LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 06.2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.february06.20.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news. So faith
comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ
Letter to the Romans 10/14-21/:”How are they to call on one in whom they have
not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?
And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? And how are they to
proclaim him unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet
of those who bring good news!’But not all have obeyed the good news; for Isaiah
says, ‘Lord, who has believed our message?’So faith comes from what is heard,
and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.But I ask, have they not
heard? Indeed they have; for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and
their words to the ends of the world.’Again I ask, did Israel not understand?
First Moses says, ‘I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a
foolish nation I will make you angry.’Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, ‘I have
been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did
not ask for me.’But of Israel he says, ‘All day long I have held out my hands to
a disobedient and contrary people.
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News & Editorials published on February 05-06/2020
Aoun holds political meetings at Baabda Palace
Lebanese Parliament Moves to Protect Bank Deposits
Diab meets Belgian Foreign Minister, Hitti
Diab chairs meeting on oil and gas exploration plan implementation
Foreign Minister, Hitti, Belgian counterpart discuss activation of bilateral
ties
Kubis Urges Lebanon to 'Support Itself' to Get Int'l Support
Belgium Diplomat in Beirut Meets Officials
First Gas Exploration Vessel Docks at Beirut Port
Activist Gets Interrogated, Vows Protests Escalation
Berri: Owners of 5 Banks Sent $2.3 Billion Abroad
Berri meets Wednesday MPs: Current circumstances cannot handle more pressure on
citizens
Gas Station Owners Threaten to Strike, Set Own Prices
Jumblat Says Cooperation Hardly Possible with Presidential Term
Lebanese Student Quarantined after Arriving from China
Lebanese Petroleum Administration: 'Lundstrom Tide' will transport equipment and
materials from Beirut Port to drilling ship
French Ambassador meets Dabbour, reiterates keenness on twostatesolution
Protesters gather at Riad Solh Square
NNA Director, Indian Ambassador discuss means to bolster media cooperation
Moucharafieh, EU Ambassador tackle socio-economic situation
Najm meets with UN's Kubis, Tarraf, Rampling
Mechanic pursuer apprehended in North Lebanon over bribery
Karpowership denies claims of leak from Powership Fatmagul Sultan
Maxence Duault appointed general director of ESA Business School
A future Palestine: Dubai or Lebanon/Hussain Abdul-Hussain/Al Arabiya
English/February 05/2020
Berytech opens applications for Batch 1 of its Cleanergy Accelerator Program
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on
February 05-06/2020
Senate acquits Trump in historic vote as re-election battle looms
Pro-Hizballah prime minister’s appointment in Iraq brings top US general to
Baghdad/DEBKAfile/February 05/2020
Khamenei calls for Palestinian jihad on Israel after Trump peace plan/Jerusalem
Post/February 05/2020
Iran Announces Death of Soleimani's Guard in Southern Aleppo
Iran’s Khamenei: ‘Deal of the Century’ Will Die before Trump Dies
Palestinians push UN Security Council to condemn Trump plan, Israel/Jerusalem
Post/February 05/2020
Two Palestinian dreams: Exterminate Israel and a real nation-state/Clifford D.
May/The Washington Times/February 05/2020
Morocco Reiterates Support for Palestinian Cause, Rejects 'Deal of the Century'
Sudanese-Israeli Relations: From Secret Beginnings to a Public End
US Halts Secretive Drone Program with Turkey over Syria Incursion
Regime Forces Enter Strategic Syrian Town of Saraqeb
Syria: Regime Forces Press Offensive Despite Turkish Threats
Trump Renews Vow to Withdraw US Troops From Afghanistan
Plane Breaks into Three after Skidding Off Istanbul Runway
7 Dead as Sadr Supporters Attack Iraq Protest Camp
Maliki: Draft Resolution Against US Plan to Be Circulated at UN
Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published on February 05-06/2020
Does Muslim-on-Muslim Violence Prove Jihad Is Politically Driven/Raymond
Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/February 05/2020
Can Muslim Terrorists be Deradicalized? - Part I/Denis MacEoin/Gatestone
Institute/February 05/2020
ISIS Women: Victims or Perpetrators/Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/February
05/2020
Algeria, France and Turkey: Pains of the Past and Ambitions for the Future/Hazem
Saghieh/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 05/2020
Corruption, Not Trump, Will Drive Iranian Protest Vote/Bobby Ghosh/Bloomberg/Asharq
Al-Awsat/February 05/2020
Democrats, Experts, and Peace Plans/Alex Joffe/BESA Center Perspectives/February
05/2020
Continuity vs. Overreach in the Trump Peace Plan (Part 1): Borders and
Jerusalem/David Makovsky/The Washington Institute/February 05/2020
Centering Iraq Policy on Human Rights and Fair Elections/Michael Knights/The
Washington Institute/February 05/2020
Trump administration puts freedom first/Mikhael Smits/FDD//February 05/2020
Qatar, Qatar-Backed International Union Of Muslim Scholars Blast Trump's Peace
Plan: It Belongs In the Dustbin Of History, Must Be Opposed By Every Possible
Means/By: H. Varulkar and Z. Harel/MEMRI/February 05/2020
Muslim Brotherhood using Palestinian cause to attack Sudan/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Arab
News/February 05/ 2020
Palestinians must accept they cannot turn back the clock/Ray Hanania/Arab
News/February 05/ 2020
US broke Iraq, now it must own its mistakes/Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab
News/February 0/ 2020
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials
published on February 05-06/2020
Aoun holds political meetings at Baabda Palace
NNA/February 05/2020
President Michel Aoun received the head of the "Lebanese Democratic Party", MP
Talal Arslan, at Baabda Palace, and discussed with him the general situation.
MP Arslan noted the role played by President Michel Aoun, in this delicate
circumstance of Lebanese history.
"I affirmed support for the President's stances, and stressed on the President's
morality, patriotism, good performance, and his response to Lebanese demands and
needs, placing them above every concern, especially in current circumstances
which the country is passing through. I also stressed the Government's role in
helping the President achieve goals which he seeks, in the interest of Lebanon
and its stability" Arslan stated.
MP Adnan Traboulsi:
President Aoun received MP, Adnan Traboulsi, and discussed with him general
conditions and political developments.
"I discussed, with the President, what we look forward to see from the new
Government through its ministerial statement, and through what is expected in
setting a rescue plan to deal with this acute crisis, economically, financially,
and livingly, and moving the wheel of productive sectors, in addition to working
with seriousness and transparency in combatting waste and corruption" Traboulsi
said after the meeting.
"We also discussed the so-called deal of the century, which is rejected in
Palestine, Lebanon and the Arab world. We emphasized on rejecting resettlement,
and adhered to the Palestinians' right to return to their lands. In this
context, I highly appreciated the President's stance regarding the Deal of the
Century, which his Excellency has asserted for years, especially in conferences,
in the Arab Summits of Jordan, Dhahran and Tunisia" Traboulsi added.
Head of "Shura" State Council: President Aoun also met the Head of "Shura" State
Council, Judge Fadi Elias, and discussed with him the work of the
Council.-Presidency Press Office
Lebanese Parliament Moves to Protect Bank Deposits
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Parliament launched legislative actions to protect deposits in Lebanese banks,
stressing its commitment to standing up to any measures that would affect
depositors whose protection has become an “absolute priority”. The head of the
parliamentary administration and justice committee, MP George Adwan, emphasized
an “utmost priority” to protect depositors and deposits, adding that every
effort should be deployed in this direction. “The way of dealing with this file
cannot take place through small daily measures, but rather through a
comprehensive monetary and fiscal policy, proposed by the government. Parliament
will then assume a monitoring role and hold the government accountable on this
basis,” Adwan said following the committee’s meeting on Tuesday. In remarks to
Asharq Al-Awsat, MP Ghazi Zoaiter, said that the committee’s position was
approved by all concerned parties, including central bank Governor Riad Salame
and the head of the Lebanese Banks Association, Salim Sfeir. He added that the
parliament would spare no legislative means to protect the depositors’ money.
“Parliament has the authority to enact laws. If the protection of deposits and
depositors requires legislation, we will not spare any effort in this regard,”
he remarked. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Mrad, the head of the Money Exchangers
Association, said that an understanding was underway with Salame to fix the US
dollar price at LBP 2,000. Mrad met with Prime Minister Hassan Diab on Tuesday
to update him on latest contacts to address the economic crisis.
Diab meets Belgian Foreign Minister, Hitti
NNA/February 05/2020
Prime Minister, Dr. Hassan Diab, on Wednesday met at the Grand Serail with
Belgian Foreign and Defense Minister, Philippe Goffin, and his accompanying
delegation. Talks reportedly touched on the current situation in Lebanon and the
broader region, in addition to means of bolstering relations between the two
countries. Earlier, Premier Diab met with Foreign Affairs and Emigrants
Minister, Nassif Hitti, who briefed him on the outcome of the two meetings held
recently in Cairo and Jeddah
Diab chairs meeting on oil and gas exploration plan
implementation
NNA/February 05/2020
Prime Minister, Dr. Hassan Diab, on Wednesday presided over a meeting at the
Grand Serail, on the stages of implementing the oil and gas exploration plan.
The meeting was attended by Minister of Environment and Administrative
Development Damianos Kattar, Water and Energy Minister Raymond Ghajar, and
members of the Lebanese Petroleum Administration (LPA). Head of LPA, Walid Nasr,
gave a briefing on the work undertaken by the Petroleum Administration in
implementing the gas and oil exploration plan and its various stages. Premier
Diab also met with a delegation of the French "Total" Company, in the presence
of Ministers Ghajar and Damianos.The delegation briefed the Premier on the
company's activities in Lebanon, in addition to the oil situation in light of
the plan to explore for oil and gas in the Lebanese territorial waters.
Foreign Minister, Hitti, Belgian counterpart discuss
activation of bilateral ties
NNA/February 05/2020
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants, Nassif Hitti, on Wednesday met with
his Belgian counterpart, Philippe Goffin, with whom he discussed bilateral
relations. In the wake of the meeting, Minister Hitti said that he discussed
with Goffin the economic crisis in Lebanon, noting that they have shared their
views on solutions and the important role of the new government in the
development of an economic rescue plan as soon as possible, before sharing it
with donor countries and international institutions. "We also discussed the
means of strengthening the trade balance between Lebanon and Belgium, which is
rather in favor of Belgium. Today, there is a need to consolidate local
production and exports, as well as to change the economic system to a productive
one, based on the sectors of agriculture and industry," Hitti said. The Minister
added that he had also discussed with his counterpart political matters, most
importantly the Deal of the century, which is refused by Arab and Islamic
countries, and the Palestinian authorities and people. Hitti insisted on the
need to respect international resolutions and the Arab peace initiative, based
on the two-state solution, with eastern Al-Quds as the capital of the
Palestinian state, as well as the liberation of all occupied Arab lands.
Touching on the refugee crisis, Minister Hitti affirmed that this matter was of
great importance for Lebanon and Europe, stressing Lebanon's keenness on the
return of Syrian refugees to the safe zones in their country. Goffin, for his
part, said his presence in Lebanon was a sign of support for the country and the
necessary reforms that the government would carry out. According to him,
"although these reforms are painful at first, they will be fruitful later." He
said that his country supported reforms in Lebanon, in light of a program that
could preserve confidence between the two countries, whose history is marked by
a long friendship. "Belgium assumed the presidency of the United Nations
Security Council at its current session in early February, which will focus on
raising three questions, namely transitional justice," he added. "Our countries
have participated in international forums, and King Philip will chair the United
Nations Security Council to recall the situation of children in armed conflict,
and we urge Lebanon to sign the protocol on this subject," he said. Concerning
the US peace plan, the Belgian minister reiterated the position of his country,
according to which he is committed to the two-state-solution with respect for
the international law. In addition, Minister Hitti received the credentials of
the new Italian ambassador to Lebanon, Nicoletta Bobardière, to be later
referred to President of the Republic, Michel Aoun.
Kubis Urges Lebanon to 'Support Itself' to Get Int'l Support
Naharnet/February 05/2020
U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jan Kubis on Wednesday said that Lebanon
should first “support itself” if it wants to receive international economic and
financial support. “Reforms, reforms, reforms,” Kubis said during a meeting with
the Press Editors Syndicate when asked about the U.N.’s conditions for helping
Lebanon during this period. Noting that protesters on the streets are saying
what the reforms should be, such as those related to the electricity sector,
Kubis said any serious reforms must entail a clear plan and specific timeframes.
“If Lebanon does not support itself, it should not expect support from the
international community,” Kubis was quoted as saying in remarks carried by
Lebanon’s National News Agency.
Belgium Diplomat in Beirut Meets Officials
Naharnet/February 05/2020
Belgium Foreign and Defense Minister Philippe Goffin is in Beirut as part of a
regional tour to hold meetings with senior officials. Goffin first held separate
talks with PM Hassan Diab and Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti. The National News
Agency said Goffin and Diab discussed the situation in Lebanon and ways to
develop bilateral relations between the two countries. He is scheduled to meet
later during the day with President Michel Aoun. Goffin had arrived in Lebanon
coming from Oman as part of a regional tour that included Syria, Iraq, Kurdistan
and Jordan.
Goffin is expected to discuss the latest developments with senior officials. He
had discussed the threats of terrorism with Iraqi and Jordanian officials and
with Kurdistan officials in Erbil before arriving in Lebanon.
First Gas Exploration Vessel Docks at Beirut Port
Naharnet/February 05/2020
A supply vessel, Lundstrom Tide, arrived at Beirut Port in preparation for
offshore drilling and exploration works, LBCI reported on Wednesday. Rented by
Total, the vessel prepares to start exploration in bloc 4. A drill vessel,
Tungsten Explorer, is expected to arrive in Lebanon on February 15 to start the
drilling. Last year, Lebanon signed its first contract to drill for oil and gas
in its waters. A consortium comprising energy giants Total, ENI and Novatek took
the first two of its 10 blocks, including block 9 disputed by Israel with which
Lebanon has fought several wars.
Activist Gets Interrogated, Vows Protests Escalation
Naharnet/February 05/2020
Activist Toni Khoury was interrogated on Wednesday over road blocking charges as
the country grapples with nationwide demos, but he assured that protests against
corruption will not cease despite “everything” saying “they have seen nothing
yet.”Khoury was interrogated at the Jounieh judicial police department where
tens of demonstrators gathered outside to express solidarity with him. Khoury
assured that he has “respect for the law, whilst they (corrupt politicians)
embark on exploiting authority and use oppression against demonstrators in order
to stay in power.”“They have not yet seen the revolution. Let them wait until
the (government) confidence vote session. Only then, will they see something
never seen before,” he said. Activists and protesters have been subjected to
questioning and detention, some released later, amid nationwide protests against
mismanagement and corruption sweeping the country since October 17. On Tuesday,
a judge released activist, Rabih al-Zein, on an LBP 500,000 bail after charging
him with “incitement” over torching an ATM belonging to the Credit Libanais bank
in Zouk and a Molotov attack on the Free Patriotic Movement’s office in Jounieh.
The new government of PM Hassan Diab took office in January, but must still win
the vote of confidence from Parliament.
Berri: Owners of 5 Banks Sent $2.3 Billion Abroad
Naharnet/February 05/2020
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Wednesday said he has managed to “confirm”
that the owners of five Lebanese banks have sent their “personal money” abroad,
estimated at $2.3 billion, despite the informal capital controls that have been
imposed on depositors since November.
He was speaking during his weekly Ain el-Tineh meeting with lawmakers. “The
national duty obliges us all to pacify the atmosphere and create the appropriate
circumstances to restore the regularity of political life in line with law and
constitution,” Berri said. “We are before a real chance for salvation. We either
seize it and succeed or we let it go and fail,” the Speaker warned. Criticizing
the solutions proposed for resolving the electricity crisis in the government’s
draft policy statement, Berri said the state should adopt the electricity plan
that has been successfully implemented in the Zahle region.
The Speaker also noted that parliamentary sessions to debate the government’s
policy statement might kick off Tuesday should the government refer the draft to
parliament “by Friday morning at the latest.”
Berri meets Wednesday MPs: Current circumstances cannot
handle more pressure on citizens
NNA/February 05/2020
Speaker of the House, Nabih Berri, on Wednesday said during a meeting with
Wednesday MPs that national duty makes it imperative for all sides to pacify the
situation in a bid to restore the political life based on the constitution and
the law. "The vulnerability of the current conditions cannot handle exerting
more pressure on the people, the homeland, and institutions," Berri said. "We
stand before a real opportunity for salvation," he added. Moreover, Berri said
that he has managed to confirm that the owners of five Lebanese banks have sent
their “personal money” abroad, estimated at $2.3 billion, despite the informal
capital controls that have been imposed on depositors since November. With
regard to the discussion session of the ministerial statement, Berri suggested
that it "may be held next Tuesday, if the statement is referred to parliament by
Friday morning. Later in the afternoon, Berri presided over the "Development and
Liberation" periodic bloc meeting, during which discussions featured high on the
current situation in Lebanon and the repercussions of the so-called deal of the
century, as well as an array of internal affairs related to the financial and
economic situations, and the schedule of government action priorities in the
next stage.
Gas Station Owners Threaten to Strike, Set Own Prices
Naharnet/February 05/2020
The syndicate of gas station owners on Wednesday threatened to stage a new
strike or issue their own price lists if the Energy Ministry does not distribute
the losses resulting from the dollar shortage crisis in a fairer manner. They
described the prices list issued this week by the ministry as a “stab in the
back.”Announcing that they will stage a symbolic sit-in Friday outside the
ministry, the owners said they are “paying the price for authorities’ inaction.”
“We are being robbed and we have remained silent in order to reach a peaceful
solution but this has not happened,” a spokesman said. He also urged a probe
into alleged discrepancies in the numbers issued Wednesday by the Energy
Ministry, noting that Prime Minister Hassan Diab has promised them to resolve
their problem once the government wins parliament’s confidence. Lebanon’s gas
stations have staged several strikes in recent months to demand a higher margin
of profit. On September 30, the central bank said it would facilitate access to
dollars for importers of petroleum products, wheat and medicine. The price of
the dollar has dropped 40 percent on the black market after it was stable at
1,507 pounds to the dollar since 1997.
Jumblat Says Cooperation Hardly Possible with Presidential
Term
Naharnet/February 05/2020
Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat said he can not
“cooperate” with the presidential term of President Michel Aoun, and that the
latter “complies” to poor guidance by a group of advisers close to him, the
Saudi Asharq al-Awsat daily reported on Wednesday.
In an interview with the newspaper, Jumblat said Aoun’s term and the people
around him seek “vengeance,” referring to two incidents in Mount Lebanon’s towns
of Qabrshmoun and al-Basatin. "We managed to survive miraculously,” he said.
Criticizing former minister and Aoun’s son-in-law, Jebran Bassil, the PSP leader
said: “Perhaps President Aoun would come to realize the destructive policy of
his son-in-law, but that is only a glimpse of recognition in light of
accumulating political factors.”On the new government of PM Hassan Diab, the
Druze leader said some of its ministers seem tied to Syria, but still he plans
to give it a chance. “This government brings to mind the ministers and symbols
who came to governance from the security system that prevailed back in 2005, the
Syrian security system, to be more exact and clear,” he said, but still he
intends to give it a "chance."
Whether his problem lies with the “term” itself or with the “President,” Jumblat
noted that former PM “Saad Hariri believed he could deal with the President
individually, but he sadly failed. There is a scary team next to the President,
no need to name any, giving him (poor) judicial and political guidance which the
President complies to.”The Presidential term “still has three years, Hariri has
tried diplomatically and failed. Let us see what the new government has to
offer.”
Lebanese Student Quarantined after Arriving from China
Naharnet/February 05/2020
Health Minister Hamad Hasan said Wednesday that a Lebanese student who arrived
from China is being quarantined at the Rafik Hariri state-run hospital in Beirut
despite being “in good health” and showing no symptoms of being infected with
the novel coronavirus that has killed 490 people in China.
“The Lebanese student who arrived from China is in good health and is not
showing any symptoms,” Hasan told the National News Agency. “There is nothing to
worry about,” he added. Hasan had earlier tweeted that “all the reports claiming
that a Lebanese student has been infected with the coronavirus are baseless,”
noting that “his family is near him and he is enjoying all the necessary care
and attention.”He attached a picture of the quarantined student to his tweet.
