LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 21/17
Compiled &
Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias/english.november21.17.htm
News
Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations
Hate even the clothing defiled by
their flesh
The Letter from Jude
/Chapter 01/17-25/But you, beloved, remember the words which have been spoken
before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you that “In the
last time there will be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts.” These
are they who cause divisions, and are sensual, not having the Spirit. But you,
beloved, keep building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the
Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God’s love, looking for the mercy of our Lord
Jesus Christ to eternal life. On some have compassion, making a distinction, and
some save, snatching them out of the fire with fear, hating even the clothing
stained by the flesh. 4 Now to him who is able to keep them‡ from stumbling, and
to present you faultless before the presence of his glory in great joy, to God
our Savior, who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both
now and forever. Amen.
Question: "Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint? Why do so
many people believe that we can be saved by works?"
Answer: The simple answer is that salvation by works seems right in the eyes of
man. One of man’s basic desires is to be in control of his own destiny, and that
includes his eternal destiny. Salvation by works appeals to man’s pride and his
desire to be in control. Being saved by works appeals to that desire far more
than the idea of being saved by faith alone. Also, man has an inherent sense of
justice. Even the most ardent atheist believes in some type of justice and has a
sense of right and wrong, even if he has no moral basis for making such
judgments. Our inherent sense of right and wrong demands that if we are to be
saved, our “good works” must outweigh our “bad works.” Therefore, it is natural
that when man creates a religion it would involve some type of salvation by
works.
Because salvation by works appeals to man’s sinful nature, it forms the basis of
almost every religion except for biblical Christianity. Proverbs 14:12 tells us
that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of
death.” Salvation by works seems right to men, which is why it is the
predominantly held viewpoint. That is exactly why biblical Christianity is so
different from all other religions—it is the only religion that teaches
salvation is a gift of God and not of works. “For it is by grace you have been
saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by
works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Another reason why salvation by works is the predominantly held viewpoint is
that natural or unregenerate man does not fully understand the extent of his own
sinfulness or of God’s holiness. Man’s heart is “deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), and God is infinitely holy (Isaiah 6:3).
The deceit of our hearts is the very thing that colors our perception of the
extent of that deceit and is what prevents us from seeing our true state before
a God whose holiness we are also unable to fully comprehend. But the truth
remains that our sinfulness and God’s holiness combine to make our best efforts
as “filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6; cf. 6:1–5).
The thought that man’s good works could ever balance out his bad works is a
totally unbiblical concept. Not only that, but the Bible also teaches that God’s
standard is nothing less than 100 percent perfection. If we stumble in keeping
just one part of God’s righteous law, we are as guilty as if we had broken all
of it (James 2:10). Therefore, there is no way we could ever be saved if
salvation truly were dependent on works.
Another reason that salvation by works can creep into denominations that claim
to be Christian or say they believe in the Bible is that they misunderstand
passages like James 2:24: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and
not by faith only.” Taken in the context of the entire passage (James 2:14–26),
it becomes evident that James is not saying our works make us righteous before
God; instead, he is making it clear that real saving faith is demonstrated by
good works. The person who claims to be a Christian but lives in willful
disobedience to Christ has a false or “dead” faith and is not saved. James is
making a contrast between two different types of faith—truth faith that saves
and false faith that is dead.
There are simply too many verses that teach that one is not saved by works for
any Christian to believe otherwise. Titus 3:4–5 is one of many such passages:
“But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He
saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”
Good works do not contribute to salvation, but they will always be
characteristic of one who has been born again. Good works are not the cause of
salvation; they are the evidence of it.
While salvation by works might be the predominantly held viewpoint, it is not an
accurate one biblically. The Bible contains abundant evidence of salvation by
grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9).
Recommended Resource: Faith Alone, The Doctrine of Justification: What the
Reformers Taught...and Why It Still Matters by Thomas Schreiner
Questions.org?
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published on November
20-21/17
Arab states urge Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah/Arabnews/November
21/17
The 'Iranian Interference' Item/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17
Can Lebanon handle truth about Hariri, Saudi Arabia/Al Monitor/Week in
Review/November 20/2017
Nuclear War Doesn’t Seem So Funny After All/Britt Peterson/The New York
Times/November 20/17
The Media Won’t Give up its Role/Chris Wallace/The Washington Post/November
20/17
We’re at Cyberwar/David Von Drehle/The Washington Post/November 20/17
Turkey Islamizes Denmark with More Mosques/Judith Bergman/Gatestone
Institute/November 20/17
When Was the "Palestinian People" Created? Google Has the Answer./Jean Patrick
Grumberg/Gatestone Institute/November 20/17
Rouhani Pays The Price For Khamenei’s Machiavellian Game/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arabnews/November
21/17
Saudi Arabia’s changes are positive, but the way they are portrayed is not
/Faisal J. Abbas/Al Arabiya/November 21/17
Iraq’s child brides and the flaws in its democracy/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/November
21/17
Titles For Latest LCCC Lebanese Related News published on
November 20-21/17
Nasrallah Denies Sending Arms to Yemen, Kuwait,
Involvement in Riyadh Missile
Aoun: Lebanon Must Not Pay Price for Regional Conflicts
Arab League Chief in Beirut, Holds Talks with Aoun
Netanyahu, Macron to Discuss 'Ideas to Stabilize Situation in Lebanon'
Berri Criticizes Arab League's Label of Hizbullah
Hariri to Travel to Egypt Tuesday
Arab League Stance on Iran 'Worthless', Says Tehran
Hamas Rejects Arab Statement Labeling Hizbullah 'Terrorist'
New Saudi Ambassador Arrives in Beirut
Jordan's King Stresses to Gemayel Kingdom's 'Full Support' for Lebanon
Hashem Says Arab League Must Understand Lebanon's 'Particularity'
Netanyahu to Meet Macron on Lebanon Crisis
Arab states urge Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah
The 'Iranian Interference' Item
Can Lebanon handle truth about Hariri, Saudi Arabia?
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports
And News published on November 20-21/17
Egypt’s Sisi Says Gas Discoveries Can be
EU's New Energy Source
Egyptian Central Security Forces Chief Survives Assassination Attempt in North
Sinai
UN: Warring Sides Should Stop Targeting Civilians in Damascus, Eastern Ghouta
Iraqi Top Court Rules Kurdish Referendum Unconstitutional
Israeli Police Question Netanyahu for 6th Time
Riyadh conference aims to unify Syrian opposition, says adviser
Army Appeals for Calm as Mugabe Faces Impeachment Test
Latest Lebanese Related News published on
November 20-21/17
Nasrallah Denies Sending Arms to Yemen, Kuwait, Involvement in Riyadh Missile
Naharnet/November 21/17/
Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah denied on Monday that his group had ever
sent weapons to a host of conflict-ridden countries, including Yemen, Bahrain,
and Kuwait. "I want to formally deny it: we did not send weapons to Yemen,
Bahrain, Kuwait, or Iraq," Nasrallah said in a televised address.
"We haven't sent weapons to any Arab country -- no ballistic missiles, advanced
weapons, not even a pistol," he said. “We only sent Kornet missiles to the Gaza
Strip while in Syria we're fighting with our weapons,” Nasrallah added.
Hizbullah's chief also denied his group was involved in the firing of a missile
from Yemen into Saudi Arabia earlier this month."No one from Lebanon's Hizbullah
has anything to do with the launch of this missile," Nasrallah said. "I
categorically deny this accusation, which is not based on truth or evidence," he
added. Addressing Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, Nasrallah said “the
most important factor for Lebanon's security is the Resistance and Hizbullah's
arms. If you want security for Lebanon, do not interfere in its affairs and do
not incite Israel to strike it.”Nasrallah was responding to an Arab League
statement issued Sunday, which labeled Hizbullah as a “terrorist” group and
accused it of interfering in several Arab countries. The statement accused
Hizbullah of “training terrorist groups” in Bahrain, “supporting terrorist
groups” in Saudi Arabia, and “supporting terror and terrorist groups in Arab
countries with advanced weapons and ballistic missiles.”Nasrallah slammed the
statement as “ridiculous and absurd” on Monday. “The Arab League statement was
expected... While Hizbullah was liberating (Syria's) al-Bukamal from Daesh
(Islamic State group), which is labeled as terrorist by the entire world, these
people were calling Hizbullah terrorist,” he said. “What have you contributed to
the victory against Daesh?” Nasrallah added, addressing the Arab foreign
ministers who met in Cairo on Sunday.
“All the forces that thwarted the U.S. scheme in the region by fighting Daesh
will be put on terror blacklists,” Nasrallah lamented. He added: “Ask Saudi
Arabia to stop the crushing of children's bones and its massacres (in Yemen).
Press for a political solution and this scary and suspicious silence in the
Islamic world is unacceptable.” Nasrallah also accused the United States of
offering support and assistance to the IS group in eastern Syria, describing the
capture of al-Bukamal as a “major military achievement.”Moreover, Nasrallah said
he was prepared to pull Hizbullah's military advisers from Iraq, after the IS
group lost control over its last urban stronghold in the country.
Nasrallah acknowledged that his group had deployed "large numbers of our
commanders and cadres" to Iraq to fight IS. "We consider that the mission has
been accomplished, but we are waiting for the final, Iraqi announcement of
victory," he said.
Once that official declaration came, Hizbullah would reassess its presence in
Iraq and may pull its members out, Nasrallah added."If we find that it's over,
that there is no need for the presence of these brothers, they will return to be
deployed in any other arena that needs them," Nasrallah said. Hizbullah mostly
deployed experienced commanders as advisers and trainers to work alongside the
Hashed al-Shaabi, a paramilitary umbrella dominated by local Shiite militia
groups also loyal to Tehran. Iraqi forces on November 17 announced they had
retaken Rawa, the last town to have been held by the Islamic State group in
Iraq, capping three years of anti-jihadist military operations. The latest
efforts against IS have been spearheaded by Iraqi special forces and other
regular troops but the Hashed, which counts tens of thousands of fighters, has
been a key component of the bruising campaign.
While IS no longer controls any urban hub in Iraq, its surviving fighters have
regrouped in remote desert areas along the border with Syria and mopping up
operations remain to be completed. Turning to the developments in Lebanon,
Nasrallah said Hizbullah is “awaiting the return” Prime Minister Saad Hariri,
noting that the latter is still Lebanon's premier despite his resignation
announcement from Saudi Arabia.“We're open to any dialogue and discussion in the
country,” Nasrallah emphasized. Lebanon has been gripped in a political crisis
since Hariri announced his surprise resignation earlier this month from Riyadh,
lambasting Iran and Hizbullah for their policies in Lebanon and the region.
The shock announcement sparked worries that Lebanon would be caught up in the
spiraling tensions between Riyadh and Tehran, which back opposing political and
armed groups across the region. After resigning, Hariri spent two more weeks in
Saudi Arabia amid rumors he was under de facto house arrest there, before
traveling to Paris on Saturday. There, he met French President Emmanuel Macron
and pledged he would be in Lebanon in time to mark its independence day on
Wednesday.
Aoun: Lebanon Must Not Pay Price for Regional
Conflicts
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 21/17/President Michel Aoun stressed on
Monday during talks with Arab League chief Ahmed Abu el-Gheit at the
Presidential Palace that Lebanon must not “pay the price for regional
conflicts,” after its closing statement a day earlier that named Hizbullah party
a “terror” organization. “Lebanon is not responsible for the Arab and regional
conflicts that some Arab states are witnessing. Lebanon did not carry out any
aggression against anyone and it should not pay the price of these conflicts,”
Aoun told Abu el-Gheit who arrived in Lebanon Monday.
