Archive for June 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

U.S. Attorney General Scrubs Orlando 911 Transcripts

June 20, 2016

U.S. Attorney General Scrubs Orlando 911 Transcripts, Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, June 20, 2016

Orlando-Attack-HP_3

In an interview with NBC, we learned from the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch that only a partial transcript of the 911 calls made by the Orlando shooter will be released by the FBI to the public.

Reminiscent of other administration scrubbings, what will be omitted from the transcripts will be references to the motive of the shooter – namely, his pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State as well as his Islamist grievances about American foreign policy vis-à-vis Muslim countries.

“What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda,” Lynch said. “We are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance [to the Islamic State].”

Yet earlier when announcing the release of the transcripts, Lynch told CNN, “It’s been our goal to get as much information into the public domain as possible, so people can understand, as we do, possibly what motivated this killer, what led him to this place, and also provide us with information.”

When pressed by CNN what those transcripts will tell us about his motivation, Lynch calmly answers, “He talked about his pledges of allegiance to a terrorist group. He talked about his motivations for why he was claiming at that time he was committing this horrific act. He talked about American policy…”

Yet, those passages will be the very ones that will be redacted, as Lynch explained in an Orwellian fashion on CNN, “The reason why we’re going to limit these transcripts is to avoid re-victimizing those who went through this horror.”

To the contrary.

The immediate victims of this attack as well as the larger American public deserve to know and be able to discuss the motivations of this attack.

It is hard to imagine how speaking openly about the motive – so that steps can be made to prevent such an attack from happening again – can “re-victimize” the victims. Loved ones have been lost. Nothing will bring them back. Others have been injured – most likely maimed for life both physically and psychologically.

Nothing will make that horror go away.

What will help both the victims and the public at large is trying knowing that proper steps have been taken to prevent such a horror from happening again, and that justice will ultimately prevail.

As pointed out by Daniel Greenfield in an article titled, “Islamophobia Kills,” a culture has been created by the Obama administration along with organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that has made Americans afraid to call out potential killers for fear of being labeled anti-Muslim racists — Islamophobes.

In the case of the Orlando shooter, when Mateen was reported by a fellow employee for his homophobic and racist comments while working for at G4S Security, the company refused to take action because Mateen was Muslim and did not want to be accused of being Islamophobic.  The employee, Daniel Gilroy, a former police officer who described Mateen as “unhinged and untable,” ended up quitting his own job to avoid Mateen after Mateen began stalking him.

Gilroy said the attack by Maten did not come as a surprise to him.

Later, when he was being investigated by the FBI, Mateen claimed he was reacting to Islamophobic comments by his co-workers. The FBI later concluded that Mateen’s professed Al Qaeda ties and terrorist threats were reactions to “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.”

We saw a similar refusal to report suspicious activity with the San Bernadino killers. Neighbors noticed suspicious activity but didn’t report it for fear of being labeled anti-Muslim racists — Islamophobes.

The Fort Hood killer, Nidal Hasan, was also on the FBI’s radar. As Greenfield notes, “Nidal Hasan handed out business cards announcing that he was a Jihadist. He delivered a presentation justifying suicide bombings, but no action was taken. Like Omar [Mateen], the FBI was aware of Hasan. It knew that he was talking to Al Qaeda bigwig Anwar Al-Awlaki, yet nothing was done. Instead of worrying about his future victims, the FBI was concerned that investigating him and interviewing him would ‘harm Hasan’s career’.”

Greenfield adds, “One of his classmates later said that the military authorities ‘don’t want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody’s religious belief, or they’re afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit.’”

An interesting poll taken in the wake of the Orlando attack shows just how far this “see something, say nothing” mentality has taken hold in America. When asked if the Orlando incident was more a function of Islamic terrorism or gun violence, 60 percent of Democratic voters answered gun violence, while only 20 percent said Islamic terrorism. (Of Republican voters, 79 percent answered Islamic terrorism.)

While it is true that a man with Mateen’s history should never have been able to have bought a gun (and this in itself is a travesty of the intent of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), the gun he used was the physical facilitator of his Islamist ideology.

“Re-victimization,” in the words of U.S. Attorney General Lynch, will apply to all of us if the Islamist ideology and motivations of these killers are not openly addressed, taken seriously and made as the basis of a plan of action to counteract them.

In addition to creating an open season for Islamist attacks, ultimately the strategy of the administration will backfire. As noted by former Islamist radical Maajid Nawaz, “If we refuse to isolate, name and shame Islamist extremism, from fear of increasing anti-Muslim bigotry, we only increase anti-Muslim bigotry.“

Categories: CAIR, Censorship, Democrats, Gun control, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, national security, Obama administration, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Orlando massacre, Political correctness, US Attorney General
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

How the Democrats are Disarming Us

June 20, 2016

How the Democrats are Disarming Us, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, June 20, 2016

obama-wc2 (1)

Reprinted from Breitbart.com. 

According to a Gallup poll taken in the week after the atrocity in Orlando, only 29% of Democrats thought this was an Islamic terror attack. Fully 60% of all Democrats attributed the attack to “domestic gun violence.” Moreover 42% of independents felt the same way. Only 44% attributed it to the Islamic holy war that has been declared on America and the West.1

How is this possible? During the massacre, the terrorist himself took pains to post messages declaring that his acts were acts of Islamic terror against America. “Now taste the Islamic state vengeance,” one message said. Another warned, “in the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic state in the USA.”2 Moreover, in the days following the attack a dossier of his behavior and associations going back more than fifteen years showed that he saw himself as a warrior for Islam and a jihadist in the making. The FBI had interviewed him twice – once in 2013 after co-workers reported that he made “inflammatory” comments to them about radical Islamic propaganda, and the following year because of ties with a fellow Muslim who traveled to Syria to become a suicide bomber.

How then could 60% of Democrats and 42% of Independents think that the killings in Orlando had nothing to do with radical Islam or Islamic terror? How could they think it was simply a matter of domestic gun violence similar to other mass shootings by deranged individuals whose motives had nothing to do with Islam or the Islamic state? The reason they could be so misled is because the president himself said it had nothing to do with Islam and warned that thinking it did was a form of bigotry that could hurt America – indeed would be a betrayal of America’s true self. He went out of his way to mock Trump who had said that it was radical Islamic terror, and to insinuate that he was a bigot. The president’s disinformation and attack on Trump were seconded and amplified by the Democratic Party and the Democrat’s kept national media, who spent the days after Orlando pushing gun control legislation, and stressing the shooter’s “instability” and the alleged indeterminacy of his motives. And also tarring Trump as a bigot for taking the shooter at his word.