The minister had recently announced that the Rafik Hariri hospital has the
ability to quarantine up to four people infected or suspected of being infected
with the coronavirus. LBCI TV had earlier reported that “a quarantined ambulance
that was spotted passing through the al-Masnaa border crossing today was
carrying a Lebanese citizen to the Rafik Hariri state-run hospital in Beirut.”
“The Lebanese citizen was in China with a group of Iranian and Syrian friends
and he asked to be evacuated with them aboard a plane belonging to the Iranian
airlines and the Iranian embassy approved the request,” LBCI said. “The plane
arrived in Tehran this morning before flying to Damascus airport, after which
the Syrian red crescent coordinated with the relevant authorities in Lebanon and
the Lebanese citizen was transported to the al-Masnaa crossing,” the TV network
added. He was received by a Lebanese Red Cross crew who then transported him to
the hospital in Beirut.
“Preliminary examinations showed that the Lebanese citizen is not infected with
the coronavirus,” LBCI said, noting that “precautionary measures were taken
because the virus’ incubation period is around two weeks.”“That’s why he was
transferred to the Rafik Hariri state-run hospital where he will undergo
preventative quarantine measures for 14 days,” the TV network added. The number
of confirmed infections in China has exceeded 24,000. Global concerns have risen
after the World Health Organization declared an international health emergency
last week.Several governments have imposed travel restrictions while major
airlines have suspended flights to and from China.
Former Lebanese Minister Sejaan Azzi: Forget About The Right Of Return – We
Should Either Repatriate Palestinian Refugees In Lebanon Or Disperse Them To
Other Countries
MEMRI/February 05/2020
On January 31, 2020, former Lebanese minister Sejaan Azzi participated in a
panel that aired on the Hizbullah-affiliated Al-Manar TV (Lebanon). Azzi
discussed the Palestinian right of return, saying that it collapsed with the
Oslo Accords and that it cannot be implemented. He suggested that the
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be dispersed to other countries that have
the resources to provide them with livelihoods. Azzi added: "You have to choose
between their repatriation [in Lebanon] and dispersing them once again."
Sejaan Azzi: "The issue of the Right of Return collapsed with the Oslo Accords.
This is not my analysis. There are documents to that effect.
"So the Right of Return has collapsed and there is no way to implement it.
"I am telling you that the Lebanese are not in agreement over the repatriation
of the Palestinians [in Lebanon]. The survey that showed that there are 185,000
[Palestinians in Lebanon] is not true.
"Where have the 500,000 [Palestinian refugees] we used to talk about gone? These
are not my figures or the figures of Imad here... These are the figures provided
by UNRWA, the Interior Ministry, and the General Directorate of General
Security. Where have they gone?"
Panel Participant: "But who among the Lebanese supports the repatriation? Nobody
dares to even talk about it in public."
Sejaan Azzi: "Perhaps nobody supports repatriation, but nobody has the courage
to offer a solution that will enable our Palestinian brothers to continue living
in Lebanon without being given Lebanese nationality.
"Has the presence of our Palestinian brothers in Lebanon – a few kilometers from
the land of Palestine – led to the recapturing of Palestine and to their return?
Panel Participant: "So what do you suggest?"
Sejaan Azzi: "I suggest to examine with Arab and non-Arab countries – with the
consent of the Palestinians themselves... Lebanon is incapable of providing
livelihood for [the Palestinians], but there are countries that are less densely
populated – they have oil, money, vast territories, and capabilities – and they
are capable of providing [them] with livelihoods. The circumstances..."
Panel Participant: "You are calling to expel the Palestinians once again! You
are calling to expel the Palestinians once again!"
Sejaan Azzi: "What? You think they are here to stay? Forever?"
Panel Participant: "No, but..."
Sejaan Azzi: "Look, you have to make a choice, and I have the courage to talk
about it. You have to choose between their repatriation [in Lebanon] and
dispersing them once again. As for the Right of Return – you should forget about
it."
View The Clip
fmr-lebanon-minister-sejaan-azzi-right-return-dead-palestinian-refugees-disperse
Lebanese Petroleum Administration: 'Lundstrom Tide' will
transport equipment and materials from Beirut Port to drilling ship
NNA/February 05/2020
The Lebanese Petroleum Administration (LPA) issued the following statement: "In
continuation of the technical preparations carried out by the operator Total for
drilling the first exploration well in Block No. 4 in the marine waters, the
supply vessel 'Lundstrom Tide' has docked at Beirut Port. This vessel is one of
the three supply ships that will provide logistic support to the drilling ship
'Tungsten Explorer'. The vessel 'Lundstrom Tide' will transport the equipment
and materials needed by the drilling ship from Beirut Port's logistic base to
the ship, such as liquid mud, cement, pipes and other drilling equipment."The
statement added: "The supply vessel will also run naval patrols in vicinity of
the drilling ship, to secure the safety zone surrounding the drilling ship with
a circular beam reaching up to 500 m. Two other logistic support vessels are
also expected to arrive to Beirut port to carry out similar tasks to that of
Lundstrom Tide."
French Ambassador meets Dabbour, reiterates keenness on
twostatesolution
NNA/February 05/2020
Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon, Ashraf Dabbour, on Wednesday welcomed French
Ambassador to Lebanon, Bruno Foucher, who reiterated during the meeting his
country's keenness on a two-state-solution, the right of return for refugees,
and the illegitimacy of the existing settlements. "France's position is clear in
this regard," Foucher affirmed. In turn, Dabbour briefed the French Ambassador
on the official and unified Palestinian position rejecting the so-called deal of
the century.
Protesters gather at Riad Solh Square
NNA/February 05/2020
Dozens of protesters have staged a symbolic sit in at Riad Solh Square in
Central Beirut, chanting slogans refusing to "give confidence to Premier Hassan
Diab's government," NNA Correspondent reported on Wednesday. Protesters have
climbed the concrete wall and attempted to remove the iron barricade separating
between Riad Solh Square and the Grand Serail. Protesters also threw stones at
the security forces in front of the Serail.
NNA Director, Indian Ambassador discuss means to bolster
media cooperation
NNA/February 05/2020
National News Agency Director, Ziad Harfouche, on Wednesday welcomed Indian
Ambassador to Lebanon, Suhel Ajaz Khan, with whom he discussed the best means to
boost media cooperation between Lebanon and India. For his part, the Indian
diplomat reaffirmed his country's support to Lebanon, especially amid the
prevailing economic situation. He also stressed his country's keenness on being
part of UNIFIL's peace keeping force in South Lebanon to help preserve peace and
stability in the region. In turn, Mr. Harfouche lauded Lebanon's historic and
friendly relations with India and thanked Khan for the relentless support that
his country has provided to Lebanon. He also confirmed the National News
Agency's eagerness to ink agreements with Indian media institutions.
Moucharafieh, EU Ambassador tackle socio-economic situation
NNA/February 05/2020
Social Affairs Minister, Professor Ramzi Moucharafieh, welcomed on Wednesday in
his office at the Ministry the European Union Ambassador to Lebanon, Ralph
Tarraf, with whom he discussed the current socio-economic situation and means to
address such challenges.
Najm meets with UN's Kubis, Tarraf, Rampling
NNA/February 05/2020
Justice Minister, Marie-Claude Najm, on Wednesday held a series of meetings at
the Ministry within the context of her action plan designed to reinforce the
independence of the Lebanese judiciary, its transparency and effectiveness.
These meetings majorly focused on issues related to judicial cooperation with
the United Nations and the European Union. In this framework, Minister Najm met
with the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jan Kubis, European Union Ambassador
to Lebanon, Ralph Tarraf, and British Ambassador to Lebanon, Chris Rampling,
with means of bolstering judicial cooperation featuring high on their talks. On
the other hand, Najm also met with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) Beirut
Bureau chief, kevin Mannion.
Mechanic pursuer apprehended in North Lebanon over bribery
NNA/February 05/2020
North Lebanon Investigative Judge, Dany Al-Zeinni, on Wednesday issued an arrest
warrant against N.J., who is a pursuer at the Department of Motor Vehicles
(Mechanic) in North Lebanon, Jounieh, and Beirut, on charges of bribery. The
Judge also summoned other brokers after finding out that some of them have been
actively tracking applications in return for bribes whilst some are not even
officially employed by the DMV.
Karpowership denies claims of leak from Powership Fatmagul
Sultan
NNA/February 05/2020
Some media and social media platforms relayed claims that "The operations
department of the General Directorate of Civil Defense received a notification
on Monday at midnight (February 3, 2020), according to which, a large amount of
fuel has leaked from the Powership Fatmagül (Sultan) after a pipe cracked while
unloading the ship's cargo at the Zouk thermal power plant, forming a thick
layer of approximately ten centimeters on the surface of the water."Karpowership,
the owner and operator of Powerships Fatmagül Sultan and Orhan Bey, is keen to
stress that its Powerships in Zouk and Jiyeh operate the most sophisticated
purification and filtration systems, consequently preventing any harm to the sea
water, in compliance with the highest environmental and safety standards applied
worldwide. Karpowership confirms that the Powership Fatmagül Sultan is in no way
related to the fuel leak mentioned in the claims today.
The aforementioned leak is due to a cracked pipe used to pump fuel into EDL
tanks, and is not related in any form to the Powership Fatmgül Sultan. It is
worth mentioning that Karpowership's staff operating Fatmagül Sultan was
completely mobilized to assist the Civil Defense units and the workers at EDL to
contain the leak.-Karpowership press office
Maxence Duault appointed general director of ESA Business
School
NNA/February 05/2020
The Supervisory Board of the ESA met at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of
Paris ?le-de-France (CCIR) on the 3rd of December 2019 in order to rule on the
future executive management of the school. During the meeting, the CCIR
nominated M. Maxence Duault as general director of the ESA. The proposition was
accepted by the entire members of the counsel. ESA is specialized in the
education and training of managers and executives and provides professional
guidance to Lebanese companies. It is co-presided by the governor of the Bank of
Lebanon M. Riad Salame and the Ambassador of France, M. Bruno Foucher. The
school is managed by the CCIR Paris ?le-de-France as are other major business
schools such as HEC Paris, ESCP Business School or ESSEC.
M. Duault has been serving as acting director since July 2019, after being one
of the major deputies of Stephane Attali, former general director of the ESA,
for the past nine years.
"It is an honor to take over the direction of this prestigious school that has
never stopped innovating since its creation in 1995 and has managed to impose
itself as a leading entity in management training and in the support of business
companies in Lebanon and the region.
I thank all the members of the Surveillance Counsel of the ESA for their trust.
I intent to assume these new functions with responsibility and to pursue the
expansion of the ESA with respect to its history and culture.
I take this appointment thinking of our students, teachers, various partners as
well as the ESA team members. Together, with the strength of the quality and
values that are ours, and with respect to the legacy that Stephane Attali has
transmitted over the last years, we will lead ESA into its next strategic
phase."
A future Palestine: Dubai or Lebanon?
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/Al Arabiya English/February 05/2020
Rewind to 2002. The Arab League had just endorsed its land-for-peace initiative,
and late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat was shouting “martyr, martyr,
martyr” live on TV while under Israeli siege in his bedroom in Ramallah. Western
journalists swarmed Lebanon’s refugee camps to add color to their coverage of
the Arab League summit, and I was a fixer who translated what Palestinians
wished to tell the world.
After showing the big keys and Ottoman titles of the houses they had abandoned
in Palestine, refugees swore to fight to the last for their right of return. But
when the cameras were switched off, one of them pulled me aside, and said: “My
daughter is in Germany, maybe your journalist friends can help me move there
with her.”
Having grown up in Lebanon, where only maximalist Palestinian demands sounded
like a normal peace settlement, I was surprised. My refugee friend wanted to
fight, but only on camera. In real life, like all of us, he just wanted a decent
life. With time, I met Palestinians from the Territories who expressed similar
sentiments. With a clear eye on their interests, rather than empty nationalistic
slogans, these Palestinians got their break with the appointment of Salam Fayyad
as prime minister in 2007, resulting in the onset of Fayyadism — a series of
reforms and economic development — that have so far been the best government
that Palestinians have ever had. But in the absence of elections, and because
Fayyad had no political coalition behind him, Fatah and Hamas conspired to oust
him, and went back to “government” as corrupt as usual.
President Donald Trump’s peace plan might seem to be a deflection of the
Palestinians’ real problem. Should they accept his plan, they will end up with a
mere 15 percent of the land of Mandatory Palestine, with a state that is barely
autonomous, and not even sovereign.
Palestinian concerns might have been justified, if land were a prerequisite for
economic development and growth in today’s world. Perhaps this was the case a
century ago when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict first erupted, and for many
decades that followed. But globalization has knocked out the agricultural and
industrial sectors in small countries, including Israel itself, and has forced
these countries to model their economies on the Asian Tigers, such as Singapore
and Hong Kong. In the Middle East, Dubai and Abu Dhabi have endorsed this model
with brilliant success, and Saudi Arabia too seems bent on implementing it as
per its 2030 plan.
While Trump’s vision is scant on details, Palestinians will probably control
areas A and B of the West Bank, as delineated by the 1993 Oslo Accord. Together,
these two zones make 2,256 square kilometers, or 40 percent of the West Bank’s
area of 5,640 square kilometers (including East Jerusalem). This territory
houses 2.8 million, or 97 percent, of West Bank Palestinians. The rest of the
West Bank, known as Area C, has been contested, and — in any settlement — will
probably look like a web of intersecting highways and tunnels that should make
the Palestinian state contiguous. A Palestinian state will also get the small
and densely populated Gaza Strip, where 1.9 million Palestinians live in 369
square kilometers. Palestine will also get 350,000 Jerusalemites, along with
their neighborhoods in the northeastern parts of the city. Per Trump’s plan, a
Palestinian state will probably have a total area of 3,000 square kilometers,
and a population of close to five million.
When compared to the Asian Tiger economies, Palestine will be five times as big
as Singapore, and three times as big as Hong Kong. At five million, Palestine
will be less densely populated than Singapore, with a population of 5.6 million,
and Hong Kong, with 7.4 million. Even though much smaller and more crowded than
a future Palestine, Singapore and Hong Kong currently have GDPs of $340 and $350
billion, respectively, compared to the puny GDP of the Palestinian Territories,
at less than $15 billion.
Should Palestinians express interest in the deal, the promised $50 billion of
economic aid might be drastically increased. This might give Palestinians a
decade of rapid economic growth, which means a windfall of jobs, good revenue
and prosperity for Palestinians, even if at the expense of sovereignty and most
of their land.
But if sovereignty counted for anything, it would have made a country like
Lebanon, fully sovereign, prosperous. Instead, Lebanon is broke, its economy in
free fall, its currency losing its value by the day, and its people falling into
poverty.
Trump’s peace plan forgoes all the injustices that have befallen Palestinians
over the past century. But it does give them a clear choice: Do they want an
autonomous state that looks like Dubai, or do they want a sovereign country that
looks like Lebanon?
*Hussain Abdul-Hussain is an Iraqi-Lebanese columnist and writer. He is the
Washington bureau chief of Kuwaiti daily al-Rai and a former visiting fellow at
Chatham House in London. He tweets @hahussain.
Berytech opens applications for Batch 1 of its Cleanergy
Accelerator Program
NNA/February 05/2020
Berytech has announced that applications for batch 1 of the Cleanergy
Accelerator Program are now open with a deadline of April 15, 2020. Clean
technologies are taking center stage in creating smarter and more sustainable
ways of living in the face of quick evolving environmental challenges. Berytech
is catalyzing cleantech innovations through a yearly three-phase program that
allows cleantech entrepreneurs grow their startup from an idea into a scalable
business.
The program walks these entrepreneurs through the journey of validating their
product, building an MVP and testing it, establishing their business on
different levels, scaling and fundraising by offering them the resources,
knowledge, support and funding that they need.
The Cleanergy Accelerator Program is jointly funded by Berytech and The Kingdom
of the Netherlands.
From an idea to a growing business in less than one year
Berytech is looking for innovations which have a disruptive scientific or
technological focus in the cleantech sector. The startups must have the
capability to scale beyond the Lebanese market but with the potential to create
sustainable job opportunities locally.
Berytech will support the startups with innovations across the cleantech sector
through the yearly 3-phase Cleanergy Accelerator by helping them grow their idea
into a successful business with global impact. The program offers the necessary
resources, knowledge, support, and funding worth around one hundred thousand US
dollars - $100,000.
Why join the Cleanergy Accelerator Program?
Cleantech innovators and startups who qualify for the program will receive
funding - up to $37K cash injection, will have access to Berytech’s electronics
and hardware Fabrication Lab with technical support to prototype, will receive
Business Coaching during bootcamps, training sessions and master classes to
develop their entrepreneurial competencies, will be promoted in local and
international markets as well as have the opportunity to link with the Cleantech
community and a pool of dedicated Lebanese and European experts.
Who Can Apply?
The clean technology solution should include an innovative process, product, or
service that reduces negative environmental impact. The entrepreneur needs to be
part of a startup or SME at an idea or early stage.
Berytech is sourcing solutions that fall under these 5 sectors:
• Cleantech in energy (generation, storage, infrastructure, efficiency), energy
creation solutions (wind, solar, water, biomass), energy efficiency and
optimization, resource management systems, etc.
• Cleantech in solid waste management, source reduction and recycling, disposal
capacity and second material market, waste management, and transportation, using
the energy content of waste, etc.
• Cleantech in water and wastewater management, in monitoring forecasts and
process controls, wastewater treatment, metals removal, etc.
• Cleantech in agriculture, in incorporating innovative hardware and software,
in introducing AI, and IOT to agriculture, etc.
• Cleantech in transportation, innovations in public transportation, solutions
to energy-efficient vehicles, the use of big data in transport management, smart
car-sharing solutions, improving infrastructures, etc.
The Program
Up to 24 shortlisted applicants will first go through a two-month Validation
phase. This first phase focuses on practical approaches to define objectives and
validate assumptions about the problem, the opportunity, the market size, the
audience, and the feasibility of the solution. Experts and mentors will
follow-up and advise the startups on best practices to achieve validation.
Startups accepted into the first phase will receive $2,000 to validate their
ideas and prototypes.
Up to 12 startups will then be shortlisted and move to the 4-month Acceleration
phase, to build a minimum viable product (MVP) and get traction with a $15,000
support grant. This phase focuses on operations, product development, business
modeling, and go-to-market. Experts and mentors will follow-up and advise the
startups on how to build and launch an MVP. Founders learn about product-market
fit, how to communicate to the right audience, develop the basics of a
sustainable financial structure to secure the stability and growth of the
business, and clear all bottlenecks that limit their product delivery.
Typically, during acceleration, software startups finalize and launch an alpha
version of their MVPs, and hardware startups clear all technical bottlenecks
that limit them from delivering their product to market.
Finally, up to 8 startups will be shortlisted to join the 5-month incubation
program and will benefit from up to $20,000 in matching grants. The incubation
phase will focus on fundraising, operations, and building healthy client and
investor relationships to gain traction and scale. Experts follow-up and advise
startups on how to scale their businesses after launching their product in the
market. Activities will include private and group interactions that enable the
growth of startups participating in the group incubation phase, including
workshops, meet-ups, talks, group pitching sessions, and a boot camp. Private
interactions include clinics that tackle operations, finance, and investment
readiness along with monthly review sessions to ensure that the startups are on
the right path to achieve their objectives.—Berytech
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on February 05-06/2020
Senate acquits Trump in historic vote as re-election battle looms
Agencies, Washington/Thursday, 6 February 2020
President Donald Trump was acquitted on Wednesday in his US Senate impeachment
trial, saved by fellow Republicans who rallied to protect him nine months before
he asks voters in a deeply divided America to give him a second White House
term. The businessman-turned-politician, 73, survived only the third
presidential impeachment trial in US history - just like the two other impeached
presidents - in his turbulent presidency’s darkest chapter. Trump now plunges
into an election season that promises to further polarize the country. Trump was
acquitted largely along party lines on two articles of impeachment approved by
the Democratic-led House of Representatives on Dec. 18, with the votes falling
far short of the two-thirds majority required in the 100-seat Senate to remove
him under the US Constitution. The Senate voted 52-48 to acquit him of abuse of
power stemming from his request that Ukraine investigate political rival Joe
Biden, a contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the November 3
election. Republican Senator Mitt Romney joined the Democrats in voting to
convict. No Democrat voted to acquit. The Senate then voted 53-47 to acquit him
of obstruction of Congress by blocking witnesses and documents sought by the
House. A conviction on either count would have elevated Vice President Mike
Pence, another Republican, into the presidency. Romney joined the rest of the
Republican senators in voting to acquit on the obstruction charge. No Democrat
voted to acquit. On each of the two charges, the senators voted one by one on
the Senate floor with US Chief Justice John Roberts presiding. Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans engineered a stripped-down trial
with no witnesses or new evidence. Democrats called the trial a sham and a
cover-up. Trump called the impeachment an attempted coup and a Democratic
attempt to annul his 2016 election victory. “Is the respondent, Donald John
Trump, guilty or not guilty?” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who
presided over the trial, somberly asked the lawmakers as the chamber began
voting on the first charge.
Pro-Hizballah prime minister’s appointment
in Iraq brings top US general to Baghdad
DEBKAfile/February 05/2020
US Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, US Mid-East commander, paid a quiet visit to
Baghdad on Tuesday, Feb. 4, after Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi was named by the Iraqi
president to form a new Iraqi government. This was the first visit to Baghdad by
a high-ranking American commander since the killing of Iran’s Al Qods chief
Qassem Soleimani in a US air strike last month. Allawi is known to be close to
the Lebanese Hizballah’s chief Hassan Nasrallah, whom Tehran has entrusted with
consolidating its influence in Baghdad in the wake of the assassination. There
is therefore a high risk that the incoming Iraqi prime minister will push harder
than his short-lived predecessors to evict US forces from the country. The Iraqi
parliament had previously made this demand, but it was not binding on the
government. Allawi, egged on by Nasrallah, is expected to rephrase the
resolution in a way that forces government action, DEBKAfile’s military and
intelligence sources report. Gen. McKenzie’s mission in meetings with top Iraqi
generals was to caution them against the prime minister going through with this
step. He then traveled to the big US air base of Ain Al-Asad near the
Iraqi-Syrian border. The consequences of Gen. McKenzie’s meetings in Baghdad are
tensely awaited before determining whether Washington will respond to a fresh
Iraqi demand to withdraw US forces (more than 5,000 military personnel) or
continue to ignore it. Iraq has been in uproar for the past four months
over violent Shiite anti-government demonstrations – mostly in the Shiite south
and Baghdad. An estimated 556 have been killed and thousands injured in brutal
crackdowns by pro-Iranian militia thugs. The demonstrators are also protesting
excessive Iranian influence in Baghdad. Incoming PM Allawi said publicly that
the protesters were right and promised to meet their demands. However, the
Hizballah chief is now running the show in Baghdad. He is armed by Tehran with
the authority both to intensify the crackdown on the demonstrators and continue
to deploy the powerful armed pro-Iraqi militias against American military and
other interests in Iraq, as well as US allies, such as Israel, by their
Syria-based contingents.
Khamenei calls for Palestinian jihad on Israel after Trump peace plan
Jerusalem Post/February 05/2020
The Iranian leader called on all other Muslims to support the Palestinian war on
Israel.
Palestinians start a war against Israel, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei
said in response to the Trump administration's peace plan for Israel and the
Palestinians in a tweet on Wednesday. The "remedy" for the plan is "bold
resistance by the Palestinian nation and groups in order to force out the
Zionist enemy and the US through jihad," Khamenei tweeted. The Iranian leader
called on all other Muslims to support the Palestinian war on Israel. Khamenei
called Arab states willing to consider the plan in a positive light - such as
the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others - traitorous and
incompetent. The ayatollah of Iran slammed the US plan, writing: "The so-called
plan of the 'Deal of the Century' is #foolish, because it will definitely NOT
have any result."Khamenei added that it was foolish for the US to "sit, spend
money, invite, create and uproar and unveil a plan that is doomed to
failure."The US will "try to further their plot with bribes, weapons and
enticements," he stated. The Iranian leader also said "Palestine belongs to the
Palestinians" and questioned how US could try to make decisions on the matter.
He also saw a positive side in the matter, that the US plan called attention to
"Palestine and the rights of its oppressed people."
Iran Announces Death of Soleimani's Guard in Southern
Aleppo
London- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force Asghar
Pashapour was announced killed in Aleppo’s battles on Sunday, according to
Iranian sources. Tehran’s militia participation in the attack on Idlib was
confirmed in line with the Iranian Foreign Ministry's support for Damascus.
Sources said Pashapour was close to slain Commander Qassem Soleimani, who was
killed in a US drone strike in Baghdad early January. According to the Iranian
Television Agency, he was killed “in confrontations with militant groups.”His
military rank in the IRGC was not revealed, but information indicates that he
has accompanied Soleimani in Syria since the beginning of the war between the
regime forces and the Syrian opposition factions. IRGC intelligence agency’s
Mashreq website has described Pashapour as “the man who was always concerned
about Soleimani's life” and published a picture of them both gathered with other
fighters at a site in Syria. Young Journalists Club (YJC) news agency, for its
part, released a video of a conversation going on between Soleimani and
Pashapour in a site in Syria, in which the latter was asking Soleimani not to
advance to frontlines. Iran has not yet officially revealed a statistic on the
number of its forces in Syria despite the announcement of the death of hundreds,
including senior IRGC leaders over the past years. In October 2015, Pashapour's
brother-in-law died in an IRGC hospital in Tehran from his wounds after 13
months of fighting in Syria. IRGC news agencies reported back then that he was
subject to an assassination attempt using “chemical weapons” 40 days before his
death announcement, without indicating who was behind the attempt. Western
diplomatic sources told Asharq Al-Awsat on Monday that Iranian-backed militias
are participating with the regime forces in battles to control Idlib, which are
believed to be part of Tehran's “response” to Soleimani's assassination. Iran
had prevented its militias and Lebanese Hezbollah from participating in Idlib
battles. However, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported a few days
ago that “six foreign pro-Iranian fighters were killed during the ongoing
battles with the factions in the southern countryside of Aleppo.”
Iran’s Khamenei: ‘Deal of the Century’ Will Die before
Trump Dies
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei declared on Wednesday that US President
Donald Trump’s peace plan to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, dubbed the
“Deal of the Century”, will die before Trump dies. “The American plot of the
‘Deal of the Century’ will die before Trump dies,” he said according to a tweet
from his official account. Trump’s plan was seen as overwhelmingly in favor of
Israel. The product of three years effort by senior adviser Jared Kushner, the
plan would recognize Israel’s authority over settlements and would require the
Palestinians to meet a highly difficult series of conditions to be allowed to
have a state, with its capital in a West Bank village east of Jerusalem. The
terms have been roundly rejected by Palestinian leaders, with President Mahmoud
Abbas vowing the proposal would end up in the dustbin of history. On Saturday,
he announced a cut of all ties with Israel and the United States, including
security cooperation.
Palestinians push UN Security Council to condemn Trump plan, Israel
Jerusalem Post/February 05/2020
However, the resolution could then go to the UN General Assembly, where it is
likely to be approved.
The Palestinian Authority began promoting a UN Security Council resolution to
condemn US President Donald Trump’s peace plan and Israel on Wednesday. The move
came a day before Trump’s Special Adviser Jared Kushner was expected to present
the plan to the Security Council and less than a week before Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to speak before it, next Tuesday.The US
is expected to veto the resolution. The “Peace to Prosperity” plan specifically
discourages the Palestinians from taking unilateral action in international
organizations as a step towards making peace with Israel and establishing a
state. However, the resolution could then go to the UN General Assembly, where
it is likely to be approved. The draft states that the US plan “breaches
international law and the internationally-endorsed terms of reference for the
achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as enshrined in the relevant United Nations
resolutions, and undermines the inalienable rights and national aspirations of
the Palestinian people, including to self-determination and independence”
The draft says settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem “are illegal and
imperil the viability of the two-state solution,” relying on UN resolutions
going back to 1967, and including resolution 2334, the condemnation of Israeli
settlement construction from 2016 that the US under then-president Barack Obama
did not veto. It goes on to condemn calls for settlement annexation, saying that
doing so would break international law. On Tuesday night, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu said that he will annex Israeli communities in Judea and
Samaria after the March 2 election if he remains in office. Netanyahu previously
said he would apply Israeli law to settlements this week, but backtracked
following US pressure. The draft resolution argues a two-state solution can only
be based on pre-1967 lines and says no changes can be made to them unless both
sides agree. “Palestine” is an observer at the UN and not a member state, so
Tunisia and Indonesia have proposed the resolution. Israeli Ambassador to the UN
Danny Danon slammed Abbas, saying: “Enough with the staged performances. Instead
of coming to the UN, come to the negotiating table. “Instead of promoting
pointless moves, start acting to improve the reality in our region,” he added.
Two Palestinian dreams: Exterminate Israel and a real
nation-state
Clifford D. May/The Washington Times/February 05/2020
The Trump peace plan is meant to foreclose one and facilitate the other
Some Palestinians have long dreamed of creating, for the first time in history,
their own nation-state. Others have long dreamed of exterminating Israel, the
re-created nation-state of the Jewish people. The second dream has prevented
realization of the first.
Last week, President Trump unveiled what is being called (e.g. by The New York
Times) his “Mideast peace plan.” That’s imprecise. The wars being waged in the
region — e.g. in Syria, Yemen and Sinai — will be unaffected by whatever
transpires between Palestinians and Israelis.
The plan also is being called the “Deal of the Century.” But Jared Kushner, the
plan’s lead author, says it should be viewed instead as the “Opportunity of the
Century.” That recalls the observation of Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, half a
century ago, that Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an
opportunity.”Mr. Eban’s assumption: That Palestinians yearn for peace,
prosperity and freedom but stumble before they reach the goal. Hamas, which took
power in Gaza following Israel’s withdrawal from that territory in 2005, has a
different priority. The Hamas Charter states plainly: “Israel will exist until
Islam will obliterate it.”It adds: “There is no solution for the Palestinian
question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international
conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”Mahmoud Abbas, chairman
of the Palestinian Authority, the governing body on the West Bank, is more
nationalist than Islamist, but he also rejected the plan: “We say 1,000 times:
no, no and no.”That, too, evokes history: In 1967, the Arab states surrounding
Israel went to war. Egyptian President Gamel Abdel Nasser announced the aim:
“Israel’s destruction.” Syria’s Hafiz al-Assad vowed “a battle of annihilation.”
Iraq’s Abdul Rahman pledged “to wipe Israel off the map.”
Morocco Reiterates Support for Palestinian Cause, Rejects
'Deal of the Century'
Rabat, Tel Aviv- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Morocco's Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita refused to comment on Israeli press
reports claiming Tel Aviv was discussing an agreement with Rabat that would see
the US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara in exchange for
normalizing ties with Israel.
Speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of the foreign committee of the House of
Councillors to discuss maritime demarcation laws, Bourita refused to comment on
media reports. Regarding Morocco's position on the so-called ‘deal of the
century’ which some consultants considered ‘ambiguous’ and requires
clarification, Bourita said that the issue of the Sahara is a priority for
Morocco. Bourita stressed that the Moroccan position on the Palestinian issue is
clear, adding that Palestinians have the right to express their positions and
Rabat supports them in this.
The FM said he was surprised over criticism regarding authorities' position on
the US deal, whereas the Palestinian Authority praised the Moroccan position
adding: “we should trust our country's diplomacy.” Reportedly, Morocco’s
military bought last week three Israeli-made reconnaissance drones for some $48
million, according to French website Intelligence Online. Meanwhile, political
and media sources in Tel Aviv stated that the Israeli government had offered
Morocco a political deal in partnership with the US administration, according to
which Morocco would obtain recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara
in exchange for the normalization of Moroccan-Israeli relations. Channel 13
announced that three US and Israeli sources confirmed these reports and
indicated that ongoing Israeli efforts have not achieved results yet. The first
Israeli offer was made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while
attending the UN General Assembly meetings in New York in September 2018, when
he met with Moroccan Foreign Minister. The report said that the meeting was
organized by National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat and managed by Jewish
businessman Yariv Elbaz, who is close to Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law
Jared Kushner. Initially, the contacts were impeded after disputes erupted in
Israel between the Israeli National Security Council and the Mossad agency
headed by Yossi Cohen, who was unaware of these steps. Cohen considered it to be
an overstepping of his authority, but Netanyahu resolved the conflict in favor
of Ben-Shabbat. Netanyahu wanted to announce the deal before April parliamentary
elections to declare it as one of his diplomatic achievements, but media leaks
about Ben-Shabbat’s secret visit to Morocco thwarted these efforts.
Netanyahu’s aides made several approaches towards Washington over the past year
to promote such a deal, but former national security adviser John Bolton was
strongly opposed. The report also indicated that the Moroccan government was
very unhappy with the gap between Netanyahu’s promises and the results so far,
along with advertising relations with Rabat for his own political purposes.
Sudanese-Israeli Relations: From Secret Beginnings to a
Public End
Khartoum - Mohammed Amin Yassin/Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
The meeting between Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Chairman of the Sovereign Council of
Sudan, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Uganda two days ago made
the relations between the countries public, adding Sudan to the list of
countries in contact with Israel.
These secret Sudanese-Israeli relations go back to the beginning of the 1980s
when secret meetings took place between former President Gaafar Muhammad Nimeiry
and former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon through an Arab mediator. These
meetings later paved the way for the deportation of Falasha (Ethiopian Jews) to
Tel Aviv. After the international press revealed the meeting, Nimeiry asked
Israel and the US to stop the operation and not to disclose his role in
smuggling Falasha Jews. The US, however, started to put pressure Nimeiry in 1985
during a visit by US Vice President George Bush to Khartoum meant to resume the
smuggling operation, famously known as the “Saba” operation. Nimeiry succumbed
to the pressure on the condition that they are transported to European
countries, including Israel.
Sharon recalls in his memoirs that the first meeting with Nimeiry took place
during the funeral service of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in Cairo. He was
there as part of an Israeli delegation to give condolences.
Sharon said: “I met with Nimeiry for the second time in 1982 to discuss
strategic issues that concern Africa. The meeting was arranged by a former
Israeli officer in the intelligence services, Yaacob Namrud, and an Arab
businessman”. He then added that “I discussed with Nimeiry another issue that
was of paramount importance to Sudan and Israel,” hinting at the issue of
transporting Falasha Jews to Israel. The secret communications between Israel
and Sudan were discontinued after Nimeiry’s regime was overthrown by the popular
revolution in 1985. The Sudanese officials in the security services and the
regime were persecuted for taking part in this transportation of the Falasha.
Ousted President Omar al-Bashir maintained public hostility to Israel,
considering his extremist Islamic ideology, and joined the camp of countries
that are opposed to Israel in the region. This case of normalization of
relations with Israel remained present during the marathon negotiations that
took place between the overthrown regime and the CIA regarding fighting
terrorism after the September 11 attacks. Reliable sources indicate that one of
the conditions that the US kept putting on the table during negotiations with
Sudan to remove it from the terrorism list and ending economic sanctions was
taking a favorable position towards Israel. This was not rejected by Sudanese
negotiators. Under heavy US pressure and increasing international isolation, the
ousted regime responded by cutting relations with Iran and ceasing all support
of Hamas, a position that is favorable for Israel. Observers have found that in
recent years, the regime has sent positive signs to Israel, expressed by the
former Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour, who did not dismiss the possibility of
discussing normalizing relations with Israel during discussions with the US over
removing the sanctions.
Wikileaks released a conversation with the advisor to the overthrown president,
Mostafa Osman Ismail, where he pushed for Washington’s suggestion to normalize
ties with Israel as a condition for restoring relations with the US.
Mubarak al Fadil al Mahdi, the Minister of Investment in the last government
formation under Bashir before it was overthrown, publicly stated his support of
diplomatic relations between Israel and Sudan. He said: “The Sudanese do not
find relations with Israel problematic.”
US Halts Secretive Drone Program with Turkey over Syria
Incursion
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
The United States has halted a secretive military intelligence cooperation
program with Turkey that for years helped Ankara target Kurdish PKK militants,
four US officials told Reuters. The US decision to indefinitely suspend the
program, which has not been previously reported, was made in response to
Turkey’s cross-border military incursion into Syria in October, the US officials
said, revealing the extent of the damage to ties between the NATO allies from
the incident. The US officials, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity
of the matter, said the United States late last year stopped flying the
intelligence collection missions that targeted the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK),
which both the United States and Turkey classify as terrorists. The US military
had carried out the missions using unarmed drone aircraft, which one official
said were flown out of Turkey’s Incirlik air base, where the US military has a
significant presence. The base is also a key hub for US spy agencies operating
in the region, said Reuters. The US drone flights that took place within the
program, in place since 2007, often zeroed in on mountainous territory in
northern Iraq near the Turkish border, another official said.
A Pentagon spokeswoman did not directly comment on any specific programs but
noted that the United States has designated the PKK a terrorist organization
since 1997.
“We have supported Turkey in their fight against the PKK in many ways for
decades. As a matter of policy, we do not provide details on operational
matters,” the spokeswoman said, when asked about a halt in assistance. A State
Department spokesperson said the United States does not comment on intelligence
matters. Officials from the Turkish defense ministry did not respond to a
request for comment, but a Turkish official confirmed the program was stopped.
The halt to US assistance will test the limits of Turkey’s military and
intelligence capabilities at a time when its forces are already deployed on
multiple fronts in northern Syria and as Ankara mulls deeper engagement in
Libya. “This makes the anti-PKK campaign more difficult and more costly for
Turkey,” one of the four US officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
said. It also adds to a laundry list of grievances between the United States and
Turkey, including Ankara’s purchase of Russian air defenses and broader splits
over the war in Syria, despite what appears to be a strong relationship between
US President Donald Trump and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan. “In
recent years, Turkey has not been struggling to obtain the information it needs
through drones it produces itself,” the Turkish official said. “However, as an
ally the steps taken on this issue do not contribute to ties between the two
countries.”
Splits over Syria
Trump, long a skeptic of US military involvement in Syria, has been blamed by
Democrats and even some Republicans for abandoning the US-backed Kurdish
fighters to the Turkish onslaught, and in so doing, unraveling US policy. The
Turkish offensive took aim at Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Syria,
who had been America’s top allies in the battle against ISIS. Turkey views the
YPG as a terrorist organization, indistinguishable from the PKK. But US policy
has long drawn a bright line between the two groups, helping Turkey combat the
PKK even as US military forces simultaneously partnered with the YPG to combat
ISIS. The PKK took up arms against the Turkish state in 1984, waging an
insurgency for autonomy in Turkey’s largely Kurdish southeast. Since then, more
than 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict. Kurds, as an ethnic group,
form about 20 percent of Turkey’s population.
Turkey’s military has often struck targets in Iraq’s Kurdish region near the
PKK’s stronghold in the Qandil mountains and has also carried out cross-border
operations into northern Iraq targeting the militant group. Since the inception
of the secretive US intelligence cooperation program, Ankara has invested
hundreds of millions of dollars to advance its own defense capabilities and
reduced its dependence on US and Israeli drones which it frequently used since
the late 1990s. Turkey’s privately-owned Baykar Defense, whose management
involves Selcuk Bayraktar, a son-in-law of Erdogan, began working on developing
Turkey’s first drone fleet since the 2000s. Within a decade and a half, it has
developed armed and unarmed drones and begun selling them to the Turkish army as
well as to Ukraine and Qatar. As of July 2019, a total of 86 Bayraktar drones
are in service with Turkey’s security forces and some of those have been
regularly used during Ankara’s three Syria operations in 2016, in 2018 and again
last October. Arda Mevlutoglu, a Turkey-based defense analyst said the recent
advance has equipped Ankara with greater flexibility and freedom in its
operational capabilities.“Turkey’s dependence on her allies, mainly to the US,
significantly decreased, if not completely ended in real-time high-quality
intelligence gathering and surgical strike type operations,” Mevlutoglu said.
Regime Forces Enter Strategic Syrian Town of Saraqeb
Naharnet/Agence France Presse/February 05/2020
Syrian regime forces on Wednesday penetrated the strategic town of Saraqeb in
Idlib province, a war monitor said. "Regime forces have entered Saraqeb, after
hundreds of jihadists and allied forces retreated north of the town," Rami Abdel
Rahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told AFP.
"Regime forces have begun to comb districts of Saraqeb and are on the point of
taking control of all of the M5 road, where the jihadists have withdrawn to a
small village north" of the town, Abdel Rahman added.
