Swatting Moles

"You know people will make a way - they will dig under the fence."
"The ferries became too difficult so now they are trying the trains. People will swim if that's too difficult."
Uhrad, 30, Eritrean accountant, Calais migrant

^{Migrants camp in squalid conditions on a site dubbed 'The Jungle II' in Calais (PA)}

"It's like trying to swat moles. All we can do is take them out of the terminal area and then leave them there. And then five minutes later they can be back inside again."
Claude Verri, UNSA police union

"Calais is suffocating The tourists have stopped coming here because all they see on the telly is stories about migrants and they are afraid to come."
"The government is incompetent. When migrant camps build up in Paris they move them on. But when they're here in Calais, they don't give a damn."
Gilles Duvauchelle, cafe owner, Calais, France

^{Long queues formed on French roads after striking workers blocked access to the harbour with burning tyres (AFP/Getty)}

It began with a slow and steady buildup. First migrants in their hundreds, then a swelling of newly arriving men, and women with children, becoming a desperate horde in the tens of thousands. All hoping that by some miracle of mind-over-matter their search for haven and a future will be over. They will have arrived at a port that will open arms to receive them, offer them a new start in life and the future will be returned to them.

A perfectly deplorable storm that was inevitable has blown into Europe, enveloping Italy and Spain, France and Britain, with migrants hoping against hope that they will manage, somehow, to find themselves in ... Germany ... where they will find employment and live satisfactorily ever after. Germany feels otherwise; Italy and Spain are exhausted with coping, and Britain and France will soon be at one another's throats.


^{A sign near the M20 in Kent directed at David Cameron (Neil Hall/Reuters)}

In recent days Calais has been transformed from a tourism port stop to a large sprawling jungle of tents and scheming migrants hoping to outwit and outrun the security forces arraigned against their completing their self-appointed mission of jumping the barriers that are restraining them from freedom and a new life they imagine will be theirs, sooner they hope, than much later.



Signs that read: "Beware -- Do Not Add To Recent Deaths -- Danger of Death", do not deter the determined. After all, many of those who have reached this point are already escaping death. Reading in English, French, Arabic and a handful of other languages, posted on the barbed wire fence around the Channel Tunnel terminal, it is just yet another hurdle in their massive task of transporting themselves by any possible means onward into the heart of West Europe.

Each night several thousand migrants storm through the barricades attempting to keep them from penetrating Europe. More secure fencing is about to be installed at Britain's cost in a few days' time. Knowing that things will only become more difficult, the impulse to continue the attempts while they yet may keeps events churning. Calmer Mediterranean conditions have enabled more migrants to reach Europe from Libya and Egypt

French riot police watch from a distance, prepared to move expeditiously whenever migrants are seen clambering over or cutting gaps through the double fence. "I don't care if they put a fire there, I'll still get over it", 28-year-old Darood from Ethiopia states; he has nothing to lose since most of his family is now dead, he says. He failed to burst through yesterday, but today's another day, another try.

Police had arrested 300 people attempting to break into the tunnel terminal on Thursday. Each time a gap is cut in the fence, workers move to fix it. Police keep attempting to push back the migrants. It's unknown how many eventually manage to get through to Britain. Officials claim to have caught 18,000 stowaways between January 1 and May 21. Some of them find death, not deliverance, through electrocution or by falling off trains or trucks.



The British highway congestion blocking the expressway is set to be relieved by using truck parks near Folkestone on land owned by the Defence department. Calais ferry workers and their wildcat strikes have added to the mayhem, halting ferry and train services repeatedly. All combining to create the perfectly dreadful perfect storm of instability and human tragedy.

Days of Rage

"I feel a sense of shame, and moreover a sense of pain. Pain over the murder of a small baby. Pain that from my people, there are those who have chosen the path of terrorism, and have lost their humanity."
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin

"To our brothers in Fatah in the West Bank your circumstances allow you to carry out a quality act of resistance. The crimes of the occupation exclude no one. Will any of your noble men make us proud?"
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman, Palestinian Authority

A house fire in the Palestinian village of Duma, West Bank, suspected to have been set by Jewish

 extremists, killed an 18-month-old Palestinian child, injuring both the parents and four year old son. 

(Oren Ziv/Getty Images)

No single ethnic or religious group has a monopoly on lurid fanaticism. The lunacy of psychosis seems to emanate through unstable minds captured by the rigid formalism of religious extremism.
Israel most certainly has its share of citizens of ultraorthodox Judaism whose faith is driven single-mindedly to hatred of those whose vision of the divine is not as devoted as their own.

These are people whose faith is beyond notional, a faith that directs their minds and their actions toward acts of ferocious brutality.

It is why an ultrareligious man who had once before violently attacked peaceful marchers at a Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem, repeated that performance with a vengeance, stabbing six people innocent of any intention to do him harm. It is why young religion-addled Israelis abducted a Palestinian boy and murdered him in revenge for Hamas having done the same to three young Israeli boys.

It is why some suspected Israeli settlers from the West Bank set fire to several homes of Palestinians, killing a year-and-a-half-old child, causing burns to 60 percent of his four-year-old brother's body, and sending the parents as well to hospital to recover from their burns.

An Israeli soldier stands near a house in the Palestinian village of Duma, near Nablus, where a Palestinian infant was killed July 31, 2015, in an arson attack, apparently by Jewish extremists. (Photo by FLASH90)

And it is why the general Israeli public is in a renewed sense of shock that among them live arsonists and murderers whose religious devotion has irremediably tainted their humanity. It is why the Israeli papers are replete with one article after another condemning such people and bemoaning their having besmirched the entire Jewish Israeli community.

And it why the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas seeks to stir condemnation once again within the United Nations with a picture of Israel as a state planning genocide of Palestinians.

Above all, it is why Hamas has issued a call to all Palestinians to express their rage by planning and carrying out "lone-wolf" attacks to protest yet another "unforgivable Israeli atrocity" clearly requiring an "exceptional response from our people and their resistance" according to Hamas spokesman Husam Badran. "This crime renders occupation soldiers and settlers a legitimate target for the resistance everywhere and in all conditions", he urged.


Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for President Abbas's office, accuses the Israeli government in its support for settlements for having driven the attack. "This is a heinous crime that wouldn’t have happened if the government didn’t defend the settlers, and didn’t insist on building in the settlements."  And of course corollary logic would have it that if the Palestinian Authority truly represented the interests of Palestinians it would long since have agreed to living in peace with Israel, recognizing its Jewish character and exhorting Palestinians to live side by side in a state of their own.

It's early days yet, but so far, since the funeral of the Palestinian baby several riots and attacks have eventuated. A riot took place near the Temple Mount, according to Army Radio. But then riots by Palestinians, livid with rage that Jews dare to worship at the site of the holiest place in Judaism, are a common enough phenomena. In another incident, someone opened fire on an Israeli vehicle in the West Bank; the car hit by bullets, the people within fortunately unscathed.

