Doc's Talk: THE CROWNING OF THE SYRIAN ISLAMIC FRONT

Monday, June 24, 2013

THE CROWNING OF THE SYRIAN ISLAMIC FRONT

Kamel Daoud

Aaron Y. Zelin and Charles Lister

Foreign Policy

June 24, 2013

To view this article on our website, go to:
http://washin.st/144WZjB

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

Although Washington and Saudi Arabia have increased their support for the mainstream Syrian opposition, jihadist factions and their Qatari and Egyptian backers are asserting themselves as well.

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

Hezbollah's victory in Syria in the Battle of Qusair was a wake up call for many pro-Islamist actors in the Arab world. In response, Qatar -- through Yusef al-Qaradawi and Al Jazeera as well as key Egyptian Islamic leaders -- has gone on the offensive. These players have publicized key Islamist factions, especially the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF), as well as called for jihad as a necessary duty for all. Through these actions, one of the key winners has been the SIF, a Salafi umbrella formation, which is arguably the best fighting force within the opposition.

The SIF, led by its principal constituent force, Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiya (HASI), coordinates extensively with the al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (and though skeptical of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, coordinates with it in Aleppo), but also with all other Syrian rebel groups. While it is more than willing to fight alongside groups loyal to the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Syrian National Coalition, it expressly rejects their rights to represent the entire Syrian opposition. The SIF's insistence in a future Syria becoming an Islamic state ruled by sharia contradicts the objectives expressed by the wider moderate opposition. Although it has not issued any direct threats outside Syria, the SIF is opposed to any external intervention in Syria by any Western state, and its leader has threatened attacks on any foreign military force entering Syria, supportive or opposed to President Bashar al-Assad.

In the past two weeks, the SIF's leader, Hassan Aboud Abu Abdullah al-Hamawi, has publicly appeared for the first time in an Al Jazeera interview, attended a conference of senior Muslim clerics in Cairo calling for jihad (the only Syrian rebel leader present), and spoke on the Egyptian Salafi TV station al-Nas. It appears that key players with vested interests in Qatar and Egypt's clerical community are attempting to anoint the SIF as the leaders of the Syrian revolution.

The SIF announced its formation in a video on December 22, 2012. In it, its senior spokesman Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Suri framed the SIF as "a comprehensive Islamic front, representing Islam as a religion, a creed, a guiding path, and a conduct." Upon formation, the SIF consisted of 11 distinct militant Islamist groups dispersed across 12 of Syria's 13 governorates. Through two mergers and two other outside Islamist factions joining the SIF, it has consolidated into eight forces.

HASI, whose principal armed force first emerged in January 2012, has since become arguably the most powerful individual armed group in the entire Syrian opposition. Its leader, Aboud, is also the SIF's commander-in-chief, and several of its senior figures have all maintained leading roles in the SIF command structures.

According to the SIF's political charter, released a month after the front's formation on January 20, 2013, it seeks "to construct a civilized Islamic society in Syria, ruled by God's law." The SIF's position on democracy is complex. While it has expressly rejected the idea as a concept, its charter does maintain the idea of using a voting system to elect political leaders "as long as it is regulated by sharia" and only candidates whose policies "are bound by sharia" are involved. This suggests they are okay with voting so long as it does not lead to leaders then creating legislation, which contravenes God's law.

Placing the SIF in the current context of ongoing conflict, it expressly rejects any political solution and any form of international intervention. As such, at the June 13 Cairo conference, Aboud called for jihad, stating, "Any invading force that sets foot on Syrian territory under any pretext, whether to support the regime or to allegedly stop aggression, will be treated as an occupying force." Though he later qualified it when speaking to al-Nas as it related to potential U.S. military support: "We look at its decision to arm the opposition with suspicion...but we are happy that there will be an extra force to fight against the criminal Assad. But we want to warn our brothers not to let America interfere with what we want for our own country."

Aboud's presence in Cairo at the jihad conference and the al-Nas TV interview on the heels of his first public appearance on Al Jazeera a few days earlier speaks volumes to the respect he and his group have garnered from key outside power brokers. Over the past half-year, the SIF and HASI have proven themselves as not only crucial elements on the battlefield, but also showing signs of competence in governance. These factors are likely an important appeal for what appears to be the crowning of this movement as the face of the revolution by some in the region.

HASI is arguably the most strategically powerful individual player in Syria today. Its forces have been involved in every major rebel victory since at least September 2012, including leading a tightly-commanded coalition of Islamist forces in seizing the only governorate capital to be taken in the whole revolution so far: Raqqa, on March 4.

Militarily, HASI is amongst the best-armed insurgent groups in the country, regularly deploying tanks and mobile artillery (T-72s, T-62s, T-54s, and 2S1 Gvozdikas), anti-tank guided missiles (AT-3 "Saggers" and AT-5 "Spandrels"), and occasionally 1990s-era Croatian rocket and grenade launchers. While its initial operations in early 2012 were primarily sporadic improvised explosive devices (IEDs) -- among the first to utilize Iraq-style IED tactics -- and small-arms ambushes, the group quickly assumed a lead role in large-scale sustained assaults on multiple fronts (Hama, Idlib, Raqqa, Al-Hasakah, Deir al-Zour and Daraa). More recently, it has formed a "Technical Division," which has been responsible for cyber attacks on websites affiliated with the pro-Assad Syrian Electronic Army and Addounia TV.

