Archive for November 11, 2015

The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches

November 11, 2015

The Indonesian Jihad on Christian Churches, The Gatestone InstituteRaymond Ibrahim, November 11, 2015

  • “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!” – Islamic leaders, Aceh region.
  • In other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law, or Sharia, is not enforced, churches, even fully registered ones, are also under attack
  • On Dec. 25, 2012, with all required paperwork in place, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims threw rocks, rotten eggs, and bags filled with excrement at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.
  • For Indonesia, the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of ISIS has apparently become the norm.

In compliance with Islamic demands, Indonesian authorities in the Aceh region have started to tear down Christian churches. Their move comes after Muslim mobs rampaged and attacked churches. At least one person was killed; thousands of Christians were displaced.

On Friday, October 9, after being fired up during mosque sermons, hundreds of Muslims marched to the local authority’s office and demanded that all unregistered churches in Aceh be closed. Imams issued text messages spurring Muslims from other areas to rise up against churches and call for their demolition.

On Monday, October 12, authorities facilitated a meeting with Islamic leaders and agreed to demolish 10 unregistered churches over the course of two weeks.

Apparently this was not fast enough to meet Muslim demands for immediate action. On the following day, a mob of approximately 700 Muslims, some armed with axes and machetes, torched a local church, even though it was not on the list of churches agreed upon for demolition.

1337The remains of a church in the Aceh region of Indonesia, still on fire, after hundreds of Muslims attacked it on October 13, 2015. (Image source: CCTV video screenshot)

The Muslim mob then moved on to a second church, an act that led to violent clashes. One person, believed to be a Christian, died after being shot in the head. Several were injured, as Christians tried to defend their church against the armed mob.

Approximately 8,000 Christians were displaced; many fled to bordering provinces. Their fears were justified: Islamic leaders continued issuing messages and text messages saying, “We will not stop hunting Christians and burning churches. Christians are Allah’s enemies!”

Instead of punishing those who incited violence and took the law into their own hands by torching and attacking churches, local authorities demolished three churches (a Catholic mission station and two Protestant churches) on October 19. In the coming days, seven more churches are set to be demolished; in the coming months and years, dozens more.

Authorities had originally requested of church leaders to demolish their own churches. “How can we do that?” asked Paima Berutu, one of the church leaders: “It is impossible [for us to take it down] … Some of us watched [the demolition] from afar, man and women. It was painful.”

The situation in Aceh remains tense: “Every church member is guarding his own church right now,” said another pastor

As for the displaced Christians, many remain destitute, waiting for “desperately needed clean water, food, clothes, baby food, blankets, and medicines.” As Muslim militants were reportedly guarding the border with an order to kill any Christians crossing the line, reaching the Christians is difficult.

Many Muslims and some media try to justify this destruction by pointing out that the churches were in the wrong for not being registered. In reality, however, thanks to Indonesia’s 2006 Joint Decree on Houses of Worship, it is effectively impossible to obtain a church permit. The decree made it illegal for churches to acquire permits unless they can get “signatures from 60 local households of a different faith,” presumably Muslims, as well as “a written recommendation from the regency or municipal religious affairs office” — that is, from the local sheikh and council of Muslim elders: the same people most likely to incite Muslims against Christians and churches during mosque gatherings. Christian activists say there are many mosques that are unregistered and built without permits, but the authorities ignore those infractions.

Others try to justify these recent attacks on churches by pointing out that they took place in Aceh, the only region in Indonesia where Islamic law, or Sharia, is officially authorized, and where, since 2006, more than 1,000 churches have been shut.

Yet in other parts of Indonesia, where Islamic law is not enforced, even fully registered churches are under attack. These include the Philadelphia Protestant Church in Bekasi — nearly 1,500 miles south of Sharia-compliant Aceh. Even though it had the necessary paperwork, it too was illegally shut down in response to violent Muslim protests. On December 25, 2012, when the congregation assembled on empty land to celebrate Christmas, hundreds of Muslims, including women and children, threw rotten eggs, rocks, and plastic bags filled with urine and feces at the Christians. Police stood by and watched.

A church spokesman stated, “We are constantly having to change our location because our existence appears to be unwanted, and we have to hide so that we are not intimidated by intolerant groups. … We had hoped for help from the police, but after many attacks on members of the congregation [including when they privately meet for worship at each other’s homes], we see that the police are also involved in this.

Bogor is another area where Islamic law is supposedly not enforced. Yet the ongoing saga of the GKI Yasmin Church there illustrates how Islamic law takes precedence over Indonesian law. In 2008, when local Muslims began complaining about the existence of the church, even though it was fully registered, the authorities obligingly closed it. In December 2010, the Indonesian Supreme Court ordered the church to be reopened, but the mayor of Bogor, refusing to comply, kept it sealed off.

Since then, the congregation has been holding Sunday services at the homes of members, and occasionally on the street, to the usual jeers and attacks by Muslim mobs. On Sunday, September 27, the church held its 100th open-air service.

The Indonesian jihad is taking place in varying degrees all throughout the East Asian nation and is not limited to Sharia-compliant zones such as Aceh. For the country once hailed as the face of “moderate Islam,” the “extremist” behavior one would expect of the Islamic State (ISIS) — hating, attacking, and demolishing churches — has apparently become the norm.

Egypt-Saudi Arabia Relations

November 11, 2015

Egypt-Saudi Arabia Relations: Substantial Rifts Despite Shared Basic Interests, MEMRI, Y. Graff*, November 9, 2015

Introduction

Since the ouster of Muhammad Mursi in July 2013, Saudi-Egyptian relations have been close and marked by common interests. Saudi Arabia backed the Egyptian military’s ousting of Mursi and supported its claim that the ouster expressed the will of the people, in the face of international claims that it was a military coup. Alongside political support for the new regime, Saudi Arabia also donated billions of dollars to restore Egypt’s economy. However, despite the friendly relations, Arab press has reported that, since the death of Saudi King ‘Abdallah in January 2014 and the ascension of King Salman, relations between the countries have chilled. Outwardly, the leaders of the two countries strive to demonstrate unity and friendship, yet reports in the Arab media point at a growing tension between Egypt and Saudi Arabia, mainly due to fundamental disagreements on various political issues.

It should be mentioned that, contra to Saudi expectations and despite this country’s generous financial assistance, Al-Sisi’s Egypt does not regard itself bound by Saudi policies. In fact, it has employed an independent policy in the hopes of forging bonds of friendship and alliances on several concurrent fronts – in a manner that has sometimes contravened and even thwarted Saudi foreign policy. This has led to disagreements with Saudi Arabia on several fronts:

The Saudi openness towards the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), to Egypt’s dismay: Saudi fears regarding Iran – which substantially increased after Iran’s Houthi allies took control of the Yemeni capital of Sana’a in September 2014, and later of all of southern Yemen, including Aden, and parts of the north up to the Saudi border, and after Iran signed the JCPOA with the P5+1 Group – have caused a tactical Saudi shift towards the MB after years of animosity towards it and towards its sponsors, Qatar and Turkey. This, in an attempt to form a unified Sunni front to confront the Iranian threat in the region. Saudi Arabia’s openness towards the MB, which Egypt sees as an enemy of the regime and a terrorist organization, is expressed in the Saudi view of the MB as future partners in ruling Yemen and Syria. Further expressions were a visit by Hamas Political Bureau Chief Khaled Mash’al to Saudi Arabia in July 2015, where he met with King Salman, as well as Saudi Arabia’s siding with Qatar in February 2015 when the latter opposed Egypt’s attack in Libya.

This Saudi rapprochement with the MB, Qatar and Turkey displeases the Egyptian regime, which regards them as its bitter enemies and rejects any cooperation with them, even at the cost of thwarting the cause of forming a united Sunni front against Iran.

An Egyptian openness towards Iran, to the chagrin of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia sees Iran as a strategic threat to its security and the security of the entire Sunni world. Conversely, many elements in Egypt do not regard Iran as an existential threat and are reluctant to enter the Sunni-Shi’ite struggle. Al-Sisi’s Egypt is seeking economic investments and alliances to fill its dwindling coffers, and some there see the lifting of sanctions from Iran as an opportunity to renew business relations with it, even if this goes against Saudi Arabia and despite the fact that Egypt and Iran have had historically tense relations and do not maintain full diplomatic relations to this day.

Egypt’s openness towards the Syrian regime: Saudi Arabia demands the ouster of Assad, whether by political or by military means, and even supports the armed opposition to that end. Conversely, Egypt opposes a military solution and advocates dialogue with the Assad regime to achieve a solution that would preserve Syria’s state institutions and its unity. Moreover, Egypt refrains from addressing the issue of Assad’s personal fate.