The President added: “Lebanon can not tolerate a suggestion that the Lebanese
government is a partner in terrorist acts. Lebanon's stance declared through its
representative at the Arab League yesterday expressed a national will.”
Turning to Lebanon's conflict with Israel and how the country has countered the
Israeli aggressions since 1978, Aoun said: “Lebanon was able to face the Israeli
aggressions since 1978 until the 2006 war. It was able to liberate its land.
Israeli threats are still ongoing, the Lebanese have the right to fight and
thwart it with all available means.”The closing statement of an emergency Arab
League meeting on Sunday labeled Hizbullah as “terrorist”, which prompted
Lebanon’s representative to voice reservations over certain clauses. The
statement accused Hizbullah of “training terrorist groups” in Bahrain,
“supporting terrorist groups” in Saudi Arabia, and “supporting terror and
terrorist groups in Arab countries with advanced weapons and ballistic
missiles.” And describing Hizbullah as a “partner in the Lebanese government,”
the statement also accused the group of “spreading extremism and sectarianism”
and “interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”The Lebanese envoy
to the meeting, Antoine Azzam, made carefully weighed comments at the talks.
While not mentioning Iran by name, he said Lebanon condemned all attacks against
Arab nations, but blamed exploitable inter-Arab divisions that allowed
international and regional powers to promote their interests.
Arab League Chief in Beirut, Holds Talks with
Aoun
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 21/17/Arab League chief Ahmed Abu el-Gheit
stressed on Monday that the Arab League is keen on “understanding” Lebanon's
“special composition” after naming Hizbullah a “terror” organization, assuring
that no one accepts any harm for the Mediterranean country. No one wants to harm
Lebanon we understand it has its own particularity,” said Abu el-Gheit after
holding a meeting with President Michel Aoun at the Baabda Palace. “I explained
to the President the circumstances that surrounded the Arab League's meeting and
the closing statement,” he added. Earlier after arriving at the Rafik Hariri
International Airport Monday, Abu el-Gheit stressed to reporters that the Arab
countries "have great understanding for Lebanon's position and that they want to
spare it from becoming embroiled in conflicts," the National News Agency
reported.
Al-Joumhouria daily reported that the Arab League chief was not delegated by the
Arab foreign ministers' conference following its Sunday statement. He will also
hold talks with senior Lebanese officials, and will take part in a conference
called by ESCWA for the regional economic commissions in the Arab countries.Arab
diplomatic sources told the daily that “it was a coincidence for Abu el-Gheit to
travel to Lebanon one day after the Arab League meeting, and that he will
participate in a conference invited by the ESCWA.”The closing statement of an
emergency Arab League meeting on Sunday labeled Hizbullah as “terrorist”, which
prompted Lebanon’s representative to voice reservations over certain clauses.
The statement accused Hizbullah of “training terrorist groups” in Bahrain,
“supporting terrorist groups” in Saudi Arabia, and “supporting terror and
terrorist groups in Arab countries with advanced weapons and ballistic
missiles.”And describing Hizbullah as a “partner in the Lebanese government,”
the statement also accused the group of “spreading extremism and sectarianism”
and “interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”According to the
daily, talks between Aoun and Abul Gheit will discuss the positions of Lebanon
calling for intensifying the work of the Arab League based on the positions
launched during a visit to its headquarters last February. Aoun will also recall
Lebanon's proposals calling on the Arab League to lead a joint Arab action aimed
at ending differences by diplomatic means and renouncing the use of arms in
resolving Arab-Arab disputes, said the daily.
Netanyahu, Macron to Discuss 'Ideas to Stabilize
Situation in Lebanon'
Associated Press/Naharnet/November
21/17/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday he will meet French
President Emmanuel Macron in Paris in early December to discuss threats against
Israel from Hizbullah and Iran and "ideas to stabilize the situation in
Lebanon."The prime minister told his Likud party at a meeting Monday that he
spoke with the French president "at length" the previous day. Lebanon was
plunged into crisis earlier this month by the surprise resignation of Prime
Minister Saad Hariri. Hariri recently traveled to France from Saudi Arabia,
where he had made the announcement.
Netanyahu said he and Macron agreed to meet to "see if we can adopt similar
approaches, as much as possible, concerning this threat and the nuclear
agreement with Iran."
Berri Criticizes Arab League's Label of
Hizbullah
Naharnet/November 21/17/Speaker Nabih Berri indirectly criticized on Monday the
Arab League's closing statement that named Hizbullah a “terrorist” organization.
“Thanks and sorry...Thank God and sorry that we in Lebanon have fought the
Israelis,” said Berri in a post on his Facebook page. Berri did not make further
remarks. The closing statement of an emergency Arab League meeting on Sunday
labeled Hizbullah as “terrorist”, which prompted Lebanon’s representative to
voice reservations over certain clauses. The statement accused Hizbullah of
“training terrorist groups” in Bahrain, “supporting terrorist groups” in Saudi
Arabia, and “supporting terror and terrorist groups in Arab countries with
advanced weapons and ballistic missiles.”
And describing Hizbullah as a “partner in the Lebanese government,” the
statement also accused the group of “spreading extremism and sectarianism” and
“interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”The Lebanese envoy to
the meeting, Antoine Azzam, made carefully weighed comments at the talks.
While not mentioning Iran by name, he said Lebanon condemned all attacks against
Arab nations, but blamed exploitable inter-Arab divisions that allowed
international and regional powers to promote their interests.
Hariri to Travel to Egypt Tuesday
Naharnet/November 21/17/Prime Minister Saad Hariri will visit Cairo on Tuesday,
where he will meet with Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the premier's
media office said in a statement. Hariri will travel to Egypt from France were
he is staying at the invitation of President Emanuel Macron after rumors that he
was held against his will in Saudi Arabia after his surprise resignation. His
failure to return to Lebanon since his shock resignation on November 4 from
Riyadh, sparked rumors that he was being held in Riyadh against his will, which
both he and Saudi officials denied. The Premier is expected to return to Lebanon
to take part in the Independence Day celebrations. Lebanon will mark
Independence Day on Wednesday and there have been concerns about whether Hariri
will attend the annual celebrations. The ceremony is usually headed by the
president, prime minister and parliament speaker.
Arab League Stance on Iran 'Worthless', Says Tehran
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 21/17/Iran on Monday dismissed as
"worthless" a resolution by Arab League foreign ministers that accused the
Islamic republic of "aggression" against Arab states.
"The solution to the region's problems, many of which are down to Saudi Arabia's
sterile policy, is not to publish such worthless statements but to stop
following the policies of the Zionist regime (Israel) which seeks to stoke
divisions," the ISNA news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Bahram
Ghassemi as saying. On Sunday, the Arab League held an extraordinary general
meeting in Cairo, at the request of Saudi Arabia, as tensions soar between the
regional arch-rivals, including over League member Lebanon.
Hamas Rejects Arab Statement Labeling Hizbullah
'Terrorist'
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November
21/17/Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas rejected on Monday an Arab League
resolution labeling Lebanon's Hizbullah a “terrorist” organization. In a
statement the party said it "rejects the description of the Lebanese Hizbullah
resistance movement as terrorist."Instead, it added, Israel's actions against
Palestinians should be labeled "terrorism."It also called on Arab states to
"support the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people" and urged them to
work together to solve their differences through dialogue. On Sunday Arab League
members adopted a resolution saying they would hold the "terrorist Lebanese
Hizbullah... responsible for supporting terrorism and terrorist organizations in
Arab countries, with modern weapons and ballistic missiles."The resolution came
amid soaring tensions between regional arch-rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran --
Hizbullah's backer. Sunni Muslim powerhouse Saudi Arabia and Iran, the
predominant Shiite power, have for decades stood on opposing sides of conflicts
in the Middle East including in Syria and Yemen. Despite being Sunni, Hamas has
long been seen as an ally of Iran. Hamas has fought three wars with Israel since
2008. Hizbullah for its part fought Israel in 2006 and had spearheaded military
operations against Israeli forces occupying parts of southern Lebanon prior to
the Israeli withdrawal in the year 2000.
New Saudi Ambassador Arrives in Beirut
Naharnet/November 21/17/The new Saudi ambassador to Lebanon, Walid al-Yaaqoub,
arrived Monday in Beirut to assume his duties, amid high Saudi-Lebanese and
Saudi-Iranian tensions, Lebanon's National News Agency reported. The envoy was
welcomed at the Rafik Hariri International Airport by acting protocol director
at the Lebanese Foreign Ministry Assaf Doumit and the ambassadors of Kuwait, the
UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Oman, Tunisia, Morocco, Palestine, Algeria and Sudan. Saudi
charge d'affaires Walid al-Bukhari and the Saudi embassy's staff were also
present at the reception. After a short stop at the airport, Yaaqoub left for
the embassy without making a statement, amid strict security measures. According
to information obtained by al-Markazia news agency, Yaaqoub had worked as a
diplomat at the kingdom's embassy in Beirut in the past and most recently as an
aide to firebrand Saudi State Minister for Gulf Affairs Thamer al-Sabhan. Prior
to the kingdom's latest escalation against Hizbullah and Iran, Sabhan had posted
several blistering anti-Hizbullah tweets, with al-Mustaqbal Movement describing
his remarks as a Saudi “warning message.” Riyadh did not immediately appoint a
new ambassador to Lebanon after the departure of its envoy Ali Awadh Asiri in
2016.
Jordan's King Stresses to Gemayel Kingdom's
'Full Support' for Lebanon
Naharnet/November 21/17/Jordanian King Abdullah II held
talks Monday in Amman with Kataeb Party chief MP Sami Gemayel, stressing the
kingdom's “full support” for Lebanon amid the current turmoil. According to a
statement issued by Gemayel's press office, Kataeb's leader had received an
official invitation to visit Jordan. Talks tackled “the current developments in
the regional and international arenas,” the press office said, adding that the
monarch “put MP Gemayel in the picture of the critical developments that the
region is going through, underscoring the depth of the historic and brotherly
ties between the two countries.”“Jordan fully supports Lebanon in its efforts to
overcome challenges and preserve its national unity, sovereignty, security and
stability,” Abdullah II told Gemayel, wishing a “better future” for the Lebanese
people.Gemayel for his part expressed appreciation for Jordan's stances,
thanking the kingdom for “its support for the Lebanese Army” and underlining
“the need to strengthen bilateral ties between the two states.”Talks between the
two men also addressed “the situation of the city of Jerusalem and means to turn
it into a city that is open to all the followers of Abrahamic religions” in
addition to “Amman's effective role in the dialogue of cultures and religions
and the Jordanian experience regarding Syrian refugees.”Lebanon has been gripped
in a political crisis since Prime Minister Saad Hariri announced a surprise
resignation earlier this month from Saudi Arabia, lambasting Iran and Hizbullah
for their policies in Lebanon and the region. The shock announcement sparked
worries that Lebanon would be caught up in the spiraling tensions between Riyadh
and Tehran, which back opposing political and armed groups across the region.
After resigning, Hariri spent two more weeks in Saudi Arabia amid rumors he was
under de facto house arrest there, before traveling to Paris on Saturday. There,
he met French President Emmanuel Macron and pledged he would be in Lebanon in
time to mark its independence day on Wednesday.
Hashem Says Arab League Must Understand
Lebanon's 'Particularity'
Naharnet/November
21/17/MP Qassem Hashem rejected the Arab League naming of Hizbullah as a
“terrorist” organization, describing the party as a “major component of the
Lebanese fabric.”In an interview with radio VDL (93.3) Hashem said Hizbullah is
“part of Lebanon's political society. It constitutes a fundamental part in the
Parliament and Cabinet and has its own popular and political weight.” Hashem
added saying that the Arab League “must understand Lebanon's particularity,”
asserting that “Lebanon is keen on having strong and excellent ties with the
entire Arab countries.” “Hizbullah is dealing with all Lebanese issues wisely
and positively mainly the recent crisis,” said the lawmaker, adding “but some
issues can not be tolerated, especially external dictates, in light of the
seriousness of what we are going through. What is happening today is not normal
and we are all concerned with fortifying the internal arena.”
The closing statement of an emergency Arab League meeting on Sunday labeled
Hizbullah as “terrorist”, which prompted Lebanon’s representative to voice
reservations over certain clauses. The statement accused Hizbullah of “training
terrorist groups” in Bahrain, “supporting terrorist groups” in Saudi Arabia, and
“supporting terror and terrorist groups in Arab countries with advanced weapons
and ballistic missiles.” And describing Hizbullah as a “partner in the Lebanese
government,” the statement also accused the group of “spreading extremism and
sectarianism” and “interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.”
The Lebanese envoy to the meeting, Antoine Azzam, made carefully weighed
comments at the talks. While not mentioning Iran by name, he said Lebanon
condemned all attacks against Arab nations, but blamed exploitable inter-Arab
divisions that allowed international and regional powers to promote their
interests.
Netanyahu to Meet Macron on Lebanon Crisis
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al Awsat/November
20/17/Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet French President
Emmanuel Macron in Paris in early December for talks expected to include
developments in Lebanon, Netanyahu's office said on Sunday. In a phone call on
Sunday, "President Macron updated Prime Minister Netanyahu with the measures he
is taking in the crisis in Lebanon," it said in a statement. "The two leaders
decided to speak again in the coming days and to meet in Paris at the beginning
of next month."Netanyahu last visited the Elysee in July. The Israeli PM and
Macron also spoke about the nuclear deal with Iran, its "attempts to set up
bases in Syria and its activities in the region", the statement said. It said
Macron instigated the 30-minute phone call. The Israeli government closely
follows the developments in Lebanon. Recent comments made by Lebanese Foreign
Minister Jebran Bassil have dawn strong condemnation in Israel. “We should
restrain Israel from starting a war exactly because Lebanon is sure to win it,”
Bassil said during a visit to Moscow. But an Israeli minister played down his
remarks, saying the 11-year calm on the Lebanese-Israeli border will not be
shattered and the resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri will not change
Hezbollah’s caution. Hariri resigned on November 4, citing Iran's "grip" on his
country and the region, and threats to his life.
Arab states urge Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah
Arabnews/NAJIA HOUSSARI/Tuesday
21 November 2017
Arab states stand united against ‘unacceptable Iranian aggression’
BEIRUT: Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who resigned on Nov. 4, will land
in Cairo on Tuesday to meet the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi “to
complement his international and Arab tours,” Hariri’s media office announced.
Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit arrived in Beirut on Monday —
the day after his urgent meeting in the Egyptian capital with Arab foreign
ministers, at which he condemned “the firing of an Iranian-made ballistic
missile from Yemeni territories to Riyadh" and considered it "blatant aggression
against Saudi Arabia and a threat to Arab national security.”
The statement released after the meeting held “the terrorist organization,
Hezbollah, a major player in the Lebanese government, responsible for supporting
terrorism and terrorist groups in Arab countries through providing them with
advanced arms and ballistic missiles.”
Aboul Gheit heard Lebanese President Michel Aoun say: “Lebanon is not
responsible for Arab or regional conflicts and had never attacked any country.
Therefore, it must not pay the price for these conflicts."
Aoun stressed that “Lebanon faced Israeli aggression and managed to free its
lands, but Israel continues to target Lebanon, which gives Lebanese people every
right to resist and thwart Israel’s plans in every possible way.”
He also refused to “suggest that the Lebanese government plays a role in
terrorist acts,” pointing out that “the stance of the permanent representative
of Lebanon to the Arab League during the foreign ministers’ meeting reflects a
strong national determination.”
Lebanon objected to “the describing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, as
well as referring to it as being part of the government.”
In a statement released by the presidential palace after Aboul Gheit’s meeting
with Aoun, Aboul Gheit said: “Arab states are keen on ensuring Lebanon’s
sovereignty, independence and role as well as protecting its unique political
structure and refusing to allow any harm to get to it.”
The Arab League chief also told the media that he came to Lebanon “to explain to
Aoun the circumstances surrounding the Arab League’s meeting and the decision
made by the foreign ministers, which includes looking into Iran’s interference
in Saudi, Bahraini, GCC and UAE affairs. The decision was adopted by the Arab
Ministerial Quartet Committee, which was formed by the Arab League more than two
years ago to address Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Arab
countries, and which includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE, along
with the secretary-general of the Arab League as members.
“The foreign ministers’ decision was issued mainly to inform the United Nations
and the Security Council of Iran’s interference and approach in the Arab world,”
he added. “I have noticed that everyone showed interest in understanding the
Lebanese structure, and no one wants, accepts or wishes to harm Lebanon.”He
continued: “It isn’t new or unusual for the decision to include stances
regarding a specific Lebanese party; this has been going on for more than two
years. Even when it referred to the Lebanese government, the reference was meant
for a certain participation and not Lebanon as a whole.
“The formation of a new Lebanese government or the continuation of any situation
in Lebanon is not something I would interfere in or comment about, and Prime
Minister Hariri will come to Lebanon on Tuesday.”
He stressed that Arab countries were targeted by the ballistic missiles,
especially Saudi Arabia, and this is the reason behind its anger. Observers of
the decision will notice a reference to the UN Charter Article 51, which states
that the targeted countries have the inherent right to defend themselves and
respond to these ballistic missile attacks whenever and however they wish.
According to the decision, those countries chose to resort to the UN's
legitimate and legal diplomatic work and to turn to the Security Council.
Aboul Gheit visited the Speaker of the Parliament of Lebanon, Nabih Berri, who
commented on the outcomes of the Cairo meeting in a brief statement released by
his media office, in which he said: “Pardon us in Lebanon for having fought
Israel.”
After the Aboul Gheit-Berri meeting, Berri’s media office announced that he
said: “Despite the explanation provided by the Arab League chief, I have
reminded him of the decision’s introduction, which stresses the importance of
ensuring that relations between Arab countries and Iran are based on the
principle of good neighborliness. I have also reminded him of dozens of
decisions issued by the Arab League during summits and ministerial meetings,
which confirm the resistance’s right to liberate its lands and which support
Lebanon in its fight against Israel. Besides, the decision’s reference to the
Lebanese government is not a successful one at all — it is actually offensive
given the government’s current state.”
In a statement, Abou Gheit repeated that he explained to Berri that “the
decision did not refer to Lebanon as a whole, but to a specific party in a
certain situation.”He also repeated: “Everyone recognizes the uniqueness of the
Lebanese political structure, and no one at all wishes to harm Lebanon or turn
its lands into a stage for any Arab-Iranian conflict. I am certain about this
and never heard anyone suggest otherwise.”He stressed that “no one is accusing
the Lebanese government of terrorism. The decision merely referred to a certain
party that participates in the government, and the Arab League merely reflects
the Arab world’s will or the outcomes of the ministerial meeting. It is an
indirect way to demand that the Lebanese state or government speak to this
partner and convince it to control its actions on Arab lands in a way that does
not lead to forming alliances with non-Arab powers, and this is what was meant.”
In his comment on Berri’s statement, “Pardon us for having fought Israel,” Aboul
Gheit said: “I come from a country that fought Israel for long decades. I
support and stand with whoever fights Israel and rejects its injustice and
aggression. I cannot say anything more.”
The 'Iranian Interference' Item
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17
It is enough for Arab foreign ministers to open their world map to confirm that
their emergency meeting in Cairo yesterday was justified and necessary.
Talking about the “Iranian interference” is not a passing accusation that lacks
evidence. The insistence on discussing it never falls within the framework of
harassment or escalation.
It is an attempt to crystallize a unified Arab will to deal with a tense Arab
reality in a group of countries and maps. Repercussions of continued
interventions are not only limited to countries, in which Iranian-backed
militias operate, but they can affect the balance of power across the region.
The most striking aspect of these interventions is that Tehran is not trying to
deny them. The missile that targeted Riyadh bears a clear signature, and the
Houthis were only used as a platform to launch it. General Qassem Soleimani’s
pictures, touring among militants and between crescent states, leave no room for
doubt. Statements made by the generals of the Revolutionary Guard about the
control of four Arab capitals are not just a blur or an exaggeration. President
Hassan Rouhani’s words on the compulsory Iranian crossing complete the image.
“Iranian interference” is nothing new. The policy of “exporting the revolution”
is primarily a declaration of the right to intervene in the affairs of other
countries. What is new is the extent of this interference, the increasing
threats it is posing and its growing exposure. Political changes, distortion of
the power balance and demographic modifications to guarantee the consolidation
of the new features… “Iranian interference” is nothing new. But after the
blatant Iranian role in Yemen, it took a more dangerous course. What is new,
however, is that targeted countries feel that they can no longer avoid calling
things by their proper name and that this interference is a fixed item in Arab
meetings and talks with international powers.
What is also new is the presence of an American administration that is not
reassured with the nuclear deal, the achievement of which was an obsession for
Barack Obama. The current administration has included the item “Iranian
interference” at the core of its relationship with the region and its crises.
What is new in the “Iranian interference” is that Tehran has not dealt with the
nuclear agreement as an opportunity to show respect to international laws and
covenants. One can say that what happened was exactly the opposite. After
signing the agreement, Iran stepped up its intervention in the region as if it
considered the deal an opportunity that must be seized and used for the sake of
the “big coup” project. It was an unprecedented scene: removing maps’ immunity,
violating international law and turning allied militias into small armies to
topple some regimes and prevent the fall of others, regardless of the feelings
of people, whose maps have been violated. The situation became more dangerous
with the formation of rocket-armed militias, which complement abuses committed
by militias through ground-based incursions.
What is also new in the “Iranian interference” is that talks about it reemerged
after threats posed by ISIS diminished. There are those who believe that Iran’s
sectarian-based policy of destabilization was the reason for the fragmentation
of national unity in more than one Arab country and that ISIS was born out of
these ruptures. Since the region is also a hub of vital fortunes and corridors
for global economy, international concern over Iranian role in missiles and
militias has escalated.
On the eve of the Cairo meeting, Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron discussed the
situation in the Middle East. The White House said the two presidents “agreed on
the need to work with allies to counter the destabilizing activities of
Hezbollah and Iran in the region.”
Iranian interventions have reached an unprecedented level. This reality is even
embarrassing for countries that usually prefer to adopt lukewarm stances and
treat Arab wounds with general repeated terms. It has become difficult for any
Arab minister to justify the Iranian behavior or give pretexts to mitigate its
role. The Iranian missile on Riyadh and the content of the resignation of
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri presented new evidence to those who were
still looking for proof.
Mounting interventions explained the rhetoric used by Arab League
Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit at the opening of the meeting. They also
explained the firm tone used by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. At the
meeting, Iran was accused of pursuing sectarian policies, deploying its militias
on Arab soil and interfering in internal affairs. All these accusations have put
the “Iranian Interference” item at the top of the agenda of regional and
international meetings. One does not exaggerate when saying that the stance
towards these interventions will be an influential factor in Arab
inter-relations, as well as in Arab-international relations. Three parties must
reflect on the outcome of the emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers. The
first is Iran, whose behavior was condemned by the participants. The question is
whether it wants to coexist with its Arab neighbors, or it insists on trying to
subjugate them… If it chooses the second option, the winds of confrontation will
intensify and Tehran will face isolation. The second party is Hezbollah, which
must think about its current image at the Arab level. Hezbollah is no longer
seen as a resistance against Israel, but as a terrorist organization, based on
its role in the Iranian coup. The third party is President Michel Aoun, who will
be the biggest loser of the resignation of Saad Hariri. The presence of Aoun –
the former Army commander - in the presidential palace, will be meaningless if
he does not employ his position to defend the idea of the state, the factors for
its existence and the interests of the Lebanese people. Unless Iran makes a
quick decision to stop its comprehensive offensive in the region, the “Iranian
Interference” item will be the title of the next confrontation and the slogan
for a new alignment. The same item will be the title of the move towards the
Security Council and will leave its mark on the situation in exploding areas and
those which are likely to explode.
Can Lebanon handle truth about Hariri, Saudi Arabia?
Al Monitor/Week in Review/November 20/2017
REUTERS/Jamal SaidiPosters depicting Saad Hariri, who announced his resignation
as Lebanon's prime minister from Saudi Arabia, are seen along an airport highway
in Beirut, Lebanon, Nov. 19, 2017.
Hariri’s transformative journey: “Unable to convince anybody”
“I am unable to convince anybody that you aren't a prisoner in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, that you're not a hostage, that you're not under house arrest even
though we are in your own house," said Paula Yacoubian in her interview with
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri last week. “Even I myself am being accused
of being part of this theater.”
During the interview, conducted on his own Future TV, Hariri assured Yacoubian
that all was fine and that he was not a captive in the kingdom, all the while
drinking perhaps a quart of water and looking tired and at times on the verge of
tears, saying at one point, “I have to think about my family, too. … You know
what I went through when my father died."
As one of the Marx Brothers once said, “Who are you gonna believe, me or your
own eyes?” Not a single cab driver in Beirut or Cairo is buying Hariri’s
assurances that he has been acting of his own free will or that his visit to the
kingdom was simply in the context of his special and brotherly relationship with
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Also not buying it are French President
Emmanuel Macron, whose intervention led to Hariri’s release, due to the good
offices of United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed; German Foreign
Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who criticized Saudi interference in Lebanese affairs,
prompting a crisis in German-Saudi relations; Lebanese President Michel Aoun,
who said that he considered Hariri to “be held and detained, contrary to the
Vienna Convention”; Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani,
who called out Saudi Arabia for “irresponsibility and a reckless leadership in
the region that is just trying to bully countries into submission.”
With regard to what has been seen with our “own eyes,” Hariri arrived in Saudi
Arabia on Nov. 3, per a summons to meet King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud. He
was received without the normal protocol at the airport, and soon presented his
resignation speech, in which he declared the need to "cut off the hands that
wickedly extend to it," referring to Iranian and Hezbollah influence in Lebanese
affairs, and that his life was in danger. Macron came to the kingdom Nov. 9 to
address the crisis, and undertook a diplomatic effort to get Hariri and his
family out of Riyadh. The interview with Yacoubian on Future TV, which is owned
by Hariri, was such a fiasco that Lebanese state television stations will no
longer run it. Hariri landed in France on Nov. 18, but with two of his children
left behind in Saudi Arabia, fueling further speculation that his freedom of
action remains constrained.
All this has the potential to upend Lebanese and regional politics, and for no
good reason, other than the impulse of Mohammed bin Salman, who has arrested and
confiscated the assets of hundreds of Saudi royals and business leaders. The
crown prince's disastrous intervention in Yemen has killed thousands and brought
the country to the brink of famine (see below), his decision to isolate Qatar
has undermined Gulf Cooperation Council unity to Iran’s benefit and his
frustration with Hariri’s inability to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon is
well-known.
All eyes are therefore on Hariri’s return to Lebanon and the Nov. 22 meeting
with Aoun. The Lebanese president has stood by Hariri, working closely with
France and others to secure his release and safe return. Although Hariri and
Aoun may differ on many issues, Aoun took on Hariri’s cause in the name of
Lebanese sovereignty.
Hariri is expected to announce his resignation and seek to rally a more
formidable opposition to Hezbollah. But the March 14 coalition has been
fragmenting for years on Hariri’s watch. How can it be rebuilt on the shell, or
even corpse, of his credibility, if he continues to keep his own counsel on what
he has suffered the past few weeks?
And what will be the price for those Lebanese politicians who might be inclined
to support such an effort, pretending they are not privy to the open secret that
the foundation of the new coalition is built on a house of cards, and a game of
silence, originating in Riyadh? The theater of Hariri’s journey is the staple of
conversation in cabs and in coffee houses and other gathering places throughout
Lebanon and the region. The Lebanese people, in the Marx Brothers’ terminology,
are believing their eyes. Lebanese politicians place their credibility on the
line by pretending to go along with the charade, given the immense risks for the
country with more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and confrontation
between Israel and Hezbollah.
The present crisis is not without parallel to the challenges faced by Hariri’s
father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who managed Lebanon’s affairs so
artfully until his murder by political enemies in 2005. The elder Hariri was
lionized for putting Lebanon first, despite the pressures of regional powers.
When he was killed, the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon began a hunt for
witnesses.
In this case, Saad Hariri is his own witness in a court of conscience, not an
international tribunal. It is fitting that he returns to Lebanon on its
independence day. The open secret of Hairi’s transformative journey has sparked
a commendable popular outrage against such blatant and malign interference in
Lebanese affairs. Although his political capital is in free fall, Hariri’s next
steps may nonetheless be consequential as to whether the country keeps to its
present and fragile course of stability and sovereignty, or whether it reverts
to a regional battleground.
No earthquake diplomacy this time
In December 2003, a massive earthquake struck southeastern Iran, killing over
26,000 people, and injuring over 30,000. The Bam earthquake came at a low point
in US-Iran relations, almost two years after US President George W. Bush labeled
Iran a member of the "axis of evil." Nonetheless, the Bush administration
offered, and Iran accepted, relief aid from the United States, and the United
States lifted some US sanctions to allow humanitarian assistance. The Iranian
government, however, rejected an offer by the White House to send a delegation
led by North Carolina Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole, a former president of the
American Red Cross, to help oversee the relief effort.
On Nov. 12, an earthquake in Kermanshah province in Iran, home to many Kurdish
citizens, killed over 500 and injured thousands. While the US Treasury has
allowed donations to Iran via approved charities, there has been no sanctions
relief, or gesture of assistance, as there was in 2003. The Department of State
released a two-line statement expressing "condolences" for those affected by the
earthquake. US President Donald Trump has said nothing about the earthquake.
Ali Hashem reports from Eslamabad-e Gharb, in Kermanshah province: “In the
center of the city, the scenes of destruction were more obvious. Entire
neighborhoods had been wiped out. Some people wandered among the rubble,
searching for their belongings, mostly valuable items like jewelry, electronics
and rugs. While accompanying a family to their home, Al-Monitor heard a woman
shouting, “There might be someone alive here!” Soldiers and members of the Red
Crescent rushed to the scene: a three-story building turned to rubble. A rescue
dog was brought to the scene to check for signs of life, while others searched
among the rubble for documents that might provide residents' phone numbers or
identification. Scattered certificates and papers revealed that a 25-year-old
woman named Fatemeh lived there, but no phone number was found.”
While the 2003 earthquake was much more destructive than the one last week, the
contrast in the response from Washington is telling. US-Iran relations have sunk
back to, or below, the axis of evil days. Yemen is a case in point, and victim,
of this grim reality. As Jack Detsch reports, the United States has “more than
doubled US refueling support for the Saudi-led mission in Yemen over the past
year … despite mounting public and congressional concerns about the operation.”
A statement by the U.S. Mission to the United Nations earlier this month called
out Iran for its “complete disregard for its international obligations” for
being the possible source of a missile fired into Riyadh by Yemeni rebels. No
comparable outrage is expressed for the Saudi-led blockade that is contributing
to a famine, as well as the spread of cholera and diphtheria, in the region’s
poorest country.
As we wrote here last week, “Absent some clear red lines, the Trump
administration may find itself on a slippery slope toward confrontation with
Iran or unrest in Lebanon because of decisions made in Riyadh, not Washington.”
The United States might consider some conditions on the blank check that seems
to spur Saudi action in the region, including Yemen, whose people are paying a
terrible price in this war.
Latest LCCC Bulletin For Miscellaneous Reports
And News published on November 20-21/17
Egypt’s Sisi Says Gas Discoveries Can be EU's New Energy
Source
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi
said Monday that newly discovered gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean can
offer Europe alternative sources of energy that it's searching for. Sisi said
after talks with his Cypriot counterpart that Europe can take advantage of the
proximity of both Egypt and Cyprus to the continent in that energy search.
Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades said he hopes gas discoveries can act as a
catalyst for cooperation that boosts regional stability and prosperity.
Anastasiades said Cyprus will promote closer Egypt-European Union relations,
adding that Egypt constitutes an "absolutely necessary strategic partner" for
the 28-member bloc on issues including security, energy and migration. The
Egyptian president also said he and Anastasiades agreed on ways of countering
the regional extremism threat.
Egyptian Central Security Forces Chief Survives
Assassination Attempt in North Sinai
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17/A police officer and a man were
killed in two separate attacks north of Sinai, while head of the Central
Security Forces (CSF) survived an assassination attempt by unknown gunmen,
Egyptian local and security sources said.
Head of Egypt’s CSF in the North Sinai city of al-Arish Nasser al-Husseini and
other police personnel survived on Saturday an assassination attempt that
targeted their security patrol. An Improvised Explosive Device (IED) was planted
on the road of the patrol near the al-Khazan district in Arish, and a
large-scale sweep was launched to arrest the perpetrators. Since 2013, when the
Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated former President Mohamed Morsi was removed from
power, the Egyptian army and police forces have been engaged in a low-intensity
war with various militant groups, most prominently in North Sinai. The most
active militant group in the area is Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which in 2014 pledged
allegiance to ISIS. Local sources in north Sinai said that gunmen killed Mahmoud
Salam, 38, and injured two of his children after placing an IED in his car in
the city of Sheikh Zuweid. Salam is one of the most prominent figures of a group
that supports the army in its crackdown on militants in the city, according to
the sources. In Arish, medical and security sources announced that a police
officer was killed by armed elements while he was walking in the street. His
corpse was transferred to Arish Public Hospital as relevant authorities started
their investigation, sources pointed out, adding that the police are combing the
area to search for those involved in the attack.
