Dear Family & Friends,

Amid so many ‘bad news & tough analyses’ tonight, appears one very bright star: Israel ranked 18th in the world on UN Human Development Index. Is ‘18’ for Chai? It should be. Some of the measuring parameters that put Israel up so high include: greater longevity, higher infant survival rates, higher education rates & number of years of education predicted for children in the next generation!!! These figures should be broadcast to the whole Jewish world to encourage their Aliya from countries in chaos big time or just trouble small time. Please note that, while it usually only castigates our Jewish State, this is the UN featuring Israel’s strengths!

The moon is growing! Have a great night & terrific day, with a wonderful Shabbat!

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x 2/Mom

1.Israel ranked 18th in the world on UN Human Development Index

3.Busted Samaria terror cell led by Hezb’Allah chief’s son, Jouad Nasrallah

4.CNN Erases Israel From the Map from Honest Reporting

6.Sanders lashes out at Clinton in contentious Democratic debate

7.End of Europe? Berlin, Brussels’ shock tactic on migrants

8.Sweden’s Afghan “Rapefugees” by Ingrid Carlqvist
9.Learning the lessons of the past by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror 12/11/15

Israel has secured the No. 18 ranking on this year’s Human Development Index, a United Nations tool that measures world economies. The index uses a number of parameters to rank the quality of life in various countries. This year, Israel came out ahead of Japan (ranked 20th), Belgium (21), France (22), Austria (23), Finland (24), Slovenia (25), Spain (26), and Italy (27).

The country that earned the top ranking for its quality of life was Norway, followed by Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Ireland, the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore.

Many of the countries ranked below Israel have a per capita gross domestic product that is higher than Israel’s. According to the index, for example, the per capita GDP in Israel stands at $30,600, compared to Belgium, with $41,200.

However, per capita GDP is only part of the equation. The index also examines the number of years of education; the number of infant mortalities during birth; and the number of years of education predicted for children of the next generation.

The countries ranked last on the index were Nigeria, followed by other African countries like Eritrea (186), Chad (185), and Burundi (184). Most Middle East nations were not given high rankings, with Egypt at 108 on the index; Jordan at 80; and Lebanon at 67. Iran was ranked 69th. The Palestinian Authority, considered a country by the U.N., was ranked 113th, between Paraguay and Uzbekistan. China was assigned the 90th place on the index, but Hong Kong, an autonomous entity within China, was ranked 12th on the index, several places above Israel.

2.US backs EU’s resolution dividing Israel

State Dept. slams ‘illegitimate settlement activity’ in backing anti-Israel move, reiterates support of EU labeling Jewish products. By Ari Yashar Arutz Sheva IsraelNationalNews.com Publish: 1/20/2016,

US State Department spokesperson John Kirby on Tuesday indicated the Obama administration supports the European Union’s (EU) controversial resolution on Monday, according to which EU agreements with Israel no longer apply over the 1949 Armistice lines.

Kirby’s statements, in response to the questions of Associated Press reporter Matt Lee, can be seen starting at 44:50 in the video below. “Our longstanding position on settlements is clear. We view Israeli settlement activity as illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause of peace. We remain deeply concerned about Israel’s current policy on settlements, including construction, planning, and retroactive legalizations,” said Kirby. The spokesperson added that, “the US government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements, because administrations from both parties have long recognized that settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines and efforts to change the facts on the ground undermine prospects for a two-state solution. We are no different.”

Ironically the EU has been changing facts on the ground by funding illegal Arab settlements in Area C of Judea and Samaria, an array of regions designated by the 1994 Oslo Accords to be under full Israeli administration.

In response to Kirby’s statements, Lee sought to clarify whether he meant the US has “no issue” with the EU decision to no longer apply its agreements with Israel in the Jewish Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria, to which Kirby indicated there is no American opposition.

He also reiterated the administration’s support for the EU decision last November to label Jewish products from Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights.

“We do not view labeling the origin of products as being from the settlements a boycott of Israel. We also do not believe that labeling the origin of products is equivalent to a boycott,” said Kirby.

In December the EU double-standard in the move was put on display as a top European court struck down a trade deal with Morocco in the occupied Western Sahara, and the EU responded by petitioning the ruling.

Legal experts revealed the ruling undermines the EU’s claims that its labeling of Israel and taking other punitive actions are due to a principle of “non-recognition,” since the court decision shows that it can and does do business with “occupiers.”

Regarding the legal status of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, and consequentially of products from the region and agreements in it, the 2012 Levy Report proved that Israel’s presence is legal according to international law.

However, despite being commissioned by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, two consecutive coalition governments led by him have yet to adopt the findings of the report.

US backs EU’s resolution dividing Israel

Five suspects, including two with prison records, arrested in Samaria before they could carry out shooting attack • Cell took orders from Jouad Nasrallah • Members were enlisted online • Shin Bet: Hezbollah trying unsuccessfully to gain traction. By Lilach Shoval and Israel Hayom Staff

Cooperation between the Shin Bet security agency, the Israel Defense Forces and the Israel Police thwarted a shooting attack that was planned by a terrorist cell in the Tulkarem area headed by Mahmoud Zaalul, who was taking orders from Hezb’Allah. Five of the cell members suspected of involvement in terrorist activity were arrested.

When the suspects were interrogated, the Shin Bet discovered that Jouad Nasrallah, son of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, had used the Internet to enlist Zaalul, a Palestinian from Tulkarem.

Zaalul reported directly to a Hezbollah operative named “Fadi,” who instructed him to open an email account. After doing so, Zaalul received instructions to enlist other cell members and work on collecting information to be used to plan terrorist attacks.

The cell was instructed, among other things, to set up a secret network according to certain parameters, via which they eventually received instructions to execute attacks using explosives belts, train suicide bombers, collect information about training camps, and more.

The suspects were also instructed to keep tabs on and collect information about security forces operating in the area. Cell members requested assistance from Hezb’Allah in acquiring weapons and money to carry out the attack.

To that end, Hezb’Allah transferred $5,000 to the cell in the form of foreign currency transfers.

Two of the suspects — Muhammad Massawareh and Ahmed Abu al-Az — bought weapons from Zaalul with the intention of attacking Israeli security forces, but were arrested in possession of the weapons before they could act on their plan. The weapons were surrendered during their interrogation.

The five cell members arrested were Zaalul, 33, a resident of Zita near Tulkarem, who was imprisoned from 2001 to 2005; Rabah Labdi, 29, a resident of Zita who was in prison from 2002 to 2007 and again from 2008 to 2011; Muhammad Zaalul, 20, also from Zita; Massawarah, 20, of Tulkarem; and al-Az, 20, also a resident of Tulkarem.

The Shin Bet said that in recent years, Hezb’Allah’s Unit 133 had tried, unsuccessfully, to establish a terrorist base in the area, and that the move to set up a cell that would carry out a terrorist attack in Israel was another such attempt that had been foiled by the Shin Bet and the IDF. The Shin Bet said it was extremely unusual that a cell acting under the auspices of Hezb’Allah had tried to carry out a terrorist attack.

“The Hezb’Allah organization is trying to latch onto the wave of terrorism flooding Israel recently and is working vigorously to fan the flames, contributing to the growing incitement by exploiting the Palestinian population and tempting young people to carry out terrorist attacks under its instruction for payment,” the Shin Bet said.

“The organization is using remote enlistment and handling of terrorist cells over the Internet with the goal of perpetrating terrorist acts from afar, without leaving a signature,” the Shin Bet said.

The suspects have been indicted in a Samaria military court on counts that included membership in an illegal organization; contact with the enemy; funneling enemy funds into the region; intent and involvement in manslaughter; weapons dealing; intent to shoot at people; and interfering with legal proceedings.

UPDATE

Following the publication of this post and the complaints of many HonestReporting subscribers, CNN has removed the map in question & replaced it with an image of the aftermath of a Syrian airstrike in Aleppo. While we question how the error occurred at all, nonetheless we commend CNN for taking prompt action.

* * *

As the year draws to a close, CNN Money looks ahead focusing on “Beyond ISIS: 2016’s scariest geopolitical hot spots.” Unsurprisingly, Syria and the Middle East features. But look at the map above that CNN has chosen to accompany the text.

Israel has been wiped from the map and instead replaced with “Palestina,” a Spanish or Portuguese translation of Palestine. The image was taken from Getty Images’ iStock and is not a creation of CNN’s graphics team.

Clearly, however, somebody at CNN selected this image out of all the potential images that could have been chosen to illustrate the Middle East. Therefore, it should be easy to replace with a less provocative image.

HonestReporting Managing Editor Simon Plosker adds:

5.Congressman demands Kerry reject US envoy’s criticism of Israel

Peter Roskam says Dan Shapiro’s ‘troubling’ remarks will only serve to ’empower’ those who seek to ‘delegitimize and marginalize’ Israel. By Cynthia Blank First Publish: 1/20/2016, 10:06 PM

Dan Shapiro photo:Miriam Alster/ Flash 90

Several days after US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro ignited a diplomatic firestorm with his criticism of Israel, US Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry urging him to adamantly reject the envoy’s statements.

In his remarks before the Institute for National Security Studies conference on Monday, Shapiro blasted Israel’s policy on “settlements,” openly casting doubt on the Jewish state’s to desire to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

According to Roskam, these “troubling” remarks not only “do not reflect reality,” but also serve to “empower those who wish to delegitimize and marginalize the Jewish State.”

Roskam noted that Shapiro made the statements on the same day terror victim Dafna Meir was buried – and as Shapiro was “wrongly castigating Israel on the world stage,” Palestinian leaders were “unabashedly praising Dafna’s killers.”

“Perpetuating falsities and placing undue and disproportionate blame on Israel for the stalled peace process is a harmful distraction from ongoing Palestinian terrorist attacks, which, ultimately, make peace harder to achieve,” Roskam blasted.

Listing numerous times since its founding that Israel had offered concessions for peace, Roskam asserted it was a “robust US-Israel relationship” that provided Israeli leaders the “confidence” to make such sacrifices.

“Now more than ever, the United States must unequivocally stand with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East,” he continued, adding that displays like Shapiro’s only served to weaken that relationship and “inhibit peace efforts.”

“Ambassador Shapiro’s troubling remarks are counterproductive and wrong,” he concluded. “I encourage you to reject these misguided comments and reaffirm our unbreakable support for Israel.”

Congressman demands Kerry reject US envoy’s criticism of Israel

6.Sanders lashes out at Clinton in contentious Democratic debate Charleston, S.C. | By John Whitesides & Amanda Becker Mon 1/18/16 6:50am EST Reuters

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) and rival candidate U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (R) speak simultaneously at the NBC News – YouTube Democratic presidential candidates debate in Charleston, South Carolina January 17, 2016.

REUTERS/RANDALL HILL . SAP IS THE SPONSOR OF THIS COVERAGE WHICH IS INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCED BY THE STAFF OF REUTERS NEWS AGENCY.

Democratic White House candidate Bernie Sanders went on the offensive against front-runner Hillary Clinton on Sunday in the most contentious of their four presidential debates, accusing her of cozying up to Wall Street and misrepresenting his stance on healthcare and guns.

Reflecting Sanders’ rise in opinion polls, the two battled with new urgency over who was best suited to lead Democrats in the November election. Sanders cast himself as the outsider who would lead a political revolution, while Clinton touted her experience and embraced President Barack Obama’s legacy.

In their last televised debate before Iowa’s caucuses launch the nominating race on Feb. 1, Clinton raised questions about the self-styled democratic socialist’s positions on Wall Street reform, healthcare and gun control.

Sanders pushed back at every turn. He painted Clinton as a defender of the status quo who accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees as a former secretary of state from Wall Street backers.

“I don’t take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs,” the U.S. senator from Vermont said, adding, “I have huge doubts when people receive money from Wall Street.”

He referred to his rising poll numbers in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where he has pulled even or ahead of Clinton, saying he believed he could expand his number of supporters to include more African-American voters. He noted that when his presidential campaign began, Clinton was 50 percentage points ahead of him in the polls.