In this we have a microcosm of why all eight domestic terror attacks on Obama’s watch – beginning with the Fort Hood massacre and the Boston Marathon bombing – were carried out by individuals on the FBI’s radar who could have been stopped if the early warning signs of their commitments to the Islamic jihad hadn’t been dismissed.

Political correctness is a euphemism for the active, ideologically motivated denial that has characterized the Democrats’ approach to Islamic terror going back to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. In that attack 1,000 people were wounded and six were killed, but president Clinton refused to visit the site, while his administration took the view that the perpetrators were merely individuals who needed to be tried in criminal courts. In fact, they were soldiers in a holy war that radical Islamists had declared against America and the West. 3

Obama’s main concern, which has been manifest in his statements after each incidence of Islamic terror, has been to absolve the Islamists of any responsibility for the attacks. The Ft. Hood massacre was carried out by a disciple of Anwar al-Awlaki, the head of al-Qaeda in Libya, who described himself as a “Muslim Soldier” even though he was a Major in the U.S. army, and said his murders were to avenge the Muslims that America had killed in Afghanistan. Yet the Obama administration dismissed his terrorist act as “workplace violence.” The Obama administration has expunged all references to Islam from terrorist guidelines. Worse it has enjoined the FBI from looking at the religious affiliations and commitments of potential suspects. This is the way the FBI was able to dismiss the warnings from Russian intelligence agents about the Boston Marathon bombers, who were Islamist militants. It is how American immigration officials allowed the Pakistani-born San Bernardino shooter to enter the country, despite her residence in a country that created the Taliban and protected Osama bin Laden, and her association with a terrorist mosque.

This denial is also what has allowed Obama to respond to the Orlando massacre by issuing a million visas to Syrian Muslims, who will not be adequately vetted and will flood this country with individuals whose ranks ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups have already infiltrated and who may be sympathetic to radical Islamic agendas in very large numbers.4

Obama’s denial of the religious nature of the war that Islamic radicals have declared on America and his ability to require the FBI and other first responders to join in this denial is a form of unilateral disarmament paralleled by his determination to reduce America’s defense forces to their lowest levels since World War II. This denial – shared by the Democratic Party – is why we are losing the war with Islamic fanatics, and why the homeland has become an increasingly dangerous place.

That Obama is able to seduce a very large number of Americans into sharing his denial is fact with ominous implications for the election in November, and for America’s ability to right its current dangerous course. Obama has been abetted in this sinister effort by the feckless leadership of the Republican Party. In the days following the Orlando massacre instead of hammering the president and the Democrats as a unified force, Republicans directed their fire at Donald Trump, joining Democrats in attempting to discredit not only his much needed warning, but his practical recommendations for turning the ship of state around: recognize the religious nature of the war against us; halt immigration from Muslim war zones until a proper vetting process is in place; surveil mosques and other recruitment centers for the jihadist enemy; restore America’s military power.

The self-serving anti-Trump salvos from Paul Ryan and other misguided Republican leaders made the Republican message – gun violence is not the problem, radical Islam is – incoherent or at least so diluted as to allow Obama and the Democrats to prevail in the debate. If the Orlando post-mortem is an indication, the election may not go well in November. If that is the case not only Donald Trump, but America’s hopes for a safer future, will fail.

______________________

1http://www.gallup.com/poll/192842/republicans-democrats-interpret-orlando-incident-differently.aspx

2http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/dangerous-denial-just-29-of-democrats-say-orlando-was-an-islamic-terror-attack/

3http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-does-obama-keep-missing-red-flags-before-islamic-terror-attacks/

4http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/obama-admin-pace-issue-one-million-green-cards-migrants-majority-muslim-countries/

Categories: Democrats, Donald Trump, Gun control, Homeland Security, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America, Political correctness, Republican establishment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

“Selling a House to a Jew is a Betrayal of Allah”

June 20, 2016

Selling a House to a Jew is a Betrayal of Allah”

by Khaled Abu Toameh

June 20, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: “Selling a House to a Jew is a Betrayal of Allah”

  • The renewed campaign against Palestinians suspected of selling real estate to Jews is also part of the belief that the entire land is Muslim-owned, and no Muslim is entitled to give up even one inch of it to a non-Muslim. In other words, it is forbidden for a Muslim to sell his home or land to a Jew or Christian. This would be the nail in the coffin of any Palestinian leader who attempts to make any territorial compromise as part of a peace agreement with Israel.
  • This campaign has raised fears that Palestinians may resume extrajudicial executions of suspected land dealers.
  • “The land dealers should know that they would not be able to avoid earthly and life punishment. Not only will they not be buried in Islamic cemeteries, but their entire families will also be punished and it would be forbidden to marry or to deal in any way with their family members.” — Palestinian National Work Commission in Jerusalem.
  • This campaign undermines Palestinians’ long-standing claim that Jews “illegally seize” Arab-owned houses and land in Jerusalem. It seems that rather than illegal seizure, Jews have been paying willing Arabs cold hard cash for the properties.

A Palestinian Muslim who commits the “crime” of selling property to Jews should not expect to be buried in an Islamic cemetery. Marriage to local Palestinians will no longer be an option for this criminal’s family members, and any weddings the family makes will have no guests attending.

Both the living and the dead, then, will pay the price for such “treason.”

This is only a sampling of the punitive measures that will now be faced by Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who are involved in real estate transactions with Jews.

The latest measures were recently announced by a group of Palestinian activists in east Jerusalem, as part of a renewed campaign against Palestinians who are found guilty of selling a home or plot of land to a Jewish individual or organization.

The campaign, which has received the blessing of senior Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas officials, comes in the context of Palestinian efforts to thwart Israeli efforts to “Judaize” Jerusalem. It is also part of the belief that the entire land is Muslim-owned and no Muslim is entitled to give up even one inch of it to a non-Muslim. In other words, it is forbidden for a Muslim to sell his home or land to a Jew or Christian.

This campaign has raised fears that Palestinians may resume extrajudicial executions of suspected land dealers.

Although the activists behind the campaign did not openly call for the execution of Palestinians involved in real estate transactions with Jews, past experience shows that “suspects” are often kidnapped and killed by their own people.

Between 1996 and 1998, at least eight Palestinians suspected of selling property to Jews or serving as middlemen in such transactions were abducted and killed by Palestinian activists.

