Articles: How to Handle Hillary’s Crimes

Posted November 16, 2016 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: ,

How to Handle Hillary’s Crimes

By Bruce Walker

November 16, 2016

Source: Articles: How to Handle Hillary’s Crimes

There is a danger that President Trump in January may look back on the rage most Americans felt at the clear criminality of Hillary and her toadies as water under the bridge and see the tactical advantage in putting all that raw sewage behind us.  The lesson the left will draw from that is this: the left can persecute Scooter Libby, rig the prosecution of Ted Stevens, bedevil Tom Delay and Rick Perry, convict David Petraeus, and count on conservatives genially forgiving all the left’s misdoings when they gain power.

If Trump does this out of a desire to begin his presidency with the false glow of leftist acceptance, he will rue that day when the left sees a chance to stick the stiletto into his ribs.  There are several related problems with Hillary’s use of a private email service, her pathological lying about it, her conspiracy to thwart justice and oversight with the minions who would do anything to protect her, and the patent corruption of the criminal justice system.

First, the men and women who risk their lives to acquire classified information and for whose protection tough laws have been enacted must see that these laws are enforced and that there are consequences for violating them.  Once the brave men and women who put themselves on the line around the world in dangerous places believe that they are simply disposal units when domestic political interests are involved, then we will stop learning much of what we must learn to be safe.

Second, if the Department of Justice and the leadership of the FBI have proven willing to twist justice for political ends, then these folks are much worse than just “bad cops.”  If they walk away from this with their reputations intact and no sanctions for the very serious collection of crimes that would go with conspiring to exonerate the guilty, then our criminal justice system at the highest level can no longer be trusted.

Third, if Trump cannot be tough with these folks, then his own credibility will inevitably begin to corrode among those very Americans who trusted him to “drain the swamp.”  While that may not affect his presidency today or tomorrow, it will definitely begin to erode that trust over time, and when he needs it most, many conservatives will have to wonder if they can trust him.

Does this mean that Trump should reopen the criminal investigation by Jim “Inspector Clouseau” Comey and convene grand juries to interrogate the suspects?  Well, if Obama issues a general pardon, then no crimes will be prosecutable for offenses committed before the pardon, and Obama may well do just that.

But what our nation requires is not so much criminal convictions as slobbering confessions of wrongdoing before the nation by miscreants who infested Hillary’s organization and the Justice Department.  In gaining this vital purgative, President Trump and the Republican Congress have several key weapons.

Trump ought to offer a general pardon to everyone involved in these scandals, given the following.  (1) Each person, under oath and penalty of perjury, must offer complete written confessions of all bad conduct the individual committed or knew about.  (2) The individual pardoned testifies before a joint congressional investigative committed and, because of the pardon, cannot take the Fifth Amendment – here, as with the sworn statement, any false or misleading testimony would be cause for instantly seeking indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice.  (3) Every one of these unsavory characters who is also an attorney (which is to say, almost all of them) must submit, at a minimum, to a public reprimand and in egregious cases with suspension of his license to practice law.  (4) Those holdouts who angrily protest their innocence even as everyone around them provides details of bad deeds, including many we will just have learned about, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What might happen with this approach?  Well, those suspects involved may decide to get together and work up a common front to stonewall.  If that happens, then the very meetings and discussions are a new and serious felony, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and that is true even if nothing planned was itself technically illegal.  The panoply of the FBI – wiretaps, informers, etc. – could be quite properly used to prove this criminal conspiracy.  What would happen is the small fry, first, at least, would crack, and then those fissures would creep up through the whole rotten structure.

So what if, knowing this, these folks confess their grave wrongdoings before the nation?  The left would probably never try this sort of shenanigans again, and the left would pay a dear political price for its corruption of the federal criminal justice system, which is what we really want.

Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

Posted November 16, 2016 by Peter Hofman
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

by Khaled Abu Toameh

November 16, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

  • The position of the two Palestinian leaders, Arafat and Abbas, is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason. Abbas knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people — or killed.
  • Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel.
  • The French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East.
  • Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel — and they know it. They would be fooling no one.
  • Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that — as a “present” to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to show how submissive they can be; to encourage more “business” with Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks “work” and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.

Last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas tipped his hand concerning his ultimatum on any revival of the peace process with Israel.

“I’m 81 years old and I’m not going to end my life drooping, making concessions or selling out.”

Thus declared a defiant Abbas at a rally in Ramallah, marking the 12th anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat.

Abbas in this way relayed to the hundreds of Palestinians who gathered in Ramallah to commemorate Arafat: “I have no intention of going down in history as a leader who compromised with Israel.”

Like Arafat, Abbas would rather die intransigent than achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Yet the position of the two Palestinian leaders is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any concession to or compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason.

Upon returning to Ramallah in the summer of 2000, after following the botched Camp David summit, Arafat explained his decision to reject the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. According to Arafat, Barak wanted the Palestinians to make concessions concerning Jerusalem and its holy sites.

“He who relinquishes one grain of soil of the land of Jerusalem does not belong to our people,” Arafat announced. “We want all of Jerusalem, all of it, all of it. Revolution until victory!”

At Camp David, Arafat and his negotiators demanded full sovereignty over the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, including its holy sites and the Jewish Quarter in the Old City. They also repeated their long-standing demand that the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees be fully implemented, allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flock into Israel.

Barak, for his part, is said to have offered the Palestinians a state that would be established on 91% of the West Bank, large parts of East Jerusalem and the entire Gaza Strip. What is certain is that Barak wanted the Palestinian leader to make some concessions on the explosive issues of Jerusalem and refugees.

The Camp David summit failed the moment Arafat realized that he was not going to get all of his demands met. Arafat later informed his confidants that he walked out of the summit because he did not want to go down into history as a leader who succumbed to Israeli and American pressure.

Fast-forward 16 years: Abbas stands near Arafat’s grave in Ramallah and spouts similar sentiments. Vowing to continue in Arafat’s path and honor his legacy, Abbas said that these days he was being “inspired” by his predecessor’s “determination” and “resolve.”

Abbas is at least up-front in his intentions. No one, he says unashamedly — not the Israelis nor the Americans nor the Europeans — ought to harbor any illusions. “Peace” with the Palestinians, says Abbas, means Israel fulfilling each and every demand he — and Arafat — has made. “Peace,” in other words, with no Palestinian concessions.

Arafat continues to enjoy massive popularity among Palestinians because he died without “selling out” to Israel. His hero status hinges on his rejectionism at Camp David.

Had Arafat accepted Barak’s offer at that summit, he would have been condemned as a “pawn” in the hands of the Israelis and Americans, a failed leader who betrayed his people.

Abbas’s self-fashioning himself in the guise of Arafat is not new. For many years, he has been following in the footsteps of Arafat and honoring his legacy. Moreover, Abbas is well aware that, like Arafat, he is not authorized by his people to make any concessions to Israel. This is not merely because Abbas is now in his 12th year of a four-year-term in office.

Like his predecessor Yasser Arafat (left), Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (right) would rather die intransigent than achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Even if Abbas were a legitimate president, no concessions to Israel would be forthcoming. Arafat was quoted back then as saying that he rejected the Barak offer because he did not want to end up drinking tea with assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace agreement with Israel.

Thus, Abbas is in no hurry to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Indeed, for Abbas, there is no negotiation — only demands. He knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people — or killed.

Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel — one that would indeed supply the Palestinians with nearly all their demands.

Abbas and the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah want the international community to hand them what Israel will not give them at the negotiating table. Abbas is hoping to achieve his goal through international conferences on the Middle East, like the one being floated around by France, or through the United Nations and other international agencies and institutions.

In fact, this has been Abbas’s sole strategy in recent years: a diplomatic war in the international arena that is aimed at isolating and delegitimizing Israel, in order to force it to comply with all Palestinian demands.

Of course, this strategy has its risks. Yet, if it fails, Abbas will at least depart the scene without being branded with the scarlet letter of “traitor.” His successor, he hopes, will stand next to his grave and pledge to follow in his footsteps, as he himself has done for Arafat. And this is not an idle hope.

Thanks to decades of indoctrination and anti-Israel rhetoric, for which both Arafat and Abbas are also responsible, Palestinians have been radicalized to the point where it is impossible to identify a single leader who would negotiate in good faith with Israel.

Under the current circumstances, any attempt by the Obama Administration — in its remaining months in power — to support a United Nations vote in favor of a Palestinian state will be seen as a reward to those Palestinians who are opposed to a resumption of peace negotiations with Israel.

Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that — as a “present” to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to show how submissive the French can be; to encourage more “business” with Arab and Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks “work” and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.

The Obama Administration (and the next US Administration) need to make it clear to Abbas and the Palestinians that the only way to achieve a state is through direct negotiations with Israel, and not additional UN resolutions.

Similarly, the French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East. They need to understand that Abbas and the Palestinians are hoping to use the conference as an excuse to stay away from the negotiating table with Israel — the only country that could really help the Palestinians achieve a state through direct talks. Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel by allying “two sides of the Mediterranean” against Israel — and they know it. They would be fooling no one.

The message that needs to be relayed to the Palestinians is that UN resolutions and international conferences will not bring them closer to achieving their aspirations. Another message that needs to be driven home to the Palestinian leadership is that without preparing their people for peace and compromise with Israel, the whole idea of a two-state solution is meaningless.

An entire Palestinian generation has been raised on the poisonous idea that even the consideration of compromise with Israel is traitorous. The next US Administration might do well to consider this unpleasant reality.

 

EXCLUSIVE – Alan Dershowitz Defends Steve Bannon: ‘Not Legitimate To Call Somebody An Anti-Semite Because You Disagree With Their Policies’

Posted November 16, 2016 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: EXCLUSIVE – Alan Dershowitz Defends Steve Bannon: ‘Not Legitimate To Call Somebody An Anti-Semite Because You Disagree With Their Policies’ – Breitbart

TEL AVIV – Alan Dershowitz, a staunch Democrat and emeritus law professor at Harvard University, is hitting back against the smears claiming White House appointee Steve Bannon is anti-Semitic, arguing it is “not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies.” 

Speaking in a telephone interview with this reporter, Dershowitz stated:

I think we have to be very careful before we accuse any particular individual of being an anti-Semite. The evidence certainly suggests that Mr. Bannon has very good relationships with individual Jews. My former researcher, Joel Pollak, is an Orthodox Jew who takes off the Jewish holidays, who is a committed Jew and a committed Zionist, and he has worked closely with him. He has been supportive of Israel.

So, I haven’t seen any evidence of personal anti-Semitism on the part of Bannon. I think the (Breitbart) headline about a Conservative Republican being a renegade Jew was ill-advised. But it doesn’t suggest to me anti-Semitism. It suggests to me a degree of carelessness.

I think the larger problem – and it’s a very complicated one today – is how you assess a person who himself might not have negative characteristics, but who has widespread appeal to people who do. And I think that problem exists on the right and the left. I think there are left-wing candidates who appeal to some of the worst bigots on the hard left. Anti-Semites on the hard left. Anti-Israel people on the hard left. And I think the same thing is probably true of some very right-wing conservatives who appeal vertently or inadvertently to people whose values they probably themselves don’t agree with.

Asked whether the claims against Bannon demean the term “anti-Semitism,” Dershowitz replied:

I think so. And I think one has to be very careful about using the term anti-Semitic in two ways. One, I don’t think anybody should be called or accused of being anti-Semitic unless the evidence is overwhelming. And then the second, more subtle and difficult issue is what about characterizing supporters or people who follow them?  Subtle distinctions have to be made.

One has to be concerned about any group, right or left, that has widespread appeal to bigots. And I think they have to look in the mirror and ask themselves why. And that’s a legitimate point to make.

But it is not legitimate to call somebody an anti-Semite because you might disagree with their policies.  Or because in one instance, like in the Bannon case, an aggrieved wife in a divorce may have said something which he himself has denied having said. I think you always have to have a presumption of innocence and of good faith. And so, I am not prepared to accept those conclusions based on the evidence that I have now seen.

Bannon, Breitbart’s former executive chairman, was named by President-elect Donald Trump earlier this week as the chief strategist of the new White House administration.

Yesterday, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein released a statement calling the anti-Semitism claims “painful” while describing Bannon as a defender of Israel:

It is painful to see Anti-Defamation League (ADL) president Jonathan Greenblatt engaging in character assassination against President-elect Trump’s appointee Stephen Bannon and Mr. Bannon’s company, Breitbart media. ADL/Greenblatt essentially accused Mr. Bannon and his media company of “anti-Semitism” and Israel hatred, when Jonathan Greenblatt/ADL tweeted that Bannon “presided over the premier website of the ‘alt right’ – a loose-knit group of white nationalists and anti-Semites.” …

ZOA’s own experience and analysis of Breitbart articles confirms Mr. Bannon’s and Breitbart’s friendship and fair-mindedness towards Israel and the Jewish people. To accuse Mr. Bannon and Breitbart of anti-Semitism is Orwellian. In fact, Breitbart bravely fights against anti-Semitism. Here are a few of the many examples:

Stephen Bannon joined ZOA in fighting the anti-Semitic rallies at CUNY by requiring his Breitbart reporters to call CUNY officials and Gov. Cuomo aides urging them to do something about it.

Mark Levin took to his radio show on Monday to argue that the allegations of anti-Semitism against Bannon are “absolutely ridiculous.”

This reporter made similar remarks, telling BuzzFeed: “These smears are laughable to anyone who knows Bannon, a committed patriot who is deeply concerned about the growing threats to Israel. He has been particularly concerned with the dangerous trend of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment on U.S. college campuses. While at Breitbart, he pitched countless articles on these and other themes in defense of the Jewish state.”

Breitbart’s Joel Pollak stated: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Pollak pointed to his “credentials” to comment on the matter: “I am an Orthodox Jew, and I hold a Master of Arts degree in Jewish Studies. My thesis at the Isaac and Jesse Kaplan Centre at the University of Cape Town dealt with the troubled status of Jews in an increasingly anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic, post-apartheid South Africa. I believe myself to be a qualified judge of what is, and is not, anti-Semitic.”

Pollak asserted it “defies logic that a man who was a close friend, confidant, and adviser to the late Andrew Breitbart — a proud Jew — could have any negative feelings towards Jews.”

“As I can testify from years of work together with Steve in close quarters, the opposite is the case: Steve is outraged by anti-Semitism. If anything, he is overly sensitive about it, and often takes offense on Jews’ behalf.”

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Pamela Geller sues Facebook for censoring her anti jihad content

Posted November 16, 2016 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Pamela Geller: As a Jew, I Stand with Steve Bannon

Posted November 16, 2016 by Joseph Wouk
Categories: Uncategorized

Source: Pamela Geller: As a Jew, I Stand with Steve Bannon – Breitbart

I am fortunate to say that I have known and worked with Steve Bannon ever since the tragic passing of Andrew Breitbart. While he was at Breitbart, he would ask me to write articles on pressing issues — usually several times each week. Longtime readers who are deeply familiar with my work know that I am a fiercely proud Jew and unapologetic Zionist. As long as I have known Steve, he has been an unabashed supporter of Israel, and of those of us who fight against Jew-hatred and racism. Unequivocally.

He is whip-smart, courageous, bold, and loyal.

Now the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is claiming that he is anti-Semitic? What? He partnered with Andrew Breitbart — a Jew. He partnered with Larry Solov, another Jew, after Breitbart died. He worked with me — a Jew. He gave proud and fierce Zionists such as Aaron Klein a platform to speak and advance the cause of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Breitbart Jerusalem was launched under Bannon’s tenure with the Breitbart organization.

The ADL haters’ attacks on Steve Bannon make him an honorary Jew. The ADL has a consistent record of attacks on proud Jews and Zionists. The ADL has attacked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Joan Rivers, and even Israel itself. The ADL should be sued for fraud. They raise money on the premise that they “fight antisemitism.” On the contrary, they fuel and align with the world’s most vicious Jew-haters. The ADL gave an award to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, despite his long record of anti-Semitic statements.

I have crossed swords for years with this vicious leftist “Jewish” organization — starting with their refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide. If a group claiming to represent the Jews fails to recognize the template, the mass slaughter that inspired Hitler, then we have failed to learn anything from history. In whitewashing the Armenian genocide, the ADL is as culpable as the Islamic perpetrators.

 Meanwhile, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claimed that Bannon was “the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill.” The SPLC is a well-funded group that works furiously to silence dissent and impose a totalitarian straitjacket on the public discourse on these issues, only allowing voices that toe their propaganda line about Islam being a religion of peace and Muslims as the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of terrorism.

The SPLC uses its hate group listings to demonize conservatives and anyone who dissents from its statist, authoritarian agenda. Its hate group list is so tendentious and politically motivated that the SPLC was removed from a government website’s listing of resources on hate groups.