UN: Warring Sides Should Stop Targeting Civilians in
Damascus, Eastern Ghouta
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17/The United Nations on Sunday
called on Syria's warring sides to stop targeting civilians in the capital
Damascus and nearby neighborhoods, mainly Eastern Ghouta, where escalating
bombardment has killed dozens in recent days. UN coordinator for humanitarian
and development affairs in Syria Ali al-Zaatari called on "all warring sides to
avoid targeting civilians.” "For days, there have been daily reports about
civilians being killed and others being severely wounded, in addition to
warehouses, hospitals and schools being put out of service during the exchange
of shellfire, particularly in Damascus and Eastern Ghouta," Zaatari said.
His comments in Arabic came in a statement emailed to AFP.
Regime forces have escalated their bombardment of Eastern Ghouta, an opposition
stronghold outside Damascus, since Ahrar al-Sham attacked a military base in the
area last week. Since Tuesday, heavy artillery fire and air strikes on Eastern
Ghouta have killed at least 66 civilians including 13 children, according to the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. At least 281 people have been wounded, the
Britain-based monitor said on Sunday. Rebel groups meanwhile have fired rockets
into Damascus neighborhoods, killing at least 16 people since Thursday, the
Observatory said. The toll included two people killed by rocket fire on Sunday.
"The United Nations hopes for an immediate ceasefire and the establishment of
secure humanitarian corridors to evacuate wounded, sick, and elderly people, as
well as children, as soon as possible from areas seeing hostile operations,"
Zaatari said. He called for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those who
need it across the country. Eastern Ghouta is supposed to be part of a
"de-escalation zone" under a deal between Russia, Iran and Turkey aimed at
reducing the level of violence. Bashar al-Assad's forces have besieged Eastern
Ghouta since 2013, making humanitarian conditions in the area, where some
400,000 people live, extremely dire.
Iraqi Top Court Rules Kurdish Referendum Unconstitutional
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17/Iraq's Supreme Federal Court
declared on Monday that a referendum held on Kurdish independence in September
was unconstitutional and that the results of the vote were void. "The Federal
Court issued the decision to consider the Kurdish region's referendum
unconstitutional and this ruling is final," a court spokesman said. "The power
of this ruling should now cancel all the results of the referendum."The court is
responsible for settling disputes between Iraq’s central government and regions
including Kurdistan. The verdict cannot be appealed.
Kurds voted overwhelmingly to break away from Iraq in a referendum held on Sept.
25, defying the central government in Baghdad as well as neighboring Turkey and
Iran who have their own Kurdish minorities. The court had already ruled on Nov.
6 that no region or province can secede, and the Kurdistan Regional Government
said last week it would respect that verdict. Iraqi government forces launched a
surprise offensive on Oct. 16 in retaliation. Government forces managed to wrest
back control of the oil city of Kirkuk and other disputed territories.
September's referendum was initiated by then Kurdish leader Massud Barzani, for
whom the repercussions were severe. At the beginning of November, he announced
he was stepping aside after the Kurds lost the territories. Last month, the UN
Security Council urged the Iraqi government and regional leaders in Kurdistan to
set a timetable for talks.
Israeli Police Question Netanyahu for 6th Time
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al Awsat/November 20/17/Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was questioned for a sixth time on Sunday over two
suspected cases of corruption, police said. Channel Two television said that
detectives arrived at the premier's official Jerusalem residence shortly after
4:00 pm Sunday. At 9:00 pm a police statement confirmed that he had been
questioned "for a number of hours" by officers of the national fraud and serious
crimes squad. It was their second visit in 10 days, after Netanyahu was
questioned for about four hours on November 9. He was first quizzed on January
2. Netanyahu is suspected of having received luxury gifts from wealthy
supporters, including Israeli businessman and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan.
Milchan, a long-time friend of Netanyahu, reportedly sent him boxes of expensive
cigars and other items worth tens of thousands of dollars. The producer was
himself questioned in September. In addition to suspicions that the gifts
constituted bribery, the police also suspect that he sought a secret pact for
favorable coverage with the publisher of the top-selling Yediot Aharonot
newspaper. The alleged deal, not believed to have been finalized, would have
seen Netanyahu receive favorable coverage in return for helping curb Yediot's
competitor, the pro-Netanyahu freesheet Israel Hayom. Netanyahu, who has been in
power since 2009, has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and says he has been
the target of a campaign by political opponents. Earlier this month, Netanyahu
confidants Yitzhak Molcho and David Shimron, partners in a law firm and both
relatives of the premier, were questioned by police as part of a probe into
suspected corruption around the $2 billion purchase of German submarines.
Netanyahu himself has not been named as a suspect in the submarine case.
Riyadh conference aims to unify Syrian opposition, says
adviser
Arabnews/ Tuesday 21 November 2017
JEDDAH: Yahya Al-Aridi, a political adviser to the Syrian High Negotiations
Committee, has said the Syrian opposition’s conference in Riyadh on Wednesday
mainly aims to discuss unifying the opposition and adopting a mechanism to adopt
a new constitution for the country.
The intention, he said, is to deprive Russia of excuses to stop efforts to
address the crisis. “The fragmentation of the opposition has been used by the
Russians as a pretext to discredit the opposition in general,” he said. “I have
been present in almost all Geneva and Astana talks and the Russians and the
regime have always been using this as an excuse to foil the talks. We want to
unify our stances so that they have nor more excuses — neither the regime nor
the Russians. “The Riyadh conference aims to sideline or take away this card
from the hands of Russia and the regime. Also, there should be some sort of
consolidation of strengthening of the opposition front, meaning that we need to
introduce new actors who are more experienced and better trained and have
in-depth knowledge about the negotiations,” he added.
Moreover, he said, the Russia and Cairo platforms are being invited, and this
will be a way of checking how serious they are about engaging in serious talks
over the future of Syria and the Syrian people and their best interests.
“We acknowledge that there are certain discrepancies and differences between the
different opposition platforms but these can be resolved and overcome. If they
are really part of the Syrian opposition.
“The two platforms, particularly the Moscow platform, have been insisting on the
continuation of the Syrian regime and the adoption of the 2012 Syria
Constitution which was introduced by the Syrian regime and gave absolute powers
to Bashar Assad,” he said. “If they continue to insist on these two demands then
i suggest that they should be members of the regime front and not the
opposition, as their demands meet the demands of the regime.”However, Al-Aridi
said the opposition has other alternatives to discuss with all parties with
regard to which constitution should be adopted for the future of Syria.
“We will call for a constitutional declaration that governs the transitional
period which will be the responsibility of a transitional body. This body would
establish an national assembly which would select a team of skilled and
qualified individuals to be tasked with drafting a new constitution that serves
the country and the people’s aspirations of a new dictatorship-free Syria,” he
said.
The conference will be attended by representatives of Syrian opposition groups
from Riyadh, Moscow and Cairo.
One of the participants representing the Moscow platform, Firas Al-Khaldi,
explained that the committee will study and prepare the necessary documents and
the meeting’s final communiqué. The conference aims to unite the opposition
under one delegation and issue a unified document before the delegation heads to
the Geneva talks at the end of November. Moreover, the conference seeks to
resolve points of dispute, including the fate of Syrian President Bashar Assad,
and whether or not he should step down at the beginning of the transitional
period. The second point of dispute, according to Al-Khaldi, is about the
constitution. He said there are those who want to follow the constitution set by
Assad in 2012, which is what Moscow wants, and those who favor the Fifties
constitution.
This came as the political bodies in the Syrian governorates confirmed on Sunday
that Russia seeks to create an opposition in line with Assad’s regime and
Russia’s interests in Syria. In a statement issued by these bodies, they said:
“The political bodies in Syria, which represent the revolutionary and political
movement inside Syria, are following with great concern these calls. We firmly
reject all suspicious attempts that seek to refloat Bashar Assad’s criminal
regime. “We highly appreciate the efforts of some Arab brothers and Syrian
friends in supporting our revolution’s legitimate demands, and we expect them to
continue to do so with real representation of the Syrian revolutionary
bodies.”The statement also highlighted the right of revolutionary bodies to
select their representatives in conferences and negotiations.
The political bodies also refused to accept any individual or group that does
not consider the Geneva Declaration 1 and Resolutions 2118 and 2254 the only
references for a political solution. They also noted that “the determinants of
the Riyadh I Conference are the basis for joining any political body that
opposes Assad’s regime.” On Monday (Nov. 20), anti-Assad activists launched the
campaign “Reject the Moscow Platform,” which aims to send messages to
participants in the Riyadh II Conference, set to be held by the end of this
week, and insist on not allowing the Moscow platform to join the negotiations
delegation that will represent the Syrian revolution, given that the stances of
the Moscow platform favor Assad’s regime. Syrian opposition figure Michel Kilo
said: “Participants in the Riyadh II Conference are required to thwart the
Russian plan. The Geneva Declaration 1 and Resolution 2118 state that the
political solution begins with the establishment of a transitional governing
body, formed by mutual consent of the regime and the opposition, with full
executive powers, which will create a democratic system in Syria. “The
Riyadh II Conference’s commitment to international resolutions means its
commitment to the Syrian people’s right to establish a transitional governing
body,” Kilo said.
“This right is not a precondition as the National Coordinating Body says, but a
right recognized by international resolutions. Russia attacked us and our people
with all kinds of weapons in order to save Assad’s regime. It used its veto 11
times. Therefore, we must reject the Russian solution, commit to change and
insist on having Assad step down with his entire regime.”
Army Appeals for Calm as Mugabe Faces Impeachment Test
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 21/17/Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe
came under increasing pressure to quit Monday as his ruling party said it would
move to impeach him and the army revealed his likely successor would soon return
to the country. In a televised address late Sunday, the 93-year-old president
had flouted expectations he would step down after the military's takeover,
pitching the country into a second week of political crisis.
Lawmakers from his ruling ZANU-PF party said that they would take the first
steps on Tuesday to force Mugabe from office after he ignored their ultimatum to
resign."We want to get rid of this animal called Mugabe. We have the numbers,
the opposition is also going to support us," said ZANU-PF MP Vongai Mupereri."We
are going to impeach -- the man has to go," said another government MP,
MacKenzie Ncube, speaking to AFP after a meeting of lawmakers who until recently
were his fiercely loyal supporters.
On Monday evening, army chief Constantino Chiwenga said that progress had been
made in talks towards an apparent deal over Mugabe's exit. Chiwenga also said
the president was in touch with Emmerson Mnangagwa, the ousted vice president
whose sacking triggered the military takeover and Mugabe's loss of power."The
security services are encouraged by new developments which include contact
between the president and the former vice president... who is expected in the
country shortly," Chiwenga said.
"Thereafter the nation will be advised of the outcome of talks between the two."
Chiwenga called for calm after Zimbabweans had celebrated Saturday at huge
anti-Mugabe marches that would have been brutally repressed just a week ago.
Their joy quickly turned to despair as Mugabe brushed aside the turmoil,
blithely declaring on Sunday he would chair a top-level meeting of the party
that had just disavowed him.
'He's lost his marbles'
Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the main opposition Movement for Democratic
Change, called Mugabe's speech a "complete reversal of the people's
expectations."Chris Mutsvangwa, head of the influential war veterans'
association, called for larger protests than those staged at the weekend in an
effort to dislodge Mugabe. "He's lost his marbles," he added.
Though Mugabe has struggled with public speaking in recent years, the wily
statesman appeared alert and attentive as he delivered his address.