Palestinians consider the selling of homes or land to Jews an act of high treason. Palestinian Authority laws and fatwas (Islamic religious decrees) prohibit Palestinians from selling land to “any man or judicial body corporation of Israeli citizenship, living in Israel or acting on its behalf.”

In 2009, a Palestinian Authority court in Hebron sentenced Anwar Breghit, 59, to death for selling land to Israelis. While the sentence was never carried out, it achieved its aim: to deter others from engaging in similar transactions with Jews.

In 2014, PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued an executive order that amended sections of the penal code related to real estate transactions, and increased punishments for selling land to “hostile countries” and their citizens. Abbas’s decision came following reports that Palestinians had sold houses in Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood to Jews.

In 2014, following reports that Palestinians had sold houses in Jerusalem’s Silwan neighborhood (pictured above) to Jews, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas issued an executive order that amended sections of the penal code related to real estate transactions, and increased punishments for selling land to “hostile countries” and their citizens. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Gilabrand)

Yet this sell-to-Jews-get-murdered equation is nothing new. In 1998, Amnesty International documented the pattern: “Torture of those accused of “collaboration” with Israel or selling land to Israelis appeared to be systematic,” the report said.

“Unlawful killings, including possible extrajudicial executions, continued to occur. Three land dealers were found dead during May [1998] after [PA] Justice Minister Freih Abu Meddein, announced that the Palestinian Authority would begin applying a Jordanian law which provided for the death penalty for those accused of selling land to Jews.”

Last week, a Palestinian group, the National Work Commission in Jerusalem, issued yet another warning to Palestinians suspected of involvement in real estate transactions with Jews. In a leaflet distributed in east Jerusalem, the group called for a religious, economic and social boycott of the suspected real estate dealers and their families.

“We call for additional measures to renounce and besiege the brokers and weak people among Palestinians in Jerusalem. We call for a total boycott of these people on all levels — social and economic — and to refrain from dealing with them in trade or purchases or sales or participating in their joys and sorrows and in any religious, national or cultural event. The land dealers should know that they would not be able to avoid earthly and life punishment. Not only will they not be buried in Islamic cemeteries, but their entire families will also be punished and it would be forbidden to marry or to deal in any way with their family members.”

The group, which consists of scores of Palestinian political activists and prominent figures from east Jerusalem, also threatened to post photos and personal details of the land dealers on social media. In addition, the group called on Arab countries to ban the entry of any Palestinian found guilty of involvement in real estate transactions with Jews.

This threat came only days after several Palestinian families from the Old City of Jerusalem launched a similar campaign targeting Palestinians suspected of involvement in real estate deeds with Jews. The families signed what they called “The Document of the Jerusalem Pledge and Its Covenant,” to prevent real estate transactions with Jews.

The document states that any Palestinian caught selling a house or land to Jews would be considered “out of the national ranks and a traitor to Allah and his Prophet.” It too warned that those who defy the ban would be deprived of a prayer at a mosque upon his or her death and would not be buried in an Islamic cemetery. The families called on the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian factions and institutions to take all measures to “chase out the collaborators and those who cover up for them, and expose them and shame them regardless of their influence and status.”

Mustafa Abu Zahra, a prominent Palestinian businessman from Jerusalem and one of the engineers of the document, called on the Palestinian Authority to “deter” anyone who thinks of selling of facilitating the sale of Arab-owned property to Jews.

Another Palestinian official, Najeh Bkeirat, who played a major role in the drafting of the document, claimed that Israel was seeking to “empty the Old City of Jerusalem from its native residents as it is already doing in Haifa, Jaffa and Acre.”

The renewed campaign against Palestinians suspected of selling real estate to Jews would be the nail in the coffin of any Palestinian leader who attempts to make any territorial compromise as part of a peace agreement with Israel. The stakes are very, very high: betrayal of Allah and Prophet Mohammed are at issue.

“This document constitutes a message of warning to the Palestinian Authority and its negotiators that they must not give up one grain of the soil of Jerusalem and the land of Palestine,” explained Palestinian columnist Ghassan Mustafa Al-Shami. “The document also represents a message to all the Palestinian national factions that they must take all the measures to pursue anyone who dares to think of selling Jerusalem and West Bank lands and houses, and that they should be put on trial for treason.”

Finally, this campaign undermines Palestinians’ long-standing claim that Jews “illegally seize” Arab-owned houses and land in Jerusalem. It seems that rather than illegal seizure, Jews have been paying willing Arabs cold hard cash for the properties. By endorsing such campaigns, the Palestinian Authority leadership is once again shooting itself not only in the foot, but also in the head.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Strategic Outlook for Saudi Arabia and Iran

June 20, 2016

Strategic Outlook for Saudi Arabia and Iran

by Shmuel Bar

June 20, 2016 at 4:30 am

Source: Strategic Outlook for Saudi Arabia and Iran

  • In Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman’s “Vision 2030” is totally identified with his leadership. If it succeeds, he will harvest the praise; on the other hand, many in the Saudi elite will latch on to any sign of failure of his policies in order to block his ambitions.
  • Mohammad bin Salman’s social-political agenda to broaden the power base of the regime to include the young and educated — and to a great extent relatively secular or moderate — will certainly be seen by the Wahhabi clerics and the tribal social conservatives as geared towards reducing their control over the populace and hence their weight in the elite.
  • Another serious risk is that the economic plan entails reducing the Saudi welfare state. The economic and social fallout of weaning the Saudis away from entitlements will be exploited by domestic opposition elements and by Iran.
  • In Iran, the electoral process within the Assembly showed what was not evident during the parliamentary elections held in February, namely that even a formal preeminence of moderates does not and cannot influence the decision making of the Iranian regime and that Khamenei succeeds to pull the strings despite seemingly democratic procedures.
  • After having won the chairmanship of the Assembly, Jannati delivered a speech demanding total loyalty to Khamenei, which can be considered as targeting the moderates.

Following the announcement of Saudi Arabia’s “Vision 2030” Economic Plan by Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman on April 25, King Salman announced a reshuffling of the government. The reshuffling was clearly orchestrated by the Deputy Crown Prince and reflects his agenda. This shuffle probably is not the last word even in the near term; the changes in the government strengthen the political position of Mohammad bin Salman, because the new ministers owe him their posts, and through them he will strengthen his hold on the levers of government, especially in the economic sphere. His next step may be to move to neutralize Prince Mitab bin Abdullah, the minister in charge of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) and a close ally of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Nayef. He could do this by absorbing SANG into the Ministry of Defense.