“Guess what: In Iowa, New Hampshire, the race is (now) very, very close,” Sanders said.

The debate followed a week of rising tension between the two leading candidates. Sanders was noticeably more animated that in previous debates, sometimes grimacing and shaking his head during Clinton’s answers.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who lags badly in polls, was often a bystander although he joined Sanders in criticizing Clinton’s Wall Street ties.

Clinton said she would build on Obama’s agenda, accusing Sanders of voting to deregulate the financial market in 2000 in a way that led to the central causes of the financial collapse of 2008 that pitched the U.S. economy into a deep recession.

Clinton tried to undercut Sanders’ support among supporters of Obama, who remains a popular figure in the Democratic Party.

“He’s criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street. And President Obama has led our country out of the Great Recession,” she said.

“Senator Sanders called him weak, disappointing, he even in 2011 publicly sought someone to run in a primary against President Obama.”

HEALTHCARE SPAT

Clinton pounced on Sanders’ “Medicare-for-all” plan that was announced just hours before the debate after Clinton had criticized Sanders for refusing to explain how he would pay for the proposal.

The former secretary of state, former U.S. senator and wife of former President Bill Clinton said Sanders’ healthcare plan would undermine Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act at a time when Republican legislators were still trying to repeal and replace it.

“I have to say I’m not sure whether we’re talking about the plan you introduced tonight or the plan you introduced nine times over 20 years,” she told Sanders. “But the fact is we have the Affordable Care Act. … We have already seen 19 million Americans get insurance.”

Sanders said he wanted to build on the Obama law by making health insurance more affordable.

“Nobody is tearing this up,” he said, referring to the program popularly known as Obamacare. “We’re moving forward.”

The debate was held across the street from the Charleston church where a white gunman killed nine black worshippers in June, and Clinton made reference to the incident while accusing Sanders of being weak on gun control.

She welcomed his decision on Saturday night to back a bill in Congress rescinding portions of a law giving gunmakers immunity from lawsuits, but said his record showed a more lenient attitude toward the demands of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby.

Sanders defended himself, saying he has a strong record on trying to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands and standing up to the NRA.

Sanders supporters watching in Manchester, New Hampshire, said he seemed more engaged than in past debates. “I thought that Bernie was much more prepared,” Chris Haigh, 66, said.

Sanders has pulled into a statistical tie with Clinton in recent polls in Iowa, whose caucuses are the first contest in the race to pick a nominee for the November election. He also leads Clinton in the next state to vote, Vermont neighbor New Hampshire, on Feb. 9, according to polls.

After those two states, the race moves to Nevada and South Carolina, which have more diverse voting populations and where polls show Clinton leading. On March 1, or “Super Tuesday”, voters in 11 states, many of them in the South where Clinton has big poll leads, will cast primary ballots.

(Additional reporting by Alana Wise & Luciana Lopez; Writing by Steve Holland & John Whitesides; Editing by Mary Milliken & Jonathan Oatis)

SAP is the sponsor of this coverage which is independently produced by the staff of Reuters News Agency.

7.End of Europe? Berlin, Brussels’ shock tactic on migrants BRUSSELS/BERLIN | BY Alastair Macdonald & Noah Barkin

World | Mon 1/18/16 2:04pm EST Related: WORLD, MIGRANT CRISIS

Migrants queue to enter a tent that serves as a waiting room at the Berlin Office of Health and Social Affairs (LAGESO), in Berlin, Germany, Jan, 5, 2016.

REUTERS/HANNIBAL HANSCHKE

Is this how “Europe” ends?

The Germans, founders and funders of the postwar union, shut their borders to refugees in a bid for political survival by the chancellor who let in a million migrants. And then — why not? — they decide to revive the Deutschmark while they’re at it.

That is not the fantasy of diehard Euro-sceptics but a real fear articulated at the highest levels in Berlin and Brussels.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, her ratings hit by crimes blamed on asylum seekers at New Year parties in Cologne, and EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker both said as much last week.

Juncker echoed Merkel in warning that the central economic achievements of the common market and the euro are at risk from incoherent, nationalistic reactions to migration and other crises. He renewed warnings that Europe is on its “last chance”, even if he still hoped it was not “at the beginning of the end”.

Merkel, facing trouble among her conservative supporters as much as from opponents, called Europe “vulnerable” and the fate of the euro “directly linked” to resolving the migration crisis — highlighting the risk of at the very least serious economic turbulence if not a formal dismantling of EU institutions.

Some see that as mere scare tactics aimed at fellow Europeans by leaders with too much to lose from an EU collapse — Greeks and Italians have been seen to be dragging their feet over controlling the bloc’s Mediterranean frontier and eastern Europeans who benefit from German subsidies and manufacturing supply chain jobs have led hostility to demands that they help take in refugees.

Germans are also getting little help from EU co-founder France, whose leaders fear a rising anti-immigrant National Front, or the bloc’s third power, Britain, consumed with its own debate on whether to just quit the European club altogether.

So, empty threat or no, with efforts to engage Turkey’s help showing little sign yet of preventing migrants reaching Greek beaches, German and EU officials are warning that without a sharp drop in arrivals or a change of heart in other EU states to relieve Berlin of the lonely task of housing refugees, Germany could shut its doors, sparking wider crisis this spring.

GERMAN WARNINGS

With Merkel’s conservative allies in the southern frontier state of Bavaria demanding she halt the mainly Muslim asylum seekers ahead of tricky regional elections in March, her veteran finance minister delivered one of his trademark veiled threats to EU counterparts of what that could mean for them.

“Many think this is a German problem,” Wolfgang Schaeuble said in meetings with fellow EU finance ministers in Brussels. “But if Germany does what everyone expects, then we’ll see that it’s not a German problem — but a European one.”

Senior Merkel allies are working hard to stifle the kind of parliamentary party rebellion that threatened to derail bailouts which kept Greece in the euro zone last year. But pressure is mounting for national measures, such as border fences, which as a child of East Germany Merkel has said she cannot countenance.

“If you build a fence, it’s the end of Europe as we know it,” one senior conservative said. “We need to be patient.”

A senior German official noted that time is running out, however.

“The chancellor has been asking her party for more time,” he said. “But … that narrative … is losing the persuasiveness it may have had in October or November. If you add in the debate about Cologne, she faces an increasingly difficult situation.”

He noted that arrivals had not fallen sharply over the winter months as had been expected.

“You can only imagine what happens when the weather improves,” he said.

SCHENGEN FEARS

Merkel and Juncker explicitly linked new national frontier controls across Europe’s passport-free Schengen zone to a collapse of the single market at the core of the bloc, and of the euro. Both would ravage jobs and the economy.

“Without Schengen … the euro has no point,” Juncker told a New Year news conference on Friday. Historic national resentments were re-emerging, he added, accusing his generation of EU leaders of squandering the legacy of the union’s founders, survivors of World War Two.

Merkel has not suggested — yet — that Berlin could follow neighbors like Austria and Denmark in further tightening border checks to deny entry to irregular migrants. But she has made clear how Europe might suffer.

“No one can pretend that you can have a common currency without being able to cross borders relatively easily,” she said at a business event last week.

In private, German officials are more explicit. “We have until March, the summer maybe, for a European solution,” said a second German official. “Then Schengen goes down the drain.”

A senior EU official was equally blunt: “There is a big risk that Germany closes. From that, no Schengen … There is a risk that the February summit could start a countdown to the end.”

The next summit of EU leaders one month from now follows meetings last year that were marked by agreement on a migration strategy as well as rows over failures to implement it.

Of the 160,000 asylum seekers EU leaders agreed in September to distribute among member states, fewer than 300 have been moved.

Berlin and Brussels continue to press for more distribution across Europe. But few place much hope in that — one senior German official calls it “flogging a dead horse”.

TURKISH KEY

EU leaders’ hope is for help from Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, a man many of them see as an embryonic dictator.

Berlin is pressing for more EU cash for Ankara, beyond an agreed 3 billion euros, which Italy is blocking. Some Germans suggest simply using German funds to stem the flow from Turkey.

EU officials say it is too early to panic. Arrivals have fallen this month. U.N. data show them running in January at half the 3,500 daily rate of December. Progress includes a move to let some of the 2.1 million Syrian refugees in Turkey take jobs. The EU will fund more schools for refugee children.

Yet EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, who travels to Berlin on Monday, told the European Parliament last week: “The situation is getting worse.”

The refugee crisis was jeopardizing “the very core of the European Union”, he said, offering no grounds to be optimistic other than that “optimism is our last line of our defense”.

(Additional reporting by Gabriela Baczynska, Paul Taylor and Tom Koerkemeier in Brussels; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)

History tends to repeat itself, but never in the same exact way • Given the unique nature of the Jewish state, Middle East dynamics, and the complex threats posed by Iran and regional terrorists groups, Israel must always be ready to defend itself.

Hanukkah is a good time for historic reflection. While it is hard to juxtapose events that took place 2,200 years ago with current affairs, there is still no better teacher for present events and future potential than history, especially if you understand not only the similarities, but differences, as well.

Tradition teaches us that the Maccabean revolt erupted over the fact that the rulers of the Greek Empire’s Syrian province attempted to force their cultural and religious customs on the people of Judea. While many Jews accepted Hellenistic influences on Jewish life, an adamant core group, led by the Hasmonean dynasty, opposed the rulers’ coercion and embarked on a war that lasted several years, eventually liberating their small stretch of land.

Still, the Hasmonean’s reign was short-lived, coming to a brutal end some 200 years later. Judea was overrun by the Roman Empire and, following a series of failed revolts, the Jews were expelled from their land, spending the next 2,000 years in exile. Independence was regained only 68 years ago, by our parents’ brave generation.

While history tends to repeat itself, it never does so in the same exact way. While the Maccabean revolt saved the Jewish people form Hellenistic assimilation, the rebellions against the Romans, especially the Bar Kokhba revolt, ended in actual catastrophe.

The nature of historical repetition teaches us that we must learn the lessons of the past: A small nation must be able and ready to defend itself. Moreover, given how unique Jewish religion and culture are, we have to consider the possibility that there will be those who try to undermine the Jewish state’s independent existence because of its Jewish nature.

This is why we must ask ourselves, how ready is Israel for the challenges ahead, and what will the nature of future threats entail? The world we live in and the tumultuous dynamics of the Middle East have proven that the future is full of surprises, but we still have to define the main issues Israel’s security and force-building efforts face. We have to account for the possibility that an unforeseen and unavoidable diplomatic development will surface, one Israel will have no say in, but will have to deal with in the long-run.

From a practical standpoint, it seems the many different problems Israel may face already have the defense establishment’s undivided attention, so we have to define the precise nature of potential threats, so to prioritize resources and efforts. This is not an easy decision to make. It requires foresight, a willingness to take calculated risks, and the resilience to face the consequences should they prove negative.

Israel is a small country bearing a colossal security burden, which should not be unnecessarily increased. On the other hand, narrowing the scope of threats entails its own set of risks, and therefore demands great caution. Each threat should be scrutinized and assessed independently, as hysterical interpretations of complex situations will be nothing but a waste of time and energy, and may disperse efforts best focused otherwise. This may leave Israel lacking in information and answers at critical junctures, when threats must be met head-on.

It seems that today, and in the foreseeable future, Israel should focus on unfamiliar threats. Substantial enemy armies are no longer part of the threat equation: The Iraqi army, which fought the IDF during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, has all but evaporated; the Syrian army is more dead than alive; and the Egyptian and Jordanian armies are busy protecting their respective countries and regimes from the threat posed by the Islamic State group.

Israel is left to contend with two types of enemies: Iran & the various terrorist groups in the region. The Iranian regime has vowed to annihilate Israel and has spared no effort to obtain nuclear weapons, but now, thanks to the deal inked with the West, it has become a regional power. Iran is collaborating with Russia against Islamic State in Syria, and it is also trying to undermine the Jihadi group’s grip on Iraq, where its efforts are not coordinated with the U.S., despite the fact both Washington and Tehran share this goal.

Iran is also arming Hezbollah and trying to establish strongholds from where it could attack Israeli interests in the Golan Heights. Israel must be ready to deal with the Iranian proxies & prepare for the possibility it may someday have no choice but to thwart the Iranian race for a nuclear bomb by itself.

Regional terrorist organizations pose a complex threat. From the north, Hezbollah is now a semi-military group, armed with some 100,000 rockets and missiles, some of them considered high-precision projectiles; and from the south, Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip are able to fire thousands of rockets at Israel, as well as launch attacks against Israeli security forces and civilians.

The terror threat is aggravated by the growing, multipronged grip Islamic State is forging on the Middle East: The group is entrenched in Sinai. It is starting to establish a hold on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and it is sparing no effort to penetrate Jordan, as well as Judea and Samaria.

These concerns are compounded by the daily threat of terror, as evident in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, and the need to ensure that the unrest does not affect Israeli Arabs, who have so far remained removed from the current surge in violence.

To properly counter such threats, to detect and neutralize potential threats, it is imperative Israel gathers high-quality intelligence and maintain its ability to launch covert operations overseas. To this end, the Mossad is one of the most important instruments at Israel’s disposal. I am sure we all wish new Mossad Director Yossi Cohen the best of luck. He faces highly complex challenges, but I for one am sure he is up to the mission at hand.

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, January 20, 2016

­­­Institute for Contemporary Affairs Founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation Vol. 16, No. 2

The beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya by ISIS militants.

The Islamic State is a terrorist state with almost all governing elements. Over the last four years, it has developed from an extremist fringe and marginal faction to become the strongest, most ferocious, best funded & armed militia in the religious & ethnic war that is waged today in Syria & Iraq.

ISIS rules today over a swath of land bigger than the United Kingdom, with a population of almost 10 million. ISIS changed its name to the Islamic State to illustrate that its goals are not limited to Iraq and the countries of the Fertile Crescent.

Since the fall of Muslim empires and supremacy, Muslim scholars and philosophers have tried to understand the reasons behind its collapse. The conclusion of most was that Muslim civilization had drifted away from the teachings of the Koran and adopted foreign & heretical inputs that had destroyed its fabric. The remedy they proposed was to return to “pure Islam” & reconstruct Muslim society.

§ After the U.S. occupational authority in Baghdad disbanded the Iraqi army in May 2003, thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen, creating some of America’s most bitter and intelligent enemies. In addition, many Islamic State terrorists spent years in detention centers in Iraq after 2003.

§ Never in the modern history of the Muslim world has a conflict drawn so many jihadists, who seek to participate in the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate to rule the world after the defeat in battle of the Western powers and their local Arab allies.

§ For many, life in the Islamic State is better than in their country of origin. This is particularly the case for Chechen fighters who flock to the IS because the conditions of combat in Iraq and Syria are less harsh than against the Russians.

Much has been written about the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham (the Levant) — ISIS. Most of the analysts have looked at ISIS as another terrorist organization, an al-Qaeda off-shoot, waging a guerrilla war with cohorts of unorganized thugs. The Afghani-style gear, the pickup trucks, the all black or army fatigue uniforms that most ISIS fighters wear, the unshaven beards, the turbans, hoods and head “bandanas” with Arabic inscriptions have added to the confusion.

In fact, ISIS is much more than a terrorist organization; it is a terrorist state with almost all governing elements. Over the last four years, since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, the Islamic State developed from an extremist fringe and marginal faction participating in the civil war to become the strongest, most ferocious, best funded and armed militia in the religious and ethnic war that is waged today in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS rules today over 300,000 square kilometers, a swath of land roughly bigger than the United Kingdom with a population of almost 10 million citizens. In the course of its first year of expansion, ISIS has changed its name to the Islamic State, a choice made to illustrate that its goals are not limited to Iraq and the countries of the Fertile Crescent. Moreover, the IS caliphate now has 10 branches, following pledges of allegiance in the past few months from new fronts including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, Afghanistan, Nigeria and, most recently, the Caucasian Emirates.

Factors behind the Establishment of the Islamic State

To understand the IS phenomenon, it is crucial to examine the factors that contributed to its emergence.

Since the fall of Muslim empires and supremacy, Muslim scholars and philosophers have tried to understand the reasons behind its collapse, its domination by Western Powers, its colonization and its incapacity to reproduce the genius that so much characterized the Muslim civilization following the conquests that stretched the Muslim lands from Spain to India, West Asia, and China. Most, if not all the scholars tried to analyze the characteristics behind the “Golden Age” of Islam and why at a certain point, the Muslim world stopped producing innovations in science, medicine, algebra, mathematics, military warfare machines and graphic arts. The conclusion of most was that Muslim civilization had drifted away from the teachings of the Koran and adopted foreign and heretical inputs that had destroyed its fabric. The remedy they proposed was to return to the “pure Islam” which would heal the wounds and respond to the West by first reconstructing the Muslim society according to their raw interpretation of the Koran and organizing to defeat Western power.

Indeed, since the fall of Muslim Spain in the fifteenth century and especially since the beginning of western colonization of Muslim territories, the Muslim world has witnessed the rise and fall of successive radical movements whose prime aim was to combat the West while regenerating the original Muslim society of Prophet Mohammad which was thought to be the cure for all ailments. Muslim thinkers like Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani (late 19^th century), Muhammad ‘Abduh (19^th century), Sayyed Qutub (20^th century), Muhammad Iqbal (early 20^th century), and the Muhammad Ahmad al-Mahdi in Sudan (19^thcentury) are only a few examples of Muslim radicals who inspired upheavals against Western powers. ISIS is but another refined product of the radicalization of the Sunnis in West and Central Asia.

Since the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, foreign military intervention in the latter part of the 20^th century, be it Soviet or American , was greatly responsible for the awakening of Sunni radicalism in West and Central Asia and to its expression today as a Holy War against the West, its allies & Israel.