SIF activity, though, is not limited to military operations. It has also pumped extensive resources into humanitarian and other social activities. Part of this has been subsidized in cooperation with government-funded NGOs from Turkey (Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation) and Qatar (Qatar Charity). The SIF has acknowledged this in video releases highlighting such patronage.

HASI currently runs extensive networks of food, water, and fuel provision across northern Syria and even operates Raqqa's largest water pumping station, several dams, and also a road and bridge repair "company." SIF also places significant emphasis on the free provision of Islamic education to children and often releases videos showing such schools operating in Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama.

On June 8, Aboud took part in a 48-minute interview with Al Jazeera's Tayseer Allouni. This was the first time that Aboud's real name and identity had been revealed. Prior to that, his identity had been shrouded in secrecy. This alone made the interview a significant development in the SIF's evolution, not to mention his concluding line in which he expressed his determination "to destroy by our hands the walls of the Sykes-Picot [Agreement]."

Unsurprisingly, Aboud denied any structural links between his forces and those of al Qaeda, although consistent with previous statements on Twitter, he noted that "we do a great many joint operations" with Jabhat al-Nusra and "we only see honesty in their work as well as toughness and bravery...The US designation [of JN] will not stop us continuing to work with them." However, there are key differences between JN and HASI. Aboud, in the interview, points out "we agree with them that Islam is our primary order of business, but we may disagree on some of the provisions."

Unlike JN, HASI is more locally oriented and is also distinguished by not being involved with attacks on civilian areas, not embracing suicide attacks, and not disseminating its media releases through al Qaeda-authenticated forums, but rather through its independent website, Facebook page, and Twitter account. Most importantly, Ahrar al-Sham is not calling for a global Caliphate like Jabhat al-Nusra and is only focused on establishing an Islamic State within Syria.

Aboud also claimed that while "there are no secular groups" in Syria and while the SIF "is not a component of any joint leadership or of the Free Syrian Army, we take part in joint operations with the FSA." He was however scathing regarding the representative nature of the Syrian National Coalition, which he described as "an opposition coalition largely based abroad, which lacks internal depth or popular support."

Underlining the well-organized nature of the SIF's structure, Aboud claimed to operate a number of training camps across Syria where recruits are provided with both educational and military instruction, as well as several additional "camps specializing in elevating individuals toward being qualified commanders." Perhaps auguring further front expansion, Aboud claimed, "we have dozens of requests from other battalions" to join SIF.

In addition to explaining SIF's provision of "services and medical assistance" to "the vulnerable," Aboud also outlined his forces' involvement in multi-group policing units, "especially in Aleppo, Idlib, and Hama." With regards to SIF's sources of weaponry, Aboud claimed, "we rely primarily on the spoils of the military...[but we also get] donations from individuals abroad." The most prominent donors abroad include money received from the Kuwaiti Salafi preacher Hajjaj al-Ajami's network, Saudi-based Syrian preacher Adnan al-'Arur, Kuwaiti Salafi politician and ideologue Hakim al-Mutayri, as well as individuals from Qatar.

Aboud's interview with Al Jazeera provided him with an international stage onto which he could openly advocate the case for his group's prominence in Syria. Combined with his appearance in Cairo and on the Salafi al-Nas TV, it seems clear that Aboud, with some extent of foreign backing from Sunni leadership and from regional states, is launching a move to assume a role as an Islamist alternative to rebel groups linked to the Syrian National Council.

The SIF appears comfortable with this new role. During the al-Nas interview, for the first time, the SIF introduced the head of its external affairs office Muhammad Mustafa. It is apparent what his main role will be based off of his comments on al-Nas: "We don't need anything from anyone except help in arming the mujahidin to be able to free our country and take our resources into our own hands."

In addition to Aboud's interview with Al Jazeera, in the subsequent week it has also granted 30-minute interviews to the respective leaders of four other pivotal Islamist groups -- Liwa al-Tawhid, Suqur al-Sham, Kata'ib al-Farouq, and Liwa al-Islam -- suggesting a general move is underway by Qatar to present such groups as well-organized, regionally-supported rivals to the unorganized and so-called "FSA." Intriguingly, on June 23, Al Jazeera televised official HASI-produced video footage of a large car bombing in Aleppo before HASI released footage of the attack via its own channels.

This power play by Qatar and sympathetic Egyptian Salafis highlights that even though the United States (which has never even commented on non-FSA or JN rebel groups) and Saudi Arabia are becoming even more involved with arming and supporting the opposition, they are not the only actors. It also contradicts recent reports that Qatar has handed over the Syria portfolio to Saudi Arabia, highlighting that the competition for influence among these Gulf States is still alive. This bidding war between Gulf rivals could further hinder the future prospects of the Syrian opposition in a post-Assad scenario.

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

Aaron Y. Zelin is the Richard Borow fellow at The Washington Institute and maintains the website Jihadology.net. Charles Lister is a London-based terrorism and insurgency analyst; the views expressed here are entirely his own and do not represent those of his employer.

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

Tweet this item:
http://twitter.com/home?status=http://washin.st/144WZjB

Share this item on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://washin.st/144WZjB

Follow us on Twitter: @washinstitute

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

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk