LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 06/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.august06.18.htm

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

Behind the Scenes: How Netanyahu's 'Apartheid' Trap Torpedoed Talks With Druze Leaders
من الهآررتس: من وراء الكواليس: كيف أن لغم اتهام القيادات الدرزية بالعنصرية فخخ  ولغم محادثات نتانياهو معهم
Noa Landau and Noa Shpigel /Haaretz/August 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66548/haaretz-behind-the-scenes-how-netanyahus-apartheid-trap-torpedoed-talks-with-druze-leaders-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B3-%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1/
When the prime minister saw Druze leaders insisting that the nation-state law be changed, he opted for a controlled explosion that would mark the group public enemy number one
There were two possible scenarios for the outcome of the meeting Thursday night between government officials and Druze leaders protesting the nation-state law: a celebratory handshake over a package of benefits for the Druze and a statement that the protest rally slated for Saturday night had been canceled, or a controlled explosion in talks that would mark this group public enemy number one.
From Haaretz’s conversations with participants and observers on both sides of the meeting, the picture is clear: When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw the Druze leaders insisting that the nation-state law be changed, he preferred the second option.
The invitation to the meeting, which began at 7:30 P.M., came rather abruptly, but not unusually so, compared to the previous meetings. Three former army officers leading the protest – Brig. Gen. (res.) Amal Assad, Col. (res.) Anwar Saeb and Lt. Col. (res.) Sufyan Marih – received a message from the Druze spiritual leader, Sheikh Muwafak Tarif, that they had been invited with him to a meeting in the prime minister’s office.
Netanyahu’s people had intended to invite the “community’s notables” only – a group they had held talks with in the past and believed were inclined to accept the deal Netanyahu was offering. But the Druze decided that the meeting needed broader representation. Some Druze mayors, for example, Mufid Marie of Hurfeish, who is also chairman of the forum of Druze local councils, were invited only at around 4:15 P.M. by MK Hamad Amar (Yisrael Beiteinu).
The messages were confused. At some point it was said that the meeting would be canceled, but in the end it was decided to hold it at the government offices in Tel Aviv instead of Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem.
A stormy debate began among the Druze mayors. Some thought that the meeting was intended to pressure them into canceling Saturday night’s rally, and that they didn’t have enough time to prepare for the meeting properly. In the end it was decided that in addition to Marie, only two mayors would be present, Wahib Habish of Yarka and Biyan Kabalan of Beit Jann. Others gave in contentiously, among them Daliat al-Carmel Mayor Rafiq Halabi.
In addition to Amar, the prime minister’s team consisted of the nation-state law’s framer, Tourism Minister Yariv Levin, and Communications Minister Ayoub Kara, both of Likud. Netanyahu’s chief of staff, Yoav Horowitz, who had been appointed to lead the committee charged with resolving the dispute, was abroad. The prime minister’s communications team didn’t update the media officially regarding the meeting, as is customary, and as had been the case in previous meetings with Druze leaders.
The sheikh, the mayors and the officers arrived at the Tel Aviv government center at around 7:30 PM. Contrary to a statement from the prime minister’s people that some of them had not been invited, particularly Assad, they were all allowed to enter. Some of the prime minister’s aides even called this a “security breach.”Even before the meeting started, according to those present, the prime minister asked for his picture to be taken with Tarif, Amar, Kara and the mayors. The photos were to be in preparation for a statement that an agreement had been reached, in the hope that such a release could go out in time for the main TV news broadcasts at 8 P.M.
The three officers said they were on the other side of the table and thus weren’t included in the photo. Netanyahu’s people said everyone was invited to be in the picture, but the officers came into the room late.
According to people present, in Netanyahu’s brief statement to the cameras he said there had already been progress in the negotiations, even though the talks had not yet started. Even the position paper they thought they had agreed to on Wednesday was already on the table.
The Druze officials said that at this point they began to squirm uncomfortably. “We saw that he had supposedly prepared a paper that everything was done and agreed on,” Habish said. “He brought us in for a picture and to say that everything was fine.”
Another participant said: “I was fuming. What’s this? It’s not what we came for.” The atmosphere became tense. One of the participants said he took out his phone to answer a text and was told to turn it off immediately.
After the photo-op, Habish told Netanyahu that the Druze officials wouldn’t agree to an arrangement that didn’t include enshrining the status of minorities in a Basic Law, or the complete annulment of the nation-state law.
At this point Assad intervened. He says he told Netanyahu that the Druze wouldn’t accept Netanyahu’s package of benefits, which only included recognition of the Druze and Circassians, as well as benefits to members of minority groups only if they had served in the security forces. Assad reiterated their demand to enshrine in a Basic Law the status of all minorities or the annulment of the Basic Law on Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.
According to the prime minister’s people, Assad interrupted and spoke to Netanyahu “as well as to the sheikh” in an “undignified” way.
Assad and others deny this, saying he spoke calmly. Sheikh Tarif also denied that Assad had insulted him. Either way, Netanyahu responded: “I will not speak to anyone who calls me the prime minister of an apartheid government.”
On Facebook the previous day, Assad had said the nation-state law was “evil and racist” and designed to lay the groundwork for Israel to become an apartheid state. According to Assad and other participants, he answered the prime minister that he indeed “believed that the nation-state law might lead Israel to apartheid.” According to Netanyahu’s people, Assad said: “I live in an apartheid state.”
Either way, after Assad’s statement, Netanyahu left the room angrily and demanded that the meeting continue in a smaller forum, without the former officers. The Druze participants refused. The ministers and MKs met with Netanyahu in a separate room. It was clear that there would be no sincere attempt to reach understandings.
8:10 P.M.: Press statement
During the storm, at 8:10 P.M., TV reporters broadcast live based on information coming from Netanyahu’s people. They said that in the meeting the prime minister had “pledged to pass the three historic laws” – three laws to benefit the Druze community – but that “Amal Assad interrupted the sheikh and the prime minister and insulted them both. The prime minister said he wouldn’t accept an insult to the prime minister of Israel or to the state from a person who calls Israel an apartheid state.”
It was understood from this that Assad had interrupted and called Israel an apartheid state, so Netanyahu then cut the meeting short. But non-Druze people at the meeting confirmed to Haaretz that after Netanyahu realized that the meeting was not moving toward a solution, he was the first to mention apartheid and blew up the meeting after Assad refused to take back his statement and the Druze notables refused to meet with Netanyahu on their own. Then came the press statements from Netanyahu’s aides.
People close to Netanyahu say he didn’t blow up the meeting; one said “Assad wasn’t even invited and we didn’t know he would come.”
Five minutes after they left Netanyahu’s office, the phones of the Druze representatives started ringing with requests for a response. Why did you say Israel is an apartheid state, they were asked.
“We didn’t come for a statement, we came to talk,” one participant said. “We had a creative idea to move forward, but he [Netanyahu] came and gave a statement to the media and chased Amal out of the room.”
Habish said: “I think he wanted us to come for a photo-op with him and say everything was fine and he’d tell Israel that there was no point in the protest Saturday night.
As Habish put it, “I think he planned that he’d bring us, that he’d say we’re starting to work with the teams on a bill for the Druze, that we’d say thank you very much, that we’d kiss him. He planned it. When he saw it wasn’t working out, he looked for an excuse to blow the meeting up.”
Assad told Haaretz after the meeting: “I didn’t bring up the apartheid issue at all in the meeting. Netanyahu was talking about things that I wrote on Facebook over the past few days – that I wrote that the law might lead to apartheid. I stand by these statements, but Netanyahu was the one who suddenly brought them up in the meeting to blow it up.”
On Saturday night he told Haaretz: “I don’t respect the State of Israel? I respect the State of Israel more than a great many Israelis, including those sitting up there in the government, up to the highest level, without mentioning any names.”
On Channel 2’s Friday night news show, commentator Amnon Abramovich quoted a source “very close to the prime minister” as saying: “After we started out, not one word could be changed in the nation-state law. If someone didn’t like it, there’s a large Druze community in Syria and he’s invited to start a Druze state.”The prime minister’s aides responded that a “statement like this goes against the prime minister’s worldview and his work for the Druze community, and it is ridiculous to attribute it to him.”
For its part, Likud said that Netanyahu “utterly rejects the infuriating statements posted by Assad on Facebook and which he repeated at the meeting when he said ‘I live in an apartheid state.’”

Britain Welcomes Radicals - Again and Again
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/August 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66542/douglas-murray-britain-welcomes-radicals-again-and-again-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%BA%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AD/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12801/britain-radicals-rehman
How expert are these two clerics at 'interfaith relations'? Well, they are so good that their main credential is their enthusiastic support for the murderer of somebody accused of 'blasphemy'.
Despite criticism from Shahbaz Taseer... the UK government had no problem allowing into the UK these two men who, as Shahbaz Taseer said, 'teach murder and hate'.
In the past year, the UK has banned a fair number of people from entering the country. It has, for example, barred the Canadian activist and blogger Lauren Southern. It has also banned the Austrian activist and 'identitarian' Martin Sellner. Whatever anyone's thoughts on either of these individuals, it is not possible to claim that either has ever addressed a rally of thousands of people which they have used to extol a murderer... Yet Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman has done these things – and yet has been allowed into the UK three years in a row.
It is more than a year since the UK suffered three Islamist terrorist attacks in quick succession. It is also more than a year since the Prime Minister, Theresa May, stood on the steps of Downing Street and announced that 'enough is enough'.
Yet the striking aspect of the last year has been how little has changed.
Consider, for instance, the lax controls on extremist preachers that the UK had in place in 2016. As reported here at the time, in the summer of that year, two Pakistani clerics performed a tour of the UK. Their seven-week roadshow took in numerous UK hotspots including Rochdale, Rotherham, Oldham and the Prime Minister's own constituency of Maidenhead. The two clerics -- Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman -- began their tour by visiting the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, at Lambeth Palace for a meeting on 'interfaith relations'.
How expert are these two clerics at 'interfaith relations'? Well, they are so good that their main credential is their enthusiastic support for the murderer of somebody accused of 'blasphemy'. Yes -- these two preachers are famed in Pakistan for having supported Mumtaz Qadri, the murderer of the progressive Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. Because Taseer believed in a relaxation of Pakistan's barbaric blasphemy codes (specifically he opposed the execution of a Christian woman -- Asia Bibi -- who was falsely accused of blaspheming the Muslim god), Qadri -- who was meant to be guarding the governor -- instead murdered Taseer in 2011. Qadri himself was subsequently tried, sentenced to death and executed by the state. After Qadri's funeral in Rawalpindi, Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman whipped up the crowds of the murderer's mourners. Rehman acclaimed the murderer Qadri as a 'shaeed' (martyr). The crowd subsequently chanted slogans such as 'Qadri, your blood will bring revolution' and 'the punishment for a blasphemer is beheading'.
Despite criticism from Shahbaz Taseer (the son of the man whom Qadri had murdered), the UK government had no problem allowing into the UK these two men who, as Shahbaz Taseer said, 'teach murder and hate'. On their tour of the UK in 2016, these two preachers were reported to have spoken to mosques packed with worshipers.
A forgiving person might point out that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not know what he is talking about when he claims that Rehman and Rehman are interfaith experts, and that until 2016 the UK border agencies and other authorities could not have known that the two men are preachers of incitement in their home country. A forgiving person might even have thought all these authorities were naïve but would not be so naïve again.
In 2017, however, it did happen again. In July of last year the clerics were back, ostensibly speaking at a conference on 'counter-terrorism'. The idea that either man would know how to counter terrorism when the only expertise that either man has is in encouraging terrorism makes their presence at such an event insulting to anyone involved in countering terrorism. Even more so given that their main facilitator in the UK would appear to be the head of the one-man organisation calling itself the 'Ramadan Foundation', run by Mohammed Shafiq, a man with his own dark history of extremism and incitement.
A cynical person might assume that the UK authorities had let these radical preachers in the first time because they were ignorant, and the second time perhaps because they were slow. But how to account for events just last month? In July of this year, Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman was in the UK yet again -- and again in Oldham. Also again, his visit appears to have been facilitated by the one-man-band, Mohammed Shafiq. The latest bogus 'counter-terrorism conference' at which he was speaking also involved not only local MP (and Shadow Home Office Minister) Afzal Khan, but also the father and grandmother of one of the victims of last year's Islamist suicide bomb attack at the Manchester Arena.
Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman, in his address at the conference, reportedly said:
"I stand before you to say we as Muslims stand against terrorism, these vile people are enemies of Islam and the whole of humanity.
"My mission in life is to promote tolerance and peace, you can see from the thousands who attend my events in Pakistan there is a yearning for the true message of Islam which is Peace and tolerance.
"I am honoured to visit Manchester to remember the victims and their families of the Manchester Arena attack and say we stand with you always".
Of course the thousands who attended his events in Pakistan did not always hear this message of 'peace and tolerance'. As the evidence of the aftermath of Qadri's funeral showed, they heard a message of vengeance, blasphemy, medievalism and violence.
But that is Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman.
The bigger question is for the UK -- and specifically for the Prime Minister, Theresa May.
In the past year, the UK has banned a fair number of people from entering the country. It has, for example, barred the Canadian activist and blogger Lauren Southern. It has also banned the Austrian activist and 'identitarian' Martin Sellner. Whatever anyone's thoughts on either of these individuals, it is not possible to claim that either has ever addressed a rally of thousands of people which they have used to extol a murderer. If either of them had done so, a ban from the UK might be explicable. Yet Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman has done these things -- and yet has been allowed into the UK three years in a row. Even in the year after Theresa May pretended that 'enough is enough.'
Perhaps the British government thinks that people do not notice such things. Perhaps the organisers of the 'counter-terrorism conference' in Manchester think that people are taken in by such pretences. Perhaps they think that the people of Britain do not mind. But the people of Britain do notice and I rather suspect that they do mind. Very much, in fact.
Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England. His latest book, an international best-seller, is "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam."
© 2018 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.

Hijab Chronicles/الدكتور ماجد ربيزاده: تاريخ تطور اشكاليات الحجاب
Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/August 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66540/dr-majid-rafizadeh-hijab-chronicles-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%88/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12804/hijab-chronicles
"Will Allah hang me from my hair? The religious and Quran teacher at our school told us in class that if we show our hair in public, God will hang us from our hair in the afterlife and torture us for infinity."
Many Muslim women, including members of my own family, are afraid to take off their hijab, even though they are adults and who may not be religious anymore, and may even live in a place where they are allowed to take off their hijab. The fear of displaying their hair, and the consequences they could face physically and spiritually still haunt them and influence the choices they make in their everyday life.
My sister is still afraid to take off her hijab because of those horrifying stories that the radical Islamic teachers taught her when she was tiny....I still hope for a day when my sister will have a good night's sleep, when the little girls who are sitting in those same classrooms, their minds filled with horrifying scenes, will one day feel safe to uncover their hair, and safe to lay down their heads at night. Until then, I will not rest, either.
Last month, an Iranian court ordered Shaparak Shajarizadeh, 43, to prison for two years, with 18 years' probation, for removing her headscarf in public.
In our childhood in Iran, my sister's screams would cut through the silence of our home at night. Nightmares would wake her and leave her too terrified to go back to sleep. We all encouraged her to share her fears; she would always refuse. On the night she finally opened up, her entire body was shaking with fear.
Afraid to ask the question out loud, my sister, then nine years old, whispered: "Will Allah hang me from my hair? The religious and Quran teacher at our school told us in class that if we show our hair in public, God will hang us from our hair in the afterlife and torture us for infinity. He will resurrect us if we die and then torture us again," she was sobbing. "I went to the grocery store and forgot to wear my hijab. Will He torture me for infinity?"
My sister was then attending one of the tens of thousands of schools, both in Iran and abroad, run by the sharia law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many teachers of religion and the Quran in these schools use the directive above to warn girls not to display their hair. The directive comes from a reported hadith, the sayings and acts of Mohammad.
According to the teaching, the son-in-law and cousin of the prophet, Ali and his wife, who was the daughter of the prophet, stated that they saw the prophet weeping.
"They inquired the reason that had made the Holy Prophet weep. He replied: "On the night of the Ascension (Mairaj), I saw the punishments being given to some women, today I was remembering those scenes. This is why I am worried". They asked, "Please tell us what did you see?" He replied: "I saw a woman hanging by her hair and her brain was boiling. (This was the punishment of that woman who did not hide her hair by covering her head from men)."
But why would these teachers tell their students about these horrifying punishments when they are only eight or nine years old? Well, the best time to indoctrinate and brainwash people is when they are young. They are uninformed and trusting. Also, for radical Muslims, using fear is a powerful tool to coerce people into believing in their extremist ideals and following the practices and demands of their leaders.
It is not only some schools and mosques that are used as platforms to plant seeds of fear into little girls with regards to displaying their hair. Once sharia law enters the political establishment, it requires an Islamist judiciary system to be put into place, through which severe punishments can be inflicted on people who disobey God's rule.
Videos such as this, for example, showing a young girl in Iran being beaten in public by the regime's religious forces for not sufficiently covering her hair, are abundant. Many Muslim women, including members of my own family, are afraid to take off their hijab, even though they are adults and who may not be religious anymore, and may even live in a place where they are allowed to take off their hijab. The fear of displaying their hair, and the consequences they could face physically and spiritually still haunt them and influence the choices they make in their everyday life.
As the imposition of sharia law shows in Iran and territories ruled by Islamist groups, sharia law is not solely about placing religious leaders in positions of power to rule the nation; it is also about controlling people's day-to-day activities, and every aspect of their lives, including their bodies. That is why radical teachings in schools and mosques should be halted, before the sharia dominates the state.
My sister is still afraid to take off her hijab because of those horrifying stories that the radical Islamist instructors taught her her when she was small. It is in her unconscious as it is for many other girls. How many more little girls have to awaken to these nightmares? I still hope for a day when my sister will have a good night's sleep, when the little girls who are sitting in those same classrooms, their minds filled with horrifying scenes, will one day feel safe to uncover their hair, and safe to lay down their heads at night. Until then, I will not rest, either.
**Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a Harvard-educated scholar, businessman, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
© 2018 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.

"Be Cursed Forever": Extremist Persecution of Christians, January 2018
ريموند إبراهيم: جردة بما تعرض له المسيحيون من أضطهاد من قبل الجماعات الإسلامية المتطرفة
Raymond Ibrahim/Gatestone Institute/August 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66536/raymond-ibrahim-be-cursed-forever-extremist-persecution-of-christians-january-2018-%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%88%D9%86%D8%AF-%D8%A5%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%AF%D8%A9/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12780/persecution-of-christians-january
"Nigeria security has declared war against Christians in this country." — Pastor Kallamu Musa Ali Dikwa, executive director of Voice of Northern Christian Movement, Nigeria.
While uncritically taking in and conferring refugee status on countless Muslim migrants, European authorities continued singling out those most in need of sanctuary for deportation.
"Afghanistan is not a safe place for a Christian convert. The Court should ask Switzerland to stop turning a blind eye to the situation of religious minorities in Afghanistan... Sending a refugee back to a country where they face persecution because of their faith is incompatible with the Convention." — AFD International.
The Slaughter of Christians in Egypt
Three masked gunmen targeted and killed Bassem Attallah, a Christian man, 27, after identifying him as a Christian by the cross tattoo on his wrist. According to his older brother, Osama, 38, the siblings and a Muslim colleague, Muhammad, were walking home after work when three armed men, aged between 23 and 25 stopped them. "We thought they were policemen because they weren't masked... They were wearing black jackets," Osama recalled. "They approached us and asked Bassem to show them the wrist of his right hand, and when they saw the tattoo of the cross, they asked him: 'Are you Christian?' Bassem answered 'Yes, I am Christian,' and repeated that again in a loud voice."
The men then asked Muhammad his name and to show them his wrist. They saw no cross and allowed him to leave. On learning Osama's name, which is popular among Muslims, and not seeing any cross tattoos on his wrist, they also allowed him to leave. "And then they shot Bassem in the head. I could not believe what happened to my brother. He fell on the ground in front of me and I was unable to do anything.... We lost a person dear to our hearts. My brother Bassem was a very good and kind man. He had a strong relationship with God. He was always reading in the Bible, praying and going to the church. He was loved by all people," said his grieving brother. The murder took place in Al-Arish, Sinai, which in recent years has been the scene of many attacks on Christians—including the murder of two priests and the mass upheaval of Christian villages.
Separately, on New Year's Day, which the Muslim calendar does not recognize or celebrate, two Christian brothers were gunned down in public by a masked man on a motorcycle. While they died en route to a hospital, the murderer escaped. At the time of the attack, they were near Christian friend's store, which sold liquor. Coptic-owned stores that sell liquor have been targeted by those who consider alcohol haram, or forbidden by Islam. Almost one year to the day, on January 3, 2017, a Muslim man sneaked up behind a Christian shop owner in Egypt and slit his throat for selling alcohol.
Finally, more details concerning the Islamist terror attack on a Coptic church on December 29, which left nine dead, continued to emerge. One mother sacrificed herself to save her two young daughters. Nermin Sadik, 32, was walking her two daughters, aged 11 and 7, to Sunday school, when one of the gunmen ran up to her. When she realized what was happening and that he was about to open fire, she flung her daughters away and received a bullet. When the terrorist turned on the two girls, their mother, "with her last breath held them between her arms to protect them from flying bullets," says the report. Although the girls survived the ordeal, in the end their mother's body had several bullets in it. Speaking after the tragedy, Nermin's widower said his wife, who was a nurse, "was affectionate for everyone and she liked to help without charge."
The Slaughter of Christians in Nigeria
Various attacks on Christians by Muslim Fulani herdsmen continued throughout the month of January. "At least 16 people have been killed by gunmen in southern Nigeria after a New Year's Day church service," says one report. "The group had attended a midnight service before they were ambushed in the early hours of Monday."
According to another report, in one week alone, 55 people were killed and 200 homes torched, in the Lau local government area of Taraba state.
In yet another instance, 80 Christians were slaughtered by the Muslim herdsmen, many hacked to death by machetes, in Logo and Guma County. Speaking from a hospital bed, one survivor, Peter, said the attackers who went after him "were people I had interfaced with in that community. I got up and called them by their names and tried to wrestle the machete they had out of their hands, but to no avail. I was overpowered and they began to cut me."
Discussing these ongoing raids, Rev. Musa Asake, the General Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria, said "Under President [Muhammad] Buhari, the murderous Fulani herdsmen enjoyed unprecedented protection and favoritism to the extent that the herdsmen treat Nigeria as a conquered territory. Rather than arrest and prosecute the Fulani herdsmen, security forces usually manned by Muslims from the North offer them protection as they unleash terror with impunity on the Nigerian people."
The Rape of Christians in Pakistan
"A Christian boy of only 7 years old was brutally sodomized by a Muslim rapist," says a report. Daim Masih, a first grader, was walking home from school when he was met by Shan Muhammad, 19, a local: "Hi Daim, it's nice to see you," he began. "I have good news, some of our cows have given birth to young calves. Would you like to come with me and see them?" Because the unsuspecting child was fond of animals and knew Shan, he went with him. Walking hand in hand, Masih began to realize that they were not headed for the farm but a secluded place. When he pointed this out to Shan, the latter responded that he had "another big surprise for him." The report continues:
They walked a few meters to some trees when suddenly Shan ripped off Daim's shirt, then the rest of his clothes and threw Daim to the ground. Shan then jumped on Daim and proceeded with a sexual assault and sodomization of poor Daim. While the attack was happening the tiny 7 year old struggled to fight off Shan who was much bigger and more powerful then him. Daim was punched, slapped and kneed by Shan who was shouting obscenities during the attack and demanding Daim to stop his screaming. The violence and the unlawful penetration of Dain was so painful however, that he could not stop his screaming. Desperate for him to be quiet or thrilled by the power and subjugation of his prey, sexual predator Shan began to tighten his hands around Daim's neck and was slowly throttling him to death while having his wicked way with him.
In fact, many Christian children—boys and girls—have been strangled to death during or after being raped in Pakistan over the years. Fortunately for Daim, his grandfather and uncle heard his cries and rushed to the scenes, at which point Muhammad pulled up his pants and fled the scene. The traumatized 7-year-old was subsequently hospitalized.
In another incident, a young, married Christian woman, the mother of a two-year-old girl "was brutally gang-raped by three men and then left tied in the courtyard of a Muslim man's house until she was found by police two days later," according to a report. Sidhra, 20, had just left her mother's home, when three local men began following her. She started to run towards her home, but they caught up with her, and, according to the report, "grabbed her at which point Sidhra blacked-out. She is unable to recall the events of the next 36 hours at this time." The family eventually learned that she was seen bound to a chair in the courtyard of a local home. The report continues:
[A]ll her family ran to the house of Mohammed Ilyas and peered through the gates when the mother saw her daughter tied up unconscious to a chair with a gag in her mouth, restrained in the courtyard of the neighbor's home, she started to scream. As each sibling saw their sister they too began to scream and shout hysterically. They banged on the gates and one brother climbed over and unlocked the gate from inside and rushed towards his sister. Sidhra was fully clothed and tied at her wrists and legs the rope securing her was so tight bruises could be seen on her wrists. Despite attempts to wake her it took a few minutes to revive her and she remained dizzy—she showed signs of having been drugged.
When she awoke, Sidhra, who "was unconscious for the whole two days and believes that she was subjected to rape," identified the three local men, all nephews of Mohammed Ilyas, the owner. Although her father went to lodge a complaint at the police station, "The Police refused to acknowledge her kidnap or rape and did not initially register a First Incident Report (FIR), as they told the family they had no evidence." After much pressure from the family and other local elders, police registered a crime and arrested two of the assailants—only to release them after some time. Although the family continued to seek justice, "the family holds little hope of any prosecution, as the courts and the police are exhibiting little empathy and seem keen on exonerating the wealthy Muslims," according to the report. Later, Sidhra said:
I am totally distraught, a visit to my mother has become a day of ruin for me. I have suffered a brutal kidnap and rape by disgusting men with no shame.... The thought of what the men done to me makes me shudder, I have nightmares and feel like my whole world has collapsed. I am terrified of walking on the streets at night and am finding it hard to cope with a deep depression that has consumed me. I had a happy life and that has been taken away from me, but the cruel men who stole my joy will soon be released to threaten me and to attack other women like me. There is no justice in this country.
Jihad on Christian Freedom
Kyrgyzstan: Unknown attackers torched a church building in the Muslim-majority nation. The small Baptist community was left "fear[ing] for its safety," says the report: "The damage to the church has forced its 40 Kyrgyz and Russian members to start searching for a new place of worship, while wondering if there will be a further attack."
An official told church members that the attack was "organized by those who don't like your church and Christianity in the midst of a Muslim country." "We don't believe that the police will find and punish those who burned our church," a congregation member said. The report adds that, "Instead of pursuing the arsonists, local Christians said police have asked questions about who funded the church building, how many Kyrgyz are members, and why, as ethnic Muslims, they do not go to the local mosque."
Kenya: Muslim students beat and stabbed their Christian counterparts for refusing to convert to Islam at Nairobi's Jamhuri High School. Hostilities began when Muslim students complained of discrimination. This prompted school officials to designate separate bathrooms and sections in the library for Christians and Muslims. It was not long, however, before the Muslim students began defaming Christianity and pressuring Christians to recite the shahada, the Islamic proclamation of faith, and to uphold Muslim rituals. "Some Muslim students forcefully tried to induct Christian students into their Islam faith, and those who refused were knifed, while others were physically beaten," a local source said. "The knives and machetes used are alleged to have come from outside the school." At least 35 students — including some Muslims, as the Christians did defend themselves — were injured in the melee. Some Christian students received hospital treatment for stab wounds and other injuries; the principal was also injured. The school was subsequently closed indefinitely.
Uganda: A Christian widow was poisoned by her Muslim neighbors on Christmas Day. Earlier that morning, the mother of five was pleasantly surprised when two female Muslim neighbors visited her with food gifts. After they left, she began preparing lunch for her family and used some of the recently brought ingredients. Before serving her family, she tasted the meal and within minutes, was vomiting. "When she started screaming and was continuously vomiting, I called in a taxi and rushed her to Kabuna dispensary, where it was found that she had been poisoned," a family member said. She was treated and discharged from the hospital the next day. An analysis of the food items gifted her were revealed to contain poison. A local meeting was convened and the Muslim neighbor, on being question, confessed to poisoning the food. "Accused of intending to kill Madina and her family members," the reports notes, "Hajira asked for forgiveness, saying that since Madina's family left Islam two years ago, the loudness of their weekly worship at their house with some other church members had been disturbing her and other Muslim neighbors." Despite the attempted murder of the apostates, "village leaders made no legal decisions.
Police have not been called, apparently in order to keep tensions with the Muslim community from escalating, but the in-law [of Madina] said Muslim neighbors have started taunting Madina's children by calling them infidels."
In a separate account, according to one report, Munabi Abdullah, a 37-year-old Muslim man who embraced Christianity, was met with ostracism. On the evening of his conversion, and "with an irrepressible joy in his heart, he shared his experience with his wife, Aisha Namukoli. She became furious." In the convert's own words, "My wife shouted at me in front of the children, saying, 'Kafir, Kafir [infidel]! You are a big shame to the family.' She then pushed me out of the house." Later when he returned, he found several people including his father and mosque members at his house. When he tried to greet them, they silently and angrily stared at him; then his father stood up and said, "You are no longer my son, be cursed forever." "He hit me with a walking stick that was in his hand and hurt my left hand," Abdullah explains. "I managed to escape through a banana farm, and after a short while I was at the pastor's house" where he sought refuge. Local Muslim leaders have since prevented him from having any access to his wife and seven children, aged between 3 and 17.
Nigeria: To coerce, it appears, a Christian woman, 40, and her daughter 21, to convert to Islam, local Muslims falsely accused the two of kidnapping another family member, a child. Problems had begun soon after the husband/father of the family converted to Islam in order to obtain a government job. Amina Isa, his wife, explained: "They told him that he cannot be appointed as a ward head because he's a Christian, and that if he converts to Islam, he'll be appointed the ward head. I advised him against changing his religious faith for worldly position, but after much pressure from Muslims in our area, he succumbed to the demand and became a Muslim.... I reminded him that he should remember that all my family members are Muslims, but that I am the only Christian in that family, and that I married him because he was a Christian like me, so I cannot now convert to Islam simply because the Muslims have appointed him a ward head." Her five children also refused to convert and insisted on remaining Christian. She continues:
Because of their refusal to convert too, we have been threatened, beaten, and subjected to all forms of indignities by my husband and his Muslim collaborators. They've [her children] constantly been threatened, beaten, and harassed. In fact, at one time, [the oldest daughter] had to take her younger siblings and go into hiding, but both have been traced and captured by the officials and are currently being held against their will in a location undisclosed to me.... Right now, my daughters are in the custody of these Muslim officials and are being forced into Islam, while at the same time, we are being tried on false charges. All this is to force us to recant. We can never stop being Christians, and we are confident that the God we serve can never abandon us in our trying moments.
After the father forcibly enrolled his youngest daughter in an Islamic school, and her mother and older sister removed her and re-enrolled her in a Christian school, "Their father, in anger, came to me demanding for both girls. When I told him that the children have decided to remain as Christians, he and other Muslim officials in our village went to file charges against me on abducting my own children at the Magistrate Court in Tudun Wada town, a trial I'm still facing for refusing to change my religious faith. They summoned me and demanded I withdraw my daughter from the Christian school, bring her back to the village, and hand her over to them. Since I was helpless, I did as instructed by them and brought my daughter back to them."
Separately "Pastor Simput Eagles Dafup has been arrested and whisked away to an unknown destination ... for allegedly converting a Muslim girl to a Christian, in Plateau State," a report disclosed. Speaking of this incident, another pastor, Kallamu Musa Ali Dikwa, and executive director of Voice of Northern Christian Movement, said: "Nigeria security has declared war against Christians in this country." He also accused the Nigerian government of treating Christians and Muslims differently: "Muslims have abducted 100 Christian girls under the age of 18 and forcefully converted them to Islam and we have reported to several security agencies but no arrest was made or return of Christian girls to their parents.... The abduction of Christian girls has continued unabated. Such scenarios are serious cases of injustice against Christians in the country, and the perpetrators have often gone Scott free."
European Union/Switzerland: While uncritically taking in and conferring refugee status on countless Muslim migrants, European authorities continued singling out those most in need of sanctuary for deportation. In one instance, a Christian legal group filed an expert brief with the European Court of Human Rights in support of a Muslim man from Afghanistan who converted to Christianity and who risked being deported from Switzerland. The group, known as ADF International, said the man, if forced back to Afghanistan, would as an apostate from Islam face immense persecution, possibly including death: "Afghanistan is not a safe place for a Christian convert," it said. "The Court should ask Switzerland to stop turning a blind eye to the situation of religious minorities in Afghanistan.... This means much more than demanding a convert practice his faith in secret. Sending a refugee back to a country where they face persecution because of their faith is incompatible with the Convention."
The Christian legal group ADF International filed an expert brief with the European Court of Human Rights in support of a Muslim man from Afghanistan who converted to Christianity and who risked being deported from Switzerland. Afghanistan is not a safe place for a Christian convert," it said. "The Court should ask Switzerland to stop turning a blind eye to the situation of religious minorities in Afghanistan..." (Image source: Adrian Grycuk/Wikimedia Commons)
Raymond Ibrahim, author of the new book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is a Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and a Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum
About this Series
While not all, or even most, Muslims are involved, persecution of Christians by Muslim extremists is growing. The report posits that such Muslim persecution is not random but rather systematic, and takes place irrespective of language, ethnicity, or location.
© 2018 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’s chance to save the nuclear deal
Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/August 05/18
Negotiating as an option to resolve the political and security crisis between the United States and Iran, put forward by President Donald Trump without any preconditions, shocked everyone, nevertheless it came according to secret data, information and letters, as Abdulrahman Al-Rashed underlined in his article “Trump’s surprise: Negotiating with Rouhani,” especially since Omani mediators are most likely acting behind curtains for fear of the deterioration of security which can affect the stability of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Strict terms
As much as some observers and political analysts worry about the possibility of a relative Iranian-American rapprochement, the dialogue between the two countries will fall within the interests of the Middle East and its stability, and it will certainly be according to terms that are much stricter than those adopted under President Barack Obama. Saudi Arabia is not against resolving the present problems with Iran; nevertheless it wants Iran to stop meddling in internal affairs of other countries and stop financing armed militias.
The Gulf States will not be the losing party in this dialogue. The Saudi kingdom and the UAE in particular are capable of coordinating with the United States to protect their national interests. The two countries also have enough diplomatic tools that make it possible for them to create a balance with Tehran and to have an influential word. The conflict with Iran is not an inevitable destiny, and the Gulf States are not fond of war. Therefore, if it is possible to achieve the interests, security and stability of the region through serious and transparent dialogue and as long as it’s not a time-wasting dialogue that’s full of empty promises, then this will have a positive effect on the stability and development of the Gulf with its two sides.
Avoiding military confrontation
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in March 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman clearly stated: “We have to succeed so as to avoid military conflict. If we don’t succeed in what we are trying to do, we will likely have war with Iran in 10-15 years.”
The Kingdom is not against resolving the present problems with Iran; nevertheless it wants Iran to stop meddling in internal affairs of other countries, stop financing armed militias and not threaten the borders by supporting the launch of ballistic missiles into the kingdom from Yemen. As such, the Kingdom is working to stop any slippage that could result in a direct confrontation between the two parties. The financial drainage, the Sunni-Shiite conflict, terrorist organizations and the spread of extremist ideology are all difficult problems that would be easier to solve if an Iranian-American-Gulf dialogue is fruitful in accordance to a clear roadmap that fulfills everyone’s interests, builds a regional safety net, promotes trust and strengthens relations between the concerned countries.
It is true that the dialogue may not work, and it will be very difficult and challenging, but it is the best available political option. If President Hassan Rouhani convinces
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards of the importance of responding to President Trump's invitation and if they succeed in agreeing with him, he will have fulfilled an achievement that allows Iran to mitigate its revolutionary burden, even if it is according to the Chinese way. It will also help Iran integrate with its surroundings; otherwise, Iran will face difficult domestic problems and great external pressure that may lead to the worst!

Saudi Arabia’s foreign files: No to toppling Iran’s Islamism
Fares bin Hezam/Al Arabiya/August 05/18
In the last decade of the shah’s rule in Iran, the Gulf's unrest had reached its end. When protests heightened in most cities, happiness was apparent on the face of the Gulf. Khomeini was victorious in his return, and after weeks, he was able to rule his country.
The Gulf’s joy at the end of the “Gulf’s policeman” pushed a country to quickly acknowledge the new ruler and congratulate him. The Abadan Refinery was not working, as a result of protests and strikes, so Saudi Arabia rushed to fill the gap by sending oil to Iran to facilitate everyday life. There were no well-intended Gulf initiatives more than those at the beginning of the Khomeini era. But one page in the constitution which he imposed on the country in nine months ended everything. Khomeini’s constitution explicitly stipulated the exporting of his revolution to brotherly states, and this is where the problem began, not when the Gulf stood by Iraq in the war, like Iran and the rest of the world imagined, which preceded the constitution that came as a declaration of war.With the increase in protests and anticipation over massive American sanctions, we must agree that the Iranian regime is strong in its cohesion and cruelty. It lived and strengthened itself through four decades of problems and sanctions
The Iranian model
The well-intended initiatives by Saudi Arabia did not stop, and President Rouhani himself was a major part of improving them when he was the interior minister during Khatami’s presidency. Since the end of its war with Iraq, the relationship between Riyadh and Tehran went through some positive stages but this did not end in the wanted outcome to support the stability of the Gulf, and push relations to a higher level. With the increase in protests and anticipation over massive American sanctions, we must agree that the Iranian regime is strong in its cohesion and cruelty. It lived and strengthened itself through four decades of problems and sanctions, and absorbed tens of major demonstrations. In our modern times, we have seen it survive the 2009 revolution and rising protests this year. What Khamenei is living today is the same as what the shah lived in his last years as a ruler. Nine years of tension, protests and strikes. This does not mean the quick collapse of the regime, but maybe a change in how it looks. This is what happened with the shah, the government’s institutions remained, and Khomeini added to them other judicial and military institutions.
The Iranian regime’s model is embodied in a man who is obsessed with the illusion of a Godly power, leading extremist men of religion and reckless commanders. This model aspires to bring back a scattered empire which ruled large areas many centuries ago, like the case of the Ottoman caliphate. It extended north and east in Azerbaijan, Caucasus and parts on India before falling apart when faced with the expansion of the British and Russian empires, and going back to the model we knew with the shah.
Today, Saudi Arabia watches what’s happening in Iran from the other Gulf bank. There is an opinion that I support which rejects the toppling of the regime, as I believe that what’s best for the Arab Gulf at this stage lies in keeping an Islamic system in Iran, which stops its expansionist programs and makes it focus on itself. The danger of the collapse of the regime of a country where 80 million people reside will exceed imagination, and the big burden will lie on Gulf countries when they find themselves facing waves of immigrants swimming across gulf waters and entering through hundreds of kilometers from the borders with Iraq. Also, a liberal system in Iran will turn it into the world’s hub in the Middle East at the expense of Gulf states.

The truth on the Jewish Nation-state law controversy
Ramzy Baroud/Al Arabiya/August 05/18
Many Israeli Jews who consider themselves leftists are as culpable for Israel’s racism and apartheid as the right.
But while right-wing and far-right Israelis are explicit in their undemocratic, narrow-minded and racist views, left-wing parties persist in their self-delusion. Israel’s newest ‘basic law’ – the Jewish Nation-state law - further exposed this reality as soon as it was approved by the Israeli Knesset (parliament) on July 19.For weeks, many on the left have been screaming foul, mourning the death of Israeli democracy, decrying the good old days when Israel was a truly equitable society, only to be spoiled years later by a right-wing coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israel's incoming opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, known among Palestinians for her devastating war on Gaza in 2008-09 - for which she stands accused of war crimes - is joining the chorus of those condemning the Jewish Nation-state law.
Another protesting voice is the head of the left-wing Meretz party, Tamar Zandberg. Meretz is in fact petitioning the High Court of Justice against the law calling it "an act of sabotage against Israeli law that replaced equality with racism."
However, neither Livni, Zandberg, nor the many Israeli Jews who have criticized the law are rejecting it for the right reasons. While media reports often speak of an alleged ongoing 'controversy' in Israel regarding the law, this controversy is miscomprehended.
Take Livni's objection to the new law as an example. Livni does not object to the notion of Jewish superiority. In fact, there is nothing in the text itself that she finds offensive. She made that clear, insisting that Israel is indeed "the national home of the Jewish people". Her discontent is the omission of a stipulation that ensures Israel's commitment to "equality for all its citizens."
Livni merely wants to prolong a lie that has subsisted for decades. She wants a country in which Jews are superior, yet equal, where Israel is Jewish, yet democratic.
The leader of Meretz too is hoping for a return to the same grand illusion. The party argues that the new law is not constitutional since it contradicts a previous basic law: Human Dignity and Liberty, passed in 1992.
Thus, Meretz believes that Israel was indeed a democratic state that respected the liberty and human dignity of all of its citizens, prior to July 19, 2018. According to that view, everything that took place prior to that date - the institutional racism, the Apartheid regime, wars and ethnic cleansing targeting non-Jews - were acceptable components of a democratic system that could have existed for many years more.
Breathing life in an old facade
While Israel's right has no qualms with its racism and its sense of Jewish racial superiority over everyone else, the left in Israel is still desperately breathing life in an old facade created by the founders of Israel as early as May 1948.
However, the new law does, in fact, end the decade-long wrangle on whether Israel can be both Jewish and democratic at the same time.
The Jewish Nation-state law is the last nail in the coffin - those who insist on supporting Israel must know that they are supporting an unabashed Apartheid regime.
Israeli intellectual, Omri Boehm, joined a growing number of academics arguing that the balancing act is over. In an article in the New York Times, Boehm wrote, "What was long suspected has finally been made brutally clear: Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and a liberal democracy."
The Jewish Nation-state law is the last nail in the coffin - those who insist on supporting Israel must know that they are supporting an unabashed Apartheid regime.
References to the Jewish identity of the state in the text are ample and dominant, with the clear exclusion of the Palestinian people from their rights in their historic homeland:
- “The state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people ...
- “The actualization of the right of national self-determination in the state of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
- “The state will labor to ensure the safety of sons of the Jewish people …
- “The state will act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people among the Jewish diaspora”, and so on.
Most dangerous of all is the stipulation that "the state views Jewish settlement as a national value and will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development."
Illegal Jewish settlements already dot Palestinian land in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and a de facto segregation already exists in Israel itself. In fact, segregation is so deeply entrenched that even maternity wards in Israeli hospitals separate between mothers, based on ethnicity.
The above stipulation, however, will further accelerate segregation and cement apartheid, making the harm not merely intellectual and political, but also physical.
The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Adalah, has documented in its 'Discriminatory Laws Database', a list of over 65 Israeli laws that "discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinian citizens in Israel and/or Palestinian residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) on the basis of their national belonging". According to Adalah, "These laws limit the rights of Palestinians in all areas of life, from citizenship rights to the right to political participation, land and housing rights, education rights, cultural and language rights, religious rights, and due process rights during detention."
While it would be accurate to argue that the Jewish Nation-state law is the officiation of apartheid in Israel, this realization should not dismiss the previous reality upon which Israel was founded 70 years ago.
Apartheid is not a single law but a slow, agonizing build-up of an intricate legal regime that is motivated by the belief that one racial group is superior to all others.
Not only does the new law elevate Israel's Jewish identity and erase any commitment to democracy, it also downgrades the status of all others. Palestinian Arabs, the natives of the land of historic Palestine upon which Israel was established, are reduced to a mere stipulation made to the Arabic language, downgrading it from being an official language, to a 'special one.'
Israel’s decision to refrain from formulating a written constitution when it was founded in 1948 was not a random one. Since then, it has been following a predictable model by which it would alter reality on the ground to the advantage of Jews, at the expense of Palestinian Arabs.
Instead of a constitution, Israel resorted to what it termed ‘Basic Laws’, which allowed for the constant formulation of new laws guided by the ‘Jewish State’s’ commitment to racial supremacy, rather than to democracy, international law, human rights or any other ethical value.
And with its latest racist law, Israel has dropped the meaningless claim to being both Jewish and democratic. This impossible task was often left to the Supreme Court which tried, but failed, to strike any convincing balance.
This new reality should, once and for all, end the protracted debate on the supposed uniqueness of Israel's political system.
Furthermore, since Israel has chosen racial supremacy over any claim, however faint, to real democracy, western countries that have often shielded Israel must also make a choice on whether they wish to support an Apartheid regime or fight against it.
The EU must end its feeble political discourse and disengage from Apartheid Israel, or it has to accept the moral, ethical and legal consequences of being an accomplice in Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
Israel has made its choice and it is, unmistakably, the wrong one. The rest of the world must now make its choice too, and hopefully, the right one - standing on the right side of history: against Israeli Jewish Apartheid and in favor of Palestinian rights.

August 6: The End of the War of Words
Salman Al-dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/August 05/18
When the clock strikes midnight tonight, the war of words between Washington and Tehran will be replaced by sanctions against the Iranian regime. Tehran will find itself in a familiar position at a strategic crossroads in its ties with the United States and world. The regime’s responses to the sanctions have proven ineffective as the American strategy begins its implementation phase. Iran’s options to ease its major economic crisis have also been dwindling. The first phase of US sanctions will target Iranian trade dealings in the auto market, which is a vital sector for the country’s economy. Other sanctions will also bar Tehran from purchasing or acquiring US dollars. The second phase of the sanctions will take effect in November.
They will target Iran’s crude oil, which makes up a two-thirds of its exports. Should these sanctions be imposed, then Iran’s economy will no doubt be left in tatters. Prices in the country had already gone up before the sanctions were re-imposed. The rial also dropped to record lows and more western companies have announced that they will quit doing business with Iran. Despite these record sanctions and escalation of rhetoric by Iranian officials, a war between Tehran and Washington does not necessarily seem imminent. Trump’s administration is only focusing on economic pressure, not military measures. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had stated on July 22 when declaring the sanctions that American military force was not the way to halt Iran’s reckless behavior. The American sanctions will therefore, likely leave the decision-makers in Iran in the same predicament whereby they will not be able to retaliate in kind to the US pressure.
They will instead have to rein in their temper to prevent Europe from following the American lead and side against them. In most of the times that Tehran opted for the hostile course, it soon went back on it, preferring not to expose the stability of its regime to any danger. The Iranian regime knows full well that any military provocation may spark the ire of Donald Trump’s American administration and make it retaliate in kind. No one is therefore expecting the Iranians to make direct and immediate retaliations to the American pressure. This, however, will not prevent them from turning to their militias and pawns in the region, their only known strong point and source of indirect confrontation. Ties between the US and Iran have reached much lower points in the past 39 years.
At each low point, the Iranians have used the room that was given to them, away from all threats that they are good at making. For example, in the past, they used to arrest one or two American citizens per year. However, the last time Tehran made such an arrest was in August 2016. Moreover, Iran has not made a medium-range rocket test since July 2017. It also has not harassed American naval vessels in the Arab Gulf since August last year. The economic sanctions are indeed capable of exhausting the regime or perhaps even breaking it. The regime will only fulfill its military threats under one condition: When it feels that its collapse is near.

Analysis/Nation-state Law Protest Is About Israel's Identity – Not Equality
كارولين لندزمن من الهآررتس: الإحتجاجات ضد قانون يهودية دولة إسرائيل هي حول هوية إسرائيل وليس المساواة
Carolina Landsmann/Haaretyz/August 05/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66551/carolina-landsmann-haaretyz-analysis-nation-state-law-protest-is-about-israels-identity-not-equality-%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B2%D9%85%D9%86-%D9%85/
The new law denies Israeliness and thus excludes Israel’s non-Jewish citizens, while opening a Pandora’s box containing the ancient question of who is a Jew
“Thank you, my Israeli brothers and sisters.” With these words, Druze protest leader Brig. Gen. (res.) Amal Assad began his speech in Rabin Square on Saturday night, before an emotional crowd of tens of thousands who had come to identify with his community.
Echoing throughout the remarks of all the speakers and providing the only possible explanation for what was common to everyone in the square was the word “Israeli.” In this sense, the nation-state law will achieve the exact opposite of what was intended: Instead of enshrining Jewish nationhood in law, it has laid the groundwork for the just demand to change it into Israeli nationhood. Anyone who doesn’t believe that wasn’t on hand at the demonstration.
From the point of view of the right wing, the nation-state law is aimed at dispelling the fear that Jews will become a minority in their own country, that Israel will change unrecognizably and stop being the state in which they can and would want to reside – and worse, that it will stop being a haven for the Jewish people in case of a future Holocaust. Moreover, the law is intended to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. The right wing wants the public to believe that the nation-state law is the final word.
Because it’s hard to believe that the right wing is so innocent as to think that a future scenario of historic proportions can be prevented by the nation-state law, the left in its criticism has jumped a few steps forward and sees the legislation as a constitutional cornerstone for an apartheid regime. This is the only kind of regime that will be able, at least for the time being – by means of the Israel Defense Forces, the Shin Bet security service and a powerful police force – to maintain Jewish control in a situation where the country loses its Jewish majority.
Thus, from the perspective of the left, the nation-state law is not the last word, it’s the first word. And so the debate between right and left is not over the principle of equality, but rather over Israel’s identity. The right wing is prepared to sacrifice equality on the altar of preserving Israel’s identity as it is today, whereas opponents of the law believe that in sacrificing equality, Israel is losing its identity.
This is precisely the way Benjamin Netanyahu wants people: in a permanent state of panic. The nation-state law is another of the traps the prime minister is so expert at setting. While playing on fears of anti-Semitism and holocaust, and by means of unbridled incitement against the Arabs, Netanyahu has trapped the Israeli public in a seemingly insoluble, existential paradox – as if we must choose between two types of suicide.
We must not forget that this is a diversionary tactic. The main reason Israeli society is crumbling into tribes is the occupation and the fact this country is controlling another people. The only way to save Israel from a domestic collapse is by making peace with the Palestinians, returning the territories and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In turn, all the internal tensions in Israeli society – including those between Arabs and Jews – would return to normal proportions and it would be possible to find a political solution for them, from the moment the monster of the occupation is defeated.
After the occupation is over, Israel will be able to formulate a constitution with a broad consensus, without it being at the expense of one community or another, or one against the other.
Ostensibly, the new legislation was to have circumvented the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a condition for negotiations. So the Palestinians insist on merely recognizing the State of Israel, do they? We’ll outsmart them: We’ll enact a law that states that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people, and that way recognition of Israel will entail recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.