The perception that the West led by the United States are the new Crusaders trying to subdue Islam has nurtured extremists ideologies and created many militant organizations whose mission is to fight “the infidels.” This perception should be considered to be at the root of the creation of Al-Qaeda whose raison d’être is to fight the West and to strive to re-create a Muslim ( Sunni ) caliphate in the areas extending from North Africa to “Ma wara al Nahr,” meaning Central and Eastern Asia, the historical boundaries of the once Islamic empire.

The civil war in Syria transformed very quickly into a radical Sunni armed insurrection against the Alawite Iranian-backed Assad regime. The Muslim Brotherhood, which led the battle against the regime at the beginning of the conflict, was soon joined by radical organizations financed not only by Saudi Arabia and Qatar but also by other actors such as the United States, UK, France and Turkey. Qatar alone is said to have poured into the conflict more than $500 million.

The Syrian scene provided all the ingredients for the radicalization of Sunni organizations. The Syrian civil war is an “all-in-one” situation in which all the previous factors are involved: foreign presence, Sunnis against Shiites, Iran and Hezb’Allah, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the United States, France and Turkey and an international coalition led by the United States fighting Islamic militants in the lands of Islam.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund Islamic organizations all over the world, nurturing mainly the Salafi-Wahhabi schools at the expense of traditional and moderate Islam. Most of the Muslim states have been exposed for a long time to Wahhabi proselytism that is by essence opposed to the “moderate” Sufi Islam practiced in North Africa. No wonder after the revolution in Libya and the takeover of Mali by Islamic fundamentalists, the Muslim militants destroyed all religious shrines, an exact copy of the reality in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

However, it appears now that Saudi Arabia is apprehensive of what seems to be the result of its actions: One of the biggest contingents fighting in Syria and Iraq is Saudi (almost 2,500). As a consequence of the assessment that these Jihadist organizations could harm the monarchy, Saudi Arabia and all Gulf states have adopted a sort of “Patriot Act” and designated all those volunteers as terrorists.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has also played a major catalyst role in contributing to the polarization of the Muslim world into two rival camps, Shiites and Sunnites. Since the beginning of the Khomeini takeover in 1979, Iran has been preaching a pan-Islamist ideology while sealing alliances with Islamic movements in the Arab world, Africa, and Asia. Iran concealed its Shiite philosophy and succeeded in creating the illusion that it was transcending its origins and its identity as a Shiite entity.

It was not until the beginning of the so-called “Arab Spring” that the Arab nations realized the Iranian scheme. The war in Syria and Iran’s open alliance with the Assad regime and the Shiite regime in Baghdad, Iran’s subversive activity in Lebanon through Hezb’Allah and the Houthis in Yemen, unveiled the implications of the Iranian contribution: the transformation of local conflicts in West Asia into a Shiite-Sunni open conflict over hegemony.

Moreover, the Arab perception that the U.S. administration was looking to mend the fences with Iran at the expense of it historical clients in the Middle East accelerated the crisis between the Arab world and Iran and justified in the eyes of many the armed struggle waged by the Islamists against Iran and its allies in the region.

Another factor in the rise of the Islamic State is the so-called “Arab Spring” which was the expression of the failure of the Arab nation-states. The events in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen were exploited by Islamic militant movements which found the right opportunity to rise from their clandestine activities after years of oppression and persecution by the different Arab regimes to the forefront of the political struggle for power. Years of military rule did not eradicate the Islamic political forces that had remained in the shadow and camouflaged themselves under the cover of charitable organizations, social assistance and non-profit entities. However, after a first round in which the Islamists seemingly won in Tunisia and Egypt, the secular forces backed by the military succeeded in overcoming the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood was dealt a heavy blow both in Syria and Egypt.

However, the different regimes were unsuccessful in eradicating the plethora of militant terrorist Islamic organizations that are still conducting their deadly attacks against the different regimes. Some regimes survived – even though deeply shaken and destabilized – like Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco – while others like Libya deteriorated into failed states, and others are struggling for their survival such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen.

The second American war in Iraq in 2003 dealt a death blow to the Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq since its separation from the Ottoman Empire by British colonialism. The Americans, striving to establish a new world order with democratic regimes as a copy of the West, established an unprecedented Shiite regime which in turn discriminated against the Sunnites who found themselves out of jobs, positions, army command, and Baath party offices.

Paul Bremer, then head of the U.S. occupational authority in Baghdad, disbanded the Iraqi army in May 2003. Thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen. In doing so, America created its most bitter and intelligent enemies. This was the fertile ground that welcomed Al-Qaeda and allowed the symbiosis between the Sunnite opposition to the Shiite regime and the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Until the schism with ISIS in 2013, Al-Qaeda was, in fact, the sole quasi-military opposition to the U.S.-led coalition campaign:

Amazingly, the Islamic State terrorists who have emerged in Iraq and Syria are not new to the U.S. and Western security agencies. Many of them spent years in detention centers in Iraq after 2003. “There were 26,000 detainees at the height of the war,” the New York Times reported, “and over 100,000 individuals passed through the gates of Camps Bucca, Cropper, and Taji.” The leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was incarcerated in Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. “A majority of the other top Islamic State leaders were also former prisoners, including Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, Abu Louay, Abu Kassem, Abu Jurnas, Abu Shema and Abu Suja,” the Times detailed. “Before their detention, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and others were violent radicals. Their time in prison deepened their extremism and gave them opportunities to broaden their following.”1

Unfortunately, the phenomenon went unnoticed for most American decision makers. “The prisons became virtual terrorist universities,” the Times reporters Andrew Thompson and Jeremi Suri wrote. “Policies changed in 2007… Where possible, the military tried to separate hardline terrorists from moderates.” But after the American withdrawal these prisoners were placed in Iraqi custody. The Islamic State freed these extremists as they swept across parts of Iraq. “With a new lease on life,” the New York Times reported, “these former prisoners are now some of the Islamic States’ most dedicated fighters.”2

Never in the modern history of the Muslim world has a conflict drawn so many jihadists as is the case with the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars, surpassing wars in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. Since the outburst of the conflict in Syria in 2011 and the 2014 takeover of Mosul by the IS (the Islamic State), Syria and Iraq have become the epicenter of the global Jihad. Thousands of jihadists originating from more than 90 different nationalities have flocked to Syria and Iraq to be part of the battle against the Assad regime and the Shiite regime in Iraq. The latter two are reinforced by Hezb’Allah and Iran.

The jihadists seek to participate in the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate to rule the world after the defeat in battle of the Western powers and their local Arab allies. The attraction the Islamic State is exercising on Sunni Muslims around the globe and jihadists in the Arab and Muslim world is tremendous. The Islamic State has become the beacon to rally thousands of militants in Iraq, Syria and around the globe.

The attraction is not limited in space or time. The movement is in Europe, the United States, Australia, Xinyang and also in the Arab world and Africa. As a matter of fact, most of North Africa’s jihadist groups were hesitant to associate themselves with the Islamic State until the United States commenced its military intervention in Iraq and Syria in August 2014.

Profiling the Jihadis

Almost all who join the armed Jihad, Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State fall into two primary categories: 3

1. Criminals, often recruited in prison by radical imams who manage to rally those individuals to their cause by promising them that if they continue their actions on behalf of Islam – and not just for their only personal enrichment – their actions will become lawful and consistent with the will of Allah.

2. The “exalted” and the “deranged” who dream of war and action, seeking to assert their manhood at all costs and who are in search of violence and epic adventure to express it. For these individuals, jihad offers a unique opportunity to indulge their inclinations and publicize them to satisfy their deranged ego.

Religion doesn’t have much to do with the jihadists’ actions. Most know nothing about Islam and mindlessly repeat some verses that have been hammered into them by radical imams, less stupid than them, but much more dangerous. Those who are outside these profiles are only a tiny minority – exceptions that confirm the rule. Jihadist university graduates, for instance, are often frustrated individuals who have failed to integrate into society through work, study, socialization, marriage, etc.

There again, radical imams succeed to convince them that their failures are not of their making but that of the environment that dismisses them. They teach them the idea that it is legitimate that they restore the situation to their benefit and by acting with force.

In fact, all jihadists have a psychiatric pathology, characteristics of obsessive-compulsive, even depressive disorders, as well as an inability to be socialized. The study of their past reveals that they had left homes and families voluntarily, that many had been the witnesses of family crises, and that they were often unemployed. Some have even made use of drugs when they were not directly involved in its trafficking.4

The Islamic State has an undeniable power of attraction over these individuals. Indeed, it controls a territory on which it can implement the life principles that guide its action. Thus, young men leaving to join the IS receive on the spot what they have lacked in their previous homeland: On the one hand, they receive a reason that spares them the need to reflect, to earn a salary, to court women, while on the other hand they are offered warlike activities that become an outlet for their frustrations.

For many, aspects of life – physical, sexual and sentimental – in the Islamic State are better than in their country of origin. This is particularly the case for Chechen fighters who flock to the IS because the conditions of combat in Iraq and Syria are less harsh than against the Russians. Many young jihadists in the Arab world believe the Islamic State offers them greater social justice. No doubt they hear of the permission to murder, torture, rape & entering into forced marriage of non-Muslims, or even of Muslims when they are not quite as radical. Of course, there is the extermination of the Shiites.5

Why North Africans?6

Out of the thousands who volunteered for jihad, about 5,000 fighters, originating from North African countries, have joined the ranks of IS and the Jabhat al-Nusra fundamentalist organizations active in Syria and Iraq. The biggest contingent is composed of Tunisians (3,000), followed by Moroccans (1,500) and Algerians (500-800) representing roughly 50 percent of the foreign fighters. These numbers exclude the European fighters of North African origin (mostly from France, 1,800, and Belgium, 400-600).

Ironically, most of North Africa’s jihadist groups were hesitant to associate themselves with the Islamic State until the United States commenced its military intervention in Iraq and Syria in August 2014. Jihadists such as Abdel Malek Droukdel from AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), Mohammed Zahawi , from Libya’s Ansar al-Sharia, and Mokhtar Belmokhtar from al-Mourabitoun, who fought alongside Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, had refused, sometimes openly, to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State — even after it captured swathes of territory in Iraq in June 2014 and declared a caliphate.

Recently, however, North Africa’s younger jihadist generation has become emboldened to break away from al Qaeda, seeking instead to join Baghdadi’s IS caliphate to benefit from its success and wealth. Rather than deterring these groups, the U.S.-led coalition’s sporadic airstrikes in Iraq and Syria seem to have afforded the Islamic State even more legitimacy in the eyes of North Africa’s jihadists.

Some of the Moroccan militants are filling senior positions in the Islamic State as are “emirs,” ministers (Justice, Finance, Interior), as well as a Military Emir (Military Chief) and even the head of a geographical region (the Turkman Mountain). However, 75 percent of the North Africans are “Inghimasiyyine,” an Islamic State terminology for an undercover operative responsible for protecting convoys and serving as the second wave of attack when an offensive mission or targeted attack is carried out.

During the first days of the civil war in Syria, the North Africans were organized in brigades, one of which was named “Sham al-Islam” and headed by a Moroccan, Ibrahim Benchekroun, alias Abu Ahmad EL-Maghrebi. Some even nicknamed the brigade as the “Liwa al Infransiyyoun” (the French Brigade) since the combatants communicated among themselves in French; some of its members were French nationals, mostly of North African origins, who were integrated into the North African French-speaking brigade. The ill-fated brigade that was active in the Latakia region of Syria was almost annihilated by the Syrian army loyal to Bashar Assad. The remaining members were scattered in different units created since then by the Islamic State.

Considered by the Islamic state as “Muhajirun” (immigrants), the North African fighters receive a monthly salary of $2,000-3,000 (compared to $500 paid to the local fighters). If married, the volunteer receives an additional $200 and $50 more for each of his children. A new born child will automatically generate a “bonus.”

Multiple Motives for North African Jihadists

Why are so many North Africans keen to join the Jihadist effort? What stands behind this massive mobilization and readiness of young people to leave everything behind, cut their ties with family, disappear from their milieu without any announcement, smuggle themselves to the Syrian or Iraqi arenas (at great risk from their respective countries and under the constant watch of the security and intelligence agencies that monitor movements to and from the Middle East), and of course ready to sacrifice their lives in Syria, Iraq or in Europe for a cause fought thousands of kilometers away from their native North African country?

The explanation may be found in the following:

1. North Africans have always wanted to be close to the “core” of the Middle East, feeling marginalized by historical events taking place in the Arab-Israeli conflict away from their region. North African states sent expeditionary troops to the Middle East after the 1967 Six-Day War to take part in the battle against Israel. Morocco sent two brigades (one was deployed in the Syrian Golan Heights and one in Egypt) while Algeria sent a brigade to Egypt. Those troops were actively engaged in combat during the Yom Kippur 1973 war against Israel and suffered heavy losses.

2. North Africa is the setting for developing jihadist movements partly inspired by the war in Afghanistan and by the Khomeini revolution in Iran. But the unsatisfied needs of young, mostly unemployed people, left behind by the process of modernization and westernization and an unwillingness to accept the reality of power also plays a role. The disintegration of Libya after Qaddafi and the takeover of the country by jihadist militias have served as a contagious example to North African jihadists, meaning that what has been achieved in nearby Libya by jihadists could be repeated in Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria.

3. The North Africa states have been exposed for a long time to Wahhabi proselytism that is opposed to the “moderate” Sufi Islam practiced in North Africa. Morocco and Tunisia were tolerant to the Wahhabi theological invasion while Algeria chose to fight it by all means. Identification with the Wahhabi ideology is only one step from joining soul mates to fight the “heretics” leading “heretic” regimes. Oddly enough, northern Morocco, which seems to be the area that has drawn the most jihadists to the Islamic State, is a region were strict Salafi sheiks dominate the religious scene and do identify openly with the ideology of the Islamic State and its targets.

4. There is also an economic factor one cannot ignore. Most of the Moroccans who have joined the Islamic State come from the north of the country that has been neglected by former King Hassan II. The northern region of Morocco is hit by severe unemployment and subsequent radicalization. The fact that the Islamic State pays salaries that cannot even be imagined in Morocco is a factor in the enrollment of jihadists by the Islamic State.

5. Finally, one cannot under-estimate the geographic factor: North Africa is very close to southern Europe and the jihadist network existing there, which makes coordination and recruitment easier. Those networks appeared first during the second Iraqi war (2003) when people thought it acceptable to travel to Iraq and join the fight against the “American aggressor.”

What Are the Ultimate Objectives of the Islamic State?

The answer is simple, and it lies in the publications of the Islamic State: establish an Islamic Caliphate that would restore Islam’s historical splendor. According to the maps published by the Islamic State, the Islamic State will include Andalus in the West (Spain) and stretch from North Africa — the Maghreb — (and the whole of West Africa including Nigeria) through Libya and Egypt (considered one geographical unit – Ard Al-Kinana), include what is called in Islamic state terminology, Ard el Habasha (from Cameroon in the west, Central Africa, the Lake Victoria states, Ethiopia and Somalia), the Hijaz (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States), Yemen until Khurasan in the east – defined as the Central Asian Muslim Republics beginning with Azerbaijan and including Pakistan and the southwest part of China, land of the Muslims of Turkish origin, the Uyghurs. The Islamic State also includes Iran and Turkey (named Anatol) in their entirety and parts of Europe (mainly the Balkans, more or less conforming to the borders of the defunct Ottoman Empire with the Austro-Hungarian territories).

Caliph Abu Bakar Ibrahim Al Baghdadi (Wikipedia)

The Islamic State has made no secret who is its enemy: In an audio-taped message, Al-Baghdadi announced following his self-proclaimed caliphate that the Islamic State would march on “Rome” in its resolve to establish an Islamic State from the Middle East across Europe. He said that he would conquer both Rome and Spain in this endeavor and urged Muslims across the world to immigrate to the new Islamic State.7

On November 13, 2014, exactly a year before the Paris terrorist attacks, a voice message attributed to Al-Baghdadi vowed that IS fighters would never cease fighting “even if only one soldier remains.” The speaker urged supporters of the Islamic State to “erupt volcanoes of jihad” across the world. He called for attacks to be mounted in Saudi Arabia—describing Saudi leaders as “the head of the snake” – and said that the U.S.-led military campaign in Syria and Iraq was failing. He also said that ISIL would keep on marching and would “break the borders” of Jordan and Lebanon and “free Palestine.” Al-Baghdadi also claimed in 2014 that Islamic jihadists would never hesitate to eliminate Israel just because it has the United States support.8

The distillation of these warlike declarations could only mean a continuation of the IS war effort directed at:

1. Toppling the Shiite regime in Iraq and containing Iran.

2. Taking control of the Syrian-Turkish border.

3. Reaching Tripoli in Lebanon to secure a harbor on the Mediterranean Sea and by extension to destabilize Lebanon.

4. Toppling the Assad regime in Syria.

5. Destabilizing Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

6. Destabilizing Europe and the U.S. through terrorist acts. Blowing up the Russian plane flying out of Sharm el-Sheikh in the Sinai & the Beirut & Paris terrorist attacks definitely fit in this IS strategy.

Notes

1 ANDREW THOMPSON and JEREMI SURI, OCT. 1, How America Helped ISIS, THE NEW YORK TIMES1, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/opinion/how-america-helped-isis.html?_r=0

2 Ibid.

3 Eric Denece, LE SANGLANT CRÉPUSCULE DES DJIHADISTES, http://www.cf2r.org/fr/editorial-eric-denece-lst/le-sanglant-crepuscule-des-djihadistes.php

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 http://jcpa.org/article/north-african-fighters-in-the-syrian-and-iraqi-conflict/

7 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/02/rome-conquer-islam_n_5550646.html

8 Ibid.

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, a special analyst for the Middle East at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was formerly Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Head for Assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence. – See more at: http://jcpa.org/article/explaining-the-islamic-state-phenomenon/#sthash.uNAdrTOp.dpuf