Such a step would probably not sit well with many of the members of the royal family; however, if Mohammad bin Salman takes such a step, it will only be with the consent of his father, King Salman, and none would actively oppose him. Such a step would have significant ripple effects; international influence in Saudi Arabia has focused for decades on acquiring sectorial influence in the various centers of power of the Kingdom – the different factions of the royal family, the business sector, the army, the SANG etc. The continuing concentration of power in the hands of Mohammad bin Salman will reduce the political relevance of many of these assets of international players and they will be obliged to restructure their connections and sources of information on the politics and economic decision making of the Kingdom.

Farther down the road — in our assessment not in the short term — King Salman may appoint his son to the position of Prime Minister – a title that he presently holds himself. Such a promotion would pave the way for Mohammad bin Salman to depose the Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Nayef, to be appointed as the next Crown Prince and to succeed his father. A possibility exists — though in our assessment it is not likely in the near future — that the King will even abdicate and pass the reins of the Kingdom to his son after he has been duly appointed as Crown Prince. These scenarios will be a disappointment to policy-shapers in Washington who prefer — or at least feel more comfortable with Mohammad bin Nayef. This too will call for a significant shift in the international disposition towards the Saudi regime; development of channels of influence with Mohammad bin Salman and his confidantes, adapting to a new and unfamiliar paradigm of decision-making in the Kingdom and coping with Mohammad bin Salman’s not-typically-Saudi regional policies towards Iran and other threats.

Mohammad bin Salman’s “Vision 2030” is totally identified with his leadership. If it succeeds, he will harvest the praise; on the other hand, many in the Saudi elite will latch on to any sign of failure of his policies in order to block his ambitions. However, none of them will actively attempt to disrupt Mohammad bin Salman’s plans; such a power struggle could precipitate the end of the rule of the al-Saud family and the very existence of the Saudi state, and they are aware that either they “hang together or they hang separately”. The risks to the regime from the economic reform process, however, do not necessarily come from proactive efforts to disrupt it. Mohammad bin Salman’s social-political agenda to broaden the power base of the regime to include the young and educated — and to a great extent relatively secular or moderate — will certainly be seen by the Wahhabi clerics and the tribal social conservatives as geared towards reducing their control over the populace and hence their weight in the elite. Another serious risk is that the economic plan entails reducing the Saudi welfare state. The economic and social fallout of weaning the Saudis off entitlements will be exploited by domestic opposition elements and by Iran.

Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman meets with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 7, 2015. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

The changes in the Saudi Oil Ministry reflect Mohammad bin Salman’s strategic policy of using Saudi oil to minimize Iran’s economic and political profits from the lifting of sanctions, even at the expense of Saudi profit from its oil. This policy has broad support in the Saudi elite, with the possible exception of some of the government oil bureaucracy and the oil-related business community. But the latter do not have the power to derail the regime’s priorities in this regard. Therefore, we are likely to see a continuation of the Saudi policy of high production, willingness to offer attractive deals in order to undercut Iranian overtures to existing Saudi markets, and a high level of sensitivity to any threats to the oil industry. The chances of Iranian retaliation for the Saudi economic warfare are high. These could take the shape of cyber-attacks on installations inside Saudi Arabia, or terrorist attacks (including rocket attacks) against pipelines, refineries and other installations, and even attacks – without taking responsibility — on Saudi oil shipping inside the Persian Gulf or — more likely further away from the theater. Such attacks may normally be seen as providing Iran plausible deniability from the point of view of international law, but they will be attributed to Iran by the Saudi regime, that will see itself as obliged to react. Therefore, in the current state of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and assuming that the chances of rapprochement are slim, the chances of actual limited military conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia remain.

* * *

The Islamic State has come under increasing military pressure in both Iraq and Syria in recent weeks, and it is likely to lose territory. Yet this will not make Iraq more united or stable, nor will it bring the civil war in Syria any closer to an end. Iran’s influence in Iraq will grow, while the Sunnis will see the US as Iran’s enabler. The Islamic State will try to respond to its losses by launching major terror attacks in the West. The Islamic State lacks the manpower to defend all the Iraqi and Syrian territory it has occupied since 2014. Consequently, its strategy consists first and foremost of defending strategically or symbolically important assets, primarily al-Raqqah, Fallujah and Mosul, as well as key supply routes. In addition, it is compensating for its defeats by carrying out lethal terror attacks in Syria and Iraq in order to demonstrate that while these regimes can, with foreign backing, regain territory, they cannot defend their citizens.

The military successes against the Islamic State will entail a number of long-range problematic political implications: exacerbation of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq and in the region in general, strengthening Iranian influence on the back of American military power, increased animosity towards the US, and widening the gap between the Baghdad government and the Kurds. The Islamic State will eventually be pushed out of Fallujah, thanks to the American support. Once the Islamic State is pushed out of Fallujah and perhaps out of Mosul, Shiite militias will move in to exact their revenge. Fallujah will again be a fertile ground for Sunni radicalism and a new Sunni insurgency in the area is almost inevitable; the Sunni populace will probably rebel again under some successor of the Islamic State and Fallujah will have to be “liberated” again. Furthermore, the American airstrikes in support of the Shiite ground offensive will strengthen the image of the US as enabler of the Iranian takeover of Iraq and as responsible for Shiite atrocities. Atrocities committed in Fallujah by the Shiite militias under American auspices will give pause to the plans for initiating an offensive on Mosul.

The Iraqi political system which the Americans constructed is on the verge of final collapse. The stalemate over the election of a new cabinet and “popular” demonstrations staged by Muqtada al-Sadr are indicative of the inherent failure of the Iraqi political system. While al-Sadr had proven that he can paralyze the government and the Parliament, he cannot become the solution. He has helped to demolish an already dysfunctional political system, but his sources of political influence draw on the very factors that made that system dysfunctional: sectarianism, a politicized military, use of “popular” violence to challenge democratic procedures, involvement of religious authorities in the democratic process, involvement of external actors (particularly Iran) and the implicit threat of armed militias. Since the current crisis derives from the power struggle within the Shiite community, it will hinge to a great degree on Iran. It may escalate to a Shiite civil war, and such a scenario would probably draw Iran to intervene directly, or to encourage a Shiite military commander to stage a coup and establish military rule, then pledge his allegiance to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. We assess that the US, under the current administration, would probably acquiesce to “Pax Iranica” in Iraq, but the more influence any settlement would accord Iran, the more it would be unacceptable to the Gulf States, and they would use their influence with the Sunnis and the Kurds to block it, inter alia, by increasing support of radical Sunni groups in the country.

