parties on Friday lauded an apology by MP Mohammed Raad, the head of Hizbullah's parliamentary bloc, over remarks voiced Wednesday by MP Nawwaf al-Moussawi.
“If apologizing for a mistake is a virtue, acknowledging each other's martyrs is patriotism. From now on, we should not disagree over the truth: Bashir (Gemayel) is the dream of a people and the martyr of the republic,” MP Nadim Gemayel of the Kataeb bloc tweeted.
Raad had earlier apologized over Moussawi's remarks on Bashir Gemayel and President Michel Aoun, saying the “rejected” statements were “a personal reaction that exceeded limits.”During a speech by MP Sami Gemayel in parliament on Wednesday, Moussawi said “it honors the Lebanese that President Michel Aoun was elected through the rifle of the resistance while others reached the presidency on an Israeli tank.” Nadim Gemayel hit back, saying “no one reached the presidency on the top of an Israeli tank.”
Lauding Raad's remarks on Friday, MP Sethrida Geagea of the LF bloc said “even political rivalry can be honorable.”MP George Adwan of the LF meanwhile revealed that he played a role in a mediation that led to Raad's apology.
“I took the initiative on Wednesday evening and I carried out several phone calls to pacify the situation in parliament. I telephoned Minister Jebran Bassil and MP Sami Gemayel and invited them to a meeting and MP Raad later told me that they will voice a stance in the name of the bloc,” Adwan said.
MP Imad Wakim of the LF meanwhile described Raad's move as a “courageous and responsible step.”“This is the rhetoric that we want among the Lebanese: political competition with mutual respect. Peace be upon those who want peace,” Wakim added. Social Affairs Minister Richard Kouyoumjian of the LF said: “We honorably meet with those who face us with honorable words and we chivalrously and ethically rival those who respect the right to disagreement.”For his part ex-minister Melhem Riachi of the LF said “respecting the ethics of discourse is the basis for building an exemplar country.”“We will build together on the bravery of apology. Bashir will not die,” Riachi added. Former president Michel Suleiman meanwhile said he “salutes” Raad, calling for drawing lessons from “this courageous initiative.”

Sayyed Clashes with Hariri, Fatfat as Parliament Resumes Policy Statement Debate
Naharnet/February 15/19/MP Jamil al-Sayyed on Friday engaged in a verbal clash with Prime Minister Saad Hariri, MP Sami Fatfat and a number of Mustaqbal MPs and ministers, as the parliament resumed its debate of the new government's Policy Statement. The heated exchange erupted when Fatfat hit back at remarks voiced by Sayyed on Tuesday. “An apology should be addressed to every young man arrested between the years 1992 and 2005,” Fatfat said, accusing Sayyed without naming him of “fabricating cases.” Sayyed hit back, blasting Fatfat as a “youngster” and a “chick.”Hariri intervened at this point, telling Sayyed: “It would be better if you don't talk. Respect yourself!”“This is someone who doesn't respect martyrs and you are letting him talk,” the PM added. Sayyed snapped back saying, "You respect yourself!" The MP had on Tuesday called on Hariri to “apologize” over “the four years that the four officers spent in jail,” referring to himself and three other former chiefs of security agencies who were jailed in connection with the 2005 assassination of ex-PM Rafik Hariri before being cleared of any charges. MP Jihad al-Samad, a member of the Hizbullah-backed Consultative Gathering, had called on Hariri earlier in the session to "begin reform from the Internal Security Forces directorate and OGERO." Al-Samad also criticized FPM ministers who have lodged signed resignations with their party's leadership. MP Alain Aoun meanwhile lauded MP Mohammed Raad's apology over remarks voiced by MP Nawwaf al-Moussawi, describing it as “the epitome of national responsibility, patriotism and keenness on coexistence.” “Bashir Gemayel is one of Lebanon's iconic martyrs and is an icon for large segments of the Lebanese and a former Lebanese president. Any attack against him that exceeds political criticism is an attack on national unity,” Aoun said. And noting that Moussawi had “good intentions” when he said that President Michel Aoun was “elected through the rifle of the resistance,” Aoun lamented that the remarks have been “exploited by some political parties.”
“The Free Patriotic Movement has acknowledged Hizbullah's role in the election of President Aoun as well as that of the Lebanese Forces, al-Mustaqbal Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party, but President Aoun was elected in a purely political process that did not involve any weapons or rifle,” Aoun added.MP Talal Arslan meanwhile said that Lebanon's Druze are "worried over their fate and existence" and their participation in the political system.
MP Salim Aoun for his part announced that "had it not been for the strong president, we would not have had an electoral law and elections."
"Let us make use of President Aoun's presence in power instead of fearing it," he urged.
MP Ibrahim Kanaan meanwhile said that he "values" Raad's apology, saying "it proves that communication among the nation's MPs and blocs is essential regardless of any disputes." "The tripartite equation that should be raised in this period is reform, reform and reform, seeing as the state is facing an existential threat in the absence of reform in its finances and economy," Kanaan added. Speaker Nabih Berri has asked all MPs to be present in parliament before 10:00 pm in order to vote on the government's Policy Statement. The Policy Statement calls for reforms in state finances, the economy and the crumbling electricity sector, which costs state coffers about $2 billion a year. The statement also says that “Lebanese citizens” have the right to "resist Israeli occupation and repel its aggression." The new Cabinet was announced late last month, breaking a nine-month deadlock that had deepened Lebanon's economic woes.

Judge Says Abu Diab Not Killed by ISF, Tawhid Party Slams 'Political' Report
Naharnet/February 15/19Assistant State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Fadi Akiki announced Friday that the gunshot that killed Mohammed Abu Diab during the Jahliyeh incidents was not fired by the Internal Security Forces. In a report wrapping up his investigations, Akiki also filed a lawsuit against persons unknown over the death of Abu Diab, who was one of ex-minister Wiam Wahhab's bodyguards. Wahhab's Arab Tawhid Party meanwhile issued a statement slamming what it called Akiki's “political report.”“We will meet in court and no one will be able to vindicate the security force except the court,” the party said. “We have an ISF forensic report that says that a U.S.-made bullet struck the martyr Mohammed Abu Diab from a distance of 320 to 360 meters,” the party added, noting that the ISF uses bullets of the same caliber (5.56mm) mentioned in Akiki's report.
“Everyone knows and the official licenses reveal that the guards of ex-minister Wiam Wahhab's house use Russian-made rifles of the 7.67mm caliber,” the party said. It added that party chief Wahhab will hold a press conference on Saturday in which he will urge President Michel Aoun, the justice minister and the state commissioner to the military court to “put an end to Akiki's farce.”Abu Diab was killed as gunfire erupted during an ISF raid to inform Wahhab of the need to appear before a court over remarks he voiced against Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

Hassan to Euronews: Determined to Get the Truth Behind Hariri’s Assassination
Naharnet/February 15/19/Interior Minister Raya al-Hassan stressed on Friday that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the assassination of ex-PM Rafik Hariri is carrying out its tasks as she emphasized determination for getting the truth.“The STL is playing it role and we have to wait for the investigation results. But, at the same time we must know the perpetrators behind the crime because we are determined to know the truth,” the Minister said in remarks to Euronews network. On assuming the post of interior minister and whether it surprised her, she said: “There is no problem with a woman taking over an exceptional and sovereign portfolio in the country. This is a unique experience that should be replicated in other institutions and ministries.” On the security file, Hassan confirmed that the two directorates of General Security and Internal Security Forces linked to her ministry are run by two of the “best officials in Lebanon and are known for their efficiency.”The Minister added that a lot of reforms are being implemented, such as “strict implementation of the traffic law, the removal of obstacles, concrete walls and other barriers (hindering traffic and blocking streets), in addition to the airport security, municipal development,” and other files. On domestic violence against women, Hassan said she will make sure it doesn't go unreported. “There is a need for abused women to find an official destination to resort to if they are harassed or threatened,” she said. “Police stations in Lebanon and in every village should listen to women's complaints. I will be strict about this.”

Molotov Cocktail Hurled at Kataeb Office Overnight
Naharnet/February 15/19/Unknown assailants hurled a petrol bomb overnight at the Kataeb party’s office in the vicinity of Mirna Chalouhi center in the neighborhood of Sin el-Fil, the National News Agency reported on Friday. NNA said the explosion inflicted material damages and that no injuries were reported. Investigations were opened into the incident. The assault came after a heated debate between Hizbullah and Kataeb lawmakers during a parliamentary session discussing the government's policy statement on Wednesday.

Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel: We Are Ready for Openness, But Won't Give up the Country
Kataeb.org/February 15/19
Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel on Friday stressed that the party will continue to fight corruption and strive for Lebanon's independence and sovereignty, affirming that it will never compromise the nation. “Fighting corruption through our national struggle will remain a top priority and we will continue to defend the people even if some of our friends get annoyed,” Gemayel said in his speech at the Kataeb party's 31st congress. “The Kataeb does not have two faces and two political rhetoric; we have never deceived the people,” he stated, adding that the party “is open to everyone because it believes in the importance of dialogue and cooperation to reach national goals; however, this doesn't mean that we will ever compromise our values and constants.”“We favor communication and openness, but we will not give up the country and our opposition will be honest and courageous."“It is true that the Kataeb is today paying the price for its constants and positions, but this is nothing compared to the tremendous sacrifices that those before us had made,” he stressed. “Throughout its history, the Kataeb went through hardships and difficult times, but nothing and no one was able to eliminate it."
“The Kataeb party has been at the heart of the struggle for independence for 80 years. It has made tremendous sacrifices for Lebanon's independence; it has and will always live for Lebanon,” he said. “Our resistance has never been targeted against anyone; it is only aimed at building a nation.”
Gemayel outlined the Kataeb's commitment to speaking the truth no matter what, noting that what the Kataeb lawmakers said this week during the Parliament sessions is the only thing that has stayed in the Lebanese people's minds "because truth is the strongest weapon”.
“The Parliament does not belong to anyone. The political settlement that was sealed a few years ago will not tame everyone. There will always be free voices that speak up the truth in the Parliament,” Gemayel assured. “We will continue to defend the people even if some will get irritated by that. No one will be able to muzzle us. Intimidation will not affect us. We have never feared anything and will continue to defend Lebanon's independence and sovereignty even if standing alone,” Gemayel stressed.
“I quote Martyr Pierre Gemayel who once said: Who said that we do not adore to be threatened and adore resisting?”Gemayel deemed the current phase as decisive and pivotal in the history of Lebanon, adding that it is time to make a serious change in order to build the country that everyone aspires to. “Amid the chaos, confusion and the power struggle battering the country, we must find an answer to one key question: Which Lebanon do we want?”“The Lebanon that we want is free, sovereign and independent; we want a pluralistic and developed country,” he interjected.
Gemayel deplored the fact that Lebanon's sovereignty is still incomplete due to the presence of a non-state group that is "dragging Lebanon into conflicts, undermining stability, weakening the economy, preventing justice, stirring up enmity with other countries, and dashing equality between the Lebanese."
“What is even more dangerous than all else is that non-state arms are disrupting and controlling the formation of authorities in Lebanon” he said, specifically referring to the recent acknowledgement made by a Hezbollah MP who said that President Michel Aoun was elected thanks to the “the rifle of the Resistance”.
“Openly admitting that non-state arms had the biggest influence in the presidential election, the government formation and the parliamentary polls is exactly what he had constantly warned of. This has dashed all the slogans and pretexts that have been repeatedly presented over the past period. While others were hiding behind illusive pretexts, we had the courage to say the truth as it is.”“Martyr President Bachir Gemayel taught us to resist and say the truth, not to deceive, maneuver and yield to the de-facto reality,” he stressed. “Bachir’s project was to disband militias starting with his own Lebanese Forces.”“Does national partnership mean handing the country over to a non-state group?” Gemayel asked in an address to Christian forces. “Power becomes illusive when it is linked to the relinquishment of the country's sovereignty and independence”.
“Hezbollah has repeatedly said that it would put down its arms once it trusts the State,” he noted. “If that is true, then why don't you do that now that you got a president to office and engineered the new government? Aren't you saying that you got President Aoun to power? Then why don't you hand him your arms? If you do not want to hand him over your weapons, then to whom would you want to do that?” Gemayel pointed out that the struggle for Lebanon’s sovereignty will not stop the party from thinking in building a better the future, because the ongoing violation of sovereignty and independence is the result, not the main problem.”
“Over the past 80 years, we’ve been suffering from institutional disruption, and we have been seeing the Lebanese people’s lives being put on hold due to recurrent and continuous crises as well as foreign interference,” he said. “It is time to put an end to lies and to stop the cycle of conflicts that the country keeps whirling inside,” he stressed. “Constitutional mechanisms must be reconsidered by setting deadlines for the presidential election and the government formation.” “We must preserve the 1943 National Pact that laid the foundations for coexistence and national partnership,” he noted. “The Constitutional texts that sought to manage coexistence have turned out to be a failure as sectarian identity has been favored over the national one, and good citizenship is still missing.” “It is time to move from sectarianism to pluralism. It is time to establish a political system that respects all citizens, regardless of their sects, and safeguards pluralism in the country,” he highlighted.
“Let’s transform Lebanon’s diversity from a curse into a blessing through a system that protects the person while preserving historical characteristics.”“It is time to establish decentralization in order to draw the State closer to the people, ease the power struggle and alleviate the burdens endured by the State,” he reiterated. “Once decentralization is applied, the country will no longer stay in limbo pending major political stalemates, such as the protracted government formation, to be solved.”Gemayel outlined the need to embrace neutrality as the only policy that protects Lebanon and curbs foreign allegiance. “It is time to reflect on a new political approach in the country. No one is thinking about the fundamental issues and challenges facing the country,” Gemayel urged. “We cannot continue to wait for all the country's problems to be solved so that we would start thinking of how to improve it. It is time to stop deferring a thorough examination of our problems,” he added.
“Sovereignty and the nation-building represent the fundamental basis of our political approach in the next stage; however, the Kataeb party will also continue to address the daily economic, social, environmental, educational problems in the country.”
“My friend Ramzi Najjar once said to me that the Kataeb party is bigger than independence but smaller than Lebanon. I respond to that by saying that the Kataeb is bigger than independence but has died for it, and it is smaller than Lebanon but lives for it,” Gemayel stated. Gemayel hailed all the Kataeb supporters and partisans as the “rock” that safeguards Lebanon’s democracy, praising them for withstanding all challenges, temptations, intimidation and skepticism.
“My comrades, you are the rock that will preserve this country!”
Then, he addressed the Kataeb veterans by saying: “I was raised by you and I am honored to have grown up with people who were and still are ready to do anything for the sake of Lebanon. I have had the privilege to be raised in a Kataeb family.”
“My goal in the upcoming four years is to safeguard the struggle, sadness and tears that you have presented and endured for this country. My objective is to stop the shedding of tears and blood and work hard to build and defend Lebanon no matter, and to speak the truth no matter what. That is the Kataeb’s mission,” Gemayel concluded.

Sayegh: Corruption and Arms Are Two Sides of the Same Coin
Kataeb.org/February 15/19Kataeb's Deputy-President Salim Sayegh on Thursday said that Hezbollah is "engineering" the political life in Lebanon, notably the recent government formation, warning that the problem lies in the fact that arms and corruption have become closely interconnected. "Corruption and arms are two sides of the same coin, with one protecting the other," Sayegh said in an interview on MTV. "On the political level, we consider Hezbollah to be a Lebanese party. But it is also an existing military militia that is affiliated to a certain axis, and it doesn't deny this accusation," he added. Sayegh noted that the Kataeb party doesn't mind engaging in a dialogue with Hezbollah, but will surely not accept to seal absurd settlements at the expense of the State's welfare and the nation-building project. The Kataeb official stressed the need to eradicate corruption that is plaguing the State institutions and to forge equality between all the Lebanese, adding that it is time to stop discrimination and enforce the rule of the law equally across the country.
Sayegh voiced regret over the disintegration of the March 14 alliance, deploring the fact that the country has turned into statelets instead of becoming a real State following the rare opportunity that was made possible in 2005.
"Nonetheless, our struggle is not over yet. We have to seek to turn the same slogans into actions, provided that we draw lessons from everything that happened since 2005," he said. "We have to restore political balance, or else we will be dragged into more instability."Sayegh dismissed claims that the presence of an opposition force would lead to a civil war, saying that it is time to learn the culture of democracy and refrain from attacking those who have different viewpoints than the ruling authority.

Latest LCCC English Miscellaneous Reports & News published on February 15-16/19
U.N. Envoy Says Seeking 'Door-Opener' for Syria Peace
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 15/19/The new U.N. envoy for Syria said Friday he was striving to create a committee on drafting a post-war constitution that could hopefully open the way to a peaceful end to the conflict. Norwegian Geir Pedersen, who last month became the fourth United Nations negotiator working to resolve almost eight years of bloodshed in Syria, said he was continuing his predecessor Staffan de Mistura's work to set up a constitutional committee. "I see the constitutional committee as the potential door-opener for the political process," Pedersen told reporters in Geneva, pointing to a U.N. resolution adopted in 2015 calling for the creation of a new Syrian constitution followed by U.N.-supervised elections. De Mistura ended his four-year tenure late last year with an abortive push to form a committee tasked with drawing up a post-war constitution after seeing repeated rounds of talks in Geneva come to nothing. Pedersen, a career diplomat, said he hoped he would be able to overcome the obstacles to creating the committee. "It is obviously my hope that we will be able to as soon as possible have the constitutional committee meet in Geneva," he said. He did not say when such a meeting could take place, but the hope was that it would trigger "some serious discussions that could be the door-opener to a political process that will lead to a negotiated outcome of the conflict." Syria's war has killed more than 360,000 people and displaced millions since the conflict began with the repression of anti-government protests in 2011. The regime has made a military comeback with Russian military support since 2015, and now holds almost two-thirds of Syria. Pedersen acknowledged he was facing a daunting task of rekindling moribund peace talks and succeeding where his three predecessors failed.
Since the start of January, he has been traveling extensively to meet with the Syrian government, the opposition and others to try to move the process forward. In Damascus, he said he was "very positively received" and had in-depth on the nature of his mandate. "I have stressed that confidence building is needed," he said, calling for ceasefires and more prisoner releases from both sides in the hope this could move things forward. "The aim is to have a negotiated outcome."

Israel Leaked Video of Gulf Ministers at Anti-Iran Meet
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 15/19/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office leaked video of Gulf Arab ministers slamming Iran during a closed-door session of a Middle East conference in Warsaw, Israeli media reported Friday. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states which do not recognise Israel sent top diplomats to attend this week's conference alongside Netanyahu, something the prime minister and his US ally have talked up as a new regional axis against Iran. Israeli correspondents who travelled with Netanyahu to the two-day conference said that the prime minister had hinted to them during a briefing that his staff had footage of Gulf ministers addressing a session on Iran on Wednesday. Israel's Maariv newspaper said that the following day, "the prime minister’s office posted (and shortly thereafter deleted) a video from the closed introductory panel about Iran."Netanyahu's office declined to comment to AFP. On Friday, the Haaretz newspaper ran what it said were leaked clips, in one of which Bahrain's foreign minister is seen saying that Iran poses a "more toxic challenge" to the region than Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
- 'More toxic than Palestine' -
"We grew up talking about the Palestine-Israel dispute as the most important issue," Foreign Minister Khaled bin Ahmed al-Khalifa tells fellow delegates. "But then, at a later stage, we saw a bigger challenge, more toxic -- in fact the most toxic in our modern history -- which came from the Islamic republic. "If it wasn't for the toxic money, guns and foot soldiers of the Islamic republic, I think that we would have been much closer today in solving this issue with Israel." Bahrain is the staunchest Gulf supporter of Saudi Arabia's tough line against Shiite Iran. The small but strategic kingdom is mostly Shiite, according to unofficial estimates, and its Sunni rulers blame Iran for decades of Shiite-led protests that flared up again in 2011. In another clip published by Haaretz, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir accuses Iran of spreading "mischief" throughout the region. "Building ballistic missiles and giving them to terrorist organisations is unacceptable and there are resolutions that say Iran should be punished for that," he said. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly accused of Iran of providing weapons to Huthi rebels in Yemen who have been battling a Saudi-led intervention force since 2015. Tehran denies the allegation. Though Saudi Arabia and Israel have no official diplomatic ties, they share a determination to limit the expansion of Iranian influence in the Middle East. Netanyahu praised the conference organised by Washington in the Polish capital as a "historical turning point" for the region. "An Israeli prime minister and the foreign ministers of the leading Arab countries stood together and spoke with unusual force, clarity and unity against the common threat of the Iranian regime," he told reporters on Thursday. Nabil Shaath, an adviser to Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, said the US-organised conference aimed to "normalise" the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in line with the staunchly pro-Israel policy adopted by US President Donald Trump. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was in the Black Sea resort of Sochi for talks with his Russian and Turkish counterparts on the future of Syria, dismissed it as an "empty result."

