LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 28/19

Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.february28.19.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Bible Quotations For today
Later the other bridesmaids came also, saying, “Lord, lord, open to us.” But he replied, “Truly I tell you, I do not know you.”Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 25/01-13: “‘Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this. Ten bridesmaids took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a shout, “Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.” Then all those bridesmaids got up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the wise, “Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” But the wise replied, “No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.” And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut. Later the other bridesmaids came also, saying, “Lord, lord, open to us.” But he replied, “Truly I tell you, I do not know you.”Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on February 27-28/19
Report: Lebanon, EU in Divergent Views over Refugee File
Maronite Patriarch Calls for Protecting Lebanon from 'Dangerous' and 'Strenuous' Refugee Crisis
Economist, Ghazi Wazni Warns of Inevitable Collapse if Government Fails to Make Reforms
Bassil says Lebanon merits being a meeting point of religions
Meeting at Italian Parliament on situation of Christians in the Middle East
Berri says Parliament will assume its monitoring role in full
Report: Hizbullah Says Britain Ban Won’t Impact Party
Report: Hariri Pays Berri Unannounced Visit
Kanaan Says Investigation into Illegal Hiring a 'Serious Measure'
Rahi: To Separate Political Solution in Syria from Refugee Return
EU affirms commitment to Lebanon’s stability, partnership
Civil Marriage Debate Returns To Lebanon As Protesters Take To Streets
Smuggled in Suitcases: How Iran Is Upgrading Hezbollah's Rocket Arsenal

Litles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on February 27-28/19
Iranian President Rouhani rejects Foreign Minister Zarif’s resignation
Trump-Kim handshake opens second N. Korea nuclear summit
Pakistan says shoots down two Indian jets in Kashmir, arrests 2 pilots
Military spokesman: Pakistan does not want to go ‘towards war’ with India
Imran Khan calls for talks as tensions heighten between India and Pakistan
Erdogan says does not believe US will retrieve arms from Kurdish groups
Turkey Rejects Troops Deployment of Other Countries in the 'Security Zone'
Turkish FM: Purchase of Russian S-400 Defense System a Done Deal

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 27-28/19
EU affirms commitment to Lebanon’s stability, partnership/Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star/February 27/19
Civil Marriage Debate Returns To Lebanon As Protesters Take To Streets/Julia Altmann/The Media Line/February 27/19
Smuggled in Suitcases: How Iran Is Upgrading Hezbollah's Rocket Arsenal/Amos Harel/Haaretz/February 27/19
Turkey Rejects Troops Deployment of Other Countries in the 'Security Zone'/Saeed Abdulrazzak /Asharq Al Awsat/February 27/19
Imran Khan calls for talks as tensions heighten between India and Pakistan/AFP/Reuters/February 27/19
Europe fears new Cold War amid suspension of nuclear treaty/Ranvir S. Nayar/Arab News/February 27, 2019
Trump's 'deal of the century' is destined to fall through/Sever Plocker|/Ynetnews/February 27/19
Why the Trump-Kim Nuclear Summit Needs a Sequel/Jon Herskovitz and Youkyung Lee/Asharq Al Awsat/February 27/19
Why hosting global conferences matters to the GCC/Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/February 27/19
Europe fears new Cold War amid suspension of nuclear treaty/Ranvir S. Nayar/Arab News/February 27/19
Palestinians: "No Place for the Zionist Entity in Palestine"/Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/February 27/19
Must We Really Be Careful What We Do Lest We Offend Extremists/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/February 27/19
Turkey: The Case of the Missing Priests/Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/February 27/19
CAIR's Radical Speaking Circuit/Faith-led, seventh-century justice-driven/Benjamin Baird/JNS/February 27/19

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on February 27-28/19
Report: Lebanon, EU in Divergent Views over Refugee File
Associated Press/Naharnet/February 27/19/The refugee talks between President Michel Aoun and EU Foreign Policy Chief Frederica Mogherini have shown a “major difference” in approaching the file and in the ways to secure their return to Syria, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Wednesday. While Mogherini said it was difficult to begin a program at present to return Syrian refugees before reaching a political solution in Syria, President Michel Aoun has affirmed Beirut’s commitment to work for the return of refugees to safe areas in their war-torn country without waiting for a political solution. President Michel Aoun added that Lebanon will try to ensure that Syrian returnees are not in danger. The EU had stated in the past that the return of refugees in large numbers should take place after the war in the neighboring country comes to an end. Aoun and his allies in Lebanon, including the powerful Hezbollah group, support having contacts with the Syrian government saying it would help facilitate the return of refugees. On the contrary, politicians from the Western-backed coalition, led by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, refuse such contacts with Damascus before a solution is reached for the conflict that has killed more than 400,000 people. Aoun suggested that international assistance to refugees be given to them after they return home in order to encourage them to do so, adding that their presence in Lebanon is making them compete with Lebanese for jobs and increasing emigration among Lebanese citizens. Thousands of Syrian refugees returned home from Lebanon last year after government forces captured wide parts of the country. Syria's nearly eight-year conflict has led to the displacement of half the country's population and created more than 5 million refugees, who fled mostly to neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Lebanon is home to some 1 million Syrian refugees, a quarter of the country's population, putting pressure on the country's crumbling infrastructure. An estimated 70 percent of them live in poverty. Amnesty International issued its report on the Middle East and North Africa on Tuesday saying that although Lebanon is hosting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, the tiny Arab country has kept its border closed to people fleeing the ongoing conflict. Since 2015, Lebanon has imposed restrictions on Syrians coming to Lebanon, slowing their flow into the country. "Syrian refugees continued to face financial and administrative difficulties in obtaining or renewing residency permits, exposing them to a constant risk of arbitrary arrest, detention and forcible return to Syria," Amnesty said. Minister of State for Refugee Affairs Saleh Gharib visited Syria last week and told reporters after his return that Syrian officials "were very positive and showed interest in facilitating" refugees' return. Mogherini later met with Hariri and Parliament Speaker Nabi Berri who told her that the EU should play an active role on demarcating the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel. The Lebanon-Israel dispute dates back years but resurfaced last year when Lebanon invited companies to bid for exploratory offshore drilling next year along the countries' maritime border. Israel claims Lebanon will be drilling partly in areas owned by Israel. Lebanon and Israel are technically at war, and quarrel over their land borders.

Maronite Patriarch Calls for Protecting Lebanon from 'Dangerous' and 'Strenuous' Refugee Crisis
Kataeb.org/ Wednesday 27th February 2019/Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rahi on Wednesday renewed his call for the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland, urging the international community to not link this issue to finding a political solution in Syria. “We cannot disregard the economic burden inflicted on us by the presence of 1.5 million Syrian refugees who now make up half of the Lebanese population," al-Rahi said during a conference organized by Caritas International Regional Secretariat for the Middle East and North Africa. "The country cannot manage its own population and is not equipped to receive this tremendous number of displaced on its 10452 km2 soil," he noted. “It is a duty that the refugees return to their homeland where they can enjoy their rights, and it is also a duty to protect Lebanon from this strenuous and dangerous influx while a third of its people live in poverty and the majority of its youth are unemployed,” al-Rahi pointed out. The Patriarch stressed that the international community must separate between the refugees' return and the political solution in Syria, "or else we will face a scenario that is similar to that of the Palestinian refugees."

Economist, Ghazi Wazni Warns of Inevitable Collapse if Government Fails to Make Reforms
Kataeb.org/ Wednesday 27th February 2019/Economist Ghazi Wazni said that the new government has a last chance to introduce the much-needed reforms for Lebanon to recover from its economic crisis, warning of an inevitable collapse if corruption and squandering are not stopped. "The current economic situation requires the new government to carry out immediate reforms and take the necessary measures to reduce the State's deficit," Wazni told the Kataeb website. He explained that employment and bonus payments must be freezed this year after it had surged by more than 80% between 2010 and 2018, adding that a solution must be devised for Lebanon's chronic electricity problem. Wazni pointed out that subsidies for the sector must be reduced given that they are burdening the treasury, preventing spending on more efficient infrastructure and increasing the public debt. The economic expert stressed the need to boost the State's revenues without imposing new taxes, saying that this can be done by securing a flawless tax collection, enforcing laws on maritime properties (with estimated profits of at least $333 million) and companies' profits, as well as other measures. Wazni ruled out the possibility of approving the 2019 State budget in March as stated by the finance minister, noting that extensive discussions still need to be conducted before the budget endorsement.

Bassil says Lebanon merits being a meeting point of religions
Wed 27 Feb 2019/NNA - Foreign and Emigrants Minister, Gebran Bassil, on Wednesday branded Lebanon as a diverse society and the land of dialogue, saying "Lebanon merits to be a meeting point of religions." Minister Bassil's words came during a ceremony for the signature of a memorandum of understanding to preserve the living memory of holy religious sites, at the invitation of the Holy Spirit University-Kaslik. "Lebanon merits being a meeting point of religions... from our ancient heritage, we start to promote religious tourism," Bassil said. The Minister also stressed that the state must prepare the infrastructure necessary to receive religious tourists. He also highlighted the Vatican's declaration of Lebanon as a religious pilgrimage destination for 2019; notably that Lebanon is the land of dialogue rather than the land of confrontation.

Meeting at Italian Parliament on situation of Christians in the Middle East
Wed 27 Feb 2019/NNA - A meeting was held at the Italian Parliament with deputies representing various political parties, led by activist MP Andrea Del Maestro, several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and military correspondents working in the Middle East. Participants developed a common vision of the situation of Christians in the Middle East and in some African countries. The distinguished guest at the meeting was the president of the NGO Nawraj, Fouad Abu Nader. Del Maestro, who opened the special session on the situation of Christians in the Middle East and Africa, said: "We are here today to discuss the situation of Christians in the Middle East due to attacks and displacement against them by terrorism. Despite the sufferings of Christians in the region, they still seek to preserve their presence on the land of Christianity.""Since the Christian presence is an absolute necessity to promote the spirit of openness and peaceful coexistence among all the components of this East, a joint Italian parliamentary commission will be formed to mobilize financial resources to help the organizations working for the return of Christians to their homes, in cooperation with the NGO Nawraj and Italian organizations operating in the affected areas," he said. On the sidelines of the meeting, Abu Nader told the NNA "As president of the NGO Nawraj, I spoke about the situation in Lebanon which is affected by the crisis of the Middle East conflict, especially after the Arab Spring and the war in Syria." "Christians have a role to play in sparing Lebanon the negative effects of the crises that surround it and preserving the model of coexistence, diversity and pluralism in order to avoid religious conflict or otherwise," said Abou Nader. "I think that Europe needs the Lebanese model," he said, indicating that Lebanon suffers from a major problem caused by displacement of Palestinians and Syrians, which puts pressure on the economic and social situation and job opportunities for the Lebanese. "We have come to ask Europe to accelerate work to repatriate the displaced and to distance Lebanon from regional crises in order to preserve coexistence," he concluded.

Berri says Parliament will assume its monitoring role in full
Wed 27 Feb 2019/NNA - House Speaker Nabih Berri said on Wednesday that the parliament will assume its monitoring role in full, noting that the vote of confidence was a turning point. Visiting MPs within the framework of "Wednesday Gathering" quoted the Speaker as saying that he shall call for two parliamentary sessions in the first half of March, one to elect the Supreme Council for the trial of presidents and ministers, and another legislative session to ratify stringent bills of motion. Berri has consulted with Prime Minister Saad Hariri over the holding of legislative sessions. On the issue of appointments, Berri stressed that the government must adopt the mechanisms followed in the past, highlighting the need for law enforcement in this context.