Saudi disappointment at absence of sufficient support for its military operation in Yemen: Saudi Arabia, which is leading a large-scale military operation in Yemen against the Houthis and supporters of ousted president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh, is disappointed at Egypt’s refusal to participate more fully in this operation. Moreover, there are reports on disagreements between the two countries regarding the attitude towards the Yemeni MB, as well as reports that Egypt is in contact with Saudi Arabia’s rivals in Yemen in the hopes of finding a political solution to the crisis there.

This report will review the points of contention between Saudi Arabia and Egypt on various topics, as was reported in Arab media.

25685Egyptian President Al-Sisi with Saudi King Salman (image: elpah.com)

Egypt Furious Over Saudi Arabia Growing Close To Qatar, Turkey, MB

Since his ascension to the Saudi throne, King Salman continued efforts by his predecessor, King ‘Abdallah, to connect the traditional Sunni axis, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt – which includes countries such as Jordan, the UAE, and Bahrain – with the MB axis – which includes Turkey, Qatar, and the various MB organizations and parties in the region such as Hamas, Al-Islah in Yemen, and the Syrian MB. The Saudis support the idea that both these axes should come together to confront Iran and its regional allies. In the opinion of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, Iran has become an increasing threat in the past decade after gaining crucial influence in three Arab capitals: Beirut, Baghdad, and Damascus. In the past year, Iran has also added the Yemeni capital of Sana’a to the list,[1] after the Shi’ite Houthi movement took control of it, as well as of South Yemen and Aden together with forces supporting ousted president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh. This takeover created a strategic threat to Saudi Arabia after the Houthis took control of the Strait of Bab Al-Mandeb, prompting the kingdom to launch Operation Decisive Storm in order to restore the rule of its ally President Hadi.

Up until the Houthi takeover of Sana’a, Saudi Arabia, much like Egypt, saw the MB axis as an equal threat to the one posed by Iran. It defined the MB as a terrorist organization, and conducted a public conflict with Qatar over this issue, which triggered a recall of its ambassador in March 2014.[2] However, the deterioration of the situation in Yemen, as well as the constant motion towards a nuclear agreement between Iran and the U.S. (which was eventually achieved in July 2015), caused Saudi Arabia to shift towards Iran as the central threat to its national security and the safety of Arabs in general. As part of this view, Saudi Arabia decided to grow close to its MB axis rivals and undertake the compromises necessary to achieve this.

Accordingly, Saudi Arabia began normalizing its relations with Qatar, even backing it in February 2015 during a harsh disagreement with Egypt.[3] Saudi Arabia’s openness towards Qatar and towards its ally, the MB, was also expressed by releasing many Egyptian MB prisoners, including high ranking activists who were imprisoned in Saudi Arabia during the reign of King ‘Abdallah, as well as by ending Saudi pressure on Britain to define the MB as a terrorist organization.[4]

Arab press also began reporting on contacts between MB officials and Saudi leadership. For example, Saudi officials met with Europe-based billionaire Youssef Nada, who is a noted MB donor;[5] Jordanian MB General Guide Himam Sa’id visited Saudi Arabia in June 2015 and met with the Saudi minister of religious endowments, and a delegation of Hamas officials led by Political Bureau Chief Khaled Mash’al held a meeting with King Salman in Mecca in July 2015, which led to a release of Hamas activists imprisoned in the kingdom.

In order to bring Egypt closer to the MB axis as well, Saudi Arabia attempted to reconcile between it and Qatar, and Egyptian and Gulf sources even claimed that it explored the possibility of promoting inter-Egyptian reconciliation between the regime and the MB.[6] In recent months, the Saudi press featured articles criticizing Egypt’s rigid policy towards the MB. Senior Saudi political analyst Khaled Al-Dakhil, writing in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat on June 21, 2015, called it “a phobia” and “McCarthyism,” hinting that the Egyptian regime, which warns of a totalitarian MB rule, does not behave much differently itself. According to him, “this McCarthyist [attitude] towards the MB cannot be sustained for long… We need an alternative [to persecuting the MB], which has thus far not materialized.”[7] Saudi columnist Daoud Al-Shiryan made explicit calls for reconciliation with the MB in his June 17 column in the same daily: “The [Egyptian] enthusiasm for [meting out] the death penalty [to MB leaders], and the view that regards this as a tool for deterring and restraining them, and for imposing the country’s authority [over them], is an erroneous policy, since Egypt’s interest today demands to close the book on this topic and open a new horizon for political reconciliation [with the MB] while looking to the future.”[8]

Reports that Saudi Arabia was growing closer to the MB were of great concern to Egypt, but it seems that Mash’al’s visit to the kingdom and his meeting with King Salman were the straw that broke the camel’s back. Following the visit, several Egyptian columnists published articles featuring harsher tones than had been acceptable in Egypt up to that point. For example, ‘Abd Al-Rahim ‘Ali, editor of the Egyptian news portal Albawabhnews.com, who is close to Egyptian security forces, claimed in an article on Saudi-Egyptian tensions that Saudi Arabia was trying to “thaw the ice” with Hamas and grow close to this organization so it would join the anti-Iranian Sunni axis that Saudi Arabia heads and mediate between the kingdom and the Yemeni Al-Islah party. According to him, Egypt responded to these attempts by conveying that it refuses to be party to any plan in which the MB is involved. He claimed further that Egypt had conveyed a message to Saudi Arabia that “its alliance with this organization poses a threat to the Arab’s national security and especially to Egypt’s national security.” [9]

Even more critical of the Saudi openness towards the MB was editor-in-chief of the official daily Al-Ahram, ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, who did not mention Saudi Arabia by name but alluded to it in a highly resentful tone. He wrote: “Forming an alliance with political Islam organizations [such as the MB] will never benefit the region and the Arab forces [such as Saudi Arabia] that aspire to forge a new alliance against Tehran… as though those organizations were not party to the regional chaos and bloodshed.” He added: “The thought that we can combat the pox of terrorism and extremist organization [referring to Shi’ite militias such as the Houthis and Hizbullah] by supporting equally radical organizations [such as Hamas and the various arms of the MB] constitutes ignorance, near-sightedness, and politically folly.”[10]

Different Attitudes Towards Iran As Strategic Threat To The Region

Egypt’s objections to Saudi Arabia growing close to the MB also touch on their differing views on Iran as a strategic threat. Egypt disagrees with the Saudi position that Iran constitutes such a threat to Arab national security as to justify allying with the MB. Egypt sees the MB as a no lesser threat to Arab national security, and some elements there even argue that Iran does not constitute a significant threat at all.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said after the signing of the JCPOA that Egypt’s relations with Iran “are unrelated to the attitude of the Gulf states towards it.” He added: “Nobody is tying our hands. We are forging ties with [Iran] based on many considerations, including the regional one, not based on formal matters like the name of a street.”[11] Also, in late September, Shoukry met with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, on the periphery of the UN General Assembly, and conveyed to him that Egypt expects Iran to support regional stability and Arab national security. The two also discussed a political solution in Syria and the implications of the JCPOA.[12] Then Egyptian Oil Minister Sherif Ismail, who is now prime minister, even expressed hope that Egypt could begin importing oil from Iran, thus easing its severe energy crisis.[13]

Several Egyptian columnists strengthened this position and called Egypt to see the JCPOA as a chance to economically develop Egypt and foster ties with Iran after many years of disconnect. Al-Ahram columnist Ibrahim Sengab argued that “naming a street in Tehran for the murderer of President Sadat [Khalid Al-Islambouli] cannot be grounds for severing ties between the countries.[14] Al-Ahram columnist Muhammad Idris wrote that in light of the rise of Iranian might in the region, Egypt is faced with two options. One is to create “strategic integration with Saudi Arabia” and lead a joint Arab force that would constitute a counterbalance to Iran, and the other is to normalize relations with Iran. According to him, the schism between Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Saudi attempts to compete with Egypt rather than cooperate with it, indicate that normalizing relations with Iran is the better option.[15] However, it should be mentioned that many Egyptian articles sided with the Saudi position that sees the JCPOA as dangerous.

Another Iran-related disagreement between Egypt and Saudi Arabia revolves around the Egyptian regime’s estimate that Saudi Arabia is turning its conflict with Iran into a Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian conflict, which Egypt has no interest in. Egyptian journalist Mai ‘Azzam harshly attacked Saudi Arabia’s conduct vis-à-vis Iran on this account, claiming that “Saudi Arabia is spearheading the transforming of the regional conflict into a sectarian one. It is the one that dragged the region into civil wars… [in which] members of the same nationality fight under sectarian banners, and it seems that this is a war between Shi’ites and Sunnis rather than a war of interests between Saudi Arabia and Iran.” She explained that “the clash between the interests of Saudi Arabia and Egypt is crystal clear.”[16] The editor of Al-Ahram, ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, also addressed this point and stated in his aforementioned article that Egypt “would never lead a sectarian war against Iran.”[17]

Saudi-Egyptian Disagreements Regarding Resolution Of Syrian Crisis

Saudi and Egyptian officials have been stressing that there is no disagreement between the countries with regards to the Syrian crisis. Saudi Ambassador to Egypt Ahmad Qattan argued in an August 4 press conference that the two countries no longer disagree on the means to resolve the crisis, and that the two had always agreed on the goal: a political solution that preserves state institutions, while distancing Assad himself from a position of influence.[18] Egypt’s foreign minister also stressed, in a joint press conference with his Saudi counterpart, that the two countries had never disagreed and do not disagree today on the solution to the Syria crisis.[19]However, these statements do not seem to reflect reality, which points to major differences of opinion between the countries regarding the fate of Bashar Al-Assad and the ways to deal with the crisis. Egypt’s position on these matters appears closer to that of Russia, the strategic ally of the Assad regime along with Iran, than to that of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi-Egypt disagreements on the Syrian issue can be divided into several topics:

Ways To Deal With The Syrian Crisis And The Fate Of President Assad

While Saudi Arabia sees Assad as the root cause of the problem, and sees his ouster as a condition to solving the crisis, Egypt believes that removing Assad would only exacerbate the crisis and lead to chaos, as happened with the ouster of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and of Mu’ammar Al-Qadhafi in Libya. While Egypt does not openly state that it supports Assad remaining in power, it does routinely warn of the implications of his ouster. In its view, removing Assad is not a condition to solving the crisis, and Assad’s fate is in the hands of Syrians – a position similar to that of Russia, Iran, and the Syrian regime itself. This was expressed in statements made by Egyptian President Al-Sisi, who called for a political solution in Syria, “not in order to support one side over the other, but rather to preserve the Syrian state and its institutions, and to solve [the crisis] without collapsing them.”[20]Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry also said that Assad’s fate should only be determined by the Syrian people, “who have a right to decide [their leadership] by [establishing] a transitional government and later in free elections held under international oversight and as part of the implementation of the Geneva 1 agreement.”[21]

Egypt does not view the “military option” as an alternative if a political solution cannot be reached, as Saudi Arabia has threatened.[22] Moreover, official elements in Egypt stress that a military solution in Syria is impossible, and that military action to topple the regime will only exacerbate the civil war in the country.

In Egypt’s opinion, only a political solution that ensures that the Syrian army and state institutions not be harmed can guarantee the stability of Syria and of the region. This Egyptian position was expressed in a document constituting a kind of roadmap to solving the Syrian crisis, which was presented by the Egyptian foreign ministry to several Syrian opposition parties and was published on the liberal Saudi website elaph.com on December 25, 2014.[23] The Egyptian document does not touch on the fate of Bashar Al-Assad, but stresses that the Syrian army cannot be dismantled since it is “the national institution defending the state and ensuring its independence and sovereignty, and [since it] will preserve national security and not interfere in politics.”[24]

The Root Causes Of The Crisis And The Priorities In Dealing With It

The two countries both see the spread of ISIS in Syria as a threat to the existence of the state and to regional stability, but differ on how to deal with it and the priorities in doing so. Saudi Arabia believes that the root of the problem is the Assad regime itself, since it is the cause of the uprising and the emergence of ISIS and other extremist Islamic groups, and therefore ousting it will end the uprising and weaken these groups.

Egypt, on the other hand, shares Russia’s, Iran’s, and the Syrian regime’s view that the essence of the crisis is the extremist Islamic terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Jabhat Al-Nusra, and therefore the top priority is eliminating them. Moreover, Egypt sees the Syrian army as the spearhead of the fight against ISIS. It supports the Russian initiative that calls to establish a regional alliance against ISIS together with the Assad regime. Egypt even expressed support for Russian airstrikes in Syria, in contrast to Saudi Arabia, which opposes them. Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry even supported the Russian involvement in Syria in an interview with the Saudi Al-Arabiya TV, saying that “the info given us in our direct contacts with the Russian side indicates that Russia is interested in combating terrorism and working to reduce the spread of terrorism in Syria.” He added that the Russian involvement would help eliminate terrorism in the country.[25]

Attitude Towards Syrian Opposition

Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s disagreement regarding the status of Assad is also reflected in their support for different opposition elements. Saudi Arabia supports armed opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army and moderate Islamic militias with equipment, weapons, and money. The Saudis, in a joint move with Turkey and Qatar, which also support militias combatting Assad, recently established Jaish Al-Fath – an umbrella organization for several armed factions, including Islamist ones, which has made impressive achievements against the regime. Additionally, Saudi Arabia supports the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, an unarmed political opposition to the regime, in which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has considerable weight, and which also calls for the ouster of Bashar Al-Assad.

Egypt, on its part, while not boycotting the National Coalition, supports opposition elements willing to conduct dialogue with the Syrian regime, such as the National Coordination Committee for the Forces of Democratic Change (NCC), which is based in Syria and receives Russia’s support. Additionally, Egypt does not recognize MB elements that are members of the National Coalition. Thus, in June 2015, Egypt organized a summit for Syrian oppositionists in Cairo, but did not invite any MB representatives. In response, the National Coalition boycotted the summit.

Furthermore, unlike the Saudis, Egypt rejects a military solution in Syria, and opposes armed opposition. In this context, it is worth mentioning an article penned by Ahmed Sayyid Al-Naggar, head of the board of directors ofAl-Ahram, who harshly criticized the Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia’s support for armed opposition in Syria. He wrote: “Egypt should not permit the rending of Syria and the destruction of the unity of the Syrian state, as is being attempted today by the terrorist gangs of Jabhat Al-Nusra, ISIS, and the ‘Free Collaborator Army’ [pejorative term for the FSA] with the support of several regional countries…”[26]

Saudi Arabia’s dissatisfaction with Egypt’s policy on solving the Syrian crisis is embodied by criticism levelled by the former editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Tariq Alhomayed, at Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry due to his statements in support of Russian involvement in Syria. According to Alhomayed, these statements by Shoukry indicate that he is “taking the criminal Assad lightly, and even showing sympathy for him, and [his statements] do not acknowledge that [Assad’s] crimes are the reason that Syria is in its current state, or that Assad is the official sponsor of terrorism and the reason for the appearance of ISIS there [in Syria]… It is a duty to say, even with a substantial delay, that there is a severe lack of understanding of the Syrian crisis in Egypt… What some people in Egypt do not understand is that the Assad army is sectarian and [moreover] has [now] been replaced by Shi’ite and Iranian militias and by Russian forces, and is no longer the same as the Egyptian army.”[27]

Reports On Warming In Egyptian-Syria Relations

In fact, since Al-Sisi’s rise to power in Egypt, and to Saudi Arabia’s dismay, there has been a noticeable warming of relations between Egypt and the Assad regime, embodied by Egypt’s uncompromising support for the survival of this regime and its army. This Egyptian position can be explained by the fact that the Syrian and Egyptian regimes both represent the Middle East’s old guard (authoritarian regimes leaning mainly on the army); by the strong ties between their militaries; by their similar view of the MB, ISIS and Al-Qaeda as threats to their security; and by their shared hostility for Turkey and Qatar, who sponsor the MB. It seems that similar interests and the similarity in the structure of both regimes lead Egypt to fear that the ouster of the Assad regime and its army, as well as the division of Syria, would open the door to a similar scenario in Egypt. Additionally, Egypt’s tightening relations with Russia – a strategic ally of the Syrian regime along with Iran – have contributed to its positive relations with the Assad regime. Furthermore, unlike its Gulf allies, Egypt did not participate in the international coalition attacks on ISIS in Syria, which the Assad regime called “illegitimate.”[28]

Over the past year, the Assad regime has recognized these disagreements between Saudi Arabia and Egypt and has attempted to exploit them to grow close to Egypt, including with positive statements on Egypt made by Syrian officials, and the dispatching of envoys to the country. For example, in a speech to Ba’th Party members in November 2014, President Assad showered Egypt with praise, saying: “We can describe the Egyptian role as positive. Our relations with the Egyptian security mechanisms, even during the days of [previous president Muhammad] Mursi, were good, and now they have developed; first, thanks to the rise of President ‘Abd Al-Fattah Al-Sisi, and second, due to the blows dealt to the MB in Egypt. This led to a major warming [between the countries].”[29] In an interview with Hizbullah’s Al-Manar TV in August 2015, Assad stressed the importance of relations with Egypt: “Even when Mursi, of the MB, was Egyptian president and despite his offenses towards Syria, we never tried to harm Egypt; first, due to the importance of our relations, and second, because contacts between Syria and Egypt were not severed even during the reign of Mursi.” Assad hinted at the pressure Saudi Arabia is applying to Egypt to avoid forging stronger ties with Syria, saying: “We want Egypt to play the role of an important… and influential country, [one] that assists the other Arab countries on the basis of its ancient history, not on the basis of a handful of petrodollars and recent history.” According to Assad, “rival countries are pressing Egypt in attempt to keep it from playing the part we wish it to play.” He also said that Syria-Egypt relations help attain balance in the Arab arena and that “Syria believes that it is in the same trench as the Egyptian army and people in dealing with terrorists…”[30]

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Al-Mu’allem told the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram that “Egypt does not play a part [in Syria] for obvious reasons,” alluding to its alliance with Saudi Arabia, and added: “The Mursi regime, which decided to downgrade diplomatic relations [with Syria], is gone, and we hope that they will now return [to the previous level].”[31] In an interview with the Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar, Al-Mu’allem said that there is security coordination between Syria and Egypt and that it was an advanced step towards normalizing relations between the countries.[32] The Lebanese daily Al-Safir, which is close to the Syrian regime, even reported in February 2015 that Al-Sisi had renewed security coordination with Syria “to a small degree.”[33] Additionally, the website Alahednews.com, which is owned by Hizbullah, reported that Egypt was arming the Assad military.[34]

25686Al-Mu’allem (center) posing with members of the Egyptian media (Image: Al-Ahram, Egypt, August 20, 2015)

Alongside these messages, the Syrian regime dispatched several envoys to Egypt. In December 2014, a delegation headed by ‘Imad Al-Assad, the cousin of President Bashar Al-Assad, visited Egypt.[35] One month later, in January 2015, an unnamed Syrian regime envoy met with Egyptian officials in Cairo. According to reports on a Syrian opposition website, the visit was meant to bolster Egyptian efforts to unite the Syrian opposition and promote indirect talks between the regime and opposition as a preamble to direct talks with Egyptian or international presence.[36]

Though Egyptian officials make sure to avoid explicit expressions of support for the Assad regime, the administration’s mouthpieces do express such support, unreservedly. Official Egyptian press featured numerous articles calling for Assad to remain in power and backing him in his struggle against terrorism. They also featured articles praising the tight relations between the two countries and peoples, articles which presented the events in Syria from the Egyptian regime’s standpoint, and discussed the common enemies of the two countries and the need for the Egyptian army to assist its Syrian counterpart.[37]

Thus, chief editor of Al-Ahram, ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, wrote in April 2015 that “distancing Bashar Al-Assad from any solution to the crisis is a akin to imposing guardianship upon the Syrian people and its choices, and [constitutes] interference in its affairs, and marginalization of parts of the Syrian people who see him as a component in a solution.” ‘Allam also claimed that, had the MB regime remained in power in Egypt and had the Assad regime been ousted, tens of thousands of ISIS fighters would have entered Egypt, and therefore “the mighty stand of the Syrian regime and army in the face of terrorism constitutes defense of Egypt and its national security…”[38]

Similarly, Morsi ‘Atallah, former head of Al-Ahram‘s board of directors, wrote in June 2015 that, contrary to statements by Saudi Foreign Minster Al-Jubeir that Egypt and Saudi Arabia agreed that Assad must be removed and that Egypt would press Russia to abandon him, “this trend does not match the principles of Egyptian policy… which is far from sticking its nose into the internal affairs of its Arab sisters… regardless of circumstances and excuses.”[39] In a February 2015 article, Al-Ahram columnist Makram Muhammad Ahmad stated that Bashar Al-Assad would “necessarily be part of a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis” because he still controls a large portion of the country, because the army will remain loyal to him, as well many minorities; and especially in light of estimates that the only alternative to his rule is ISIS.[40] In another article on September 8, 2015, written on the backdrop of the wave of Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe, Ahmad wrote that Syria “is being worn away by ISIS and Al-Qaeda due to the insistence on getting rid of Assad as a precondition to a nonviolent solution,” adding that “the crimes Assad has committed against his people are of limited [scope] compared to the crimes of Arabs who stand silent and helpless in the face of the great disaster of the Syrian people.”[41]

The Yemen Crisis: Saudi Arabia Disappointed At Insufficient Egyptian Aid; Egypt Fears MB Inclusion In Future Arrangement

It initially appeared that there was solidarity and cooperation between Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the Yemeni situation, since Egypt dispatched aerial and naval forces to join the Saudi-led coalition that launched Operation Decisive Storm in March against the Houthis and the supporters of ousted president ‘Ali ‘Abdallah Saleh. However, as time wore on, the rift between the countries became apparent, embodied by Egypt’s reluctance to dispatch ground troops to Yemen, while other coalition members such as the UAE, Sudan, and Mauritania have already done so.[42]

Egypt sees the Strait of Bab Al-Mandeb, which is the gateway to the Red Sea, as a strategic area, and Egyptian officials have repeatedly stressed that their country would prevent the Houthis from taking control of it. Moreover, in April 2015, President Al-Sisi said that Bab Al-Mandeb and the security of the Gulf States were matters of Egyptian national security, and that the Egyptian army would be mobilized to deal with them if necessary.[43]Nevertheless, it appears that Egypt is avoiding taking a more active role in this operation, possibly due to several reasons: The Egyptian army’s preoccupation with combating ISIS terrorism in Sinai; bitter memories of Egypt’s failed war in Yemen 50 years ago, which claimed the lives of thousands of Egyptian soldiers; and Egypt’s aversion to Saudi Arabia’s pact with the Yemeni MB against the Houthis and Saleh.

Since the onset of the Arab Spring in 2011, Saudi Arabia has opposed the MB-affiliated Al-Islah Party in Yemen, but since the ascension to the throne of King Salman, the Saudis seem to have been seeking to improve their relations with it.[44] The Al-Islah Party welcomes the anti-Houthi Saudi operation in Yemen, and Saudi reports even indicate that it has taken an active part in it. The independent Egyptian daily Al-Shorouq reported that Saudi Arabia has even insisted that Al-Islah be given a substantial role in the Yemeni regime. Egypt, on the other hand, is apparently still avoiding cooperating with the MB in Yemen or bolstering its political power. Al-Shorouqcited Egyptian sources as saying that, despite understanding Saudi fears of an Iranian takeover, they do not want to replace one religious force in Yemen (meaning the Houthis) with another (meaning the MB).[45] According to the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, Egypt in fact told Saudi Arabia that its participation in Operation Decisive Storm was conditional upon the Al-Islah Party not becoming part of the future regime in the country, and the Saudis were forced to make assurances along these lines, while simultaneously trying to preserve their alliance with the party.[46]

Two additional events in Egypt demonstrate this country’s opposition to Saudi policy in Yemen: In April 2015, a protest against Operation Decisive Storm was held outside the Saudi embassy in Cairo, which featured offensive slogans aimed at the Saudi king. A report in the Egyptian daily Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ claimed that this was “a plot of the Egyptian MB to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Egypt.”[47] However, the fact that such a protest even took place in Egypt, which strictly regulates protest activity,[48] raised many questions. Thus, following the protest, the independent e-daily Rai Al-Yawm wondered whether it had received the implicit blessing of the Egyptian regime, which does not air out its differences with Arab countries, choosing instead to express them in indirect ways and via messages in the media. The daily asked: “Is it possible that Egyptian authorities used this means to express their differences with Saudi Arabia [on Yemen]?”[49]

25687Egyptians protesting Saudi Operation in Yemen. Right: “Stop barbaric aggression against Yemen.” Left: “Salman, you coward, you agent of the Americans” (Images: Watan.com, Arabic.cnn.com, April 6, 2015)

The second event took place in July 2015. The London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat reported that the El-Sawy Culture Wheel[50] in Cairo, which is considered one of Egypt’s largest and most important cultural centers, was holding an exhibition depicting “Saudi aggression in Yemen,” adopting the Houthi narrative of events.[51] Saudi journalist Jasser Al-Jasser attacked the El-Sawy Culture Wheel in a July 16 article, calling it the abode of “political mercenaries” – a reference to Egypt’s political elites. According to him, the exhibition falsified reality and facts and constituted “a hostile act against all Saudis” and an offense to Saudi martyrs.[52] It should be mentioned that, according to a report in Al-Hayat, the Culture Wheel denied holding such an exhibition, likely after it caused diplomatic embarrassment to Egypt, which quickly issued a statement via the foreign ministry spokesman denying that there were any disagreements between it and Saudi Arabia on Yemen.

25688The exhibition at the El-Sawy Culture Wheel (Image: Al-Misryyoun, Egypt, July 9, 2015)

However, Arab media featured reports on meetings held in Cairo between Egyptian officials and Abu Bakr Al-Qirbi, an emissary for ousted president Saleh, to formulate a solution to the Yemeni crisis that would not include the Al-Islah party. Sources said that Saudi Arabia had told Egypt it was displeased by this move.[53]   Conversely, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar reported on July 24 that the Egyptian officials’ meetings with Saleh’s and Houthi representatives had been held with Saudi Arabia’s knowledge.[54]

Saudi Arabia Thwarts Egyptian Initiative To Establish “Joint Arab Force”

Another clear expression of the many disagreements between Egypt and Saudi Arabia can be seen in the fact that in recent months, Saudi Arabia has repeatedly delayed an initiative presented by President Al-Sisi to establish a joint Arab force empowered by the Arab League to carry out missions to defend Arab countries. Al-Sisi intends for this new force to be sent by the Arab League to Libya, to remove the increasing threat to Egypt from terrorist elements operating there, including ISIS.

Al-Sisi presented this initiative to Arab leaders at the Arab League summit in March 2015, shortly after ISIS in Libya executed 21 Egyptian Copts living in the country. The initiative received the support of Arab leaders at the summit, and it was decided to hold deliberations and formulate a protocol to establish it. However, the Arab defense and foreign ministers summit that is set to convene to approve the formulated protocol has already been postponed twice – once on July 26,[55] and again on August 26.[56]

The London-based Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi claimed on September 2, 2015 that Saudi Arabia was behind the postponements. The report stated that Saudi Arabia had thwarted the Egyptian initiative due to the severe disagreements between the two countries on various topics, chiefly Syria and Yemen, and added that “the fact that a [new] date has not been set for the summit indicates that the disagreements run deep.” According to sources cited in the report, one of the main reasons for Saudi Arabia blocking the Egyptian move is the strong ties between the Al-Sisi and Al-Assad regimes, and Egypt’s efforts to achieve a political solution to the Syrian crisis that ensures Assad remains in power, which is contrary to the Saudi position. The report also states that initially, Saudi Arabia supported the establishment of the Joint Arab Force in an attempt to entice Egypt do join its coalition for Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen, but after Egypt did not commit to the coalition sufficiently, Saudi Arabia decided to reign in the Egyptian initiative. The report also cited analysts and associates of the Saudi regime who estimated that Al-Sisi’s aim in establishing the Joint Arab Force was not to combat terrorist organizations in Libya, but rather to suppress pro-MB Libyan rebels and establish a government under his sponsorship, allowing him to take control of the oil in eastern Libya. They said that Saudi Arabia was disinclined to take sides in the Libyan crisis and preferred to reach an UN-brokered solution geared at establishing a national consent government that includes the MB.[57]

Saudi Arabia Fails To Block Egyptian Media Assault; Tense Relations Persist

On July 30, 2015, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman arrived in Cairo for an official visit, meeting with President Al-Sisi and attending a graduation ceremony at the military college, during which Al-Sisi stressed that the prince’s visit to Egypt sent the message that Saudi Arabia and Egypt were “together.” The visit ended with the “Cairo Declaration,” which states that both countries will work to strengthen their military and economic ties and will cooperate on the strategic level.[58] The visit alleviated the concerns of many in the Egyptian media for a time, and the Cairo Declaration assured that the future of cooperation between the countries was secure. And indeed, immediately after the visit, Egypt approved an extension of its forces’ activity in Yemen until the end of the operation, even committing to dispatch ground forces to protect the ports of ‘Aden after they were liberated by forces loyal to Yemeni President Hadi. Furthermore, during and after the visit, the Egyptian press featured several articles praising the close relations between the countries. An article by journalist Mohammed Mujahid Al-Zayyat, published in Al-Ahram on August 3, even directly rejected the anti-Saudi allegations published in the Egyptian press mere weeks earlier. He claimed that Saudi Arabia did not really belong to the Turkey-Qatar-MB axis and that the visit to Saudi Arabia by Hamas Political Bureau Chief Khaled Mash’al had not been meant to show Saudi support for Hamas, which is in conflict with Egypt, or to circumvent Egypt as mediator in the intra-Palestinian reconciliation.[59]

25689Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman and Egyptian President Al-Sisi during the former’s visit to Cairo (Image: Al-Quds Al-Arabi, London, July 30, 2015)

However, Al-Misryyoun editor Gamal Sultan, who is known for criticizing the regime, stressed that anti-Saudi articles had appeared in official dailies, indicating that the tensions were real.[60] Moreover, even though there are occasional high-level meetings between Egypt and Saudi Arabia where the strong cooperation between the countries is emphasized and reports on their disagreements are denied, Arab press continues to feature numerous reports on the ongoing tensions between them. Thus, for example, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that King Salman had been scheduled to visit Egypt in early September after visiting the U.S., but eventually did not come. The daily claimed that the king’s change of plans reflected ongoing Saudi-Egyptian tensions.[61] On the other hand, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said in an interview on September 10 that the countries were preparing for a visit to Egypt by King Salman, even though a date had not been set yet, and reiterated that there were no disagreements between the countries, but rather that each country “has its own role and its own attitude…”[62]

On October 13, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that, following a proposal by Saudi ambassador to Egypt Ahmad Qattan, Saudi Arabia had paid to fly 50 Egyptian media figures to participate in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. The daily stated that each year, Saudi Arabia funds the pilgrimage of media figures from countries friendly to Saudi Arabia, and that this year the largest group had been from Egypt. According to the report, Saudi Arabia hoped this move would help bridge its gaps with the Egyptian media, but this goal was not achieved. When the journalists returned to their country, they once again attacked Saudi policy, mainly on Syria.[63] This may have angered the Saudi ambassador, who reportedly had a harsh argument several days later with Sayyid Ahmed Al-Naggar, head of Al-Ahram‘s board of directors, during a festive dinner at the home of the Algerian ambassador to Egypt. Following the argument, news sites reported that the Saudi ambassador had left Cairo in a rage. Qattan quickly denied these reports, and speaking to the Egyptian daily Al-Watan he said: “Would I leave Egypt because of Ahmed Al-Naggar? That makes no sense.”[64] Official elements in both countries also issued swift denials that the ambassador had left Egypt, but the e-daily Rai Al-Yawm remained unconvinced, and claimed, in an October 19 editorial, that alongside the cancellation of King Salman’s visit to Egypt, this was another expression of the deteriorating relations between the countries.[65]

 

 

* Y. Graff is a research fellow at MEMRI.

 

Endnotes:

 

[1] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1155, Iran’s Support For The Houthi Rebellion In Yemen: ‘Without Iran There Would Be No War In Syria And Ansar Allah Would Have Never Emerged’, April 21, 2015.

[2] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1075, Unprecedented Tension Between Qatar And Saudi Arabia/UAE/Bahrain Threatens To Break Up Gulf Cooperation Council, March 14, 2014.

[3] After ISIS executed 21 Egyptian Copts living in Libya, Egypt retaliated by attacking ISIS targets in the country, an attack backed by the Arab League, aside for Qatar, which expressed reservations about the move. Egypt’s representative to the Arab League claimed that Qatar’s position “reveals its support for terrorism,” leading Qatar to recall its ambassador from Egypt. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), in which Saudi Arabia is a central member, condemned the Egyptian Arab League representative’s statements against Qatar and the London-based Saudi dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat published articles expressing reservations about the military attack in Libya (see for example a February 18, 2015 article by Tariq Alhomayed in Al-Sharq Al-Awsatand a February 18, 2015  article by Randa Takieddine  in Al-Hayat).

[4] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), March 15, 2015.

[5] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), July 24, 2015.

[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), April 18, 2015.

[7] Al-Hayat (London), June 21, 2015.

[8] Al-Hayat (London), June 17, 2015.

[9] Albawabhnews.com, July 18, 2015.

[10] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 24, 2015.

[11] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), July 13, 2015. The reference is to a street in Tehran which the Iranian regime named after Khalid Al-Islambouli, who assassinated Egyptian president Sadat in 1981. Officially, Iran has had no diplomatic relations with Egypt since 1980, when Khomeini severed them in protest of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty and of Egypt’s hosting of the deposed Iranian Shah. The name of the street in Tehran has long been emblematic of the difficulties facing a reconciliation between Egypt and Iran.

[12] Alarabiya.com, September 24, 2015.

[13] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 29, 2015.

[14] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 22, 2015.

[15] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 8, 2015.

[16] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), July 23, 2015.

[17] Al-Ahram (Egypt), July 24, 2015.

[18] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), August 5, 2015.

[19] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), October 26, 2015.

[20] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 10, 2015.

[21] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 9, 2015.

[22] While Saudi Arabia states that it supports a political solution for the crisis, it seems to believe that the Assad regime should be pressured militarily in order to bring him to the negotiating table and force far-reaching concessions from him. Following a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) foreign ministers on September 16, Saudi Foreign Minister ‘Adel Al-Jubeir said that if a political solution cannot be reached, then “the military option is still on the table,” and that the Syrian opposition has been dealing with Assad with increasing effectiveness. Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), September 16, 2015. Al-Jubeir reiterated these statements in a press conference during the UN General Assembly on September 30. Al-Watan (Egypt), September 30, 2015.

[23] After elaph.com published the document, Egypt issued an official denial that it had formulated an initiative to solve the Syrian crisis. Elaph.com, December 25, 2014. The document published by the website proposed that opposition and regime delegations conduct direct talks sponsored by the UN based on the Geneva 1 declaration, Security Council resolutions on Syria, and the six point peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, who served as the UN and Arab League’s joint special envoy to Syria, which he presented to the Security Council on March 16, 2012. Annan’s plan included: calling on the Assad regime to commit to a political process that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people; ending fighting and withdrawing troops from population areas; enabling the transfer of humanitarian aid; releasing political prisoners; and enabling journalist’s freedom of movement as well as freedom of expression and protest. See Aljazeera.com, March 27, 2012.

[24] In his speech at the 70th UN General Assembly on September 28, 2015, Al-Sisi called on Syrian opposition and regime elements to come to Cairo to negotiate “in order to formulate a clear vision for a transitional phase in accordance with the Geneva document, which will provide a common ground for all Syrians to build a democratic Syria that is sovereign over all its territory, and which preserves the state’s essence and institutions, respects the variety of elements in its population, and strengthens their national affinity.” He stressed that “these Syrian national elements are invited today to participate and invest every effort in negotiations to find a political solution to the crisis that realizes the ambitions of the Syrian people. ” Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 30, 2015. In this statement, Al-Sisi expressed the main principles of Egypt’s policy on the Syrian crisis: Finding a political solution through dialogue with the regime, and preserving existing state institutions.

[25] Al-Ahram (Egypt), October 5, 2015.

[26] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 7, 2015.

[27] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 4, 2015.

[28] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1125, Egypt’s Position On International Anti-ISIS Coalition: Reserved Support Alongside Refusal To Commit To Military Participation, October 22, 2014.

[29] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), January 3, 2015.

[30] Presidentassad.net, August 25, 2015.

[31] Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 20, 2015.

[32] Al-Akhbar (Egypt), August 19, 2015.

[33] Al-Safir (Lebanon), February 11, 2015.

[34] Alahednews.com, September 22, 2015.

[35] Al-Hayat (London), December 18, 2014.

[36] Aksalser.com, January 26, 2015.

[37] See for example, Riyadh Sanih, Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 9, 2015; ‘Asim Bakri, Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), August 19, 2015; Gamil ‘Afifi, Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 8, 2015; and Muhammad Hussein Abu Al-Hassan,Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 9, 2015.

[38] Al-Ahram (Egypt), April 17, 2015.

[39] Al-Ahram (Egypt), June 9, 2015.

[40] Al-Ahram (Egypt), February 17, 2015.

[41] Al-Ahram (Egypt), September 8, 2015.

[42] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), May 31, 2015.

[43] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), April 4, 2015.

[44] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), April 17, 2015.

[45] Al-Shorouq (Egypt), May 31, 2015.

[46] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), August 21, 2015.

[47] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi’ (Egypt), April 6, 2015.

[48] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1061, Egyptians Deeply Divided Over Law Restricting Public Protests, January 28, 2014.

[49] Raialyoum.com, April 9, 2015. The article mentioned a tweet by Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who also implied that Egyptian authorities might have quietly approved of the protest or even organized it, since “the operating principle of the Egyptian police is: If you protest without authorization – you will be killed.”

[50] Named for Abdel Moneim El-Sawy (died 1984), who founded the Egyptian news agency and served as culture minister under President Sadat.

[51] Al-Hayat (London), July 13, 2015.

[52] Al-Jazirah (Saudi Arabia), July 16, 2015.

[53] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), June 6, 2015; Albawabhnews.com, July 18, 2015.

[54] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), July 24, 2015.

[55] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), July 27, 2015.

[56] Alarabiya.com, August 26, 2015.

[57] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 2, 2015.

[58] Al-Hayat (London), August 3, 2015.  At the last Summit of South American-Arab Countries, held in Riyadh on November 10-11, 2015, Al-Sisi met with the Saudi king in another show of unity. Following this meeting the two countries’ FMs signed a protocol for establishing an “Egyptian-Saudi Corrdination Council” to implement the resolutions of the Cairo Declaration. Elaph.com, November 11, 2015.

[59] Al-Ahram (Egypt), August 3, 2015.

[60] Al-Misryyoun (Egypt), August 2, 2015.

[61] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), September 8, 2015.

[62] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 9, 2015.

[63] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), October 13, 2015.

[64] Al-Watan (Egypt), October 17, 2015.

[65] Raialyoum.com, October 19, 2015.

When Will Obama and the West Listen to Hamas?

November 11, 2015

When Will Obama and the West Listen to Hamas?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

November 10, 2015 at 5:00 am

Source: When Will Obama and the West Listen to Hamas?

  • What senior Hamas figure Musa Abu Marzouk and other Hamas leaders are saying is very clear: Even if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, Hamas and other Palestinians will continue to fight until Israel is completely destroyed.
  • Hamas is openly stating that it will use any future Palestinian state as a launching pad to attack and eliminate Israel.
  • Hamas is not a small opposition party in the Palestinian territories that can be dismissed as a minor player. Hamas is a large Islamist movement, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that controls the entire Gaza Strip with its population of 1.8 million Palestinians. Hamas, not much different from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, has its own security forces, militias, weapons and government institutions.
  • The Obama Administration and Western governments can talk as much as they like about the two-state solution. Even if President Abbas agrees to a Palestinian state, he will never be able to persuade Hamas, Islamic Jihad and many other Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist.
  • Under the current circumstances, where Hamas and other Palestinians continue to dream about the destruction of Israel, any talk about a two-state solution is nothing but a joke.

As President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were talking about the two-state solution during their meeting in the White House yesterday, the Palestinian Hamas movement reiterated its intention to destroy Israel.

Hamas’s announcement shows that the two-state solution is not a recipe for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The announcement also shows that all those who have been talking about a change in Hamas’s position towards Israel continue to live in an illusion.

As the Obama-Netanyahu meeting was underway, senior Hamas figure Musa Abu Marzouk issued a statement in which he declared: “We will never negotiate with the Zionist entity and we will never recognize its right to exist. We will continue to resist the Zionist entity until it vanishes, whether they like it or not. The soldiers of the Qassam [Hamas’s armed wing] were founded to liberate Palestine, even if some have recognized Israel. We want a state from the (Jordan) river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”

As U.S. President Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday (left), senior Hamas official Musa Abu Marzouk (at far right, holding rifle) reiterated his organization’s commitment to eliminate Israel.

Abu Marzouk’s remarks came in response to statements made by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas during a meeting with Egyptian journalists in Cairo on Sunday night.

Abbas was quoted as telling the Egyptian journalists that Hamas and Israel were conducting “direct negotiations” to establish a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and parts of the Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Abbas claimed that ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi had offered to annex 1000 square kilometers of Sinai to the Gaza Strip – an offer he (Abbas) had categorically rejected.

Abu Marzouk’s latest threats to eliminate Israel are not only directed against Abbas, but also towards President Obama and those in the international community who continue to support the idea of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. What he and other Hamas leaders are saying is very clear: Even if a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, Hamas and other Palestinians will continue to fight until Israel is completely destroyed.

In other words, Hamas is openly stating that it will use any future Palestinian state as a launching pad to attack and eliminate Israel. But Hamas’s message has obviously not reached the White House and other Western governments, where decision-makers continue to bury their heads in the sand, refusing to see or hear what some Palestinians are saying.

Hamas and many other Palestinians are completely opposed to a two-state solution: they believe that Israel has no right to exist — period — in this part of the world. The only solution they are prepared to accept is one that sees Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

Hamas is not a small opposition party in the Palestinian territories that could be dismissed as a minor player. Hamas is a large Islamist movement, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood that controls the entire Gaza Strip with its population of 1.8 million Palestinians. Hamas has its own security forces, militias, weapons and government institutions.

Since its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, Hamas and its political allies have turned the coastal area into a semi-independent Islamist emirate.

Since then, Hamas has used the Gaza Strip as a launching pad to attack Israel with tens of thousands of rockets and missiles. And Hamas leaders have repeatedly stated that their chief goal is to “liberate” not only the West Bank and east Jerusalem, but “all of Palestine.” In short, Hamas wants to replace Israel with an Islamist empire where non-Muslims would be permitted to live as a minority.

Hamas considers all Jews as “settlers” and “colonialists” who live in “settlements” such as Beersheba, Rishon Lezion, Ashdod and Bat Yam. Hamas does not differentiate between a Jew living in Ma’aleh Adumim or Gush Etzion (on the West Bank) and Tel Aviv, Haifa and Ramat Gan. That is why the Hamas media and leaders refer to Beersheba and Ra’anana, well within the “pre-1967 borders,” as “occupied” cities.

The Obama Administration and Western governments can talk as much as they like about the two-state solution. But so long as they refuse to listen to what Hamas and other Palestinians are saying, they will continue to engage in self-deception and hallucination. Even if President Abbas agrees to a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines, he will never be able to persuade Hamas, Islamic Jihad and many other Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Under the current circumstances, where Hamas and other Palestinians continue to dream about the destruction of Israel, any talk about a two-state solution is nothing but a joke.

The Obama Administration and the rest of the international community also need to understand that that the two-state solution has already been realized. In the end, the Palestinians got two states of their own: one in the Gaza Strip and another in the West Bank. The one in the Gaza Strip is run by folks are not much different from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, while that in the West Bank is controlled by a president who has entered the 11th year of his four-year-term in office and as such is not even seen by his people as a “rightful” leader. This is a reality that the world, including Israel, will have to live with for many years to come.

It is time for the world to stop listening only to President Abbas and Saeb Erekat, and start paying attention to what many other Palestinians such as Hamas are saying, day and night, regarding their commitment to destroy Israel.

Obama Turns to Diplomacy and Military in Syria, and Is Met With Doubts

November 11, 2015

Obama Turns to Diplomacy and Military in Syria, and Is Met With Doubts

By DAVID E. SANGER and HELENE COOPER

NOV. 10, 2015

Source: Obama Turns to Diplomacy and Military in Syria, and Is Met With Doubts – The New York Times

The aftermath of airstrikes in Douma last week. Credit Bassam Khabieh/Reuters

WASHINGTON — For the first time in the four-year Syrian civil war, President Obama is beginning to execute a combined diplomatic and military approach to force President Bashar al-Assad to leave office and end the carnage.

As 50 Special Operations troops arrive in Syria to bolster the most effective opposition groups, the administration is gambling that Secretary of State John Kerry will have more leverage to push Russia, Iran and other players toward two objectives: a cease-fire to limit the cycle of killing and the establishment of a timeline for a transition of power.

But the task is enormous, given the number of nations and rebel groups operating at cross-purposes and the tiny size of the American force. Even senior members of the administration express doubts in private about whether the effort is sufficient.

 

Mr. Kerry will travel to Vienna this weekend, summoning many of Syria’s neighbors and European powers to turn a vague declaration of principles, settled on two weeks ago, into a plan for a political agreement. The talks, at least so far, have not included representatives of Mr. Assad’s government or the fractured rebel groups seeking to depose him, and Mr. Kerry is struggling to bring them to the negotiating room.

But after years in which the Obama administration has been accused of largely sitting on the sidelines while a quarter-million Syrians died and millions more were displaced, Mr. Kerry seems buoyed by being at the center of the only diplomatic effort underway.

“I can tell you that as long as he thinks there is a glimmer of possibility, he will not let go,” Wendy R. Sherman, Mr. Kerry’s under secretary for policy until six weeks ago, said recently.

The move to increase pressure to create negotiating leverage echoes the strategy that the administration employed to force Iran into negotiations that led to a nuclear deal last summer. That effort, which involved economic sanctions, a bolstered military presence in the Persian Gulf and covert action, produced perhaps the most complex arms negotiations in American history.

Yet in the Iran case, most of the world’s major powers were in agreement. On Syria, there is no such unanimity.

Russia and Iran remain Mr. Assad’s two greatest protectors, though American officials detect a division on the question of whether Mr. Assad must stay in power. The Russians appear to have little faith that Mr. Assad can hold on, while the Iranians have dismissed the idea of looking for an alternative to him, though that may simply be posturing.

On the other side of the table, America’s partners are also divided. Saudi Arabia had to be dragged to the negotiations by Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry, after saying that a deal with Iran, its regional enemy, would be a fruitless exercise, and that Mr. Obama was being manipulated by the Iranians and the Russians in a bid for time.

Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries have largely ceased participating in the air war over Syria, focusing instead on fighting insurgents in Yemen. Privately, many of the foreign ministers who attended the last Vienna session two weeks ago questioned whether Syria could survive as an independent country. Many intelligence analysts providing reports to Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have expressed similar doubts.

“I think this is not a strategy — it’s more like a line of effort,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a Syria expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “There are different lines of effort now, all part of the evolution of the great game of Syria.”

The Russians have floated a proposal that would provide for elections and leave open the possibility that Mr. Assad would guide the process, several diplomats at the United Nations who had seen it said on Tuesday. They said the proposal does not cite Mr. Assad by name. But American and many European officials have said any election must not be in Mr. Assad’s control — and must include Syrians who have fled the country.

The United Nations’ special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, told reporters at its New York headquarters on Tuesday that he hoped the Vienna meeting would deliver a concrete outcome, including a “reduction in violence.”

For Mr. Kerry, the Syria effort has become an obsession, much like his failed bid to strike an Israeli-Palestinian accord in 2013 and his so-far successful effort on the Iran nuclear deal this year. On a trip through Central Asia last week, he used every spare moment to make telephone calls from his plane or hotel to keep the diplomatic effort on track.

The Syria situation “may or may not be ripe” for solution, Mr. Kerry told students at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard before he left on the trip. “But it’s imperative. It’s a human catastrophe, a disaster that screams at all of us in public life to exercise responsibility in trying to find a solution.”

At White House meetings, administration officials say, Mr. Kerry has argued that without applying both military and diplomatic pressure, the Russian intervention that began in late September would shore up Mr. Assad “and actually wind up destroying Syria.”

But the question is whether the military element of the strategy — which reversed Mr. Obama’s previous determination to keep American combat troops out of the country — will be enough to make a difference.

“What he is doing will not work,” Fareed Zakaria, a journalist whom Mr. Obama frequently speaks with, wrote in a column in The Washington Post last week. “In a few months,” he predicted, the United States “will face the challenge again — back down or double down. So far, President Obama has responded each time with increased intervention.”

Reflecting a willingness to do more, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Sunday that additional troops could be sent to Syria if the United States could find more local forces to work with.

The White House is hoping that the Syrian, Arab and Kurdish coalition, aided by American pilots and special operators on the ground, can seize and hold territory. The United States also plans to step up airstrikes. Mr. Obama deployed 12 A-10 warplanes and is sending additional F-15 fighter jets to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.

The theory is that over time the combination will increase the pressure on Mr. Assad to step down. The immediate focus is not on Mr. Assad’s strongholds, though; it is on territory seized by the Islamic State, including its capital, Raqqa.

But there is a far more immediate problem: identifying friends and enemies on the ground in Syria. Several rebel groups aided by the United States have been bombed by the Russians in recent weeks. American officials say they believe that Russia is trying to wipe out Mr. Assad’s opponents while claiming that it is going after the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Eventually, American and Russian officials will have to share lists about the groups that they support and that could be credible interlocutors for a cease-fire and political solution. But the United States has declined to do so, for fear that the Russians or Mr. Assad would immediately target the groups for attacks.

Then would come the practical problem of engineering a cease-fire and a referendum to replace Mr. Assad.

The 50 Special Operations troops, American officials said, will attach themselves to commanders of the tribal affiliates in northern Syria and coordinate with the Kurdish militia known as the Y.P.G. That group has dealt the Islamic State its most significant setbacks across northern Syria near the Turkish border.

“You’ve got the elements of a combined political and military strategy,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration. “That, to me, is the key part — beating ISIS for our own interest, but changing the complexion of the Syrian opposition so that the moderates are the more powerful ones. That is key to getting Assad out.”

Iran has stopped dismantling nuclear centrifuges: senior official

November 11, 2015

Iran has stopped dismantling nuclear centrifuges: senior official

DUBAI

Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:37pm EST

Source: Iran has stopped dismantling nuclear centrifuges: senior official | Reuters

Iran has stopped dismantling centrifuges in two uranium enrichment plants, state media reported on Tuesday, days after conservative lawmakers complained to President Hassan Rouhani that the process was too rushed.

Last week, Iran announced it had begun shutting down inactive centrifuges at the Natanz and Fordow plants under the terms of a deal struck with world powers in July that limits its nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions.

Iran’s hardliners continue to resist and undermine the nuclear deal, which was forged by moderates they oppose and which they see as a capitulation to the West.

“The (dismantling) process stopped with a warning,” Ali Shamkhani, Secretary of the National Security Council, was quoted as saying by the ISNA student news agency.

Only decommissioned centrifuges were being dismantled to begin with, of which there were about 10,000 at Natanz and Fordow, the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran has said.

Shamkhani did not specify what he meant by “warning”, but the head of parliament’s nuclear deal commission, Alireza Zakani, told Mehr news agency that the dismantling had stopped in Fordow because of the lawmakers’ letter to Rouhani.

Zakani, who was not one of the signatories of the letter, did not mention activities at Natanz.

A group of 20 hardline parliamentarians wrote to the president last week complaining that the deactivation of centrifuges contradicted the directives of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei has said that the deal should only be implemented once allegations of past military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program had been settled.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to announce its conclusions on PMD by Dec. 15.

Centrifuges spin at supersonic speed to increase the ratio of the fissile isotope in uranium. Low-enriched uranium is used to fuel nuclear power plants, Iran’s stated goal, but can also provide material for bombs if refined much further.

Iran denied Western suspicions it was aiming to build a nuclear bomb.

(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Raissa Kasolowsky)

 

 

Turkey: Syria land operation possible but not alone

November 11, 2015

Turkey: Syria land operation possible but not alone

Uğur Ergan – ANKARA

Source: Turkey: Syria land operation possible but not alone – MIDEAST

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu (R) sitting across CNN International's Christiane Amanpour (L) in an interview on Nov. 9, 2015. AA Photo

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu (R) sitting across CNN International’s Christiane Amanpour (L) in an interview on Nov. 9, 2015. AA Photo

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said a ground forces operation in Syria could be possible but Turkey would not conduct such an operation alone, speaking in an interview with CNN International’s Christiane Amanpour on Nov. 9.

“[A] ground forces [campaign] is something which we have to talk [about] together and share. As I told you in our last interview, there’s a need of an integrated strategy, including an air campaign and ground troops,” Davutoğlu told Amanpour on Nov. 9.

“But Turkey alone cannot take on this burden. If there’s a coalition and a very well designed integrated strategy, Turkey is ready to take part in all senses,” he added.

Davutoğlu confirmed once again that he was talking about a possible ground forces operation after Amanpour asked if the strategy also included “the ground.”

“Yes, of course,” Davutoğlu answered.

He said that without an integrated strategy for Syria, which was needed, another terrorist group could emerge apart from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

“We have to solve the Syrian crisis in a comprehensive manner,” Davutoğlu said.

According to Turkish security sources who spoke to daily Hürriyet on condition of anonymity, it was not considered a warm option for the Turkish Armed Forces to enter Syrian territory for a land operation against ISIL without a decision taken in the international arena, either with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or the NATO Council. The inclusion of coalition forces in these international decisions is also being sought for Turkey to take part in a ground forces campaign, the sources said.

Since civil war erupted in Syria, sources said, Turkey has been making plans on various scenarios, which included launching a land operation, and were making the necessary changes to them according to new developments. The sources said it was “normal” for Turkey to conduct such plans.

If an attack is launched directly towards Turkey from the Syrian side, then Turkey would respond to this attack without seeking a decision from the UNSC or NATO, according to the sources.

Turkey could launch a special forces unit operation into the area in Syria where a attack on Turkey was launched from, but this would be a limited campaign and it could not be regarded as an extensive operation, the security sources said.

Sources added Turkey would be more involved in airstrikes under a coalition led by the U.S.

Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu’s words last week in Iraq’s Arbil on the possibility of Turkey having “plans to militarily take action against ISIL” could be regarded in this perception, the sources said.

Turkey also needed to take into consideration Russia when making plans on a ground operation in Syria, they said.

November/11/2015

EU sets guidelines on labeling settlement goods, drawing Israeli anger

November 11, 2015

EU sets guidelines on labeling settlement goods, drawing Israeli anger Foreign Ministry vows to fight decision by European Council, says ties could be affected; EU argues move is technical, will barely affect trade

By AP, Raphael Ahren and Raoul Wootliff

November 11, 2015, 12:36 pm

Source: EU sets guidelines on labeling settlement goods, drawing Israeli anger | The Times of Israel

Workers at a cherry factory in a West Bank settlement. May 25, 2009. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

Workers at a cherry factory in a West Bank settlement. May 25, 2009. (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

The European Union approved guidelines Wednesday for its member states to label products made in West Bank settlements, a move that has already been criticized by Israel as “disguised anti-Semitism.”

At a meeting in Brussels, the European Commissioner “adopted this morning the interpretative notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967,” the EU’s executive said.

Wednesday’s move by the European Council, which will also apply to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, underscores the EU’s unhappiness over Israel’s continued expansion of settlements on territory that Palestinians are seeking for a future state.

The EU’s instructions for the labels says that the labels should say “Made in the West Bank” or “Made in the Golan,” in either case continuing with the words “(Israeli settlement),” according to Channel 10 news.

While European diplomats have downplayed the move, which has been in the works for over a year, the Israeli government sees it as akin to a boycott on the state.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry responded to the move by summoning EU Ambassador Lars Faaborg-Anderson for a dressing down, Channel 10 reported.

The Foreign Ministry warned the move could affect ties and accused Brussels in a statement of applying a double standard to Israel “while ignoring 200 other territorial disputes around the world.”

“Israel condemns the decision of the European Union to label Israeli goods originating over the ’67 lines. We regret that the EU chose for political reasons to take an unusual and discriminatory step drawn from the realm of boycotts, just as Israel is facing a wave of terror directed at all citizens,” the statement read. “The claim that this is a technical step is a cynical, baseless claim.”

The ministry added that labeling goods would not lead to peace with the Palestinians but instead bolster Palestinian refusal to negotiate.

“Labeling will strengthen radicals trying to advance boycotts on Israel and deny its right to exist, a stance that the EU claims to oppose,” the statement read.

The EU Commission said the guidelines are merely a technical measure it was forced to impose after three member states — Britain, Belgium and Denmark — already had imposed special labeling on their own, since the EU needed streamlined guidelines throughout the 28 nations.

The measures will primarily cover fruit and vegetables from the area. The labeling should affect less than 1 percent of all trade between the EU and Israel, which stands at some 30 billion euros. EU officials said that in Britain, where it is already in place, it has had no negative economic effect.

On some products, like fruit and vegetables, the labeling referring to settlements will be mandatory, while on others it will be voluntary.

The decision covers not only West Bank settlements, but also the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, which were effectively annexed by Israel in the early 1980s, though the international community never recognized the move.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said the move unfairly singles out Israel, describing the decision as “anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.”

“European hypocrisy and hatred of Israel has crossed every line,” she said following the announcement.

Shaked told Israel Radio the government plans to fight the decision.

“We will study the decision once the full details are released and decide on the appropriate response,” she said. “We will consider legal steps if necessary.”

Exports from Jewish settlements — which consist mostly of agricultural products since there are no major technological companies there — are minuscule compared to those from Israel proper.

According to the most recent available statistics from the Israel Manufacturers Association, from 2012, exports from the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights amount to $100 million a year. That is about 0.7 percent of the approximately $14 billion the EU annually imports from within the Green Line. In 2014, it was exactly €13,070,556,887; or about NIS 57 billion.

There are 14 industrial zones with 800 factories and agricultural facilities in the West Bank, according to Yigal Dilmoni, a spokesman for the Yesha Council of Jewish settlements.

If these companies were to lose money due to labeling or a boycott, the 15,000 Palestinian workers they employ, who earn more than twice as much working for Jews as they would in the Palestinian Authority, would also be among those hurt, Dilmoni said. In that sense, he argued, labeling will not contribute to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but rather destroy one area in which peaceful coexistence currently exists.

“I don’t know how the world would react to the labeling,” Dilmoni said recently. “Yes, it could cause us some losses, but we will overcome it.”

Senior Israeli politicians, including from opposition parties, have branded the initiative anti-Semitic, comparing it to yellow stars Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust.

“It is intolerable that Israel is the only country that has been singled out by the EU for such a policy, despite the fact that there are over 200 disputed territories worldwide,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry stated on its website Tuesday.

On Tuesday evening, Netanyahu met with a bipartisan group of US senators in Washington and urged them to assist Israel in fending off the EU’s decision to label West Bank goods. The 36 senators from both sides of the aisle on Monday sent a letter to the EU’s foreign policy czar Federica Mogherini protesting what they called a “de facto boycott” of Israel. “We believe strongly that these efforts are unwarranted, dangerous, and damaging to the prospects of a negotiated solution to [the Israeli-Palestinian] conflict,” the senators wrote.

European officials flatly reject any accusations of anti-Semitism. “This is an emotional argument without any relevance to the issue. It is not based on political grounds. It’s based on the logic that any product labeled made in Israel needs to be truly come from Israel and not from areas what are not internationally regarded as Israel,” a senior official said Tuesday. “This is the European Union saying what is has always said: The occupied territories are not part of the State of Israel.”

In April, the foreign ministers of 16 of the European Union’s 28 member states sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini asking her to promote the labeling of products from the settlements in store chains throughout Europe. Germany wasn’t among the signatories.

Then-foreign minister Avigdor Liberman strongly condemned the bid, suggesting that European nations might as well label them “with a yellow star” such as the one used by Nazi Germany to identify Jews before and during the Holocaust.

AFP contributed to this report.

Cartoon of the day

November 11, 2015

H/t Hope n’ Change

slings-and-narrows-1