Trump Declares 'Emergency' to Build Wall, Democrats Slam Unlawful 'Power Grab'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 15/19/U.S. President Donald Trump, citing an "invasion" of drugs and criminals, declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border on Friday to fund construction of his long-sought wall, a move slammed by Democrats as an unlawful "power grab."Trump's extraordinary step will enable him to bypass congressional opposition and seek to redirect billions of dollars in federal funds to build the wall -- delivering on a key election promise to his right-wing base. "We are going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border and we are going to do it one way or the other," Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden of the White House.
"I am going to be signing a national emergency," said the U.S. leader. "We are talking about an invasion of our country, with drugs, with human traffickers, with all types of criminals and gangs."Trump's decision to resort to emergency powers -- after a bitter standoff with Democrats blocking his wall project culminated in a 35-day government shutdown -- has alarmed lawmakers, including in his Republican Party, who warn it sets a dangerous precedent. The declaration came after the president agreed to a massive bipartisan spending measure that averts the possibility of a second crippling shutdown.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leaders in Congress, immediately denounced a "power grab" by a president "who has gone outside the bounds of the law" to fund his 2016 campaign pledge to build the wall. New York State's attorney general, Letitia James, announced the first of what were expected to be a slew of legal challenges, warning a national emergency without legitimate cause could create a constitutional crisis, and vowing to "fight back with every legal tool at our disposal."Trump said he fully expected to be challenged in court -- but voiced confidence he would prevail."Look, I expect to be sued," he said bluntly. "Sadly it will go through a process and happily, we'll win, I think."
No $5.7 billion
Trump's announcement, which opens a new confrontation with lawmakers and creates risky legal peril, comes after he reluctantly agreed to a measure keeping federal agencies operational through September 30 -- but without the funding he sought for a border wall.
That deal caps a two-month battle over border money which Democrats are widely seen as having won. Trump has long demanded $5.7 billion to build portions of a wall on the 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) southern border. But Congress provided just $1.375 billion for border barriers, and not specifically a wall, in the bill. Under the National Emergencies Act, the president can declare a national emergency, providing a specific reason for it.
That allows the activation of any of hundreds of dormant emergency powers under other laws, which can permit the White House to declare martial law, suspend civil liberties, expand the military, seize property and restrict trade, communications and financial transactions. Recent presidents -- and Trump too -- have used emergency powers on such issues. But the prospect of Trump using the authority to raid government accounts for the funding of a wall sounded alarm bells on Capitol Hill. "I'm just saying that the Republicans should have some dismay about the door that they are opening, the threshold they are crossing," Pelosi said Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has backed the president over the emergency, but other Republicans voiced reservations including veteran Senator Chuck Grassley who warned of a worrying precedent. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution states Congress gets to decide how money is appropriated. Many lawmakers have said they have no idea where Trump will draw the funding from.
Democrats have signaled the move would open the door to future presidents declaring emergencies on anything from gun violence to climate change to the opioid crisis. Court challenges aside, the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, expressed support for a congressional resolution of disapproval to "terminate" Trump's emergency declaration. Such a move has a chance of passing both chambers of Congress, but Trump would almost certainly veto it. Moments before his announcement, Trump met with so-called "angel moms," women whose children were victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and whose plight the White House has spotlighted in its push on border security. Holding large photographs of their children, they joined Trump in the Rose Garden, where he asked some of them to stand as he highlighted their stories.

U.S. Struggles to Convince Anti-IS Allies to Secure Syria after It Leaves
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 15/19/Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan struggled Friday to convince skeptical allies in the coalition fighting the Islamic State militia to help secure Syria once American soldiers pull out. President Donald Trump said the United States will announce the end of the IS group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within 24 hours, with U.S.-led Arab and Kurdish forces close to capturing the last IS territorial holdout in Syria. As the end neared for the proto-state that once controlled large areas of Iraq and Syria, 13 defense ministers of the anti-IS coalition met on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. Shanahan, the U.S. acting defense secretary, pledged ongoing backing for the fight -- but kept allies guessing as to how that would be achieved once U.S. forces pull out, and won no solid pledges of support. "While the time for U.S. troops on the ground in northeast Syria winds down, the United States remains committed to our coalition's cause: the permanent defeat of ISIS, both in the Middle East and beyond," he said. Shanahan pledged that the U.S. would "maintain our counterterrorism capabilities in the region" and "continue to support our local partners' ability to stand up to the remnants of ISIS" -- but gave no details about how this would be done.
'In together, out together'
IS fighters have been boxed into an area of around one square kilometer (less than half a square mile) in a last battle over the jihadists' remaining patch of territory in northeastern Syria. Once they are defeated, U.S. troops are set to withdraw from Kurdish-controlled areas after Trump in December announced the pullout of around 2,000 U.S. troops. Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said the U.S. had told coalition partners its soldiers would leave in "weeks rather than months."The decision has stunned allies including France, which contributes artillery and about 1,200 forces in the region, including soldiers who train Iraqi troops. "It is totally out of the question to have French troops on the ground without the Americans there," one French government source told AFP. "It's just no."French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian asked in a Munich conference panel why the U.S. would create a vacuum in Syria that could benefit its enemy Iran, calling the approach a "mystery." German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, whose country has helped with surveillance flights and logistical support, stressed that the idea of the anti-IS mission should be "in together, out together."A senior U.S. defense official said that none of the allies had made any "specific commitment... either whether they would stay or (whether) they would leave when we have left."There was "a tremendous desire to have a security arrangement or mechanism," the official said, but conceded that no concrete solution had been found to "resolve the security vacuum."
'Going underground'
The imminent collapse of the IS "caliphate" in Syria has increased concerns about experienced militants and foreign fighters escaping and forming new cells in Syria or beyond. Von der Leyen stressed that "the IS is now changing its face and is going underground and building networks, including with other terror groups and including global networks." Shanahan said the anti-IS coalition was evolving "to meet the global threat posed by ISIS' offshoots and its murderous ideology" as far away as Afghanistan and the Philippines. However, the key concern of U.S. allies now is Syria, where major powers -- crucially Russia, Iran and Turkey -- are jostling for influence. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leading supporter of the Damascus regime, has called the expected U.S. withdrawal "a positive step that would help stabilize the situation in this region."Once U.S. forces leave, another complication emerges: the future of areas in northern Syria controlled by the Kurdish YPG militia, a key U.S. ally in the fight against jihadists but branded terrorists by Turkey.
Observation force
Istanbul and Washington have called for the creation of a "security zone" to separate YPG-controlled areas from the Turkish border as the U.S. and Turkey increasingly align their positions. Washington's suggestion of installing an observation force in a buffer zone in Syria's north has the twin objectives of avoiding a Turkish assault on Kurdish forces and halting any jihadist resurgence. British defense minister Gavin Williamson at a NATO meeting this week did not rule out a UK role, saying that "we will continue to do all that is required to ensure that Britain and our allies remain safe."However, one high-ranking European military official pointed to the massive challenge of creating such a security zone. "Securing a buffer zone of an estimated 400 kilometers (250 miles) in length and 30km in width would require around 20,000 troops," said the official.

Yemen FM Says Seated Next to Netanyahu in 'Error'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 15/19/Yemen's top diplomat said a "protocol error" landed him next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a conference in the Polish capital Warsaw and that his country's stance on the Palestinian issue remained unchanged."Protocol errors are the responsibility of the organisers, as is always the case in international conferences," Foreign Minister Khaled al-Yamani wrote on Twitter late Thursday. Yamani was already seated when Netanyahu took his place earlier the same day at an international conference in Warsaw focused on security in the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on Iran. The two nodded at each other and exchanged brief smiles as Netanyahu sat down. During a part of the session closed to the press, Yamani lent Netanyahu his microphone when the Israeli premier's was not working properly. US President Donald Trump's Middle East peace envoy Jason Greenblatt hailed the exchange on Twitter, calling it a "lighthearted moment" that could be the sign of "new cooperation" between the Jewish and Arab states. Yemen and Israel have never had diplomatic relations, and Yamani's friendly interaction with Netanyahu drew criticism on social media. "The stance of Yemen and President (Abedrabbo Mansour) Hadi on the Palestinian issue and its people its people and leadership is firm," Yamani insisted. He said Yemen's attended the Warsaw conference not to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "but to mobilise the international community to confront the Iranian expansion in Yemen". Its participation was also "part of the battle to restore" his internationally-recognised government, which is at war with Iran-backed Huthi rebels, he added.Netanyahu called the Warsaw meeting as a "historical turning point", saying Israel and Arab states in attendance had stood united against Iran and he hoped that cooperation could extend to other areas. Top officials of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain -- none of which recognise Israel -- sat down with Netanyahu for dinner Wednesday. Israel only has diplomatic relations with two Arab states, neighbouring Egypt and Jordan.