The cause of Kurdish independence is gaining momentum; all the Kurdish factions seem to be dedicated to holding a referendum on Kurdish independence before the elections in the US in order to create a fait accompli for the next administration. The issue of independence, however, is linked to the demand of the new PUK-Gorran alliance for parliamentary elections and for the inclusion of mixed Arab-Kurdish areas that the Peshmerga seized from the Islamic State in those elections and in the independence referendum. (Foremost of these areas are the oil-rich area of Kirkuk, the provinces of Nineveh, Diyala, and Salah ad-Din and the regional capital of Mosul that is still in the hands of the Islamic State). If the Kurdish Region succeeds in annexing these areas, it will also signify a watershed event in the process of the breakup of Iraq.

Turkey and Iran will both oppose these plans and the current US administration will not lend its support to a move that, in essence, proves the failure of its Iraq policy and signals the breakup of Iraq. Specifically, the prize of Kirkuk for the Kurdish state would be prodigious; the Baghdad government has halted the export of oil produced by its oil company in Kirkuk to Turkey in retaliation for the KRG’s independent oil exports. If Kirkuk Province joins the Kurdish Region, the KRG would presumably be able to take control of Kirkuk’s oil and resume its export to Turkey or — if the PUK-Gorran alliance comes to power in the KRG — to opt for the Iranian offer of export through Iran to the Persian Gulf.

Turkey views the Raqqa offensive in Syria with great concern. The American connection with the Kurdish YPG, which is viewed in Ankara as an extension of the PKK, is seen as yet another indication of the US inching towards support of an independent Kurdistan — the chronic nightmare of Turkey. Furthermore, if the Islamic State is pushed out of al-Raqqa and surrounding areas by the YPG, these areas will come under the control of Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava). Even before such a scenario emerges, the Islamic State’s priority of defending its regional capital, Raqqa will probably bring it to redeploy its forces now deployed in the Jarablus-Azaz Corridor, the stretch of land along the Syrian-Turkish border which separates the eastern Kurdish territory from the western enclave around the town of Afrin, north of Aleppo. The withdrawal of Islamic State forces from this corridor would tempt the YPG to launch an offensive westward from Jarablus in order to link up with the Afrin enclave. Such a prize would be a far greater achievement for the YPG than the capture of the non-Kurdish Raqqa area, and it would probably prefer it. If the YPG indeed takes such a step, it is likely to precipitate Turkish intervention, turning Turkey — a NATO member — into an active participant in the Syrian civil war against a party that is allied with both the US and Russia.

* * *

In Iran, Despite the hopes of the moderate camp, the hardliner 90-year-old Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati was elected (May 24) as head of the Assembly of Experts, after having gained 55 of 88 votes. This nomination does not bode well for President Rouhani’s future, should he insist on implementing deeper liberalizing reforms.

More than anything else, Ayatollah Jannati’s election highlights the Supreme leader’s grip on power. Ayatollah Khamenei did his best to help Jannati’s election by delivering his directives to some members of the Assembly. The electoral process within the Assembly showed what was not evident during the parliamentary elections held in February, namely that even a formal preeminence of moderates does not and cannot influence the decision making of the Iranian regime, and that Khamenei pulls the strings despite seemingly democratic procedures. The Assembly of Experts is rather formal and ceremonial body, unlike the Majles, however its role might become crucial at some circumstances, should the Assembly be summoned to nominate the following leader in the event of Khamenei’s death.

Ahmad Jannati, is important by virtue of what he epitomizes as a symbol rather than by his current political capacity, which won’t persist long, given his age. He has been serving as secretary of the Guardian Council since 1992, and in this capacity was instrumental in consolidating Khamenei’s power and, in all elections, was responsible for weeding out “undesirable” candidates to the Majles and Assembly of Experts. After having won the chairmanship of the Assembly, Jannati delivered a speech demanding total loyalty to Khamenei, which can be considered as targeting the moderates. Jannati is not alone with this mindset: his respective first and second deputies are hardliners: Mohammad Kermani and Mahmoud Shahroudi. The latter served for many years as the head of the judiciary, is close to Khamenei and is mentioned as a potential successor to Khamenei. This casting of the Assembly of Experts highlights that Khamenei is preparing to guarantee his ideological legacy and the ideological continuity of the regime after his death.

The election of Jannati was even more conspicuous in the light of the corresponding withdrawal of the chief candidate of the moderates, who they had hoped would serve as an ally within the regime — former President Hashemi Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani decided to withdraw from the electoral competition under pressure by the hardliners, including attacks on his children, his daughter, Faezah and his son, Mehdi.

On May 28, Ali Larijani was elected as the speaker of the Majles for the third term. Larijani is considered a hardliner; for over 30 years, he has been a confidant of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. His brother Sadeq Larijani is chief of the judiciary, and his other brothers have played important roles in diplomacy and government affairs. A veteran of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Larijani is also the son of Grand Ayatollah Hashem Amoli and son-in-law to prominent Islamic ideologue Morteza Motahhari. The moderate conservative politician Ali Motahhari is his brother-in-law. Given this multifaceted background, he has been able to establish strong, longstanding ties with both the military and the clergy, and with different factions in the Majles, with the exception of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became Larijani’s nemesis. During Ahmadinejad’s second term, Larijani openly confronted him.

By contrast, Larijani is considered close to President Hassan Rouhani. During the nuclear negotiations, Larijani contained anti-Rouhani moves in the legislature and got the Majles to ratify the agreement. However, it must be clear that he did this not because he is Rouhani’s ally, but because he was ordered to carry out this mission by the Supreme Leader. Hence, Larijani will remain supportive of Rouhani, but only on the condition that the latter complies with the wishes of the Supreme Leader. If Larijani decides to stand for office, he may leverage his position in the Majles and his status with the Supreme Leader to whittle away at Rouhani’s popularity.

In the meantime, the Majles will be more supportive of Rouhani. Out of the 80 Majles members who opposed the nuclear agreement, fewer than a dozen remain. None of them is high profile, and their low numbers prevent them from establishing a bloc of their own, as they did in the previous parliament. Instead, they will have to operate within a “Principlists” bloc that is dominated by more moderate “Principlist” figures. This means that the remaining hardliners will be less likely to stage the theatrics that were so successful in challenging the government during the last Majles, particularly through their repeated summoning of various ministers to answer questions; and the impeachment of the minister of science, technology and higher education. Their absence will lead to a calmer parliamentary environment, more focused on addressing the serious economic issues Iran faces such as unemployment, reform of the banking sector, and the steep economic slowdown. This notwithstanding, one should bear in mind that the above scenario is confined to the functioning of the Majles vis-à-vis Rouhani, whereas the real chances of success of his program depend on other foci of power.

