MIDEAST MIRROR 04.06.15, SECTION B (THE ARAB WORLD)
2-The same old story
3-Qatar will not be deflected
Tehran [has] conveyed Russia and Iran's diagnosis of the situation to its allies as follows: Syria remains the main object of the enemies' camp, despite the continuing war of attrition on the Yemeni and Iraqi fronts. Therefore, a counter-offensive in Yemen and Iraq will accelerate the enemy's requests for negotiations and reaching understandings over a settlement for the Yemeni crisis, and over partnership in Iraq's war on ISIS. By contrast, in Syria, there is no room for anything other than overturning the balance without having to wait for compromises. The result was that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were informed that Iran and Russia have decided to go along with the globalization of the war, and will respond to Ankara and Riyadh's volunteers [in Syria] with volunteers, monies with monies, and weapons with weapons. And if armies come to the fore, the response would be by means of armies. After all, Syria is part of Russia and Iran's national security. June will be the month for logistical and battlefield preparations for changing the rules of the game. And we shall soon see the results--Nasser Qandil in Lebanese al-Bina'
The thrill of 'victory' that has possessed the terrorist Nusra Front and its supportive coalition headed by Turkey, may have contributed to raising their morale and the extent of their conceit, leading them to disregard the other side’s potential reactions. For they have ignored ISIS’s 'strategic' advances, whether in Tadmur [Palmyra] which is now threatened with destruction and demolition, or near the Turkish borders where ISIS now controls the border strip that links Syria and Turkey at the Mari' and A'zaz areas. Is this mere coincidence? Or is ISIS preparing to join as a full partner or even lead Jayshul Fateh in order to storm and capture Aleppo, linking it to Idlib as a prelude to partitioning Syria under Turkey's sponsorship and guarantees? At any rate, we will not need to wait long. Matters have reached a boiling point and an explosion seems certain-- Mohammad Kharroub Jordanian al-Ra'i
The [Syrian] regime would collapse [if Assad is removed from power], just as in the case of Saddam Hussein and al-Qadhafi’s regimes. And since there are no civilian and patriotic forces in Syria that can fill the vacuum, the scenario of anarchy and open civil war leading to the country's partition and its submission to extremist terrorist organizations is more likely than any other alternative. Only a political process that makes its way by means of an international (Russian/U.S.) and regional accord can preserve, and even reform, the regime without having to live with 'Assad forever.'... Only such a scenario can provide an opportunity whereby the regime and its institutions can survive without its head and president. Everything else is no more than delusion and suspect scenarios-- 'Urayb ar-Rintawi in Jordanian ad-Dustour
After failing to secure their aims by relying on local Syrian forces and foreign fighters, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and their allies have decided to globalize the war on the Syrian regime and mobilize thousands of 'volunteers' who have invaded Syria from various sides, claims the editor-in-chief of a pro-Damascus Lebanese daily. But Syria's allies are now ready to accept the challenge and globalize their own response to this onslaught in return. The situation in Syria, especially in the north, threatens to slide into an open confrontation between Turkey and Iran, maintains a Jordanian commentator. This is the result of Ankara’s open involvement in the battles in that area, threatening to capture the city of Aleppo and reach the Syrian coastline, which would seriously tip the balance of power in the country. The Syrian regime’s opponents have been seeking a way to decapitate it by removing President Assad from power while preserving the regime and its institutions in place, notes another leading Jordanian commentator. But such a scenario is impossible to achieve unless pursued via a political solution that seeks the gradual replacement of Assad as part of a regional and international accord.
A DIFFICULT TASK: "When the war on Syria was an international war waged by means of domestic tools, Syria was able to bear the burden all on its own, despite the difficulty of the task," writes Editor-in-Chief Nasser Qandil in the pro-Damascus Lebanese daily al-Bina'.
It stood its ground for two years before scenarios in which forces on the ground, media campaigns, psychological war, religious fatwas and intelligence activities were all managed by foreign powers.
When [former UN envoy] Kofi Anan's mission to save Syria failed and Lakhdar Brahimi was summoned to manage al-Qa’ida’s war in his capacity as a UN envoy whose main goal was to pursue the psychological war and offer the Syrian leadership a deal in which it would trade its own safety and step down as a means of ending the war waged by al-Qa’ida, the Syrian state once again stood its ground and endured the hemorrhage and the savagery of the battle. It managed to achieve a miracle with its steadfastness and began to lay the grounds for its victory and counteroffensive. And after loyal parties headed by Hizbollah took its side, this was enough for it to secure major achievements during the following two years.