Report: Hizbullah Says Britain Ban Won’t Impact Party
Associated Press/Naharnet/February 27/19/Hizbullah has reportedly undermined Britain’s move to expand ban on the party considering it a “useless" move that won't affect the party, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Wednesday. “The British government's move will not affect the party, knowing that this step goes in line with the American position which has not affected neither the reality of the party nor its position,” Hizbullah sources told the daily on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk. On Tuesday, the British government said it plans to ban Hizbullah as a terrorist group, accusing the Iran-backed organization of destabilizing the Middle East. A draft order laid in the U.K. Parliament will ban the party and two other groups. Subject to Parliament's approval, the order will go into effect Friday and being a member of, or inviting support for, Hizbullah will be a criminal offense, carrying a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Until now the military wing of the Lebanon-based group has been outlawed in Britain, but not its political arm. The British ban comes as the United States is increasing its pressure on Hizbullah, placing several sets of sanctions on the group and its regional backer, Iran. Ansaroul Islam, which seeks to impose its strict view of Salafist Sharia law in Burkina Faso, and Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam Wal-Muslimin, which has similar aspirations in Africa's Sahel region, were also banned Monday.

Report: Hariri Pays Berri Unannounced Visit
Naharnet/February 27/19/Prime Minister Saad Hariri has reportedly made an unannounced visit to Speaker Nabih Berri on Tuesday at his residence in Ain el-Tineh, al-Joumhouria newspaper reported on Wednesday. The daily said the meeting was “brief and short,” but was unable to get a statement from any of Berri or Hariri’s circles.However, sources following on the issue noted that Hariri’s visit came shortly after his return from the Arab-European summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, and on the eve of the Cabinet meeting, and after the speech of Berri on the need for rapid and intensive government action.

Kanaan Says Investigation into Illegal Hiring a 'Serious Measure'
Naharnet/February 27/19/Head of the Budget and Finance parliamentary committee, MP Ibrahim Kanaan, on Wednesday emphasized that the follow-up on the file of illegal hiring in the state’s administrations and institutions is serious and that the results will be colossal. Speaking at a press conference following a meeting for the committee, Kanaan said the committee has found that 15,200 public sector employees and contract workers were hired for “unexplained, superfluous positions.”In October, the committee kicked off investigation after accusations that illegal state hiring had taken place in line with the May 2018 parliamentary elections as a method of buying votes. Lebanon’s government has imposed a freeze to hiring since the adoption of a wage scale law in 2017 that raised the wages of the public sector.

Rahi: To Separate Political Solution in Syria from Refugee Return
Naharnet/February 27/19/Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi on Wednesday called the international community to dissociate the political solution in Syria from the repatriation of Syrian refugees present on the Lebanese soil, the National News Agency reported. “The international community must not link the return of displaced Syrians to a political solution in Syria. There is a pressing necessity that they return to their country,” Rahi said, noting that “it is a duty to protect Lebanon from the dangers of this heavy presence.”Rahi’s remarks came during a conference on social welfare and religion in the Middle East, held at the Lady of the Mount Monastery in Fatqa. Rahi maintained that "Lebanon dissociates religion from the state, yet it respects all religions and recognizes the principle of equal partnership between Christians and Muslims in ruling."

EU affirms commitment to Lebanon’s stability, partnership
Hussein Dakroub/The Daily Star/February 27/19
BEIRUT: The European Union’s foreign policy chief Tuesday wrapped up a two-day visit to Beirut that underlined EU commitment to Lebanon’s stability and partnership, as well as accompanying government plans to implement economic reforms recommended at the CEDRE conference. Federica Mogherini left Tuesday night after paying her first visit to Lebanon since the new government was formed on Jan. 31. “The visit underlined the EU’s strong commitment to Lebanon’s stability and a partnership based on common values and shared interests. Following the first EU-LAS [League of Arab States] summit in Egypt and two weeks ahead of the Brussels III Conference on ‘Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region’ in March, the visit took place at a crucial time,” a statement released by the EU delegation in Beirut said.
Mogherini “expressed the EU’s willingness to keep accompanying Lebanon in implementing its reform agenda and supporting the government and the host communities in the hosting of refugees.”
“The European Union remains committed to Lebanon’s unity, sovereignty, stability and territorial integrity. The EU continues to fully support UNIFIL in its role in maintaining stability at the southern border,” the statement said.
The EU’s foreign policy chief held talks separately with President Michel Aoun, Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, Interior Minister Raya El Hassan, and former MP Walid Joumblatt focusing on economic ties between Europe and Lebanon and the Syrian refugee crisis. She also met with UNIFIL Commander Maj. Gen. Stefano Del Col. Mogherini had met Monday with Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil soon after arriving from Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh, where she attended the Arab-EU summit.
During her meetings with Lebanese leaders, Mogherini “underlined the EU’s strong and long-standing partnership with Lebanon and the EU’s willingness to work in close cooperation with the new government in facing various national and regional challenges.” “The EU already works with Lebanon on a wide range of fields, from strengthening the rule of law and respect of human rights to reforming the security sector and creating job opportunities,” the statement added.
During his meeting with Mogherini, Berri urged the EU to play an active role in helping Lebanon demarcate its maritime borders with Israel, according to a statement from the speaker’s office. Berri broached the issue given that, as Lebanon’s waters abut Cyprus’, Lebanese territory “is on the border of the EU.”
“Berri [told Mogherini] that exploring and investing its resources was Lebanon’s best hope at revitalizing its economy and helping it to repay its debts,” the statement said.
Berri has on several occasions warned about Israeli aggressions on potential Lebanese oil reserves in disputed maritime waters. The central dispute surrounds maritime Block 9, which border’s Israel’s maritime zone and includes waters that both countries claim are rightfully theirs.
The presence of more than 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon and its impact on the country’s ailing economy and frail infrastructure figured high in talks between Aoun and Mogherini at Baabda Palace.
Aoun told the EU’s foreign policy chief that Lebanon would continue to work for the return of Syrian refugees to safe areas in their country without waiting for a political solution to the 8-year-old conflict there.
Aoun, according to a statement released by his media office, told Mogherini: “The information that we are getting is that the returnees are receiving care from Syrian authorities, which have provided them with pre-fabricated houses, infrastructure and schools. This is what the EU and other international organizations can ascertain.”Aoun suggested that international aid to the refugees be given to them after they return home in order to encourage them to do so.
Mogherini expressed the EU countries’ willingness to continue providing assistance to Lebanon in all fields, particularly in the economic and security fields, the statement said. The EU previously stated its support for individual refugee returns on a voluntary basis, but said it wants to see a political solution to the Syrian crisis before mass returns take place. Mogherini discussed with Hariri the “situation in Lebanon and the region and the means to boost bilateral relations, the steps necessary to implement the decisions of the CEDRE conference and the projects Lebanon needs in the coming stage,” a statement from the prime minister’s media office said. Meanwhile, the Future Movement’s parliamentary bloc warned against attempts to ignite political battles over the constitutional powers of the president and the prime minister in outlining Lebanon’s policies. It urged all the parties, including the president, to avoid disputes at the Cabinet sessions that can hinder the new government’s work.
“The bloc affirms that cooperation between the presidency and the premiership should not be a subject of doubts or controversy. It cautions against betting on a return to experiences of dispute between the presidency and the premiership and its repercussions on running the state’s affairs. Prime Minister Saad Hariri had previously warned of this matter, putting it in the context of disrupting the state and the work of institutions,” the bloc said in a statement issued after its weekly meeting chaired by Sidon MP Bahia Hariri. “The bloc sees that there is no national interest at all in starting any form of fabricated battles over constitutional powers and stresses that constitutional provisions are clear in this respect,” it added. The statement recalled that Hariri had previously called for “avoiding problems at the Cabinet table and the need for concentrating efforts on preparing the legal and legislative mechanisms for the government’s program.”“It’s important firstly for this call to include his excellency the president, who has taken the oath to safeguard the Constitution,” the statement added. The Future bloc was reacting to last week’s Cabinet session, the first since it gained a vote of confidence from Parliament Feb. 15, when a debate on normalizing ties with the Syrian regime prompted Aoun to abruptly end it, saying that he is the one who decides the country’s higher interests. Aoun’s firm stance has rekindled an off-and-on row over the constitutional powers of the president and the prime minister in deciding Lebanon’s policies.
Copyright © 2019, The Daily Star. All rights reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).

Civil Marriage Debate Returns To Lebanon As Protesters Take To Streets
Julia Altmann | The Media Line/February 27/19
Resurgence of support a reaction to comments made by country’s new interior minister, who expressed willingness to recognize such unions
Dozens of Lebanese citizens protested this week near the Interior Ministry in Beirut, calling on the government to recognize civil marriage. The demonstration occurred days after recently-appointed Interior Minister Raya al-Hassan said in an interview with Euronews that she was willing to engage in “serious and deep dialogue on this issue with all religious and other authorities and with the support of Prime Minister Saad Hariri until civil marriage is recognized.”Hassan’s comments provoked a backlash from religious bodies, including the highest Sunni authority in Lebanon, the Dar al-Fatwa, which responded by saying it rejected civil unions on grounds that they violated Islamic law and the Lebanese constitution. Lebanon is comprised of 18 recognized religions and sects, each with courts having legal jurisdiction over personal status issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. Yet the authorities recognize civil marriages registered abroad, and it is common for couples to tie the knot in nearby Cyprus. According to Dr. Carmen Geha, Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the American University of Beirut, the relationship between Lebanese citizens and the state is mitigated by these judiciaries.
“As a first step, civil marriage will undermine the power and authority the religious institutions have over the lives of citizens,” she told The Media Line. “Men, through which women are legally recognized, will lose their grip over women, and religious courts [will lose their control] over their constituency. In addition, religious courts make a lot of money from these marriages which will deter them from ceding this benefit.”Fatima Moussawi, a Program Coordinator at the Beirut-based Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, told The Media Line that the country’s political structure “is according to sect, so it is hard to implement a reform that is secular in nature because sectarianism, from the top down, permeates through all institutions.”
A 1936 decree delineating authority to these groups states that “for those who do not belong administratively to a religious community, civil law applies to personal status matters.” In 2009, a loophole was seemingly found when then-interior minister Ziyad Baroud allowed citizens to remove their religious affiliation from state records. By no longer belonging “administratively” to a sect, it was said, you were subject only to civil law. This culminated in a historic decision in 2013 by Marwan Charbel, the interior minister at the time, who registered the civil marriage contract of Nidal Darwish (a Shia Muslim) and Kholoud Sukkarieh (a Sunni Muslim), making them the first couple in Lebanon and the Arab world to have a civil marriage on home soil. However, only a handful of unions were approved in this way, as weddings are not officially registered without the signature of the interior minister. When Nouhad Machnouk took over the position in 2014, he ceased the practice, leaving some two dozen cases pending. This places the proverbial ball back in the court of Hassan, the first woman to hold the interior portfolio in the Arab world. “Since the interior minister is a woman, we might see a different dynamic if she has political leeway to deal with this,” Geha from the American University of Beirut said. “She has the documents of these [pending] marriages and has yet to approve them. Part of the recent protest was to say, ‘approve those and open debate.’”Moussawi of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs added that Hassan’s political party could influence her decisions. “It is a good first step that she spoke about it, but she comes from the Future Movement, a part of which is conservative, so it is tough to foresee the extent to which the political influence over her will go,” she said.
According to Geha, another aspect of the debate is the ramifications that civil marriage will have on gender roles in the country. “Civil marriage can be seen as a gateway to gender equality in Lebanon,” she said, which is why she is “not optimistic” that the reform can pass.

Smuggled in Suitcases: How Iran Is Upgrading Hezbollah's Rocket Arsenal
عاموس هاريل/الهآرتس: إيران تُحدِّث ترسانة صواريخ حزب الله وتهرب معدات التحديث بحقائب إلى لبنان
Amos Harel/Haaretz/February 27/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/72578/amos-harel-haaretz-smuggled-in-suitcases-how-iran-is-upgrading-hezbollahs-rocket-arsenal-%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3/
Two recent reports based on Israeli intelligence reveal the upgrades, which are based on satellite navigation systems (GPS), are meant to improve the missiles’ accuracy.
Iran is smuggling upgrades for Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal through Syria in suitcases, two recent reports based on Israeli intelligence reveal.
According to these reports, the upgrades, which are based on satellite navigation systems (GPS), are meant to improve the missiles’ accuracy. The kits are no bigger than a carry-on suitcase and can thus easily be smuggled aboard a plane.
Iran is mainly trying to upgrade Hezbollah’s Zelzal-2 rockets, which have a range of up to 200 kilometers. According to Israeli intelligence, the Lebanese organization has around 14,000 such rockets.
In an article on the American website the Daily Beast, reporter Neri Zilber quoted Israeli intelligence officers who revealed detailed information about the Iranian project. The officers said Israeli air strikes in Syria (of which former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot said Israel carried out around 2,000 last year) have forced Iran to stop trying to smuggle containers full of weaponry or even missile parts through Syria.
Therefore, it is now focusing on smuggling in smaller kits to improve the missiles’ accuracy. These kits are sent from Iran to Lebanon by car, and sometimes even with passengers on commercial flights.
The goal is to convert “dumb” rockets, which can’t be remotely controlled, into smart ones with a GPS and other components that enable the missile to be controlled until it hits its target. This makes the missiles much more accurate, usually enabling them to land within 10 to 50 meters of the target.
An experienced technical crew can complete the upgrade in two to three hours by replacing the middle section of the rocket that connects the engine to the warhead. They then feed the GPS coordinates into the rocket via a laptop computer, “and it’s fire and forget,” one senior officer told Zilber. “It’s just like Waze,” the navigation app, he added.
In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed the locations of three underground sites near Beirut’s international airport where he said Iranian and Lebanese experts were working on upgrading the missiles. Those sites were vacated within days and the Lebanese government denied their existence.
This speech showed that Israel prefers sending public warnings to attacking sites in Lebanon, as direct attacks could start a new war with Hezbollah.
The intelligence officers told the Daily Beast that describing these sites as “factories” was misleading, as the activity conducted there could also be done in a room the size of an ordinary office. They also described their cat-and-mouse games with Hezbollah and Iranian personnel in their effort to stop the smuggling, adding that Hezbollah was excellent at covering its tracks.
But despite its enemies’ skills and the small size of the targets, Israel has the upper hand, the officers said. “What do you think we’re hitting in Syria?” one officer said. “We’re running after suitcases.”
No hermetic solution
Earlier this week, Britain announced it has decided to list Hezbollah’s political wing as a terrorist organization, and not just its military wing, as had been the policy until now.
A detailed report published last week by the British Jewish organization BICOM, which is apparently also based on Israeli intelligence, said Iran’s effort to improve the accuracy of Hezbollah’s rockets has focused on the Lebanese movement’s 14,000 Zelzal-2 models. It added that the cost of upgrading a single rocket ranges from $5,000 to $10,000.
The BICOM document said Hezbollah is currently thought to have only a relatively small number of precision missiles, somewhere between 20 and 200. But even this number, combined with its enormous quantity of “dumb” missiles (which Israel estimates at between 100,000 and 150,000), would be capable of doing damage to Israel’s infrastructure.
In speeches and propaganda videos in recent years, Hezbollah has repeatedly threatened to attack power plants, air bases, the Haifa oil refineries, the nuclear reactor in Dimona and army headquarters in Tel Aviv. Israel has no hermetic solution to such missile strikes, despite having developed three layers of sophisticated missile interception systems – the Arrow (long-range), David’s Sling (medium-range) and Iron Dome (short-range).
The BICOM document said that for Iran, the effort to upgrade Hezbollah’s missiles was a test case that could be replicated if it succeeds. Tehran is already trying to do something similar in Yemen, where it seeks to improve the accuracy of missiles held by the Houthi rebels who are fighting the Saudi-backed government. Precision weaponry in the Houthis’ hands could also endanger American bases in the Persian Gulf.
The Israeli intelligence officers told the Daily Beast that Israel is winning the “shadow war” it is waging against the Iranians led by Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force.
Eisenkot told the New York Times in January that Soleimani erred in choosing to confront Israel in Syria, where the IDF enjoys complete aerial and intelligence superiority. He said Israeli strikes have prevented Iran from achieving its goals in Syria, which included deploying a permanent force of about 100,000 Shi’ite militiamen from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan; indoctrinating Syrians in the Shi’ite faith; building air, naval and intelligence bases; and deploying weapons systems, including anti-aircraft batteries and drones.
‘A quiet revolution’
Netanyahu recently told the Voice of America’s Persian broadcast that the Iranians are still in Syria, but there would be more of them were it not for Israel’s actions, and their presence has even shrunk a bit. Israeli intelligence says a few hundred members of the Revolutionary Guards have left Syria, as have a few thousand Hezbollah fighters, who have returned to Lebanon.
At Sunday’s cabinet meeting, Netanyahu denied a senior Iranian official’s claim that 90 percent of his country’s goals in Syria had been achieved. “They’re trying, but we’re stopping them,” he said. “The Iranians tell a lot of lies.”
Dr. Shimon Shapira, an expert on Iran and Hezbollah at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, said he believes Iran’s ambitions in Syria are bigger than Israel’s intelligence community has yet realized.
Shapira, a reserve brigadier general who served as Netanyahu’s military secretary during the prime minister’s first term, noted that Syrian President Bashar Assad has allowed foreign Shi’ite militiamen to bring their families to Syria. Moreover, he said, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are building institutions for them in Syria – schools, religious institutions and even universities where the language of instruction is Farsi.
As Syria’s civil war has died down, Iran has begun a major effort to increase its influence over civilian affairs in Syria, Shapira continued. This effort is reminiscent of what it did with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
“A quiet revolution is taking place here, whose goal is to make Syria Shi’ite by exploiting Iran’s influence over President Bashar Assad’s Alawite government,” he said.

Latest LCCC English Miscellaneous Reports & News published on February 27-28/19
Iranian President Rouhani rejects Foreign Minister Zarif’s resignation
Reuters, London/Wednesday, 27 February 2019 /Iranian President Hassan Rouhani rejected on Wednesday the resignation of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, standing by a moderate ally long targeted by hardliners in internal factional struggles over a 2015 nuclear deal with the West.Zarif - a US-educated veteran diplomat who helped craft the pact often described as flawed - announced his resignation on Instagram on Monday. “As the Supreme Leader has described you as a ‘trustworthy, brave and religious’ person in the forefront of resistance against widespread US pressures, I consider accepting your resignation against national interests and reject it,” Rouhani said in a letter published on state news agency IRNA. In another show of confidence, senior Revolutionary Guards commander Qassem Soleimani said Zarif was the main person in charge of Iranian foreign policy and he was supported by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On Wednesday, Zarif thanked Iranians for their support. “As a modest servant I have never had any concern but elevating the foreign policy and the status of the foreign ministry,” he added in an Instagram post. After Rouhani’s announcement, the semi-official ISNA news agency reported that Zarif had attended a ceremony to welcome Armenia’s prime minister to Tehran. Zarif gave no specific reasons for his resignation. But his move thrust the schism between Iran’s hardliners and moderates into the open, effectively challenging Khamenei to pick a side. The schism between hardliners and moderates over the nuclear deal shows the tension in Iran between the two factions, and between the elected government, which runs the country on a day-to-day basis and a clerical establishment with ultimate power. An ally of Zarif told Reuters his resignation was motivated by criticism of the nuclear accord, under increasingly intense fire in Iran since the United States abandoned it last year.

Trump-Kim handshake opens second N. Korea nuclear summit
AFP, Hanoi/Wednesday, 27 February 2019 /US President Donald Trump shook hands with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to kick off their second summit Wednesday in the Vietnamese capital Hanoi. Trump predicted the talks over the totalitarian state’s nuclear programme would be “very successful.”North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is sure his summit with US President Donald Trump will produce positive results, he said Wednesday. “I am certain that an outcome will be achieved this time that will be welcomed by all people,” Kim told Trump. “I will do my best to make that happen.”They were following up on a historic first meeting in Singapore in June with about 20 minutes of one-on-one talks scheduled before a wider dinner. Talks were then scheduled to resume on Thursday.

Pakistan says shoots down two Indian jets in Kashmir, arrests 2 pilots
AFP, Islamabad/Wednesday, 27 February 2019/Pakistan shot down two Indian Air Force planes in its airspace in Kashmir on Wednesday, a military spokesman said, adding that two Indian pilots had been captured. “PAF shot down two Indian aircrafts inside Pakistani airspace,” tweeted military spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor, adding that one aircraft had fallen in Pakistani-held Kashmir, while the other crashed on the Indian side. “One Indian pilot arrested by troops on ground while two in the area,” he had said earlier before later confirming that two pilots were captured.
Meanwhile, an Indian police official said that an Indian Air Force plane crashed in the disputed area of Kashmir on Wednesday, killing two pilots and a civilian, amid heightened tensions with neighboring Pakistan. Ghafoor's statement came as Indian sources said that Pakistani fighter jets had violated airspace over Indian Kashmir, but were forced back over the de facto border of the disputed territory. A top government official in Indian-administered Kashmir told AFP the Pakistani jets briefly crossed the frontier but were pushed back by the Indian Air Force. The Press Trust of India reported that Pakistani fighter planes crossed at Poonch and Nowshera, two locations on the Indian side of the de facto border, but were repelled. PTI said the Pakistani jets dropped bombs while returning but that there were no immediate reports of casualties or damage. The Pakistani foreign office also released a statement saying that the air force “undertook strikes” across the border, known as the Line of Control, Wednesday -- however it did not elaborate on what it meant by “strikes” and did not mention shooting down planes. It said the strikes were aimed at a “non military target”, adding: “We have no intention of escalation”.
Meanwhile, Indian news reports say that airports in the Indian portion of Kashmir have been closed for civilian traffic shortly after an Indian air force jet crashed in the area. Indian airlines also cancelled service to least six cities in northern India on Wednesday and several airports were closed as tensions with neighbouring Pakistan escalated. IndiGo, India's biggest airline by market share, low-cost rival GoAir and full-service carriers Jet Airways and Vistara, a joint venture between Singapore Airlines and Tata Sons said flights to several airports were on hold or temporarily suspended.
The incursion over the heavily militarized Line of Control comes a day after Indian warplanes carried out a strike in Pakistan on what New Delhi said was a militant training camp, in retaliation for a February 14 suicide bombing in Kashmir that killed 40 Indian troops. Tensions have dramatically escalated between the nuclear-armed rivals since Indian warplanes flew into Pakistani airspace and struck what New Delhi said was a camp of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the group that claimed the Kashmir bombing. Islamabad, while denying the Indian strike caused any major damage or casualties, had vowed to retaliate -- fueling fears of a dangerous confrontation in South Asia.

Military spokesman: Pakistan does not want to go ‘towards war’ with India
AFP, Islamabad/Wednesday, 27 February 2019/Pakistan does “not want to go towards war” with India, its military spokesman said Wednesday, hours after Islamabad said it shot down two Indian warplanes in its airspace, igniting fears of an all-out conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors. “We do not want escalation, we do not want to go towards war,” Major General Asif Ghafoor told a press conference in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, calling for talks with New Delhi. He added that two Indian pilots had been captured, with one in custody and one in hospital. Meanwhile, Pakistan also closed its airspace on Wednesday, the Civil Aviation Authority and the military said, as fears of an all-out conflict spiked. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) tweeted that it “has officially closed its airspace until further notice”, while a Pakistani military spokesman said the decision had been taken “due to the environment”. Earlier, Pakistan had shot down two Indian Air Force planes in its airspace in Kashmir on Wednesday, which flew across the Line of Control (LoC), the de facto border in disputed Kashmir, to the Indian side in a show of strength, hitting non-military targets including supply depots. Afterwards, Gahfoor said, the two Indian planes crossed the LoC into Pakistani airspace. “The Pakistan Air Force was ready, they took them on, there was an engagement. As a result both the Indian planes were shot down and the wreckage of one fell on our side while the wreckage of the other fell on their side,” he said.
Indian sources confirmed Pakistani fighter jets had violated airspace over Indian Kashmir, but said they were forced back over the LoC, and there was no immediate response to the claim the planes had been shot down. The incident is the latest in a dangerous sequence of events between the two countries, whose ties have been under intense strain since a February 14 suicide bombing in Indian Kashmir that killed 40 troops.

Imran Khan calls for talks as tensions heighten between India and Pakistan
AFP/Reuters/February 27/19
Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan called for talks with India Wednesday after both sides said they had shot down each other's warplanes, a dramatic escalation of the confrontation between the nuclear-armed rivals.“I once again invite India to come to the negotiating table,” Khan, who has called for dialogue with New Delhi in the past, said in a televised statement.“Better sense should prevail,” he added, before alluding to the nuclear arsenal of both South Asian countries and asking: “If escalation begins from here, where will it go?”Earlier in the day a military spokesman confirmed that the Pakistan air force had shot down two Indian warplanes after they crossed over the Kashmir border, capturing one pilot, a military spokesman confirmed on Wednesday. Major General Asif Ghafoor said Pakistani troops on ground captured the Indian pilot. He said one of the planes crashed in Pakistan’s part of Kashmir, while the other went down in the Indian territory.
He said “one Indian pilot was arrested by troops on ground while two are in the area” on Wednesday. But Indian air force spokesman Anupam Banerjee in New Delhi said he had no information on Pakistan’s statement. The capture followed an earlier report of an Indian Air Force plane which crashed in the disputed area on Wednesday, killing two pilots and a civilian, a police official said, amid heightened tensions with neighboring Pakistan. Further details about the incident were not immediately available. Elsewhere Pakistani fighter jets violated airspace over Indian Kashmir on Wednesday but were forced back over the de facto border of the disputed territory, sources and local media said. On the ground troops from both countries exchanged fire along their contested border. India on Tuesday said it had launched an air strike inside Pakistan and that its warplanes killed “a very large number” of fighters at a militant training camp, raising the risk of conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors. Pakistan denied there had been casualties, but has warned that it will respond to Indian aggression.
Tensions have been elevated since a suicide car bombing by Pakistan-based militants in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least 40 Indian paramilitary police on Feb. 14, but the risk of conflict rose dramatically after India's air strike on Tuesday.
The attack targeted the Jaish-e-Mohammed militant, the group that claimed credit for the suicide attack. But while India said a large number of JeM fighters had been killed, Pakistani officials said the Indian airstrike was a failure and inflicted no casualties.
On Tuesday, evening Pakistan began shelling using heavy caliber weapons in 12 to 15 places along the de facto border in Kashmir, known as the Line of Control (LoC), a spokesman for the Indian defense forces said on Wednesday.
“The Indian Army retaliated for effect and our focused fire resulted in severe destruction to five posts and number of casualties,” the spokesman said.
Five Indian soldiers suffered minor wounds in the shelling that ended on Wednesday morning, he added. “So far there are no (civilian) casualties but there is panic among people,” said Rahul Yadav, the deputy commissioner of the Poonch district where some of the shelling took place. “We have an evacuation plan in place and if need arises we will evacuate people to safer areas,” he said. Local officials on the Pakistani side said at least four people had been killed and seven wounded, though it was unclear if the casualties were civilian or military.
India has also continued its crackdown on suspected militants operating in Kashmir, a mountainous region that both countries claim in full but rule in part. On Wednesday, security forces killed two Jaish militants in a gun battle, Indian police said. Pakistan earlier promised to retaliate to Tuesday's air strikes, and security across India has been tightened. The two countries have fought three wars since independence from British colonial rule in 1947 and went to the brink a fourth in 2002 after a Pakistani militant attack on India's parliament. In Punjab, an Indian state that borders Pakistan, security alerts are in place in several districts, according to media reports. Schools within five kilometers of LoC were closed in one district in Kashmir. In Mumbai, India’s financial capital, there was a visible increase in security levels for a city that has suffered numerous militant attacks in the past.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke separately with the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan and urged them to avoid “further military activity” following Tuesday’s airstrike. “I expressed to both ministers that we encourage India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, and avoid escalation at any cost,” Pompeo said in a statement on Wednesday. “I also encouraged both ministers to prioritize direct communication and avoid further military activity,” he said. Both China and the European Union have also called for restraint. On Wednesday New Zealand's foreign minister Winston Peters also voiced concern over the escalation in tensions.

Erdogan says does not believe US will retrieve arms from Kurdish groups
Reuters, Istanbul/Wednesday, 27 February 2019/Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said he does not believe the United States will take back weapons from Kurdish militias in Syria. In an interview with Turkish broadcaster NTV, Erdogan stressed the need for the United States to take back weapons from Kurdish groups in Manbij. Earlier this month, a senior US Army general said the United States should keep arming and aiding the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces following the planned US withdrawal from Syria. In December, President Donald Trump confounded his own national security team with a surprise decision to withdraw all 2,000 US troops from Syria, declaring that ISIS had been defeated there. Turkey has long stressed the importance of the United States retrieving the weapons Washington has given the YPG, the United States’ main partner against ISIS in Syria, which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. “The generals with him said that they have the serial numbers, and they will collect the weapons when all is done. I do not find this sincere,” Erdogan said on Tuesday. “If this withdrawal becomes a stalling method, our approach will be different,” he said, adding that 200 to 400 soldiers may stay, and 500 may stay from other US-led coalition forces.
Withdrawal terms
Last week, the United States said it would leave a small peacekeeping group of 200 American troops in Syria for a period of time after a US pullout. A commander of US-backed Syrian forces called for 1,000 to 1,500 international troops to remain in the country to help fight ISIS, and expressed hope the United States, in particular, would halt plans for a total pullout. The decision to withdraw was announced after Trump spoke by phone to Erdogan. A White House statement said the two leaders agreed, regarding Syria, to “continue coordinating on the creation of a potential safe zone.” “What is important to us is that Turkey will control the secure zone,” Erdogan said on Tuesday. “We cannot leave the control to neither Germany nor France or America. I clearly told this to them.”Erdogan said he might meet with White House adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, in Turkey on Wednesday alongside Finance Minister Berat Albayrak, and the meetings would cover economic and regional issues.

Turkey Rejects Troops Deployment of Other Countries in the 'Security Zone'
Ankara - Saeed Abdulrazzak /Asharq Al Awsat/February 27/19
Turkey renewed its refusal of the deployment of other countries' troops in the security zone which will be established in northern Syria, saying it is the only country entitled to control and manage this region as long as it is located on its borders. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said his country refuses to allow any foreign forces other than Turkey to manage the security zone. He indicated the region is located opposite of the country’s southern border, so it must be run by Turkey, but “we will continue to work with Russia, especially its security and military services.”Media outlets reported Cavusoglu’s statement in which he announced that Ankara continues to coordinate with Russia, United States, and Iran for establishing a security zone north of Syria. He also noted that the area of the security zone is not determined yet. In the same context, Cavusoglu announced in a press conference Tuesday that a US delegation will visit Turkey to discuss the withdrawal of US troops from Syria. Turkey's Deputy Foreign Minister Sedat Onal visited Washington two weeks ago for the same purpose and the Defense Minister Hulusi Akar arrived in Washington together with Chief of General Staff Yasar Guler to discuss Syria and other issues with their US counterparts.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was cited as saying that Russian military police could be deployed in a proposed “buffer zone” along Syria’s northern border with Turkey. “We have experience in combining ceasefire agreements, safety measures and the creation of de-escalation zones with the roll-out of Russian military police,” Lavrov stated. “Such a possibility is being kept open for this buffer zone.”Lavrov indicated that the format of the zone was being finalised by military leaders, and that any decision would take the interests of Damascus and Ankara into account as far as possible. “We're working on it. We haven't decided yet on its size. We're working with Russia, with the US, and with Astana partners. Our technical teams met several times. We appreciate that Russia understands Turkey's security concerns, as partner and ally. So we are working on it,” responded Cavusoglu.
Lavrov spoke of a “buffer zone” while Ankara referred to as a “security zone” to accommodate the refugees in accordance with US President Donald Trump's proposal to establish a safe area in northeastern Syria. Observers believe the fate of this region whether “safe or buffer” depends on agreements and understandings between influential parties, first and foremost the Syrian regime and its allies. In the same context, a senior Pentagon official said that part of the US troops will remain in Manbij in the northern countryside of Aleppo, where the soldiers will continue to patrol jointly with their Turkish counterparts.
The Wall Street Journal quoted the official as saying that the second group will settle east of the Euphrates River as part of a “security zone” between Turkey and Syria, and will help train and advise local fighters so that they can secure the areas restored from the terrorist organization.
In other news, media reports revealed the Turkish army plans to set six new observation points in eastern countryside Idlib, along the 12 main points already established according to the Astana agreement on the de-escalation zone Idlib.
Idlib Media Center reported that the new points will be deployed in Tell Tuqan and Tell Sultan west of Abu al-Duhur on the road between Sarqib and Abu al-Duhur towns. Turkish forces surveyed the area on Tuesday and the army will begin preparing the areas to establish the points.  The move coincides with the escalation of artillery and missile attacks by Assad regime forces on the towns within the demilitarized zone agreed between Russia and Turkey in Sochi in September last year.

Turkish FM: Purchase of Russian S-400 Defense System a Done Deal
Ankara, Washington - Saeed Abdulrazek, Elie Youssef /Asharq Al Awsat/February 27/19/Turkey's purchase of Russia's S-400 missile defense systems is a done deal, said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, despite Washington's pressure to persuade Ankara to opt for the US Patriot system instead. “There's no need to explain anything about the S-400s since it is already a done deal,” Cavusoglu said in a news conference on Tuesday. US officials have threatened their NATO ally that purchasing the S-400 system could jeopardize Turkey's purchase of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets and possibly result in US sanctions. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump discussed the matter on phone. Also, a US delegation will discuss the Patriot deal on Wednesday with officials from the Turkish foreign ministry.
Erdogan said “We agreed on a deal with Russia on the S-400, so for us to turn back from the deal is out of the question. He added that Turkey was “open” to buying US Patriot missiles but “this sale must serve the interests of our country. To this end, joint production, credit, and early delivery are of vital importance.” The Turkish leader said the US administration “looked positively” at early delivery but “said nothing regarding joint production and credit”. Erdogan said work continued for the systems (S400) to be delivered in July as promised before. On another level and according to the information obtained by Anadolu Agency, following the defeated coup chief public prosecutors carried out over 100,000 investigations. After the investigations were completed, 289 lawsuits were filed for making the coup plotters appear before the judge. Some 248 cases of them are concluded, while 41 other cases are still ongoing.

Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 27-28/19
Europe fears new Cold War amid suspension of nuclear treaty
Ranvir S. Nayar/Arab News/February 27, 2019
There is never a good time to start an arms race, but for Europe the news of the suspension of a nuclear arms treaty could not have come at a worse time.
Europe is already in deep paroxysms and uncertainty over the way Brexit is lurching ahead blindly. To add to it, the famous Franco-German engine that gives direction and power to the EU has become entirely dysfunctional since the election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France and the severe setbacks suffered by Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany. The two leaders share a relationship that seems almost cold in comparison with the ties between earlier heads of the two nations, right from the end of the Second World War, nearly 75 years ago.
ement by the Trump administration that it will back out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless Russia urgently mends its ways has come like a bolt from the blue for an EU that has been bitterly divided, listless and directionless for several years now. The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 by then-US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, put an end to the testing and deployment of land-based nuclear-tipped missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
The treaty had come as a big relief to Europe, as the ban meant that the entire European territory was literally free of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces’ nuclear missiles targeting each other. In many ways it signaled the end of the Cold War in the European theater. The two sides went on to not just pull back the missiles from deployment, but they also carried out the large-scale destruction of thousands of missiles.
The US says it has been forced to abandon the INF Treaty as the Russians have been violating it consistently, having developed numerous missiles that fall under the limits of the treaty and hence should be destroyed. Washington is particularly worried about the 9M729 missile that the Russians have developed and deployed as a key part of their strategic plans, especially since the development and modernization of their conventional weapons has not kept pace with the NATO forces or even China. Over 100 such missiles are believed to have been deployed by Russia just east of the Urals and also near the Caspian Sea, upsetting the US as these missiles have the entirety of Europe within their range.
The US is also upset that many other countries that have not signed the INF Treaty, notably China, but also Iran, Pakistan and India, have developed a large arsenal of missiles precisely in the 500 to 5,500-kilometer range, leaving the US and NATO as outsiders in this game. Hence, Washington is keen to get back into this segment to complement its missile forces.
While the US may have its reasons to ditch the treaty, the Europeans don’t share the same vision and, more significantly, they won’t experience the same implications of the INF Treaty being scrapped.
Thirty years on from the signing of the treaty, a lot has changed on the ground in Europe. The Warsaw Pact has disappeared and most of the former members of this pact are either members of NATO or the EU or both. A return to the Cold War or any other war for that matter is definitely anathema to the millennials of the EU, as well as to broader public opinion and several governments. Also, the Europe of today is heavily divided, with many countries adopting a rather harsh stance against Russia, while there remains a fair amount of noises for engaging Moscow in talks instead.
While the US may have its reasons to ditch the treaty, the Europeans don’t share the same vision and, more significantly, they won’t experience the same implications of the INF Treaty being scrapped.
Leaders in countries like Poland and even Hungary and the Baltic states would actually be happy to have the US missiles back on their territory as they fear being the first in line of any possible Russian attack and, hence, they remain vulnerable.
But other nations, notably Germany, the largest member of the EU, is less than keen on having any missiles, let alone nuclear weapons, in its backyard. With the rapid rise of the Green Party, which is fiercely anti-nuclear, the German people and the government would be reluctant to see a return to the Cold War scenario.
Another big challenge for Europe is the weakening of the Franco-German alliance that has so far guided and given strength to the EU, not just in its enlargement but also in deepening intra-EU ties. However, Merkel and Macron just don’t get along and have a very different view of crucial issues, including in strengthening the EU’s own defense capabilities.
Both leaders are currently busy peddling their own versions of creating a joint European defense force that can either supplement or even entirely replace the national armies of different member states. A bigger challenge for the EU member states in boosting their defense capabilities is that their military spending is far below the mark of 2 percent of gross domestic product that NATO has set as a benchmark, and which almost all countries currently miss, often by a wide margin.
If EU leaders cannot quickly agree on a common strategy to respond to the US position on INF, or convince the Americans to use other means of getting the Russians to toe the line, it is very likely that US President Donald Trump will go ahead and tear up the treaty, meaning the EU will be pulled closer to a renewed Cold War.
*Ranvir S. Nayar is managing editor of the Media India Group, a global platform based in Europe and India that encompasses publishing, communication and consultation services.

Trump's 'deal of the century' is destined to fall through
Sever Plocker|/Ynetnews/February 27/19
Opinion: The current US president's plan to achieve peace in the Middle East is another baseless statement made by a man who cannot control his tongue and whose confidants tasked with wrapping up the deal lack the required knowledge and creativity.
Do you remember US President Donald Trump's big plan to cancel the North American trade deal with Canada and the European Union? Well, the new version was the original agreement with just a few minor amendments, which as customary in economic diplomacy would eventually have been carried out anyway. And do you remember Trump's announcement that he was withdrawing roughly 2,000 US troops from Syria? This too is not happening for now. And the Mexican border wall? Not even a tenth of it will ever be built. For Trump kept has his word on barely 5 percent of what he has promised.
The Middle East peace "deal of the century" drafted by Trump is expected to share the same fate. The plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians was supposed to be presented in 2018, but was repeatedly postponed, with excuses ranging from "we are still working on it," to "now is not the right time."
But the truth is more embarrassing than that. Trump's confidants, who were responsible for wrapping up the deal, lack the creativity, the worldview and the knowledge of historical facts required to carry out this mission. Therefore, they are leaping from one Middle Eastern capital to the other, in hopes of hearing something new and refreshing.
The Clinton Parameters, which the Israeli government approved with several reservations but was rejected by the Palestinian Authority in 2000, was the only actual plan to date that was crafted to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Negotiations were held, vague agreements were drawn up and even a unilateral Israeli disengagement from Gaza occurred in 2005, but no new solution to end the 70-year conflict has been put on the table. All paths always lead to Bill Clinton's plan, but these days those guidelines seem much harder to implement.
The United States is up to its neck in a political civil war, Britain is digging its own Brexit grave and the nationalist populist factions that are gaining strength across Europe could not care less about the Middle East. And to top it all, Russia— which has zero interest in witnessing a US-brokered peace agreement— is popping up at our borders.
It is also worth mentioning that the investigations into Trump and his associates' links to Russian officials might lead to several indictments against his politically inexperienced son-in-law Jared Kushner, who brags about "his" plan being top secret. So secret that I doubt he himself understand its contents.
Two different political schools of thought have been clashing in Israel since 1967, with the first claiming the Jewish state is capable of becoming stronger despite its control over the Palestinians, and the second arguing that dominating another nation will eventually ruin the miracle called Israel and lead to an all-out national crisis.
Most of Israel's prime ministers (Levi Eshkol, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert) belonged to the second school, and therefore sought to negotiate with the Palestinians, while only a tiny handful (Golda Meir and Yitzhak Shamir) believed Israel could conceivably rule over the Palestinians. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also believes this with every fiber of his being, and it appears that Trump and Kushner share his view, with the proof being their intention to dust off the forgotten term "economic peace."
It would be better to regard the "deal of the century" with disillusioned cynicism — as just another baseless statement made by an American president who cannot control his own tongue.

Why the Trump-Kim Nuclear Summit Needs a Sequel
Jon Herskovitz and Youkyung Lee/Asharq Al Awsat/February 27/19
The bellicose rhetoric between the US and North Korea has certainly cooled, with no more threats of nuclear annihilation or personal insults. But months after Donald Trump shared a historic handshake with Kim Jong Un in June, a nuclear deal remains elusive. The US president cites the more than year-long break in North Korean missile tests as a diplomatic success and says he’s in “no hurry” to get more done, even as North Korea’s nuclear program quietly advances. North Korea has accused the US of “gunboat diplomacy” by making demands without offering something in return. As the two leaders prepare for a second summit Feb. 27-28 in Vietnam, there’s still the difficult issue of putting meat on the bare-bones language in the declaration the two leaders signed at their first meeting.
1. What did the agreement call for?
Four things: To normalize ties between the US and North Korea, formally end the 1950-53 Korean War, repatriate US war remains and -- crucially -- “to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” But “work toward” is undefined. It’s also unclear whether the US nuclear umbrella over South Korea is included. US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo says that Kim accepted the “final, fully verified denuclearization of North Korea.” North Korea points out the agreement referred to the entire peninsula and insists US weapons must go at the same time, or it would be left vulnerable to attack.
2. What does ‘denuclearization’ entail?
To start, the US wants North Korea to provide an inventory of weapons, facilities and fissile material it has produced. Kim’s regime calls that akin to asking for a “target list.” Further steps would include inspections, closing facilities and destroying weapons, and even surrendering nuclear material, according to proliferation experts. Past talks have faltered on the question of inspections and verification.
3. What does North Korea want?
Kim wants “corresponding measures,” or immediate rewards, for any steps his regime makes. In a televised New Year’s address, Kim threatened to take a “new path” if Washington didn’t relax crippling economic sanctions. He signaled that any deal might require weakening the US-South Korean alliance, urging Seoul not to resume military exercises with the American side. And he made clear that he believed the denuclearization pledge includes “strategic assets” such as America’s nuclear-capable planes and warships. But his language was less bellicose than past years, possibly reflecting his limited options.
4. So what’s happened since Singapore?
Small steps. In July, North Korea released some 55 sets of remains of US troops killed in the Korean War, but negotiations slowed over the remains of thousands of others. While Kim followed through on pledges to refrain from nuclear weapons tests and dismantle testing facilities, those were moves he had committed to before meeting Trump, having declared the testing phase complete. On the US side, Trump suspended or scaled back military drills with South Korea, calling them expensive “war games.” In doing so, he overruled then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who argued they were needed to ensure troop readiness. But the Trump administration also imposed extra sanctions on North Koreans, as it seeks to keep the pressure on.
5. Are they talking?
Not much at the highest levels until a Jan. 18 White House meeting between Trump and Kim Yong Chol, one of the North Korean leader’s top aides, where they agreed to a second summit at the end of February, time and place to be determined. That was followed by weekend talks outside Stockholm -- also notable since North Korean officials had been snubbing Trump’s special envoy, Stephen Biegun, for months. In Sweden, Biegun reportedly asked his North Korean interlocutor, Choe Son Hui, for a freeze on nuclear fuel and weapons production. As Trump was announcing the date for the second summit, Biegun was in Pyongyang meeting his North Korean counterpart to prepare for it. Relations between North and South Korea have improved somewhat, with a deal in September for removing land mines and some guard posts from the border zone. The US-China trade war has complicated cooperation between Washington and Beijing, Kim’s main ally, but China has said it backs further meetings between Trump and Kim.
6. Is North Korea still dangerous?
Trump declared after the summit that North Korea was “no longer a nuclear threat.” The prospect of war seems to have receded and there has been an unprecedented flurry of low-level diplomatic contacts and correspondence. But no one has produced a timetable for Kim to give up his weapons. North Korea has continued to strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities, according to satellite-imagery analysis and leaked American intelligence. Pompeo has conceded before the US Senate that Kim’s regime continues to produce fissile material. In June, he said the bulk of denuclearization could be completed by the end of Trump’s first term in 2020. Now he -- and Trump -- say they won’t be forced into “artificial time frames.”
7. Why isn’t the Korean War officially over?
Because the parties involved in talks to end the war -- China, North Korea and the US-led UN Command -- never were able to agree on a peace treaty. What was signed in 1953 was only an armistice, or truce. However, signing a treaty now without a disarmament deal carries risks for the US, because it could legitimize Kim’s control over half of the peninsula and undermine the rationale for stationing 28,000 or so American troops in South Korea. Each side uses the continued threat of attack to justify its own military activities. Trump has so far refused to accept a symbolic peace declaration, prompting the North Koreans to accuse the US of backtracking on its commitments.

Why hosting global conferences matters to the GCC
Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/February 27/19
Gulf countries have become sought-after platforms for international conferences. The UAE is leading with healthy competition between Abu Dhabi and Dubai. There are the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Councils annual meeting, the World Government Summit and the Annual Investment Meeting in Dubai, plus the Milken Institute’s MENA Summit and the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum in Abu Dhabi. All are sponsored and supported at the highest level by the president, prime minister or crown princes.
Saudi Arabia is also emerging thanks to conferences such as the Future Investment Initiative and the IEA-IEF-OPEC Symposium on Energy Outlooks, which is taking place in Riyadh this week. These events are also sponsored or supported by the highest levels of government.
This is only a small, random selection of conferences put on every year throughout the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. We could ask why they matter, especially as the themes are very diverse.
The rest of the world has quite preconceived notions about the greater Middle East and North Africa region as an area rife with conflict and strife and lacking in tolerance. These conferences bring decision-makers to the region to see for themselves, which has a multiplier effect.
The UAE in particular but also Saudi Arabia are addressing many of the issues near and dear to the hearts of liberals in Europe and North America, such as working to address gender imbalances and tolerance. The visit of Pope Francis to the UAE and the Kingdom’s appointment of its first female ambassador to the US, Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan, are high-profile manifestations of this new era of aspiration and tolerance. The UAE has a minister of tolerance and even one of happiness, which suggests that the welfare of the population really does matter to its leaders.
The visit of Pope Francis to the UAE and the Kingdom’s appointment of its first female ambassador to the US, Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan, are high-profile manifestations of this new era of aspiration and tolerance.
Another indication of just how much things have developed is, on arrival in Riyadh or Jeddah, seeing with one’s own eyes how much Saudi Arabia has opened up. Everyday life has become so much more open compared to only five years ago. That extends well beyond women’s ability to drive or a burgeoning music and entertainment sector. It transcends into everyday life and the efforts of many institutions, such as, for instance, the gender parity of the Arab News office in Riyadh.
Tourism is obviously one way to shed light on these developments. The UAE, Dubai and Abu Dhabi especially, have been trailblazers with the best airlines and stunning hotels. These destinations redefine the luxury holiday experience. Saudi Arabia is also making its own efforts, with the promotion of entertainment and tourism part and parcel of Saudi Vision 2030. This makes sense from three angles: One, it keeps revenue in the country rather than seeing the young go to Dubai or Europe for a holiday; two, it allows foreigners to admire the beauty of the landscape and rich cultural heritage; and, last but not at all at least, tourism is a labor-intensive industry that will create jobs, which are badly needed as 70 percent of the population is below the age of 30. Many critics label the Kingdom’s tourism aspirations as too ambitious. In its defense, even if only some of the planned projects are realized, it will be a major step forward. We should also not forget that there is considerable expertise in the country, as Hajj is one of the biggest annual tourism events in the world.
Tourism is one way of bringing the region closer to the hearts and minds of the world’s population, but what is at least as important is convincing global decision-makers and influencers. This brings us back to the aforementioned conferences, which convene many of the world’s best and the brightest. The Milken Institute’s MENA Summit is an outstanding example of how regional issues can be discussed alongside global political, economic and social phenomena. It was most powerful when Michael Milken explained that, when he organized the first MENA Summit a year ago, 30 percent of the attendees had never been to the region before. A year on, the number of participants had doubled, but only 20 to 25 percent were visiting MENA for the first time. One might add that the level of participants and the quality of discussions were truly world-class and could compete with the world’s leading conferences.
It is precisely this sort of multiplier effect that corrects misperceptions and puts the greater MENA region on the map. In other words, GCC governments should be encouraged to stay the course when it comes to bringing the best and the brightest here to discuss global and regional issues.
*Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macroeconomist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

Europe fears new Cold War amid suspension of nuclear treaty
Ranvir S. Nayar/Arab News/February 27/19
There is never a good time to start an arms race, but for Europe the news of the suspension of a nuclear arms treaty could not have come at a worse time.
Europe is already in deep paroxysms and uncertainty over the way Brexit is lurching ahead blindly. To add to it, the famous Franco-German engine that gives direction and power to the EU has become entirely dysfunctional since the election of Emmanuel Macron as president of France and the severe setbacks suffered by Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany. The two leaders share a relationship that seems almost cold in comparison with the ties between earlier heads of the two nations, right from the end of the Second World War, nearly 75 years ago.
Thus, the announcement by the Trump administration that it will back out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty unless Russia urgently mends its ways has come like a bolt from the blue for an EU that has been bitterly divided, listless and directionless for several years now. The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 by then-US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, put an end to the testing and deployment of land-based nuclear-tipped missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
The treaty had come as a big relief to Europe, as the ban meant that the entire European territory was literally free of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces’ nuclear missiles targeting each other. In many ways it signaled the end of the Cold War in the European theater. The two sides went on to not just pull back the missiles from deployment, but they also carried out the large-scale destruction of thousands of missiles.
The US says it has been forced to abandon the INF Treaty as the Russians have been violating it consistently, having developed numerous missiles that fall under the limits of the treaty and hence should be destroyed. Washington is particularly worried about the 9M729 missile that the Russians have developed and deployed as a key part of their strategic plans, especially since the development and modernization of their conventional weapons has not kept pace with the NATO forces or even China. Over 100 such missiles are believed to have been deployed by Russia just east of the Urals and also near the Caspian Sea, upsetting the US as these missiles have the entirety of Europe within their range.
The US is also upset that many other countries that have not signed the INF Treaty, notably China, but also Iran, Pakistan and India, have developed a large arsenal of missiles precisely in the 500 to 5,500-kilometer range, leaving the US and NATO as outsiders in this game. Hence, Washington is keen to get back into this segment to complement its missile forces.
While the US may have its reasons to ditch the treaty, the Europeans don’t share the same vision and, more significantly, they won’t experience the same implications of the INF Treaty being scrapped.
Thirty years on from the signing of the treaty, a lot has changed on the ground in Europe. The Warsaw Pact has disappeared and most of the former members of this pact are either members of NATO or the EU or both. A return to the Cold War or any other war for that matter is definitely anathema to the millennials of the EU, as well as to broader public opinion and several governments. Also, the Europe of today is heavily divided, with many countries adopting a rather harsh stance against Russia, while there remains a fair amount of noises for engaging Moscow in talks instead.
While the US may have its reasons to ditch the treaty, the Europeans don’t share the same vision and, more significantly, they won’t experience the same implications of the INF Treaty being scrapped.
Leaders in countries like Poland and even Hungary and the Baltic states would actually be happy to have the US missiles back on their territory as they fear being the first in line of any possible Russian attack and, hence, they remain vulnerable.
But other nations, notably Germany, the largest member of the EU, is less than keen on having any missiles, let alone nuclear weapons, in its backyard. With the rapid rise of the Green Party, which is fiercely anti-nuclear, the German people and the government would be reluctant to see a return to the Cold War scenario.
Another big challenge for Europe is the weakening of the Franco-German alliance that has so far guided and given strength to the EU, not just in its enlargement but also in deepening intra-EU ties. However, Merkel and Macron just don’t get along and have a very different view of crucial issues, including in strengthening the EU’s own defense capabilities.
Both leaders are currently busy peddling their own versions of creating a joint European defense force that can either supplement or even entirely replace the national armies of different member states. A bigger challenge for the EU member states in boosting their defense capabilities is that their military spending is far below the mark of 2 percent of gross domestic product that NATO has set as a benchmark, and which almost all countries currently miss, often by a wide margin.
If EU leaders cannot quickly agree on a common strategy to respond to the US position on INF, or convince the Americans to use other means of getting the Russians to toe the line, it is very likely that US President Donald Trump will go ahead and tear up the treaty, meaning the EU will be pulled closer to a renewed Cold War.
*Ranvir S. Nayar is managing editor of the Media India Group, a global platform based in Europe and India that encompasses publishing, communication and consultation services.

Palestinians: "No Place for the Zionist Entity in Palestine"
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/February 27/19
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13796/palestinians-zionist-entity
Hamas and Islamic Jihad should be given credit for their clarity and honesty regarding their ambitions. The two groups are clearly saying that their ultimate goal is to see Israel removed from the region and replaced with an Islamic state. As far as they are concerned, the conflict with Israel is not about a settlement, a checkpoint or even Jerusalem. Instead, it is about the presence of Jews in what they regard as their own state and homeland.
What will happen the day after a Palestinian state is established? The answer, according to Hamas and Islamic Jihad (and other Palestinians) is that they will use it to continue the "armed struggle" until the liberation of the supposedly occupied cities of Tel Aviv, Nazareth, Tiberias, Haifa and Ashdod. Under these current circumstances, a Palestinian state will pose an immediate existential danger to Israel.
The Islamic Jihad threat to turn Israeli cities into "hell" by firing missiles at them needs to be taken seriously by those who are working on the upcoming US peace plan. Any land that is given to Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank will be used in the future by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a base for launching rockets and missiles at Israeli cities. Then, the terror groups will not need accurate, long-range rockets to achieve their plan to destroy Israel's population centers: they will be sitting right across the street from them.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad control nearly two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Each group has its own political leadership , as well as militias that possess various types of weapons, including rockets and missiles. Pictured: Hamas militiamen parade their weapons in Gaza City, on July 20, 2017.
A Palestinian terror group says that its engineers have developed "accurate and destructive" missiles that can reach the "occupied" cities of Tel Aviv, Netanya and Jerusalem. Abu Hamza, spokesman for the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of the Iranian-funded Islamic Jihad organization in the Gaza Strip, threatened that his group's "rocket unit" would turn Israeli cities into "hell."
"There is no place for the Zionist enemy on the land of Palestine," Abu Hamza said. "Either they leave this blessed land, or they will be dealt one painful strike after the other."
Islamic Jihad is the second-largest Palestinian terror group in the Gaza Strip, after Hamas. Neither group recognizes Israel's right to exist. Both say they are committed to the "armed struggle until the liberation of all Palestine, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River."
The leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad see Israel as one big settlement to be uprooted from the Middle East.
For them, there is no difference between a Jewish settlement in the West Bank and any other city inside Israel. As far as they are concerned, Tel Aviv, Ashdod, Haifa and Nazareth are all "occupied" cities. Palestinian weather forecast bulletins often publish names of cities inside Israel on a map that does not mention the word Israel.
The Palestinian leaders say that the conflict with Israel will end only when Israel is annihilated.
"We won't give upon one inch of the land of Palestine," said Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. "We will continue to fight until all the refugees return to their homes" -- meaning areas in Israel within the "green line" 1949 armistice borders.
In 2017, Hamas published a document of "General Principles and Policies," in which it claimed that it was ready to accept a Palestinian state on the pre-1967 lines (West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem) -- but without Hamas recognizing Israel's right to exist or Hamas "giving up all of Palestine."
In other words, Hamas is saying that it would not oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem; it would use these territories as a launching pad to "liberate the rest of Palestine."
The Hamas document clearly states that "no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances, and the pressures, and no matter how long the occupation lasts." It affirms that Hamas "rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." The document also states that Hamas will never recognize the "Zionist entity" or relinquish any Palestinian rights.
Although Hamas says in the document that it is ready, for now, to accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel, it nevertheless considers "Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west, and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash [Eilat] in the south, an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people."
The Hamas document has been misinterpreted by some Westerners as a sign of moderation and pragmatism on the part of the terrorist group. Reuters, for example, claimed in a May 1, 2017 dispatch that Hamas has "dropped its long-standing call for Israel's destruction."
This claim is completely false. Reuters, like several other Western media outlets, ignored those parts of the Hamas document that mentions the need to eliminate Israel. Here are other parts of the document that reveal Hamas's true intentions:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas is a Palestinian national liberation resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine and confront the Zionist project. Palestine is an Arab Islamic land. It is a blessed sacred land that has a special place in the heart of every Arab and every Muslim. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse."
Worse, some Westerners have gone so far as describing the document as the "new Hamas charter." Again, that claim is false. The Hamas charter, which was published in 1988, continues to exist; it has never been changed or amended. This charter states :
"... the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that...
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised."
For the past three decades, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been major players in the Palestinian arena. They are not splinter factions than can be dismissed as irrelevant. The two groups control nearly two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. Each group has its own political leadership , as well as militias that possess various types of weapons, including rockets and missiles. The two groups also have thousands of militiamen in the Gaza Strip who consider themselves "soldiers" and "freedom fighters" in the war to eliminate Israel and kill Jews.
Those who think that Hamas and Islamic Jihad will vanish one day are living in an illusion. The two groups continue to pose a real threat, not only to Israel, but also to Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. Were it not for Israel's security presence in the West Bank, Hamas and Islamic Jihad would have toppled Abbas's regime long ago. Hamas and Islamic Jihad despise Abbas and consider him a traitor because of his purported support for a two-state solution.
Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar was recently quoted as saying that when his movement "liberates Palestine," it will bring Abbas to trial for betraying the Palestinians.
Hamas and Islamic Jihad should be given credit for their clarity and honesty regarding their ambitions. The two groups are clearly saying that their ultimate goal is to see Israel removed from the region and replaced with an Islamic state. As far as they are concerned, the conflict with Israel is not about a settlement or a checkpoint or even Jerusalem. Instead, it is about the presence of Jews in what they regard as their own homeland and State.
Any Middle East peace plan that ignores what Hamas and Islamic Jihad are saying is doomed to fail. Moreover, ignoring the two groups will pose a massive threat to security and stability in the region. The US administration, which says it will unveil its plan for peace in the Middle East after the Israeli elections in April, ought to think and think again about the plan's possible repercussions.
This is what members of the US administration needs to ask themselves: What will happen the day after a Palestinian state is established? The answer, according to Hamas and Islamic Jihad (and other Palestinians) is that the Palestinians will use this state to continue the "armed struggle" until the liberation of the occupied cities of Tel Aviv, Nazareth, Tiberias, Jaffa and Haifa. Under the current circumstances, a Palestinian state will pose a clear and present existential danger to Israel.
The Islamic Jihad threat of turning Israeli cities into "hell" by firing missiles at them needs to be taken seriously by those who are working on the upcoming US peace plan. Any land that is given to Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank will be used in the future by Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a base for launching rockets and missiles into Israeli cities. Then, the terror groups will not need accurate, long-range rockets to achieve their plan to destroy Israel's population centers: they will be sitting right across the street from them.
*Bassam Tawil is an Arab Muslim based in the Middle East.
© 2019 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.

Must We Really Be Careful What We Do Lest We Offend Extremists?
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/February 27/19
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13803/offend-extremists
What is striking and controversial are the repeated interventions into the debate made by the government's own 'extremism commissioner', Sara Khan. Over recent years Khan has been a hugely admirable figure. The founder and leader of the women's group 'Inspire', Khan has shown a generation of British people – including, most importantly, young Muslim women – that it is possible to be resilient against the fanatics in their faith and also to argue for the rights of women. She has been an unarguable force for good, and has had to withstand appalling pressure from Islamist groups in the UK.
"It is, I think, completely misconceived to suggest that we should change our foreign policy because it might cause some people to take up arms against us. That's a form of blackmail...." — Michael Howard, former Conservative party leader
In 2006 a small group of peers, MPs and Islamist groups sent an open letter to the then-Labour government. The signatories included the subsequently jailed Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, the subsequently disgraced (over expenses fraud) Baroness Uddin and the then-MP, now Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. This letter suggested to the UK government of the day that British foreign policy "risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad." This is a commonly heard argument of course, and is especially commonly heard from various extremist groups.
In the case of Shamima Begum, one of a number of girls who left London in 2015 to go and join ISIS, British politicians have -- unusually -- responded to the public mood. Home Secretary Sajid Javid (pictured) has announced that he is stripping Begum of her British citizenship.
Britain, in recent days, has had a rare distraction from its seemingly endless Brexit debate. The distraction, however, has not been an altogether welcome one. It involves the case of Shamima Begum, one of a number of girls who left their school in Bethnal Green in London in 2015 to go and join ISIS.
Back then, in 2015, the story of the Bethnal Green schoolgirls was headline news. Many British people were genuinely shocked that anyone -- let alone young women at the start of their lives -- would find ISIS's promise of a Caliphate so alluring that they would leave the comforts of their friends, family and country in the UK to go to join the group. There was much national debate about this. Various people, including some of the girls' family members, blamed the British police and security services for not stopping the girls from leaving the UK. Ironically, the people who blamed the police -- including the lawyer representing the girls' families -- were often precisely the same people as those who had spent previous years urging Muslims in Britain not to cooperate with the British police. How exactly the British police were either to blame, or to find any way to 'win' in such a situation, was never explained. It was just one of many paradoxes thrown up in these circumstances.
Now, members of the British media have caught up with Shamima Begum, who is living in a Syrian refugee camp. The interviews she has given, in which she has expressed no remorse for her actions and has described life in the Caliphate -- which included seeing severed heads in trash cans -- as not especially troubling, have not helped her in her request to return home to Britain. The general public has reacted badly to her self-pity and lack of remorse; and British politicians have -- unusually -- responded to the public mood. Specifically, the Home Secretary Sajid Javid has announced that he is stripping Begum of her British citizenship. It is a move which is not just unprecedented but certain to bog him down in legal action for a while to come.
What is most interesting is the debate about whether Begum should be allowed to return and whether the Home Secretary was right in this unprecedented action. It is at times such as this that we are able to measure any change in the public and political debate.
What is striking and controversial are the repeated interventions into the debate made by the government's own 'extremism commissioner', Sara Khan. Over recent years, Khan has been a hugely admirable figure. The founder and leader of the women's group 'Inspire', Khan has shown a generation of British people -- including, most importantly, young Muslim women -- that it is possible to be resilient against the fanatics in their faith and also to argue for the rights of women. She has been an unarguable force for good, and has had to withstand appalling pressure from Islamist groups in the UK.
When Khan was appointed to her present official position last year (after the three terrorist attacks in Britain in 2017) the announcement annoyed all of the right people. Only the length of time the commission had taken to be appointed and that Khan promised to spend at least a year scoping out the nature of extremism in the UK were causes for concern. If the problem was so urgent -- as the Prime Minister had intimated after the London Bridge terror attack -- why did it take over half a year to appoint a commissioner to look into extremism, and why would that commissioner then announce at least another year of nothing happening in order to 'scope out' the problem? That is almost two years lost just there.
Khan's relative silence since then has made her repeated interventions in the Begum story especially noteworthy. In a piece in the Sunday Times as well as a subsequent comment to The Times and other media, Khan has insisted that Begum must be allowed to come back to the UK. Not only, Khan has argued, does Begum have this right, but Britain would be 'abandoning our values' if we did not allow her back.
This is, it must be said, an exceptionally complex and fine legal -- as well as moral -- issue. Decent people from all sides can disagree over what to do with someone in Begum's case. There is one element, though, of Khan's argument that has gone particularly unnoticed and is particularly disturbing. In her Sunday Times piece Khan argued that, "Far-right and Islamist agitators alike will use the case of Shamima to create a wedge between and within communities." And well they might. In making this argument, however, the UK government's extremism commissioner perhaps unwittingly demonstrates a slippage that has occurred in Britain in just over a decade.
In 2006, a small group of peers, MPs and Islamist groups sent an open letter to the then-Labour government. The signatories included the subsequently jailed Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, the subsequently disgraced (over expenses fraud) Baroness Uddin and the then-MP, now Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. This letter suggested to the UK government of the day that British foreign policy "risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad." This is a commonly heard argument of course, and is especially commonly heard from various Islamist groups. What is noteworthy about this, and what makes it worth dredging up, is not the argument but rather the response to the argument.
Back in 2006, then-Home Secretary John Reid was having none of this. He described the letter as a "dreadful misjudgement." No competent government would remain in power, he said, if its policies were "dictated by terrorists." The former Conservative party leader, Michael Howard, backed John Reid, saying at the time that the letter had given "ammunition" to extremists. Howard went on:
"It is, I think, completely misconceived to suggest that we should change our foreign policy because it might cause some people to take up arms against us. That's a form of blackmail and I think that letter was completely misconceived."
So, it is only a few years since there was agreement from across the Conservative and Labour benches that such arguments should not merely be rejected but should be ignored. Sara Khan is certainly no Islamist, or any type of sympathiser with extremism. Far from it. In recent days, nonetheless, she has shown herself willing to deploy the argument that we must be careful what we do lest we offend extremists. Thirteen years ago, this argument was dismissed by Labour and Conservative MPs alike. Today, it would most certainly be deployed by the leadership of the present Labour party -- even though that view is being pushed back against by the present Conservative Home Secretary. Yet, it is a sign of a wider slippage that, in 2019, such an argument would be deployed not by an Islamist, but by the government-appointed figure whose task is to tackle extremist Islam. It is in small slips such as this that a wider societal backsliding can be discerned.
*Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England. His latest book, an international best-seller, is "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam."
© 2019 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.

Turkey: The Case of the Missing Priests
اوزاي بولوت/معهد كايتستون: تركيا وقضية الكهنة المفقودين
Uzay Bulut/Gatestone Institute/February 27/19
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/72531/uzay-bulut-gatestone-institute-turkey-the-case-of-the-missing-priests-%d8%a7%d9%88%d8%b2%d8%a7%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d9%88%d9%84%d9%88%d8%aa-%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%87%d8%af-%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa/
"Prior to the kidnapping, the bishops were on their way to Aleppo to secure the release of two other abducted priests.... When Paolo Dall'Oglio, an Italian Jesuit priest, went to Raqqa to secure their release, he too was kidnapped, and is still missing. I believe he was murdered." — Erkan Metin, an Istanbul-based Assyrian human-rights lawyer.
Metin noted that the Assyrian and other Christian peoples indigenous to the region are still awaiting justice for the kidnapped priests and other Christian victims of persecution in Syria.
"Unlike Turkey, which has failed to investigate the crimes committed against the clergymen, there is an ongoing investigation in the U.S. on their kidnappings and another is being conducted by Russia... and the U.N. is investigating the financing of terrorism in Syria." — Erkan Metin, an Istanbul-based Assyrian human-rights lawyer.
In 2013, Yohanna Ibrahim, head of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Aleppo, was one of two archbishops abducted in Syria. He is still missing.
It has been six years since two archbishops and other members of the Christian clergy went missing in Syria; their whereabouts still are unknown. Yohanna Ibrahim, head of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Aleppo, and Boulos Yazigi, head of the Greek Orthodox Church, also in Aleppo, were abducted from their car in 2013. Their driver was later found killed.
Erkan Metin, an Istanbul-based Assyrian human-rights lawyer who has been following these cases and written about them extensively, told Gatestone:
"Prior to the kidnapping, the bishops were on their way to Aleppo to secure the release of two other abducted priests – Father Michel Kayyal, an Armenian Catholic, and Father Maher Mahfouz, a Greek Orthodox – who are also still missing. When Paolo Dall'Oglio, an Italian Jesuit priest, went to Raqqa to secure their release, he too was kidnapped, and is still missing. I believe he was murdered."
Metin said that the terrorist who is believed to have killed the two clergymen -- Magomed Abdurakhmanov (Abu Banat), is currently in jail in Turkey.
"While fighting in Syria, Abu Banat was the leader of the jihadist Katibat al-Muhajireen brigade. He was also a member of Jaysh al-Muhajireen wa'l-Ansar, affiliated with the Kavkaz Center, the official website of the Caucasus Emirate (Imarat Kavkaz), a pro-jihad, Chechen internet news agency. Jaysh al-Muhajireen wa'l-Ansar was initially aligned with ISIS and then pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. Banat was also a right arm of Abu Omar al-Shishani, who was once one of the most senior commanders of ISIS."
Metin added that Abu Banat was first detained in 2013 for entering Turkey illegally, but was then released. However, Metin continued: "After a police officer thought he recognized Abu Banat from an ISIS beheading video on YouTube, Turkish police raided his home in Istanbul, where they found weapons and ammunition. During his criminal investigation, police discovered that it was Abu Banat who had kidnapped the clergymen, and that he was a jihadist leader in Syria. They also learned that it was indeed Abu Banat who appeared in the decapitation video. 'The people whose heads I chopped off were spies of Assad,' he said during his interrogation. But the police did not ask him whether the men he beheaded in the video were the abducted archbishops, Ibrahim and Yazigi. It was an odd, careless investigation."
Meanwhile, Metin said, international condemnation of the beheading videos spurred the Kavkaz Center, with which Abu Banat was affiliated, to distance itself from Abu Banat and clean up its image. This is why, Metin explained, the Kavkaz Center "published an article accusing Abu Banat of having been a Russian spy before his arrest in Turkey; of having kidnapped Ibrahim and Yazigi, and of then having 'executed' them by detonating bombs strapped to their bodies."
Metin explained to Gatestone that the Turkish Justice Ministry has not allowed prosecutors to try Abu Banat and others for crimes committed against the archbishops. Abu Banat was tried only for "membership in al-Qaeda and for possessing weapons and explosives."
According to Metin: "A prosecutor's office in Istanbul requested permission from the Turkish Justice Ministry to investigate Abu Banat for committing a crime against humanity. But the ministry rejected the request, on the grounds that the crime was committed in Syria, a foreign country, and thus it would be difficult to collect evidence there."
Had such an investigation been launched, Metin said, "it would have exposed the Syria policy of then-Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, which can be summed up as a 'strategic swamp,' which defines everyone from outside of Syria who commits savage acts inside Syria as 'opponents of the Assad regime.'"
Furthermore, according to Metin: "Abu Banat testified during his trial that his jihadist organizations were supported by the Turkish intelligence organization (MIT). Although there is no concrete evidence of this, Abu Banat claimed that he received weapons, money and vehicles from the MIT, and that he and the MIT were on the same side against Assad. Abu Banat complained that after he was imprisoned in Turkey in July 2013, he wrote letters to the MIT, with which he claimed to have been in constant touch while he was in Syria, but received no response. Currently, Abu Banat is in the Maltepe prison in Istanbul, but he has filed an appeal with the Turkish Supreme Court. If he wins the appeal, he could be set free."
According to Metin: "Unlike Turkey, which has failed to investigate the crimes committed against the clergymen, there is an ongoing investigation in the U.S. on their kidnappings and another is being conducted by Russia on the terrorist leadership of Abu Banat, and the U.N. is investigating the financing of terrorism in Syria."
Metin noted that the Assyrian and other Christian peoples indigenous to the region are still awaiting justice for the kidnapped priests and other Christian victims of persecution in Syria.
"The abductions have shaken our people at their core," Metin said. "We want the truth to be revealed, and Abu Banat, the person possibly best able to reveal it, is in a Turkish jail. The government of Turkey should finally do what is required, and get to the bottom of these crimes."
*Uzay Bulut, a Turkish journalist, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute and is currently based in Washington D.C.
© 2019 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.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13800/turkey-missing-priests

CAIR's Radical Speaking Circuit/Faith-led, seventh-century justice-driven
Benjamin Baird/JNS/February 27/19
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has grown accustomed to promoting overt anti-Semitism to push its radical Islamist agenda. This week, CAIR chapters defended freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar after she came under fire for anti-Semitic tweets. And, on Nov. 25, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR's Los Angeles chapter, wrote that the Middle East would be "better off" if Israel were "terminated." Days later, CAIR-San Francisco director Zahra Billoo echoed her colleague's genocidal zeal by plainly stating, "I am not going to legitimize a country that I don't believe has a right to exist."
And yet, in boilerplate letters endorsing CAIR's 24th annual banquet and fundraiser, nationally prominent lawmakers like Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) praised the nonprofit's "fight against discrimination of all forms," and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) lauded CAIR for welcoming "people of goodwill from all faiths and nationalities into our neighborhoods and our schools ... "
Despite these glowing endorsements, in Senate testimony CAIR has been called a "radical Islamic fundamentalist front group for [the Palestinian terrorist entity] Hamas." The FBI cut ties with the group in 2009, and the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist entity in 2014.
Nevertheless, 101 congressional lawmakers sent letters glorifying the Islamist organization ahead of its 2018 national banquet.
Thanks in part to this ignorance and indifference, CAIR has completed another successful year of fundraising. Donations collected from sold-out events at many of CAIR's 30 local chapters are used to fund its lawfare projects, political grooming campaigns and anti-Israel activism throughout the succeeding fiscal year. But if CAIR's controversial past doesn't betray its Islamist-leanings, the keynote speakers invited to more than a dozen fundraising ventures this past fall and winter are a dead giveaway.
Speaking circuit
CAIR's national branch is no exception. Using the motto "Faith led, justice driven," the headquarters' 24th annual banquet on Oct. 20 featured presentations from some of the most radical names from America's most hardline Islamist activists, including acute anti-Semites like Dr. Yasir Qadhi.
During a 2008 lecture, Qadhi recommended that his audience read The Hoax of the Holocaust and argued that "Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews," and he has taught that Christians and other non-Muslims are "filthy, impure [and] dirty," insisting that their lives hold "no value."
Qadhi was joined behind the podium by other prominent Islamists, such as University of California, Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian and Salafi cleric Omar Suleiman. Like Qadhi, Suleiman is an instructor at the fundamentalist AlMaghrib Institute, where more than a half-dozen convicted terrorists have been educated since 2001, and he teaches that homosexuality is a "disease" and a "repugnant shameless sin."
As the co-founder of the anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, Bazian called for an intifada, or armed uprising, in the United States in 2004, and he has used social media to advance anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and share offensive Jewish caricatures.
Green wave
Concurrent with its national fundraiser, CAIR held a Leadership and Policy Conference dubbed "We the People, Organizing for Justice: Vision 2020." This training seminar was the culmination of a nationwide political grooming campaign designed to empower 200 Muslims to run for office in 2020.
Failed Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed and former Cambridge City Councilor Nadeem Mazen lectured conference participants enrolled in the "How to run for public office" forum.
El-Sayed was the vice president of the University of Michigan's Muslim Students' Association (MSA), an Islamist campus club known to share political and theological views with revolutionary Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. A dual Egyptian-American citizen, El-Sayed signed a 2012 letter supporting the "revolutionary decisions" taken by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and calling for a "purging of the media and the police" in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.
Mazen was similarly groomed at the MSA before moving on to become a founding member of CAIR-Massachusetts and a Cambridge city counselor. Even in the aftermath of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Mazen opposed the "militarization" of Boston police and called for disbanding their SWAT unit.
Familiar faces
With CAIR's national conference complete, a cast of Islamist luminaries appeared at banquets across the country in the waning days of 2018. Regulars on the CAIR speaking-circuit included Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, who was honored as a keynote speaker at successive CAIR banquets in South Florida and Tampa Bay in early November before appearing at a CAIR-Columbus gala on Feb. 2.
During a 2004 sermon at the extremist Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Church Falls, Va., Abdul-Malik predicted that Islam would come to dominate American society. In addition, the imam has called for attacks on Israeli infrastructure and declared his sympathy for radical Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
Al Jazeera English contributor Mehdi Hasan was invited to wax lyrical at New York's 20th-annual banquet at the LaGuardia Marriott. Hasan has described non-believers as suffering from an "infirmity" or a "disease of the human mind," and has called atheists "cattle" in accordance with his interpretation of the Quran.
CAIR-Alabama's third-annual benefit featured former CAIR-Houston executive director Mustafaa Carroll, who has openly defended Hamas, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. "I think you can only blame Hamas for so long," Carroll said in 2009, after Hamas fighters fired more than 6,000 rockets at civilian targets in Israel. "It takes two to tango," he added.
Carroll's Houston chapter held its 17th annual banquet on Dec. 9 and featured keynote speeches from Women's March Leader Linda Sarsour, who was recently asked to step down as a co-chair of the national Women's March movement after she refused to condemn an antisemitic speech by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. The feminist organization has been hemorrhaging donors since a recent Tablet investigation revealed that Sarsour was employing Nation of Islam bodyguards as her personal security.
*CAIR declared its 2018 fundraising campaign "faith-led" and "justice-driven." But CAIR's dogmatic defenders espouse a stunted, deformed interpretation of the Islamic faith and endorse a seventh-century version of justice. Corporate and private donors would be better served contributing their time and resources to moderate Muslim institutions that don't share an antiquated worldview with terrorists and hate groups.
*Benjamin Baird is a writer for Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.