Then again, cars in the West Bank driven by Jewish settlers are often stoned or fired upon; sometimes there are casualties, sometimes not.  Rioters in the Jerusalem-area Palestinian village of Isawiya tossed firebombs and rocks at police officers with no injuries as yet reported. So, in other words, normal life in Israel and the West Bank continues.

The news of more serious attacks, successful in their intent, which also represents 'normal' occurrences in Israel and the West Bank, have yet to surface.

And, of course, the European Union has responded to the situation in its inimitable way. Calling upon the Government of Israel to "...take resolute measures to protect the local population. We call for full accountability, effective law enforcement and zero tolerance for settler violence", in a demand by a spokesperson for EU foreign affairs head Federica Mogeherini.

It takes no genius to parse that demand that the 'local population' referred to means the Palestinians, not inclusive of the Jews.

It is as though without the thoughtful reminder of the European Union, in its concern for part of the population, government authorities in Israel, reeling from yet another dreadful incident implicating fanatical Jews, is not intent on fully committing to ensuring that justice is done.
 

Psychotic Islamist Barbarism

"What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim — mostly violence against fellow Muslims — who don't subscribe to its sick worldview."
"But you don't have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation...."
"And ideas also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached — that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn't do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash."                                                                          British Prime Minister David Cameron, Birmingham speech, July 20, 2015

The Afghan Taliban have a new leader to take up the Islamist jihad from where it was left off by the death two years earlier by its original leader, Mullah Omar. There is little doubt that Mullah Akhtar Mansoor will dedicate himself to performing as well in the position as did his predecessor. The show must go on, and there is little lashback against the fundamentalist Taliban that can convince them that their obligation to jihad be curtailed in the greater interests of humanity.

In Pakistan the Islamic terrorist Malik Ishaq who directed the Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked Lashkar-e-Jhangvi group was killed by police during an assault on a police convoy in an attempt by followers to free him from police custody. Eleven other Islamist jihadis were killed along with the terrorist chief, including his two sons Usman and Haq Nawaz in an exchange of fire with police.

www.dailymotion.com

While Washington has finally admitted recognition of evidence of Sarin used during Syrian regime combat operations, the village of Al-Safira in northern Syria where the chemical depot of the Syrian Army is stockpiled is under attack by Islamist groups including Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate. The concern that Islamists may take possession of sarin, the lethal nerve gas leads to scenarios occurring where al-Qaeda too will use chemical ammunition.

Turkey is finally conducting airstrikes against Islamic State installations in neighbouring Syria and in Iraq, having decided to throw in their lot with NATO rather than continue covert state support for Islamic State jihadis. Presumably, foreign Islamists will no longer be ushered through Turkey to join Islamic State in Syria. Simultaneously, Turkey is bombing the only militias successful in countering Islamic State, the Kurdish PKK.

In northern Punjab state near the border with Pakistan, Indian police have found bombs on the railway tracks at the Dinanagar railway station. Attacking terrorists wearing Army uniforms believed to be from Indian-administered Kashmir fired on a bus, injuring passengers at the bus station, then attacked a police station in Gurdaspur district. Several policemen were killed, one was Punjab's Superintendent of Police; six wounded, and three others also killed, as well as the five armed terrorists.


From Syria to Iraq, Libya to Egypt, Afghanistan to Pakistan, Iran to Cameroon, Mali to Nigeria, Bangladesh to the Philippines, Islamist fanatics are busy proving to the world that Islam is the foremost religion of peace in the world. In these countries where hundreds of millions live under threat of organized and random Islamist terror threatening their lives, resulting in hordes of refugees, Islam is on the move.

Islamists are heeding the call to jihad. Just as powerful a decree within Islam as jihad is the imperative to spread Islam, to help transform the non-Muslim world into a wider Muslim world. Jihad and prosetylization have become polarized; jihad slaughtering non-Muslims and Muslims alike, and yet Islam is recognized as being the fastest-growing religion in the world, with more people conveting to Islam than any other religion.

Fanatical Islam is cleansing the Middle East of its historical Christian populations as pogroms and ethnic cleansing have picked up apace. The once-feared al-Qaeda rebellion against Western-tolerant Muslim governments and rulers now appears almost benevolently moderate in their measured though stern approach to the imposition of universal Sharia.



The viral spread of a more vile intolerance and unspeakable glee in committing outrageous atrocities against ethnic and religious minorities, along with journalists and representatives of the West while creating very special theatrical slaughters carried out by children instructed in the niceties of mortal carnage appear to appeal to a wider audience resulting in eager recruits storming the barricades to join Islamic State.

The fearsome reputation of Islamic State as a terrorist organization par excellence has resulted in haunting the imagination of those not enraptured by the sight of anguished prisoners led in a row of orange jump-suited garb to await their death throes. A Pew Research Center global poll has revealed that the ISIL menace ranks higher on international consciousness than any other issue among citizens of Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Japan, Korea, Jordan, Lebanon, Australia, Indonesia and Palestine.

Poll respondents also indicated their unease with the Iranian nuclear program, with Russian and Chinese belligerence, with cyberattacks, and with global economic instability. Earlier this swiftly-passing month, British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of his government's strategy to subdue extremist ideology as "the struggle of our generation".

www.dailymotion.com

Concerning Concerned Canadian Muslims

• We acknowledge the extraordinary experience of acceptance of Muslims in Canadian society.
• We are committed to countering the impact of the hate-filled ideologies of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Khomeinists and other extremist groups, on Canada.
• We decry the promotion by extremists of 'cultural victimhood' as an insidious tool to attract supporters and lay the groundwork for radicalization.  
• We reject the unfettered use of accusations of "Islamophobia" to inhibit free speech and silence the discussion on Islamist extremism in Canada.
• We urge Canada to enact stronger policy initiatives to contend with extremist ideologies that generate radicalization.
• We support the legislative measures adopted by Canada to protect Canadians from terrorism.
• We unequivocally support Canadian legislation prohibiting forced marriages, female genital mutilation (FGM) and other such loathsome practices.
• We support Canada's continued involvement in the military mission against ISIS.
• We support Canada's listing of the Iranian and Syrian regimes as state sponsors of terror.

Above are the inspiring statements of the collective voice of a coalition calling themselves Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Their website, muslimsfacingtomorrow.com introduces the curious to their mission within Canada as Muslims disturbed beyond complacent isolation from those Muslim-Canadian groups that distinguish themselves by the tactics of divisive and hateful propaganda against those with whom they disagree or who raise their traditional ire.

The full-page advertisement published in Canadian newspapers on Thursday, 30 July 2015 is unequivocal in its support of the current Government of Canada's attempts to protect all Canadians against home-grown terrorism, of Canada's involvement in international efforts to confront radical Islam, and in its rejection of Muslim societies within Canada purporting to speak for Canadian Muslims who accuse those critical of political Islam of "Islamophobia".

Muslims Facing Tomorrow, a coalition of Muslim groups that have formed to counteract the efforts of political Islamists who have much in common with and support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and celebrate Iranian influence in Canada has stated its commitment to advancing the interests of all people regardless of ethnicity, religion, civil status, gender orientation or any other indices that generally tend to set people apart from one another.

This timely, refreshing and vitally critical exposition of an entirely humanist mode of expressing solidarity with all the citizens of Canada with a common interest in advancing human society, human rights and equality among people, sets in perspective a hitherto not fully recognized effort on the part of people dismayed at seeing their religion used as a tool of medieval violence, threatening co-existence even among Muslims whose sect is viewed as that of heretics.

It is beyond reassuring to know that Tarek Fatah, Salim Mansur, Irshad Manji, Nazeem Afshin-Jan and Raheel Reza are not alone in their dedication to defending the religion they know and love while confronting the destabilizing efforts of fanatical Muslims living in Canada and spreading their message of suspicion, hatred, rejection of equality and the opportunity to live in peace with their neighbours. Muslims Facing Tomorrow spurs those on the sidelines to raise their voices in support of Canadian values.

Aligned with them in Muslims Facing Tomorrow is the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations, Muslim Committee Against Antisemitism, Canadian Thinkers' Forum, Muslim Youth Expressions and Forum for Learning. While Canada is beset in some quarters with the threat of militant Islam, we are fortunate to have among us Canadians who subscribe to the tenets that support their belief that Islam is a religion of peace, rejecting those that seek to assert otherwise.

Canadian Muslims who have accepted Canadian values and who deplore the fanatical Islamism that prevails throughout much of the Middle East, Southeast Asia and North Africa today, have finally raised their voice to inform the Canadian reading public that there are indeed righteous among the faithful whose values are distinctly oriented in opposition to militant, human-rights-abusing Islamism.

Palestinians: A Rare Voice of Sanity by Khaled Abu Toameh July 30, 2015 at 5:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6236/palestinians-sanity While many in the international community and media hold Israel fully responsible for the plight of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abrash offers a completely different perspective. Referring to widespread corruption under the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, the former Palestinian minister reveals that Palestinian academic institutions, including universities and colleges, have become "commercial projects for granting certificates that have no scientific value or content." This is a voice that is rarely given a platform in mainstream media outlets in the West, whose journalists continue to focus almost entirely on stories that reflect negatively on Israel. Western journalists based in the Middle East tend to ignore Palestinians who are critical of the PA or Hamas, because such criticism does not fit the narrative according to which Israel is solely responsible for all the bad things that happen to the Palestinians. Abrash's criticism of Hamas and the PA -- whom he openly holds responsible for the suffering of their people -- actually reflects the widespread sentiment among Palestinians. Over the past few years, a growing number of Palestinians have come to realize that their leaders have failed them again and again and are now aware that both Hamas and the PA, as corrupt as ever, are hindering efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip. It is almost unheard of for a prominent Palestinian figure to hold the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas equally responsible for corruption and abuse of power. Dr. Ibrahim Abrash, a former Palestinian Minister of Culture from the Gaza Strip, recently surprised many Palestinians by publishing an article that included a scathing attack on both the PA and Hamas, holding them responsible for the continued suffering of their people. In his article, Dr. Abrash also holds the two Palestinian parties responsible for the delay in rebuilding thousands of houses that were destroyed or damaged in the Gaza Strip during last year's military conflict between Israel and Hamas. He points out that Hamas and the PA have been holding each other responsible for the suffering of Palestinians. "Sometimes, they also put all the blame on Israel for all that is happening in the Gaza Strip," he said. Referring to the ongoing power struggle between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which reached its peak with the violent takeover by Hamas of the entire Gaza Strip in the summer of 2007, Dr. Abrash accused the two rival parties of exploiting their dispute to cover up corruption in vital sectors of Palestinian society. "In light of the division [between the PA-controlled West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza], corruption and absence of accountability have become widespread," Dr. Abrash wrote. "This division has led to the collapse of the political system and the system of values, and an increase in corruption. This has also allowed many opportunists and hypocrites to reach important positions, where they do anything they want without being held accountable." J'Accuse. Dr. Ibrahim Abrash, a former Palestinian Minister of Culture (left), accuses Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials of corruption, extortion, opportunism and hypocrisy. Pictured in the middle is PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and at right Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. And while many in the international community and media continue to hold Israel fully responsible for the plight of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Dr. Abrash offers a completely different perspective. Noting that the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip have fallen victim to the power struggle between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, he says that no one today knows who is supposed to be helping the people living there. "The interests of the people have been lost as result of the two parties' rivalry," Dr. Abrash said. "No one knows who is in charge of the people's needs in the Gaza Strip -- Hamas, which is the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip, or the Palestinian Authority and its national consensus government. Or is it UNRWA and the donors who are responsible? Or is it the sole responsibility of Israel as an occupation state? To whom should the people direct their complaints?" Referring to widespread corruption under the PA in the West Bank, the former Palestinian minister reveals that Palestinian academic institutions, including universities and colleges, have become "commercial projects for granting certificates that have no scientific value or content." Dr. Abrash points out that no one knows whether universities and colleges in the Gaza Strip are subject to the supervision of the Ministry of Education in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. He also blasts the PA's Ministry of Civilian Affairs for exploiting and extorting Palestinians who seek travel permits, especially those wishing to leave the Gaza Strip. He goes on to hold Hamas responsible for "harassing" Palestinians who wish to leave the Gaza Strip through the Erez border crossing (to Israel). Dr. Abrash claims that some Palestinians are forced to pay bribes to Palestinian officials to obtain a travel permit. "Many people have been subjected to blackmail and procrastination [by Palestinian officials] after Israel eased travel restrictions at the Bet Hanoun [Erez] border crossing," he said. "But the people are afraid to complain, out of fear that they would be denied travel permits in the future. What is happening at the border crossing has created favoritism and bribery." Dr. Abrash concludes his article with a rhetorical question: "Isn't it shameful and irritating that while Israel has been issuing travel permits for those with special needs, some influential [Palestinian] officials are placing obstacles? Until when will they continue to manipulate and blackmail the people of the Gaza Strip?" Dr. Abrash's article represents a rare voice of sanity among Palestinians. This is a voice that does not blame all the miseries of Palestinians on Israel alone and holds the Palestinians leadership also responsible for the continued suffering of their people. However, this is a voice that is rarely given a platform in mainstream media outlets in the West, whose journalists continue to focus almost entirely on stories that reflect negatively on Israel. Western journalists based in the Middle East tend to ignore Palestinians who are critical of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. That is because such criticism does not fit the narrative according to which Israel is solely responsible for all the bad things that happen to the Palestinians. Dr. Abrash's criticism of Hamas and the PA -- whom he openly holds responsible for the suffering of their people -- actually reflects the widespread sentiment among Palestinians. Over the past few years, a growing number of Palestinians have come to realize that their leaders have failed them again and again. Today, many Palestinians are aware of the fact that both Hamas and the PA are responsible for hindering efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip and that the two parties are as corrupt as ever. But when will the international community and media wake up and comprehend what many Palestinians came to understand years ago, namely that the real tragedy of the Palestinian people has been -- and remains -- bad and irresponsible leadership? Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen as long as the world continues to see Israel as the villain.