State TV said the Syrian military "have encircled the town... on three sides and
overlook the junction of the M4 with the M5." The town sits on a junction of two
key roads, which the regime is seeking to retake in order to revive an economy
ravaged by almost nine years of war. The M5 connects the capital Damascus to
second city Aleppo in the north, crossing Idlib, while the M4 connects Aleppo
with the coast city of Latakia. A week ago, regime forces -- backed by Russia --
retook the town of Maaret al-Numan, which sits on the M5. Regime forces have in
recent weeks ramped up the pressure on the last pocket still controlled by
rebels and jihadists. They have retaken dozens of villages and some major towns
and are pushing northwards, sending displaced populations ever closer to the
Turkish border. Almost 300 civilians have been killed since mid-December in
bombardments of the Idlib region, says the Britain-based Observatory. The
Damascus regime controls more than 70 per cent of Syrian territory and has
repeatedly vowed to reclaim the entire country, including Idlib.Syria's conflict
has killed more than 380,000 people since it broke out in 2011.
Syria: Regime Forces Press Offensive Despite Turkish
Threats
Beirut- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Syrian regime forces Wednesday pressed on with their offensive in the northwest
that has displaced half a million people, despite heightened tensions with
Turkey.Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan threatened on Wednesday to drive back
Syrian troops in Idlib unless they withdraw by the end of the month to stem an
assault which he said had displaced nearly 1 million people. Shelling by Syrian
government forces killed eight Turkish military personnel on Monday, prompting
Turkish forces to strike back. The escalation raised concerns over future
collaboration between Ankara and Moscow, which have backed opposing sides in the
war despite joint efforts to ease the violence. Erdogan said two of Turkey's 12
observation posts, set up around a "de-escalation zone" in northwest Syria's
Idlib region as part of a 2017 agreement with Russia and Iran, were now behind
Syrian government front lines.
"We hope that the process of the regime pulling back behind our observation
posts is completed in the month of February," he told members of his AK Party.
"If the regime does not pull back during this time, Turkey will have to do this
job itself."
He said the Turkish military would carry out air and ground operations in Idlib,
when necessary. Intensive aerial bombardment and ground fighting in the
militant-dominated Idlib region since December have killed almost 300 civilians
and triggered one of the largest waves of displacement in the nine-year war. UN
regional spokesman David Swanson said 520,000 people had been displaced since
the beginning of December and the numbers could swell further. The United
Nations and aid groups have condemned the escalation and called for an end to
hostilities in a region that is home to three million people, half of them
already displaced from other parts of Syria. Erdogan said nearly one million
people were moving towards the Turkish border and Syrian territory under Turkish
control. "No one has the right to place such a weight on our shoulders," he
said.
He warned on Tuesday that his country would not allow Syrian forces to gain more
ground and accused them of driving "innocent and grieving people" towards the
Turkish border. But Russian-backed Syrian regime forces on Wednesday pressed on
with their offensive in Idlib, where they have seized more than 20 towns and
villages from rebels and militants over the past 24 hours, according to the
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and state news agency SANA.
With their latest advance, Damascus loyalists have nearly encircled Saraqeb in
southern Idlib and were now within one kilometer (less than a mile) of the
strategic highway town which has been emptied of its residents following weeks
of bombardment, the Observatory said. Holdout rebels and militants can only exit
from the north, with regime forces deployed on all other sides, according to the
war monitor group.
Trump Renews Vow to Withdraw US Troops From Afghanistan
Washington- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday renewed his vow to negotiate a troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying he had no desire to kill "hundreds of
thousands" in unending fighting. In one of his few foreign-policy points in a
highly partisan State of the Union address to Congress, Trump offered his
blessing for ongoing negotiations with Taliban militants. "In Afghanistan, the
determination and valor of our warfighters has allowed us to make tremendous
progress, and peace talks are underway," the president said. "These are
warfighters, the best in the world, and they either want to fight to win or not
fight at all," Trump continued. "We are working to finally end America's longest
war and bring our troops back home!""I am not looking to kill hundreds of
thousands of people in Afghanistan, many of them totally innocent," Trump told
the joint session of Congress.
"It is also not our function to serve other nations as a law enforcement agency.
These are war-fighters, the best in the world, and they either want to fight to
win or not fight at all," he said. "We are working to finally end America's
longest war and bring our troops back home." Trump has long questioned the
wisdom of keeping troops overseas and has described the war in Afghanistan
launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks as a drain on blood and treasure.
But last year he abruptly said that he had canceled a previously unannounced
summit at the Camp David presidential retreat with the Taliban because of an
attack that killed an American. He later allowed veteran US negotiator Zalmay
Khalilzad to resume the talks, which had taken place for months in Qatar. Under
a draft deal, the United States will withdraw troops, and the Taliban will
promise not to allow extremists to use Afghanistan as a base as well as to open
talks with the internationally recognized government in Kabul. The Taliban has
more recently proposed a limited reduction in violence, an easing of position
after previously refusing any halt to attacks it sees as leverage. Army Gen.
Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has described the military
situation in Afghanistan as a "strategic stalemate," in which the Taliban cannot
overthrow the Afghan government as long as US troops and allied remain in the
country.
Plane Breaks into Three after Skidding Off Istanbul Runway
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 05/2020
A plane carrying 177 people skidded off the runway at an Istanbul airport,
caught fire and split into three after landing in rough weather on Wednesday.
At least 120 people were injured in the incident, the city's governor said.
"At the moment, 120 people who were injured have been hospitalized," said
governor Ali Yerlikaya, adding that most of them were "doing well, aside from
one or two people." Live images broadcast on Turkish television showed several
people climbing through a large crack in the severed aircraft and escaping onto
one of the wings at the rear.
The Boeing 737 operated by Turkish low-cost carrier Pegasus Airlines had flown
into Istanbul's Sabiha Gokcen airport from the Aegean port city of Izmir, NTV
television reported. The plane was apparently buffeted by strong winds and heavy
rain lashing Istanbul, Turkey's largest city.
The plane was carrying 171 passengers and six crew members, the governor said,
while Turkish media reports said there were 12 children on board.
Turkish media also said the two pilots, a Turkish national and a South Korean,
were seriously hurt. NTV showed images of the badly damaged plane and flames
inside, which were later put out by firefighters.
After darkness fell, television footage showed dozens of rescue workers in
high-visibility jackets surrounding the plane with flashlights. Some sprayed
water jets onto the severed body of the aircraft, while others could be seen
climbing up onto the plane to comb through the cabin.
'Strong landing'
According to NTV, Turhan said the plane broke after a "strong landing" at Sabiha
Gokcen, one of two main international airports in Istanbul.
The front of the plane including the cockpit was sliced off from bulk of the
fuselage, and another huge fissure separated the rear of the aircraft including
the tail. Sabiha Gokcen, which lies on the Asian side of Turkey's commercial
hub, was closed and flights were being redirected to Istanbul's main airport.
There had been very strong winds and rain in the area before the incident and
poor weather conditions in Istanbul, particularly in winter, often lead to the
cancellation of flights. The Istanbul public prosecutor has launched an
investigation into the incident. The plane had landed at the airport at 1518
GMT, the private DHA news agency reported.In January 2018, a Pegasus Boeing
737-800 slid down an embankment at Trabzon airport on the Black Sea, and landed
just meters from the wa er with its wheels stuck in thick mud.
After four days, the plane was eventually lifted back onto the runway with
engineers using cranes. All 162 passenger and six crew were safely evacuated.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sought to make Istanbul the world's top
aviation hub and in 2018 opened a new mega-airport in the city of 15 million
people. Pegasus, which has been flying for 20 years, has a fleet of 83 aircraft,
including 47 Boeings and 36 Airbus planes, according to its website.
7 Dead as Sadr Supporters Attack Iraq Protest Camp
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/February 05/2020
Seven people were shot dead on Wednesday in Iraq's shrine city of Najaf after
supporters of powerful cleric Moqtada Sadr raided an anti-government protest
camp, medics told AFP. All the dead suffered bullet wounds to the head or chest,
the medics said, and dozens more were wounded.
Tensions have been high at protest camps across the country since Sadr backed
prime minister-designate Mohammad Allawi, prompting a rift with the main
anti-government movement which has rejected his nomination as premier.
Maliki: Draft Resolution Against US Plan to Be Circulated at UN
Ramallah - Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 5 February, 2020
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki has revealed efforts to submit a
draft-resolution before the United Nations General Assembly rejecting the US
peace plan. Maliki told Voice of Palestine radio that the draft would “stress
our people’s right to self-determination,” in addition to a call for “ending the
occupation, adopting a two-state solution, and affirming peace as a strategic
choice for the peoples.”He added that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would
address the UN Security Council on February 11 on the Palestinian stance towards
the US plan. In a statement, Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said: “The European Union is fully
committed to the transatlantic partnership and values all efforts to help find a
peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”“The EU recalls its
commitment to a negotiated two-State solution, based on 1967 lines, with
equivalent land swaps, as may be agreed between the parties, with the State of
Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous, sovereign and viable State of
Palestine, living side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition – as
set out in the Council Conclusions of July 2014,” he said.
“The US initiative, as presented on 28 January, departs from these
internationally agreed parameters,” Borrell added. Reuters published extracts
from the text drafted by the Palestinians that was circulated to council members
by Tunisia and Indonesia. The draft-resolution “stresses the illegality of the
annexation of any part” of occupied Palestinian territories and “condemns recent
statements calling for annexation by Israel” of these territories, according to
Reuters. It also stresses the need for an acceleration of international and
regional efforts to launch “credible negotiations on all final status issues in
the Middle East peace process without exception.”
The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on February 05-06/2020
Does Muslim-on-Muslim Violence Prove Jihad Is Politically
Driven?
Raymond Ibrahim/FrontPage Magazine/February 05/2020
On January 18, a Shia Muslim rebel group launched a terror attack that claimed
the lives of 111 in Yemen.
Days earlier, a Pakistani general captured popular sentiment whenever Muslims
kill fellow Muslims by saying “Those who targeted innocents [Muslims] in a
mosque can never be true Muslim[s].” He was referring to the January 10 suicide
bombing of a Pakistani mosque that claimed 15 lives.
Such is the nature of one of the greatest claims that Islamic terrorism is much
more politically than religiously driven. Thus, after another terrorist attack
claimed the lives of Muslims in Bangladesh in 2016, it prime minister, Sheikh
Hasina, declared that “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They
do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”
Perhaps Barack Obama put it most succinctly: The Islamic State “does not speak
for Islam,” he said after the San Bernardino terror attack that left 14 dead in
December 2015. “They are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death…. Moreover,
the vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim.”
Western media have been especially vocal about this point. After the November
2015 Paris terrorist attack, which left 130 people dead, the UK’s Independent
published an article titled, “Paris attacks: Isis responsible for more Muslim
deaths than western victims.” The Daily Beast argued that, “Before the Paris
horror, ISIS was killing Muslims on a daily basis. We Muslims despise these
crazy people more than anyone else does…. But the number one victim of this
barbaric terror group is Muslims. That’s undisputed.”
Along with distancing Islam from violence—real Muslims are not supposed to kill
fellow Muslims in the name of jihad—this argument further clouds the issue of
who is the true victim of Islamic terrorism: Why present the Muslim slaughter of
non-Muslims—whether Europeans, Americans, Israelis, or Christian minorities
under Islam—as ideologically driven by an “anti-infidel” animus, when it is
Muslims themselves who are the primary victims?
The problem with this simplistic argument, however, is that Muslims who target
Muslims do not view their victims as Muslims. Indeed, Sunnis and Shias view each
other as false Muslims or, at best, heretics who need to submit to the “true
Islam.” Hence their perennial war. While Western talking heads tend to lump them
all together as “Muslims”—thus reaching the erroneous conclusion that jihadi
groups are un-Islamic because they kill “fellow Muslims”—each group views the
other as the enemy.
A saying attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad validates this view: “This
umma [nation] of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in
paradise and seventy-two will be in hell.” When asked which sect was the true
one, the prophet replied, “al–jama‘a,” that is, the group which most literally
follows the example or “sunna” of Muhammad.
This has led to takfir—an Arabic word that every Muslim dreads, and which occurs
whenever one Muslim individual or group denounces another Muslim individual or
group of being kuffar—that is, non-Muslims, infidels, whose blood can be shed
with impunity. Takfir has existed alongside Islam from almost its inception,
beginning with the khawarij (Kharijites)—who ritually slaughtered Muslims for
not following the letter of law—and was/is the primary rationale used to justify
jihad between different Muslim nations and empires throughout history.
In other words, when Sunnis or Shias slaughter each other, they do so under the
exact same logic as when they slaughter Christian minorities, or European,
American, and Israeli citizens: all are infidels who must either embrace the
true faith, be subjugated, or die.
For example, in November 2017, the Islamic State claimed the bombing of a Sufi
mosque in Egypt that left more than 300 dead. Sometime before it, an ISIS
commander situated in Sinai had “outlined the group’s hatred for Sufis and their
practices, including the veneration of tombs, the sacrificial slaughter of
animals and what he termed ‘sorcery and soothsaying.’” ISIS has further referred
to Sufism as a “disease” that needs to be “eradicated.” Accordingly, a year ago,
ISIS beheaded Sulayman Abu Hiraz, a Sufi cleric reportedly over 100 years old,
on the charge of sorcery.
Muslims have been slaughtering Muslims on the accusation that they are “not
Islamic enough” or the wrong “kinds” of Muslims from the start. As such and if
anything, the notion that Muslims kill more Muslims than non-Muslims only begs
the question: what can the non-Muslim—such as the Western infidel—expect from
the practitioners of jihad, be they Sunni, Shia, or anything else?
Can Muslim Terrorists be Deradicalized? - Part I
Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/February 05/2020
"What we found [in prisons] was so shockingly bad that I had to agree to the
language in the original report being toned down. With hindsight, I'm not sure
that was the right decision." — Ian Acheson, British expert on prisons.
"There were serious deficiencies in almost every aspect of the management of
terrorist offenders... Frontline prison staff were vulnerable to attack and were
ill-equipped to counter hateful extremism on prison landings for fear of being
accused of racism. Prison imams did not possess the tools, and sometimes the
will, to combat Islamist ideology. The prison service's intelligence-gathering
system was hopelessly fractured and ineffectual." — Ian Acheson, "London Bridge
attack: I told ministers we were treating terrorist prisoners with jaw-dropping
naivety. Did they listen?", London Times, December 1, 2019.
"Obedience is achieved by violence and intimidation carried out by members of
the group known as enforcers. 'Those who had committed terrorist crimes often
held more senior roles in the gang,' the study found, 'facilitated by the
respect some younger prisoners gave them.' The study found that terrorist groups
such as al-Qaida did not see prison as an obstacle. Quite the opposite, they
viewed it as an opportunity to organize and expand." — Patrick Dunleavy, former
Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections, June 18,
2019.
Usman Khan's deadly terror attack in London on November 29, 2019 is evidence
that the existing schemes for deradicalization and rehabilitation of convicted
terrorists are inherently unstable and, in a certain percentage of cases, likely
to fail. Pictured: Belmarsh Prison, in London, from where Usman Khan was
released to continue his terrorist activities.
On Friday November 29, 2019, an Islamist terror attack took place in London. Two
young people, both recent Cambridge University graduates, Jack Merritt (25) and
Saskia Jones (23), were stabbed and killed by a single attacker. It was a
terrible and unnecessary loss of life.
The special irony about Jack and Saskia's deaths is that they (and a colleague)
had been involved with Cambridge University's Learning Together
prison-rehabilitation program, similar to the US version known as Inside-Out,
both of which bring prison inmates together with students to learn together. The
British programme is run by Cambridge University's Institute of Criminology,
from which both Merritt and Jones had received M.Phils in criminology.
On that Friday, the fifth anniversary of the program, they were attending a
conference on offender rehabilitation. The event, dedicated to work on
reintegrating prisoners after their release, took place in the stately
Fishmongers' Hall at the north end of London Bridge. It was attended by a mix of
academics, students, graduates and former prisoners, some with tags.
Just after lunch, at 12.58 p.m., the conference erupted into chaos when one of
the participants threatened to blow it up. A man, later identified as Usman
Khan, revealed that he was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. It is not
clear what he planned to do, given that the vest was a fake and could not have
served in any attack. However, he did have two knives taped to his wrists. When
he left the Hall and went down to the bridge, it was indeed with these weapons
that he killed Merritt and Jones and injured several others, some badly.
Remarkably, instead of running for their lives, many of the conference
participants, including some prisoners, tackled Khan. One was a convicted
murderer on day release. Two of these heroes were Merritt and Jones, who paid
for their bravery with their own lives.
That Khan was there at all almost beggars belief. He was out on licence from
prison, where he had served just half of a 16-year prison sentence for engaging
with others in plans for what could have led to a major terrorist atrocity. He
was at the conference because it was believed he was working towards his own
deradicalization. Quite obviously, he had not been deradicalized.
Nine years earlier, when he was 19, Khan had been a leading member of a
terrorist outfit inspired by al-Qa'ida. The members were arrested and put on
trial in 2012, when Khan and two others were handed undetermined sentences; Khan
was classified as never to be released. They had never carried out an attack,
but they had ambitious plans, distributing letter bombs in the post, and setting
off pipe bombs in toilets and pubs. There was also a handwritten target list
belonging to the group which listed the names and addresses of the then London
mayor, Boris Johnson, the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, two rabbis, the US
embassy in London and the stock exchange.
There were nine accused in all, but Khan and two others were described by the
judge who sentenced them, Justice Alan Wilkie, to have been "more serious
jihadis than the others." Wilkie had also warned that Khan should not be
released from prison early:
In my judgment, these offenders would remain, even after a lengthy term of
imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately
protected by their being managed on licence in the community, subject to
conditions, by reference to a preordained release date.
That warning was not heeded when it came to a reconsideration of Khan's
situation.
At an appeal hearing in 2013, Khan was given a determinate sentence of 16 years
in gaol. He had served about five years of this when he was released on licence
while wearing a GPS ankle bracelet. According to a BBC investigation:
During his time in prison, Khan completed a course for people convicted of
extremism offences and after his release went on a scheme to address the root
causes of terrorism.
The first course Khan went on, the Healthy Identity Intervention Programme, was
piloted from 2010 and is now the main rehabilitation scheme for prisoners
convicted of offences linked to extremism.
There was, however, a flaw in these schemes: they had not been fully tested or
evaluated. The BBC's home affairs correspondent, Danny Shaw, remarked:
Last year, the Ministry of Justice published the findings of research into the
pilot project which found it was "viewed positively" by a sample of those who
attended and ran the course.
However, the department has not completed any work to test whether the scheme
prevents reoffending or successfully tackles extremist behaviour.
There has also been no evaluation of the impact of the Desistance and
Disengagement Programme, which Khan took part in after his release last year.
It need hardly be said that Khan's attack is evidence that such schemes are
inherently unstable and, in a certain percentage of cases, likely to fail.
Actually, the failure rate had already been predicted by Ian Acheson, a British
expert on prisons who is currently a senior advisor to the US-based Counter
Extremism Project. In 2015, Britain's Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, appointed
Acheson, aided by a small expert team, to conduct an independent review of
Islamist extremism in the prisons and probation system in England and Wales. A
summary of the main findings of Acheson's final report has been made available
online by the UK government.
On December 1, however, Acheson himself wrote an article for the London Times
entitled "London Bridge attack: I told ministers we were treating terrorist
prisoners with jaw-dropping naivety. Did they listen?"
In it, he revealed that his survey was originally opposed by the CEO of
Britain's Prison and Probation Service, who had to be overruled by Gove. He goes
on to write that "What we found was so shockingly bad that I had to agree to the
language in the original report being toned down. With hindsight, I'm not sure
that was the right decision." He continues with a deeply worrying account of
what he and his team found:
There were serious deficiencies in almost every aspect of the management of
terrorist offenders through the system that are relevant to Usman Khan.
Frontline prison staff were vulnerable to attack and were ill-equipped to
counter hateful extremism on prison landings for fear of being accused of
racism. Prison imams did not possess the tools, and sometimes the will, to
combat Islamist ideology. The prison service's intelligence-gathering system was
hopelessly fractured and ineffectual.
The rest of the article should be read in full, for it is a damning indictment
of the way Islamic extremism and deradicalization of terrorists are handled
within the UK's prison network. At one point, he writes:
What has this got to do with Khan? Many of the recommendations I made related to
what I saw as serious gaps in the management of terrorist offenders into custody
and "through the gate". There was a lack of expertise and appropriateness in the
arrangements for probation supervision of these most potentially lethal
offenders.
The questions Acheson proceeds to ask are detailed and well informed. Perhaps
the government agencies responsible for incarceration and deradicalization of
terrorists and would-be jihadists will listen to him and others who are deeply
informed about the problem and will introduce some at least of the many reforms
he calls for.
Tragically, that may not happen. As he himself admits, he is likely to be
persona non grata within the service and perhaps the Ministry of Justice:
Moreover, there are legitimate questions to ask about the qualifications of the
key people in this highly sensitive role and how they were appointed. HM Prison
and Probation Service, where I spent nearly a decade working, is a notoriously
closed shop when it comes to the advancement of its senior leadership, whatever
the public relations person says.
To make life even harder for prison officials at every level, a study published
by the Ministry of Justice in May 2019, has revealed that radical Muslims in
gaol in the UK are almost out of control to the point where they rule prisons.
Entitled "Exploring the Nature of Muslim Groups and Related Gang Activity in
Three High Security Prisons: Findings from Qualitative Research", the study
paints a disturbing picture that could have been a script for a violent TV
drama.
There is a useful summary of the UK situation by Patrick Dunleavy, a former
Inspector General for the New York State Department of Corrections. Dunleavy has
testified as an expert witness before the House Committee on Homeland Security
about the threat of Islamic Radicalization in the U.S. prison system.
In his summary dated June 19, 2019, Dunleavy identifies a group of radicalized
Muslims who function as a gang in UK prisons, taking control of territory and
exercising influence over existing and new Muslim prisoners, even where the
latter do not enter gaol as extremists or terrorist supporters. Dunleavy sums up
the influence of this broad "gang":
Obedience is achieved by violence and intimidation carried out by members of the
group known as enforcers. "Those who had committed terrorist crimes often held
more senior roles in the gang," the study found, "facilitated by the respect
some younger prisoners gave them."
Leadership gives the orders for all acts of violence. No member acts on his own.
If he does, one inmate said, he is taken aside by a leader....
The study described the leaders as manipulative, dominating, and outspoken and
yet found they were able to portray themselves to prison staff as compliant and
polite. In other words, "jail wise."
A similar situation exists in the United States, where Muslim radicals also form
gang-like structures of mutual reinforcement and coercion. Dunleavy draws on his
own direct experience of US prisons:
I was assigned to "Operation Hades" at the time, a multifaceted investigative
group of federal, state, and local agents, analysts, and law enforcement
officers tasked with exploring the level of radical Islamic recruitment in the
prison system.
The study found that terrorist groups such as al-Qaida did not see prison as an
obstacle. Quite the opposite, they viewed it as an opportunity to organize and
expand.
In prison, terrorists designed an organizational structure providing specific
roles for each member, roles identical to what was just found in the UK;
leaders, recruiters, enforcers, foot soldiers. The intelligence report also said
that terrorists would operate their group in prison like a "brotherhood," and
that recruitment would thrive because they had a large "pool of vulnerable
people" from which to draw.
However, in Dunleavy's opinion, American prison and counter-terrorism
authorities have handled these matters better than their counterparts in the UK:
The United States seems to have fared better curbing radical Islamic groups
organizing in the prison system than our UK and EU counterparts. This may be due
in part to the Correctional Intelligence Initiative program operated by the
FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which continues to build on the
recommendations of the 2002 report.
If there is one shortcoming, it is in the area of post-release supervision of
convicted terrorists.
As we have previously reported, more terrorists are being released from custody
with no viable de-radicalization program or monitoring system in place.
Where they live or work, as well as any social media involvement after their
release, needs to be strictly monitored. Any important intelligence gleaned from
this should be shared across the board with participating agencies.
International travel should also be restricted.
Usman Khan's trajectory confirms Dunleavy's uneasy concern about the
"post-release supervision of convicted terrorists". Is any form of
deradicalization possible at all? It is no secret that hundreds of former
Islamic State/Da'esh fighters may have returned or hope yet to return to their
countries of origin in Europe:
Jürgen Stock, Interpol's chief, who is also a criminologist and law enforcement
officer from Germany, said: "We could soon be facing a second wave of other
Islamic State linked or radicalised individuals that you might call Isis 2.0."
"A lot of these are suspected terrorists or those who are linked to terrorist
groups as supporters who are facing maybe two to five years in jail. Because
they were not convicted of a concrete terrorist attack but only support for
terrorist activities, their sentences are perhaps not so heavy."
Many such fighters are already in custody under Turkish control. A recent report
from Ankara indicates that the Islamist Turkish government is threatening to
release them and send them into Europe. If that happens, handling such an influx
could become an intense and possibly irresoluble headache for the prison,
security, and counter-terrorism authorities everywhere.
In Part II, we shall examine what the Western states will have to do and should
already be doing to quash this menace.
Postscript. Just as this article finished editing, a grim event, once more in
London, took place in an eerie replica of Usman Khan's November terrorist attack
on London Bridge. On February 2, a young Muslim, Sudesh Amman, stabbed two
passers-by in Streatham, a London district. Ten days earlier, he had, like Khan,
been released from prison halfway through his sentence for terror offences in
2018. He too was shot dead by armed police, and in his case neither of his
victims died.
Amman was one of the top five terrorist risk people in the country and was known
still to possess extremist views, yet his parole board did not assess him before
setting him free to go onto the street, take a knife from a shop, and attack two
innocent people. This, despite the fact, as we shall see in part two, that the
government had earlier announced plans to tighten up sentencing and end halfway
release for terrorist prisoners.
*Dr. Denis MacEoin has taught Islamic Studies and written several reports on
radical Islam. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at New York's Gatestone
Institute.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
ISIS Women: Victims or Perpetrators?
Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/February 05/2020
"Female members of ISIS are often perceived as being passive, naïve, or even as
victims. This is a dangerous and wildly inaccurate characterization." — Free
Yezidi Foundation.
It is important to stress that the true victims of ISIS's hateful practices are
not the thousands of women and girls who willingly joined ISIS and actively
participated in the group's horrendous crimes against humanity, but rather the
hundreds of thousands of Christians, Yezidis and Muslims whom they displaced,
tortured and killed.
Whether the "ISIS brides" -- women who abetted men in the abduction, rape,
torture and slaughter of Yezidis and Christians in Iraq and Syria -- are worthy
of mercy is questionable. Pictured: Iraqi Yezidi women mourn at a ceremony
during the exhumation of a mass-grave of hundreds of Yezidis killed by Islamic
State terrorists in the northern Iraqi village of Kojo, on March 15, 2019.
The recent case of Samantha Marie Elhassani (née Samantha Sally) -- an American
mother-of-two who left her home in Indiana to join the now-defunct Islamic State
(ISIS) caliphate in Syria -- sheds light on the issue currently debated in the
West about the degree of culpability of terrorists' wives, and whether they
should be viewed as victims or perpetrators.
On November 25, in a U.S. Federal Court, Elhassani pled guilty to, and was
convicted of "providing financial support to individuals who desired to support
ISIS."
According to U.S. Attorney Thomas L. Kirsch II:
"[Elhassani] traveled with her husband and brother-in-law to Syria, both of whom
became ISIS fighters, putting the lives of her children at risk. [Her] guilty
plea to federal terrorism charges reflects the seriousness of her criminal
conduct."
FBI Special Agent Grant Mendenhall added:
"The defendant also exposed her young, impressionable children to an environment
of hatred and violence with no regard to the harm she was causing them."
Elhassani's sentencing is due to take place in March 2020.
A similar case that has gained attention in the U.S. is that of Hoda Muthana, a
25-year-old "ISIS bride." Muthana is the American-born daughter of a former a
United Nations diplomat from Yemen, who left her Alabama home in 2014 to join
ISIS in Syria. Now a mother, she was married at least twice to ISIS fighters who
were killed, and once urged jihadists to "spill American blood." Since then, she
has reportedly expressed remorse for her actions.
Muthana's family filed a lawsuit in February against the Trump Administration,
to enable her to return to the U.S. from Syria, where she now resides in a
refugee camp. In November, however, a federal judge ruled that Muthana is not a
U.S. citizen -- just as the Obama administration had determined in 2016 -- and
therefore has no right to return to the country.
In an interview with NBC News in early November, Muthana said:
"Anyone that believes in God believes that everyone deserves a second chance, no
matter how harmful their sins were."
Whether women who abetted men, however, in the abduction, rape, torture and
slaughter of Yezidis and Christians in Iraq and Syria are worthy of mercy is
questionable.
The Free Yezidi Foundation, it "was founded shortly after terrorists attempted
to eradicate the Yezidi people in August 2014 in Iraq... It also tries to create
international awareness of the plight of the Yezidis." According to the
organization, "Female members of ISIS are often perceived as being passive,
naïve, or even as victims. This is a dangerous and wildly inaccurate
characterization."
In a recent report, the Free Yezidi Foundation cited a 2017 publication by the
Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) -- titled "Jihadist
women, a threat not to be underestimated" -- which states:
"Naive girls who follow the love of their life, women who are even more radical
than their husbands, or women who 'accidentally' find themselves in the
'caliphate'– the reporting on jihadist women is dominated by stereotypes.
Questions such as 'What role do women play in the jihadist movement?' and 'What
kind of threat do jihadist women pose?' often remain unanswered, even though
they are very relevant right now. In the last two years, a number of jihadist
women in Europe have attempted to carry out a terrorist attack... The role that
these jihadist women play within the jihadist movement should not be
underestimated. In many cases, jihadist women are at least as dedicated to
jihadism as men. They pose a threat...by recruiting others, producing and
disseminating propaganda, and raising funds. Moreover, they indoctrinate their
children with jihadist ideology. Women form an essential part of the jihadist
movement..."
In the wake of the October 27 death of bloodthirsty ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, it is crucial to remember that his jihadist ideology lives on. So
do the terrorists who continue to carry it out.
It is important to stress that the true victims of ISIS's hateful practices are
not the thousands of women and girls who willingly joined ISIS and actively
participated in the group's horrendous crimes against humanity, but rather the
hundreds of thousands of Christians, Yezidis and Muslims whom they displaced,
tortured and killed.
*Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the
Gatestone Institute.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Algeria, France and Turkey: Pains of the Past and Ambitions for the Future
Hazem Saghieh/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 05/2020
France’s relationship with Algeria and Algeria’s relationship with France are
more condensed and sensitive than any other relationship between two countries.
Each of them has had a deep impact on the other, through occupation and
colonization and through immigration and cultural engagement. There is a bitter
past between them and horizons for a future that may be promising. They have
many traumas and constantly attempt to cure their many wounds. Recently,
President Macron said: "The Algerian war is undoubtedly the most dramatic ... I
know this since my presidential campaign ... It is a challenge before us and
enjoys the same importance that (ex-president) Jacques Chirac was looking at in
1995 to the Nazi Holocaust. "This phrase seemed to challenge a taboo and was
condemned by far-right French parties who are proud of their country’s colonial
history.
Macron, despite many reservations about him, is taking a different path: he
wants to close the open wound. He called the colonization of Algeria a “crime
against humanity” as presidential candidate in 2017. As president in 2018, he
recognized his country’s use of torture during the Algerian war. This is among
the things that are traditionally kept quiet. The French president knows that
purifying the Algerians’ memory of France is among the pre-conditions for his
country's democratic and modern development. He knows that their shared
experience is too important and precious to be dealt with lightly and that the
past still weighs heavily on the present. For France, which occupied Algeria in
1830 and later evolved its occupation to settler colonialism (a million
settlers) accompanied by linguistic and cultural annihilation, confronted a
number of insurgencies that preceded the 1954 revolution. The French say that
the war cost 400,000 lives. The Algerians call it the “revolution of a million
martyrs”.
The Algerian war had a deep impact on French politics. De Gaulle’s 1958 5th
Republic began the corrective turn that ended in the 1962 independence. A coup
attempt and an attempted murder of de Gaulle himself were orchestrated by the
“Secret Army Organization” in response to the Gaullist new policies. The special
military tribunal issued the death penalty as a punishment for the far-right’s
actions. The “General” then went about rectifying the relationship with the Arab
world, famously describing Israel as an arrogant and elitist nation following
the 1967 war.
The Algerian war affected French partisan life. The “Unified Socialist Party”,
led by Michel Rocard, was distinguished, among other things, by its attitude
toward the Algerian question. Its famous demonstration, which the Communist
Party participated in, in early 1962, supporting Algerian independence became
famous for two reasons: the fact that the head of the police, Maurice Papon whom
it was later discovered had collaborated with Nazi occupiers of France, took on
its repression, and the fact that eight protesters who had taken refuge from the
police’s bullets in the metro suffocated to death.
The Algerian war was the subject of a longstanding dispute between France and
the United States. During this period, France participated, mostly because of
Algeria, in the 1956 war against Egypt, and its relationship with the Soviet
Union deteriorated.
There was also the major cultural impact; Algeria and Vietnam wars gave the idea
of “commitment” its meaning for French intellectuals. The first of them became
the “war of Sartre”, who signed the famous “Declaration of the 121”, in which
the French elite recognized the Algerians’ right to revolution. Sartre also
participated, through the “suitcase campaign”, in smuggling money and leaking
information to Algerian revolutionaries. The far-right even chanted: “execute
Sartre” in the streets of Paris.
On the other end, the French language that had been imposed on Algeria at first
quickly formed into a cultural and to a large extent political identity that was
felt by a pretty sizable sector of the Algerian society, especially among the
Amazigh elite.
Today, there are more than six million people, from over four generations, who
are either French of Algerian origin or Algerian immigrants to France. The
overwhelming majority of them integrated and gave France some of its brightest
figures. A minority of them is engaged in a "war of identity", and a minority
within that minority partook in the terrorist acts that started in the
mid-1990s, with the "Armed Islamic Group." This happened in parallel with the
outbreak of civil war in Algeria itself.
Identity, Islamophobia and terrorism issues are met with the counting on
integration on the one hand and mutual interests on the other. The value of
trade between France and Algeria exceeds 8 billion euros annually, and France is
one of the largest investors in Algeria, providing 40,000 direct job
opportunities and 100,000 opportunities through mediation in the sectors of
transportation, car manufacturing, nutrition and pharmacology…
Nevertheless, the sensitivity and importance of the relationship between the two
countries have not deterred Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan from rubbing
salt on the Algerian wound. He recently revealed that his Algerian counterpart,
Abdelmadjid Tebboune, had confirmed to him that France had killed more than five
million Algerians during its occupation of his country.
The story, which Algeria denied, says more about Erdogan than it does about
history. Aspiring to expand to North Africa, the employer of Syrian mercenaries
who are transported to Libya, will not be more concerned about the interests of
Algeria than the interests of his neighbor, Syria. Erdogan's use of the pain
experienced in the past by others, in the service of his ambitions for the
future, is a tradition well known in the Middle East. Let us remember for a
minute Iran's investment in the Palestinian pain!
Corruption, Not Trump, Will Drive Iranian Protest Vote
Bobby Ghosh/Bloomberg/Asharq Al-Awsat/February 05/2020
A familiar charade is playing out in Tehran. Ahead of the elections to the
Iranian parliament next month, those political factions likely to perform poorly
are preemptively blaming the US.
Expectation-management is the recourse of last resort for failing politicians
everywhere, and blaming the US is the hoariest political tradition in the
Islamic Republic. The most practiced exponents of both skills are the so-called
“moderates,” whose standard-bearer is President Hassan Rouhani.
A brief detour on definitions: Rouhani is not really a moderate in any rational
understanding of the term. He has always been part of the security-clerical
complex that has run Iran since the 1989 death of the Islamic Republic’s
founder, Ayatollah Khomeini. He and his coterie are best characterized as the
least hardline of the hardliners. The Iranian political system allows little
room for genuine moderates, less still for reformers. The last time that a
government came anywhere close to those definitions — the 1997-2005 presidency
of Mohammad Khatami — it was unable to make any meaningful reforms stick.
Back to the current election cycle. Rouhani and his fellow least-hardliners are
expected to lose ground, and are blaming the Trump administration. The
perfidious Americans, Rouhani says, are seeking to “create gaps between the
establishment and people,” and Iranians should use the ballot box to demonstrate
their unity. But there are many reasons for Rouhani’s faction to fare poorly.
Some are purely cyclical: Iranian voters have tended to throw the bums out every
eight years. Khatami and his wannabe-reformers were followed by the
reactionaries of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in 2005, who were in turn replaced by
Rouhani and his faction in 2013. Ensuring that the cycle keeps turning smoothly
is the man with the real power in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the
hardest of hardliners. When there is any sign of a wobble, he intervenes in one
of two ways. Before an election, he weakens the prospects of any inconvenient
faction by making sure the Guardian Council, which he controls, disqualifies a
disproportionate proportion of its candidates. The Council has been true to form
in this cycle, but it has had an assist from Rouhani’s administration, which has
also disqualified candidates.
If putting his finger on the scale before an election proves insufficient,
Khamenei has been willing to put the fix in, as he did in 2009 when Ahmedinejad
seemed at risk of missing out on a second term. When Iranians took to the street
to protest against this tampering, he ordered a bloody crackdown. The candidates
who stood against Ahmedinejad were put under house arrest, and it has suited
Rouhani to leave them there.
Khamenei will likely not need a post-hoc fix this time. Rouhani and his faction
excite little public enthusiasm, and many Iranians will likely sit this one out
— a prospect that alarms both men, since it will inevitably be interpreted as a
repudiation of the political system they have nurtured for decades.
Rouhani’s rivals wouldn’t dream of copying an American election slogan, but
their message has echoes of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign catchphrase, “It’s the
economy, stupid.” They know that Iranians are hurting from a severe economic
contraction, and are hammering the president for failing to deliver the
prosperity he promised in previous election campaigns.
The president’s faction has tried to blame the economic malaise on Trump’s
abrogation of the nuclear deal and the subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign
against Iran. Rouhani has himself claimed that American sanctions have cost the
Iranian economy $200 billion in investment and foreign-exchange income.
But while Iranians are obviously no fans of Trump, and they know the sanctions
hurt, they are not buying Rouhani’s excuses. In repeated spasms of
anti-government protests, they have tended to focus on the venality of the
regime in Tehran, and not the hostility of the government in Washington. Rather
than address such grievances, the regime has responded with brute force, killing
hundreds.
If the protests are any guide, the public mantra for the election will be, “It’s
the corruption, stupid.” Despite the Rouhani government’s cosmetic crackdowns,
the country has continued to slide in Transparency International’s Corruption
Index, from 130th of 180 countries in 2017, to 138th in 2018 and 146th in 2019.
The venality is widespread: Rouhani’s brother was arrested for graft in 2017,
only to be released a day later, prompting accusations of favoritism. (He was
formally sentenced last fall.) Khamenei oversees a business network worth tens
of billions of dollars, and his favorites among the hardliners, such as the
powerful Larijani brothers, are obvious beneficiaries of nepotism, and possibly
graft. If voters ignore Rouhani’s pleas for a big turnout on February 21, he
will have only himself to blame. But there’s a good chance he will try to pin
that, too, on the US.
Democrats, Experts, and Peace Plans
Alex Joffe/BESA Center Perspectives/February 05/2020
Cutting Gordian Knots is a signature of the Trump administration, and the long-rumored
"Deal of the Century" is no exception. At its core, the plan explicitly
acknowledges reality: the Palestinians are losing the conflict, Israel will not
return to the 1949 armistice lines, there will be no evacuation of the
settlement blocs, and there is no Palestinian "right of return."
As historian Martin Kramer points out, the plan is not so much about peace as
about partition. In that sense, the break it represents from the past 50 years
of "peace processing" is profound. Equally striking is the plan's reception. For
all its vagaries, only a small handful of countries and entities, namely the
Palestinian Authority (PA), Turkey, and Iran, have spoken out bitterly against
it, with the Arab League predictably (yet hesitatingly) following suit. Far more
voices—including most individual Arab and European states—have expressed
cautious support.
Former VP Joe Biden implicitly acknowledged that two decades of American-led
negotiations failed to bring the Palestinians to the table.
One important faction, however, has been united in its rejection: US Democratic
candidates for president. Former VP Joe Biden was blunt: "A peace plan requires
two sides to come together. This is a political stunt that could spark
unilateral moves to annex territory and set back peace even more." He added,
"I've spent a lifetime working to advance the security & survival of a Jewish
and democratic Israel." True to form, Biden revealed more than he intended,
implicitly acknowledging that two decades of American-led negotiations in which
he had a key role failed to bring the Palestinians to the table.
Elizabeth Warren piled on criticism, saying, "Releasing a plan without
negotiating with Palestinians isn't diplomacy, it's a sham. I will oppose
unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it." This
appears to ignore the rounds of negotiations under the Obama administration in
2010 and 2013-14. It also ignores the two-year development of the Trump plan,
which included consultations with previous American negotiators, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the UAE, and Turkey, but which was effectively boycotted
by the PA from the start.
Bernie Sanders demanded that "Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with
international law and multiple UN Security Council resolutions. It must end the
Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and enable Palestinian self-determination
in an independent, democratic, economically viable state of their own alongside
a secure and democratic state of Israel." This repeats sacred mantras about
"international law" and the "occupation," setting the clock back to 1967, and
giving veto power to the UN and hence Arab-Islamic and subservient blocs.
Why have the Democratic presidential candidates expressed such antipathy? Part
of the answer is simple. A fundamental principle of American politics today is
instinctive and absolute rejection of anything connected with Trump, be it word
or deed. This childish impulse, endlessly on display, has eroded the critical
faculties of politicians and media alike. Even Obama-era policies that are
quietly continued under the Trump administration are rejected.
But at a deeper level, the candidates' rejection shows a troubling addiction to
past orthodoxies—namely, expert-driven analysis and investment in processes that
have offered little progress in the past decades. But this is not merely an
example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy, which justifies continued investment on the
basis of previous expenditure. Casting Democrats and their allied experts as
impartial technocrats who rise above politics is a longstanding conceit going
all the way back to the 1960s. The question of success, whether in international
or domestic affairs, rarely matters.
Failure at achieving Middle East peace has become the highest qualification for
expert commentary and future diplomacy.
Heterodox approaches are automatically dismissed as "right wing" fantasies or,
worse, manipulations. Within this position is the belief that only certified
experts can solve problems while others are de facto buffoons: witness the
insults leveled at the plan's developer, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, by the
media and its allied wing of late night comedians. But the bizarre corollary is
the Democratic Party's unshakeable faith in failed experts and their
unsuccessful plans. Long-time diplomat Martin Indyk, for example, described the
plan as "a farce from start to finish"—and his viewpoint is touted by Democrats
as authoritative, despite his being another veteran of fruitless negotiations in
both Democratic and Republican administrations. Failure has become the highest
qualification for expert commentary and future diplomacy.
The American media echo chamber, which simply parrots talking points fed to it
by the foreign policy blob, has created a closed cycle of received wisdom,
authority, and interpretation. The New York Times, for example, described the
plan as a cynical election ploy by two corrupt leaders responding to right wing
religious constituents that "hardly seems to hold out any real hope for
meaningful Palestinian sovereignty or real improvement in their people's
condition."
This formula suggests there is an underlying non-zero sum mentality at work in
the Democratic candidates and their experts. Somehow, against the evidence of
history, there cannot be winners and losers in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Winning is in fact immoral and in the name of fairness cannot be permitted. That
Israel has won the Arab-Israeli conflict in military, economic, demographic, and
to some extent even diplomatic terms does not register, and if it does, it may
be evidence of "sin." Somehow, everyone must win.
In this view there are no penalties for Palestinian rejection and failure, just
as there are no rewards for Israel's prevailing in protracted conflict.
But this non-zero sum mentality shades into utopianism and denial of reality. It
is always 1967 or 1978 or 1993; indeed, it must be, for the conditions
habitually demanded by experts as starting points for renewed negotiations,
particularly the sanctity of the "1967 borders," describe not the conditions of
today but rather of the past. In this view there are no penalties for
Palestinian rejection and failure, just as there are no rewards for Israel's
prevailing in protracted conflict. There are only endless restarts at precisely
the same point without any reference to what has come in between.
Negotiator Aaron David Miller complained, for example, that in contrast with the
decades of negotiations where "various US initiatives on final peace deals with
Israel, Syria and the Palestinians were designed to launch talks, bridge gaps,
create trust between the parties and ultimately reach comprehensive accords,"
the current plan "has put the Palestinians on a kind of probation. If they
disarm Hamas, Palestine and Islamic Jihad, establish good governance, recognize
Israel as a Jewish state, among other things, then and only then is a faux state
possible."
This is precisely true. But the embrace of a consequence-less world speaks to
both a static conception that reeks of unreality but also a worldview in which
Palestinians are not simply "underdogs" but possess no agency. The idea appears
to be that Palestinians cannot act; they can only react, and they must be
managed and propitiated lest they snarl or attack. In Europe and among the
global left, this condescension is masked by high rhetoric about the
Palestinians as the "most important cause of all time," which simply allows
Westerners to project their own moralism, manipulations, and antisemitism.
Palestinians have become accustomed to being instruments of someone else's
mobilization, first in the Arab and Islamic worlds, in past decades in Europe,
and now in the US. In the latter cases Palestinians are a left-wing electoral
cause to mobilize socialist, Muslim, and intersectional minorities. The actual
facts of the geopolitical situation, and of Palestinian society and culture,
matter little. Proponents egg on Palestinian rejectionism—witness the tens of
millions of dollars in support provided by European NGOs for Palestinian lawfare—creating
a cycle of disappointment that achieves little for the Palestinians but from
which the proponents profit.
President Trump's peace plan has rebalanced the debate toward reality.
Trump has not ended this cycle by any means, but has rebalanced the debate
toward reality. The Democratic candidates promise a return to the past but even
they will ultimately have to contend with that reality. There are scattered
signs that other adjustments may already be occurring. Curiously, while J Street
reacted with typical hysteria to the plan, other portions of the American Jewish
left have shown glimmerings of acceptance, based on the plan's cautious
endorsement by centrist security-oriented figures in Israel, including Benny
Gantz, Ehud Barak, and Amos Yadlin.
Whether these views—which of course still drip with antipathy toward Trump and
Netanyahu—will influence Democratic candidates remains unclear. But this partial
acknowledgment of reality represents the bargaining stage of grief. The
Palestinian leadership appears permanently trapped in the second stage of grief,
anger, but the Palestinian people seem to be in a depression. Encouraging them
to move forward toward acceptance is critical. Democratic presidential
candidates should be encouraged to do the same.
*Alex Joffe is a Shillman-Ingerman Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior
non-resident scholar at the BESA Center.
Continuity vs. Overreach in the Trump Peace Plan (Part 1):
Borders and Jerusalem
David Makovsky/The Washington Institute/February 05/2020
If the latest U.S. effort winds up backing the Palestinians into a territorial
corner from the outset, then Washington may not be able to move the process any
closer to direct negotiations.
The newly released U.S. peace plan marks a very significant shift in favor of
the current Israeli government’s view, especially when compared to three past
U.S. initiatives: (1) the Clinton Parameters of December 2000, (2) Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice’s “Annapolis Process” of 2007-2008, and (3) Secretary of
State John Kerry’s 2013-2014 initiative. The message is clear: the Trump
administration will no longer keep sweetening the deal with every Palestinian
refusal, a criticism some have aimed at previous U.S. efforts.
Yet the new plan raises worrisome questions of its own. Will its provisions
prove so disadvantageous to the proposed Palestinian state that they cannot
serve as the basis for further negotiations? And would such overreach enable
Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas to sway Arab states who have
signaled that they want to give the proposal a chance, convincing them to oppose
it instead? If so, the plan may wind up perpetuating the current diplomatic
impasse and setting the stage for a one-state reality that runs counter to
Israel’s identity as a Jewish, democratic state.
This two-part PolicyWatch will address these questions by examining how the
Trump plan compares to past U.S. initiatives when it comes to the conflict’s
five core final-status issues. Part 1 focuses on two of these issues: borders
and Jerusalem. Part 2 examines security, refugees, and narrative issues.
BORDERS
Is the Green Line still the basis for territorial calculations? The previous
three peace deals made the Green Line (i.e., the pre-1967 boundary) the basis of
calculations, and proposed that the Palestinians net anywhere from 97% of the
West Bank (in the Clinton Parameters) to roughly 100%. These figures would have
been reached via “land swaps”—Israel would have annexed some settlement blocs
where most Israeli settlers live, largely (but not exclusively) adjacent to the
Green Line and inside the West Bank security barrier; in return, it would have
given the Palestinians equivalent amounts of land from Israel’s side of the
Green Line. During the Annapolis Process, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accepted
the idea of a nearly 1:1 swap, with Israel annexing anywhere from 5.8 to 6.1% of
the West Bank but swapping 0.5% less Israeli territory. During the Kerry
initiative, the PA was counting on better terms, but the talks did not reach
that point.
The Trump plan does not use the Green Line as a reference point at all, so the
idea of a 1:1 swap based on that boundary is now moot. Swaps are mentioned in
the plan, but they are not equivalent, and they would involve Israel gaining
numerous additional areas further inside the West Bank.
It is important to note, however, that the Trump administration has described
these as “conceptual borders” whose details can be negotiated, meaning the PA
can propose alternatives. The president’s approach to this type of dealmaking is
often designed to begin with the toughest position and move toward the middle.
How much of the West Bank? As will be shown in the revised Washington Institute
interactive mapping project Settlements and Solutions, the Trump plan proposes a
Palestinian state that incorporates about 67% of the West Bank (i.e., 3,907 of
its 5,834 square kilometers). This figure increases to nearly 71% when one adds
259 square kilometers of proposed swap areas from Israel adjacent to the West
Bank. Specifically, the Palestinian state would include three Israeli Arab
communities in the northwest region called the Triangle: Arara, Umm al-Fahm, and
Baka al-Gharbiya, all adjacent to the West Bank.
The Trump plan acknowledges that swapping this area requires consent of “the
parties”—a vague formulation that presumably means Israel and the Palestinians,
but fails to mention the approximately 109,000 Israeli Arabs who live in these
three communities. In the days since the plan’s release, Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu has stated that he is not considering this option, apparently fearing
Arab backlash at home and abroad on the eve of Israel’s election.
In total, the Palestinians would receive 83% of the combined territories. This
means 5,152 of the 6,195 square kilometers comprising the West Bank, Gaza, East
Jerusalem, the northern quadrant of the Dead Sea, half of the “No Man’s Land”
near Jerusalem, and swap areas.
Point of territorial departure? The point of departure for the Trump plan is
that no Israeli settlers or Palestinians are to be forced from their homes. This
means that all 449,000 Israeli settlers living in 128 West Bank settlements
would stay where they are. Fifteen of the settlements containing approximately
14,000 people would exist as separate enclaves in a Palestinian state, with a
temporary four-year freeze on their outward expansion while the Palestinians
consider their response to the U.S. plan.
The contrast with past initiatives is dramatic. Until now, it was assumed that
Israel’s primary gains would focus on the blocs located in the vicinity of the
Green Line and the security barrier, meaning 51 settlements that take up 8% of
the West Bank and are home to 345,000 settlers (or 77% of the total settler
population). When one factors in East Jerusalem, the figure goes up to
approximately 660,000 Israelis (or 85% of all affected Israelis) in virtually
the same amount of land (Israel has not counted East Jerusalem residents as
settlers ever since it annexed the city).
Under the Trump plan, however, Israel would also annex the non-bloc settlements
scattered further away from the Green Line—in all, an additional 77 settlements
that lie outside the security barrier and contain 104,000 Israelis. In addition
to producing a deeply fragmented Palestinian state, this proposal would increase
Israel’s total share of the West Bank from 8% to 31%. Moreover, 3% of the
Palestinian population would still be living under Israeli sovereignty,
including the communities of Bani Naim, Qibya, Rantis, Shuqba, Kafr Qaddum,
Hajja, and Immatin.
To illustrate these proposals, the administration has also released a
“Conceptual Map.” The U.S. government did not publicly release a map with the
previous peace plans, believing that such territorial specifics were up to the
parties to negotiate. At the January 28 White House unveiling ceremony,
President Trump stated that Netanyahu had put forward the current map—the first
time any Likud Party leader has taken that step. During the Kerry initiative,
Netanyahu saw any map as political dynamite that could alienate settlers in his
coalition, particularly those who lived outside the proposed borders. He likely
believes that the inclusion of a map this time around is offset by the plan’s
stated principle that no one will be moved from their homes.
Changes in the Jordan Valley? In former rounds of peacemaking, Israel has
emphasized its desire to maintain security control of the border with Jordan,
not only to prevent the smuggling of materiel and personnel, but also due to
strategic concerns stemming from the military attacks it faced on that front in
the 1948 and 1967 wars. Past U.S. administrations assumed Israel would never
agree to Palestinians manning that frontier—the Clinton and Annapolis efforts
focused on multinational forces playing that role, while the Kerry effort
proposed U.S. troops. The Trump approach goes further, giving Israel full
sovereignty over most of the Jordan Valley. This would deny the Palestinians any
border with Jordan, meaning Israel would effectively encircle the new state and
determine who enters and leaves.
JERUSALEM
Geographical division and political status. Like previous U.S. initiatives, the
Trump plan envisions Jerusalem as a geographically undivided city. Past plans
largely focused on the idea of a geographically united city with divided
sovereignty: Israel would hold sway over Jewish neighborhoods in the area
formally known as East Jerusalem, while Arab neighborhoods would become part of
the Palestinian state. Yet the details of the Trump plan sharply diverge on the
latter issue.
On one hand, the new plan marks the first time the administration has stated
that there should be a Palestinian capital inside the northern tip of Israel’s
Jerusalem municipal boundary, that the United States would establish a separate
embassy in this capital, and that it would encourage other countries to do the
same. On the other hand, the plan states that Jerusalem will remain the capital
of Israel and that much of the city will be ceded to Israel, noting that “the
sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East
Jerusalem located in all areas east and north of the existing security barrier,
including Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat, and Abu Dis” (p. 17). Kafr
Aqab and Shuafat (a refugee camp) were among the twenty-eight Palestinian
villages incorporated within the Jerusalem municipal boundary when Israel
expanded it by 70 square kilometers after the 1967 war. Dubbed “No Man’s Land,”
this zone is home to 56,000 Jerusalemite Palestinians and 70,000 West Bank
Palestinians outside the security barrier.
In all, the administration’s formulation would give Israel sovereignty over
areas of East Jerusalem that are home to approximately 294,000 Palestinians.
Some of these individuals live in exclusively Palestinian neighborhoods such as
Beit Hanina in the north and Jabal Mukaber in the south, so it is curious that
the plan’s conceptual borders do not address this demographic fact. Instead, the
plan offers these Palestinians the opportunity to become citizens of Israel or
Palestine, or to simply retain their status as permanent residents of Israel.
Holy places. The Trump plan is somewhat vague on the highly sensitive issue of
religious sites in Jerusalem. It does not explicitly deal with Israel’s
sovereignty, nor does it mention Jordan’s day-to-day administration of Muslim
holy sites as outlined in the Israel-Jordan peace treaty. After complimenting
Israel for ensuring access to religious sites, the plan states the following:
“We believe that this practice should remain, and that all of Jerusalem’s holy
sites should be subject to the same governance regimes that exist today. In
particular, the status quo at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif should continue
uninterrupted. Jerusalem’s holy sites should remain open and available for
peaceful worshippers and tourists of all faiths. People of every faith should be
permitted to pray on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in a manner that is fully
respectful to their religion, taking into account the times of each religion’s
prayers and holidays, as well as other religious factors” (p. 16).
Two takeaways emerge from this passage. First, given President Trump’s intimacy
with the Saudi leadership, the Jordanian government feared that the U.S. plan
would seek to transfer custodianship of Jerusalem’s religious sites from Amman
to Riyadh. This fear proved to be unwarranted. Second, the mention of all faiths
being allowed to pray there will be interpreted to include Jews, though U.S.
officials seemed to walk back this view after the plan was released.
CONCLUSION
The Trump plan’s parameters on borders and Jerusalem suggest that the
administration has moved the U.S. position sharply in the direction of Israel’s
current government. In the most hopeful scenario, the combination of a tough new
U.S. approach and the initial openness of Arab states to consider the plan as a
point of departure could jolt the Palestinians to decide that time is not on
their side, perhaps leading the parties to resume talks and find suitable
compromises. In a less hopeful scenario, Palestinian anger toward the plan
proves too strong to dispel, and unilateral Israeli annexations in the West Bank
produce broad international opposition to the plan, essentially ending any
near-term prospects of negotiations or a two-state solution.
Abbas seemed isolated in the region prior to the plan’s release, but the
February 1 Arab League meeting in Cairo and the February 3 Organization of
Islamic Cooperation meeting in Jeddah may have changed that somewhat. Going
forward, he may be able to paint the administration’s shift on core issues as
American overreach, and silence Arab critics who are fatigued by the
longstanding paralysis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
*David Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute
and creator of the new podcast Decision Points: The U.S.-Israel Relationship.
Centering Iraq Policy on Human Rights and Fair Elections
Michael Knights/The Washington Institute/February 05/2020
The surest way to counter Iran’s malign influence is to proactively focus on
human rights issues that the new prime minister can actually affect, such as
organizing free elections and preventing further violence against protestors.
On February 1, a plurality of Iraqi parliamentary factions gave President Barham
Salih the go-ahead to nominate Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi as the new prime
minister-designate. The mild-mannered Shia Islamist nominee will now attempt to
form and ratify his cabinet in the next thirty days. As he does so, political
blocs will probably rally behind him while limiting his mandate to organizing
early elections next year, having struggled through a long and fractious process
to replace resigned prime minister Adil Abdulmahdi. For the first time since the
dramatic events of the past two months, Iraqis and U.S. policymakers alike can
catch their breath and consider their medium-term options.
ENGAGING THE NEW PREMIER
In the end, Allawi was chosen because he was unlikely to spur strong opposition
from any corner, including Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s movement, Iranian
officials, Sunni factions, the Kurds, Iraqi moderates, or the West. He was by no
means Tehran’s preference—the Iran-backed Bina bloc failed to push their first
four candidates through. Rumors persist that Allawi was helped over the finish
line by lobbying from Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah; however, this
was probably orchestrated not by Allawi himself, but by Bina, which desperately
sought to block the nomination of Mustafa al-Kadhimi, a moderate civil-society
activist who currently heads the Iraqi National Intelligence Service. As for
Washington, if the cool tone of the State Department response to Allawi’s
nomination is any indicator, the administration will judge him by his actions
and the company he keeps.
Whatever its views, the U.S. government does need to engage Allawi
quickly—before his ratification, as his small transition team shapes the cabinet
and prepares for office. To be sure, his political and religious sponsors are
already steering him away from major policy decisions on any matters besides
setting up elections. For instance, on January 31, the day before Allawi’s
nomination, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani made clear that renegotiating the
presence of foreign military forces should be left to the next government, after
new elections. Nevertheless, Allawi will be in power at a critical juncture,
setting the conditions for a free and fair vote and heading an interim
government that will last not only until elections (likely in 2021), but until a
new prime minister is appointed some months afterward (which may be Allawi
himself if he wins sufficient support). He will thus be in the picture for the
next two years at minimum, and perhaps much longer.
Washington should be very clear with Allawi about its expectations and redlines
in the coming period, giving him all the information he needs to fulfill his
domestic role while taking into account the views of a major economic and
security cooperation partner. In general, U.S. expectations align with those of
the Iraqi people, especially on the following issues:
Protecting Iraqi citizens. According to the Iraqi High Commission for Human
Rights, Prime Minister Abdulmahdi’s government oversaw crackdowns in which
officially sanctioned militias killed 536 protestors and injured 23,545.
Washington should strongly press Allawi to prevent any future use of live fire,
riot bullets, or gas canisters against protestors (even the latter items are
often used in deadly fashion in Iraq). In addition, President Trump, Secretary
of Defense Mike Pompeo, and other officials should routinely and publicly
mention the plight of Iraqi protestors in the same robust manner they have
called for the protection of Iranian protestors. The administration should also
praise their resilience and bravery—they already do so with Iran’s
demonstrators, creating a contrast with Iraq that is stark and noticeable.
Protecting state institutions. Militias used Abdulmahdi’s tenure to accelerate
the installation of corrupt officials in the prime minister’s office, assorted
ministries, the security forces, and strategic sectors such as banking, ports,
customs, and civil aviation. There are signs that Allawi is already being
pressured to bring corrupt officials into his office. Accordingly, Washington
needs to let him know that it is watching very closely and has a raft of
targeted sanctions available for imminent use against corrupt senior officials
and human rights abusers who continue to operate within the system. The most
obvious such targets are Abdulmahdi’s national security advisor Faleh al-Fayyad
and chief of staff Abu Jihad (birth name Mohammed al-Hashemi), both of whom
played paramount roles in organizing the killing of protestors, among other
violations. The U.S. government should also immediately punish any further Iraqi
moves to purge technocrats, including at security institutions such as the
National Intelligence Service.
Protecting democratic rights. The UN and European Union have both called for
early elections, and if Allawi is able to avoid the issues that plagued the
broadly condemned 2018 ballot and oversee a free and fair vote next year, then
Iraq has a chance to reboot as a democracy. All indications are that he does
indeed have the authority and responsibility to ensure that the process is not
corrupted, to protect candidates and civil society in the lead-up to election
day, and to support intense international observation of the vote.
Protecting U.S. personnel. Secretary of State Pompeo should tell Allawi directly
that any attacks on U.S. personnel will trigger painful retaliation against
Iraqi militias as well as Iranian targets inside Iraq and beyond. He should also
be privately made aware of the potential breadth of senior leadership targets
that might be struck, and the deep crisis this would bring on his government.
RECOGNIZING PARTNERS, DETERRING ENEMIES
As recently as last September, the United States seemed isolated in its goal of
seeking a sovereign, stable, and democratic Iraq. Today, in the aftermath of
months-long protests and the blooming of political resistance to Iran-backed
militias, Washington should feel reassured that powerful forces inside Iraq are
actively seeking the same goal. Protestors, civil society movements, and Kurdish
factions, along with President Salih, Speaker of Parliament Mohammed al-Halbousi,
and many Sunni legislators, have shown determination and bravery in standing up
to militia intimidation.
In addition to praising these Iraqis who put Iraq first, the U.S. government
should give them a better-structured support mechanism, while also reaching out
to the next generation of leaders and to less well-known political and social
actors. A sizable Track II program should be established to help moderates get
organized, spread their message, and stay aware of physical threats before the
next election.
Moreover, many moderate Iraqis feel that Washington should keep up the pressure
on destructive actors such as Kataib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the Badr
Organization, and Faleh al-Fayyad. If these actors see that pressure is lifting,
they will come back with a vengeance, killing not only protestors and Americans,
but also new Iraqi political actors who emerge in the lead-up to elections. To
prevent this outcome, the United States should establish a response ratio that
triggers near-miss or lethal U.S. strikes (acknowledged or unacknowledged) on
Iraqi militia leaders. (The details of this ratio should be known only to the
U.S. government. This kind of system was used to weight responses to Saddam
Hussein’s constant harassment of U.S. no-fly zone patrols in the 1990s.) For
those seeking peace and safety for Americans and Iraqis, it is important to
deter risky rocket attacks on U.S. bases, which will eventually kill further
Americans, even if by “accident.”
At the same time, Washington should coordinate with Britain and the EU on an
extensive, open-ended sanctions program that accelerates the targeting of
corrupt Iraqi leaders and human rights violators. The order in which individuals
are targeted should depend on their actions, with more negative behavior moving
them up the queue. The United States should also withdraw security cooperation
support from the Interior Ministry until a new minister is installed and removes
human rights violators—a step made necessary due to the blatant involvement of
ministry forces in repressing protestors. Finally, Washington should consider
sanctioning individuals within Badr rather than the entire organization, to
better splinter the already fractured movement.
STRATEGIC VALUE OF A HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH
U.S. officials do not need to trumpet Tehran’s malign influence in Iraq anymore:
everyone in the country now understands this, which is why protestors have tried
to burn down Iran’s embassy and consulate rather than America’s. The Iraqi
people are America’s best ally in the areas under Baghdad’s control, so
Washington should help to protect their slow-burning revolt against Iran’s proxy
occupation forces.
The best way to do so is by refocusing U.S. policy on human rights and
anti-corruption efforts. On these issues, the United States is in lockstep with
the next generation of Iraqis, the religious establishment, and the
international community. Any U.S. administration can and should get behind these
principles. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Lebanese Hezbollah are
doing everything they can to defend Iraq’s corrupt political elite from
fulfilling the people’s demands, so Washington should exploit this potentially
fatal error on Tehran’s part.
*Michael Knights is a senior fellow with The Washington Institute. Since 2003,
he has conducted extensive on-the-ground research in Iraq alongside security
forces and government ministries.
Trump administration puts freedom first
Mikhael Smits/FDD//February 05/2020
The Trump administration has declared 2020 the year of “Freedom First,” though
you would be forgiven for having missed it.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the announcement at an event on human
trafficking mid-January, to little fanfare. “The Department of State declares
2020 the year of ‘Freedom First,’ in recognition that human dignity, autonomy,
and freedom are essential to the exercise of our rights and liberties,” he said.
The challenge will be to develop this core idea into a full-fledged strategy
that advances fundamental freedoms while giving the United States an edge in its
contest with adversaries such as China and Iran.
The “Freedom First” declaration follows other significant moves in a similar
direction over the past year. In July 2019, the administration announced a new
Commission on Unalienable Rights. Several months later, President Trump
reauthorized the Commission on International Religious Freedom as part of a
major spending bill. The administration can now give a name to its human rights
efforts: Freedom First.
Perhaps the administration’s resurgent human rights rhetoric is only a cudgel
being used to pressure U.S. enemies. It certainly represents a sharp break from
Trump’s earlier attempts at flattery toward Pyongyang, North Korea, and Beijing,
and moral equivocation toward Moscow. But those concerned for human rights
should herald positive action on this front.
Even better, the ire the president has directed at some adversaries may already
be working. Iranian protesters have once again flooded the streets, protesting a
regime that has repressed and robbed the public to fund terrorism and atrocities
abroad. Four-thousand miles away, protesters in Hong Kong are likewise in the
streets, and officials within the Chinese Communist Party have begun leaking
devastating details about the “reeducation camps” it operates in Xinjiang.
Whereas President Barack Obama opted for silence during Iran’s 2009 Green
Revolution, Trump has consistently spoken in support of protests. Last month, in
perhaps the single most shared Farsi-language tweet in history, Trump promised
protesters he would “continue to stand with you.” In another tweet the next day,
Trump set two red lines for the regime in Iran. One was familiar: “No nuclear
weapons.” One was new: “Don’t kill your protesters.”
Without question, Trump’s defense of human rights in Iran is part of his overall
“maximum pressure” policy, which included the elimination of Qassem Soleimani,
Iran’s top facilitator of terror. Critics of Trump’s credibility on human rights
should take note of his results. Though the outcome remains uncertain,
protesters have repeatedly chanted, “America is not the enemy; the enemy is
right here.”
After Tehran downed a civilian airliner in January, killing 82 of its own
citizens, several Iranian journalists publicly resigned, no longer willing to
lie on behalf of the regime. The regime now faces pressure from within and
without, illustrating how a strong human rights policy can reinforce strategic
priorities.
Events with China may follow a similar arc. In November, Trump signed a
veto-proof bill supporting hundreds of thousands of protesters in Hong Kong, who
marched to defend their liberties from Beijing’s impositions. China protested
Trump’s support for the people of Hong Kong, warning the decision risked
troubles for a potential trade deal. Yet the administration persisted, and the
trade deal was signed in December.
Speaking to American technology leaders last month, Pompeo called for pressure
against Beijing. He cautioned Silicon Valley against helping “power a truly
Orwellian surveillance state.” In the same speech, Pompeo urged companies to
“make sure American principles aren’t sacrificed for prosperity.”
Of course, a more consistent human rights policy amplifies that effect. Should
people in the U.S. show a serious willingness to adhere to principle, rather
than cave in pursuit of profit margins, their adversaries will take note. Doing
so is in the national interest, and the president deserves support whenever he
rightly commits the power of his office to targeting adversaries for their human
rights failings.
To use its human rights arsenal effectively, the administration should once
again have an undersecretary of state for civilian security, democracy, and
human rights. This role, the top human rights post in the U.S., remains vacant
after more than two years. The administration should continue ratcheting up
sanctions on the worst abusers of Iranians. It should sign into law the Uighur
Human Rights Policy Act. Perhaps most importantly, in his State of the Union
address on Tuesday, the president should detail how “Freedom First” will feature
in a broader America First doctrine in the year to come.
When Trump delivers his address to Congress, the world’s regimes will be
watching. So too will no small number of their citizens. Both will be gauging
U.S. resolve, with vastly different hopes. In putting freedom first, the U.S.
should leave no doubt.
*Mikhael Smits (@mikhaelsmits) is a research analyst at the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies, where he contributes to its Center on Military and
Political Power.
Qatar, Qatar-Backed International Union Of Muslim Scholars
Blast Trump's Peace Plan: It Belongs In the Dustbin Of History, Must Be Opposed
By Every Possible Means
By: H. Varulkar and Z. Harel/MEMRI/February 05/2020
In its official responses to the Trump administration's peace plan, which was
announced on January 28, 2020 and has been dubbed "the Deal of the Century,"
Qatar welcomed the U.S. efforts to achieve peace and expressed willingness to
assist in these efforts, but at the same time voiced reservations and implied
criticism of the plan. A statement issued by Qatar's Foreign Ministry following
the plan's announcement said that "Qatar welcomes the efforts to achieve a just
and lasting peace in the occupied Palestinian territories, and appreciates the
efforts of the current U.S. administration to find solutions for the Palestinian
issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict." The statement stressed, however, that a
solution for the conflict requires the involvement of both the Palestinians and
the Israelis; must include a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East
Jerusalem as its capital, as well as the return the refugees to their lands, and
must be anchored in the relevant UN resolutions: "The success of any existing or
future initiative for resolving this conflict, which has been ongoing for over
seven decades, continues to depend on the involvement of the two major sides in
this conflict in direct and serious negotiations based on the [relevant] UN
resolutions... Qatar clarifies that peace will not be viable unless it [ensures]
the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent, sovereign state
on the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem, and [guarantees] the return of
the refugees to their lands..."[1]
On the day following the plan's announcement, the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim
bin Hamad Aal Thani, spoke on the phone with Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas,
and clarified Qatar's support for Palestine and its willingness to act towards
"the achievement of a just, comprehensive and viable solution to the Palestinian
issue, based on the UN resolutions and the [2002] Arab Peace Initiative."[2] In
an emergency meeting of the Arab foreign ministers held in Cairo on February 1
following the announcement of the peace plan, Qatari State Minister for Foreign
Affairs Sultan bin Sa'd Al-Muraikhi reiterated the position set out in the
Foreign Ministry's statement.[3]
The Qatari press, both inside and outside Qatar, was conspicuous in its
opposition to the Trump administration's peace plan and was harshly critical of
it. The articles rejected the U.S. initiative out of hand, stating that it is
blatantly biased in favor of Israel, and attacked Trump for proposing it. They
also attacked what they called the feeble reaction of the Arab world to the
plan, and even called to oppose the plan using every type of resistance. The
writers assessed that it is destined to fail, and Qatar's state press published
numerous articles quoting analysts, both Qatari and foreign, making predictions
to this effect.[4] Criticism of the plan, of Trump and of the Arab reaction was
also expressed in cartoons that appeared in the Qatari press published inside
and outside the country.[5]
Also harshly critical of the Trump administration's initiative was the
International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), which is based in Doha and is
supported by the Qatari regime. The organization warned that the plan could have
dire effects on the entire region. IUMS head Dr. Ahmed Al-Raissouni called it
"the insolence of the century" and "a plan from hell," while IUMS
secretary-general 'Ali Al-Qaradaghi stated that it is the religious duty of
every Muslim to oppose the plan by every means and make sacrifices in order to
thwart it. The IUMS website posted an excerpt from a book by the organization's
founder, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, about the Muslims' obligation to wage jihad
and sacrifice their souls in defense of Jerusalem. The excerpt also quoted the
Hadith of the Stones and the Trees, about a future war between the Muslims and
Jews which will be won by the Muslims.
This report reviews the reactions to the Trump administration's peace plan in
the Qatari press, and the reactions of the IUMS to it.
Qatari Press: The Plan Is Biased Toward Israel And Will Fail; It Must Be Opposed
Using Every Kind Of Resistance
Qatari Editorials: No Force In The World Can Push Through A Plan Which Defies
International Law
The editorial of the Qatari daily Al-Sharq on January 29, 2020, the day
following the announcement of the deal, stated: "The details of the Deal of the
Century, as they were [recently] announced, did not come as a complete surprise,
since the positions of the current U.S. administration regarding the [peace]
process have reflected a clear bias in favor of the Israeli entity, starting
with the moving of the U.S. embassy to occupied Jerusalem, the support for the
expansion of the settlements at the expense of Palestinian lands, the
recognition of [Israel's sovereignty over] the Golan and a series of [other]
measures that illustrate a position so [pro-Israeli] that it caused people to
wonder whether the proposed plan is American or Israeli. Nobody believes more
than the Palestinian people in the importance of achieving peace as a strategic
choice, [and nobody] yearns [more than them] for freedom and independence. But
the Palestinians find it difficult to allow the elimination of their cause and a
reiteration of the Balfour Declaration. No force in the world can enable this
plan to succeed, considering the united Palestinian position, both popular and
official, [a position] which is backed by international legitimacy and by
Security Council and [other] UN resolutions, and enjoys broad popular and
official support in the Arab and Muslim world and in the world at large. The
force of justice, and the righteousness of the Palestinian cause, are stronger
than any deal that does not guarantee the legitimate rights of the Palestinian
people."[6]
The February 1, 2020, editorial in Qatar's Al-Raya daily stated: "…The Deal of
the Century is a message of defiance against international law, the UN
resolutions and the entire world. It reflects that a mindset of control, force
and arrogance has taken precedence over the mindset of justice and legitimacy,
and does not include a single component of a realistic peace plan. Everyone must
understand that peace can only be achieved via negotiations anchored in
international law, not through the imposition of a one-sided formula that is
totally unacceptable to the Palestinian people…"[7]
Qatari Columnist: The Deal Of The Century Will Not Go Through; The Arabs Will
Spit On It
On a January 30, 2020 column in the Qatari daily Al-Sharq headlined "A Deal To
Spit On," Ibtisam Aal Sa'd wrote: "Down with the Deal of the Century, down with
it! It seems that U.S. President Donald Trump is determined to make an indelible
mark before leaving the White House... Let me speak of the mark he is carving
into the brow of the Arabs, while they fail to notice that this mark is searing
the Arab flesh – flesh that is meant to be too free, precious and strong to be
eaten by hyenas, who usually feed on carrion. Trump's hand must be driven away
from this flesh, the hand that is now harming the place that is sacred to us
Muslims and Arabs and the cause that the Arabs pass down from generation to
generation [i.e. the Palestinian cause], since it is their most important
cause...
"The Arabs must now raise their voices and clearly state their position
regarding the so-called Deal of the Century, which Trump revealed yesterday.
Some Arab [leaders] concealed their positions from their people, denying that
they knew about the deal or accepted it. But the American president was honest
enough to expose them by thanking them for their presence and for celebrating
the imminent declaration of the [new] State of Israel, a state that not only
swallows up most of the Palestinian territories, but transforms some Jordanian
territory, which Trump has not spared, into its own real estate...
"Oh Arabs, believe it or not, you will certainly not be too happy if you wake up
one day and find yourselves... facing a new state of Israel that will not be
content with the borders delineated by Trump but will expand until it reaches
your own countries, lands and seats [of government]. What will you do then?! How
can you let Palestine head in this dangerous direction without feeling any
quiver [of emotion] in your hearts? Your hearts should identify with
[Jerusalem], the Muslims' first direction of prayer and the second holiest
[place according to Islam]. The condition of [the Palestinian cause, which is]
the Muslims' and Arabs' foremost cause, should affect your emotions. Perhaps
your feeling hearts will [then] instruct your brains to find a solution and a
way out of this disaster that has brought Trump to eliminate the two-state
solution, to arrogantly override all the international and humanitarian laws and
to fully recognize the Greater State of Israel, while throwing the Palestinians
a few crumbs and saying: this is what you can have as your state...
"The deal will not go through, and the rights of the Palestinians will
[eventually] be gained, even if this takes a long time. Even if some Arabs have
betrayed [the cause], it does not mean that the Arabs are [all] traitors. For
they will spit on this deal and gag on it. Just as all the previous American
attempts to eliminate the Palestinian rights failed, Trump's [present] attempts
will fail as well. Trump boasts of his ability to do many things, but he does
not realize that Allah's promise will [eventually] be fulfilled, even if it
takes a long time, and then there will be no deal but only spittle!..."[8]
Article In Al-Watan Daily: The Cursed And Toxic Deal Of The Century Must Be
Opposed Using Every Possible Form Of Resistance
In his January 30, 2020 column in the Qatari Al-Watan daily, headlined "In
Response to the Toxic Deal," Palestinian researcher 'Ali Badwan wrote: "Now that
some details of this toxic Trump-Netanyahu plan have been officially announced,
the moves to eliminate the national Palestinian cause have become more obvious
and overt. For the Deal of the Century eliminates the two-state solution and
retroactively cancels every international resolution on the Palestinian issue
taken from [the time of] the Nakba until today. This is an attempt to impose the
American solution [to the conflict], far from the authority of the UN and
without allowing the international community's institutions or the influential
countries of the world to play any role... The toxic and cursed Deal of the
Century was presented today, while Trump's impeachment trial [is taking place]
in the Senate... This timing is difficult to ignore...
"The response to this plan should be to turn the tables on the occupation, as
happened in the first and biggest intifada. This will be achieved by
intensifying the struggle against the occupation, carrying out every possible
form of resistance, uniting all the resistance frameworks and mobilizing to
quickly end the internal [Palestinian] schism."[9]
Al-Quds Al-Arabi: The Deal Of The Century Is Political, Diplomatic And Security
Foolishness And Is Destined To Fail Miserably
The January 29, 2020 editorial of Qatar's Al-Quds Al-Arabi daily stated: "Since
entering the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump has never stopped
lavishing gifts on his buddy, the prime minister of the Israeli occupation
state, Binyamin Netanyahu. It started with the unjust hobbling of the diplomatic
institutions subordinate to the PLO [i.e. the closure of the PLO mission in
Washington], and continued with an attempt to harm the Palestinian people by
reducing the U.S. aid to UNRWA, moving the U.S. embassy to occupied Jerusalem,
recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the occupied Golan and legitimizing the
Israeli settlements in the West Bank... Yesterday Trump gave Netanyahu his
newest gift, and the one he considers most generous, when he announced the
details of what he calls the Deal of the Century, which offers a "historic"
solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as it was presented to him by his
son-in-law Jared Kushner, his ambassador in occupied Jerusalem, David Friedman,
and his envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt...
"What is certain is that the deal will generate more pipedreams [in the minds
of] Trump and his team. [However, it] is destined to become a footnote in the
annals of this complex struggle, [whose solution] cannot be reduced to a handful
of measures such as bribing the Palestinians with a $50 billion investment fund,
financed by their 'brothers' – the American Arabs and the [Arab] regimes that
are normalizing [their relations with Israel]... [The proponents of this plan]
ignore the fact that such it is destined to fail miserably, for... no
Palestinian element, no matter how negligent or submissive, will accept it, and
because it will [also] meet with almost complete rejection from the
international community. After all, who can guarantee that any Democratic
president who comes after [Trump] will sign off on this political, diplomatic
and security foolishness...?"[10]
Qatar-Backed International Union Of Muslim Scholars: The Deal Of The Century
Must Be Opposed By Every Possible Means
As stated, harsh criticism of the Trump plan was also voiced by the
International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), which was established in 2004 by
Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi and is supported by the Qatari regime. Sheikh Al-Qaradawi
and the IUMS are known for their hostility towards Israel, the U.S. and the
West, and have for years been spreading a discourse of hate, incitement and
encouragement of jihad and martyrdom. In the past Al-Qaradawi even sanctioned
suicide attacks in Israel and supported terror against the U.S. forces in Iraq.
[11]
IUMS: The Deal Belongs In The Dustbin Of History
Following the announcement of the plan, the IUMS issued a statement signed by
its secretary-general, ‘Ali Al-Qaradaghi, and its head, Ahmed Al-Raissouni,
which read: "The International Union [of Muslim Scholars] firmly condemns the
announcement of the Deal of the Century, stressing that it is destined for the
dustbin of history and demanding that the Arab countries oppose these decisions.
It calls on all clerics and religious institutions to do their duty and fulfill
their responsibility toward their faith, their nation and their interests... All
freedom lovers in the world are called upon to oppose this war of extermination
by every possible means.
"The Union, [which] closely follows global events, [including] shows of strength
and the exploitation [of strength], was surprised, like everyone else, by
Trump's announcement of [this] plan. He describes it as a plan for peace in the
Middle East, [but in reality it is] meant to completely eliminate the
Palestinian cause, recognize Israel as a Jewish state within the new borders [it
sets out], take Jerusalem off the [agenda for negotiations], cancel the
refugees' right of return, and continue the settlement [activity].
Unfortunately, this is happening in front of the whole world, especially the
Arab and Muslim world, but has not, so far, met with an appropriate response. In
light of this unfortunate situation and these aggressive decisions, the Union
firmly condemns the announcement of the Deal of the Century and the measures it
entails, and warns about the disastrous effects [it could have] on the entire
region... [The Union] calls upon the Arab and Muslim states to act immediately
to end this shameful silence in the face of these decisions that will bring only
destruction and humiliation upon everyone... [It also] calls on the Palestinians
to unite against the plots whose objective is to systematically eliminate the
Palestinian presence in Jerusalem."[12]
IUMS Head Ahmed Al-Raissouni: This Is Not "The Deal Of The Century" But "The
Insolence Of The Century"
In an article on the IUMS website titled "A Deal or Insolence?", the
organization's head, Ahmed Al-Raissouni attacked the American plan, stating that
it is not the "deal (safqa in Arabic) of the century," but rather the "insolence
(safaqa) of the century" and "a plan from hell":
"I must say that I do not see or find any deal [here]. All I see is insolence. A
deal, according to the accepted political and commercial [meaning of the term],
is an agreement and alliance between two sides based on mutual interests and
commitments... But what Donald Trump, Binyamin Netanyahu and their whole gang
have declared and celebrated is a unilateral action. As for the supposed other
side – the Palestinians and Arabs – none of them have implied in any way that
they accept or join this illegitimate plan. This alone divests this pretend deal
of any validity. Moreover, all the Palestinian organizations, factions, and
officials declare their rejection [of the deal], curse it and oppose it, as do
all the Arabs and Muslims, with the exception of three mice from the Arab region
[i.e. the ambassadors of the UAE, Bahrain and Oman in Washington], who were
reportedly present [at the announcement of the deal]!
"So there is no deal. There is nothing but insolence: the insolence of the
century... Is there greater insolence, boasting or impertinence than [an
incident in which] an arrogant leader [Trump] whose heart is full of resentment
and hatred toward Islam and the Muslims and whose head is full of the principles
of the Torah and Talmud prepares, along with his Zionist brothers, a plan from
hell whose goal is to generate [even] more oppression, aggression and
usurpation, which is then celebrated and described as a deal, and even as the
deal of the century[?!]"[13]
IUMS Secretary-General 'Ali Al-Qaradaghi: The Muslim Nation Should Sacrifice For
The Palestinian Cause By Every Means; This Is A Religious Duty
In a speech he delivered at a February 1, 2020 rally in support of the
Palestinians in Istanbul, which was attended by representatives of Turkish
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party, IUMS
Secretary-General 'Ali Al-Qaradaghi, speaking "on behalf of all Muslim clerics,"
called on the free world and all people of conscience worldwide to join the
resistance front against the "false deal of the century." Stressing that "this
deal is destined for the dustbin of history," he added that "1.7 billion Muslims
will not relinquish Jerusalem," which is not only Arab land but
Arab-Islamic-Palestinian land and part of the Muslim faith. He called on the
Muslim nation to "come out against this deal and sacrifice for this cause, by
every means, for this is a religious commandment and failing to do so is a
blatant betrayal of the [Muslim] faith and [its] beliefs, and of the homeland."
He also urged the Palestinians of all movements and parties, to unite and oppose
the deal "with every type of resistance", and to "liberate Jerusalem, for this
is a shari'a and international duty."[14]
IUMS Website Quotes The Organization's Founder, Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi: It Is
Incumbent On All Muslims To Defend Jerusalem, Sacrifice Themselves For It And
Wage Jihad For Its Sake
On January 30, 2020, two days after the Trump plan was announced, the IUMS
website posted on its main page an excerpt from the book Jerusalem – The Concern
of Every Muslim, by the organization's founder Sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi, which
states that defending Jerusalem is a religious duty and that Allah instructed
Muhammad to wage jihad in the city's defense. The excerpt also alludes to the
well-known Prophetic hadith according to which, before Judgment Day, the Muslims
will fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will seek shelter behind stones and
trees, but the stones and trees will cry out and reveal them, saying, "O Muslim,
O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!"
The excerpt from Al-Qaradawi's book states: "Jerusalem has an elevated religious
status in the Muslim faith – this is agreed upon by all Muslims of all [ethnic]
groups, denominations and worldviews, for this is a consensus among the entire
[Muslim] nation. It therefore comes as no surprise that all Muslims uphold their
obligation to defend Jerusalem, protect it zealously... sacrifice themselves and
all that is dear to them [for its sake] and respond to any aggression against
it... Allah told the Prophet Muhammad that the enemies would conquer this holy
land or threaten it with invasion or occupation. Therefore, [Muhammad] urged his
nation to prepare for war [in that land] and to wage jihad there to keep it from
falling into the hands of the enemies, or to liberate it if it was destined to
fall into their hands. The Prophet was also informed about the struggle that
will take place between the Muslims and the Jews, which will ultimately end in a
Muslim victory, and everything will be on the Muslims' side – even the rocks and
the trees, which will speak to show [the Muslims where] their enemies, [the
Jews, are hiding]."[15]
Qatari Political Cartoons Criticize The Deal Of The Century
The Qatari press, both within and outside the country, published political
cartoons harshly critical of the Deal of the Century. The cartoons depicted it
as a malicious plan conceived by Trump and backed by certain Arab regimes for
which the Palestinians will pay the price, and as an initiative that belongs in
the dustbin or should be used as toilet paper, and will eventually be thwarted
by the Palestinians.
* H. Varulkar is Director of Research at MEMRI; Z. Harel is a research fellow at
MEMRI.
[1] Al-Watan (Qatar), January 29, 2020.
[2] Al-Sharq (Qatar), January 30, 2020.
[3] Al-Arab (Qatar), February 2, 2020.
[4] See e.g., Al-Sharq (Qatar), January 30 and February 2, 2020.
[5] For Qatari cartoons from 2018 criticizing the Deal of the Century, see MEMRI
Inquiry & Analysis No. 1409, Qatar's Opposition To Trump's Forthcoming Middle
East Peace Plan As Reflected In Qatari Cartoons, August 2, 2018.
[6]Al-Sharq (Qatar), January 29, 2020.
[7] Al-Raya (Qatar), Feb 1, 2020.
[8] Al-Sharq (Qatar), January 30, 2020.
[9] Al-Watan (Qatar), January 30, 2020.
[10] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), January 29, 2020.
[11] See MEMRI reports: Special Dispatch No. 277, Terror in America (10):
Prominent Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Sheikh YussefAl-Qaradhawi:
'Islamic Religious Law Dictates That We Join the Taliban's Jihad, Not the US
Coalition; It is Forbidden to Attack American Citizens, But Permitted to Attack
the American Military', September 30, 2001; Special Dispatch No. 828, Sheikh
Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi: Resistance in Iraq is a Duty of Every Muslim, December 14,
2004; Special Dispatch No. 8000, International Union of Muslim Scholars, Which
For Years Has Encouraged Jihad, Calls On The West To Prohibit The Discourse Of
Hate, April 15, 2019.
[12] Iumsonline.org, January 29, 2020.
[13] Iumsonline.org, January 29, 2020.
[14] Iumsonline.org, February 1, 2020.
[15] Iumsonline.org, January 1, 2020.
Muslim Brotherhood using Palestinian cause to attack Sudan
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Arab News/February 05/ 2020
In our region things are not always what they seem, as in the case of the
intense attack against Sudan and the chairman of its Sovereignty Council, Abdel
Fattah Al-Burhan, under the pretext of his meeting with the Israeli prime
minister in Uganda.
The main driver behind this attack is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood,
which lost power in Sudan last year. Its members are disgruntled because the
Sudanese authorities began to uproot thousands of them from the educational,
security and economic institutions that the Brotherhood took over during the
rule of the previous regime.
Sudan, like other countries, faces serious challenges that cannot be taken
lightly, and it cannot act against its supreme interests. We cannot lose sight
of the fact that more than half of all Arab countries — including Tunisia,
Qatar, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Oman and others — have dealt with Israel.
We also cannot forget that some officials of the Palestinian Authority (PA),
which was previously boycotted by some Arab states on the pretext that it had
concluded a deal with Israel, are taking part in this intense attack.
Political bullying against Arab governments in the name of Palestine or Israel
is unacceptable. Everyone is tired of this declining political rhetoric, which
had the audacity to criticize states without taking into account their
circumstances and necessities. States have their supreme interests, and
sovereign decisions are not to be decided on Twitter. Nor should they be
pressured by those who have personal whims or interests.
Why does the PA deal with the Israeli government, buy electricity from it and
exchange security information? The reason is that it is obliged to do so. Why
does a Sudanese sovereign official meet with an Israeli official? Because his
country is still sanctioned and he has to search for solutions to end its
crises.
Sudan is going through a difficult transitional period in which it faces
internal and external intrigues, and the Palestinians must not be exploited. Let
us not forget that the Iranians involved the previous Sudanese regime in their
battles over the years. The Sudanese people paid a high price for this.
Indeed, naval and air chases sank Iranian ships off Sudanese ports, and Iranian
military training camps were bombed on Sudanese territory. In addition, the
crimes of the previous Sudanese regime against its people placed the country on
international and US sanctions lists. Sudan does not have many options if it
wants to lift these sanctions, move away from the Iranian strategy of conflict
and shift to internal development.
No one dares to speak against the incitement practiced by some Palestinian
officials close to Doha. Al-Burhan’s meeting in Entebbe lasted two hours, while
they have been silent about meetings taking place since the 1990s.
The Brotherhood’s incitement machine has been working overtime since the
Sudanese successfully reached an agreement that is the only one of its kind in
the areas of the Arab world afflicted by political turmoil. This is why
incitement is to be expected from disgruntled parties and their allies. A number
of the Brotherhood’s leaders have fled and settled in Istanbul, joining the
leaders of the Egyptian group and others there.
Regardless of the motives for criticizing Sudan, the Palestinian cause is the
biggest loser when it is exploited by such people, who have long used it to
serve their own interests and to fight their battles. No one dares to speak
against the incitement practiced by some Palestinian officials close to Doha.
Al-Burhan’s meeting in Entebbe lasted two hours, while they have been silent
about meetings taking place since the 1990s.
*Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager
of Al Arabiya news channel, and former editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat.
Twitter: @aalrashed
Palestinians must accept they cannot turn back the clock
Ray Hanania/Arab News/February 05/ 2020
Israel will hold its third election in the space of a year on March 2 in an
attempt to finally form a new government. This time, the Palestinian voters will
have even more reason to turn out and help bring about change.
Israel’s indicted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week embraced a peace
plan from America’s impeached President Donald Trump that calls for the
redrawing of the boundaries to “transfer” some 350,000 Palestinians from
northern Israel into a proposed Palestinian state.
The “deal of the century” — or “steal of the century,” as critics are calling it
— proposes the creation of a Palestine state that includes most of the West Bank
(but minus Israel’s illegal settlements and the Jordan Valley), areas of the
Negev desert, the Gaza Strip, and the land in northern Israel commonly referred
to as the “Triangle.” The Triangle and the Negev lands would be swapped for
settlements, although it is unclear whether the swap would be equal or unequal.
The Trump plan outlines a Palestinian state consisting of Bantustans — a word
used in apartheid South Africa to define land set aside for black populations —
connected by tunnels, a high-speed rail system and private roads. Although the
idea sounds abhorrent, it is nothing new for Israel, which, since its founding,
has embraced apartheid by providing benefits for its Jewish citizens while
denying equal rights to non-Jews.
There about 2 million Palestinians currently living in Israel, making up about
21 percent of the country’s population. The 350,000 Palestinians to be
transferred from the Triangle would come from the enclaves as defined by the
181-page Trump plan. It states: “The Triangle communities, which largely
self-identify as Palestinian, were originally designated to fall under Jordanian
control during the negotiations of the Armistice Line of 1949, but ultimately
were retained by Israel for military reasons that have since been mitigated. The
vision contemplates the possibility, subject to agreement of the parties, that
the borders of Israel will be redrawn such that the Triangle communities become
part of the state of Palestine.”
The Palestinians living in Israel have never previously voted to their maximum
capacity, with most embracing the Arab world’s self-defeating strategy of
totally rejecting anything short of turning the clock back to 1947. The
extremists who have silenced moderate voices have always demanded “all or
nothing” for all Palestinians. However, this strategy has always resulted in
them receiving nothing.
Trump’s plan merely reiterates the reality of what exists today and hasn’t been
able to be changed for decades
The biggest mistake is Palestinians refusing to engage in the process. Just
because Trump has proposed a plan and Netanyahu has embraced it, that doesn’t
mean the Palestinians have to embrace it. Kushner has repeated his contention
that the plan is negotiable if the Palestinians would come to the table.
In truth, the proposals reflect the reality of life today for most Palestinians.
For example, although the plan proposes that the Jordan Valley be annexed by
Israel, in reality it already controls this land. The sad reality is that no
force on Earth has been able to move Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley,
and there is nothing on the horizon either. The only counter to Israel’s actions
since 1967 has been several failed wars, followed by an excessively emotional
campaign of empty rhetoric, with which the Palestinians should be tired.
The Trump plan also states that Jerusalem will remain under Israeli control,
including East Jerusalem, which was occupied in 1967 and includes holy sites for
both Islam and Christianity. The plan “guarantees” Muslim access to Al-Haram Al
Sharif, but the reality is that Israel has occupied and maintained an
unbreakable headlock on life in East Jerusalem for the past 53 years. Again,
nothing has been able to break Israel’s grip on this holy city. And, frankly, if
Christian and Muslim Arabs can’t find the courage to fight to free their holy
sites in East Jerusalem, what makes anyone think that is going to change?
This plan merely reiterates the reality of what exists today and hasn’t been
able to be changed for decades. The only thing that can change is the attitude
of Palestinians themselves. For too long they have buried their heads in the
sand and screamed, “No, no, no” — a remnant of the Arab League’s “Three No’s of
Khartoum,” as defined in 1967: “No Peace with Israel. No Recognition of Israel.
No negotiations with Israel.” Well, 50 years later, we can see where that
strategy has led.
Palestinians need to stand up and fight for their rights by being engaged in
this process. The Trump plan is not a final plan. None of the past plans have
ever been final either. But what Trump has done is force Israel to publicly
accept the two-state solution — something they abandoned after the 1995
assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after he had signed an agreement
to create a Palestine state with the late Palestine Liberation Organization
Chairman Yasser Arafat.
Palestine is being erased, except in the rhetoric of the extremists and the
nostalgia of the silenced moderates. Moderates need to find their voice, edge
out the extremists, and accept a reality in which they will never get it all
back.
We can’t turn back the clock, but the Palestinians can build a state that will
one day grow, through strategic diplomacy and brilliant leadership, to force
Israelis to merge their state with ours.
• Ray Hanania is an award-winning former Chicago City Hall political reporter
and columnist. He can be reached on his personal website at www.Hanania.com.
Twitter: @RayHanania
US broke Iraq, now it must own its mistakes
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/February 0/ 2020
Iraqis have again taken to the street, still refusing to accept the “new” prime
minister. Well, there is nothing new about Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi. He is part of
the old regime — the regime that was put in place after the American invasion;
the dysfunctional, corrupt sectarian regime that has caused the Iraqis so much
suffering. The regime put in place by the US has not given Iraqis more freedom,
dignity, security or better standards of living then they had under Saddam
Hussein. It has ended up — even if unintentionally — giving illiterate
militiamen control over the country. Therefore, instead of being controlled by
one dictator, the Iraqi people are controlled by a group of thugs.
While George W. Bush had a vision, which some would say was Utopian and some
would say Machiavellian, to spread democracy in the Middle East, the result in
Iraq was a sectarian oligarchy. The process started with putting in place a
constitution that had no connection with the social fabric of the country. The
new constitution divided people into Shiite, Sunni and Kurds. When the law looks
at and treats each citizen as a Sunni, Shiite or Kurd, the citizen will perceive
himself as such before he considers himself to be an Iraqi.
The corrupt government did not invest in any productive sector and instead used
the government facilities as cash cows. The different sectarian leaders hired
redundant people just to increase their voter base. On top of that, government
contracts were awarded at inflated price tags to enrich politicians and their
cronies.
The Iraqi situation is very similar to the one on Lebanon. However, in Iraq the
culprit is very obvious: It is the US. Though one cannot only blame America for
all of Iraq’s calamities, the system was put in place while they controlled the
country; hence it is their responsibility. Now that the US has realized the
monster it created, it is trying to destroy it by applying maximum pressure, as
part of President Donald Trump’s strategy to weaken enemies. US Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo has threatened to sanctionofficials for corruption and for
attacking protesters. Washington did sanction, in December, three militia
leaders who were attacking protesterswith the help of Iran.
In the US’ logic, the Iraqi government — just like the one in Lebanon — is an
ally of Iran and, when it falls, Iran will be weakened. However, leaving a
country in freefall does not solve the problem. During the Second World War, the
US destroyed Nazi Germany, but it had a plan to rebuild it. Today, the US is
encouraging the breakup of the corrupt sectarian system it put in place in Iraq,
but the problem is that there is no visible plan to offer an alternative.
Nevertheless, the Iraqis are not banking on any American sense of guilt or
responsibility to take control of their country.
It is admirable to watch the tenacity of the Iraqi people, who are not deterred
or intimidated by the state’s brutal crackdown on their protests. The protests
also show a degree of organization. Despite the assassinations of leading
members, the popular protests keep on gaining momentum. They have a clear
message and clear demands. Like in Lebanon, it is very hard for the current
regime to be responsive to their demands. The Iraqi regime thrives on
corruption; therefore it is unable and unwilling to conduct reforms. The leaders
have nothing to offer their base but sectarian appeal. Again, like in Lebanon,
the Iraqis are prisoners of a democracy trap. What can they do? How can they
flee this unrepresentative pseudo-democracy? The Iraqi case is even more acute
then the Lebanese one because the armed forces are also sectarian and
politicized. They have been spreading fake news to discredit the protests,
describing protesters as “vandals.” The army is not perceived to be on the
people’s side.
The alternative is for the Iraqi protesters to work on building regional,
professional and sectorial networks. As these networks take shape, they could
communicate with each other and put in place a plan for the country — a
comprehensive plan of reform that encompasses the various sectors, including
finance, education, energy, and health care. When a structure for these networks
materializes and communication channels are formalized, the protesters could
announce the formation of a parallel transitional government with a concrete
reform plan and new election law, leading ultimately to a new constitution for
Iraq.
It is admirable to watch the tenacity of the Iraqi people, who are not deterred
or intimidated by the state’s brutal crackdown.
However, in order for their efforts not to be treated as an insurgency, they
should communicate with the international community — neighboring Arab
countries, the US, the European Commission, and the UN — in order to gain their
recognition. In this case, once the protesters’ structure is recognized
internationally, the current corrupt elites would have to step down, as they
would have lost their legitimacy. The transition would not happen peacefully.
Those politicians have their militias and thugs, who are ready to take to the
street and slay people demanding dignity. However, having international
recognition and applying international pressure would give the protesters huge
impetus as well as protection.
Former US National Security Adviser Colin Powell had a “Pottery Barn rule” that
applies to war. It says, “You break it, you own it,” and it later became a
doctrine named after him. Well, the US’ mistakes and bad policies broke Iraq. It
is now time for America to own those mistakes and fix them. This is not achieved
by letting the country freefall, but by helping the protesters put together a
representative government that can conduct reforms and fulfill the aspirations
of the Iraqi people.
*Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on
lobbying. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Exeter and is an
affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and
International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.