Maduro Blasts U.S. for 'Stealing' Billions and Offering 'Crumbs'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 15/19/Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro hit out at the United States on Friday for "stealing" billions of dollars and offering "crumbs" in return as humanitarian aid. Tons of U.S. aid is piling up in Colombia close to the border with Venezuela as opposition leader Juan Guaido has vowed to defy Maduro's efforts to block the supplies from entering the country. "It's a booby trap, they're putting on a show with rotten and contaminated food," said Maduro, speaking at an event in the southeastern town of Ciudad Bolivar. "They've stolen $30 billion and are offering four crumbs of rotten food," added the beleaguered socialist leader, referring to the United States. Venezuela is in the midst of an economic crisis that has left millions in poverty and facing shortages of basic necessities such as food and medicine.Guaido, who is recognized by 50 countries as the interim president, accuses Maduro of causing economic hardship through mismanagement. Maduro blames Venezuela's woes on US sanctions, claiming they have cost the country $30 billion. The 56-year-old, the hand-picked successor to socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez, branded it the "war of the oligarchy." US sanctions mostly target regime individuals and state oil company PDVSA, the government's main source of income. Humanitarian aid has become a key issue in the power struggle between Maduro and Guaido. The opposition leader, who last month declared himself acting president, has promised to bring in the aid on February 23.
Maduro refuses to let it in. And his loyal military has barricaded a border bridge between Venezuela and Colombia. The socialist leader insists the aid is just a cover for a planned U.S. military invasion. Guaido says 300,000 people could die without the desperately-needed aid. Speaking on Friday, Maduro said six million families had benefited from subsidized food boxes and claimed to have bought this week 933 tons of medicines and medical supplies from China, Cuba and Russia, his main international allies.
"We paid for it with our own money because we're beggars to no one," he said. Guaido accuses Maduro of being a "usurper" over his controversial reelection last year in polls widely branded fraudulent. Maduro says the 35-year-old National Assembly speaker is a puppet to the U.S. which is trying to secure access to Venezuela's gold and vast oil reserves -- the largest in the world. He said Guaido's challenge to his authority is "treason." "The worst thing is stimulating the imperial madness of an extremist Ku Klux Klan government in the White House," said Maduro. U.S. national security advisor John Bolton announced on Thursday that 25 countries had "pledged $100 million in humanitarian assistance."

Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 15-16/19
Pompeo to Netanyahu: Confronting Iran Key to Mideast Stability, Peace
Noa Landau/Haaretz/February 15/19
In Warsaw Mideast convention, PM also expected to meet with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, and discuss Trump peace plan with Jared Kushner
WARSAW - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday it is impossible to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East without confronting Iran. Pompeo is in Warsaw to participate in a conference on the Middle East co-hosted by Poland and the U.S. State Department that was originally supposed to focus on Iran, but the title was later changed to “Promoting a Future of Peace and Security in the Middle East.” Speaking to reporters alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Pompeo said "You can't achieve stability in the Middle East without confronting Iran. It's just not possible."
"There are malign influences in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq," Pompeo added. "The three H's- the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah. These are real threats."On Wednesday, Netanyahu said that he will be meeting in Warsaw with 60 foreign ministers and representatives "in order to promote the common interest of war against Iran." Netanyahu was speaking in Hebrew, and his social media team later deleted this translation and posted again using slightly different terminology of "combating Iran." Speaking alongside Pompeo, Netanyahu called the conference a "historical turning point."
"An Israeli prime minister and the foreign ministers of leading Arab countries stood together and spoke with unusual force, clarity and unity against the common threat of the Iranian regime," the prime minister said.
"This marks a change and an important understanding in what threatens our future and what we have to do to secure it and the possibilities of cooperation that extend beyond security to every realm of life for the peoples of the Middle East," Netanyahu added. The conference is commencing behind closed doors and the main topics for discussion will be Yemen, Syria, an American peace plan to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the status of refugees and Iran's ballistic missile program. The prime minister is also set to meet with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the convention. U.S. President Donald Trump's senior aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner is also attending with Trump's Mideast peace envoy Jason Greenblatt. The two are set discuss the economic aspects of the peace plan with Netanyahu and Arab leaders. Kushner will also hold a closed discussion over the plan with former Norweigian foreign minister, Børge Brende, marking the second time Kushner will discuss the plan in public. On Wednesday Netanyahu met with Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawit who hailed a "new ear" for the Middle East and thanked him for his country's Israel policy. "The courageous decision of Sultan Qaboos to invite me to Oman is changing the world," Netanyahu said. Relations between Israel and a number of the countries on the list have warmed considerably in the past year, and with three of those countries to a point where Netanyahu has been particularly interested in upgrading relations with them: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Morocco. Iranian representatives did not participate in the conference, and the Palestinians also announced that they were boycotting it.
The Polish Foreign Ministry announced two days ago that about 60 countries had confirmed their participation in the event, including Arab nations. Besides Oman, representatives from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Tunisia were attending
Mullahs Masquerading as Patriots: Will it Work?
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/February 15/19
What do scoundrels do, when caught red handed in their shenanigans? According to an old proverb they warp themselves in a flag and seek refuge in patriotism.
Something close to that seems to be happening to the Khomeinists dominating Iran thanks to their control of the nation’s finances and monopoly on guns. As it marked its fourth decade in power, the regime implicitly admitted the bankruptcy of its narrative, according to which the 1979 revolution was prompted by a desire to “revive Islam” which, after the death of the Prophet, with the exception of the brief caliphate of Ali ibn Abi-Taleb, had been in agony. Thus, Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini was given the title of “Ihyagar” or “Reviver” of Islam.
Last Monday, however Hojat al-Islam wa al-Moslemeen Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran, told a different story to marchers in Tehran marking the 40th anniversary of the mullahs’ seizure of power.
He shouted: “The Islamic Revolution was firstly made to protect Iran.”
How so, you might wonder.
Rouhani went on to enumerate a series of wars that Iran had lost in the 19th century to Great Britain and Russia. He said that Iran was not what it is today, a sliver of territory left from a once great empire that stretched from India to the Mediterranean. Dropping the regime’s usual Pan-Islamist narrative, Rouhani adopted a pan-Iranist discourse according to which much of Central Asia, Afghanistan, the Pakistani Baluchistan, the Caucasus, Oman, the Mussandam, Peninsula, and territories now covered by Qatar, the United Arab Emirate and Kuwait must be regarded as Iranian land stolen by foreign invaders.
He referred to a number of treaties under which Iran had “lost” those lands. (One treaty he didn’t mention was the Qasr-Shirin Treaty under which Iran lost the “holy” Shiite shrines of Mesopotamia to the Ottoman Empire. Surprise!)
Feigning anger, Rouhani claimed that without the 1979 revolution, Iran might have been completely lost as the late Shah, too, had accepted its dismemberment by agreeing to Bahrain’s independence. Even the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war had been a prolongation of the historic “conspiracy” to snatch territory from Iran, to make it smaller and weaker.
Rouhani didn’t say what he means to do to redress that “200-year long injustice” and regain Iran’s “lost territories.”
However, other promoters of the regime try to justify its regional policies by claiming Iran is trying to assert its “historic right” as hegemon in a region cut into salami slices by Imperialist divisions.
“Is Iran the cat-like image that appears on geographical maps?” demands Professor Shamseddin Rahmani, an adviser to “Supreme Guide” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” Or is Iran a state that stretched from India to the Mediterranean, from Central Asia to Caucasus?”
In a 6,000-word essay published by daily Kayhan, Rahmani the professor reassures his readers that by seeking leadership in the region, from Pakistan and Afghanistan to North Africa, Iran does not attempt to rule them but to grant them “genuine independence” denied by Western powers.
In that context he also argues that what is known as Palestine, in fact, belongs to Iran and those Iranians who oppose the destruction of Israel because “it has nothing to do with us” do not understand that doing so is in Iran’s national state.
If “our Leader” orders the elimination of Israel it is because he wishes to protect Iran’s own integrity not to mention that of the entre humanity.
The new pseudo-nationalist narrative is also designed to explain, or explain away, the fact that after 40 years the Khomeinist Revolution has failed to spread to even a single other country or inspire similar movements anywhere.
The Lebanese Hezballah is often cited as Tehran’s sole success in creating an instrument through which Iran controls the levers of power in a country. But that, too, is hard to sell as an example of ideological victory if only because as Hezballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah publicly admits that his outfit is “wholly” financed by Tehran. He who pays the piper sets the tune but could not be sure of having won the piper’s heart.
Thus, some regime apologists portray Iran as a nation dominating the region through sheer exercise of state power rather than ideological attraction.
“We now control four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa,” says Ayatollah Ali Yenisei, an adviser to Rouhani.
In an ode marking the 40th anniversary of the Khomeinist revolution, Ali-Reza Qazweh, one of the circle of poets approved by Khamenei, puts the claim in lyrical tones: “Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria are now all ours,” he writes. “The pearl from Najaf isn’t less valuable than amber from Yemen.” (Let’s note in passing that there is no pearl in Najaf, a desert city far from the ocean, and no amber in Yemen!)
Signs of the shift in official narrative are multiplying daily.
Once much-used shibboleths are fading out; for example, “ummah” which designates the Muslim community across the globe.
In his speech on Monday, Rouhani didn’t once mention it. The fashionable shibboleth now is “millat” (nation) which Khomeini had described as “an invention by kuffar (infidel) to divide the ummah.”
Last Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi attacked US National Security Adviser John Bolton for “not appreciating the great culture of the Iranian people” and “being hostile to Iranian nation.”
The first “intelligent robot” made in Iran has been named Surena, after the Parthian general who defeated the Romans and killed their leader Crassus in battle in Harran, now in Turkey, in 57 BC. The implicit message is that the new “Surena”, which is to have military functions, would repeat the exploit in future battles against Western invaders.There is even an attempt to present what some call “Islamic civilization” as a by-product of Iranian culture. In that context, the mausoleum in southern Iraq, of Salman Farsi, a Persian officer who joined the Prophet, has been renovated under the supervision of General Qassem Soleimani, the man in charge of exporting “revolution”.
A hush-hush project is also under way for a serial about Princess Shahrbanu, the daughter of Yazdegerd the last Shah before the Arab invasion. She is supposed to have married Hussein ibn Ali, third Imam of Shiism.
The whole thing many be a fiction but it is used to claim that descendants of Hussein, including Khamenei, were of partial Iranian, not to mention Persian royal, descent.
Also on the 40th birthday of the Khomeinist seizure of power, Ghulam-Ali Haddad Adel, who heads the Academy of Persian Language called for purification from foreign words. He claimed that his team’s purification squad had already revived or partly coined 6,000 Persian words, especially in scientific domains, to replace foreign, mostly Arabic, ones.
Will the new narrative do better than the old?
I doubt it. One indication came when the crowd in Tehran continued gossiping, laughing and eating while Rouhani was trying to play Persian nationalist.
Was he not the man who signed the Caspian Sea Convention dictated by Russia?

The European List and the Injustice Towards Saudi Arabia
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al Awsat/February 15/19
How regrettable was the European Union Commission’s move to include Saudi Arabia in the list of “high risk” countries in the area of money laundering and terrorist financing. Not only because the declaration was made without a single visit by the Commission’s delegation, and not because it had not allowed the Kingdom to explain its point of view on the initiatives it had undertaken to modernize and develop its financial system, but because the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) - whose figures were relied upon in the listing - issued a report in October that concluded that the Kingdom was on track to meet the requirements that guaranteed its full membership. The report also said that the Saudi financial system has met 36 out of 40 FATF compliance standards, including those directly involving AML/CFT.
All this great progress is then ignored, which actually indicates that the way the list was prepared was not objective and too unfair.
Saudi Arabia was not the only country that was not given the opportunity to explain its position and correct its status.
The United States, whose financial system is the throne that runs the world economy, has seen four of its jurisdictions included in the proposed listing, prompting the US Treasury Department to reject the list and consider the European Commission as having failed to review its decisions sufficiently.
“The Commission provided affected jurisdictions with only a cursory basis for its determination… [It] notified affected jurisdictions that they would be included on the list only days before issuance… [and] failed to provide affected jurisdictions with any meaningful opportunity to challenge their inclusion or otherwise address issues identified by the Commission. As a result, the European Commission produced a list that diverges from the FATF list without reasonable support,” according to a statement by the Treasury.
As a reminder, there are no tougher and stronger global financial standards than those applied by the United States. Nevertheless, according to the State Department’s 2018 annual report on terrorism, the Kingdom was commended for its cooperation and coordination with the US on the anti-terrorism system, in particular its adoption of a new counterterrorism policy in November 2017, which was then considered a huge development in the modernization of its financial system.
Following its announcement, the proposed list was criticized by several countries within the EU itself. The EU Commission has disregarded the fact that the Kingdom has made radical changes in its AML/CFT system, to harmonize its legal and institutional frameworks with those of the FATF. It’s natural that the effectiveness of these recent measures cannot be seen immediately, as the financial system needs enough time to address its shortcomings. While the declaration of the list is an unsuccessful step, it does not entail any kind of sanctions or restrictions on trade relations, nor does it hinder the continuation of development aid. However, it requires banks and institutions to apply prudent measures to transfers that involve these countries. This means that the actual harm caused by the injustice towards a country like Saudi Arabia is greater than the repercussions of its implementation. The door is open for the EU commission and the AML/CFT technical teams to visit the Kingdom and take a direct view of the initiatives that have been introduced in the financial system, instead of implementing such a step without taking into account progress achieved in this area.
Weaknesses are probable and need to be corrected, but that does not happen easily when you make your decision thousands of miles away.

May’s Brexit Plan Found at the Bottom of a Glass
Therese Raphael/Bloomberg View/February 15/19
Olly Robbins has become the one thing a British civil servant must never be: the news.
The government’s most senior Brexit negotiator, the ultimate safe pair of hands, was overheard by an ITV journalist in a Brussels bar this week openly contradicting Theresa May’s policy on at least three fronts. He may, though, have done everyone a favor by bringing some long-overdue clarity about the prime minister’s actual thinking on Brexit.
May has publicly refused to rule out the possibility that Britain will leave the European Union without a deal; Robbins effectively said that won’t happen. The prime minister has said the government won’t seek to extend the process under Article 50; Robbins revealed that a “long” extension is indeed the plan if lawmakers turn down her deal.
May has insisted that the Irish backstop — which would keep Britain inside the customs union unless other arrangements are found to keep the Irish border open — was an insurance policy unlikely ever to be used. She has promised that the UK will leave the customs union so it can negotiate its own trade deals in future. According to Robbins, the backstop was envisaged as a bridge to a future trading relationship with the EU, something that that will enrage Brexiters.
Anyone who has watched Robbins over the past 18 months will find all this curious. Brexiters have made him out to be May’s Svengali, bent on frustrating Britain’s exit. But he has fastidiously remained above the fray, the model apolitical civil servant. Blabbing in a Brussels bar seems so out of character, and the incredibly thorough run-down of the government’s strategy so, well, thorough, that one is tempted to wonder whether Robbins knew he had an audience.
If his comments are a true reflection of May’s position, he will have brought valuable clarity. Politicians spin; and they sometimes have to reverse themselves and pay a price. But there is a fine line between walking back from past pledges and leaving the impression of either extreme disorganization or dishonesty. May has, throughout Brexit, made contradictory promises to all sides.
She has insisted that a no-deal exit remains an option; indeed it is the default under UK law if no deal is reached. That posturing is tactical, intended to coax remainers toward her deal. But it isn’t a credible threat; Britain isn’t ready for a no-deal exit and any government that owned that policy would likely be disowned by voters for a generation.
If May fails to get her deal agreed, her best alternative is whatever avoids a no-deal exit. An extension to the March 29 deadline wouldn’t in itself solve any problems — but it would allow time for a second referendum or another election, both of which May has rejected. The drawbacks to both are, by now, well-rehearsed — just what question would voters be asked? — but either would still be better than a no-deal Brexit.
Robbins’s revelations help to dismiss another piece of wishful thinking often heard from Brexiters: that the EU always gives in at the last possible minute and therefore will, in the end, relent on the Irish backstop. Didn’t the EU cave in to overcome Danish objections to the Maastricht Treaty, the Irish no to the Lisbon Treaty and a threat of a Belgian regional veto to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada?
In each of these cases, as Matthew Bevington notes in a recent paper for The UK in a Changing Europe (highly recommended for all aspects of the backstop), the original text of the treaty wasn’t reopened and the solutions found were entirely compatible with it. Each compromise (for example, a clarification showing that the Lisbon treaty didn’t affect Ireland’s military neutrality or relate to taxation) simply drew clear boundaries, limiting the scope of the agreement. The treaties in question had also already been widely ratified by other countries, lending momentum in that direction. Brexit is different on all counts.
Nothing that Robbins said suggests he believes Brexiters will get their wish to have a time limit put on the backstop; nothing suggests the government is even asking for that.
Britain needs to avoid a no-deal exit. It can choose between different imperfect deals, or it can try to extend and pretend other solutions exist, or ultimately try kick the question — if it can decide the question — to voters. Robbins performed a service by spelling it all out so elegantly; it would have been better had this straight talking come from May herself.

Syrian Opposition: Arab Rapprochement With Assad Legitimizes His Crimes, Strengthens Iran
موقع ميمري: المعارضة السورية: التطبيع العربي مع الأسد يشرعن جرائمه ويقوي إيران
MEMRI/February 15/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/72212/memri-syrian-opposition-arab-rapprochement-with-assad-legitimizes-his-crimes-strengthens-iran-%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B6/
Recently, several Arab states have shown an inclination to renew their recognition of Bashar Al-Assad's regime as the legitimate ruler of Syria and to normalize their relations with it. For example, on December 16, 2018, Sudanese President 'Omar Al-Bashir became the first Arab head of state to visit Damascus since the beginning of the war there some eight years ago, [1] and on December 27, 2018 the UAE reopened its embassy in the Syrian capital, which had been closed since 2011.[2] It has also been reported that, ahead of the March 2019 Arab Summit in Tunisia, some Arab states, in particular Lebanon, have been working to renew Syria's membership in the Arab League, which was suspended on November 12, 2012.[3]
These developments enraged the Syrian opposition and its affiliated media, which claimed that legitimizing Assad and his regime is tantamount to sanctioning all their crimes against the Syrian people. Some even said that the Arab states' support of the Syrian revolution had never been sincere. Responding to the claim of some Arab states that rapprochement with the Syrian regime may help to distance it from Iran, Syrian oppositionists stated that the regime's ties with Iran are strong and the Arabs should not assume they will be able to break them.
This report reviews responses by the Syrian opposition to the Arab rapprochement with the Syrian regime.
"The Arab normalization with Bashar" (Al-Arabi Al-Jadid, London, December 30, 2018)
Syrian Opposition: Assad Must Not Be Welcomed Back Into The Arab Fold When His Hands Are Dripping With Syrian Blood
Many of the Syrian oppositionists urged the Arab states to stick to the anti-Assad positions they had expressed at the beginning of the revolution, while stressing that rapprochement with this regime could not erase its crimes against its people. Naser Al-Hariri, chairman of the High Negotiations Committee, which is recognized as the representative of the Syrian opposition in the political talks, said in a January 6, 2019 press conference in Riyadh: "We are at a historical crossroads, where we [can] either turn towards the Assad regime, or not… The Syrian regime is a perpetrator of war crimes in every sense of the word. Bashar Al-Assad will remain a war criminal even if 1,000 leaders shake his hand… We do not think it would be wise of Arab society today to restore the legitimacy of this regime and welcome it back to a respectable forum such as the Arab League, when its hands are dripping with Syrian blood… [Such a move] will benefit neither the political process nor the Syrian people."[4]
In a statement addressing the Arab leaders, the Istanbul-based Syrian Islamic Council, which was established as a religious authority for the Sunnis in Syria, listed reasons for avoiding rapprochement with the Assad regime: "First, [remember that] you boycotted this criminal regime for its crimes against your Syrian brothers and kin. You supported and endorsed their demand for justice and freedom. So do not renege on these important positions, and do not become a means for rehabilitating this criminal regime. Second, this regime has delivered Syria, militarily, culturally and politically, into the hands of Iran. Reinstating Syria in the Arab League will strengthen the occupying Iran and will threaten the league from within. Third, your brothers and kin in Syria remind you of the hundreds of thousands of victims that this criminal regime has murdered, the tens of thousands of detained men and women who are still suffering terrible torture in the prisons of the [greatest] dictator of this era, and the millions of emigrants that this regime expelled [from their homes] with its bombings and crimes. They are begging you not to abandon them and hand them over to the arch-butcher of Syria."[5]
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood movement also slammed the Arabs for their rapprochement with Assad: "We condemn this political step of supporting Assad and his regime, and clarify that the continued [existence] of this regime and the ongoing support of it constitute support for Iran's expansionist plan and for extremism and terror in the region. [They also constitute] consent to all the crimes against humanity that this regime has perpetrated and a renouncement of all the sacrifices made by the heroic Syrian people. The reasons for this revolution and the idea behind it are still present and valid, and [the revolution] will continue as long as this regime endures."[6]
Other Syrian oppositionists praised the Arab states that refuse to renew their relations with the Assad regime, chiefly Saudi Arabia. 'Abd Al-Rahman Mustafa, head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, tweeted on January 15: "Saudi Arabia's, Qatar's and Morocco's refusal to normalize relations with the Assad regime and reinstate it in the Arab League tightens the noose around the neck of this regime and its supporters and conveys a forceful message: that there is no military solution [to the crisis] in Syria, and that the only solution is implementing the international resolutions."[7] The director of the Coalition's media and public relations office, Ahmad Ramadan, tweeted on January 14: "Saudi Arabia's position vis-à-vis the Assad regime is unchanging and opposes maintaining any ties with it. The attempts of some to misrepresent Saudi Arabia's position and spread rumors serve [only] Iran and the chaos it spreads. The kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] is the most important bastion in the conflict with Khomeini's barbaric terrorism, and protecting it is an Arab duty."[8]
Syrian Writers: Rapprochement With The Criminal Syrian Regime Is A Mark Of Shame
Articles condemning the Arab rapprochement with the Syrian regime also appeared in the media affiliated with the Syrian opposition. Prominent among them was an article by oppositionist Burhan Ghalioun, who was the first head of the Syrian National Council, the precursor of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. Ghalioun warned the Arab countries that reconciling with the Syrian regime would not benefit them and may even harm them. He wrote: "In my assessment, the Arabs' reversal [of their positions] has nothing to do with the political reality, for, as I have frequently noted, it is unrealistic of countries – including [even] non-democratic countries that do not believe in human rights – to agree to restore the legitimacy of a president who did not hesitate to murder hundreds of thousands of his people, expel millions of them from the country or displace them within it, and pass dozens of rules allowing [others] to seize their property in order to keep them from returning… The Arabs coming back [to Assad] are like people blowing air into a punctured balloon or trying to resuscitate a corpse, and this resuscitation attempt will bring them nothing but disasters and dangers. For the basis upon which Assad's regime was founded – namely, the fear cultivated by his apparatuses and the blood-soaked policy of revenge he [pursued] for dozens of years – has utterly collapsed… [Assad] did not hesitate to threaten to burn [his people]. Then he proceeded to burn them in practice, destroy their culture, and let their property and sources of livelihood to be stolen and handed over as gifts to his foreign supporters, protectors and helpers… [all] in order to remain in power. But the curse upon Assad's head, which followed Sudanese President 'Omar Al-Bashir when he returned from Damascus to Khartoum and is sure to topple the pillars of his regime and bring about his ouster, will [also] pursue anyone who follows his example and agrees to sanction the [Syrian regime's] crimes, the trampling of the victims' memory, and the exoneration of the treasonous and the depraved.
"I know that countries' interests sometimes compel them to overlook human rights, and that the military developments of the last year have enabled Russia and Iran to put Assad back in his tattered saddle. But it would be very rash of the Arab states to believe that the Assad regime will emerge triumphant… A regime cannot defeat and overpower its own people, because [if it does] it is no longer a regime but a gang of murderers. [Such a gang] has no alternative but to join the forces that allowed it to perpetrate its crimes and start serving them and working for them. The [Syrian] regime lost itself, just as it lost its people, and has become an agent serving the forces that ensured its survival and covered for its crimes. Hence, the Arab governments would also be wrong to believe that re-embracing [Assad] will help him escape his captors, [namely] their rival Iran, and will help them [in their battle] against it. This is because [he regime's] presence no longer has any meaning or significance, except as a tool in [Iran's] hands and a sword to be used against the Arabs, after it was directed against the Syrian people [itself] for the sake of [Iran's] interests. Prolonging [Assad's] rule strengthens the Iranian occupation…
"Sadly, I must say to my brethren in the Gulf that I know them and appreciate their fears as well as their ambitions – [but] following illusions and desires is the worst course of action. In opening the door to re-legitimizing the criminal and his regime in Damascus, they resemble a person aiming a dagger at his own chest."[9]
In an article in the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 'Abd Al-Rahman Mustafa, the head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, wrote that re-embracing a regime like Assad's, which has butchered its own people, is a mark of shame on those who agree to do so: "Anyone who takes any step towards renewing relations with the Assad regime… is making a serious strategic mistake and heading towards a dead end. This is a mistake that can seriously harm the capacity of those who affiliate themselves with this regime. It is more likely to bring them into its poisoned territory than to rehabilitate [this regime] and restore its capacity. Anyone who thinks to side with the victor in order to secure a share of the loot and a foothold [in Syria] – even at the expense of the blood of millions of martyrs and the tears of their mothers – is seriously deluded, and is placing himself in a dubious position and opening the door… to speculations about his relations with this regime with its record of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nothing can restore the legitimacy of a criminal regime that is responsible for creating millions of martyrs, prisoners and immigrants, a regime that has perpetrated massacres with chemical weapons and barrel bombs, and preferred to sell Syria rather than give it back to the Syrians. The Syrian people has long passed the point of no return. [The Syrians'] steadfast defiance, for eight years, of this regime with its barrel bombs, chemical weapons, butchery, prisons and scaffolds must clearly indicate to everyone that [even] thinking of exonerating this regime will bring an unprecedented disaster upon the region and the world… Any attempt to [re-]launch this regime means congratulating murderers and criminals and supporting their plan to consolidate tyranny, slavery, corruption, terror and oppression while eliminating the will of the Syrians, denying their rights and making an alliance against their plan to [establish] a democratic regime that believes in pluralism, justice and equality…"[10]
Several articles claimed that the support expressed by some Arab states for the Syrian revolution over the years had been insincere. 'Adnan 'Abd Al-Razzaq, who writes on the opposition website zamanalwsl.net, wrote on December 30: "There is nothing new under the sun. After Assad Senior perpetrated massacres in Hama, Palmyra, Aleppo and Idlib in the early 1980s, and suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood with planes and cannon, the Arab leaders came back and congratulated Hafez Al-Assad on his victories, supported him financially and marketed him to the world. They even flocked to [visit] the 'steadfast' Damascus. The same is happening today. Following the global conspiracy against the Syrian people's revolution, when signs began to appear of its [imminent] military and political defeat, the sons of those same leaders came back and congratulated Hafez Assad's son on his victories...
"There is nothing truly surprising about these surprises that did not leave the Syrian people the slightest glimmer of hope, even temporarily, of attaining a democratic country in which they would be citizens rather than subjects. Because whoever took a look – rational rather than emotional – at the Arabs' conduct and goals as they declared their support for the revolution must surely realize that they helped kill [this revolution] instead of helping it win. They did so because they were aware, more than anyone else, of the negative repercussions the revolution would have, [namely that] it would not leave a single one of these villains on his father's throne."[11]
The First To Benefit From Arab Rapprochement With Assad Is Iran; The Notion That He Will Distance Himself From It Is An Illusion
As stated, Syrian oppositionists also rejected the assumption that an Arab reconciliation with Assad might cause him to distance himself from Iran. In a December 31 statement, the High Negotiations Committee said that "the process of normalizing relations [with the regime] constitutes explicit recognition of the Iranian presence [in Syria] that harms Syria's demography, and also constitutes political support for this regime that threw itself into the arms of Iran from the earliest hours of the Syrian revolution and perhaps even earlier."[12] Ahmad Ramadan, head of the media department of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, tweeted that "whoever invites Assad to [rejoin] the Arab League needs to realize that Iran is the first to benefit from this. Its mullahs will [then] control the [Arab League] representatives of three Arab countries [Syria, Lebanon and Iraq] and will be able to veto the League's decisions. Does anyone realize this?" In another tweet, he wrote: "Assad is the one who opposed any Arab playing a role in resolving the [Syria] crisis in 2011, and he is the one who brought Iran and its militias to kill the non-violent protesters in Syria. Do not bring the serpent into your own homes. The Arab League has been infiltrated."[13]
Similar statements were made in the media affiliated with the Syrian opposition. Ghazi Dahman, a columnist for the Al-Arabi Al-Jadid daily, wrote that any Arab involvement in the rebuilding of Syria would serve Iran: "Reality compels us to understand the limits of the Arabs' ability to remove Iran's influence from Syria or even to compete with it. All the Arabs can do is reopen their embassies [in Syria], but [these embassies] can reach no further than the office of [Syrian] Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu'allem, who does not [even] tip the servant who brings him coffee. The Assad regime and its intelligence apparatuses will not allow any embassy to carry out significant cultural activity, maintain contacts with the opposition, or influence Syrian public opinion. Moreover, Iran has a 'Shi'ization' plan, as part of which it tempts Syrians [to convert] using money or other incentives… Where is the Arab plan that can compete with the Iranian one? It is impossible to contend with a plan without having a [counter-]plan. Moreover, the Iranian plan is supported by the Assad regime, which has itself become part of Iran's plan in the region… The Arab leaders must understand that their involvement in Assad's rebuilding projects is pure business, and there is no need to dress it up in slogans, for the benefits and profits derived from these projects will make their way into the pockets of Assad's associates. Worse, this [involvement] will support and strengthen the Iranian influence in Syria. After dozens of international reports [have been published], the Arabs must surely be aware that Iran has prepared well for rehabilitating [Syria]. It has established dozens of straw companies in Syria, which, along with Putin's companies, will make millions of dollars in profit. This will cause the Syrians unbearable pain. On the one hand, they will feel that the Arabs never noticed their wounds, and on the other hand, the [rehabilitation] process will be presented as a reward for every militiaman or mercenary who killed a Syrian child or raped a Syrian woman…
"It would be wonderful if the Arabs refused to let Putin's Syria fool them. They must not allow it to sell them the illusion of an Iranian withdrawal from Syria; that is a lie that does not merit discussion and which has no equal except its counterpart, the American [lie] about leaving the [U.S.] forces [in Syria] until Iran withdraws and a genuine political process is launched..."[14]
Syrian oppositionist Michel Kilo wrote in a January 5 article that, even if Assad wanted to sever his ties with Iran, the latter would not allow this: "I do not believe that the President of Sudan, 'Omar Al-Bashir, and his fellow Arab [leaders] have [really] come to pull Syria out of Iran's grip, while the President with the most powerful army in history [i.e., Trump] has announced a withdrawal from Syria… I will not mention other large countries that deluded themselves that they could extract Syria from [the grip of] the Iranian mullahs, such as former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose efforts in 2008 turned out to be a complete failure because he ignored what the Arabs are ignoring today: the unique character of Assad's relations with Iran, which are anchored in religion and ideology rather than politics, as is usually the case between countries… They boil down to relations of containment and merging in which one side swallows up the other: the bigger or stronger party swallows up the smaller or weaker one, or else influences [the weaker side] to the extent of limiting its freedom, breaking its will or completely eliminating it – especially considering that [the strong side, Iran] has saved [the weaker side, the Syrian regime], kept it in power since 2012 and waged battles on its soil along with forces from other countries… Assad cannot conceive of [breaking his ties with Iran], since Iran's mullahs are capable of 'breaking his neck' if he [so much as] thinks of this or thinks of responding positively to [the signals coming out] of the Gulf states… Apparently, [the people of the Gulf states] have not read the personal curses that were directed at them in [Assad's] media, which did not spare their fathers and forefathers. [According to this media,] they have crawled back, defeated and humiliated, to [reconcile with] Damascus, and they should kiss Assad's boots for allowing them to return. [Moreover,] they should know that he 'will hold them to account for their support of terrorism,' and that pleading for mercy and apologizing will not help them. Are there really people in our Arab homeland who are still betting on the Arab [identity] of a leader who did not settle for killing a million Syrians, but also said in a televised interview: 'The Arabs and Palestine can go to hell. We are not Arabs.' Do they not understand that the Assad regime will resort to its old habit of stealing their money for the sake of Iran, which is also besieged and exhausted and is sorely in need of their money?"[15]
[1] Sana.sy, December 16, 2018.
[2] Mofa.gov.ae, December 12, 2018.
[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), January 8, 2019.
[4] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), January 7, 2019.
[5] Sy-sic.com, January 8, 2019.
[6] Facebook.com/Ikhwansyria, December 29, 2018.
[7] Twitter.com/pofsoc, January 15, 2019.
[8] Twitter.com/RamadanSyria, January 14, 2019.
[9] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), January 9, 2019.
[10] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), January 16, 2019.
[11] Zamanalwsl.net, December 30, 2018.
[12] Baladi-news.com, December 31, 2018.
[13] Twitter.com/RamadanSyria, January 6, 2019.
[14] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), January 8, 2019.
[15] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), January 5, 2019.

Religion vs. Free Speech
Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/February 15/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13539/religion-free-speech
Courts and government bodies still find it hard to make useful distinctions between gratuitous, racist, or violent speech about Islam and Muslims on the one hand, and reasoned argument that questions aspects of Islam, or even the religion overall, from the point of view of human rights, on the other.
The situation in Europe is even more ambiguous. Most European states have laws that purportedly support free speech, yet accusations of hate speech and Islamophobia often lead to trials and sentencing can lead to imprisonment. This skewing of facts is one crucial reason why free speech needs to be defended.
It is more than ever necessary to educate the public and many of its leaders about both the benign and troubling facts of Islamic history, doctrine, and culture. Those leaders who must require a more solid grounding include the ones who deny that terrorism has genuine links to issues such as jihad warfare -- and who are constantly told that "real" Islam is above rebuke.
We must indeed paint a positive picture of what so many Muslims contribute to their host societies. We should, for example, celebrate the way in which Muslim-Americans in Philadelphia launched an appeal that raised over $100,000 to help repair two Jewish cemeteries that had been vandalized. Or the Muslim veteran in Arkansas who volunteered to stand guard with others at any Jewish site that was threatened with attack.
Even fair-minded and non-racist authors, websites, members of the media and others who present a rational critique of Islam end up being condemned as malicious racists and "Islamophobes." (Image source: iStock)
Speaking and writing about Islam today requires discretion, sensitivity, and a good grasp of facts. Doing this is harder in most European countries than it is in the United States, where the First Amendment insists on powerful free speech rights. The need for sensitivity stems from the almost universal condemnation of "Islamophobia", a mainly good-hearted response to democratic worries that innocent Muslims may be targeted with violence or hate speech, even as many (but far from all) seek to integrate themselves and their families into Western society.
Raw Islamophobia, like raw prejudice by and against any group, is of course racist, unacceptable and most often expressed by hate groups on the far right of politics. At the same time, it is not surprising that many people will build their attitudes towards Muslims on a perception prompted by Islamist terror attacks, radical Muslim antagonism to Western societies, or uneasiness about Muslims who choose to dress in ways that do not conform to Western norms. The confusion caused also creates problems for many people who have reasonable concerns about Islam as a religion and a political ideology.
The problem is that even fair-minded and non-racist authors, websites, members of the media and others end up being tarred with the same brush and condemned as malicious racists themselves. This creates a distorted perception of what has been termed "two Islamophobias," one hateful, the other respectable. The latter, of course, is not Islamophobia at all, any more than presenting a rational critique of any other religion, political thought, or ideology is racist, hate-driven or undemocratic.
That confusion between a hate-driven view of Islam and a thoughtful, unbiased criticism of it has led to restrictions on what may and what may not be written or said about Islam or Muslims, while politicians of all varieties, church leaders, and human rights activists have adopted a style of virtue-signalling that tells the world to be silent and accepting, or else they will be called racists or Islamophobes. This type of surrender might be understandable, but it has led many to say things in defence of Islam that are either not true or only partially true. That Islam is a "a religion of peace," that Islamic terrorism "has nothing to do with Islam," or that "Muslims are not anti-Semitic" are all popular claims which, at the very least, require further substantiation and informed debate. Insistence on such untruths or partial truths only serves to bring governments, the judiciary, the police, the media and many more into distrust and disrepute. This skewing of facts is one crucial reason why free speech needs to be defended. For years, many have strenuously spoken out against attempts to control and censor honest criticism – here, here or here.
Understandably, outright hatred, whether of Muslims, Christians or Jews -- such as online threats to slaughter them or postings that call for terrorist attacks -- are likely to fall within legal censure. Criticism of Islam, however, under so-called blasphemy laws, is condemned and forbidden virtually everywhere throughout the Muslim world. Bloggers and others who seek to cross those barriers are often arrested and imprisoned, flogged, murdered by mobs or executed by the state. In April 2017, a blasphemy charge was levelled against the Christian governor of Jakarta in Indonesia, Basuki Tjahaja Purname (Ahok). A court sentenced him to two years in prison for not being remorseful enough. Worse, false accusations of blasphemy are often levelled against innocent people as a means of settling personal scores, or to have people removed in order to seize their property.
The situation in Europe is even more ambiguous. Most European states have laws that purportedly support free speech, yet accusations of hate speech and Islamophobia often lead to trials -- here, here and here -- and sentencing can lead to imprisonment.
There is no hate speech law in the UK, but under a variety of government Acts, such as the 1986 Public Order Act, prosecutions for racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or grossly anti-Muslim speech or behavior are possible. There are also paradoxes. The American author of more than 20 books, Robert Spencer, is not without a reasonable knowledge of Islamic matters, yet is banned from entering Britain, while Muslim hate preachers continue to be allowed in; in the UK, as in France, Denmark, Austria and elsewhere, it seems to be speech that merely questions political Islam that causes most confusion.
Courts and government bodies still find it hard to make useful distinctions between gratuitous, racist, or violent speech about Islam and Muslims on the one hand, and reasoned argument that questions aspects of Islam, or even the religion overall, from the point of view of human rights, on the other. Such questions come from different spheres, such as Christians, Jews, secularists, observant Muslims, reformist Muslims, human rights activists, among others. It is more than ever necessary to educate the public and many of its leaders about both the benign and troubling facts of Islamic history, doctrine, and culture. Those leaders who must require a more solid grounding include the ones who deny that terrorism has genuine links to issues such as jihad warfare -- and who are constantly told that "real" Islam is above rebuke.
We must indeed paint a positive picture of what so many Muslims contribute to their host societies. We should, for example, celebrate the way in which Muslim-Americans in Philadelphia launched an appeal that raised over $100,000 to help repair two Jewish cemeteries that had been vandalized. Or the Muslim veteran in Arkansas who volunteered to stand guard with others at any Jewish site that was threatened with attack.
We must, however, never fear speaking out against Muslim extremists who express hatred for Jews and who quote verses from the Qur'an or incidents from Islamic history in support of their bias. We must do so in measured words, citing real cases of radical Muslim anti-Semitism or anti-Western sermons or calls for violence based on interpretations of shari'a law or Islamic scripture.
Ironically, if we speak out too forcefully, the result can be counterproductive, making it unlikely that the people we would like to convince in politics, the churches, the media, or the mainstream will agree with our views. The extremist nature of some anti-Muslim agitators in the UK, for example, has had the effect of making it hard for many people to take in what they say.
What happens, then, is the exact opposite of what real Islamophobes claim they want, instead causing serious concerns about Islam to be dismissed. It is probably more constructive for everyone who speaks and writes about Islam and Muslims to do so in a measured and well-informed way.
Trevor Phillips, "a son of immigrants", the founding chair of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission, and a man profoundly disillusioned by the failure of so many ethnic and religious groups to integrate into British society, wrote an essay, Race and Faith: The Deafening Silence, in which he denounces official failure to face up to the divisions that have opened up in the UK following widening levels of immigration and "superdiversity". Phillips, long the country's best-known defender of multiculturalism, says the collapse of positive diversity had been because of two things: silence about divisions and loud denials that any problems existed at all. Serious critics of Islam need to join their voices to Phillips's, and others who tackle problems openly. To do that, we have to stand -- as he has done -- against all forms of extremism, both religious and secular.
*Dr. Denis MacEoin lectured in Arabic and Islamic Studies at the UK's Newcastle University. He is the author of approximately 40 books and reports. He serves as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Islamic Necrophilia: Or, “Every Hole Is a Goal”
Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media/February 15/19
A Muslim-background man who sexually violated a number of corpses was recently sentenced on February 1 in the UK. According to the report:
A warped “monster” who broke into a funeral parlour before having sex with a woman’s corpse has been jailed for six years. Kasim Khuram, 23, forced his way into a Co-op undertakers before violating a dead body at around 1.40am on November 11 last year. A court heard how he lifted the lids of several coffins before selecting his victim. Khuram then removed the body from the coffin, took off her clothes and then “interfered with her” in the chapel of rest, leaving her face down on the floor.
Another female body was found face down in a coffin with her lower clothing pulled down while seven other corpses, including a baby, were disturbed. Police were alerted by the alarm at the funeral parlour on Walsall Road, in Great Barr, Birmingham, and turned up to find the depraved pervert still at the scene. Officers said he was “more concerned” about leaving his watch behind. Khuram, who had been drinking vodka and smoking mamba, told officers: “I bet you think I’ve been sh***ing them don’t you?” and sickeningly added: “every hole is a goal.”
At a time when Islam is associated with any number of troubling practices, shall this too be laid at its feet? Alas, while necrophilia is a depravity that is not unique to any one modern culture, only Islam contains scriptures, commentaries, and fatwas (Islamic decrees) permitting the macabre practice.
As with most of Islam’s problematic teachings, necrophilia is traceable to Muhammad.
According to a hadith (a recorded tradition concerning the sayings and doings of the prophet) that exists in six of Islam’s classical reference texts (including the important Kanz al-‘Umal and al-Hujja fi Biyan al-Mahujja), Muhammad once took off his shirt, placed it on a dead woman, and then descended into and “lay with her” in the grave.
As they hurled dirt atop the corpse and Muhammad, the grave diggers exclaimed, “O Prophet, we see you doing a thing you never did with anyone else,” to which he responded: “I dressed her in my shirt so that she may be dressed in heavenly robes, and I lay with her in her grave so that the pressures of the grave [also known as Islam’s torments of the grave] may be alleviated from her.”
One can interpret this, and there certainly is no reason to maintain that Muhammad was actually copulating with the corpse. There are, however, some hurdles:
First, the two Arabic words (ataja‘ ma‘ha اضطجع معها) which I translate above as “lay with her,” are also used in Arabic to mean “intercourse.” This is similar to the English idiom, “to lay with her,” which can literally mean nothing more than laying down with a woman, but often is a reference to sex. More than a few Muslim clerics have made this linguistic observation.
Second, Sunni Islam’s four orthodox schools of jurisprudence (or madhahib al- fiqh)—namely, al-Hanafi, al-Hanbali, al-Maliki, and al-Shafi‘i—implicitly permit necrophilia. None of them actually addresses it on its own; rather, they give it a nod whenever it comes up in the context of other topics. Thus, in the section on adultery, the Maliki teaching is that “If a husband enters his dead wife—any which way, from front or behind—there is no penalty for him” (Sharh Mukhtasar al-Khalil fi al-fiqh al-Maliki).
Similarly, Shafi‘i rulings on ablution point out that it is unnecessary to rewash the body of the dead—male or female adds the Hanbali madhhab—after penetrating it, though the penis of the penetrator does require washing. (Although a few English translations of these pivotal Arabic texts appear online, most are poor and inaccurate. I may at some point collate and freshly translate all of the relevant ones, which are not a few.)
Regardless of all the above, it is not for the non-Muslim—certainly not for me—to tell Muslims what their texts are really saying and teaching. That is the job of their ulema: scholars and clerics devoted to learning the deep truths of Islam. Thus, the real question remains: do modern day ulema permit necrophilia?
The lamentable answer is yes. For instance, in 2011 a leading Moroccan cleric and founding member of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, Sheikh Abdul Bari Zamzami, issued a fatwa permitting the Muslim husband to copulate with his dead wife. He prefaced his decree by saying that, although he does not necessarily approve of this act, it is not for him to ban what Islam permits. As proof, he cited the aforementioned rulings of Islam’s schools of jurisprudence.
An Egyptian cartoon pokes fun at the proposed “farewell intercourse” law of 2012. As the spirit of the deceased woman ascends, and as her husband lustfully eyes her corpse, she remarks: “O please, man—where were you when I was alive!”
In April 2012, when the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi was president of Egypt, news that Islamist Egyptian parliamentarians were trying to pass a law legalizing necrophilia appeared. Although Al Ahram, Egypt’s most reputable paper reported the story, it was quickly dismissed as a hoax in Western media (which often happens whenever Islam makes the news in ways that do not comport with Western sensibilities). As one journalist argued, “This ugly rumor and hoax, thought to originate in a fatwa by [the aforementioned] sheikh Zamzami, a noted Moroccan cleric, should be doubted for the simple reason that no Egyptian Islamist sheikh, or any other Imam, has ever been reported to approve of necrophilia.”
That may have been true then, not now: In late 2017, necrophilia was again mentioned and legitimized, this time by Sheikh Sabri Abdul Raeuf (pictured above), a professor at Egypt’s Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s most prestigious madrasa, which Pope Francis considers an ally. During a televised show in Egypt, the Sheikh-professor was asked if it is permissible for a husband to penetrate his wife after death. He replied, “It is not favorable in Islam; however Islamic law considers it as halal,” that is, permissible, not a crime or sin deserving of punishment in the here or hereafter.
A Youm7 Arabic report titled (in translation) “The Books of al-Shafi‘i, al-Hanbali, and al-Hanafi Reveal that Sex with a Dead Wife is Not Adultery,” verified the Al Azhar professor’s claims.
Here I would be remiss not to point out that this entire excursus on Islam’s position concerning necrophilia should not be interpreted as meaning that “death-sex” is a normal or widespread activity among Muslim societies. Indeed, whenever it makes the news in the Arab world, most Muslims—as can be expected of most decent people of whichever creed—respond with incredulity and revulsion.
Rather, the point here is that Islamic jurisprudence is so legalistically slavish to old, sometimes bizarre, texts and often ambiguously worded as to legitimize much that is repugnant to modern sensibilities. Not only does this provide a moral—sometimes even pious—cover for deviants; it may attract them to Islam.
Just as pedophiles, rapists, sex-slavers, misogynists, psychotic mass murderers, extortionists, those eager to be “breastfed” by women or drink camel urine, can find support in the teachings of Islam—in ways that the followers of other religions simply cannot—so too can those with depraved proclivities for the dead.

As Iran sinks financially, Iraqi militias generate funds via protection rackets
Michael Flanagan/ Arabiya English/February 15/19
In areas rife with corruption, lawful behavior is often punished as the forces of law enforcement do not work for the people but for the often malignant forces wielding actual power.
Sadly, parts of Iraq are becoming feudal kingdoms with selective law enforcement designed to protect both the financial and the power interests of those locally in charge.
Being from Chicago, I am very familiar with this situation. The past of my city was rife with violent gangs “owning” defined territories “protected” from rival factions – “protected” at a cost to the businessman who pays and pays not to be attacked by his protectors.
Usually, the ordinary police were in on the scheme and were well paid to look the other way or even better paid to partake in the “protection” activities.
Protection rackets can be very lucrative. Violence awaits those that question the local ruling gang and there is no law enforcement neutral enough or powerful enough to seriously entertain a complaint.
So, locals with money or position pay and pay the gangs because there is no alternative. Either they pay for protection from the thugs or suffer violence from them – often coupled with indifference (or even criminal cooperation) of the police.
Iraq is quietly being divided into lucrative fiefdoms where those that wish to thrive or do any business at all must pay. In the North, the Kurds and Masoud Barzani are running their protection racket. It is more benign, less violent but just as iron-clad and lucrative as the others.
In the West, ISIS continues to exert undue influence and extorts monies from all comers looking to do business there. In the South, Iran exerts its influence through Iranian militias and other official and unofficial structures looking to shake down businessmen.
One of Iran’s ‘top earners’ (as they are called in the American Mafia) is Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH). AAH is an Iranian-backed militia with its origins in Muqtada Al Sadr’s Mahdi Amy.
When Muqtada made a tentative peace with the formal Iraqi government (and the Americans as well), AAH continued its attacks breaking-away from Al Sadr. Ironically, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq translates to the “League of the Righteous.”
As Iran sinks financially, the need for its militias in Iraq to generate their own funds has acutely risen. The League of the Righteous is extorting and “protecting” its way to financial independence.
Recently, Kuwaiti companies run by a daughter of the ruler Sabah IV of Kuwait paid a heavy protection price to AAH to be able to invest in the new airport complex in Diwaniyah Province. This was so open and notorious that it was actually reported in the newspapers. Better to pay than be bombed, rocketed or just killed outright.
In Baghdad, sides are being drawn in less obvious ways. The political parties are deeply involved in the protection rackets to control lucrative businesses and investments.
Recently, a prominent Baghdad restauranteur was arrested by security forces with AAH identification papers on him. This was reported by an equally prominent television station run by Amir Hakim. Amir Hakim is not of AAH but is a former leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) party when they were in power in Iraq a few years ago – a rival party to AAH.
Because it was reported that an AAH identity card was found on the man, the Iranian Party Bloc, al-Fateh, complained loudly that Hakim was using his media prominence to purposely target AAH, Iranian interests and Iran’s newest acquisition, the Popular Mobilization Forces (the PMF). A personage no less than the President of the Republic had to be ultimately involved. He called for calm and for restraint because the two parties were on the verge of open, armed conflict over the matter. Nothing less than his involvement was required to stave off bloodshed. The upshot of this is that outside investment, already wary of the inconsistency of the ordinary rule of law in Iraq, are completely scared off by this activity. More than a few large, outside deals have utterly collapsed in the South particularly.
AAH’s violent involvement in ordinary business activities in order to raise money has made it a pariah in the South of Iraq. Because of their brutality, they are also feared and, sadly, obeyed.
Iraq is twice burdened by its corruption and now lawless protection rackets. Both plagues are a direct result of the lack of dependable and honest law enforcement coupled with a court system that is independent and capable of enforcing the law.
Until these deficiencies can be cured, outside investment will be scarce and internal economic activity will be minimal. Iraq must free itself from these twin evils.