As the war entered its fifth year, the alliance waging war on Syria went on to a new phase; that of an all-out globalized war. In this globalized war, Syria's northern, southern, and eastern borders were flung open before every mercenary from all around the world willing to fight. Camps were set up in Turkey and Jordan and cover was provided by claiming that they were meant for training a ‘moderate opposition’, even though the U.S. president had already described that opposition as a mere fantasy.
The revived talk of a moderate opposition was not merely meant for media consumption; nor did it indicate any change of mind that such an opposition was mere fantasy. It was intended as a cover for these training camps and for bringing in thousands of fighters who have nothing to do with any Syrian [domestic] opposition – in effect, Turkish 'janissaries' and the Saudis 'camel corps' – via Syria's borders with Jordan and Turkey, and the areas under ISIS's control along the borders with Iraq.
All this occurred as UN Envoy Staffan de Mistura began his preparations for the Geneva Conference to which he expected to receive orders to issue an invitation to the Nusra Front under its new name of Jayshul Fateh. This also coincided with the Saudi war on Yemen that was launched with only three months left of the period for reaching a final deal in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear file. Meanwhile, a clear American decision emerged to invest in ISIS's attacks that aim to hemorrhage both Syria and Iraq, and to provide cover for the Saudi/Turkish/Israeli/Qatari/French effort to rehabilitate the Nusra Front.
The Americans’ wager was that it would be possible to reach the end of the period for negotiations with Iran with the pro-resistance axis in its worst days. Iran and its allies' weakness could then be exploited in order to secure concessions in the nuclear negotiations, and the pressure would continue on Iran to ensure its retreat on all regional fronts. The U.S. would subsequently be able to return to the postponed Ukrainian negotiations in order to impose its terms of submission on Russia.
Consultations were held between the resistance forces– from Hizbollah to Syria to the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) to the Revolutionary Committees in Yemen – and the decision reached was that Syria would not fall, Iraq would not fall, and Yemen would not be humiliated; moreover, al-Ramadi, Tadmur [Palmyra], Jisr ash-Shughour and Idlib would be recaptured; Aden and Sana'a would be preserved; and Dhahran inside Saudi Arabia would be threatened.
This conclusion was conveyed to the Iranian leadership which informed its allies that it was ready to continue its negotiations over the nuclear file but without being hostage to their failure, and that it has begun to prepare for the measures that must be taken on July 1st if the negotiations succeed, and more importantly, those that must be taken if the negotiations were to fail. The Iranian leadership also informed its allies of its decision to back them and share the burdens with them, and that it would cover their financial and armament costs.
After consulting with Moscow, Tehran conveyed Russia and Iran's diagnosis of the situation to its allies as follows: Syria remains the main object of the enemies' camp despite the continuing war of attrition on the Yemeni and Iraqi fronts. Therefore, a counter-offensive in Yemen and Iraq will accelerate the enemy's requests for negotiations and reaching understandings – over a settlement for the Yemeni crisis, and over partnership in Iraq's war on ISIS. By contrast, in Syria, there is no room for anything other than overturning the balance without having to wait for compromises.
The result was that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were informed that Iran and Russia have decided to go along with the globalization of the war and will respond to Ankara and Riyadh's volunteers with volunteers, monies with monies, and weapons with weapons. And if armies come to the fore, the response would be by means of armies. After all, Syria is part of Russia and Iran's national security.
"June will be the month for logistical and battlefield preparations for changing the rules of the game. And we shall soon see the results," concludes Qandil.
SOLEIMANI’S PRESENCE: "The presence of General Qasem Soleimani, the Commander of the Qods Brigade in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in northern Syrian and his remarkable statement – that 'the world will be surprised by what we and the Syrian military commanders are preparing for the coming days' – suggest that the situation in this sensitive border region has still not stabilized in favor of the armed [opposition] groups," writes Mohammad Kharroub in the Jordanian daily al-Ra'i.
These groups have succeeded in taking control of Idlib and Jisr ash-Shughour, and have advanced further towards Ariha and the Mastouma military base, securing significant influence for Jayshul Fateh (which was established by Turkish and certain Arab intelligence agencies) in Idlib Province. This, in turn, has raised fears that the battle may move towards Latakia Province, with all that this implies in terms of its demographic and sectarian Syrian makeup, especially since the armed groups would have reached the Syrian coast which is the major strategic aim of ISIS and its sworn enemy/sister organization the Nusra Front, both of which are on the international list of terrorist organizations.
Those in charge of the Antioch [opposition] operations’ room have been trying to embellish the Nusra's image in order to rehabilitate and legitimize it. For that purpose, they introduced the new formation that they refer to as Jayshul Fatah, even though the Nusra is its main constituent, while its remaining takfiri wings are no more than military décor. And all this alters nothing about the fact that this alleged new faction, which has been artificially cobbled together, is no more than a cover for ‘Sultan’ [Turkish President] Erdogan's desire to dominate Syria and benefit from its geopolitical position, from whence he can expand in the Arab region under false and ridiculous pretexts and claims.
Regardless of General Soleimani's 'controversial' statement, which raises fears, poses questions and gives rise to much speculation, the mere fact that the man has headed to the Syrian north, and Latakia Province in particular, sends a clear message to the players in the region that 'new' rules for the game are beginning to emerge, and that the opposition’s potential expansion towards Homs or Latakia – with talks of moves in the Syrian south to control Der'a Province and block the road to Damascus as a prelude to besieging and storming the capital – would entail an imminent and fundamental change in the existing equations and lineups. And that is something that Tehran will not allow, even if this calls for direct Iranian intervention on the battlefield. This is in addition to reports in the media that is close to the [Iran/Syria/Hizbollah] 'resistance axis' claiming that volunteers from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (residing in Iran) have reached northern Syria and are assuming a role similar to that being played by the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Iraq.
These developments suggest that the situation is about to take a turn towards further escalation that is open to various possibilities and scenarios, with a regional war as one of them. But this is not all; for in light of the talk of a scenario for Aleppo similar to what happened in Idlib (that is most likely to be implemented in first days of Ramadan which is just a few weeks away), Tehran senses that the situation in the Syrian north has reached a point of no-return, and that the red line that it has determined after which it would intervene on the Syrian battleground directly has already been crossed, despite the fact that the main [regional] players had been careful not to cross it for over four years.
Turkey, which is preparing for the June 7th parliamentary elections, is also cautious about sliding towards war with Iran after the battle of Idlib and what happened afterwards, has revealed the depth of its involvement in this 'achievement.' This has exerted unprecedented pressure on Damascus leading to much talk and wishful thinking, with many of those who hate the Syrian regime and support the terrorist and takfiri organizations coming out with expectations and predictions bordering on prophecies about its inevitable consequences. These are similar to their 'prophecies' in the first months of the crisis in 2011 to the effect that the regime's days were numbered and that their entry into Damascus was only a matter of time.
In fact, the emergence of Nusra Front head Abu-Mohammad al-Fateh al-Jawlani on an Arab satellite television station [Qatar’s al-Jazeera] to boast that his next move will be towards Damascus and not [the Alawite heartland] Qirdaha or Latakia, was just one part of this coordinated and rabid media campaign. This campaign is designed to promote fake or exaggerated victories, deliberately ignoring the balance of power and the reactions of Syria's allies and backers, turning a blind eye to the catastrophic results that await Syria, its people, state, and social fabric [should the takfiri groups win the war on the regime].
So where do we go from here?
The thrill of 'victory' that has possessed the terrorist Nusra Front and its supportive coalition headed by Turkey, may have contributed to raising their morale and the extent of their conceit, leading them to disregard the other side’s potential reactions. For they have ignored ISIS’s 'strategic' advances, whether in Tadmur [Palmyra] which is now threatened with destruction and demolition, or near the Turkish borders where ISIS now controls the border strip that links Syria and Turkey at the Mari' and A'zaz areas.
Is this mere coincidence? Or is ISIS preparing to join as a full partner or even lead Jayshul Fateh in order to storm and capture Aleppo, linking it to Idlib as a prelude to partitioning Syria under Turkey's sponsorship and guarantees?
"At any rate, we will not need to wait long. Matters have reached a boiling point and an explosion seems certain, especially if we take into consideration Iranian President Hassan Rowhani's statements on Tuesday that ‘some states are miscalculating and imagining that the terrorist elements can be a tool that they can always use to achieve their aims; but Iran will stand on the Syrian government and people's side till the very end’," concludes Kharroub.
AN OLD THEORY: "Syria's enemies' political and military actions are based on the view that it is necessary to preserve the Syrian regime and its institutions, including its military and security institutions, but without Assad," notes 'Urayb ar-Rintawi in the leading Jordanian daily ad-Dustour.
It is an old theory, as old as the Syrian crisis itself. It receded over the past two years, especially after the [U.S./Russian 2013] 'chemical weapons deal', but it has now been revived, as the Syrian crisis enters its fifth year to the pace the recent leadership changes in Saudi Arabia and the outbreak of Operation Decisive Storm and Operation Restore Hope [in Yemen].
We say it is an old theory that has accompanied the Syrian crisis ever since its outbreak, but especially when the [peaceful] revolution faded and the country entered the phase of militarization and armament. Every state in the Friends of Syria (FOS) grouping has tried hard to topple Assad, no door was left without being knocked, and no labyrinth was left without exploring its hidden pathways, all in search for a way to rid the regime of its head. But all these efforts met with utter failure, which forced the West – or at least some parts of it – to begin to review its positions and policies, reaching a climax with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s famous statement in which he denied any possibility that Assad had no role in Syria's future.
Today, and to the tempo of the past three months’ dramatic developments on the ground, these efforts have been revived. The promotion of this slogan/theory has begun to assume an intense aggressive character. Washington has resumed its talk of the need to ensure that Assad is out of the picture. The Saudi foreign minister has been advertising an Egyptian/Saudi agreement to preserve the regime after decapitating it.
But so far, no one knows how this slogan can be translated into action. Even those who advocate it most fervently cannot tell us how they will do this. Will they arrange a coup on some moonless night? Did they not try this before to no avail? Do they expect a revolt against Assad from inside the narrow circle surrounding him? Are they waiting for someone to carry out what may be described as the most important assassination in the region's modern history, but also, perhaps, as the most costly such operation? No one is providing any answers.
Washington knows what it does not want in Syria. It does not want the terrorist and extremist organizations to control the country and turn it into a second Libya, from whence they can base themselves to threaten its security and that of its allies in the region and the world. Saudi Arabia also knows what it does not want in Syria; in short, it does not want Assad to remain in power for even one more day. Turkey also does not want Assad, even though it also wants Syria as a 'vital space' for its trade and industry, and a backyard for its new sultans. But, once again, no one knows how to affect this outcome.
A regime such as the Syrian regime built half-a-century ago on individual leadership and the rule of the single, inspiring and inspired leader, is closer in structure to the 'Sinmar theory' of architecture. Sinmar [mythical Arab architect] built a unique castle for a tyrant who was astonished by its excellence. The architect was so proud of his achievement that he went on to display his abilities before the ruler, revealing the secret of a stone, which if removed, would cause the entire castle to collapse. The ruler then asked the architect whether he had revealed this secret to anyone else. When the architect answered that he had not, he ordered him to be thrown from the top of the castle, paying the price for his exceptional abilities.
In short, Assad is the 'Sinmar stone' of the existing Syrian regime. In this, it resembles all absolute regimes ruled by a single individual. If removed from his place without prior arrangement or preparation, the entire edifice will collapse, leaving the whole of Syria as a vacuum that will most probably be filled by extremist and terrorist Islamist forces, such those we know and have become notorious.
There is not the slightest guarantee for any scenario other than this. To avoid this outcome and steer clear from squandering all their gains in Syria, Moscow and Tehran are trying to avoid this 'Sinmar scenario.' Moscow has brought us the glad tidings of greater agreement with Washington, although we do not know which of the two capitals has moved closer to the other. As for Tehran, ever since Operation Decisive Storm, it has been threatening that the Syrian crisis would take a new direction, while General Qasem Soleimani has promised us surprises of the heavyweight variety.
Washington, meanwhile, is lost between the pressures of its traditional allies who want Assad toppled, and its own interests and calculations that indicate that the priority should be given to fighting ISIS. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are all heading towards the 'Sinmar scenario,' even if the outcome would be the regime's fall, the collapse of its institutions, and Syria’s transformation into another Somalia, not even another Libya.
As for Egypt, the other major Arab player, it is without an effective independent 'foreign policy.' It oscillates between its traditional point of view that expresses its interests and its understanding of the Syrian scene on the one hand, and the pressures of the largest Gulf donor [Saudi Arabia] on the economy of the region's 'sick man', on the other.
I believe that such a scenario is extremely unlikely, not to say impossible, in the Syrian case. Most likely, the regime would collapse [if Assad is removed from power], just as in the case of Saddam Hussein and al-Qadhafi’s regimes. And since there are no civilian and patriotic forces in Syria that can fill the vacuum, the scenario of anarchy and open civil war leading to the country's partition and its submission to extremist terrorist organizations is more likely than any other alternative.
Only a political process that makes its way by means of an international (Russian/U.S.) and regional accord can preserve, and even reform, the regime without having to live with 'Assad forever.' That would be a gradual process that begins by transferring powers to a transitional government and that ends in presidential elections in which Assad does not take part, and that can be held either early or at the end of his current term.
"Only such a scenario can provide an opportunity whereby the regime and its institutions can survive without its head and president. Everything else is no more than delusions and suspect scenarios," concludes Rintawi.
2-The same old story
PA PM Hamdallah’s interview with the Washington Post suggests that the Palestinian leadership is about to embark on the same failed negotiations policy as before, says Ahmad Jamil 'Azm in Jordanian al-Ghad
The Palestinian PM’s recent statements indicate that the Palestinian leadership is ready to resume negotiations with Israel while postponing its plans to head to international legal bodies to take action against Israeli violations of international law, notes a Palestinian commentator. But there is nothing to suggest that the outcome of this policy will be any different to that of its predecessors.
UNEXPECTED REVELATION: "In an interview with The Washington Post, Palestinian PM Rami al-Hamdallah has unexpectedly revealed what may explain the relative stalemate and silence that have enveloped the Palestinian cause," writes Ahmad Jamil 'Azm in the Jordanian daily al-Ghad.
He said: 'we have had certain assurances from the United States that, they will resume the negotiations between us and the Israelis after the Iranian deal. We count on the [United] States and are sure it will deliver.' So, the Palestinian leadership is waiting for the American promise to be fulfilled.
Rami al-Hamdallah did not openly say that there is an agreement with the Americans to postpone the Palestinians' plans to head to international courts, the UN and other international bodies. But the logic of his statements as well as events on the ground – the sluggish pace of moves on the international arena – suggest that a diplomatic tahdi'a [lull or calming down] is underway, in tandem with the tahdi'a on the battlefield.
As a result, the following question becomes justified: Was the Israelis' release of Palestinian monies after the last Knesset elections part of these same arrangements? And have these silent and implicit arrangements been made without any formal agreement, or are they part of clear and officially formulated agreements and contacts?
What al-Hamdallah has revealed is that part of what is happening, at least, is based on waiting for the American promise to be fulfilled. And while taking into consideration the manner in which the different powers are distributed in the Palestinian system such that the PM does not have much say in the negotiation and political process but may nevertheless be informed of the decision-making process– Hamdallah is saying that negotiations can be resumed if a resolution is adopted by the UN or if an international promise is made that a plan will be adopted that specifies a clear date for ending the occupation and establishing the Palestinian state.
This leaves us with the question: Is the Israelis' acceptance of this resolution or plan a precondition for starting the negotiations? There is no clear answer to this question in the interview. The text suggests more that the Palestinian side is ready to accept international guarantees as sufficient for launching the negotiations, without making Israel's acceptance a precondition of this.
Hamdallah says that a French initiative is being prepared in coordination with the U.S. and with 'talk of a time limit.' He adds that a 'U.N. resolution can be issued, which would set a timeframe to end the occupation and establish a state along the ’67 borders. If issued, I’m sure we can go back to negotiations.' And he goes on to say: 'Whether it is through the French initiative or any other, we [want to] a guarantee for a timetable for the Israeli withdrawal and the establishment of the state and a freeze of Israeli settlement activities.'
Two issues are at stake here. The first, which is the more difficult, is to freeze settlement activities. The second requires some international party to come up with a resolution or initiatives that specifies a timetable. But what is absent from Hamdallah's statements is any mention that the international resolution should be accepted by Israel before negotiations begin. It naturally goes without saying that a settlement freeze requires direct Israeli consent.
The main problem in Dr. Hamdallah's statements is that this scenario has often been repeated in the past – that is to say, that the Palestinians are being called upon to wait until the preoccupation with some other regional file ends. This occurred during the Iraq/Kuwait war, which was followed by the (1991) Madrid Conference. It also occurred after the Second Gulf War (2003) when the Roadmap initiative was launched that referred to a Palestinian state, the formation of an International Quartet, and a specific date for the establishment of the state, namely, 2005, ten years ago. So how does what Hamdallah present as the Palestinian leadership's position differ from the Roadmap? And why should the outcome be any different? Is this not the same old pattern as before?
Hamdallah relies on American and international pressure on Israel. The newspaper asked him: 'you think the outside pressure on Israel will be enough?" And he answered: ' Yes, I think the intervention of the U.N. and the great powers is important to convince Israel to reach a peaceful settlement.' But given that he did not offer any indication that the U.S. intends to exert real economic or military pressure on Israel or to reduce its military backing for it for that matter, and given that all European policies call for a reduction and ending cooperation with Israel when it comes to settlements alone, but not regarding other matters, the Palestinian PM's optimism seems questionable. Is there really anything there to justify it?
What prevents the Palestinians from persisting with their plans to seek international organizations' help, mending the domestic Palestinian household, and especially the PLO, and escalating popular resistance, while at the same time waiting for international initiatives? After all, Israeli polices, especially settlement policies wait for nothing. And the Palestinians’ suffering continues unabated.
"And when the U.S. reaches an agreement with Iran, it will have fewer reasons to worry about what is happening in the Middle East or to intensify its pressure on Binyamin Netanyahu," concludes 'Azm.
3-Qatar will not be deflected
Qatar is determined to pursue its efforts to host the 2022 World Cup despite all the hostile racist media campaigns, says today’s Qatari Asharq
The attempts to deny Qatar the right to host the 2022 World Cup are motivated by racism and anti-Islamic sentiment, insists the editorial in a Qatari daily. But Doha will proceed with its preparations for the World Cup without paying attention to these detestable campaigns.
RACIST CAMPAIGN: "The racist campaign by international forces that have found it hard to accept that an Arab and Muslim country has won the honor of organizing the 2022 World Cup coincides with what Qatar is suffering regionally and internationally for its defense of the causes of freedom and human rights, and for its support for the persecuted and wretched around the world," writes the editorial in Thursday's Qatari daily Asharq.
It is 'impossible' to deny Qatar its right to organize the 2022 World Cup – this was the expression used by Qatari Foreign Minister Dr. Khalid bin Mohammad Al Attiyah to summarize Qatar’s response to the rabid campaign against the state and its positions that aim to build a tolerant and just world, free from detestable racism and fanaticism.
Qatar deservedly won the honor of organizing the most important sports competition in the world. It presented the best offers – football grounds and sports institutions – that will secure the competition’s success. At the same time, it stressed that the state will ensure that no mistakes will occur when the time comes, and that work on the construction sites for 2022 World Cup are proceeding according to plan. Five million working hours on these projects have been completed so far without any deaths, which undermines the claims made in certain media, that the state has stressed are far from the truth.
It is wrong to misrepresent the statistical data. Certain elements of the international media have done so deliberately by obfuscating certain reports and drawing misleading conclusions based on unfounded suspicions. They have misrepresented a report by the World Health Organization that predicted possible deaths resulting from heart and arterial diseases that could afflict human beings anywhere in the world, not just in Qatar alone. And they have emerged with a deceptive conclusion based on predictions regarding the years it would take to construct the World Cup's installations. They thereby placed the carriage before the horse and extrapolated into the future before any problem has occurred, in what is a reversal of logic, understanding, and the rules of inference.
Qatar will proceed with its preparations and installations for the 2022 World Cup without paying any heed to the obstructions raised by the obstructers or the defeatists’ attempts to weaken its will, or to the conspiracies by powers hostile to the Arabs and Muslims around the world.
"In doing so, it is motivated by its deep-rooted faith in the need for spreading the values of justice, tolerance, and humanity around the entire globe," concludes the daily.
Copyright: Mideast Mirror.
This email is intended for the recipient only.
Access to this message by any other person is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely upon this email.
The materials available through Mideast Mirror are the property of Alef Publishing Ltd or its licensors, are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws.
Mideast Mirror - Alef Publishing Ltd.
Tel: 020 7052 96 00
Fax: 020 7052 96 09
Editorial and Enquiries:
Tel: ++ 44 773 4426 113