"It might take days and weeks, but Mugabe is on his way out," said Charles
Muramba, a 46-year-old bus driver. The crisis erupted on November 13 after a
factional squabble over the presidential succession erupted into the open.
Mugabe's wife Grace, 52, secured prime position to succeed him when Mnangagwa,
who is close to the military leadership, was fired. After Mnangagwa fled abroad,
the army took over the country and placed Mugabe under house arrest. The army
insists it has not carried out a coup, but rather an operation to arrest
allegedly corrupt supporters of the highly ambitious first lady.
On Sunday ZANU-PF dismissed Mugabe as its leader and demanded he resign as head
of state, naming Mnangagwa as the new party chief.
Risk of violence?
Chris Vandome, an analyst at the Chatham House think-tank, warned that further
delays heightened the risk of disorder. "They will start impeaching him
(Tuesday), that is certainly the will of the military, but it's increasingly now
the will of the people," he told AFP. The longer this goes on for, the more the
likelihood of violence increases." Some sources suggest Mugabe has been battling
to delay his exit in order to secure a deal that would guarantee future
protection for him and his family. Mugabe was a key figure in the war for
independence and took office as prime minister in 1980, riding a wave of
goodwill. But his reputation was swiftly tarnished by his authoritarian
instincts, rights abuses and economic ineptitude. Britain, Zimbabwe's former
colonial ruler, urged "everyone to refrain from violence.""What does appear
clear is that Mugabe has lost the support of the people and of his party,"
British Prime Minister Theresa May's official spokesman said.
Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published on November
20-21/17
Nuclear War Doesn’t Seem So Funny After All
Britt Peterson/The New
York Times/November 20/17
In January, I started writing a novel in which a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb was
detonated in the center of Washington, where I live. It was meant to be funny. I
had read a 2011 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that described
the effect of such a detonation, and was surprised to learn that my apartment in
Adams Morgan would most likely survive the initial blast.
I imagined myself and my neighbors — about half wealthy millennials and half
older people who’d bought in before the neighborhood’s property values
skyrocketed — sheltering in awkward place in a basement, bickering over scraps
of food and someone’s private stash of LaCroix cans.
Then, in April, Kim Jong-un of North Korea released a propaganda video of his
army striking the Capitol; over the summer he tested intercontinental ballistic
missiles that may be capable of striking the East Coast. More recently,
President Trump called Mr. Kim “short and fat,” and now, apparently, North Korea
has sentenced Mr. Trump to death in absentia. Suddenly, my novel started feeling
a lot less funny.
For 1980s babies like me, nuclear war has long had a darkly comic edge. Too
young to have experienced 1950s school drills or to remember the heightened
anxieties of the early 1980s, we’ve viewed nuclear war as a terrifying
improbability, especially compared with the terrifying certainties that we know
all too well: global warming, terrorism, lone-wolf gunmen. America is in the
privileged position of having inflicted nuclear casualties, not suffered them —
and since the Cold War ended, it’s felt relatively likely that we wouldn’t be on
either side of that equation again.
Understanding nuclear war from movies, books and grainy videos of kids hiding
ineffectually under desks, we’ve seen it mostly through two prisms: black humor
and camp. On the camp side, there’s the 1983 movie “The Day After,” with an
Urkel-jeaned Steve Guttenberg and all the flashing skeletons. On the black humor
side, everything from “Dr. Strangelove” to Kurt Vonnegut to the work of Takashi
Murakami, as Spencer Weart points out in his book “The Rise of Nuclear Fear.”
Humor requires distance — we’ve been living in a constantly refreshed state of
“too soon” for jokes about school shooters ever since I graduated from high
school, two months after the Columbine attack. The psychologists Peter McGraw
and Caleb Warren have developed a framework called “benign violation theory” to
describe events that lend themselves best to humor: a violation or a threat, but
one from which the joker is somewhat removed. It’s unclear exactly how much
distance we need to laugh about something as cataclysmic as nuclear attack.
Spencer Weart believes that the black humor of the ’60s was actually occasioned
by proximity — a nervous proximity that forced nervous laughter. While “nobody
was making jokes during the Cuban missile crisis,” Dr. Weart said, writers and
artists in the years after used morbid satire to express their inexpressible
panic. “Thoughts of nuclear war were repressed because they were so terrible,
and it came out in humor,” he told me.
Since the end of the Cold War, he points out, the instinct to humorize nuclear
war has diminished along with the threat. More recent dystopian and nuclear
fiction, from “The Hunger Games” to Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” to “Mad Max:
Fury Road,” have mostly been intensely serious. (There are exceptions: the
running gags on “South Park” about Korean leaders with terrible haircuts, for
instance.) Although “Saturday Night Live” and other late-night shows still mock
Kim Jong-un (“the Harry Styles of North Korea,” as the Weekend Update host Colin
Jost called him in April), there hasn’t been the flowering of gallows humor that
we saw during the early days of the Cold War. Dr. Weart believes that the
relative lack of specific threat over the past decade has encouraged a more
serious approach: “You don’t have the visceral terror and therefore, you don’t
have that reaction of laughing.”
This theory is borne out by the response of a nation that earns its visceral
terror far more than anyone in America: South Korea. According to Haeryun Kang,
a South Korean journalist, South Koreans tend to be somewhat blasé about the
threats from their northern neighbor, either because of denial or sheer
habituation. But they also have a “vibrant culture” of joking about it, creating
meme-like “parody posters” showing, for instance, Kim Jong-un on a barbecue.
“Laughing about something is one of the more accessible ways to approach a
difficult issue,” Ms. Kang said by email.
For me, an increase in visceral terror over the past year at first made me need
to laugh, and then made laughing feel inappropriate. When I started my
nuclear-attack novel, I felt I was using humor to assuage my latent fears of an
attack; it felt cathartic. But catharsis, like humor, implies a remove: You’re
re-experiencing a past trauma, or inhabiting someone else’s. As it became
increasingly plausible that I could live through the precise situation I was
describing, the humor faded, and I abandoned the project.
Should we actually approach the brink of nuclear war, humor might feel necessary
again. And if it does, I have a novel all ready to go.
The Media Won’t Give up its Role
Chris Wallace/The Washington Post/November 20/17
Whatever side you’re on in the debate over journalism these days, you’re not
going to like some of what I have to say. Let’s start with a basic fact.
President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on the free
press in our history. Since early in the campaign, he has done everything he
could to delegitimize the media — attacking us institutionally and individually.
And I think his purpose is clear: a concerted campaign to raise doubts over
whether we can be trusted when we report critically about his administration.
According to the Trump Twitter Archive, between Jan. 10 and the end of October,
Trump tweeted about “fake news” 141 times. One stands out. On Feb. 17, the
president tweeted this: “The FAKE NEWS media is not my enemy. It is the enemy of
the American People!” And that was precisely his point. If we report negatively
about something he’s doing, we are hurting the country.
Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, was my guest on “Fox News
Sunday” two days later. When I asked him about the president’s tweet, he
complained that, yes, we covered what Trump did, but that “as soon as it’s over,
the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies.” I answered: “You don’t get to
tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama. He whined about Fox News all the
time. But he never said we were the enemy of the people.”
But don’t take it from me. Listen to William H. McRaven, a Navy SEAL for 37
years, the man in charge of the missions that captured Saddam Hussein and killed
Osama bin Laden. McRaven graduated from the University of Texas with a degree in
journalism. He’s now the chancellor of the University of Texas system. And after
the president’s tweet, he told students: “This sentiment may be the greatest
threat to democracy in my lifetime.”
Remember, this is a man who fought the Soviet Union, who fought terrorism. But
when I asked him about his comments, he said, “Those threats brought us
together. Both the president and I swore an oath to the Constitution. And the
First Amendment of that Constitution is freedom of the press. When the president
says the media is the enemy of the people, to me that undermines the
Constitution. So I do think it is a tremendous threat to our democracy.”
It turns out McRaven may have understated the threat. A Politico poll a couple
of weeks ago found that 46 percent of voters believe that major news
organizations make up stories about Trump. A Newseum Institute poll in May found
that 23 percent think the First Amendment “goes too far.” And 74 percent don’t
think “fake news” should be protected by the First Amendment.
But there is another side to this debate, as there usually is. And even if Trump
is trying to undermine the press for his own calculated reasons, when he talks
about bias in the media — unfairness — I think he has a point.
On Nov. 10, 2016 — two days after the election, here was the lead paragraph of a
front-page article in the New York Times: “The American political establishment
reeled on Wednesday as leaders in both parties began coming to grips with four
years of President Donald J. Trump in the White House, a once-unimaginable
scenario that has now plunged the United States and its allies and adversaries
into a period of deep uncertainty about the policies and impact of his
administration.”
On Feb. 16, this was the lead on the “CBS Evening News”: “It has been a busy day
for presidential statements divorced from reality.” A week later, this was the
lead: “The president’s troubles today were not with the media — but with the
facts.”
On Aug. 2, this was the report from CNN’s White House correspondent: “This White
House has an unhealthy fixation on what I call the three M’s: the Mexicans, the
Muslims and the media. Their policies tend to be crafted around bashing one of
these three groups.”
Now, I’m sure some of you hear those comments and think they’re spot-on. But ask
yourself — honestly — do they belong on the front page of the paper? Or the lead
of the evening news?
I believe some of my colleagues — many of my colleagues — think this president
has gone so far over the line bashing the media, that it has given them an
excuse to cross the line themselves, to push back. As tempting as that may be, I
think it’s a big mistake.
We are not players in the game. We are umpires, or observers, trying to be
objective witnesses to what is going on. That doesn’t mean we’re stenographers.
If the president — or anyone we’re covering — says something untrue or does
something questionable, we can and should report it.
But we shouldn’t be drawn into becoming players on the field, trying to match
the people we cover in invective. It’s not our role. We’re not as good at it as
they are. And we’re giving up our special place in our democracy.
We’re at Cyberwar
David Von Drehle/The Washington Post/November 20/17
The United States and its allies are under attack. The cyberwar we’ve feared for
a generation is well underway, and we are losing. This is the forest, and the
stuff about Russian election meddling, contacts with the Trump campaign, phony
Twitter accounts, fake news on Facebook — those things are trees.
We’ve been worried about a massive frontal assault, a work of Internet sabotage
that would shut down commerce or choke off the power grid. And with good reason.
The recent exploratory raid by Russian hackers on American nuclear facilities
reminds us that such threats are real.
But we failed to prepare for an attack of great subtlety and strategic nuance.
Enemies of the West have hacked our cultural advantages, turning the very things
that have made us strong — technological leadership, free speech, the market
economy and multi-party government — against us. The attack is ongoing.
With each passing week, we learn more. Russia and its sympathizers have cranked
up the volume on existing political and cultural divisions in the West. They’ve
exploited the cutting-edge algorithms of Facebook and Google to feed
misinformation to Americans most likely to believe and spread it. They have
targeted online ads designed to intensify our hottest culture wars: abortion,
guns, sexuality, race. They have partnered with WikiLeaks, the supposed paragon
of free speech, to insert propaganda into influential Twitter accounts —
including @realDonaldTrump. They have created thousands of phony online
identities to add heat to political fever swamps.
The genius of this cyberwar is that unwitting Westerners do most of the work.
Our eagerness to believe the worst about our political opponents makes us easy
marks for fake or distorted “news” from anti-American troll farms. Our media —
talk radio, cable news, every variety of digital communication — seek to cull us
into like-minded echo chambers. The West has monetized polarization; our enemies
have, in turn, weaponized it.
What was first perceived as a targeted attack — Russia attempting to hack the US
election — is proving to be a broader and bolder war. Britain’s head of
cybersecurity Ciaran Martin rang the alarm Wednesday, after a series of attacks
on British media, telecommunications and energy-sector software. “Russia is
seeking to undermine the international system,” Martin said. “That much is
clear.” Those attacks and others led Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May to
issue a blunt warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin during a speech in
London. “We know what you are doing and you will not succeed,” May declared. So
far, she’s wrong about that. Seeking to weaken and discredit the Western
alliance that has constrained Russia’s global ambitions for 70 years, Putin
pushed the Brexit vote that rattled the European Union. His cyber-sappers have
also aided nationalist movements in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and
Hungary that are shaking the alliance, although they have failed (for now) to
win power.
Putin’s goal, in May’s words, is to “sow discord in the West,” and Trump eats,
sleeps and breathes discord. He understands that our siloed, targeted,
algorithmic media feeds on conflict and outrage, and he is happy to dish it up.
What are we to do when an adversary has figured out how to use our strongest
companies, our most-watched news programs, even our president’s pugnacious
personality against our national interest?
Turkey Islamizes Denmark with More Mosques
Judith Bergman/Gatestone
Institute/November 20/17
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11400/turkey-denmark-mosques
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan clearly sees Turks living in the West as
a spearhead of Islam.
"Yes, integrate yourselves into German society but don't assimilate yourselves.
No one has the right to deprive us of our culture and our identity", Erdogan
told Turks in Germany as early as in 2011.
This assessment of Milli Görüs, however, does not seem to bother Danish
authorities, who appear to see no problems with their cities becoming Islamized
by the Turks. How many more mosques will it take?
"Islam cannot be either 'moderate' or 'not moderate.' Islam can only be one
thing," Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on November 9. "Recently the
concept of 'moderate Islam' has received attention. But the patent of this
concept originated in the West... They are now trying to pump up this idea
again. What they really want to do is weaken Islam..."
Erdogan is working on strengthening Islam in the West, something he does, among
other ways, by building Turkish mosques in Western countries. It is hardly
surprising that he does not want the West to "weaken Islam", but at the moment
there seems little risk of that happening. The establishment of Turkish mosques
in Western countries appears to be proceeding apace with very little opposition.
Conversely, building Western churches in Turkey is inconceivable.
Erdogan clearly sees Turks living in the West as a spearhead of Islam. "Yes,
integrate yourselves into German society but don't assimilate yourselves. No one
has the right to deprive us of our culture and our identity", Erdogan told Turks
in Germany as early as 2011. This year, he told Turks living in the West:
"Go live in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses.
Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe. That
will be the best response to the injustices against you."
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan clearly sees Turks living in the West as a
spearhead of Islam. This year, he told Turks living in the West: "Go live in
better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses. Make not
three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe. That will be the
best response to the injustices against you." (Photo by Gokhan Sahin/Getty
Images)
Erdogan is evidently working to ensure, by continuously building new mosques and
expanding old ones across Europe, that Muslims will indeed be the future of the
continent.
One Western country where Erdogan is ramping up Islam is Denmark. Two new
Turkish mosques are about to open in the Danish cities of Roskilde and Holbæk;
in the past year, two Turkish mosques opened in the cities of Fredericia and
Aarhus. New Turkish mosques were opened in Ringsted and Hedehusene in 2013; and
in Køge the existing mosque opened a cultural center. There are 27 Turkish
mosques in Denmark; eight of them are expanding or wish to expand.
The new mosque in Roskilde, complete with minarets, is owned by Turkey's
Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). The inclusion of minarets is due to
second- and third-generation Turkish immigrants, who wanted the mosque to look
like a "proper mosque".
"It is a general trend in all of Europe that Diyanet is expanding physically
with new mosques, and through [the mosques] also religiously, politically and
culturally" said professor Samim Akgönül, of the university of Strasbourg. He
has analyzed the Friday sermons that Diyanet sends to mosques all over Europe;
his analyses show that the sermons are full of political and nationalistic
messages favoring Erdogan's regime.
According to Tuncay Yilmaz, chairman of the board of Roskilde's Ayasofya Mosque,
"Diyanet is not political, I can promise you that. Obviously they belong to the
Turkish state, but they are independent of the government".
That statement is false. Diyanet is an agency of the Turkish government -- and
an extremely active one. As Gatestone's Burak Bekdil has noted:
"In a briefing for a parliamentary commission, Diyanet admitted that it gathered
intelligence via imams from 38 countries on the activities of suspected
followers of the US-based preacher Fetullah Gülen, whom the Turkish government
accused of being the mastermind of the attempted coup on July 15... Diyanet said
its imams gathered intelligence and prepared reports from Abkhazia, Germany,
Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Mauritania, Nigeria,
Norway, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkmenistan and
Ukraine".
In Denmark, nonetheless, the newest Turkish-state mosque was welcomed with open
arms. The mayor of Roskilde, Joy Mogensen, who knew that the Turkish government
owned the mosque, participated in the ceremony of laying the foundation stone in
February 2016. She claims that the very fact that she and the city's bishop were
invited to the ceremony meant that there were "good people" in the mosque
working for "integration" -- otherwise they would not have allowed "a Christian
woman like myself without a headscarf" to participate in their ceremony.
One of those people "working for integration" is the chairman of the board of
the mosque, Tuncay Yilmaz, who is also a member of the Roskilde city council for
the Social Democratic party. He happens to have close ties to the radical
Islamic organization Milli Görüs, which runs a travel agency where Yilmaz works.
He organizes their trips to Mecca. "I am not a member of that organization"
Yilmaz says. "The only connection is that I work for their travel agency".
Clearly, Roskilde's mayor does not consider Yilmaz's affiliation a problem, nor
does the city council. "If we had observed anything suspicious about that
organization, we would have talked to him about it; but we haven't heard
anything like that" said Søren Kargaard, chairman of the Social Democratics in
Roskilde, when asked by journalists about Yilmaz's connection to Milli Görüs.
Well, perhaps if Kargaard had bothered to look up Milli Görüs to inform himself
about it, this is what he would have found, according to a 2005 report from the
Middle East Quarterly:
"Germany's domestic intelligence agency, has repeatedly warned about Milli
Görüş's activities, describing the group in its annual reports as a 'foreign
extremist organization'. The agency also reported that 'although Milli Görüş, in
public statements, pretends to adhere to the basic principles of Western
democracies, abolition of the laicist government system in Turkey and the
establishment of an Islamic state and social system are, as before, among its
goals... As the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Landesverfassungsschutz)
in Hessen notes: The threat of Islamism for Germany is posed ... primarily by
Milli Görüş and other affiliated groups. They try to spread Islamist views
within the boundaries of the law. Then they try to implement ... for all Muslims
in Germany a strict interpretation of the Qur'an and of the Shari'a. ... Their
public support of tolerance and religious freedom should be treated with
caution".
This assessment, however, does not seem to bother Danish authorities, who appear
to see no problems with their cities becoming Islamized by the Turks. That kind
of ignorance -- or pretense of ignorance -- amounts to the dereliction of duty
on the part of people such as the mayor of Roskilde and Mr. Kargaard.
How many more mosques will it take?
*Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.
© 2017 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.
When Was the "Palestinian People" Created? Google Has the Answer.
Jean Patrick Grumberg/Gatestone Institute/November 20/17
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11401/palestinian-people
All people born in British Mandatory Palestine between 1923-1948 (today's
Israel) had "Palestine" stamped on their passports at the time. But when they
were called Palestinians, the Arabs were offended. They complained: "We are not
Palestinians, we are Arabs. The Palestinians are the Jews".
After invading Arab armies were routed and the Arabs who had fled the war wanted
to return, they were considered a fifth column and not invited back. The Arabs
who had loyally remained in Israel during the war, however, and their
descendants, are still there and make up one fifth of the population. They are
known as Israeli Arabs; they have the same rights as Christians and Jews, except
they are not required to serve in the army unless they wish to.
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is
only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our
Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese." – PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen, interview in
the Dutch newspaper Trouw, March 1977.
In an op-ed in the Guardian on November 1, 2017, ahead of the 100th anniversary
of the Balfour Declaration, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas
called on the UK to "atone" for the century of "suffering" that the document
allegedly wrought on the "Palestinian people." Abbas reiterated the claims he
has been making since 2016, to justify a surreal lawsuit he has threatened to
bring against Britain for supporting the "creation of a homeland for one people
[Jews], which, he asserted, "resulted in the dispossession and continuing
persecution of another."
"Palestinians" were the Jews who lived, along with Muslims and Christians on
land called Palestine, which was under British administration from 1917 to 1948.
All people born there during the time of the British Mandate had "Palestine"
stamped on their passports. But the Arabs were offended when they were called
Palestinians. They complained: "We are not Palestinians, we are Arabs. The
Palestinians are the Jews".
Bernard Lewis explains:
"With the rise and spread of pan-Arab ideologies it was as Arabs, not as south
Syrians, that the Palestinians began to assert themselves. For the rest of the
period of the British Mandate, and for many years after that, their
organizations described themselves as Arab and expressed their national identity
in Arab rather than in Palestinian or even in Syrian terms."
When Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies joined up to
try to kill the infant nation in its crib. After they were routed, some of the
local Arabs who had fled the war wanted to return, but they were considered a
fifth column and most were not allowed back. The Arabs who had loyally remained
in Israel during the war, however, and their descendants, are still there and
make up one-fifth of Israel's population today. They are known as Israeli Arabs;
they have the same rights as Jews, except they are not legally required to serve
in the army. They may volunteer if they wish to.
Israeli Arabs have their own political parties. They serve as members of Knesset
and are employed in all professions. The moral is, or should be: Do not start a
war unless you are prepared to lose it -- as the Arabs in and around Israel have
done repeatedly, in 1947-48, 1967 and 1973.
Incidentally, the land that was being held in trust for the Jews in the British
Mandate for Palestine initially included all of what is now the Kingdom of
Jordan, which was granted its independence in 1946 as the Kingdom of
Transjordan.
Less than a week after the article in the Guardian, Omar Barghouti, the
instigator of today's attempts to destroy Israel by suffocating it economically,
echoed Abbas in a Newsweek piece, calling the Balfour Declaration "a tragedy for
the Palestinian people."
The same sentiment was expressed at the end of September in a lecture delivered
by Rashid Khalidi -- the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at
Columbia University -- at the Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies in
New York City: that the Balfour Declaration "launched a century-long assault on
the Palestinians aimed at implanting and fostering this national homeland, later
the state of Israel, at their expense..."
Khalidi's claims, like those of Abbas and Barghouti, are false. Prior to the
establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, there were no "Palestinians." As
the prominent Lebanese-American historian and Mideast expert Philip Hitti stated
in his testimony before the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "There is
no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."
Authors Guy Millière and David Horowitz elaborate on this in their 2015 book,
Comment le peuple palestinien fut inventé ("How the Palestinian People Were
Invented"), illustrating that the purpose of the fabrication was "to transform a
population into a weapon of mass destruction against Israel and the Jewish
people, to demonize Israel, and to give totalitarianism and anti-Semitism
renewed means of action."
The ploy for a while worked beyond expectations. The term "Palestinians" was
used across the world -- including in Israel -- to define the Arabs living in
the West Bank and Gaza; it is often employed also to describe Arabs with Israeli
citizenship. The narrative that the Jews displaced them by establishing a state
completely contradicts the facts.
What are these facts? When was the "Palestinian people" actually created? Simply
using the Google Ngram Viewer provides the answer.
Ngram is a database that charts the frequency that a given phrase appears in
books published between the years 1500 to 2008. When a user enters the word
phrases "Palestinian people" and "Palestinian state" into the Ngram search bar,
he discovers that they began appearing only in 1960.
In his November 2, 1917 letter to Walter Rothschild, the leader of Britain's
Jewish community, Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour wrote:
"His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine [emphasis added], or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Finally, apart from Ngram, there are the words of the PLO leader Zuheir Mohsen,
who, in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, stated:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is
only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our
Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do
we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national
interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to
oppose Zionism.
"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders,
cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can
undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment
we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to
unite Palestine and Jordan."
**Jean Patrick Grumberg is a journalist for the French-language news site Dreuz.
© 2017 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.
Rouhani Pays The Price For Khamenei’s Machiavellian Game
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arabnews/November
21/17
Rouhani pays the price for Khamenei’s Machiavellian game
The Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is ratcheting up his
criticism of President Hassan Rouhani, echoed by Iran’s state-owned media.
Some scholars and policy analysts are interpreting Khamenei’s opposition to
Rouhani as a manifestation of Iran’s dynamic, democratic and inclusive political
system. However, looking closely at the history of the Iranian regime and
Khamenei’s nearly three-decade rule, it becomes evident that this argument is
simplistic and fails to demonstrate the complexity of the regime’s apparatuses.
Since Khamenei became supreme leader in June 1989, he has distanced himself from
his presidents, especially in their second presidential term; he has done this
with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjnai, Mohammad Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and now
Rouhani. For example, Khamenei’s criticism of Ahmadinejad in his second term was
evident, although the regime’s leader strongly endorsed Ahmadinejad at the
beginning of his term and promoted him later.
So why would Khamenei criticize his presidents in public? First of all, he knows
that they cannot fulfill people’s economic demands because the nation’s revenues
are directed to the treasury of the Office of the Supreme Leader and spent on
Khamenei’s gilded circle of cronies, proxies and military advisers. Khamenei has
made it clear in his speeches that Rouhani has failed to improve the Iranian
people’s economic life or fulfill any of his economic promises.
Khamenei is distancing himself from the president’s failures. He is evading
responsibility and accountability. He is attempting to manipulate the
disaffected population, who are suffering from unemployment and poverty, by
telling them simply that Rouhani is the one to blame, and your supreme leader
sympathizes with you. Khamenei is deluding the people into believing that, like
the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people, he too is opposed to the
government in the shape of the presidential office.
The Iranian president has served his purpose of obtaining economic and political
concessions from the West, and the supreme leader can now blame him for
unemployment and poverty.
Khamenei’s tactic is pure hypocrisy, because he has the final say on where
Iran’s major revenues are spent. He instructed the “moderate” Rouhani to
increase the military’s budget, which was raised by nearly $500 million this
year. He instructed Rouhani to spend more money on Iran’s ballistic program.
The second reason behind Khamenei’s strategy is to justify further empowering of
his hardline core. By criticizing Rouhani, Khamenei is pointing out that the
“moderates” have failed to make economic, social, religious, cultural or
political progress. Therefore, the alternative is to give more power to the
hardliners. That is why Khamenei has recently appointed the hardliner Mahmoud
Hashemi Shahroudi chairman of the regime’s Expediency Council, members of which
are chosen by the Supreme Leader every five years. Khamenei even appointed the
notorious former presidential candidate Ebrahim Raisi and several other hardcore
mullahs to the council as well.
This manipulative skill and modus operandi of Khamenei is one of the major
reasons that the theocrat has been capable of ruling for nearly three decades.
He has always been successful at choosing a president who can forcefully
accomplish the regime’s objectives on the international stage, and at the same
time bow to the Supreme Leader when criticized in the public.
In a nutshell, Khamenei’s criticism of Rouhani is a Machiavellian tactic. He has
used Rouhani to obtain economic and political concessions from the West because
of Rouhani’s diplomatic skills. He used the president as an excuse to strengthen
the regime’s hard core. He has also used the president as a pawn to avoid
responsibility and accountability for failures in delivering the people’s
economic demands. Rouhani is into this game with Khamenei. The supreme leader is
masterful at grooming presidents who are powerless when it comes to making major
decisions, but are willing to accept blame and responsibility for failures.
• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political
scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman
and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh
Saudi Arabia’s changes are positive, but the way they are
portrayed is not
Faisal J. Abbas/Al Arabiya/November
21/17
Saudi Arabia always had a communication problem. While one has to admit that in
the past two years there has been unmatched international media access to the
country, many Saudi officials do not yet understand the basic PR lesson that if
we don’t tell our story, someone else will.
On the other hand, not only are some journalistic practices of several
international media outlets questionable, but sometimes so is the the common
sense of some of the editors who work in their newsrooms.
Take the infamous — and supposedly “leaked” — recent video of prominent princes,
former officials and super-wealthy businessmen sleeping on the lobby floor of
the Ritz Carlton hotel in Riyadh. I am shocked that so many outlets, including
highly respectable ones — such as Sky News (UK) — didn’t stop to question the
authenticity of the video before broadcasting it; especially since not a single
face was recognizable throughout it.
How could such outlets, usually noted for their accuracy, not notice the obvious
about this video: Since when are corruption suspects, many of whom are being
investigated for financial crimes committed jointly, allowed to stay together in
a way that enables them to share notes?
Far more importantly, didn’t anyone notice the rifles lying on the floor next to
the sleeping suspects? Since when are prisoners allowed access to firearms? If
this doesn’t raise a flag in a newsroom, I am not sure what would!
Another absurd assumption about the ongoing crackdown on corruption is that it
is in reality a clamp on freedom of expression. This was written in a Washington
Post op-ed by Marwan Kraidy, who is supposed to be an expert on Arab media given
that this is his field of study and the subject of his books.
This false assumption is based on the fact that three of the corruption suspects
have established influential local or regional media outlets. However, the
obvious question is: How does this explain the other 198 people, who have no
media interests, being investigated?
From an unsubstantiated video of corruption detainees sleeping on the floor at
the Ritz, to claims that Lebanon PM was barred from traveling, Riyadh needs to
counter fake news more effectively.
Furthermore, none of the media outlets owned by the people in custody were ever
really classified as “opposition outlets” — in fact, all of them toed the line,
so it is not clear what such a hypothetical crackdown would achieve.
Then there were the equally unsubstantiated claims that Saudi Arabia barred the
former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri from traveling back to Beirut. I am
not sure what more can be done to convince some people otherwise, when Hariri
himself has left the country after repeating several times that he was not held
captive.
Of course, the latest conspiracy theory is that Riyadh has allowed Hariri, his
wife and eldest son Hussam to go, but are holding on to his other two children
as a way to ensure that he abides by what Riyadh dictates.
This highly imaginative plot is possibly suitable for a mafia-themed film in
which the gangsters require a financial ransom, but one would hope that most
right-minded people understand that this is not how politics work; even when you
want to apply pressure.
The simplest counter-argument to this hypothesis is: What would Saudi Arabia do
if Hariri simply tweeted saying that Riyadh was holding his two children
hostage? The former PM would not only be able to secure his family’s freedom,
but would also be able to turn global public opinion against the Kingdom at the
same time.
There is so much imagination and lack of understanding out there that one just
has to wonder what scenario will be made up tomorrow.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia is changing and much of what the Kingdom has gone
through over the past two years is nothing short of ground-breaking. Everything
from the curbing of the religious police’s powers, to allowing women to drive,
to hosting world-class entertainment events has never been tried before; so I
guess the conclusion is that we should forgive outsiders for misunderstanding
us, but we should not forget the need to communicate far more efficiently and
effectively.
• Faisal J. Abbas is the editor in chief of Arab News.
Twitter: @FaisalJAbbas
Iraq’s child brides and the flaws in its democracy
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/November
21/17
Iraq today has an elected Parliament, and 90 years ago it also had an elected
Parliament; one of the oldest countries in the world to exercise modern
democracy.
In theory, community awareness should develop over time, but this is not always
the case.
Iraq’s parliamentarians are considering amending the Personal Status Law to
allow for several pieces of legislation, including permitting girls as young as
9 to marry, and allowing tribal customs between clans and others.
It is almost not too far from the thoughts and practices of Daesh, the terrorist
group!
The problem of democratization in “simple” societies (less developed and less
aware) has been repeated.
The Parliament reflects the state of society and its culture. Parliamentarians
deal with democracy in its basic concepts by applying what the people want, by
pleasing their constituents and by meeting their demands.
The prevalence of culture and awareness in Iraqi society is similar to that in
most Arab societies — simple and limited, dominated by old rural customs and
traditions, although Iraq is a country of great ancient civilizations and a
country that has been associated with new civilization since the beginning of
the last century. Egypt, too, is a country of ancient civilizations and the
first Middle Eastern country to respond to and assimilate modern industrial
civilization, but it suffers the same situation as Iraq.
After the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, an outcome of the “Arab Spring,”
there was a debate among the victors about the concepts of democracy and
liberalism associated with it.
When the Muslim Brotherhood group came to power, by election, represented in the
party of President Mohamed Morsi, they tried to write a new constitution in line
with the rest of the Egyptian political forces.
Because they won, the Islamist group thought they had the right to dictate their
views in the proposed constitution on the ground that they had won the most
votes.
Their vision of the constitution would be written at the expense of minorities
such as the Copts and women, and the marginalization of the principle of
separation of powers by domination over the judiciary. This is a distorted
concept of democracy.
Parliamentarians give the people what they want, but sometimes old rural customs
and traditions have no place in a modern society.
Iraqis are overpowered by conservative, religious and tribal social forces; the
constitution allows those forces to practice political action without setting
limits on their power to use their influence in elections, and on parliamentary
or government action.
Religious forces, in particular, exploit this to attack their rivals or
strengthen their influence by raising money in the name of religion to form
armed militias, claiming that it is their religious duty.
Because the central authority is weak and cannot confront these militias to
avoid internal sedition, all it has done is prevent armed religious political
forces from contesting elections. However, these forces can maneuver through the
appointment of those who won the backing of the armed militias to run in the
elections. But the state cannot deny religious workers, as it prevents the
military, from entering politics, because more than half of Iraq’s political
leaders today belong to religious organizations as well as tribal groups.
The supreme judicial authority cannot intervene to prevent Parliament from
imposing legislation that violates the principles of democracy and the basic
rights of Iraqis, whether ethnic or religious minorities, women, or others.
Democracy suffers in backward societies, and the elite’s relative awareness
fails to impose itself; although segments of society are well aware and
educated, they remain a minority.
Extremists can override democracy by voting for the same ends that the
terrorists failed to achieve by force of arms!
The irony is that if Parliament votes to amend the Personal Status Law and
allows the marriage of female children, then Iraq will be placed on the list of
countries that violate human rights; but at the same time it will remain classed
as one of the democratic countries in the world because of its government and
its legislation.
• Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager
of Al Arabiya news channel, and former editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, where
this article is also published. Twitter: @aalrashed