Finally, a Canadian Muslim Voice

Talking Past Each Other

"Cooperation between Iran, its neighbors and the whole international community could open unprecedented possibilities of peace for the region, starting from Syria, Yemen and Iraq."
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini


"Mogherini's Guardian op-ed lacks context and understanding of Iran's regional and aggressive policy and sectarian overtones that have polarized the Middle East."
"Her task of 'regional cooperative framework' must evolve from a clear understanding of Iran's interventionist and sectarian foreign policy and ensuing polarization."
Anwar Gargash,  UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani delivers a speech to the nation in Tehran, Iran July 14, 2015.

Reuters President.ir/Handout

It is passing strange how individuals and groups with an inflated sense of self-importance are so certain they are right and that those who are intimately involved in situations cannot possibly give them advice that rationally they should act upon. The EU's Federica Mogherini is, like most of those around her, and in fact, all those who were involved in negotiating the Iran nuclear file agreement, oblivious and with great deliberation, to the reality of Iran's ambitions.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on the other hand, experiencing first-hand the ambitions of the Shiite Republic to control the Middle East by sheer dint of forceful manoeuvring, substituting diplomacy for the more impressive attainment of nuclear arms, have very good reason to be alarmed and fearful of the outcome where the Iranian Republic has been given effective permission to continue with its self-aggrandizing mission.

Iran's eventual success in building atomic bombs in the near future will inevitably lead to a Middle East even more egregiously dangerous in its splintered allegiances and alliances and ferociously unstable aggression of sectarian hatred and violence. Those wealthy (Sunni) Arab oil-rich countries that have reason to be suspicious of Aryan (Shiite) Persia's belligerence and its reputation as terrorism-central, spiralling even further into destabilizing conspiracies will see it central to their existence to pay for nuclear devices of their own.

Not necessarily that having a nuclear arsenal of their own will ensure their safety, in persuading Iran that they can gain nothing by employing or threatening to use nuclear warheads with their long-range missiles since total destruction doesn't faze Iran; it only portends an early arrival of the Hidden Mahdi and the rise of the faithful to Paradise alongside the destruction of the rest of the world. The concerns of the ultra-wealthy oil states are existential.

The concerns of the Asian countries anxious to do business with Iran, hoping that the European rush to do the same will leave enough room for them to also cash in, is to become as wealthy as those Middle Eastern oil states. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has already jumped the gun with his visit to Tehran, where doubtless lucrative contracts will be signed. Russia and China are lining up to boost their future coffers. 
 

The Heady, Lazy Days of Summer Camps

"We've been called to defend the nation. I am not scared because my brothers are fighting alongside me."
Asam Riad, 15, Baghdad

"God willing, when I complete my training I will join them [father fighting with Shiite militias, brother fighting in Beiji], even if it means sacrificing my life to keep Iraq safe."
Jaafar Osama, 15, Baghdad

(AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed, File).  In this Sunday, March 15, 2015, file photo, young Shiite volunteer militia fighters pose for a photo before battle against Islamic State fighters in Tikrit, Iraq

"[The United States is] very concerned by the allegations on the use of child soldiers in Iraq among some Popular Mobilization forces in the fight against ISIL."
"We have strongly condemned this practice around the world and will continue to do so."
U.S. Embassy, Baghdad

"[There may be] some isolated incidents [of underage fighters joining combat on their own]. But there has been no instruction by the Marjaiyah (the top Shiite religious authority) or the Popular Mobilization Forces for children to join the battle."
"We are a government that frowns upon children going to war."
Saad al-Harithi, Iraqi Prime Minister's office, Baghdad

In this Tuesday, July 14, 2015 photo, Iraqi volunteers with Popular Mobilization Forces train at a volunteers center in Baghdad, Iraq. The Associated Press has found that militia forces battling the Islamic State group are actively training children under 18 years old. (AP Photo/Vivian Salama)

Iraq's top Shiite cleric has issued an edict that students as young as middle-school age would be well advised to make use of their summer vacations in a practical, entertaining manner. And so, Iraqi teens march around a school courtyard, training to become future combatants in the war against Islamic State. They're dressed in military fatigues and dedicate themselves to the art of war, a romantic vision of defending their country.

There are dozens of camps scattered around Iraq with hundreds of young students having been initiated in the combat training. No one knows how many of these proud graduates continued on, and travelled the necessary distance to a war front, to fight the good fight against the jihadi Sunni fanatics that have captured at least a third of their country's geography into their grand caliphate.

The Associated Press reports having witnessed well over a dozen boys armed and active on the front line in western Anbar province. Some of the boys appear to be as young as ten. About half the 200 cadets in a training class that AP reporters visited, were under 18 years of age; some as young as 15. Several of the boys proudly stated their intent to join fathers and older brothers on the front lines.

(AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed, File).  In this Sunday, March 15, 2015, file photo, a young Shiite volunteer militiaman passes under the Quran, the Muslim holy book, as a Shiite cleric blesses him before going to the battlefield against Islamic State

Infamously, in Iran, in its eight-year-long exhaustive slaughter of a conflict with Iraq, young Iranians were sent into combat situations, deployed in areas known to be minefields, to be detonated into oblivion, making the way clear for seasoned Iranian fighters to grapple with the enemy. The children were blessed by clerics and informed they would be given a direct entry-ticket to Paradise and there live as honoured martyrs, forever after.

Hamas, the terrorist overlords of Gaza, sets up annual summer camps for Palestinian children to be taught the art of war; how to handle firearms, and learn combat skills for future deployment as fighters against the State of Israel. The young boys are taught to recognize their mortal enemies; Jews, Zionists, and their duty to destroy the Jewish State to return the land upon which it sits to Palestinian rule, which seems puzzling since the maps of the area that appear in school curricula don't even show Israel, only 'Palestine'.

In the Middle East, as in some tribal African societies there is no moral or ethical distaste in grooming children to hate, to aspire to become warriors, to be taught that sacrifice is incumbent upon them for the greater glory of Islam. And this presents as a dilemma to the United States which is supporting Baghdad's battle against Islamic State, since the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2009 states that the United States cannot give military support including foreign military financing to governments that recruit and use child soldiers.