Dr. Shmuel Bar is a senior research fellow at the Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Studies at the Technion in Haifa, Israel, and a veteran of Israel’s intelligence community.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Post Orlando, CAIR to Announce Funding of ‘Islamophobic’ Orgs

June 20, 2016

Post Orlando, CAIR to Announce Funding of ‘Islamophobic’ Orgs, Clarion Project, Jennifer Breedon, June 20, 2016

Cair-Nihad-Awad-Ibrahim-Hooper-HP_31 (1)CAIR’s Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (R); National Communications Director and Spokesperson Ibrahim Hooper (L). Awad was present at the 1993 secret meeting of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Palestine Committee in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI. Participants of the meeting discussed how to support Hamas and, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Solis the “goals, strategies and American perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood.” (Photo: © Reuters)

In a vastly ironic twist of organizational transparency, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, will be presenting a public release of all the funding to U.S. organizations they deem to be “Islamophobic.”

The list will serve to harass supporters of legitimate U.S. entities following a long tradition of substantial bullying tactics by CAIR against U.S. citizens.

Ironically, CAIR, itself, refuses to divulge any of their funding sources even when mandated by US Courts.

Case in point: In a seeming act of lawfare, two of CAIR’s numerous registered entities, CAIR Action Network (CAIR-AN) and CAIR Foundation (CAIR-F), sued a father and son for several counts of tort claims.[1] As part of the case, CAIR was legally obligated to present certain facts during the discovery phase of the case (a pretrial practice where both parties of the case are required to provide the other side with relevant information to prove their claims are valid and that some damage has, in fact, been done).[2]

When the defendants exercised their legal right to compel CAIR to disclose their financial records, CAIR was so desperate to keep their records hidden from the American public that they voluntarily dismissed the case and dropped the lawsuit regarding those charges.

In the end, a prominent District of Columbia superior court judge ruled that CAIR could not bring further charges against these defendants because they showed they were repeatedly unwilling to divulge their own records to a court of law.[3]

This is not the only time CAIR’s questionable practices have been highlighted in the U.S. court system.  In 2010, five of CAIR’s former clients sued CAIR on the basis of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress and federal RICO charges.  Those clients also prevailed against CAIR.

CAIR’s lack of transparency and refusal to divulge their financial information is highly troubling. Numerous fact-based sources have investigated the foreign financial ties of CAIR.

CAIR’s announcement comes at a time where America is mourning the loss of 49 innocent people that were gunned down by someone to pledged allegiance to the genocidal Islamic State (ISIS).

Barely one week has passed and CAIR is again standing at the forefront to shame American organizations and citizens on the bases of more fraudulent claims of supposed “Islamophobia” without any substantial basis in fact or law in the backyard of the U.S. Capitol building.

Their attempts to shame law-abiding U.S. citizens in the wake of the Orlando attacks is another reminder that CAIR is not a friend of American Muslims or the democratic ideals of the United States of America. CAIR does not speak for peace-abiding Muslim reformists, and most distressingly, CAIR is slowly attempting to strip away First Amendment rights by publicly inciting harassment and shame against peaceful organizations that seek to educate the American public on the dangers of groups like CAIR.

What’s worse, CAIR is attempting to shame and incite harassment against U.S. citizens that simply want to support organizations that work to expose extremism within U.S. borders.

A former DHS official and whistleblower noted how CAIR should have been shut down long ago following federal evidence of their ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as well as their funding channels through various money laundering schemes as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (who subsequently removed CAIR from their accepted list of informants within the U.S.).

If the United Arab Emirates (UAE) saw through CAIR’s deceptive strategies to list them as a “terrorist organization,” shouldn’t the United States wake up and do the same – or at the very least, stop allowing them from attaining a front row to our nation’s political forums?

Instead, this is the organization that will be publicly harassing donors and supporters of alleged “Islamophobic” organizations on Monday, June 20 at 11:00 am.

A society such as America which is built on freedom of speech is one in which educational organizations have a right to freely speak truth and fact in regards to whatever information they choose to educate the public.

Let not one more life be taken because Americans’ voices have been silenced by CAIR in the name of the pseudo term and made-up phenomenon of “Islamophobia.”

___________________________________

[1] See e.g. Shea v. Fridley, 123 A.2d 358, 361 (D.C. 1956).

[2] (1) the plaintiff[‘s] . . . injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court; [and] (3) a likelihood, as opposed to mere speculation, that an injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219, 246 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotations omitted), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).  Before trial, there are a number of “pre-trial” procedures to undergo so that both sides of the case can present the best possible case. Therefore, CAIR had to present their financial records in discovery to prove these elements in their allegations against the defendants.

[3] Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz, 793 F. Supp. 2d 311. See also Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz, 891 F. Supp. 2d 13, Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz 82 F. Supp. 3d 344, Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz, 2015 U.S. District LEXIS 168443 (unpublished decision).  Therefore, as shown above, CAIR needed to divulge their financial information to  prove their allegations against the defendants. When they refused to do this, the judge did not allow them to bring any more charges against these defendants because of their unwillingness to adhere to their legal obligations in the prior cases.

Categories: CAIR, CAIR funding, Hamas, Islamophobia, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Who’s protecting Hillary Clinton?

June 20, 2016

Who’s protecting Hillary Clinton?

Voltaire Network | 14 June 2016

Source: Who’s protecting Hillary Clinton?

While the Press celebrates the Democratic Party victory of the first female billionaire in history, a somber legal battle is going on in the shadows.

The State Department report on Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the different legal proceedings which followed, establish that she is guilty of :
- Obstruction of Justice by Mrs. Clinton and her advisors (Section 1410) ;
- Obstruction of Criminal Enquiries (Section 1511) ;
- Obstruction of the application of local and Federal laws (Section 1411) ;
- Federal crime of negligence with classified information and documents (Section 1924) ;
- Detention in her computer, at home and on a non-secure server, of 1,200 secret documents (Section 1924)
- Felony – Mrs. Clinton declared under oath to a Federal judge that she had given all her emails to the State Department. However, the Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
- Moreover, she declared under oath that the State Department had authorised her to use her personal computer to work at home. The Inspector General of the State Department declared this week that this was a lie (Section 798) ;
- Mrs. Clinton did not alert the authorities, nor even her own Department, that her personal computer had been hacked several times. Yet she had asked her system administrator to try to protect her computer.
- Misappropriation and Concealment. The Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton were corrupted so that the State Department would close their eyes to various practices (Rico Law and Section 1503).

In principle, and since the facts and their gravity have been established by the FBI, the State Departement, and a Federal judge, Hillary Clinton should have been arrested this week.

Bernie Sanders, the other candidate for the Democratic nomination, was counting on Mrs. Clinton’s arrest before their party’s convention. He therefore decided to stay in the running, although he does not have enough delegates. But he was summoned to the White House, and informed that President Barack Obama would prevent his administration from applying the law. Obama then followed through by publicly announcing his support for the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Trump Is Right on Profiling

June 20, 2016

Trump Is Right on Profiling, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, June 19, 2016

Terrorism for Dummies

Before we have another Orlando, our politically correct/morally narcissistic leadership must be made to face this reality. Time for our government to allow rational  profiling throughout our institutions and at our borders,  to make life at least somewhat safer for our citizens. We should also be demanding long-run answers to the problem, some strategy. Other than Trump, our politicians have nothing to say — and he isn’t saying enough.

***************************

In the wake of Orlando, the topic of profiling has come up again via Donald Trump and others. Given the horrific extent of the massacre, this is highly understandable, even though profiling has always struck me as an ironic subject for an obvious reasons: everybody already profiles!

Well, maybe not everybody. Some of those we call leaders (presidents, vice presidents, secretaries of state, etc.) — perpetually cosseted by the Secret Service — have the luxury of pontificating in true morally narcissistic fashion about the supposed evils of this activity and demanding their minions follow suit. The rest of us live in the real world. We profile.

Among those who have admitted to profiling are Mr. Rainbow Coalition Jesse Jackson and Fox News’ resident liberal Juan Willams (this cost Williams dearly with NPR, speaking of moral narcissists). Are these men racists?  I think not — although in Jackson’s case, he does his best to exploit racism.

Are you a racist or an Islamophobe or whatever if you feel uneasy when a Middle Eastern-looking man, carrying a backpack or perhaps an instrument case, sits down beside you on a plane? I think not again. It’s just the way things are. You have to deal with them.  If you’re like me, you try to fight your apprehension, try to hold back your judgment — most of the time it’s nothing — but you stay keyed up anyway until you’re relieved to hear the guy next to you is a Portuguese violinist on his way to a recital.

Few of us like to profile, but we have been forced into it, in part by an administration so resistant to reality, so full of its own moral rectitude, it has infected — and to a great degree neutered — the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Dead bodies in San Bernardino and Orlando have been the result. Undoubtedly, there are more to come.

So I had to agree when Donald Trump said on Face the Nation Sunday: “I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense.”

Although this is considered by our media, even Fox News, a “controversial” statement, I don’t think it is. In actuality, an adult should be able to profile without being bigoted — meaning you can vet Muslims more thoroughly for terrorism than you would that little old lady from Pasadena at the same time you can know that not all Muslims are terrorists. That’s what adults are supposed to do — hold conflicting or complex ideas in their heads so they can make mature, unbiased decisions.  I’m sure that’s what most of us do, although our government doesn’t trust us to do it.

Instead, Obama treats us like children, warning us forever about our Islamophobia that does not exist. (I assume that if I know there have been considerably more hate crimes against Jews in the U.S. recently than against Muslims, the president must know that too. He evidently doesn’t care.)

Trump thinks we can learn from Israel, which does a sophisticated form of profiling before you can get on a flight to Tel Aviv.  I’ve been through it several times. They profile everybody really, even nice Jewish boys like me who supposedly love Israel. But I’m not so sure we can learn that much from them.   The very sophistication involved, a highly psychological approach, necessitates an educated employee pool not available to a country the size of ours. Israeli border personnel are closer to MI6 than they are to the TSA. But Trump’s right — we have to do something.

Meanwhile, whether we profile or not, the total number of global deaths due to Islamic fundamentalism continues to grow at an extraordinary pace with no end in sight, indeed with no one even suggesting how we would end it. That religion is in the midst of a nervous breakdown in its collision with modernity that affects all of us and has already destroyed several countries, but we are supposed to ignore it because it is not politically correct to tell the truth. Groups like CAIR — actually an Islamist front — always try to change the subject to Islamophobia, when the real problem is that so few Muslims, moderate or otherwise, are willing to stand up against the fundamentalists in any effective way.

Islam — or radical Islam, if you prefer — has altered our lives beyond recognition. We have been lining up for what seems like forever for security at airports and to have our belongings checked at museums, concerts, the theater, public buildings, etc., etc. Soon enough — and quite reasonably — all night clubs will have scanners. Our shopping malls — perhaps our most vulnerable target — will have to have protection. None of this would be happening, of course, without Islam.  The security is not there to deter Buddhists or Zoroastrians.

Before we have another Orlando, our politically correct/morally narcissistic leadership must be made to face this reality. Time for our government to allow rational  profiling throughout our institutions and at our borders,  to make life at least somewhat safer for our citizens. We should also be demanding long-run answers to the problem, some strategy. Other than Trump, our politicians have nothing to say — and he isn’t saying enough.

(Needless to say, I discount gun control, which will have as much effect on radical Islam as a pea shooter.)

Categories: Donald Trump, Islamic terrorism, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Political correctness, Profiling
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Arabs demand UN stop Israel’s anti-terror wall

June 20, 2016

Gaza Arabs demand UN stop Israel’s anti-terror tunnel wall Gaza leaders blast Israeli plan to build underground wall around the Strip to block terror tunnels, cite ‘environmental concerns’.

By Dalit Halevi

First Publish: 6/20/2016, 9:44 AM

Source: Arabs demand UN stop Israel’s anti-terror wall – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva

Construction of an underground security wall along Israel’s border with Gaza has prompted an outcry in the Strip, with calls for intervention by international human rights organizations and the United Nations to block the Israeli plan.

The wall, which will run tens of yards into the ground and is intended to block Hamas terror tunnels, will be built entirely on Israel’s side of the border.

That hasn’t stopped Palestinians from crying foul, however, with claims that the wall would cause environmental damage.

In an interview published on Sunday by the Falastin newspaper, a Hamas mouthpiece, Gaza environmentalists warned that the security wall would block groundwater from Israel moving into the Gaza Strip. This, they claim, would prevent the replenishment of underground aquifers and force Gazans to draw more heavily from alternative sources.