The ill-gotten wealth of the SPLC amounts to tens of millions of dollars, while those whom they target, the supporters of freedom, are meagerly financed by average Americans who want freedom preserved in this country.

As for what Bannon’s ex-wife said in their divorce papers, don’t even go there. People are at their worst during a divorce. They will say anything and do anything to get the kids, the money, the house, whatever. It is all wild mudslinging, and I accuse “journalists” such as Jake Tapper of committing defamation and libel in their rage over the fact that that quisling crook Hillary lost and lost big.

I did a BBC interview Monday afternoon in Bannon’s defense. It was supposed to be a Trump interview, but it was all Bannon, and the BBC was gunning for him. I took them apart — it will be interesting to see what they run.

The establishment media and establishment leftist organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL, as well as the DNC, are trying to do to Trump and Bannon what they successfully did to Allen West’s chief of staff, Joyce Kaufman, shortly after West was elected to Congress in 2010: ignite a media firestorm that forces him to change the personnel of his staff to suit his enemies. West blinked and fired Kaufman.

Trump must hold firm. He has been on the receiving end of the most vicious smears and libels. That’s why my money is on him. He won’t take the bait.

The good news is that the people know. The people know the enemedia and what their agenda is. It won’t work. Not anymore.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here

WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win

Posted November 16, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump - President Elect, Hillary Clinton, Media

Tags: ,

WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win, MRCTV via YouTube, November 11, 2018

Together With Its Allies, The Syrian Regime Is Forcing Demographic Change In Areas Of The Country – For Self-Protection And Self-Preservation

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Assad, Iran - Syria war, Iranian proxies, Shiite vs Sunni

Tags: , , ,

Together With Its Allies, The Syrian Regime Is Forcing Demographic Change In Areas Of The Country – For Self-Protection And Self-Preservation, MEMRI, E. B. Picali* November 15, 2016

Introduction

Throughout the five and a half years of the war in Syria, and along with military action against the rebels, the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, together with Iran, Hizbullah, and the pro-Assad militias, have implemented various measures to change the demographics of regions populated primarily by pro-rebel Sunnis, replacing them with pro-regime groups, primarily Alawites and Shi’ites.

These moves appear to be aimed at creating a homogenously pro-regime area with a Shi’ite and Alawite majority in a geographic region many refer to by the post-World War I term La Syrie Utile (“Useful Syria”). This is aimed at helping ensure the survival of the Syrian regime and of its strategic depth with Hizbullah in Lebanon and with Iran, in the event that Syria ends up being divided in any way as a solution to the crisis.

President Assad outlined this policy in a July 26, 2015 speech, saying: “The homeland does not belong to those who live there, nor to those who hold a passport or are citizens. The homeland belongs to those who protect and guard it.” Assad explained that circumstances on the ground require the Syrian army to withdraw from various areas “so that it can protect other, more important regions” and that the regime army “cannot fight on all fronts out of fear of losing control in certain areas, [and therefore] we relinquish [certain] regions in favor of important areas under our control.” These statements have been interpreted by Syrian opposition elements as proof that such a La Syrie Utile project is indeed underway.[1]

The Assad regime seems to be using a number of methods to carry out this project, including expelling its non-Shi’ite population that is not loyal to Assad and replacing it with an Assad-loyalist Shi’ite or Alawite population; agreements regarding the removal and replacement of local residents; killing and intimidating residents; demolishing homes and burning farmland; besieging towns and starving residents; offering besieged residents food if they sell their land to the regime; burning down land registration offices to destroy records; the buying up of land and homes by Iranian agents. In addition to these methods are the continued Shi’ization of the area, which has been underway for some time.[2]

Some of these measures, particularly the agreements for the removal and replacement of local residents, have been carried out under the auspices of the UN. Both the regime and the UN have been harshly criticized for them, by elements in the Syrian opposition as well as by anti-Syrian regime elements in Lebanon.

This report will review the purpose of this removal of local populations from areas of Syria, the means used to do so, and criticism of it and of the UN. The main sources cited in this report are anti-Syrian regime, anti-Iran, and anti-Hizbullah.

Creating A Homogenously Pro-Regime Geographic Region Stretching From Western Syria To Lebanon – To Ensure The Survival Of The Regime And Of Its Strategic Depth With Hizbullah And Iran

As stated, the army of the Syrian regime, along with Iran, Hizbullah, and the pro-regime militias, have been working to change the demographics of regions of Syria, using various means to remove their mostly Sunni pro-rebel residents, who include Palestinians, and replacing them with a pro-regime population. These measures are being carried out primarily in Damascus and its surroundings, in the west of the country along Lebanon’s northern and central Beqaa Valley, and along the Damascus-Beirut highway, with the aim of creating a contiguous region from Tartus to Latakia on the Mediterranean coast eastward to Homs and southward to Damascus – and perhaps even farther south to Quneitra – that will ultimately be populated solely by pro-Assad Shi’ites, Alawites, and others. Many refer to this region as La Syrie Utile, because it  will serve the Syrian regime and Iran if Syria ends up divided as part of a solution to the crisis.

30686La Syrie Utile region (Alkhaleejonline.net, Istanbul-city-guide.com/map/Latakia-map)

Originally, the term La Syrie Utile, coined following World War I by the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, referred to the borders of Greater Syria minus Jordan and Palestine. It defined the area of the Levant that at that time was considered economically and demographically more important and more central than other areas. The area the term refers to today covers nearly all of Syria’s most important economic, administrative, and demographic areas. Many Syrian oppositionists saw proof that the Assad regime had a plan to make this region demographically homogenous and pro-regime in Assad’s July 26, 2016 speech to union officials at the presidential palace in Damascus. In it, Assad explained that circumstances on the ground require the Syrian army to withdraw from various areas “so that it can protect other, more important regions” and that the regime army “cannot fight on all fronts out of fear of losing control in certain areas, [and therefore] we relinquish [certain] regions in favor of important areas under our control.”[3]

Today’s La Syrie Utile region borders on the regime’s strategic depth in Lebanon, that is, the areas controlled by Hizbullah and its allies. These include the northern Beqaa Valley, which has a decisive Shi’ite majority; parts of the central Beqaa Valley, whose border with Syria is controlled by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC); and the Damascus-Beirut highway. Following extensive removal of the original residents by various means, the Syrian regime and its allies now control a large swath of Syria’s western regions and parts of eastern Lebanon in which the population is loyal to tem, rendering actual international borders nearly meaningless.

Syria’s creation of pro-regime demographic homogeneity within this region serves Iranian plans to control Syria and Lebanon, and serves the Iran-Hizbullah relationship. In January 2016, the anti-Iran Lebanese lawyer Nabil Al-Halabi, who heads the Lebanese Institute for Democracy and Human Rights (LIFE), told the Syrian oppositionist website Orient News: “Iran’s agenda in Syria is aimed at creating a large expanse… that will incorporate the entire [Syrian] border into Lebanon’s northern and eastern Beqaa and will connect them to the Baalbek-Hermel area [that is, Lebanon’s northern Beqaa], so as to transform it into an Iranian statelet subordinate to [Iran’s] Rule of the Jurisprudent.”[4] Similar statements were made by ‘Abdelilah Fahd, of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces.[5]

In this context it should be mentioned that as early as three years ago, Lebanese newspapers that are known to support Hizbullah, Syria, and the resistance axis published articles about the importance of this geographic region in Syria and the need to connect it to the Lebanese depth so as to create a single area that will ensure the survival of the Syrian regime, Hizbullah’s strategic depth in Syria, and the geographic connection between them.[6]

Syrian oppositionists and anti-Assad Lebanese have warned about this plan. In August 2016, Syrian oppositionist Ahmad Abazid told the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: “The implementation of the plan [to bring about] a demographic shift in Syria began in the last quarter of 2012, with the regime using Shi’ite militias to change the composition of the population around Damascus and near the Lebanese border.”[7] Earlier, in February 2016, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who was aware of the ramifications of this move for Lebanon, warned: “Lebanon could become a new province of La Syrie Utile, which the Syria-Iran axis is attempting to establish from Daraa to Tartus to Latakia.”[8]

Methods And Means Used By Regime And Its Allies To Create Pro-Regime Homogeneity In La Syrie Utile Region

For the past few years, Arab media, and particularly Syrian and Lebanese media hostile to the resistance axis, have been reporting on what is happening to the mostly Sunni anti-regime population in Damascus and its environs; in Homs, on the Damascus-Tartus road; in the towns of Al-Qusayr and Baniyas, between Homs and the northern Lebanese Beqaa Valley; in Al-Zabadani, north of the Damascus-Beirut highway; and recently also in the town of Madaya (on the Damascus-Beirut highway) and in Darayya (south of Damascus). The latter two locales have been in the news because of the regime’s systematic starvation and expulsion of their residents.[9] These reports reveal a wide range of violent methods used by the Syrian regime, Iran, and Hizbullah to shift the mostly Sunni population that they do not want there, including besieging towns and starving their residents;[10] transferring residents as part of ceasefire agreements; demolishing homes and burning farmland; setting up roadblocks to monitor and intimidate the population; forcing residents to sell their property; burning land registration offices in order to destroy records; and killing residents and intimidating the survivors. In addition to these methods are Shi’ization (on which see below) and, following the removal of Sunni and anti-regime residents, settling Shi’ite, ‘Alawite, and other pro-regime families in these areas.

30687“The evacuation of Darayya” ( Al-Arab, Qatar, August 28, 2016)

 Following are examples of these methods, which Syrian regime opponents claim constitute “sectarian cleansing”:

Expelling Non-Shi’ite Residents From La Syrie Utile Region

One violent method used by the regime and its allies to create demographic homogeneity has been expelling non-Shi’ite anti-Assad residents and making it impossible for them to return. Sometimes this is done by intimidating residents and threatening them with death so that they will leave of their own accord.

Thus, for example, in August 2015, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, which is known to oppose Hizbullah and the Syrian regime, cited General Authority of the Syrian Revolution (GASR) spokesman Ahmad Al-Qusayr as saying that since it occupied the town of Al-Qusayr in June 2013, Hizbullah has expelled most non-Shi’ite residents of the surrounding villages and is preventing them from returning to their homes.[11]

A November 2015 report in another Lebanese daily, Al-Safir, which supports the resistance axis, provided proof for the claim that Hizbullah and the Syrian regime are preventing residents of Al-Qusayr from returning to their homes. Reporting from the town, Al-Safir reporter Ali Duraij said that only former residents whose names are on a Syrian Army list may enter. The daily also quoted a Syrian soldier as saying that pro-rebel residents would only be returning to the town “over the soldiers’ dead bodies.”[12]

In March 2015, the Egyptian news portal Masr Al-Arabia quoted a young man residing in the old city of Damascus as saying that Shi’ite militias are threatening local young Sunnis with forced labor in order to drive them out of the city, and that as a result many families have abandoned their homes. It also reported that Damascenes are saying that Hizbullah is preventing families who have left from returning to their homes in neighborhoods that Hizbullah has taken over and made into strongholds.[13]

In January 2015, the Syrian oppositionist website Orient News reported that when Hizbullah and other Shi’ite militias occupied the town of Sayyidah Zaynab and others surrounding it, south of Damascus, they executed residents and left their bodies lying in the street to terrorize others and spur them to leave on their own. The remaining residents were forcefully expelled, and the area was transformed into a center for Shi’ite militiamen and their families. Abu Nasser Al-Shami, an opposition activist in southern Damascus, said that the expelled residents had repeatedly tried to return to their homes but that the Shi’ite militias had prevented them from doing so.[14]

The regime has also razed entire neighborhoods in Damascus and Homs as part of new infrastructure plans. Alsouria.net cited Syrian legal expert ‘Abd Al-‘Aziz as stating, in August 2015, that Assad’s Presidential Decree No. 66, of 2012, ordering  the demolition of thousands of homes and other buildings in the neighborhoods of Al-Mezzeh, Kafr Soussa, and others in southern Damascus, and the construction of new homes in their place, was aimed at expelling their original residents, since Al-Mezzeh and Kafr Sousa are strategic strongholds housing important security facilities of the Syrian regime.[15] Two months previously, in June 2015, the London-based Qatari daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi had cited an Al-Mezzeh resident as saying that the regime had ordered hundreds of families living east of the neighborhood and near the Iranian Embassy to leave their homes because they were going to be demolished to make way for “Iranian towers.”[16]

Following the regime’s approval of two new plans for infrastructure for Homs’ Baba Amr neighborhood,  local residents claimed that the plans as they were approved by the city council are aimed at expelling them from their homes as retribution for their support for the rebels.[17]

On March 20, 2016, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported, citing Syrian activists and eyewitnesses, on the construction of a nonconventional military facility and on the excavation of tunnels, with help from Iranian experts, on the Syria-Lebanon border and near the Damascus-Beirut highway, and that local residents were being expelled, their homes were being razed, and trees were being uprooted.[18] The following day, the daily again reported that it was feared that the facilities were for the storage of chemical or other nonconventional weapons.[19]

On June 11, 2016, Al-Quds Al-Arabi correspondent ‘Omar Muhammad in the town of Madaya reported that Hizbullah fighters who control the southern approach to the town had forced 16 local families to immediately evacuate their homes. According to Muhammad, the fighters then looted the buildings, torched them, and took over the land, as part of the plan to change the demographics of the Damascus environs.[20]  

Pro-Rebel Residents Out, Shi’ite And Alawite Families In

Another method being used by the regime and its allies to change the demographics of the region is to settle Shi’ite and ‘Alawite families in areas from which non-Shi’ite residents have been removed. In many cases, ownership of the properties is transferred to the new residents without the original owners’ knowledge, and land registration offices have been burned down in order to remove all evidence of original ownership. Fields have also been burned, and homes razed.

In August 2015, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported that privately owned farmland surrounding the town of Al-Qusayr that belonged to Syrians who had been forced to leave their homes was being sold at attractive prices and on installment plans to “a specific sector” (likely pro-Hizbullah) of Lebanese citizens. Additionally, according to the report, Hizbullah had demolished the homes of residents “one after another.”[21] Previously, the newspaper reported that Hizbullah was settling its own fighters and their families in homes abandoned by the locals.[22]

Further evidence that Shi’ites were being moved into Al-Qusayr appeared in an August 2015 article discussing the population transfer methods being used by the regime and its allies, that was posted on the Syrian oppositionist website Alsouria.net. The article cited Samer Al-Homsi, a Syrian oppositionist in Homs, as stating that Hizbullah was settling the families of its fighters in Al-Qusayr.[23] Al-Homsi added that the Homs provincial council, which he said supported the regime, had posted notices on the doors of shops in the city’s old marketplace warning that if they did not open for business the property would be expropriated and turned over to new owners – while the regime was preventing the shop owners from returning to the city. He said that the regime is transfering these properties to newly arrived Alawite and Shi’ite families with security clearance.

The article also stated that the Syrian regime and Hizbullah had burned down the land registration office and other buildings in the city where real estate records were stored, so as to eliminate evidence of the ownership of thousands of properties.[24] The anti-Hizbullah Shi’ite-Lebanese website Janoubia.com also cited a source that said that the regime had transferred these properties to Iraqi and Lebanese Shi’ites, as well as to Alawites.[25]

The same thing happened in the old city of Damascus. A Masr Al-Arabia report quoted a young resident who said that homes abandoned by their original residents now house Lebanese, Iraqi, and Afghan militiamen whose families recently received Syrian citizenship, as well as displaced non-Sunni Syrians – all in accordance with a regime order giving itself the right to rent out these homes and to hold the rent received in escrow for the owners.[26] The report also quoted residents as saying that the regime had decreed that homes in Damascus may only be rented to people approved by the security authorities – and that only Iraqi, Iranian, Afghan, and Lebanese fighters are approved.[27]

The Syrian oppositionist website All4syria.info reported that in the town of Sayyidah Zaynab in the Rif Dimashq Governorate, Shi’ite militias were settling Shi’ite refugees from Basra, Iraq in homes whose owners had been removed. The report also quoted young resident Abu Radwan Al-Shami as saying said that a militia member had taken over his family home  and refused to leave despite his demands that he do so. Upon appealing to the police, Al-Shami was told that these militiamen are “guests who must be welcomed, and who cannot be removed.” The policemen cited Assad’s speech about  the land belonging to those who fight and defend it.[28]

An Al-Zabadani city councilmember told the London-based Al-Arabi Al-Jadid daily that the regime had demolished some 95% of the homes and commercial areas in the city, set fire to much of the farmland south and southwest of the city, near Madaya, and capped irrigation wells used by the farmers, all in an effort to force residents to leave. Media personality Faris Al-Arabi attested to the torching of orchards and buildings in these areas. According to Al-Zabadani residents, the town’s commerce and agriculturehad provided a livelihood for thousands, and the city is no longer worth living in because its economy and infrastructure have been completely destroyed.[29]

Hizbullah and the Syrian military have used the tactic of burning farmlands in the Madaya region as well, as reported on September 11,  2016  by the Syrian oppositionist website Enabbaladi.net.[30]

On September 6, 2016, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat cited a source close to the Iraqi militias in Syria as stating that the Iran-backed Al-Nujaba militia had begun settling some 300 Shi’ite families from southern Iraq in the towns of Darayya and Muadamiyat Al-Sham, southwest of Damascus. According to the report, the towns’ original residents had left as part of population transfer agreements (see following section).[31]

Siege, Starvation, And UN-Sponsored Population Transfer

The Syrian regime, along with Hizbullah and its other allies, are also besieging areas and starving the residents,[32] with the aim of wearing down the local population, causing it to turn against the rebels, and leveraging it to push rebel forces into signing local ceasefire agreements. The Assad regime calls these ceasefire agreements “national reconciliations” or “local reconciliations,” spinning them as a rebel surrender – while in actuality they involve the uprooting of pro-rebel residents and their transfer outside the La Syrie Utile region. This has been implemented in many places, particularly in Homs, the Al-Yarmouk refugee camp, Al-Zabadani, and Madaya and Darayya.

Some of the siege-lifting agreements have been sponsored by UN representatives, even though they were achieved by harsh sieges and by starving local residents, and involved removing residents from their homes and  the departure of the rebels and their families under population transfer agreements. From 2014 to 2016, the regime and the rebels arrived at a number of agreements under which the regime lifted the siege, stopped bombardment, and allowed humanitarian aid into the area, in return for the rebels’ and their families’ departure. Such UN-sponsored agreements have been signed for Homs’ old city[33] and parts of its Al-Waer neighborhood.[34] They were also signed for the majority-Turkmen towns of Kezhal and Umm Al-Qasab in western Rif Homs; rebel families from these towns were transferred to the northern Rif Homs.[35]

30688Residents of Turkmen towns west of Homs exiled north of Homs (All4syria.info, July 17, 2016)

Nabil Al-Halabi, the Lebanese lawyer and LIFE director, said that in Homs’ old city the regime had offered food to besieged residents who wanted to leave the city but only on the condition that they sold the regime their land and property.[36] On January 13, 2016, Al-Mustaqbal reported that Hizbullah fighters in Bloudan had threatened residents of the besieged Al-Zabadani and Madayya nearby who had managed to escape that they would be forced back into Madayya unless they sold their land and houses to them for pennies on the dollar. According to the daily, some of these residents agreed to this extortion in return for food or a handful of coins, while others were brought back into Madayya.[37] It was around this time that the ongoing siege on Madayya – which violated a previous agreement between the regime and rebels in the city – made headlines, after residents and rebels raised an outcry because the residents were reduced to eating weeds, eggshells, and cats, with some dying of starvation, and medical supplies had run out.[38] Earlier in January, Orient News quoted Madayya activists as saying that Hizbullah was allowing residents to leave if they sold them their homes, land, and property.[39]

In September 2015, Iranian representatives, with UN sponsorship and assistance, arrived at a ceasefire with the rebel group Ahrar Al-Sham, which controlled Al-Zabadani. The agreement covered the city and several surrounding towns, among them Madayya, besieged by Assad and Hizbullah, and the Shi’ite towns of Al-Fua and Kefraya in northern Syria, besieged by the rebels, and included a population transfer agreement. Under the latter, armed rebels and interested residents from Al-Zabadani would be transferred to the northern city of Idlib, which is under rebel control and outside of La Syrie Utile, while 10,000 women, children, and over-50 men from Al-Fua and Kefraya would be transferred to Al-Zabadani – thus effecting a demographic shift.[40]

One of the most prominent examples of the regime’s removal of anti-regime residents following extended siege, starvation, and bombardment occurred recently as part of a rebel-regime agreement in Darayya, south of Damascus. After four years of siege, Darayya has become a symbol of this regime policy. In November 2012, the Syrian army and its allies besieged Darayya, and only allowed in humanitarian aid three and half years later, in early 2016. Almost four years of siege, starvation, and carpet bombing of the city, and, according to the rebels, regime threats to burn down the city with all its residents, brought the rebels to surrender. On August 25, 2016, the sides reached an agreement under which the armed rebels and residents would leave the city and hand over their medium and heavy weapons to the regime army as it entered.[41] Thus, on August 27, 1,650 rebel fighters and anti-regime residents abandoned Darayya for the rebel-controlled Idlib in northern Syria.[42] The Assad regime said that Darayya had been rendered uninhabitable, and promised that after it was rebuilt, its residents would be allowed to return.[43] However, on August 27, 2016, the Kurdish website Ara News reported that mere hours after the expulsion of its residents, dozens of Iraqi families had already moved in.[44]

According to the opposition, in Darayya the regime had escalated its attempts to subdue the rebels and the residents, threatening to exterminate the population. Syrian oppositionist Bassma Kodmani, a member of the Syrian opposition’s High Negotiations Committee (HNC), said that regime forces changed tactics after failing to starve the residents in the besieged areas, and that “the threats of ‘surrender or starve’ that we have heard for four years have now become ‘surrender or we will destroy you.'”[45]

The UN was criticized for its role in the Darayya agreement. UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura denied that he had had any connection to it, and said he had not even known about it,[46] but city councilman Fahdi Muhammad said, “The council updates de Mistura on events and developments in the city immediately after they happen, and his denial is nothing but an attempt to shirk his responsibility to protect the residents who were expelled by the Assad regime.” He added: “UN officials and a Red Cross delegation knew about the negotiations, and even oversaw the expulsion operation.”[47]

Among the opponents of the Darayya agreement were Arab League secretary-general Ahmed Abu Al-Gheit, who in a statement called it “a worrisome development that could pave the way for similar arrangements that bring about demographic changes in Syrian cities, especially since they are with UN sponsorship.” He added: “Expelling residents under duress is a violation of international law.”[48]

Reports in recent months indicate that there will be a repeat of this ceasefire-agreement scenario in the town of Muadamiyat Al-Sham, also southwest of Damascus. On September 1, 2016, the Syrian daily Al-Watan, which is close to the Assad regime, reported that an agreement is set to be signed between the regime and representatives of the town residents, under which all rebels  and anti-regime residents will leave the town in order to “settle their status vis-a-vis the regime.”[49] The previous day, on August 31, Orient News had reported that the regime is aiming for an agreement like Darayya’s in Muadamiyat Al-Sham, and that in talks between the sides, the regime had warned the townspeople that it would burn the whole town along with its residents if the rebels did not hand over their medium and heavy weapons and depart with the anti-regime residents.[50]

Apparently, the Russians, in addition to the UN, are also involved in these so-called “reconciliation agreements” under which population transfers are conducted following siege and starvation. Thus, for example, Russian officials praised the Darayya agreement. On September 1, 2016, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, said that “the successful experience” of removing the rebels from Darayya “will help reduce the level of violence.” She assessed that further agreements were forthcoming, stating that the regime had “reached an agreement similar to” the Darayya agreement in Muadamiyat Al-Sham, and called for the international community to support these agreements and for the signing of similar ones on all Syrian battlefronts.[51] Orient News reported that Russian officers had participated in the talks between Muadamiyat Al-Sham representatives and the regime.[52]

In this context, it should be mentioned that the regime and its allies have also taken measures to get rid of Palestinians residing in Palestinian refugee camps who have expressed support for the rebels. Ayman Abu Hisham, director of the general Palestinian refugee authority in the temporary Syrian government of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, said that the regime is assassinating or expelling Palestinians who do not support it, without distinguishing opponents from neutral parties. He accused it of starving residents of the Al-Yarmouk refugee camp in southern Damascus, and of completely destroying other camps, such as Jaramana on the Damascus airport road and Handarat in northeastern Aleppo, to keep the residents, who had fled, from returning.[53]

On November 8, 2016, the website of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces reported that the regime had bombarded Khan Al-Sheikh, a Palestinian refugee camp in the western Ghouta, in order to drive out its residents, after they did not heed the regime’s demand to evacuate the camp.[54]

Shi’ization And Iran’s Takeover Of Property In And Around Damascus

There have also been many reports on significant Iranian activity in Damascus and its environs,including direct and indirect purchase of land and homes, as well as extensive Shi’ite religious outreach and proselytizing, aimed particularly at young people, and the establishment of Shi’ite religious, cultural, and educational centers.

30693A march of the Al-Imam Al-Mahdi scouts movement in Syria (orientnews.net, January 19, 2015)

The Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal cited knowledgeable sources as stating that the Syrian regime was transferring ownership of state buildings and land in Damascus to Iran, as part of a repayment of regime debts.[55] Some three months previously, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which supports Hizbullah and the resistance axis, had reported that the Syrian regime had mortgaged state real estate to Iran in exchange for Iranian military and economic aid.[56]

A Damascus engineer identified as Suheil told Alsouria.net that he had sold his home to a Gulf businessman who later turned out to be an agent for Iranian firms, and that many other Syrians had done likewise. The website also reported that the number of Shi’ite residents in many Damascus neighborhoods was on the rise.[57]

The London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat also reported, citing numerous Syrian sources, that Iranian merchants and brokers had purchased property and land in various cities, with Iranian encouragement and support and with the cooperation of the Syrian regime. The daily quoted a report by the Electronic Group of the Syrian Rebellion as stating that Iran had established a network of real estate brokers and speculators for purchasing homes, hotels, and land from Syrian citizens who wish to leave Syria. According to the report, Iran had fraudulently transferred to itself ownership of various assets.[58]

Orient News reported that the Supreme Syrian-Iranian Council, headed by the Syrian Samer Al-As’ad, a representative of Iranian businessman and former IRGC general Rostam Qasemi, had appointed agents on the council’s behalf to pressure Damascus residents to sell their assets as part of an Iranian plan to create a demographically homogenous area stretching “from Darayya to the new building of the Iranian embassy in Damascus.”[59]

On June 22, 2015, Al-Quds Al-Arabi cited a resident of the Al-Mezzeh quarter in Damascus who said that Iranian Shi’ites fighting in Syria had been pressuring anti-regime owners of homes and land to sell them their assets by various means, including public humiliation, beatings, and even murder. According to the resident, the Kafr Soussa neighborhood is seeing much of this activity as well.[60]

On April 11, 2016, the Iranian news agency Fars reported that Iranian Majlis member Amir Khojasteh had presented a report to the Majlis after visiting Lebanon and Syria with a Majlis delegation. According to this report, Assad had agreed to grant residency visas to the 10,000 Iranian citizens already living in Syria, at no cost.[61]

In recent years, there has been increased Shi’ite and Iranian religious activity in both Damascus and in the town of Sayyidah Zaynab, south of Damascus. Sayyidah Zaynab is the site of the tomb of Zaynab, a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad, and it attracts many thousands of Shi’ite pilgrims annually. Entire areas of Damascus and other cities have turned Shi’ite, after families of foreign Shi’ite fighters immigrated to Syria and occupied homes abandoned because of the war. Further evidence of the rise of Shi’a in Syria was the unprecedented scale of the 2014 ‘Ashura ceremonies in Damascus, which were held even in areas of the capital that were not recognized as Shi’ite.[62]

30690The tomb of Sayyidah Zaynab south of Damascus (All4syria.info, January 29, 2016)

Orient News reported that days after the residents of Darayya left it, as part of the agreement with the Assad regime, Shi’ite militiamen entered it to pray and conduct Shi’ite ceremonies at a tomb that has in recent years become a Shi’ite pilgrimage site. It is claimed to be the burial site of Sayyidah Sakinah, the daughter of Hussein and granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad.[63]

30692Amjad Al-Bahadli, leader of the Iraqi Al-Imam Al-Hussein Brigade militia praying at the ruins of the tomb of Sayyidah Sakinah in Darayya (Facebook.com/500674723445460, August 31, 2016)

The Syrian oppositionist website Enabbaladi.net reported that the Iraqi Abu Al-Fadl Al-Abbas militia has launched an advertising campaign, aimed at Iraqi Shi’ites, for an eight-day trip to the Shi’ite holy sites in Syria at a cost of $400 per person. The trip includes the tomb of Sayyidah Sakinah.[64]

Opponents Of Syrian Regime: These Forced Demographic Changes Are War Crimes, Carried Out With UN Complicity – That Serve Iran

The Syrian opposition and its supporters in Lebanon have been extremely critical of the La Syrie Utile project and the measures undertaken, by the regime and by its allies, to implement it.[65] Some said that the regime’s methods were worse than Israeli actions against the Palestinians, while others compared them to the Nazi racial policy that eventually become the Final Solution.

The head of the interim government of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, Ahmad Tu’mah, said that the regime was changing the demographics in Homs Governorate by forcing Sunnis out and bringing in Iranians to replace them.[66] George Sabra, head of the Syrian National Council and a member of the National Coalition, claimed that the La Syrie Utile project was aimed at dividing the country into sectarian statelets that served Iran; he added that the Syrian regime no longer cares about the Syrian homeland or people, but only about self-protection and self-preservation.[67]

HNC member Muhammad ‘Aloush called the removal of residents of Darayya and Muadamiyat Al-Sham “a war crime carried out by the Syrian regime, and forced expulsion.”[68] Orient News wrote about the siege and starvation of Madaya that Hizbullah and its secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah were using methods “that even Israel does not use.”[69]

Syrian opposition officials also harshly criticized the UN, saying that it was participating in these arrangements that are changing the country’s demographics. On August 29, 2016, HNC general coordinator Riyad Hijab sent a letter to the UN secretary-general warning the UN not to sponsor measures by the regime and its allies aimed at shifting demographics. Hijab argued that Aleppo, Homs, Rif Dimashq, and other areas are subject to such forced demographic changes, and that the Assad regime and its allies are carrying out these changes with UN sponsorship in the guise of local ceasefires. He asked rhetorically: “Do you believe that this will eliminate terrorism? Will it eliminate extremism? Will it end the spilling of Syrian blood and the killing of women and children? Will it make the world a safer place? Will it preserve the unity and territorial integrity of Syrian soil?” He added that since the start of the political process vis-à-vis Syria, “the regime, Iran, and the militias [supporting them] have killed over half a million Syrians and expelled millions,” and that therefore this political process is “backing the regime and its allies in implementing this demographic change.”[70]

In an article in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Qabas, National Coalition member Abdelilah Fahd alleged: “Officials in UN offices in Damascus have pressured the residents [of the Al-Waer neighborhood in Homs] in an attempt to reach a ceasefire that leads to a surrender [of the rebels]. The [UN] office in Damascus held talks with local residents to persuade them to accept a false ceasefire, which indicates it is a party to the expulsion plan… and that it has failed miserably to defend citizens according to international law.” Fahd also stated that the regime is implementing a policy of expulsion, killing, and destruction “in order to preserve the regime at all costs, in the belief that additional crimes will help it eliminate the rebelling Syrian people’s desire for freedom.” He called the methods being used by the regime “a scarlet letter in the history of the UN and international law.”[71]

The Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal  has published articles criticizing the demographic policies of the Syrian regime and its allies. In his July 7, 2015 column, ‘Ali Rabah wrote: “Hizbullah is attempting to change Syria’s demographics by expelling original residents to settle others in their place… This is the modus operandi of Hizbullah – which has for decades warned about a Zionist plan to divide the region – in an attempt to cancel the Sykes-Picot Accords.”[72] In another column, published August 12, 2015, Rabah wondered how Hizbullah leader Nasrallah could warn Shi’ites in Bahrain about demographic change that the Bahraini regime might implement against them while he was doing the same thing to Sunnis in Syria – and using the methods that Israel used against the Palestinians in 1948. He wrote: “The [Syrian] villages that Hizbullah wants to empty of their local residents could total a larger area than all of Palestine, or at least larger than all the [Israel-]occupied lands from 1948. Many haven’t noticed that the number of Syrian refugees in camps in Turkey and Jordan alone is three times greater than the number of Palestinians expelled by Israel.” Rabah added that Hizbullah was occupying Syria and establishing settlements and camps there.[73]

Lebanese poet and literary critic Paul Shaoul, who writes for Al-Mustaqbal, compared Hizbullah to Dracula, saying that it is sucking the blood of Syrians, and added that its policy in Syria was racist and sectarian and aimed at changing Syria’s demographics by eliminating Sunnis and expelling them from the country.[74] Mustafa ‘Aloush, a member of the Al-Mustaqbal faction’s Political Bureau and a columnist for the Al-Mustaqbal daily, compared the plan of Syria, Hizbullah, and Iran to the Nazi racial theory that developed into the Final Solution: “Their despair over the [failure of the] plan for the Rule of the Jurisprudent to control all Syria as its backyard has made the followers [of the Rule of the Jurisprudent] settle for the so-called La Syrie Utile. Today, it appears that Hizbullah’s entry into Syria is part of a ‘Final Solution’ supported by an Iranian fatwa aimed at ethnically cleansing areas bordering the central and northern Beqaa Valley [in Lebanon], possibly in preparation for the next stage, which will bring extensive changes to the political and demographic maps.”[75]

* E.B. Picali is a research fellow at MEMRI

 

Endnotes:

 

[1] Al-Watan (Syria), July 26, 2015.

[2] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1131, Shi’ization Of Syria: In Damascus, Unprecedentedly Extensive Observance Of The ‘Ashura, November 13, 2014.

[3] Al-Watan (Syria), July 26, 2016.

[4] Orient-news.net, January 6, 2016.

[5] Etilaf.org, September 21, 2016.

[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), May 27-29, 2013. See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 980, Lebanon Openly Enters Fighting In Syria, June 13, 2013.

[7] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 28, 2016.

[8] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), February 4, 2016.

[9] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1226, Hizbullah Faces Criticism In Lebanon For Besieging Madaya: Its Starvation Of Syrians Recalls Past Crimes Of Mass Extermination In History, February 9, 2016.

[10] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1221, Local Ceasefire Agreements In Syria: Capitulation To Regime’s Siege-And-Starvation Strategy Under UN Sponsorship, January 26, 2016.

[11] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), August 12, 2015.

[12] Al-Safir (Lebanon), November 4, 2015.

[13] Masralarabia.com, March 15, 2015.

[14] Orient-news.net, January 19, 2015.

[15] Alsouria.net, August 21, 2015.

[16] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), June 22, 2015.

[17] Alarabiya.net, August 27, 2015.

[18] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), March 20, 2016.

[19] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), March 21, 2016.

[20] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London) June 11, 2016.

[21] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), August 12, 2015.

[22] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), July 30, 2015. Yasser Haidar, a member of the coordinating body in Al-Qusayr, told the Saudi daily ‘Okaz that he and other residents were expelled from the town, and that under the auspices of Hizbullah, it has become a center for bandits and gangs of smugglers and kidnappers. ‘Okaz (Saudi Arabia), February 7, 2015. According to the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, Hizbullah sent Shi’ite Lebanese criminals wanted in Lebanon to Syria, and particularly to the Al-Qusayr and Al-Qalamoun areas, chief among them the Shi’ite Lebanese fugitive Noah Zaiter, who posted images on his Facebook page of himself along with Hizbullah officers fighting in those areas in Syria. Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), September 15, 2015.

[23] Alsouria.net, August 21, 2015.

[24] Alsouria.net, August 21, 2015.

[25] Janoubia.com, December 11, 2015.

[26] Al-Ba’th (Syria), May 21, 2014.

[27] Masralarabia.com, March 15, 2015.

[28] All4syria.info, January 29, 2016.

[29] Al-Arabi Al-Jadid (London), October 20, 2015.

[30] Enabbaladi.net, September 11, 2016.

[31] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), September 6, 2016.

[32] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1221, Local Ceasefire Agreements In Syria: Capitulation To Regime’s Siege-And-Starvation Strategy Under UN Sponsorship, January 26, 2016; and Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1069, Syria Regime’s Tactic Against Opponents: ‘Surrender Or Starve’, February 13, 2014.

[33] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 3, 2015.

[34] Alarabiya.net, December 5, 2015.

[35] All4syria.info, July 17, 2016.

[36] Orient-news.net, January 6, 2016.

[37] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), January 13, 2016.

[38] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1221, Local Ceasefire Agreements In Syria: Capitulation To Regime’s Siege-And-Starvation Strategy Under UN Sponsorship, January 26, 2016.

[39] Orient-news.net, January 6, 2016.

[40] Orient-news.net, September 19, 2015.

[41] Sana.sy, August 25, 2016.

[42] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), August 27, 2016; Sana.sy, August 27, 2016.

[43] Dp-news.com, August 29, 2016.

[44] Aranews.net, August 27, 2016.

[45] Aksalser.com, September 1, 2016.

[46] Orient-news.net, August 27, 2016.

[47] Etilaf.org, August 27, 2016.

[48] Alarabiya.net, August 28, 2016.

[49] Al-Watan (Syria), September 1, 2016.

[50] Orient-News.net, August 31, 2016.

[51] Aksalser.com, September 1, 2016.

[52] Orient-news.net, August 31, 2016.

[53] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), May 2, 2014.

[54] Etilaf.org, November 8, 2016.

[55] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), August 12, 2015.

[56] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), April 29, 2015.

[57] Alsouria.net, August 21, 2015.

[58] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), March 26, 2016.

[59] Orient-news.net, November 6, 2016.

[60] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), June 22, 2015.

[61] Fars (Iran), April 11, 2016.

[62] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1131, Shi’ization Of Syria: In Damascus, Unprecedentedly Extensive Observance Of The ‘Ashura, November 13, 2014.

[63] Orient-news.net, September 1, 2016.

[64] Enabbaladi.net, September 17, 2016.

[65] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 1226, Hizbullah Faces Criticism In Lebanon For Besieging Madaya: Its Starvation Of Syrians Recalls Past Crimes Of Mass Extermination In History, February 9, 2016.

[66] Dp-news.com, January 23, 2016.

[67] Aljazeera.net, September 29, 2015.

[68] Alarabiya.net, September 1, 2016.

[69] Orient-news.net, January 6, 2016.

[70] Aksalser.com, August 29, 2016.

[71] Al-Qabas (Kuwait), August 31, 2016.

[72] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), July 7, 2015.

[73] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), August 12, 2015.

[74] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), August 12, 2016.

[75] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), January 13, 2016.

FULL MEASURE: November 13, 2016 – Pulse

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Rural America

Tags:

FULL MEASURE: November 13, 2016 – Pulse via YouTube, November 13, 2016

(The pulse of rural America. — DM

UK: Sharia court orders woman to return to abusive, rapist husband

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Britain, Britain and Islam, Islam and wives, Islam and women, Sharia courts, Sharia law

Tags: , , , , ,

UK: Sharia court orders woman to return to abusive, rapist husband, Jihad Watch, 

SHARIA courts are sentencing women to lives of misery by ordering them to stay with abusive husbands, a rape victim has claimed.

Where is the power of Western principles of human rights and a democratic constitution in Britain? This is what the Prime Minister of the UK, Theresa May, has defended in the name of religious freedom and diversity: she hailed the “great benefits” to Britain of sharia teachings, overlooking the principles of sharia, which permits men to beat and rape their wives. Add to that the shocking coverup of the abuse and brutalization of up to a million British girls at the hands of Muslim rape gangs. With its two-tier legal system, Britain is descending further into the pit of subjugation.

sharia-court

“Sharia court told rape victim to RETURN to her attacker husband,” by Leda Reynolds, UK Express, November 14, 2016:

The mother-of-two, calling herself Lubna, revealed that she had been beaten, robbed and raped by her estranged husband despite being the British courts banning him from approaching her and which had also awarded her custody of their children.

But family pressure persuaded the British-Pakistani to try and obtain an Islamic divorce in a Sharia court.

Expecting to be treated sympathetically, Lubna said she felt violated when she was instead told to return to her violent husband.

Gita Sahgal, a human rights activist from the One Law for All campaign and Centre for Secular Space, said this is the reality of Sharia courts which are operating across Britain.

She said many Muslim women are being denied their legal rights by Sharia courts which are bypassing the UK’s justice system and telling women British civil divorce does not count in the eyes of Islam.

She said: “Any woman who embarks on a new relationship will, they say, have committed adultery – a crime only equalled in their eyes by apostasy, abandoning Islam, and blasphemy.

“Yet the courts in, for example, Bangladesh and Pakistan, are perfectly happy to accept a civil divorce certificate from Britain as evidence of the end of a marriage, which in the Muslim tradition is a civil contract rather than a sacrament. In those countries, the contract must be registered to count as a legal marriage.”

The Commons Home Affairs Committee has begun an investigation into the spread of Islamic law, a move criticised by some Muslims who have branded the probe “interference”.

Dr Ahmad al-Dubayan, chairman of the UK Board of Sharia Councils – a body set up to standardise the administration of Islamic law – said unregulated Sharia law courts exist “everywhere in the country”.

And he told the Home Affairs Select Committee last week the self-appointed courts are performing marriages and handing out divorces.

Although the unregulated bodies have no legal force or jurisdiction in the UK, they are regularly used by Muslim families to adjudicate on personal matters, the Committee heard.

Many courts reportedly charge for their services, with fees for divorce proceedings often higher than British courts.

The doctor warned the exact number of Sharia courts operating across Britain is unknown.

He said: “We don’t know how many councils there are.

“Some people talk about 80 or 30 or 50, I don’t know. There is no record for this and no studies, unfortunately.”…..

The Select Committee heard that if Sharia courts are banned, backstreet courts will continue to operate but will slip even further under the radar.

Labour MP Naz Shah, who also giving evidence, admitted the councils could be used to “oppress” women.

She added: “Sharia itself is actually a code of conduct and the fundamental principal of Sharia is that the law of the land precedes anything.

“You cannot enforce and have a second parallel legal system in this country.

“As a British lawmaker I’m very clear, we have one law and that law is of the British court.”

Pro-Israel artist threatened with 5 years in jail for anti-terror posters at GMU

Posted November 15, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Academia, Academia and Islamists, Antisemitism in academia, Freedom of speech, Obama's America

Tags: , , , ,

Pro-Israel artist threatened with 5 years in jail for anti-terror posters at GMU, Jihad Watch, 

(And the left proclaims that Trump will be an authoritarian, Gestapo-like President. — DM)

[D]eviate from the hard-Left line, and you will be brutalized, roughed up, and threatened with arrest — and in Oleg’s case, actually arrested and jailed. The idea that George Mason University or Saint Anselm College or any similar institution in the U.S. today is actually an institute of higher learning, rather than simply an indoctrination center for the authoritarian Left, operated by thugs with no respect for civil discourse, is absurd.

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

Oleg Atbashian grew up in the Soviet Union. He came to the free world. Now the Soviet Union has come to him, courtesy today’s authoritarian academic Left. Dissenting voices are absolutely unwelcome on college and university campuses today, and administrators increasingly enforce this authoritarian lockstep using their thuggish security personnel. A case in point is my experience at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, where I was invited to speak several times, but university officials quashed each attempt to have me speak there. When I was in the area in summer 2015 and attempted to use their videolink for a Fox News appearance, Fox told me that Saint Anselm wouldn’t allow me to do so, on the pretext that because I have received death threats, my presence constituted a danger to the students. Since I doubt that everyone who has received death threats is banned from Saint Anselm College (and indeed, Donald Trump spoke there after receiving highly publicized death threats over his proposed Muslim immigration moratorium), I went to the college to try to find out why, only to be assaulted by a hysterically unhinged security guard, James Stankiewicz, and banned from going onto the campus altogether, on pain of arrest. When I wrote politely to Neil Levesque of Saint Anselm’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics, which was directly responsible for the ban, asking for information about why I was banned, he had a corrupt cop from the Goffstown, New Hampshire police department threaten me with arrest if I contacted Levesque again.

That, in microcosm, is what colleges and universities are like all over the country nowadays: deviate from the hard-Left line, and you will be brutalized, roughed up, and threatened with arrest — and in Oleg’s case, actually arrested and jailed. The idea that George Mason University or Saint Anselm College or any similar institution in the U.S. today is actually an institute of higher learning, rather than simply an indoctrination center for the authoritarian Left, operated by thugs with no respect for civil discourse, is absurd.

gmu

“Pro-Israel Artist Threatened With 5 Years in Jail for Anti-Terror Posters at GMU,” by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage, November 14, 2016:

It’s not a story out of the Soviet Union though Oleg Atbashian, an artist, activist and commentator, had gotten in trouble for defying the authorities there too.

“Back in my Soviet dissident days, when I was collecting signatures in defense of Andrei Sakharov, I was screamed at, threatened, and lectured by the KGB and Communist funcionaries. What I never imagined was that in the United States, the land of the free, I would not only be subjected to similar treatment, but go to jail,” Oleg writes.

But that’s exactly what happened to him.

Oleg’s mixture of art and satire took off with Communists for Kerry. He’s the mastermind behind The People’s Cube and his tweaking of the radical left and  its alliance with Islamic terrorists allowed him to continue the same fight he had pursued in the days of the Soviet Union. But as the US comes to resemble the USSR, political satire and activism carries a serious price.

This is what happened to Oleg when he put up some of his Freedom Center posters challenging the anti-Semitic environment created by the left’s alliance with Islamic terrorists on campus.

This was supposed to be a two-day poster campaign, to counteract the George Mason University hosting an official national conference for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which is an anti-Semitic organization with well-documented ties to Hamas – a terrorist group whose stated goal is to exterminate the Jews. The GMU poster campaign was conceived by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

My part in it was to create provocative artwork for the posters and to hang them around the GMU campus, as well as to distribute flyers in order to raise awareness among the students, faculty, and the administration about the true meaning of their support for the SJP conference.

On the first day, my friend and I placed a few stickers on walls, poles, and signs around the GMU campus. We also placed paper flyers inside and outside the university buildings. We had decided to hang the larger posters on the following night, right before the start of the SJP conference.

Arriving at the campus in the evening, we noticed a large police presence everywhere, including the campus Starbucks. From what we overheard at the tables, the police were on the lookout for people posting “disturbing” flyers. At one point we considered canceling our mission due to this higher risk, but then decided to hang a few posters in new locations, in order to get the message out more effectively.

We only had time to hang three large posters when, at about 4am, our car was pulled over by a GMU PD cruiser with flashing lights. As we found out later, they already had a description of our rental KIA Optima. Officer M.J. Guston and his female partner, Officer Daniels, requested to see our drivers’ licenses, which they took away. Then they inquired if we had any weapons and proceeded with the visual search, noticing our bucket with mixed wallpaper paste and some rolled posters on the back seat, covered with towels.

The police officers took pictures of the contents of our car and retrieved some of the loose fliers from the floor as evidence. They claimed that since we were covering the posters and flyers with towels, we intended to conceal our wrongdoing. We explained that the towels were needed to wipe our hands, to prevent the bucket from spilling, and to stop the papers from rolling around the car, which was the honest truth.

The story sounds Kafkaesque. But it only gets more so.

Officer Daniels told us that the content of our posters was violent and disturbing to some students, especially the one with the Hamas terrorist standing in pools of blood over his dead victims. Such interpretation flipped our message on its head entirely, turning it from sympathy for the victims of violence into a threat of violence.

Since they couldn’t find any weapons and our message was protected by the First Amendment, the officers decided to charge us with “destruction of property worth of at least $2,500,” which was a “class 6 felony.” They claimed we had “super-glued” our fliers to school signs and it was impossible to peel them off.

It didn’t matter that we never used permanent glue, or that there could be other volunteers on campus who posted the stickers they could have downloaded online. Our wallpaper paste was made of wheat and water; we only used it on three large posters, which could be easily removed with water and would be washed off by the first rain. The rest were stickers, printed on regular self-adhesive paper found in any office store.

The intent was quite clearly punitive. The goal was to make GMU safe for Islamic terrorists and anti-Semites.

The magistrate’s decision was quick:  $8,000 bail for each of us and a mandatory court hearing within several days. As we were led away to be processed into the system, Officer Guston said, somewhat triumphantly, his final words to us: “You can’t come to GMU ever again.”

That’s the goal. It’s doubtful that this much momentum and energy had been invested without pressure from George Mason University. Which means that GMU should be held accountable for it.

Our posters contained a hashtag, #StopCampusSupport4Terrorism. The just and moral choice here is clear to any decent human being. But when political correctness comes into play, morality becomes blurry and justice switches the polarity. As a result, terrorist supporters ended up having a safe space and vigorous protection, while their non-violent opponents were subjected to brutal force, thrown in jail, and were robbed blind by the system.

When Steven Salaita lost his cushy academic gig for celebrating assault on Jews, the media turned out vocally in his support. But when George Mason University calls out the dogs for protests against anti-Semitism and does its best to intimidate and brutalize a Soviet dissident, there is a great echoing silence. The only mainstream media story on these events quotes “officials” claiming that there was $2,500 in damage. That’s nonsense. As we’ve already seen.

The actions of GMU and its campus thugs need to be challenged. The alternative can be seen above.