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called on the public to volunteer to fight Islamic State. This influential cleric inspired hundreds of thousands of men to join the Popular Mobilization Forces as well as some of the earlier-established Shiite militias most of which gain support from the Islamic Republic of Iran and act as their proxy militias, just as Hezbollah in Lebanon does.

When children were discharged from school for the summer the Ayatollah issued a new fatwa in urge of young people in college, high school and middle school to make good use of the time their summer vacations afforded them to "contribute to (the country's) preservation by training to take up arms and prepare to fend off risk if this is required." The response was the setting up of summer camps.

(AP Photo/Vivian Salama). In this Tuesday, July 14, 2015 photo, Abdulhakim, 5, the son of a trainer, holds his father's pistol at a volunteers center for Iraqi militia volunteers in Baghdad, Iraq.
According to Kareem al-Nouri, the camps offer "lessons in self-defence". Underage volunteers are encouraged to return to school come September, and not travel to practice what they've learned, at the battle front. At one training camp in western Baghdad young cadets discussed openly their intention of joining the battle. Their trainers, overhearing them, did or said nothing in contradiction of those plans.

Hussein Ali, 12, and his cousin Ali Ahsan, 14, Baghdadians both,joined their fathers on the battlefield once their final exams were done with. In the Anbar desert they boasted of liberating the Sunni province from ISIL militants, AK-47s in hand. "It's our honour to serve our country", said Hussein Ali, alongside some of his classmates also fighting.

UK: David Cameron Declares War on Islamic Extremism by Soeren Kern July 29, 2015 at 5:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6227/david-cameron-islamic-extremism "But you don't have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation...." – UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron, however, has not offered a precise definition of "extremism," and it remains unclear how his government will balance efforts to silence Islamic extremists with the right to free speech. The government would "actively encourage" moderate Muslims, especially those who are working toward a "reformation" of Islam, one that would be "free from the poison of Islamist extremism." "What I call the grievance justification, must be challenged.... When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let's remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres -- it's groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims." -- UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Douglas Murray also pointed out the glaring contradiction between Cameron's words and deeds: while pledging to confront Islamic extremism, he is also seeking to lift sanctions on Iran, the "most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all." "There is also a contradiction between Mr Cameron extolling British values such as free speech and then suggesting that Muslims who object to gay equality are somehow extremist and their views should not be tolerated. Everyone in this country, Muslims included, must have a right to express their views, no matter how intolerant they are." -- Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation. Prime Minister David Cameron has outlined a new five-year plan to fight Islamic extremism in Britain. The strategy — the specifics of which will be unveiled in the coming months — rests on four pillars: challenging the ideology of Islamism; confronting those who promote Islamic extremism; encouraging moderate Muslims to speak up and be heard; and improving Muslim integration. Cameron, however, has not offered a precise definition of "extremism," and it remains unclear how his government will balance efforts to silence Islamic extremists with the right to free speech. Muslim reaction to the plan has been mixed: some have hailed it as "brave," "bold," "overdue," and "an important first step," while others have criticized it as "confusing," "contradictory," "over-simplified," and "Islamophobic." In a landmark speech in Birmingham on July 20, Cameron called the fight against Islamic extremism the "struggle of our generation." Following is an abridged version of Cameron's comments (his speech extended to more than 5,500 words): "What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine. And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim — mostly violence against fellow Muslims — who don't subscribe to its sick worldview. "But you don't have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish. Ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality. Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.... "And ideas also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached — that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn't do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash. Cameron said the government had to do a much better job of challenging false narratives about why so many young people are attracted to Islamic extremism. "Some argue it's because of historic injustices and recent wars, or because of poverty and hardship. This argument, what I call the grievance justification, must be challenged. "So when people say 'it's because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West,' we should remind them: 9/11 — the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack — happened before the Iraq War. "What I call the grievance justification, must be challenged.... When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let's remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres — it's groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims. "Now others might say: it's because terrorists are driven to their actions by poverty. But that ignores the fact that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families or a Western university education. "Now let me be clear, I am not saying these issues aren't important. But let's not delude ourselves. We could deal with all these issues — and some people in our country and elsewhere would still be drawn to Islamist extremism. "No — we must be clear. The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself. Cameron said young Muslims are drawn to Islamic extremism for four main reasons: "One — like any extreme doctrine, it can seem energizing, especially to young people. They are watching videos that eulogize ISIL as a pioneering state taking on the world, that makes celebrities of violent murderers. So people today don't just have a cause in Islamist extremism; in ISIL, they now have its living and breathing expression. "Two — you don't have to believe in barbaric violence to be drawn to the ideology. No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalization. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists. It may begin with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death. Put another way, the extremist world view is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination. "Three — the adherents of this ideology are overpowering other voices within Muslim debate, especially those trying to challenge it. There are so many strong, positive Muslim voices that are being drowned out.... When we allow the extremists to set the terms of the debate in this way, is it any wonder that people are attracted to this ideology? "Four — there is also the question of identity. For all our successes as multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don't really identify with Britain — and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds. Cameron then outlined a four-pronged strategy to address each of the four points just mentioned: First, the government would aggressively confront "the cultish worldview" of radical Islam with "our strongest weapon — our own liberal values." Cameron said: "We should expose their extremism for what it is — a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people — not least Muslim people. We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently. Wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever our religion, there are things we share together." Second, Cameron said the government would work harder to halt the process of radicalization, which has "often sucked people in from non-violence to violence," by confronting anyone who promotes any part of the "extremist narrative," even non-violent extremists. "We've got to show that if you say 'yes I condemn terror — but the Kuffar [unbelievers] are inferior,' or 'violence in London isn't justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter' — then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not, and in a lot of cases it's not unwittingly, you are providing succor to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence. Third, the government would "actively encourage" moderate Muslims, especially those who are working toward a "reformation" of Islam, one that would be "free from the poison of Islamist extremism." Cameron said: "These reforming voices, they have a tough enough time as it is: the extremists are the ones who have the money, the leaders, the iconography and the propaganda machines. We need to turn the tables. We can't stand neutral in this battle of ideas. We have to back those who share our values. So here's my offer. "If you're interested in reform; if you want to challenge the extremists in our midst; if you want to build an alternative narrative or if you just want to help protect your kids — we are with you and we will back you — with practical help, with funding, with campaigns, with protection and with political representation." Fourth, Cameron said more needed to be done to improve integration, including the desegregation of schools and communities. He said: "Now let me be clear. I'm not talking about uprooting people from their homes or schools and forcing integration. But I am talking about taking a fresh look at the sort of shared future we want for our young people. In terms of housing, for example, there are parts of our country where segregation has actually increased or stayed deeply entrenched for decades. "So the government needs to start asking searching questions about social housing, to promote integration, to avoid segregated social housing estates where people living there are from the same single minority ethnic background." Cameron announced several concrete measures aimed at stopping the spread of Islamic extremism in Britain. He said that parents who are worried that their children may be about to travel to Syria or Iraq to join the Islamic State would be able to apply for their child's passport to be cancelled. Image source: No. 10 Downing Street. In an effort to increase reporting of forced marriage, Cameron pledged to draft a new law that would provide lifetime anonymity for victims of such crimes, and he promised new "measures to guard against the radicalization of children in so-called supplementary schools or tuition centers." Cameron also said that Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, should be given new powers to close down access to the UK for foreign television channels that broadcast "hate preachers" and extremist content. He also urged broadcasters and Internet companies to stop giving platforms to Islamic extremists. The Cameron government intends to publish its official Counter-Extremism Strategy this fall. Reaction to Cameron's speech has been varied. In an essay for the Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray wrote that Cameron had outlined the problem of Islamic extremism "better than perhaps any other Western leader to date." But Murray also pointed out the glaring contradiction between Cameron's words and deeds: while pledging to confront Islamic extremism, he is also seeking to lift sanctions on Iran, the "most extreme, anti-Western nation-destroyer of them all." In an editorial, the Guardian wrote about the free speech aspects of Cameron's plan: "You cannot convincingly claim, as Mr. Cameron did, that free speech is a core British value, if you then go on to explain that you are going to 'put out of action the key extremist influencers who are careful to operate inside the law but who clearly detest British society and everything we stand for ... and stop them peddling their hatred.' Again, it might be a defensible policy, assuming it were technically feasible, to strengthen the powers of Ofcom to censor foreign channels that 'broadcast hate preachers and extremist content,' but it can't be sold as a defense of free speech.... "With all that said, the speech gets the central point entirely right. We are engaged here in a great ideological and even spiritual struggle with violent jihadism: a battle of ideas and values, which will be fought in the imagination as much as by police work or military force." According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Cameron isn't infallible when it comes to speaking about Islamism. He recently called on the BBC to stop using the term 'Islamic State' to refer to the group violently constructing a new caliphate across the Middle East, on the theory that using the group's own name for itself creates the impression it's a legitimate Islamic entity. But playing these name games evades the very problem Mr. Cameron is trying to address." Middle East scholar Ranj Alaaldin wrote: "The government's dedication to fighting radical Islam through its words and its deeds must be welcomed. For much too long, groups like ISIS have been exploiting an ideological vacuum that has resulted from the absence of conviction and narrative from the government, one that should be defining the country's values and principles and challenging ISIS's brand of radical Islam." Hazel Blears, the Labour Party's former Secretary of State for Communities, praised Cameron's proposals as "welcome and necessary wake-up call for all of us." But she warned that the road ahead will not be easy: "There will of course be voices who will denounce his proposals as an attack on Islam." The Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, Mohammed Shafiq, said: "I am concerned that yet again Cameron is conflating the issue of extremism and terrorism with those of cohesion and integration. He says that Muslims are not doing enough to integrate and that risks fostering extremism — but just what is enough and how do you measure it? "There is also a contradiction between Mr Cameron extolling British values such as free speech and then suggesting that Muslims who object to gay equality are somehow extremist and their views should not be tolerated. Everyone in this country, Muslims included, must have a right to express their views, no matter how intolerant they are." The assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Miqdaad Versi, said: "The worry is that the focus is on ideology as the primary cause of terrorism and radicalization and that does not seem to tie very well with the academic research that seems to suggest that, in actual fact, the causes of terrorism are multifaceted. There is a risk of over-simplifying the issue. "I think it's very important to ensure there is a clear and unambiguous understanding of what is meant by extremism: what forms of free speech are going to be tailored and stopped." Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

 

What Information Collected by Israeli Intelligence Reveals About the Iran Talks

Over the years of negotiation, concession after concession from the West

By Ronen Bergman

 

On Nov. 26, 2013, three days after the signing of the interim agreement (JPOA) between the powers and Iran, the Iranian delegation returned home to report to their government. According to information obtained by Israeli intelligence, there was a sense of great satisfaction in Tehran then over the agreement and confidence that ultimately Iran would be able to persuade the West to accede to a final deal favorable to Iran. That final deal, signed in Vienna last week, seems to justify that confidence. The intelligence—a swath of which I was given access to in the past month—reveals that the Iranian delegates told their superiors, including one from the office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, that “our most significant achievement” in the negotiations was America’s consent to the continued enrichment of uranium on Iranian territory.

That makes sense. The West’s recognition of Iran’s right to perform the full nuclear fuel cycle—or enrichment of uranium—was a complete about-face from America’s declared position prior to and during the talks. Senior U.S. and European officials who visited Israel immediately after the negotiations with Iran began in mid 2013 declared, according to the protocols of these meetings, that because of Iran’s repeated violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, “Our aim is that in the final agreement [with Iran] there will be no enrichment at all” on Iranian territory. Later on, in a speech at the Saban Forum in December 2013, President Barack Obama reiterated that in view of Iran’s behavior, the United States did not acknowledge that Iran had any right to enrich fissile material on its soil.

In February 2014, the first crumbling of this commitment was evident, when the head of the U.S. delegation to the talks with Iran, Wendy Sherman, told Israeli officials that while the United States would like Iran to stop enriching uranium altogether, this was “not a realistic” expectation. Iranian foreign ministry officials, during meetings the Tehran following the JPOA, reckoned that from the moment the principle of an Iranian right to enrich uranium was established, it would serve as the basis for the final agreement. And indeed, the final agreement, signed earlier this month, confirmed that assessment.

The sources who granted me access to the information collected by Israel about the Iran talks stressed that it was not obtained through espionage against the United States. It comes, they said, through Israeli spying on Iran, or routine contacts between Israeli officials and representatives of the P5+1 in the talks. The sources showed me only what they wanted me to see, and in these cases there’s always a danger of fraud and fabrication. This said, these sources have proved reliable in the past, and based on my experience with this type of material it appears to be quite credible. No less important, what emerges from the classified material obtained by Israel in the course of the negotiations is largely corroborated by details that have become public since.

In early 2013, the material indicates, Israel learned from its intelligence sources in Iran that the United States held a secret dialogue with senior Iranian representatives in Muscat, Oman. Only toward the end of these talks, in which the Americans persuaded Iran to enter into diplomatic negotiations regarding its nuclear program, did Israel receive an official report about them from the U.S. government. Shortly afterward, the CIA and NSA drastically curtailed its cooperation with Israel on operations aimed at disrupting the Iranian nuclear project, operations that had racked up significant successes over the past decade.

On Nov. 8, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw him off at Ben Gurion Airport and told him that Israel had received intelligence that indicated the United States was ready to sign “a very bad deal” and that the West’s representatives were gradually retreating from the same lines in the sand that they had drawn themselves.

Perusal of the material Netanyahu was basing himself on, and more that has come in since that angry exchange on the tarmac, makes two conclusions fairly clear: The Western delegates gave up on almost every one of the critical issues they had themselves resolved not to give in on, and also that they had distinctly promised Israel they would not do so.

One of the promises made to Israel was that Iran would not be permitted to stockpile uranium. Later it was said that only a small amount would be left in Iran and that anything in excess of that amount would be transferred to Russia for processing that would render it unusable for military purposes. In the final agreement, Iran was permitted to keep 300kgs of enriched uranium; the conversion process would take place in an Iranian plant (nicknamed “The Junk Factory” by Israel intelligence). Iran would also be responsible for processing or selling the huge amount of enriched uranium that is has stockpiled up until today, some 8 tons.

The case of the secret enrichment facility at Qom (known in Israel as the Fordo Facility) is another example of concessions to Iran. The facility was erected in blatant violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, and P5+1 delegates solemnly promised Israel at a series of meetings in late 2013 that it was to be dismantled and its contents destroyed. In the final agreement, the Iranians were allowed to leave 1,044 centrifuges in place (there are 3,000 now) and to engage in research and in enrichment of radioisotopes.

At the main enrichment facility at Natanz (or Kashan, the name used by the Mossad in its reports) the Iranians are to continue operating 5,060 centrifuges of the 19,000 there at present. Early in the negotiations, the Western representatives demanded that the remaining centrifuges be destroyed. Later on they retreated from this demand, and now the Iranians have had to commit only to mothball them. This way, they will be able to reinstall them at very short notice.

Israeli intelligence points to two plants in Iran’s military industry that are currently engaged in the development of two new types of centrifuge: the Teba and Tesa plants, which are working on the IR6 and the IR8 respectively. The new centrifuges will allow the Iranians to set up smaller enrichment facilities that are much more difficult to detect and that shorten the break-out time to a bomb if and when they decide to dump the agreement.

The Iranians see continued work on advanced centrifuges as very important. On the other hand they doubt their ability to do so covertly, without risking exposure and being accused of breaching the agreement. Thus, Iran’s delegates were instructed to insist on this point. President Obama said at the Saban Forum that Iran has no need for advanced centrifuges and his representatives promised Israel several times that further R&D on them would not be permitted. In the final agreement Iran is permitted to continue developing the advanced centrifuges, albeit with certain restrictions which experts of the Israeli Atomic Energy Committee believe to have only marginal efficacy.

As for the break-out time for the bomb, at the outset of the negotiations, the Western delegates decided that it would be “at least a number of years.” Under the final agreement this has been cut down to one year according to the Americans, and even less than that according to Israeli nuclear experts.

As the signing of the agreement drew nearer, sets of discussions took place in Iran, following which its delegates were instructed to insist on not revealing how far the country had advanced on the military aspects of its nuclear project. Over the past 15 years, a great deal of material has been amassed by the International Atomic Energy Agency—some filed by its own inspectors and some submitted by intelligence agencies—about Iran’s secret effort to develop the military aspects of its nuclear program (which the Iranians call by the codenames PHRC, AMAD, and SPND). The IAEA divides this activity into 12 different areas (metallurgy, timers, fuses, neutron source, hydrodynamic testing, warhead adaptation for the Shihab 3 missile, high explosives, and others) all of which deal with the R&D work that must be done in order to be able to convert enriched material into an actual atom bomb.

The IAEA demanded concrete answers to a number of questions regarding Iran’s activities in these spheres. The agency also asked Iran to allow it to interview 15 Iranian scientists, a list headed by Prof. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, whom Mossad nicknamed “The Brain” behind the military nuclear program. This list has become shorter because six of the 15 have died as a result of assassinations that the Iranians attribute to Israel, but access to the other nine has not been given. Neither have the IAEA’s inspectors been allowed to visit the facilities where the suspected activities take place. The West originally insisted on these points, only to retreat and leave them unsolved in the agreement.
In mid-2015 a new idea was brought up in one of the discussions in Tehran: Iran would agree not to import missiles as long as its own development and production is not limited. This idea is reflected in the final agreement as well, in which Iran is allowed to develop and produce missiles, the means of delivery for nuclear weapons. The longer the negotiations went on, the longer the list of concession made by the United States to Iran kept growing, including the right to leave the heavy water reactor and the heavy water plant at Arak in place and accepting Iran’s refusal of access to the suspect site.

It is possible to argue about the manner in which Netanyahu chose to conduct the dispute about the nuclear agreement with Iran, by clashing head-on and bluntly with the American president. That said, the intelligence material that he was relying on gives rise to fairly unambiguous conclusions: that the Western delegates crossed all of the red lines that they drew themselves and conceded most of what was termed critical at the outset; and that the Iranians have achieved almost all of their goals.

Ronen Bergman is a senior correspondent for military and intelligence affairs at Yedioth Ahronoth, and a contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine. He is writing a history of the Mossad.

Controversial Street Checks

"I have a number of clients who are law-abiding, who have no criminal records, who have been stopped numerous times, many of them are from racialized backgrounds."
"The police already enjoy a very broad power to stop and detain people, short of arrest, when they suspect them of having been involved in a crime. The law even gives them search powers."
"[Street checking] relies on ignorance because members of the community do not ever have to comply with those kinds of questions or demands. And yet the vast majority of people, even those that are educated, even those of us with law degrees, feel that when we are stopped by the police that we probably should cooperate."
Leo Russomanno, defence lawyer, Ottawa

"[Informing individuals they don't have to comply] That, to me, defeats the purpose."
"[The service doesn't believe in] random street checks [responding to known people, part of ongoing criminal investigations]."
"We're preventing crime and we're assisting in solving crime."
Inspector Mark Patterson, Ottawa Police Services

The average person on the street would tend to cooperate when being questioned by police, reasoning that they have nothing to hide, since they are, after all, law-abiding citizens. Who view it as a public duty to respect the work that police do on behalf of society, ensuring that law and order prevail. It is those who know quite well that their illicit activities and anti-social behaviours are a threat to order and good citizenship who would feel it in their best interests to refuse cooperation.

The Ottawa Police Service has issued a report meant to be presented to a board meeting, the civilian board which oversees police. In the report the service announced that it conducted 4,405 street checks in 2014. Many of those checks related to more than one individual. Some 675 police officers catalogued interactions with 6,331 people resulting in 9,620 entries for the year, into the police database.


A street check requires that police record information in a database. Detailing interactions with or observations of a person, a vehicle, or a specific location known or suspected with involvement in criminal activity. Information gleaned through scrutinizing the report shows the majority of those checked, some 80 percent, were male. The individual who was street-checked the most frequently -- 30 times -- is white, and 39 years of age.

The issue of street-checking concerns civil liberties advocates, along with members of marginalized communities and defence lawyers, alarmed by what they consider an over-representation of racialized young men monitored disproportionately by police. Combined statistics from 2011 through 2014 amassed by the police service show that 58 percent of people street-checked were white, while 20 percent were black, and 14 percent of Middle Eastern, Aboriginal, Asian, East Indian or Latin-American descent.

The 2011 National Household Survey released by Statistics Canada reveals that black people account for under six percent of the total city population, while those placed in the classification of being "Arab" make up less than four percent of the population of the City of Ottawa. According to lawyer Leo Russomanno, police should inform people before street-checking them, of their rights not to cooperate in the process.

"That actually affords some sort of trust-building measures with members of the community, especially those who are racialized", he contends. A perception not endorsed by the head of the service's review of street checks who counter-argues that informing people they have the right to refuse compliance invites refusals, and renders street checks useless as an intelligence-gathering tool.

Inspector Patterson pointed out that street checks are vital to police work as observations recorded of known people, part of ongoing criminal investigations. A vehicle, as an example, known to move drugs seen regularly parked at a certain location deserves to be documented. Those being stopped, say local police officers, are mostly those known to police in high-crime areas, areas which happen to be more racially diverse.

Even a casual observer who reads the daily local news is aware that there is a higher incidence of crime commission among blacks, aboriginals and young men of Middle East, African or Southeast Asian descent. That being so, the complaint by Mr. Russomanno reveals him either to be ignorant of reality, or disingenuous in an effort to boost his client-rolls.

Poll

Can police street checks be done fairly?

• 59%
• Yes

• 1051 votes

• 40%
• No

• 713 votes

Having It Their Way

"I want to emphasize this afternoon the importance of the ties between the United States and Turkey, particularly the security relationship at this particular moment."
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry

 
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has effusively praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's contributions to the fight against IS.

"It is no secret that Turkey has become a fertile ground for jihadist activity. Turkey says it fights IS. Maybe it does. But just randomly and reluctantly." 
Discreetly unnamed EU ambassador in Ankara

"The crime [beheading of three priests in Syria by Chechen Islamists with ISIL] was not committed against Turkey and the lack of an agreement on extraditions [with Syria constrains the court from judgement]."
Turkish court of law, Istanbul

"Turkish intelligence would not help me if I were a member of al-Qaeda. We were in contact with Turkish intelligence all the time. Turkey sent us arms, cars and money when we were fighting in Syria. Turkey was helping us because we were fighting against [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad."
Magomet Abdurakmanov, Chechen jihadist

"No sooner did they become cognizant of my faith [an Alawite Shiite nurse] than the wave of intimidation began. I knew many things... who was running the corps. I saw Sumeyye Erdogan [daughter of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, giving medical aid to wounded Islamic State jihadists] frequently at our headquarters in Sanliurfa ... I am indeed terrified."
Shiite nurse, working clandestinely for covert medical corps, Sanliurfa, Turkey

Makeshift barricades fill the streets as left-wing protesters light a fire trying to avoid tear gas used by police to disperse them, in Istanbul, Sunday, during clashes between police and people protesting against Turkey's operation against Kurdish militants. Turkey has bombed Islamic State positions near the Turkish border in Syria, also targeting Kurdish rebels in Iraq and carried out widespread police operations against suspected Kurdish and IS militants and other outlawed groups inside Turkey. Cagdas Erdogan/AP

"We don’t know how many of them [refugees from ISIL, along with ISIL jihadis mingling with refugees] sympathize with IS or are IS."
"We not only have Syrian potential IS members but we also have Turkish potential IS members in our society too. There is some radical Islam in Turkey, and it can be armed and militant if provoked."
Turkish politician Hursit Gunes

Turkey's President Erdogan is firmly convinced that his interests and that of his country lie in violently confronting the Kurdistan Workers' Party militants, considered by his administration to be a terrorist group. Turkey's fixation on an independent Kurdistan carved partially out of Turkish territory perceives the Kurds as a far greater threat to the country's stability and economic and social welfare than the border threat of Islamic State caliphate jihadis.

The Turkish military was tasked with rounding up terrorist within the country, and hundreds were taken into custody, most of whom were felt to be sympathizers of the PKK. Turkey was amenable to giving the support the emerging Islamic State sought on its way to conquest in Syria and Iraq as long as the jihadists posed no threat to Turkey and helped it achieve its goal of having Syria's President Bashar al-Assad removed from power.

So while it gave practical support to the jihadists it stood by as Syrian Kurds just over the border in Kobani were being massacred by ISIL fighters. The Islamic State jihadis were, in their siege of the town and onslaught of its residents, performing a task that Ankara felt was long overdue. The Turkish military stood close to the border in full distant view of the town of Kobani being bombed, even while its desperate civilian population fled, to enter Turkey for temporary haven.

Until very recently, Turkey was content to let Islamic State run wild in Syria. Cartoon: Middle East Forum

Islamic State has more than its share of admirers in Turkey. The Turkish government was very well aware that oil was being smuggled across the border from Syria into Turkey to reach a black market that would net Islamic State up to $1-million in profit to support their operations, on a weekly basis. Turkish police turned a blind eye to the smuggling. Estimates of the number of Turks who have joined the militants have ranged from several hundred to over a thousand. 114 Turkish nationals are held to have have died while fighting for ISIL in Syria.

A member of NATO, Turkey nevertheless refused to give permission for the U.S.-led coalition to use Turkish air bases for their bombing runs against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Turkey hadn't succeeded in its efforts to persuade the U.S. and NATO that bombing missions should take place targeting the Syrian regime and its military. Doing so would obviously have seen casualties not only within the Syrian military but its Iranian al-Quds military advisers as well as Hezbollah fighters.

At a time when the U.S.  the Security Council members and the E.U. were engaged in sensitive negotiations with Iran that wouldn't have gone over very well.

"Now that it is pretty obvious that Turkey joined the United States to target IS, I think it is very likely that IS will retaliate. It has a pretty sophisticated network of recruits, safe havens, and smuggling routes, and it will use those routes to strike back at Turkey. These guys know Turkey in and out", remarked Soner Cagaptay, Turkish research program director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

So Turkey is looking for NATO commitment to be demonstrated in defense of one of their own, in accordance with NATO's charter. Playing both ends against the middle, Turkey has valued its NATO membership, rarely acting within that collective as a team player, cognizant of its very particular needs as a country with a history of tyrannical control under the Ottoman Empire of the entire Middle East and beyond, and the benefits that accrue to it as a member of a European self-protection group.