The experts cited in the interview also suggested that the wall could cause cave-ins along the border, and would block the movement of animals across the Gaza-Israel border.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UN: Netanyahu ready to turn Middle East into nuclear test-free zone

June 20, 2016

UN official: Netanyahu contemplating when, not if, to sign treaty banning nuclear tests A senior level UN official claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to ratify an international treaty aimed at banning all nuclear tests in the Middle East. “In Netanyahu’s eyes, it’s a matter of when, rather than if,” claimed the UN official after a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister.

Jun 20, 2016, 3:00PM

Becca Noy

Source: UN: Netanyahu ready to turn Middle East into nuclear test-free zone | JerusalemOnline

The Negev Nuclear Research Center (archives) Photo Credit: Reuters/Channel 2 News

A senior level UN official said that Israel is ready to ratify a treaty banning nuclear tests, according to several media outlets. Lassina Zerbo, the Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, said that Netanyahu is contemplating when to ratify the treaty, not whether to do it.

“In Netanyahu’s eyes, it’s a matter of when, rather than if,” explained Zerbo. “Netanyahu did not commit to any specific time-frame but this is normal in diplomacy.” Zerbo spoke after meeting with Netanyahu in Israel. If Israel ratifies the treaty, it will place pressure on Iran, one of the countries that has not yet ratified it.

Netanyahu announced after the meeting that “Israel supports the treaty and its goals, thus we will ratify it.” Netanyahu emphasized that the ratification in dependent on the regional context and the appropriate timing. The Israeli Prime Minister that the Zerbo’s visit “reflects the many years of successful cooperation between Israel and the organization.”

image description
Zerbo (archives) Photo Credit: Reuters/Channel 2 News

According to the treaty, the Middle East will be a nuclear test-free zone. Israel signed the treaty in 1996 but did not ratify it, just like seven other major countries- the US, China, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, India and Pakistan- thus the treaty was never implemented.

Zerbo conducted a two-day visit in Israel, during which he met with head of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) Ze’ev Snir, ministers and Foreign Affairs Ministry officials.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

First Palestinians in Syria war – under Hizballah

June 19, 2016

First Palestinians in Syria war – under Hizballah, DEBKAfile, June 19, 2016

Hezbollah_Zabadani_12.8.15Hizballah artillery in action in Syria

On Sunday, June 19, helicopters of the Syrian Air Force started transporting Palestinian militia fighters from the Damascus area to the Deir-ez-Zor region of eastern Syria, DEBKAfile’s military sources said in an exclusive report. They are joining Hizballah troops in an all-out assault on Islamic State’s grip on the area, notably the Euphrates River valley.

The Hizballah buildup was first revealed by DEBKAfile Friday, June 17.

It is the first time since the Syrian war began in 2011 that Palestinians are fighting for the regime of President Bashar Assad under the direct command of Hizballah. It is also the first time Palestinian forces are engaged in direct combat with ISIS.

The Palestinian troops are from a militia set up by Syrian and Iranian military intelligence officers called the al-Jaleel Forces, or the “Young Men Return to Palestine Movement”. It was armed and trained for terrorist attacks deep inside Israeli territory.

However, after Russian President Vladimir Putin promised Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, during their June 9 meeting in Moscow, that no terror forces of any kind, whether Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah, would be allowed to set foot in southern Syria, or gain access to Israel’s northern border, the Palestinian militia was reassigned to the eastern Syrian front to boost the Hizballah operation against ISIS.

In the last hours, the Palestinian fighters were transferred from Damascus to al-Qusour near Deir ez-Zor and some, according to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources, were sent directly into battle against ISIS as soon as they arrived in the area, and immediately suffered losses. Syrian sources name three fatalities as Mohamed Abbas, Eid al-Mohamed and Essam al-Abbas, with no further details.

On Friday, June 17, our military sources first revealed the new Hizballah mission: 

Hizballah this week ordered a general military call-up for their biggest combat mission in the Syrian war since their forces began fighting in support of the Assad regime in 2013, DEBKAfile military forces report.

Iran’s Lebanese proxy has been assigned the task of expelling the Islamic State from broad areas it occupied in the Deir ez-Zor region of eastern Syria and, in particular, the Euphrates River valley which connects eastern Syria and western Iraq.

This Hizballah offensive is designed to open the way for the pro-Iranian Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces and the Badar Forces militias which entered the ISIS-held Iraqi town of Fallujah Friday June 17 to move west and up the Iraqi side of the valley. The two militias spearheaded the Fallujah operation under the command of Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani of the Revolutionary Guards and Ground Corps Brig. Gen. Mohammad Pakpour.

The plan is for Hizballah forces to meet these pro-Iranian militia forces on the Syria-Iraq border and so gain control over the most important strategic land pass between Iraq and Syria.

Whereas the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq are fighting under US air cover, Hizballah is assured of Russian air support in Syria.  And so, for the first time in the Syria conflict and its own history, Hizballah will receive air cover from both the US and Russia, the two superpowers now coordinating their military moves in Syria and Iraq.

This strategy, which essentially connects the Syrian and Iraqi campaigns against ISIS, was charted on June 9, at a secret meeting in Tehran of the Russian, Iranian and Syrian defense chiefs.

DEBKAfile military sources in Washington say that the operation’s plan was put before President Barack Obama and he sanctioned it as part of the war on ISIS.

In the run-up to the Syrian segment of the plan, Hizballah is transferring substantial combat strength from Lebanon into Syria, and emptying its other Syrian fronts, especially around Aleppo, for the large-scale concentration around Palmyra.

The Hizballah force will start out by targeting the Syrian town of Al-Sukhna, 63km south of Palmyra and 136km north of Deir ez-Zor, thus gaining command of M20, the main highway link between northern to eastern Syria. DEBKAfile military sources say that this military offensive by Hizballah against ISIS, with combined US-Russian support, threatens to transform a terrorist organization dedicated to fighting Israel in the service of Iran into one of the most powerful armies in the Middle East. Israel cannot stop this happening. The former Israel defense ministers who harangued this week against the Netanyahu government’s alleged “scaremongering” willfully ignored this dangerous development. They must also be held at least partly accountable for the failure of Israel’s air raids over Syria to diminish Hizballah’s military capabilities.

Categories: Assad, Hezbollah, Islamic State, Obama and Assad, Palestinian military forces, Syrian war
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »