English LCCC Newsbulletin For
Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For July 24/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.july24.20.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
If God is for us, who is against us? He who
did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with
him also give us everything else?
Letter to the Romans 08/28-39:”We know that all
things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according
to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed
to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large
family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called
he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then are
we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did
not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him
also give us everything else? Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It
is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who
was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who
will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or
persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, ‘For
your sake we are being killed all day long; we are accounted as sheep to be
slaughtered.’No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who
loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor
depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the
love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 23-24/2020
156 New Coronavirus Cases in Lebanon
Hasan Warns of 'Dangerous Juncture', Says 161 Virus Cases So Far Today
Le Drian Says Reforms in Crisis-Hit Lebanon Taking 'Too Long'
Le Drian Meets al-Rahi, Lauds His Neutrality Initiative
Le Drian Urges 'Reforms': Steps Taken in Electricity Sector Not Encouraging
Le Drian Visits Crisis-Hit Lebanon, Meets Senior Officials
Aoun meets French Foreign Minister at Baabda Palace
Le Drian visits Berri, leaves without statement
Le Drian at joint press conference with Hitti: Help us so we can help you
Israel Reinforces Lebanon Border After Hezbollah Threats
Lebanon: Legal Experts Criticize Central Bank Forensic Audit
Injuries as Warplanes Intercept Beirut-Bound Iranian Jet over Syria
UK Minister Reflects on His Virtual Visit to Lebanon
UK Minister: Lebanon Can Have Bright Future but Must Take Urgent Action
Diab, British Minister for Middle East confer via Skype
U.S. Deports Lebanon-Born Palestinian Man
Abu Dhabi Names Street after ‘Beirut’
Hezbollah Operative Assad Ahmad Barakat Extradited to Paraguay/Emanuele
Ottolenghi/FDD/July 23/2020
IDF beefs up Northern Command over tensions with Hezbollah/The Jerusalem
Post/July 23/2020
All Fall Down: Today, four of the five pillars that had sustained Lebanon are
collapsing, creating fears for the future/Maha Yahya/Carnegie MEC
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published on July 23-24/2020
Macron Slams Turkey over Eastern Mediterranean 'Violations'
Macron Calls for Sanctions over Those Interfering in Libya
Greece Warns Will Do 'Whatever Necessary' in East Med Spat
Russia, Algeria Demand ‘Political Solution’ to Libya Crisis
US General Sees Further Iraq Troop Drawdown
Iraq Reopens Airports to Commercial Flights Despite Rise in Virus Cases
Iraq Fears Disastrous Consequences of Gatherings During Eid al-Adha
Palestinian PM Urges Quartet to Lead Coalition for ‘Fair Solution’
Yemeni Parliament Denounces Houthi Escalation against Lawmakers
China Cites 'Malicious Slander' after Closure of Houston Consulate
Ex-Nazi Camp Guard, 93, Convicted in Germany
Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 23-24/2020
Erdogan and Hagia Sophia... The Failed Populism/Salman Al-Dossary/Asharq
Al-Awsat/July 23/2020
The US Is on the Verge of Lockdown 2.0/Noah Smith/Bloomberg/July, 23/2020
Winter Is Coming for Boris Johnson/Therese Raphael/Bloomberg/July, 23/2020
Don’t Get Depressed Over Those Covid Antibody Studies/Faye Flam/Bloomberg/July,
23/2020
A Few Thoughts on Law and Justice/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/July
23/2020
Iran's Sprint to the Bomb/Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/July 23/2020
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on July 23-24/2020
156 New Coronavirus Cases in Lebanon
Naharnet/July 23/2020
Lebanon on Thursday confirmed 156 more COVID-19 cases, continuing a recent trend
of high daily tallies.
The new cases raise the country’s overall tally since February 21 to 3,260 --
among them 43 deaths and 1,619 recoveries.
Twenty-four of the new cases were recorded among expats who arrived in the
country in recent days.
132 cases were meanwhile recorded among the residents of the following areas:
- Aley district (28)
- Under investigation (27)
- Beirut (22)
- Tyre district (13)
- Northern Metn (11)
- Tripoli (8)
- Baabda district (6)
- Jbeil district (4)
- Marjeyoun’s Blida (4)
- Baalbek district (2)
- Sidon district (2)
- Chouf’s Ketermaya (1)
- Zgharta (1)
- Ksara (1)
- Bint Jbeil’s al-Sultaniyeh (1)
- Hasbaya’s Ain Jarfa (1)
Hasan Warns of 'Dangerous Juncture', Says 161 Virus Cases
So Far Today
Naharnet/July 23/2020
Health Minister Hamad Hasan on Thursday warned that the coronavirus pandemic has
reached a “dangerous juncture” in Lebanon. “Negligence is unacceptable,” he
cautioned during a visit to the Dahr al-Basheq government hospital, revealing
that “161 coronavirus cases have been recorded until the moment today.”“There is
community spread of the coronavirus and this is a negative indication although
it is still limited,” the minister added. Lebanon had on Wednesday confirmed 124
more virus cases and two deaths. Wednesday’s cases raised the overall tally
since February 21 to 3,104 -- including 43 deaths and 1,595 recoveries. The
country has gradually lifted lockdown measures and opened Beirut airport to
commercial flights at the start of July, after a closure of more than three
months. Over the past two weeks, the daily infection rate has risen, with dozens
of new cases announced each day. In the highest such increase, the government
announced 166 new cases on July 12, including 131 sanitation workers. At the
height of summer, some beaches and bars are again thronging with people. Hasan
on Monday warned of a possible return to lockdown over "people's behavior" and
non-compliance with social distancing. The pandemic arrived with Lebanon already
mired in its worst economic crisis in decades and many fearing the health sector
could not cope with a spike in cases.
Le Drian Says Reforms in Crisis-Hit Lebanon Taking 'Too
Long'
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
France's top diplomat Jean-Yves Le Drian voiced his disappointment Thursday at
the speed of reforms in Lebanon and warned that any international assistance
hinged on urgent action. Lebanon is in the midst of its worst economic crisis
since the 1975-1990 civil war, marked by a steep currency fall and runaway
inflation that have plunged nearly half of the population into poverty.
"Concrete actions have been expected for too long," Le Drian said on the first
such visit of a top foreign politician in months. "It is today urgent and
necessary to embark in a concrete way on the path of reforms," he said in a
statement to the press after meeting his counterpart Nassif Hitti. The
free-falling economy has sparked mass protests since October against a political
class accused of being incompetent and corrupt, and seen tens of thousands lose
their jobs or part of their income. After the country defaulted for the first
time in March, the government pledged reforms and two months ago started talks
with the International Monetary Fund. But the negotiations have hit a wall, with
two top members of the government team resigning over alleged lack of commitment
to reform. "There is no alternative to an IMF program to allow Lebanon to exit
the crisis," Le Drian warned. Lebanon's government says it needs more than $20
billion in external funding, which includes $11 billion pledged by donors at a
Paris conference in 2018 that was never delivered over lack of reforms.
'Credible recovery measures' -
Analysts say a deal with the IMF is key to unlocking any further aid. "France is
ready to fully mobilize at Lebanon's side and to mobilize all its partners, but
for that serious and credible recovery measures have to be implemented," the
French minister said. He singled out as an example the loss-making electricity
sector, where reforms have been dragging for years. "I can say clearly that what
has been done until now in this field is not encouraging," he said. Prime
Minister Hassan Diab earlier told the French minister they had faced
difficulties during the talks with the IMF. But "we are determined to continue
negotiations and we hope for help from France to accelerate them because the
financial situation in Lebanon cannot withstand the delay." Le Drian also met
President Michel Aoun and parliament speaker Nabih Berri. Also on Thursday,
British Minister for the Middle East James Cleverly was on his first "virtual
visit" to Lebanon, the British embassy said. "Reform, economy, and security are
top of agenda," it said in a statement Wednesday. Lebanon is burdened by
sovereign debt equivalent to 170 percent of its GDP.
Le Drian Meets al-Rahi, Lauds His Neutrality Initiative
Naharnet/July 23/2020
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian held talks Thursday in Bkirki with
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi and lauded his call for Lebanon’s neutrality,
Bkirki said. Al-Rahi explained “the Lebanese and regional circumstances that
encouraged him to propose the positive and effective neutrality project in order
to rescue Lebanon, especially that historically Lebanon has been a neutral
country,” a Bkirki statement said. “The system of neutrality requires the rise
of a state that is strong through its institutions and army so that it manages
to resolve the pending domestic issues and defend Lebanon’s sovereignty and
independence,” the patriarch told his visitor. Le Drian for his part expressed
appreciation of al-Rahi’s initiative, noting that “Lebanon’s sovereignty, which
France is keen on, requires that Lebanon be a neutral country dissociated from
conflicts and axes.”“Lebanon possesses all the requirements to rise again,” the
French minister added, according to the Bkirki statement.
Le Drian Urges 'Reforms': Steps Taken in Electricity
Sector Not Encouraging
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/July 23/2020
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said it was "crucial" for Lebanon to
implement much-needed reforms mainly for its ailing electricity sector,
lamenting how officials "have not heard" the people's righteous calls since
October 17 to fight corruption. "I am in Lebanon at the request of French
President Emmanuel Macron. I am here to assert France's continued support for
Lebanon because we have special ties and a joint history," said Le Drian in a
joint press conference with Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti. "Lebanon is in a very
critical stage and it is crucial to take the path of enforcing reforms. I have
carried this message to all Lebanese officials. These are the aspirations of the
entire international community, not just France," he added. Referring to
Lebanon's October 17 uprising against the ruling elite, he said: "The Lebanese
have vigorously expressed their legitimate aspirations through demonstrations in
October and took to the streets to emphasize the fight against corruption and
this call, unfortunately, has not yet been heard." The diplomat asserted
France's readiness to "mobilize its efforts alongside Lebanon. But serious and
credible corrective measures must be adopted and implemented. Practical measures
are expected, and as I said earlier, “Help us to help you.” He said the biting
economic and financial crisis "has dramatic effects on the Lebanese who are
getting poorer each day."On Lebanon's long-time problematic electricity sector
draining the state's coffers, he said: "It must be reformed because everything
done until this moment is not encouraging at all.""Corruption and smuggling must
be fought. Independence of the judiciary is also very important. These are
essential issues for Lebanon's interest," Le Drian added. He also warned that
"there is no alternative to an IMF program to allow Lebanon to exit the
crisis."Lebanon's government says it needs more than $20 billion in external
funding, which includes $11 billion pledged by donors at a Paris conference in
2018 that was never delivered over lack of reforms. Analysts say a deal with the
IMF is key to unlocking any further aid. Lebanon is burdened by sovereign debt
equivalent to 170 percent of its GDP.
Le Drian Visits Crisis-Hit Lebanon, Meets Senior
Officials
Agence France Presse/Associated Press/Naharnet/July
23/2020
France's Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian arrived in Beirut and first held
talks on Thursday with President Michel Aoun in Baabda to double down on a
message that no international aid for Lebanon until the government carries out
much-needed reforms. Baabda sources told LBCI TV station that “Le Drian carried
a message from President Emmanuel Macron affirming support for Lebanon and for
bilateral relations between the two countries, and encouraging negotiations with
the IMF.”Le Drian left without making a statement to reporters. The French top
diplomat later met with PM Hassan Diab and Speaker Nabih Berri. "France is a
historic friend of Lebanon supporting it during difficult times. I am confident
that France won't abandon Lebanon today. The government enforced reforms despite
obstacles but has set a time frame to carry on with the rest of reforms," LBCI
quoted Diab as telling Le Drian. A person close to the discussions between the
top French diplomat and Lebanese Diab said the French are supportive of the
Lebanese government's efforts and that both sides recognize the importance of
successful talks with the IMF that would also unleash money pledged in the 2018
conference. "Both France and the (United States) are with us on that," the
person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the closed meeting.
Le Drian's patience was clearly wearing thin as he dished out more criticism
during an afternoon visit to Amel, a charity in the southern Beirut suburb of
Haret Hreik that helps some of Lebanon's most vulnerable. "I was reading in
Lebanese newspapers that Lebanon was waiting for Le Drian. No, it's France
that's waiting for Lebanon," he said. "What is striking to us is how passive the
authorities of this country are," Le Drian said during a conversation with the
head of Amel about soaring poverty levels. Le Drian's uncompromising tone echoed
an appeal he made in the French senate earlier this month and which was widely
reported in Lebanon: "Help us help you, dammit." "I said dammit the other day in
the Senate so I wouldn't have to use a swear word. It was an affectionate word
but it came with a dose of anger," he said. Dozens of businesses are closing
down permanently every day, thousands of people are losing their jobs or
suffering massive pay cuts and the suicides of citizens submerged by debt have
shocked the nation. Le Drian said that the rest of Lebanon's international
partners were on the same page, as was the protest movement that emerged last
year to demand reform and an end to corruption.
Aoun meets French Foreign Minister at Baabda Palace
NNA/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, is currently meeting at Baabda
Presidential Palace with visiting French Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian,
and his accompanying delegation.
Le Drian visits Berri, leaves without statement
NNA/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian visited Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Nabih Berri, in Ain El-Tineh and left without making any
statement.
Le Drian at joint press conference with Hitti: Help us so
we can help you
NNA/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti announced at a joint press conference with his
French counterpart, Jean-Yves Le Drian, that "France is attached to Lebanon and
is monitoring the ongoing efforts to overcome the crises facing us. What is of
great importance today is introducing reform to the system."
"It is key to pursue negotiations with the International Monetary Fund so as to
achieve reform and get Lebanon out of this major dilemma," he stressed. "It is
necessary to build a safety net in Lebanon, and a suitable environment is
required to implement the Cedre projects. We have to act quickly, as time is not
in our favor. The Cedre Conference reflects French interest in Lebanon," Hitti
added, noting that "France has always supported the UNIFIL peace force, and we
are keen not to tamper with its tasks. We also thank France's aid to Francophone
schools."
For his part, the French Minister said: "I am delighted to be in Lebanon at the
request of French President Emmanuel Macron. I am here to confirm France's
backing to Lebanon and its standing on the side of the Lebanese people. We have
a shared history and a distinct link between us."
"I carry a message to Lebanon, in the form of a slogan: Help us so we can help
you," he said. "This stage is critical; Lebanon is facing a delicate situation
and the economic crisis is rampant and has consequences on the Lebanese. France
insists on standing with the Lebanese people in these dreadful times. My
presence here today is proof of France's continued support for Lebanon and its
standing alongside its people.""We seek to avoid the crisis' effects on social
coexistence in Lebanon," Le Drian went on to say. "The means to arrange the
situation in Lebanon are found in the decisions of the Cedre Conference, and
implementing reform is crucial to rescuing Lebanon from its ordeal. It is urgent
and necessary to follow the path of reform, and this message I carry to all
Lebanese official and political forces. This does not only reflect the
aspirations of France, but those of the international community as a whole," the
French FM added, calling for the re-launching of negotiations with the
International Monetary Fund, as "there is no alternative solution to get Lebanon
out of its crisis."
Israel Reinforces Lebanon Border After Hezbollah Threats
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
he Israeli military said Thursday it was reinforcing the country's northern
border with infantry troops "in accordance with the situational assessment."The
announcement comes after Lebanon´s militant Hezbollah group threatened to
retaliate for a strike earlier this week that killed one of its fighters near
Damascus International Airport. The airstrike, which also killed four other
foreign fighters, was widely attributed to Israel. Iran-backed Hezbollah has
vowed in the past to retaliate for any fighter that Israel kills in Syria. The
group fired a barrage of anti-tank missiles into Israel on Sept. 1 last year
after two of its fighters were killed in an Israeli airstrike near Damascus days
earlier. That prompted a reprisal of heavy Israeli artillery fire in a rare
burst of fighting between the bitter enemies. Hezbollah and Israel fought a
34-day war in 2006 that ended in a draw. Israel did not comment on this week's
strike and generally refrains from discussing its activities in neighboring
Syria. But it is believed to have carried out hundreds of strikes against
pro-Iranian forces during the nearly decade-long civil war. Tehran has sent
thousands of Iran-backed fighters in the past years to fight alongside Syrian
government forces. Israel views Iran as a regional menace and has vowed to
prevent any permanent Iranian military buildup in Syria, particularly near its
frontier.
Lebanon: Legal Experts Criticize Central Bank Forensic
Audit
Beirut- Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
The Lebanese government’s decision to assign a company specialized in financial
forensic audit in the accounts of the Central Bank raises fears that the
operation would be limited to the BDL and would not affect other state
institutions for political reasons.
Former Minister of Justice Ibrahim Najjar talked about two aspects of the
government’s decision, political and legal. Underlining the importance of the
financial audit, he stressed that it should be conducted in accordance with the
applicable laws, so it “does not end up challenged by the State’s Shura Council,
similar to what could happen with the government’s latest decision on
appointments. “The political aspect is known,” Najjar said. “It is an attempt to
point to the monetary authorities in order to circumvent the monetary crisis,
the high dollar exchange rate, and the aggravation of the economic crisis.”
On the legal side, former Interior Minister Ziad Baroud did not see the move as
a violation of the law, because he said that the government has the authority to
manage state affairs and the BDL is part of the state. Najjar, on the other
hand, considered that the government’s decision overstepped the role of the
Audit Bureau, which has the task of auditing public accounts. He noted that the
Cabinet had no authority over the Central Bank, which enjoys full independence.
While emphasizing the importance of the audit, Najjar stressed that the
government’s decision “can be challenged and annulled by the State Shura Council
because it does not enjoy the force of law.” Lebanon’s cabinet agreed to hire
turnaround specialist Alvarez & Marsal for a forensic audit of the Central Bank.
The audit “will represent a drastic transformation on the path to uncovering
what happened at the financial level in terms of waste and theft,” Prime
Minister Hassan Diab told the cabinet earlier this week.
Injuries as Warplanes Intercept Beirut-Bound Iranian Jet
over Syria
Naharnet/July 23/2020
Israeli or U.S. fighter jets intercepted an Iranian passenger plane over Syria
on Thursday evening, according to Iranian, Arab and Lebanese media reports.
Several passengers were injured due to sudden changes in altitude during the
incident and were evacuated upon landing in Beirut, the reports said. Lebanon’s
MTV said the plane was carrying 155 passengers. Unnamed sources meanwhile told
al-Mayadeen TV that Israeli fighter jets deliberately flew near the Iranian
plane to turn it into a target for “Syrian air defenses.”Al-Mayadeen also quoted
sources as saying that the plane made an emergency landing at Damascus airport
before resuming its trip to Beirut.
Videos circulated online show a state of panic among the passengers of the
plane, which belongs to Iran’s privately-owned Mahan Air. Al-Arabiya TV
meanwhile quoted "sources in Tel Aviv" as saying that the fighter jets were not
Israeli.
UK Minister Reflects on His Virtual Visit to Lebanon
Naharnet/July 23/2020
UK Minister for the Middle East James Cleverly has reflected on his virtual
visit to Lebanon on Thursday through an opinion piece. Below is the full text of
the opinion piece as received by Naharnet: "Given the renowned status of
Lebanese hospitality, I am particularly disappointed that I have been unable to
visit the country in person since I was appointed the UK’s Minister for the
Middle East earlier this year. In a few short months, coronavirus has
transformed the world, and we are now cautiously getting used to the ‘new
normal’. I am glad that I was able to use technology to conduct a virtual visit
to Lebanon – taouk and tabbouleh for lunch whilst video-calling colleagues in
Beirut tasted much better with the Mediterranean in the background. My visit has
helped me gain a deeper understanding of the enormous challenges currently
facing the Lebanese people. In conversations on the economy, I have learnt
first-hand how this crisis is impacting the lives of ordinary citizens. I also
heard from those in the humanitarian, education and security fields about the
tangible impacts being felt there. The UK is a longstanding partner of Lebanon
and friend to the Lebanese people. Last year we supported over 200 Lebanese SMEs,
helped enrol 488,000 students in education, provided $39m directly to Lebanese
communities – and much, much more. Our people-to-people links, from bilateral
trade to Lebanese students studying in the UK, have been growing stronger for
years.
We are the proudest of partners to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) as the sole
legitimate defender of Lebanon, training over 11,000 soldiers, and helping to
secure the Syrian border for the first time. Our important partnership has
helped to support the LAF to push Daesh out of Lebanon. We work with the
Internal Security Forces (ISF) to improve its abilities, in particular community
policing in Beirut. And then there is Covid. The UK’s rapid response has
provided over $2 Million to fight it here in Lebanon. We must continue to work
together to tackle this terrible disease. Of course, the scale of the economic
crisis facing Lebanon is unprecedented. The UK remains committed to supporting
the Lebanese Army and Police, and will work to protect the most vulnerable
citizens. The scale of the crisis is so big that there is only one solution:
Lebanon needs genuine change. Without reform, this crisis will get worse. We
stand ready to support Lebanon on this path, but ultimately there needs to be a
Lebanese solution backed by sincere political will. As my French colleague,
Minister Le Drian, said last week, ‘We are ready to help, but help us to help
you’. Only Lebanon itself can deliver 24/7 electricity, re-energise the private
sector and rebuild confidence in the economy. In light of this, I had an honest
conversation about the situation with Prime Minister Diab and Foreign Minister
Hitti. Swift action is needed to prevent Lebanon sliding further downwards, and
inaction will burden the most vulnerable. We also discussed disassociating
Lebanon from destabilising, regional conflicts. I was deeply impressed by the
passion and drive of the Lebanese I met, and I am confident that in the
long-term this country can once again have a bright future. But they say that
the night is always darkest before the dawn, and it will be a long and difficult
road to recovery. For the sake of the Lebanese people, this road must be found.
And soon."
UK Minister: Lebanon Can Have Bright Future but Must Take
Urgent Action
Naharnet/July 23/2020
UK Minister for the Middle East James Cleverly on Thursday held a “virtual
visit” to Lebanon, where he discussed “shared economic and security goals,” the
British embassy said.The Minister heard how the coronavirus pandemic and
economic crisis is impacting the livelihoods of the Lebanese people, and how UK
aid is supporting the most vulnerable. “The visit was an opportunity to see
first-hand how the UK’s longstanding partnership with Lebanon is implemented
through the education, security, humanitarian sectors, and creating economic
opportunities that totalled over $200 million in 2019,” the embassy said in a
statement. “Minister Cleverly highlighted the UK’s leading role in finding a
coronavirus vaccine, following the Global Vaccine Summit in June, raising $8.8
billion to support the global fight against the virus. The UK’s response also
saw over $2 million provided to help tackle coronavirus in Lebanon,” the embassy
added. Speaking about the visit, Minister Cleverly said: “I was deeply impressed
by the passion and drive of the Lebanese people I met. I am confident that this
country can have a bright future, but it must take urgent and drastic action now
to avoid economic catastrophe.“The UK is helping to tackle coronavirus in the
country, which in turn will help stop future waves of the disease. This pandemic
has already caused the death of so many around the world, but together we can
stop it. No one is safe until we are all safe,” he added. During his day-long
virtual visit, Cleverly met Prime Minister Hassan Diab and Foreign Minister
Nassfi Hitti to underline “the seriousness of the economic situation and the
consequences if no progress is made,” the embassy said. Minister Cleverly also
highlighted “the importance of Lebanon’s disassociation policy. ”At a briefing
on the UK border security project, he heard from Lebanese Army officers how UK
support is playing “a key role in bolstering regional security,” the embassy
added. With partners from various UK-initiated programs, Cleverly heard about
the humanitarian and education-related challenges across Lebanon and how UK aid
is supporting vulnerable and host communities. Joined by British Council’s Young
Mediterranean Voices from various regions, Cleverly participated in a lively
debate on education and future opportunities for young Lebanese people. In a
roundtable discussion with independent experts, he heard about the challenges
facing Lebanon’s economy and the road to recovery. The session included videos
from beneficiaries and partners who shared their personal stories on how the
economic crisis is affecting them.
Diab, British Minister for Middle East confer via Skype
NNA/July 23/2020
Prime Minister, Dr. Hassan Diab, made a Skypecall with the British Minister of
State for Middle East and North Africa, Rt Hon James Cleverly, in the framework
of his Lebanon’s virtual visit, in the presence of British Ambassador to
Lebanon, Chris Rampling, Political Advisor Simon O’Donnell, and PM’s Advisor for
Diplomatic Affairs, Ambassador GebranSoufan, with talks featuring government-led
reforms and possible UK assistance to Lebanon.--PM Press Office
U.S. Deports Lebanon-Born Palestinian Man
Associated Press/Naharnet/July 23/2020
A man convicted of terrorism-related crimes, who served his sentence and was
then detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has been deported
after a legal battle to hold him indefinitely stalled. Federal immigration
authorities held Adham Amin Hassoun until Tuesday at a detention facility in
Batavia, New York, since his release from prison in 2018. Previously, they had
argued in court that they had the authority to detain him indefinitely under the
Patriot Act until they could find a country willing to accept him. Hassoun, 58,
is a Palestinian born in Lebanon. In 2007, he was convicted along with Jose
Padilla, who is still imprisoned, of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim
people in a foreign country. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was initially detained as
an enemy combatant in 2002 on suspicions he planned to set off a radioactive
"dirty bomb," but those allegations were ultimately dropped in favor of charges
that he, Hassoun and another conspirator sent money, recruits and supplies to
Islamic extremist groups. Prosecutors said Hassoun recruited Padilla at a
Florida mosque to attend a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Authorities
did not disclose Hassoun's destination after he left the country on Tuesday, the
Democrat and Chronicle reported. Padilla's expected release date from prison is
2026. Earlier this summer, federal prosecutors had argued at a hearing that
Hassoun remained a threat to national security, but ultimately withdrew
testimony from another detainee at the Batavia detention facility, who claimed
Hassoun told him about plans to commit crimes upon his release. Hassoun's
attorney said the claims were fabricated, the Observer Dispatch reported. U.S.
District Judge Elizabeth Wolford ruled against the government and ordered
Hassoun's release. Hassoun immigrated to Florida in 1989, married and had three
children, all of whom are American citizens. His family moved to Lebanon after
his arrest, the Buffalo News reported. One of Hassoun's attorneys, Jonathan
Manes, told the Democrat and Chronicle in an email: "After 18 years of
imprisonment and nearly 1 1/2 years detained unlawfully under the Patriot Act,
he is now a free man."
Abu Dhabi Names Street after ‘Beirut’
Naharnet/July 23/2020
Ex-PM Saad Hariri extended a thank you note on Thursday after the UAE’s capital,
Abu Dhabi named a downtown street in al-Ain after Lebanon’s capital, Beirut.
“Beirut continues to be a beacon in the conscience of Arabs. Thank you Abu
Dhabi,” said Hariri in a tweet.The Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to
Lebanon Hamad el-Shamsi, announced in a tweet Wednesday the naming of a street
in the center of Abu Dhabi's el-Ain city after Beirut.
Hezbollah Operative Assad Ahmad Barakat Extradited to Paraguay
Emanuele Ottolenghi/FDD/July 23/2020
السلطات البرازيلية سلمت أكبر ممول لحزب الله الإرهابي اسعد أحمد بركات إلى
الباراغواي
Brazilian authorities extradited Hezbollah financier Assad Ahmad Barakat to
Paraguay on Friday, dealing a key blow to the terrorist group. Barakat, now
awaiting trial, belongs to a powerful Lebanese Shiite family affiliated with
Hezbollah and, until his arrest in Brazil in 2018, served as the terrorist
group’s leader in the Tri-Border Area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay (TBA).
Barakat, along with his three brothers, has a lengthy history of raising funds
for Hezbollah in the TBA via illicit means. As far back as 2004, the United
States sanctioned Barakat for using “every financial crime in the book,
including his businesses, to generate funding” for Hezbollah, Juan Zarate, the
deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office for
Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, said at the time. “From counterfeiting
to extortion,” Zarate continued, this Hezbollah “sympathizer committed financial
crimes and utilized front companies to underwrite terror.”
One of Barakat’s brothers, Sheikh Akram Assad Barakat, formerly held a prominent
position within the cultural affairs department of the Shura Council,
Hezbollah’s top decision-making body, and is now in charge of a
Hezbollah-affiliated cultural organization in Lebanon. Two other brothers, Hamze
and Hatem, participated in illicit financial activities on Hezbollah’s behalf in
Latin America. Washington sanctioned Hamze and Hatem in 2006 for providing
“financial and logistical support” to Hezbollah.
Assad Ahmad Barakat was arrested in Brazil in 2003 and extradited to Paraguay
for tax evasion, where he served a six-year prison sentence. Hatem was arrested
for fraud in Brazil in 2013 but was released shortly thereafter. Despite their
run-ins with local justice, the Barakats continued to conduct their business in
the TBA unimpeded. According to publicly available data from Brazil’s tax
authorities, Assad Ahmad Barakat is currently a business partner in two
companies in the Brazilian border city of Foz do Iguaçu, one of them with his
brother Hamze, who is a partner in five other companies.
On July 13, 2018, Argentina’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) froze the assets
of 14 Lebanese residents of the TBA who were part of a criminal organization
linked to Hezbollah and associated with the Barakat clan. The network had
transferred large quantities of cash to Puerto Iguazu, on the Argentinian side
of the TBA, laundering the money through a local casino located just yards past
Argentinian customs at the border crossing. The FIU action spurred a process
that led, one year later, to Argentina’s decision to list Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization – a decision followed in short order by Paraguay, in
August 2019.
Concurrently, Paraguayan prosecutors ordered Assad Ahmad Barakat’s arrest in
August 2018, shortly after the country’s president, Mario Abdo Benitez, ordered
an investigation into his illicit acquisition of a Paraguayan passport in April
of the same year. Paraguay’s action led to Barakat’s arrest by Brazilian
authorities. Paraguayan authorities had revoked his citizenship, but to no
avail; he was able to obtain forged documents, thanks to widespread corruption.
Local sources indicate that this time, the outcome of his trial will be
different. Given that Paraguay’s Supreme Court already stripped Barakat of his
Paraguayan citizenship, and that he is being tried for acquiring a forged
passport, the Paraguayan authorities will likely expel him, leaving him no
option but to return to Lebanon. Nevertheless, local authorities and the U.S.
intelligence community should remain vigilant. Hezbollah’s presence in the TBA
remains significant, and the terrorist group has likely already chosen a
replacement for Barakat. Only sustained pressure through prosecution and
sanctions can put a dent in the illicit financial networks that continue to
operate in the TBA.
Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Center on Economic and
Financial Power (CEFP). For more analysis from Emanuele and CEFP, please
subscribe HERE. Follow Emanuele on Twitter @eottolenghi. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD
and @FDD_CEFP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute
focusing on national security and foreign policy.
IDF beefs up Northern Command over tensions with Hezbollah
عقب مقتل عنصر من حزب الله في الغارات على سوريا وتهديدات الحزب
الجيش الإسرائيليي بحاله تأهب على الحدود مع لبنان ويعزز قواته بشكل لافت
The Jerusalem Post/July 23/2020
One battalion and additional troops were deployed after a
Hezbollah member was killed in an alleged Israeli airstrike in Syria.
The IDF reinforced the Northern Command with additional infantry troops on
Thursday following a situational assessment as tensions with Hezbollah rose
following the death of one of its fighters in Syria.
“In light of a situational assessment that was held in the IDF, it was decided
to send a pinpoint reinforcement of infantry troops to the Northern Command,”
the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit said in a statement.
The reinforcements, one battalion and a number of additional troops, were
deployed to the Northern Command’s Galilee Division amid heightened tensions
following the announcement by Lebanon's Hezbollah that one of its members was
killed in an alleged Israeli airstrike in Damascus on Monday night.
The strike targeted several sites around the capital including a major
ammunition depot, killing several Iranian and Syrian personnel as well as
Hezbollah militant Ali Kamel Mohsen.
Following the alleged Israeli strikes on Monday, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar
reported that Hezbollah had raised its alert level “to monitor activities” of
IDF soldiers along the border between the two countries, as well as statements
attributed to Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah suggested that Israel
should be wary of an attack.
While several Hezbollah members have been killed in alleged Israeli airstrikes
in Syria over the past year, it was the first time that Hezbollah confirmed the
death of one of them since August when two terrorists and an Iranian were killed
in an IAF strike targeting an IRGC cell that Israel said was on its way to
launch armed drones to attack targets in northern Israel.
Following the strike, the IDF had raised its alert, expecting a limited response
against military targets.
The IDF reinforced the Northern Command with artillery and Iron Dome
missile-defense batteries, and canceled leave for combat soldiers in the area.
The IDF also closed the airspace to civilian flights, closing the civilian
airport in Kiryat Shmona and put the Navy on high alert for a response attack by
the terror group.
A week later, Hezbollah fired three anti-tank guided missiles towards an IDF
post and military ambulance near the towns of Avivim and Yir’on in northern
Israel. While there were no casualties in the incident, over 100 artillery
shells were fired towards targets in south Lebanon, including an airstrike on
the Hezbollah cell which carried out the attack.
Last week, Lt.-Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, Head of the US Central Command, warned
against the group attacking Israel in light of pressures that it is facing due
to the economic crisis in Lebanon, saying that it wouldn’t end well.
“I think it would be a great mistake for Hezbollah to try to carry out
operations against Israel. I can’t see that having a good ending,” he told
journalists in a telephone briefing.
All Fall Down: Today, four of the five pillars that had
sustained Lebanon are collapsing, creating fears for the future.
Maha Yahya/Carnegie MEC
Lebanese politicians are pushing their country over the precipice. Eight months
into a complex crisis that is threatening Lebanon’s foundations, they have yet
to take steps to stem the collapse. On the contrary, they have pursued a malign
business-as-usual approach as they hedge their bets on a system that is no more.
Today, four of the five key pillars that have long sustained Lebanon are
crumbling. First, the power-sharing arrangement that has characterized the
country since its foundation is no longer working and is characterized by
persistent and debilitating blockages. This arrangement rests on an equitable
distribution of government posts among the country’s different sects. It was
also based on a double negative of a “no to the East” and “a no to the West,”
whereby Christians would not seek Western involvement in Lebanon’s affairs, and
Muslims would not seek Arab intervention.
The power-sharing system is in no danger of immediate collapse. However, the
last time it was contested, Lebanon entered into a fifteen-year civil war
between 1975 and 1990. The Taif Accord, the settlement ending that conflict,
foresaw Lebanon’s transition to a civil state in which sectarian representation
in parliament would end. In exchange, all sects would be represented in a new
Senate, whose authority would be limited to deciding on major national issues.
Yet those parts of the accord were never implemented. Today, sectarian
governance has become far more entrenched in state institutions, making change
extremely difficult.
Second, Lebanon’s role as a merchant republic, based primarily on banking and
services, is at an end. In 2018, financial services contributed 8.5 percent of
GDP and the tourism sector (mainly hotels and restaurants) 3.1 percent. Today,
losses in the banking sector are estimated at $83 billion. In a country that
imports almost everything it consumes, informal capital controls and the
cancellation of lines of credit to businesses show a banking system that no
longer functions.
Similarly, around 800 tourism-related establishments closed permanently between
October 2019 and January 2020. Tourism and related services employed 25 percent
of Lebanon’s labor force, but some 25,000 individuals lost their jobs in the
sector during that same period. It’s likely that this figure has increased
because of Covid-19 containment measures. The scale of the crisis is threatening
the basic integrity of Lebanon’s economy. Experts now estimate the economy will
contract by 25 percent in real terms over the next two years.
This economic collapse and the ensuing destruction of wealth is wiping out the
country’s third pillar, namely the middle class, historically one of the most
affluent, resourceful, and professional in the region. Lebanese society is being
rapidly impoverished, while the youngest and brightest seek opportunities
elsewhere. One in three Lebanese have reportedly lost their jobs, and many
others are likely to be pushed into the informal sector. The Lebanese pound has
lost some 80 percent of its value on the black market.
To cite but one example of the effects of this, the average annual salary of an
assistant professor at the American University of Beirut is LL94 million. This
used to be equivalent to $63,000 a year, or around $5,000 per month. At today’s
exchange rate of $1 = LL8.000, the monthly salary has dropped to $11,000 a year,
or $900 a month.
The middle class is swelling the ranks of the poor, with the World Bank
estimating that around 50 percent of Lebanese now live below the poverty line,
while thousands are going hungry. Clothes, food, and fuel are becoming
unaffordable as year-on-year purchasing power has been halved, with inflation
reaching 90 percent in June 2020. The price of basic goods increased by around
55 percent in May alone. All this represents an epic collapse with a
generational impact.
A fourth pillar of the Lebanese system, namely freedoms, is also being eroded.
Since independence, Lebanon has been renown for freedom of speech and a
flourishing press. By the end of the 1940s the country was publishing 39 dailies
and 137 periodicals in three languages. In its heyday Lebanon acted as a safe
haven for dissidents and refugees, boasting a cultural and intellectual life
unparalleled in the region, a role it continued to play until recently, albeit
much less effectively.
The decline in fundamental freedoms and the repression of free speech is
apparent in the alarming increase and systematic targeting of activists,
dissidents, and refugees over the past few years, with the help of more
aggressive security services and a pliant judiciary. While Lebanon’s
constitution upholds freedom of speech within the bounds of the law, its penal
code criminalizes defamation against political and religious officials. Since
October 17 at least 60 individuals have been arrested or summoned for
interrogation because of things they posted on social media. More recently,
there were reports that the country’s top prosecutor ordered a security agency
to investigate social media posts offensive to the president. In response, a
coalition of fourteen organizations has been formed to defend freedoms.
Finally, the Lebanese system’s fifth pillar, the army and the internal security
forces, is also feeling the impact of the economic crisis. Like all Lebanese,
military and security personnel have seen their incomes and pensions disappear.
The salary of the army’s commander has declined in dollar terms to around $750 a
month, while that of a colonel has gone down to $300 and a soldier to $150. The
personnel may be faring better than those who have lost their jobs, but they no
longer enjoy many of the benefits they previously did. In an environment of
heightened tensions, economic pressure on the military and security sector will
only grow. More worrisome, this is happening as crime rates have risen in recent
months.
In response to this dire situation, national-level decisionmaking has been slow,
with politicians displaying callous disregard for the country. They continue to
seek short-term gains and are looking for ways to hang on to power, plunging
Lebanon deeper into crisis. By dragging their feet they are imposing further
losses on depositors, who cannot withdraw their U.S. dollars from banks except
in pounds, and at an official rate far lower than the black market rate.
Agreement on an economic rescue plan is critical for unlocking desperately
needed financial assistance. Yet, the government and parliament are still
bickering over the size of Lebanon’s financial losses as the government
negotiates with the International Monetary Fund. Rather than introduce reforms,
the politicians have continued to behave much as they did in the past. This was
evident in recent civil service appointments that privileged political
clientelism over merit. Without reforms, external support will not materialize.
Meanwhile, political parties are returning to their sectarian reflexes,
fracturing the Lebanese polity even more. Trends visible on the ground point to
increasing fragmentation, with villages, towns, and neighborhoods initiating
self-protection mechanisms. Against the background of Covid-19, increasing crime
rates, and collapsing state institutions, parties have revived their protection
rackets and are providing food and medicine to constituents in need. This is
happening even as many Lebanese seek a nonsectarian state that upholds their
rights as citizens, not merely as members of a sect.
Lebanon’s problems can only be addressed if its political leaders place the
country’s, and their own, long-term interests above short-term gains. That means
an agreement to shoulder some of the losses stemming from the crisis and
bringing in a government capable of envisioning and implementing an immediate
stabilization program and a medium- to long-term recovery program. So far,
however, these do not seem to be priorities for Lebanon’s political leadership.
On the Importance of Lebanon’s Neutrality
Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 23/2020
Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rai’s proposals on the neutrality of Lebanon have
turned into a shocking event, garnering both internal and external attention,
and have appeared to be a serious attempt to take Lebanon out of the rock bottom
that it has been tumbled into.
Amid a collapse implicating every level, the positions and performance of this
government-front have oscillated, ending its sixth month in power between a
total absence and watching the Lebanese starve and drown in poverty until
suicide as a way to reject humiliation invoked very little reactions from any
official.
The Patriarch moved stagnant waters by inviting the President to liberate
legitimacy and restore the capacity to make decisions, affirming that “Our
salvation is through neutrality, the way towards living in luxury again”
announcing that “Lebanon is originally neutral, and the National Pact stipulates
neutrality and openness to all countries but Israel”. He also called Lebanon to
ask the Security Council to obtain a decision that guarantees neutrality.
It was clear from the very beginning that the neutrality proposed by the
Maronite Patriarch follows from the fixed constitutional formulation in the
introduction of the constitution saying “[Lebanon] is a final homeland for all
its citizens”, and neutrality is the real translation of that.
All ministerial statements since the independence up until very recently have
focused on neutrality, i.e., on Lebanon not being connected to or dependent on
another country.
The experience of the state at the time of independence proves that every time
this principle has been violated, Lebanon would live through tensions and
internal conflicts. However, the parties that have plundered the state through
corruption and arms have intentionally spread a misconception of the idea of
neutrality, exculpating Hezbollah from the responsibility of isolating Lebanon
and consequently accelerating its collapse by deferring neutrality until the
region’s problems and conflicts have been resolved, undermining the importance
of the proposition because neutrality is impossible when Israel is at our
doorstep!
The parties that support this mini-state then overlooked the fact that what is
required is neutrality towards Arab conflicts and that turning the page on proxy
wars for the Iranian regime is inevitable, as is the commitment to Arab
solidarity, and that what is required is not neutrality towards Israel. In fact,
not being involved in regional conflicts would empower Lebanon to stand against
the ambitions of the enemy [Israel].
Patriarch al-Rai’s priorities appear to be restoring Lebanon from the isolation
that it was forced into after Hezbollah’s wars in the region cost Lebanon its
traditional Arab and international cover.
Al-Rai’s proposals illustrate that the priority is the citizen’s interests, both
resident and expat, who was forced to endure the consequences of policies that
are of no use to them. Of course, it is no secret that this proposition is aimed
against policies that are related to foreign agendas that Hezbollah has imposed
on the country. They are policies that have gone above the constitution and
national and individual institutions and interests, throwing Lebanon into a
struggle of axes.
Not only Hezbollah is responsible, but some parties enabled it and its partisans
and provided them with cover. The beginning was during the Doha Agreement where
there was a partial coup against the Taif Agreement and the constitution,
culminating in the presidential agreement of 2016 when all sides delegated the
country’s decision to Hezbollah and consequently Iran. The Agreement also
culminated in the government that was “formed” by Hezbollah and brought Hassan
Diab into office.
In this sense, the slogan of neutrality that had taken priority as a real aim
was broken by all of the official political choices that President Aoun made
based on his understanding with Hezbollah since 2006, revoking all of his
alliances. Had he wanted to, he would have found the Patriarch’s proposition to
be the way out from Hezbollah’s adventures. Either way, the proposal took away
what was called the Christian cover for Hezbollah’s ways and policies after the
magnitude of their consequences on Lebanon became apparent to anyone who has
sight.
It is certainly not the first time that an issue like this has been proposed,
and perhaps the October Revolution that called for a restoration of the abducted
state implicitly demanded neutrality relying on the deepest and widest
cross-regional and cross-sectarian popular movement. However, the “Baabda
Declaration” that was announced by the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, from
the Presidential Palace remains the most important point to stop at. It took
place on June 11, 2012 and was later stipulated by the Lebanese institutions and
adopted by the Arab League and United Nations as an official document alongside
the National Reconciliation and the constitution.
Its 17 articles show an unambiguous commitment to the Taif Agreement, an
emphasis on Lebanon as a “final homeland”, a warning against the threat of the
Israeli enemy, the importance of Lebanon being neutral towards politics of axes
and regional and international conflicts, and protecting it from the
implications of regional tensions and crises out of caution for its interests
and national unity.
This famous declaration, which was signed by Member of Parliament Mohammad Raad
on behalf of Hezbollah and Michel Aoun on behalf of the Free Patriotic Movement,
emphasized “controlling the situation across the Lebanese-Syrian border” and a
refusal for Lebanon to be “a headquarters, passageway, or starting point for the
smuggling of arms and armed men”.
Not long after did Hezbollah repeat its 2006 mistake when Hassan Nasrallah had
predicted a nice summer and then took Lebanon into the atrocities of the July
War, the war of “had I known”! Once again, Hezbollah betrayed its promises and
signatures with Raad claiming that the “Baabda Declaration was stillborn and is
not more than ink on paper”.
This was not enough to cover Hezbollah’s commitment to the Iranian agenda, so
its militias crossed the borders under the umbrella of al-Quds Force and fought
Syrians to defend the Assad regime! Its militias then spread everywhere, from
Iraq to Yemen, Bahrain and Kuwait. Nasrallah was quick to tell the Lebanese that
whoever wins the region wins in Lebanon!
The current situation in the region may not be in Hezbollah or Tehran’s favor,
and there is a big difference between what Lebanon was in 2006 during the July
War and today, after corruption and foreign allegiances have caused the most
dangerous collapse with starvation now looming over the majority, rendering the
Patriarch’s proposition a rescue policy despite the difficulties and obstacles
surrounding it.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published on July 23-24/2020
Macron Slams Turkey over Eastern Mediterranean 'Violations'
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday denounced what he called Turkey's
"violation" of the sovereignty of Greece and Cyprus, saying it would be a
serious error by the European Union to not respond to provocations in the
Eastern Mediterranean. "I want once again to reiterate France's full solidarity
with Cyprus and also with Greece in the face of Turkey's violation of their
sovereignty," the French leader said ahead of talks with his Cypriot counterpart
Nicos Anastasiades at the Elysee Palace. The EU has already imposed some
sanctions on Turkey over drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean, but
Macron said more sanctions would be needed to stop the violations. "It is not
acceptable for the maritime space of a member state of our Union to be violated
or threatened. Those who contribute must be sanctioned," Macron said. Greece's
navy said Wednesday that it had deployed ships in the Aegean in "heightened
readiness" after Turkey issued an advisory for seismic surveys in an area of sea
between Cyprus and Crete. Turkey is at odds with Greece and the EU over maritime
rights in the Eastern Mediterranean amid a scramble for resources following the
discovery of huge gas reserves in recent years. Energy and security issues in
the area are the subject of "power struggles, particularly of Turkey and
Russia," about which the EU was not doing enough, Macron said. Anastasiades
agreed there was "a void on the part of Europe" on this issue, adding that
Macron's initiatives offered "a glimmer of hope" that the Mediterranean will
"not be under the control of Turkey or another country."
Macron Calls for Sanctions over Those Interfering in Libya
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
French President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday that the European Union should
push for sanctions over those involved in Libya’s conflict. Arms sanctions,
Macron said, were necessary "to achieve a ceasefire and unlock a real dynamic
towards a political resolution of the Libyan conflict,” he told reporters at the
Elysee Palace alongside his Cypriot counterpart Nicos Anastasiades. Macron said
foreign powers "whoever they are" cannot be allowed to violate a UN embargo on
sending weapons to Libya. Turkey supports Libya’s Government of National Accord
(GNA). France angrily condemned Ankara last month after it said a French navy
ship was targeted by a Turkish frigate's missile radar while inspecting cargo en
route to Libya. "More broadly, Europe must undertake a thorough reflection on
the security issues in the Mediterranean," said Macron, who will host a summit
of countries of the southern European Union at the end of August or early
September.
Greece Warns Will Do 'Whatever Necessary' in East Med Spat
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
Greece has warned it will do "whatever is necessary" to defend its sovereign
rights in response to plans by neighbor Turkey to proceed with an oil-and-gas
research mission south of Greek islands in the Eastern Mediterranean. The
dispute over seabed mineral rights has led to increased navy deployments by both
NATO members in the region, where a Turkish research vessel, the Oruc Reis, is
being prepared for a survey mission. Greek government spokesman Stelios Petsas
described the mission as a direct violation of Greek sovereignty. "The
government is underlining to all parties that Greece will not accept a violation
of its sovereignty and will do whatever is necessary to defend its sovereign
rights," Petsas said. Greece and Turkey have been at odds for decades over sea
boundaries but recent discoveries of natural gas and drilling plans across the
East Mediterranean have exacerbated the dispute. Turkey argues Greek islands
should not be included in calculating maritime zones of economic interest - a
position that Greece says is a clear violation of international law. The survey
ship Oruc Reis remains anchored at the port of Antalya, in southeastern Turkey,
but a navigational telex issued by the port says the mission planned through
Aug. 2 remains "valid and effective."
Russia, Algeria Demand ‘Political Solution’ to Libya Crisis
Moscow - Raed Jabr/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held talks Wednesday with his Algerian
counterpart Sabri Boukadoum and the two discussed prospects of bilateral
cooperation in various fields as well as Libya's crisis, demanding a political
solution that satisfies all warring parties.
Speaking at a press conference, Lavrov said as long as the Libyans are divided,
there will always be risks that external players will bet on one or the other
side. "The situation in the country demands to bring the warring parties to the
negotiating table and to help them find a solution, respecting the interests of
all Libyan people," he noted. Russia works with all parties to the conflict as
well as the neighboring countries to end the combat, Lavrov pointed out,
stressing that a ceasefire isn’t the ultimate goal but a starting point for a
dialogue that stands on outcomes of Berlin Conference and related-international
resolutions.
Lavrov abstained from commenting on the Egyptian parliament endorsement of
military intervention in Libya, but noted that the Libyan crisis first started
when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) intervened in Libya in 2011
which undermined the country’s unity. For his part, the Algerian FM said that
the political dialogue is "the only way to resolve the crisis in Libya"."There
is no military solution to this conflict and there will be no military solution.
We have confirmed the most important aspect - the unity of Libya and the
territorial integrity of Libya," he said. "The only way to resolve the crisis is
through political dialogue. The integrity and sovereignty of the Libyan state
must be respected and political dialogue must be taken as the main principle."
Asked if Moscow and Algiers had a joint roadmap towards reaching a settlement in
Libya, Lavrov said there are no Russian-Algerian plan to solve the crisis,
stressing that both countries are committed to outcomes of the Berlin
Conference.
US General Sees Further Iraq Troop Drawdown
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
A feared resurgence of ISIS has not so far materialized in Iraq, paving the way
for a further coalition troop drawdown, a US commander said Wednesday. Though
ISIS may never be completely eradicated, the group has been significantly
diminished from when it controlled swathes of Iraq and Syria just a few years
ago, Major General Kenneth Ekman, deputy commander of coalition forces, told
reporters. "What that has allowed us to do is to reduce our footprint here in
Iraq," Ekman said, speaking from Baghdad. n"I think over time, what you will see
is a slow reduction of US forces," he added. The presence of US troops in Iraq
has been a flashpoint issue, with Iraqi lawmakers voting to formally demand the
withdrawal of American forces in recent months. There are currently about 5,200
US troops in Iraq. AFP quoted Ekman as saying that a key sign of ISIS's reduced
threat was its inability to hold territory, with its activities reduced to a
"low level insurgency hiding in rural areas and... in caves." Ekman noted the
objective now is to keep up the pressure on the extremist group and to continue
to strengthen Iraqi security forces. Several military bases have already been
turned over to Iraqi forces and a large training camp near Baghdad is to be
handed to them on Saturday, he added.
Iraq Reopens Airports to Commercial Flights Despite Rise in
Virus Cases
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
Iraq opened its airports again to receive commercial flights after months of
lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision comes as part of the
government’s plan to ease restrictions despite record numbers of virus cases
expected to exceed 100,000 this week.
Cases have risen exponentially since then and in particular following the Eid
holiday in June, Reuters reported. Airports were shut in March along with
full-day curfews. The curfew has been extended many times amid rising case
numbers, which has exacerbated a severe economic crisis spurred by falling oil
prices and crippled Iraq’s private sector. Iraq’s Health Ministry reported 2,700
new cases over a 24-hour period on Wednesday, bringing the country’s total to
99,865 cases. Over 4,000 people have died. Flights to Beirut and Cairo were
scheduled to take off 10 a.m. on Thursday.
Iraq Fears Disastrous Consequences of Gatherings During Eid
al-Adha
Baghdad - Fadhel al-Nashmi/Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
Coronavirus cases have recently spiked in Iraq, sparking concerns of a growing
outbreak amid a lack commitment by many citizens to health-related guidelines.
The concerns have grown bigger as the Iraqi authorities intend to lift the
partial curfew during Eid al-Adha, end of July. Last week, Baghdad declared its
intention to lift the lockdown after the Eid but backed down after coming under
criticism. Riyad Abdul Amir, the director of the Ministry of Health, said that
the Ministry has called for a curfew throughout the Eid. Its request has been
approved by the Higher Committee for Health and National Safety in order to
avoid a wider outbreak similar to the one witnessed a week after Eid al-Fitr.
For weeks, cases have been spiking but recoveries are increasing as well,
according to Abdul Amir. The tally of cases could possibly decline if citizens
continue to abide by precautionary measures, he said. Each citizen should work
on protecting himself and his family because the virus shouldn’t be underrated,
he added. Total cases in Iraq surpassed 100,000 while recoveries reached 65
percent and deaths more than 4,000. The People's Mobilization Committee (PMC)
announced burying 77 COVID-19 patients from ten provinces in the new Wadi
Al-Salam Cemetery in Najaf in the past 24 hours. In a statement, PMC revealed
that the death toll from all provinces had reached 3,549 by Wednesday. In a
headway that reflects containing the pandemic in Nineveh, the Tal Afar
Department of Health announced shutting down quarantine facilities following the
recovery of all patients. It confirmed that the two centers in Tal Afar were
closed after ensuring the recovery of all patients there.
Palestinian PM Urges Quartet to Lead Coalition for ‘Fair
Solution’
Ramallah - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh has called for the formation of an
international coalition with the aim of finding a just and comprehensive
solution to the Palestinian cause. He called upon the international quartet –
the European Union, Russia, United Nations and United States - to lead the
alliance.
During his meeting with UN Special Coordinator Nickolay Mladenov, Shtayyeh
discussed the latest political developments and reiterated the Palestinian
position in rejecting Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank and the
so-called US deal of the century. The PM lauded the UN efforts in supporting
Palestine during the coronavirus pandemic, and discussed a UN intervention in
organizing the return of workers from Israel during Eid al-Adha. Shtayyeh’s
demand for an international coalition led by the Quartet confirms the
Palestinians' willingness to deal with the US administration, as long as it is
not the only sponsor of the political process. Earlier, Mladenov warned that the
Palestinian Authority (PA) is on the verge of "total collapse" due to the
coronavirus pandemic and the crisis has been exacerbated by Israel's pending bid
to extend sovereignty to large parts of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley.
Mladenov told the UN Security Council’s monthly meeting that Palestinian
revenues dropped 80 percent in May, at a time when Palestinians in all parts of
the occupied territories need services and support from the Authority more than
ever. “It is unclear whether the Palestinian government will have sufficient
resources to make any future salary payments or, indeed, to continue to carry
out its governing functions in the coming months.”Mladenov focused on the
escalating economic crisis in the Palestinian territories, as a result of the
political confrontation, and increase in the unemployment rate due to the
lockdown, and measures imposed to curb the spread of the coronavirus. Meanwhile,
the Secretary General of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Saeb
Erekat, said that the Palestinian leadership will not meet with the US
administration because of its positions. Speaking at an online seminar, Erekat
added that the Trump administration has taken 48 measures against the
Palestinian people since December 2017, including the recognition of Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel and the transfer of the US embassy to it. He continued
that the annexation plan gives Israel the right to decide the fate of
Palestinians, which is considered a war crime. He also indicated that Palestine
will refer to the International Criminal Court regarding Israel’s crimes, to
ensure they won’t happen again. Erekat added that Israel wants the Authority to
be an instrument that ensures the occupation remains, stressing that it won’t
happen because the goal is to take Palestinians from occupation to independence.
At the end of his statement, the Palestinian official stressed that annexing any
part of the West Bank will end the existence of the Authority, and let the
occupation assume all its responsibilities.
Yemeni Parliament Denounces Houthi Escalation against
Lawmakers
Aden – Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020 - 08:15
The Yemeni parliament denounced escalated Houthi violations against its members
and condemned continued Houthi efforts to issue death sentences and arbitrary
arrest warrants against citizens, journalists and parliamentarians. This came in
an official statement released by the parliament speaker's office against the
backdrop of Houthis seeking to strip 12 MPs of immunity in preparation to put
them on trial. The parliament’s statement reaffirmed that Houthis resorting to
their own parliament in Sanaa is unlawful and is only a part of a series of
violations the group has committed against MPs elected by the people. It also
reaffirmed that only the legitimate parliament in Yemen was the one convened on
April 13, 2019 in Sayun city and that the so-called Sanaa parliament is spurious
and is only a tool used by the militias who self-proclaim its legitimacy. Last
September, the Houthis sentenced 35 parliamentarians loyal to the government to
death and the seizure of their assets. The statement also stressed that all the
rulings issued by the Sanaa parliament are constitutionally void and are
considered crimes punishable by law. It also condemned the Houthi attempts to
“forge the will of the nation” at create a parallel authority. The Yemeni
parliament called on the international community to pressure Houthi militias to
stop its tampering and its actions against lawmakers and Yemenis in general and
return the properties that the group seized and the money they confiscated. It
also called for the release of the journalists Akram Al-Walidi, Abdul-Khaleq
Imran, Harith Hamid, Tawfiq Al-Mansouri and others who were sentenced to death
through Houthi mock courts.
China Cites 'Malicious Slander' after Closure of Houston
Consulate
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
China said “malicious slander” is behind an order by the US government to close
its consulate in Houston, Texas, and maintained Thursday that its officials have
never operated outside ordinary diplomatic norms. Foreign ministry spokesperson
Wang Wenbin said the order to close the consulate “violates international law
and basic norms governing international relations,” and “seriously undermines
China-US relations.” “This is breaking down the bridge of friendship between the
Chinese and American people,” Wang told reporters at a daily briefing. The order
this week to close the consulate, one of China’s six missions in the United
States, is seen as escalating tensions between the world’s two largest economies
while President Donald Trump steers blame and punitive measures against China
ahead of the November US election. Beijing has said it would take action in
response, although Wang gave no details on Thursday. Relations between the sides
have nose-dived in recent months over the conronavirus pandemic as well as
disputes over trade, human rights, Hong Kong and Chinese assertiveness in the
South China Sea. In its statement on the closing of the consulate, the State
Department alleged that Chinese agents have tried to steal data from facilities
in Texas, including the Texas A&M medical system statewide and The University of
Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Wang said there was no basis to that
claim. “This is completely malicious slander," The Associated Press quoted Wang
as saying. He also criticized Britain for opening a pathway to citizenship for
up to 3 million residents of Hong Kong. Wang said that China might stop
recognizing the British National Overseas passport that they hold or are
eligible to get. Britain on Wednesday announced a January start date for new
rules that will allow holders of the passport to live and work in the UK and
eventually obtain citizenship. China says that Britain pledged in an agreement
between the two that it would not grant residency to holders of the passport.
“Since the British side violated its commitment first, China will consider
stopping recognition of the British National Overseas passport as a valid travel
document,” Wang said. Britain adopted the new immigration rules after China
imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong at the end of June. UK
officials said the country would not abandon its responsibilities to the people
of the former British colony.
Ex-Nazi Camp Guard, 93, Convicted in Germany
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 23 July, 2020
A court in Hamburg on Thursday convicted a 93-year-old German man of helping
murder 5,232 prisoners, many of them Jewish, at a Nazi concentration camp in
World War II and handed him a suspended sentence of two years.
In one of the last cases against Nazi-era crimes, Bruno D. was an SS guard in
the Stutthof concentration camp near what was then Danzig, now Gdansk, in
Poland, and found guilty of being involved in killings between August 1944 and
April 1945.
Judge Anne Meier-Goering said Bruno D. had helped to "dehumanize human beings
and turn them into numbers". "You still see yourself as a mere observer, when in
fact you were an accomplice to this manmade hell," she told him as she handed
down the sentence, also for one case of attempted murder. He had acknowledged
his presence at the camp but argued that did not amount to guilt. He said he was
"shaken" by witness accounts from Stutthof, where tens of thousands of people
died from illness, malnutrition and murder by gas chamber and surprise
execution. But he added that he became aware of the "extent of the atrocities"
only upon hearing witness testimonies and reports. As he was only 17 or 18 years
old at the time of the crimes, he was subject to youth sentencing guidelines.
Under German rules for court cases, the suspect's full name is not published.
The Latest LCCC English analysis &
editorials from miscellaneous sources published on July 23-24/2020
Erdogan and Hagia Sophia... The Failed Populism
Salman Al-Dossary/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 23/2020
One day, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded to his critics, “We
are the people, who are you?”
According to this absolute populist rule, which supports most of Erdogan’s
positions, policies, and statements, the Turkish president planned to transform
the Hagia Sophia Museum, which was essentially a church, into a mosque,
expecting to kill through this step several birds with one stone.
He was seeking to restore his declining popularity internally, blackmail Europe
as he did with the refugee file, and to find millions of applauds from the
Islamic masses deceived abroad.
Today, two weeks after his controversial decision, it was proven that his birds
fell before they flew and his stone bounced back on him. This populist decision
was met with an internal disregard and more external discontent. He is now
trying to deal with an act that deserves the title of the worst public relations
campaign in 2020.
If his opponents at home and abroad paid hundreds of millions of dollars to
carry out a campaign to defame his image, they would not have been able to equal
the outcome of his miserable populist decision.
As the spearhead of the populists in the world, Erdogan usually focuses on
people’s emotions and instincts to boost his popularity. Sometimes he
manipulates slogans and humanitarian issues for political ends, and other times,
he raises controversial issues pertaining to domestic or foreign policy to
divert his citizens’ attention and the world’s public opinion from the real
crises facing his country.
Even if he initially succeeded to deceive millions of his people and his
supporters outside Turkey, today, Erdogan finds himself alone without real
supporters, who would protect him from the populism that has rebounded upon him.
Rather than facing his country’s many crises and the internal political turmoil,
he went to raise an already failed cause, by stirring a religious debate between
Christians and Muslims. In fact, Erdogan did not realize that his supporters,
before others, became well aware of his political tricks and his efforts to
incite emotional religious feelings at every position he takes or promotes. He
is confident that he represents the true will of the people, and that God stands
by him in his battle against the conspiracies against him, as he is a fierce and
lone defender of Islam.
French Philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff says: “The demagogic aims to mislead
others, while the populist starts with misleading himself.” This saying
perfectly applies to Erdogan.
Erdogan said in a public speech, after the decision of the US administration to
recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: “If we lose Jerusalem, we will not
be able to protect the city and Makkah, and if Makkah falls, we will lose the
Kaaba.” He secretly extends his hand, economy, and arms to the Israelis, while
in public, he uses the same old religious rhetoric.
He did the same thing in the Hagia Sophia case. Even that opportunity of
popularity that he awaited did not bear fruits. On the contrary, it further
undermined Turkey’s image on the international scene. Instead of being an open,
majority Muslim community living in peace with its Christian heritage, the
Turkish regime turned into an exclusionary state that even opposed its own
citizens in order to consolidate political gains.
Even in this attempt, he failed miserably, after he mistakenly thought that he
would produce a storm of internal and external populism. How many are Erdogan’s
miscalculated accounts!
The US Is on the Verge of Lockdown 2.0
Noah Smith/Bloomberg/July, 23/2020
After two months of what looked like a nascent recovery, the US economy is
faltering again. Restaurant reservations, one of the most commonly tracked
indicators of local business activity, are stagnating.
t’s not hard to see what’s happening. With Covid-19 infections surging in Sun
Belt states and a few other states experiencing second waves, Americans are
being rationally prudent and staying home. The fear this time isn’t as great as
in March, when much less was known about the disease, but it’s still enough to
tank the recovery. The key to restarting the recovery, therefore, is to suppress
the virus. For cities and states where the epidemic has subsided, the best tools
for preventing new outbreaks are universal mask usage, plentiful testing, prompt
contact tracing and isolation of the infected. But President Donald Trump,
apparently subscribing to the theory that ignoring the virus will make it go
away, is attempting to block funding for testing and tracing. And for states
such as Texas, Florida and Arizona that have been overwhelmed with new
infections, this approach -- although still useful -- won’t be enough.
New lockdowns of some sort are going to be necessary. Some cities are already
considering a return to stringent stay-at-home orders of the type used in the
spring. Those lockdowns probably didn’t hurt the economy any more than the virus
itself. But this time things might be different. Because fear of the virus is
less intense than in March, blanket lockdowns that were superfluous last time
might curtail the economy now. In addition, psychological stress from prolonged
isolation might be fueling social unrest.
Fortunately, we understand much more about the virus than we did four months
ago, and what we’ve learned can help us design new lockdown policies that are
much less restrictive and just as effective as the old ones. Outside activities
seem to be much less dangerous than inside ones, and brief contact is
considerably less risky than prolonged contact. The most dangerous activities
are places where people are talking loudly in a crowded indoor setting for a
long time -- bars, parties, concerts, indoor sporting events, indoor religious
services and so on. Offices, gyms, hair salons and indoor restaurants are
somewhat dangerous.
New lockdowns, therefore, should focus on banning only the highest-risk
activities. Bars, clubs and other drinking establishments should be closed
through the end of the year. This will hit local businesses hard, so Congress
should create a bailout fund specifically for bars and similar establishments.
Similarly, indoor sporting, music and theater should be halted for the duration
of the epidemic, and companies that rely on these should be bailed out
accordingly.
Indoor social gatherings over a certain size should also be banned in hard-hit
areas. This will require strict enforcement because people are apt to defy the
law and throw parties. Religious services and college classes should be held
remotely.
Moderately dangerous environments -- offices, hair salons, and so on -- should
be required to use strict protections against the disease. Physical distancing,
universal mask-wearing, ventilation and physical barriers should be mandatory.
States, and Congress, will need to provide funds to help pay for these needed
modifications. K-12 schools are the hardest case. Keeping kids in the house
forever exerts a significant toll on parents, while hurting learning outcomes.
But kids, especially older ones, can pick up the virus at school and spread it
to their family members, and teachers are afraid to return to the classroom. The
best solution may be a compromise -- open schools with strict social distancing
measures, physical barriers, and masks, and using remote learning when those
other measures aren’t possible.
But equally important to what states and cities close is what they leave open.
Outdoor activities seem to be very low-risk, especially with masks on. Parks,
beaches and other open areas can help people preserve their mental and physical
health for very little virus risk. Retail, meanwhile, can be safe if everyone
wears a mask and keeps a reasonable distance within the store. So the new rounds
of lockdowns can afford to be smarter than the first. Nightlife, indoor events
and house parties can’t be allowed, but most other activities are possible with
adequate precautions. That will allow Americans to return to a semblance of
normal life, even in areas with high infection rates. And with vaccines and
antibody treatments showing promise in trials, even these restrictions may only
have to last a few months.
This sort of lockdown lite probably has the highest economic return of any
policy that governments can do right now. They will hurt the economy only
minimally, and they will hasten the day when the epidemic is no longer scaring
people into staying home.
Winter Is Coming for Boris Johnson
Therese Raphael/Bloomberg/July, 23/2020
Winter is coming, but which one? UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson acknowledged
last week that there are two possible scenarios: a mild season on the
coronavirus front or a viral blizzard. He’d like Britons to start investing,
spending and moving around as if the end of 2020 will be benign. He has promised
that the government will, however, be ready for the other eventuality too.
Politically, it’s an appealing stance. It allows Johnson to claim he is helping
to reopen the economy and save jobs, while also prioritizing public health. It’s
a difficult one for businesses and individuals, however. It offers little
concrete guidance on what to do and raises the question of whether Johnson has
learned from his previous pandemic mistakes. And which scenario emerges matters
a lot. Here’s what a “Good Winter” might look like: It’s February 2021 and life
has become more colorful again. The Genesis Reunion tour was great. You
occasionally work from home, but you’re back to the office quite a lot; nothing
beats the synaptic surges of workplace banter. Her feet are remembering what
it’s like to wear shoes not designed for running, his collared shirts no longer
look pointless in their dry cleaners’ plastic. Restaurants require bookings
weeks in advance. You’ve started to say “crazy busy” again when friends ask how
it’s going.The virus hasn’t been banished, but you know the drill: mask up on
transport, squirt the hand gel, respect private space, open the windows even if
it’s cold. It’s not perfect — one sniffle and your entire household goes into
isolation until a test is done — but compared to the mayhem in the US. (now Joe
Biden’s problem) or the dire events in Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil, Britons have it
good.
If the Good Winter is what’s in store, Johnson will have won big. People will be
relieved to have normalcy restored. Business confidence will grow, setting aside
for now the question of Britain’s departure from the European Union’s single
market at the end of the year.
It’s only when you consider what a “Bad Winter” looks like that the stakes
become clearer: Here we go again. British schools have closed once more, in what
has been an exasperating stop-start year. Europe has said “no thank you” to
flights from the UK. Every sniffle feels like a death sentence. Johnson’s
promised 500,000 daily tests were delivered, but they’re not covering everyone
who needs to test a seasonal symptom. Some people don’t bother anyhow, convinced
they only have the regular flu.
You went back to the office, but it wasn’t the same. Pret was closed. Those
purposeful blocks of glass and steel that make up the City’s landscape look
forlorn. Riding the London Underground, once a grim contact sport played by
people in pinstripes, is the most pleasant part of the day, though it’s
unnerving how few staff are around. Just as the Expert Advisory Group of the
Academy of Medical Sciences warned back in their July report, the change in
season proved friendly to Covid as people started spending less time outdoors
and more time cohabiting smaller spaces with less ventilation.
What’s worse, the National Health Service isn’t coping. The focus on Covid
created a backlog of millions of non-critical cases. Cancers aren’t being
diagnosed and treatments have fallen behind, but it’s the combination of the
regular flu season and the Covid flu season that’s the literal killer. The flu
vaccination program was expanded to reduce the number of other flu-stricken
patients, but there wasn’t enough capacity to cover all age groups.
Mental health has also frayed because of months of lockdown, job insecurity and
income loss. British winters are always dark, and this one feels interminable.
Far from uniting the country, the virus has contributed to divisions. After
Scots noticed that their government did a better job of handling the virus,
support for Scottish independence went up. And while much of the poorer north of
England remains shut down, there are more Covid-free zones in the wealthier
south, breeding resentment and forcing the government to pile on more spending
commitments.
Johnson can’t say which winter scenario will prevail, and Britain may get a
combination of both. The problem is that the “hope for the best, prepare for the
worst” policy doesn’t provide much clarity for business.
There are pressures on Johnson to encourage people to get back to work and onto
public transport. The costs of a prolonged recession are enormous, and the
government spending splurge will have to be paid for somehow. It’s notable how
Johnson is no longer saying that every decision is driven, or even guided, by
the science.
The government’s top scientists are being more cautious. A few hours after
Johnson’s Friday press conference, his chief medical advisor, Chris Whitty, told
a House of Lords committee that social distancing remains important and that
lockdown measures may have to be reintroduced in the winter. Chief Scientific
Advisor Patrick Vallance told lawmakers last week that it remains better for
people to work from home — a warning that reportedly caused Johnson to moderate
plans to urge people back to work.
Those nuances won’t be lost on companies. It’s fine being told that the
government has a plan in case Bad Winter comes, but do employers really want to
risk sending people back to the office? Unions are warning that employees
shouldn’t be made to return to unsafe work environments.
Compared to the level of denial from the US government, the UK has shown it can
learn. Britain is testing a lot more, planning to have a contact-tracing app in
place this winter, putting more money into the NHS, purchasing loads of
protective equipment and giving local governments the power to lock down areas
of infection. But the countries that have emerged from lockdown successfully are
those that tackled transmission aggressively from the start and won the trust of
the public. It will take a lot to move beyond Britain’s pandemic-management
disasters of the past few months.
Winter is Johnson’s second big Covid test. He must not repeat the failures of
the first.
Don’t Get Depressed Over Those Covid Antibody Studies
Faye Flam/Bloomberg/July, 23/2020
It’s hard to imagine more depressing news than some recent studies showing that
antibodies to Covid-19 fade within a few weeks — a blow to any hopes for a
vaccine, or for any chance of getting out of the pandemic without years of
hardship.
Don’t let it raise your blood pressure. Pendulum swinging is all part of a
common pattern in health reporting, where all the attention goes to extremes —
total gloom or total sunshine — when reality is somewhere in between. It can
seem jarring, when this news about fast-fading antibodies comes out within a few
days of the hopeful news that several human vaccine studies are showing
promising results. Some vaccine makers are already moving into massive-scale
efficacy trials that could yield early results before the end of this year.
One reason for the seemingly discordant news is that vaccines can induce a
stronger immune response than natural infections — and for that reason several
vaccine researchers I spoke to said they were unfazed. “None of these findings
is any reason to stop or slow down vaccine work,” says Harvard vaccine
researcher Dan Barouch.
“If anything, it should redouble our efforts if natural immunity fades quickly.”
But beyond that, natural immunity might hold up better than these first studies
suggest. Those studies showing the fast fade relied on fewer than 100 people.
But this week, another team released a study that followed 19,860 patients in
New York City, and found that more than 90% of them had produced the kind of
antibody response likely to fight off reinfection, and it was still going strong
three months after recovery. (The study hasn’t been published yet, but the team,
associated with Mt. Sinai, has published many other high-profile Covid-19
papers.)
And so it still seems likely that at least one of the many vaccine candidates
will give long-enough protection to end the pandemic. Monday, one of the leading
vaccine teams, from Oxford University and AstraZeneca, released results showing
their vaccine induced a strong antibody response in more than 1,000 test
subjects with only transient side effects — soreness at the injection site,
fatigue and fever.
The Lancet published these results along with promising ones from a different
vaccine from the Chinese company CanSino. In total, the World Health
Organization has tallied 23 vaccine candidates already being tested in humans.
Several are moving to efficacy studies involving tens of thousands of
volunteers.
That doesn’t mean the bad news on natural immunity should be discounted — it
just needs to be taken in context. One study out of China and published in
Nature Medicine focused on those poorly understood asymptomatic cases — people
who never report any symptoms but test positive for the virus. The other
discouraging study came out of Kings College in the U.K., and followed 64
people. That study, still unpublished, showed their antibodies started to fade
after just eight weeks, sometimes to undetectable levels. And today, another
group from UCLA released data from a small cohort of patients in a letter to the
New England Journal of Medicine. They, too, found antibodies waned in a few
weeks.
But experts say it had already been well understood that natural antibodies
would eventually fade, and that very mild or asymptomatic cases might not
generate a robust antibody response. Arthur Krieg, a physician and founder of
Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, says the beauty of vaccines is that they can produce
the kind of antibody response only seen in severe cases, but without the
suffering and danger.
He also says vaccines — and natural infections — can induce longer-lasting
protection with T-cells, which are different from antibodies. T-cells can detect
and kill cells infected with the virus even after antibodies fade. Some of the
vaccine candidates can induce a protective T-cell response in addition to
antibodies.
There’s also hope for vaccine-aided herd immunity, he says. Vaccines often don’t
work well in immune-compromised people or the elderly, but if most healthy,
younger people get vaccinated, the virus could die out from a lack of
susceptible hosts.
This still leaves open the nagging question of why studies of natural immunity
yield such different results. Anna Wajnberg, a physician at Icahn School of
Medicine at Mt. Sinai and co-author of the new, larger study, says it may come
down to differences in the subjects studied and the antibody tests used.
Her subjects were people who had gotten Covid-19 and volunteered to donate
convalescent plasma after they recovered. That’s an experimental treatment meant
to enlist other people’s antibodies to boost immunity in severely ill patients.
The researchers used a test method developed by virologist Florian Krammer,
which picks out an antibody that’s known to attack the so-called spike protein
the virus needs to get into cells.
What they observed was a small decrease in those with the highest antibody
counts, and a slight increase among those with the lowest. That might have
happened because some people take longer than others to produce a full immune
response to an infection, says Wajnberg. She said it will take time to learn how
long immunity lasts over the long term because the disease is so new, but they
will keep following the nearly 20,000 people in their study for months to come.
The Chinese study looked only at people who tested positive but developed no
symptoms. The weak antibody response measured in those subjects is not
surprising since they may have been exposed to such a low viral load that they
were able to clear infection without a full immune response.
More troubling are anecdotal reports of people being re-infected, but Wajnberg
says this could be an exception to the rule. “With New York a raging epicenter
of the pandemic, I would have thought we’d see more people get sick twice
between February and April,” if indeed post-infection immunity didn’t work at
all, she says. These contradictory findings can come down to the
disproportionate attention that goes to extreme, emotion-inducing messaging, and
to the fact that the pace of science related to the pandemic is both frantic and
slow. New studies are released by the minute — some careful, some shoddy — but
the virus will only give up its secrets over the course of several months. Don’t
let your hopes rise and fall on every new finding.
A Few Thoughts on Law and Justice
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/July 23/2020
For me, the real enemies of America are the extremists on both sides: the hard
left that would bring America down, the hard right white supremacists and
neo‑Nazis.... People from the hard left do not even want to hear from people on
the center left.
I think the last thing The New York Times wants is for people to come to their
own conclusion, because The New York Times bars dissenting points of view and
fired editors who authorize them to be published on its pages.... The Times has
taken the "op" out of "op-ed."
The combination of elected prosecutors and elected judges has made our legal
system far too political. Too many decisions are made by people, crowds, and
pressure groups. When you combine four aspects of our system -- prosecutors are
elected, judges are elected, juries are ordinary, lay people, and the judges who
control the juries are often subject to re‑election -- the risks of our justice
system being turned over to the masses, to the mobs, to the crowds, to the
chanters, becomes all too real, and our system of checks and balances becomes
weaker.
Remember that when America was founded at the end of the 18th century, the
greatest fear was of the mob. We were watching what was happening a little later
on in France with the revolution, and with the killing of so many innocent
people in the name of the revolution.
In China, some years ago, I was invited to go to a trial, a man who was accused
of stealing some items. After the evidence came in -- you had evidence from the
prosecution, the defendant testified -- and then the judge ordered the doors
opened. Hundreds of people poured in from the streets. The judge said, "Now
we'll hear from the masses." The masses started yelling, "Convict! Convict!
Convict!" Of course, the judge convicted, because the masses were the ones in a
communist country who had control over the justice system. I never want to see
that happen in the United States of America
It is very hard to be a dissenter today. If you are a dissenter today, you risk
being canceled. If you are an editor who is willing to publish dissenting
material, you risk being fired. If you are a dissenter today in a crowd, you
risk being beaten up.
If there were no police, if the police were defunded, wealthy people would hire
private security guards, but the people who cannot afford private guards need to
have a well‑funded police force. I am in favor of extra funding for the police.
Give them better training. Teach them how to subdue people without using lethal
force.
The problem with the UN is not that it passes too many resolutions, but too few.
It never attacks its favorite countries. It applies a double standard of
injustice. It has devoted more time to condemning Israel than all the other
countries of the world combined. Let us see what it says about recent reports
concerning murders in Iran of gay people, for instance the recent murder of a
14‑year‑old by her father as an honor killing. Let us see what it says about so
many of the violations of human rights around the world. Well, do not hold your
breath. It will say nothing. It will focus only on Israel and the United States.
There is a case to be made for the United States withdrawing and defunding...
If we were to experience a worse pandemic, worse economic situation, worse
racial tensions, all of those could lead to a crisis with democracy, which is
very fragile. Indeed, I think the extremists on the hard left are hoping that
happens so that they can try to attract other people to their extremist
anti‑American agenda.
I never expected I would be spending the last years of my life and career
bringing lawsuits, but I am now contemplating a lawsuit against Netflix for
falsely accusing me of having sex with a woman I never met, never heard of --
and who has audio tapes and emails and manuscripts in which she admits, her
lawyers admit, that she never met me and could never have met me; and yet
Netflix runs this and does not publish what I gave them, all the material
showing that I could never have met this person... I think it is important for
the First Amendment to hold irresponsible media -- powerful, irresponsible media
-- accountable.
What I want to talk about today is the age of extremism in which we are
currently living. I just published a new book, The Case for Liberalism in an Age
of Extremism: or, Why I Left the Left But Can't Join the Right.
It is a political memoir about the homelessness that I and many of my friends
and colleagues feel. We feel that the Democratic Party has turned too far left
for us in many respects. We cannot support "the squad," those who would get rid
of the framework of our free market economy, those who are opposed to dissent.
Yet we would feel uncomfortable supporting a party that disapproves of a woman's
right to choose, gay marriage, concerns for the environment, reasonable gun
control. Many of us feel homeless. The book is a memoir that could have been
written by either a centrist conservative or a centrist liberal.
I am a centrist liberal, but I spend a lot of time talking to colleagues and
friends on the conservative center side. For me, the real enemies of America are
the extremists on both sides: the hard left that would bring America down, the
hard-right white supremacists and neo‑Nazis.
It is too bad that the right and the left do not have real conversations. The
conversations tend to take the form now of bumper stickers, protests, and
screaming. The recent protests are understandable. There is far too much killing
of unarmed African-American men. Protests against that are entirely protected by
our constitution.
When these protests are hijacked by people on the hard left who care much more
about undoing America than about what happens in the African-American community,
or people on the hard right who exploit racial tension and try to bring about
their own revolution, we are in great danger.
The greatest danger does not even come from those on the streets who are burning
buildings, or those on the streets who are running people down, or those on the
streets who are yelling slogans that have nothing to do with African-Americans,
but rather with Israel, Palestine, Jews, capitalism, you name it.
The real problem I see is with The New York Times, which no longer tolerates
dissent. The most remarkable episode in the past couple of weeks was the firing
of the op‑ed editor of The New York Times and the demotion of his deputy.
I have written dozens of op‑eds for The New York Times. Today, The New York
Times is unlikely to publish an op‑ed by me. Many mainstream media will not
publish any dissenting views that disagree with the mainstream left.
The idea that the editor of The New York Times would be fired for publishing a
column by a distinguished United States senator, Senator Tom Cotton, a former
student at Harvard Law School, is shocking.
I do not agree with a lot of what Senator Cotton said. But the idea that The
Times publisher would give in to the mob in his own newsroom and eliminate the
distinction between news and opinion by allowing others to tell him whose
opinions are to be published on the op‑ed page of The New York Times.
I am a skeptic. I read. I want to see data analyzed. I want to see an opposing
point. That is what op‑ed pages are for, to present opposing points of view. The
Times has taken the "op" out of "op-ed."
I think the last thing The New York Times wants is for people to come to their
own conclusion, because The New York Times bars dissenting points of view. It is
so anti‑newspapers, so anti‑media, so anti‑First Amendment spirit.
The cancel culture is moving from the extreme to the mainstream.
I too have been victimized by the cancel culture. The 92nd Street Y where I
spoke for 25 years -- I am the second-most-frequent speaker after Elie Wiesel --
has canceled me even though they have acknowledged that the accusation against
me was made by a woman I never met, never heard of. I have emails from her own
lawyers who say this. For the 92nd Street Y, a false accusation is enough to
cancel me. I was not allowed to speak in defense of Israel from the 92nd Street
Y, because they do not want their viewers and their listeners to hear from
people who are victims of the cancel culture. I see this as so dangerous whether
you are a liberal or a conservative. On college campuses today, I cannot speak
without having efforts made to try to silence me, sometimes by violence.
When I spoke at Berkeley, Antifa came out and tried to prevent my speech from
going forward. The same has happened in other places. When I spoke at John
Hopkins University, a Hitler mustache was painted on my face and swastikas were
put on the program announcing my speech.
People from the hard left do not even want to hear from people on the center
left. We are the enemies of the hard left, which is why I wrote my book, The
Case for Liberalism in an Age of Extremism: or, Why I Left the Left But Can't
Join the Right.
I think I speak for many people about the frustration we experience, the
homelessness we experience in today's political world. America has thrived at
the center -- the conservative center, the liberal center, but the center.
Our competitive advantage has been historically that we have not been seduced by
the extremes. Compare us to France, Germany, Spain, or many South American
countries where the arguments were not between centrist liberals and centrist
conservatives, but the arguments between communists and fascists.
In the 1930s, we saw the death of center parties in Europe, in France, in Italy
and in Spain. It was, again, the fascists versus the communists, and the
fascists won. Who knows who would win in the United States if we ever saw a
situation between fascism and communism?
America would not benefit from either of those extreme "isms." I am afraid we
are moving in that direction. I worry about what the platforms of both parties
will say in the upcoming election ‑‑ how far left the Democrats will move, how
far right the Republicans may move.
Both want to attract their base and want to broaden the base as much as
possible. You do not broaden your base when you stay at the center, at least
that is what is thought. I do not agree with that. I think the party that is
seen as the centrist party will win future elections. The party that seems the
party of stability, the party that opposes extremism on both sides, is likely
the party that will win. I think America craves today a kind of moderation, a
kind of stability and centrism. We shall see in November what happens.
I also worry about the November election. What if the virus comes back and it is
hard to have people come to the polls? Can we really have an election online or
by mail? What if the virus becomes so serious that mail deliverers have to stay
at home?
We are facing a potential crisis in democracy. Hopefully, the virus will have
abated by that point and we can all go to the polls and vote for whom we choose.
I am not here to place blame. There is blame on all sides.
I place the blame squarely at the foot of the extremists, the people who are
taking advantage of tragedies such as the death in Minneapolis and other places
to promote their own brand of extremism. I think we live in very troubled,
dangerous times.
Nobody can ever anticipate unpredictable events -- such as those of the past
several months, a pandemic that nobody could have anticipated with economic
consequences that nobody could have anticipated.
The death in Minneapolis, which provoked the worldwide demonstrations, which in
part have been hijacked by extremists on both sides. These are events which
could provoke very serious problems in the democratic process in America.
It could also have impacts on the legal system, on our courts. Will the courts
be able to function effectively in the face of crowds? Take, for example, what
happened in Minneapolis.
After the man who was on the videotape putting his knee on the neck of the
African-American man, George Floyd, after he was initially arrested and charged
with third degree murder, which seemed, on its face of it, to fit the videotape
-- reckless disregard for human life -- the crowds pressured the prosecutor to
up the charge to second degree murder.
Which, as a scholar of criminal law, does not seem, at least on the face of it,
to fit the facts or the law. Prosecutors and political agendas tend to follow
the crowd. We are the only country, the only Western democracy, the only one
that elects prosecutors. It is an outrage that we have elected prosecutors in
this country.
No other democracy makes its justice system so politicized. In every other
Western democracy, prosecutors are civil servants who are appointed based on
experience and expertise. Their politically neutral job is to simply do justice
fairly, not to respond to the passions of the voters. It is not helpful if we
have prosecutors who put their finger up to the wind and say, "What will better
help me get re‑elected? Should I overcharge or undercharge an alleged offense?"
The combination of elected prosecutors and elected judges has made our legal
system far too political. Too many decisions are made by people, crowds, and
pressure groups. When you combine four aspects of our system -- prosecutors are
elected, judges are elected, and juries are ordinary, lay people, and the judges
who control the juries are often subject to re‑election -- the risks of our
justice system being turned over to the masses, to the mobs, to the crowds, to
the chanters becomes all too real, and our system of checks and balances becomes
weaker.
Remember that when America was founded at the end of the 18th century, the
greatest fear was of the mob. We were experiencing a little later on in France
with the revolution, and with the killing of so many innocent people in the name
of the revolution.
The framers created a system of checks and balances that were supposed to check,
not only each branch of the government, but also the public, the voters. There
were no direct elections of senators. There was no direct election of the
President.
The Senate was to be appointed by state legislatures and senators would be of
equal number in the largest state and the smallest state as a way of checking
the power of the larger states. Many of those checks and balances have over time
been eliminated, mostly for the good. We now have a much broader electoral base,
many more people vote. At the time of the framing, women did not vote, blacks
did not vote. In some states Jews did not vote. You had to be a white, Christian
landowner. Now we have broadened the basis for election, but we have failed to
check, in our justice system, the role of the mob.
In China, some years ago, I was invited to go to the trial of a man who was
accused of stealing some items. After the evidence came in -- you had evidence
from the prosecution, the defendant testified -- and then the judge ordered the
doors opened. Hundreds of people poured in from the streets.
The judge said, "Now we'll hear from the masses." The masses started yelling,
"Convict! Convict! Convict!" Of course, the judge convicted, because the masses
were the ones in a communist country who had control over the justice system. I
never want to see that happen in the United States of America.
We are living in difficult times. We are living under difficult pressures. It is
very hard to be a dissenter today. If you are a dissenter today, you risk being
canceled. If you are an editor who is willing to publish dissenting material,
you risk being fired.
If you are a dissenter today in a crowd, you risk being beaten up. Look at the
mayor of Minneapolis who said he was willing to defund the police. A stupid idea
that would harm mostly disadvantaged, poor people.
If there were no police, if the police were defunded, wealthy people would hire
private security guards, but the people who cannot afford private guards need to
have a well‑funded police force. I am in favor of extra funding for the police.
Give them better training. Teach them how to subdue people without using lethal
force.
All of those are good things, but the idea of defunding the police, of
abolishing the police force in cities in America, is an invitation to violence
and is the first step toward some kind of anarchy, which none of us wants to see
happen.
Question and Answer
Q: George Floyd's family appealed to the UN to intervene. What are the chances
of UN troops invading US soil? And can the USA defund the UN? They seem to hate
the US and Israel.
Professor Dershowitz: It is a good question. I was a big supporter of the United
Nations when it was first established. I had worked for Arthur Goldberg when he
was a justice to the Supreme Court. I was his law clerk.
When he became the United States Ambassador to the UN, he asked for my help in
helping to draft Resolution 242, which was basically the peace treaty that ended
the 1967 Six‑Day War. I was a big supporter of the UN, I belong to the United
Nations Association.
Obviously, since the 1970s, it has turned viciously against Israel and against
the United States. The UN, of course, would have absolutely no jurisdiction over
a domestic matter in the United States. It could not send troops, it could not
even legitimately pass a resolution.
The problem with the UN is not that it passes too many resolutions, but too few.
It never attacks its favorite countries. It applies a double standard of
injustice. It has devoted more time to condemning Israel than all the other
countries of the world combined.
Let us see what it says about recent reports concerning murders in Iran of gay
people, for instance the recent murder of a 14‑year‑old by her father as an
honor killing. Let us see what it says about so many of the violations of human
rights around the world. Well, do not hold your breath. It will say nothing. It
will focus only on Israel and the United States.
There is a case to be made for the United States withdrawing and defunding. I
think the current Secretary‑General of the United Nations is trying very hard.
He has done a much better job of trying to create some kind of equity and
equality in resolutions, but he has not yet succeeded.
We have withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, which is really a Council on
Human Wrongs, dominated by some of the worst abusers of human rights. In fact, a
few years ago I attended a UN meeting in Switzerland when the guest of honor at
the United Nations Human Rights Council was Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier and a vicious opponent of human rights. By the
way, he is running for president of Iran again.
Do not expect condemnation from the United Nations.
I think the United States should carefully review its commitment to the UN. We
have a very good ambassador to the UN. We had a previously very good ambassador
to the UN who speaks the truth to power. Let us keep a careful eye on what is
going on at the United Nations and not allow it to exceed its jurisdiction.
Q: 1968 was a period thought of as revolutionary. The 1930s had a substantial
communist and fascist movement in the US. The country survived those periods as
a strong, prosperous democracy. Do you see the current movement as
revolutionary? Will it dissipate or deepen into broader civil strife? Is it the
moment that America's luck and special features run out and it devolves into a
weak and hopelessly divided country?
Professor Dershowitz: What a great question. We did have fascist parties in the
United States. I live on the east side of New York, and my neighborhood was
right close to what was called Germantown, which had a very large Bund
contingency, and they filled Madison Square Garden with Nazis doing "Heil
Hitler" salutes and wearing Nazi regalia as late as the late 1930s. Even up
until Pearl Harbor.
Of course, we had a significant but never large communist presence in the United
States in those days, too. I think we were always blessed because the Depression
could have easily led to the same kind of fight between fascism and communism as
we saw in France and Spain, and even in England to a lesser degree.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the deeply flawed president, made lots of
mistakes. But his New Deal pushed America to the center. It pulled the rug out
from under a nascent communist movement because it gave Americans social
security and protections of other kinds.
We survived the small amount of fascism and communism. I think Pearl Harbor
obviously ended the fascist movement in America and those Germans who supported
it. By the way, not only some German Americans, some, supported fascism, but
some Italian Americans, some, again, a small number, supported Mussolini. We are
a free country and people are free to support whomever they choose to support.
I was never in favor of making it illegal to be a member of the Communist Party
or to be a member of the Fascist party. I lived through McCarthyism. I remember
what happened in the '50s as a result of that.
I do not think we are at that moment. I think we are closer than we were, in
many respects, to the 1930s.
I have to tell you if we were to sink into a deep, enduring depression, and if
we were not able to lick the coronavirus and develop a vaccine, and if the virus
were to spread even more lethally around the country and require the continuous
closing down of our economy, there is no predicting what could happen. I hope we
are not there, but if we were to experience a worse pandemic, worse economic
situation, worse racial tensions, all of those could lead to a crisis for
democracy, which is always very fragile.
Indeed, I think the extremists on the hard left are hoping that happens so that
they can try to attract other people to their extremist anti‑American agenda.
The people on the extreme hard right ‑‑ I'm not talking about conservatives, not
at all -- I am talking about the survivalists, the militia people, the virulent
white supremacists, anti‑Semites. They would love to see a revolution and they,
of course, have the guns. The people on the hard left have the Molotov
cocktails. Both are wrong, both are bad.
The idea that two young lawyers, it was shocking to me, one of them at a big
firm, would throw a Molotov cocktail into a police car, even if it was an
uninhabited police car. We know that in other instances, there were policemen in
the car and in the vicinity when people threw potentially explosive devices.
Look, I'm a liberal criminal defense attorney. I cross‑examine policemen on the
stand all the time.
I am an admirer of the police and the FBI. I have had my differences with
individual FBI agents, certainly, and with individual policemen, and with
individual prosecutors, but it is folks at the front line of law enforcement
that keep us civil and keep us peaceful. If you defund the police, you increase
the power of the lawless. You increase the power of the extremes on the hard
right and the hard left. We have to support the police.
Our system of checks and balances is very fragile and was endangered this year,
I believe, by the Democratic effort to impeach a president against whom I voted
in the 2016 election.
I think that endangered our system of checks and balances by trivializing the
impeachment power of the Constitution, which the framers wanted to limit to
cases of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors -- not
allegations of political abuse of power or political obstruction of Congress.
That was never the intent. That effort weakened our checks and balances. The New
York Times' failure as an institution weakens our external checks and balances.
We used to have the media serving as checks and balances on the excesses of
government. Today, The New York Times follows the crowd rather than allows
dissenting views to be express.
My disappointment with The New York Times, with National Public Radio, with CNN,
which censors the news horribly, and with many other mainstream media, is that
they are failing to serve as checks and balances.
I also think the church is failing. There was an op‑ed in The New York Times
yesterday by a woman placing all the blame for our problems on white Christians,
and she quotes one of the great paragons of Christianity, The Reverend Daniel J.
Berrigan.
Do you remember The Reverend Berrigan? A virulent anti‑Semite, who called Israel
a criminal Jewish community? Blamed the Vietnam War on the Jews, fomented
anti‑Semitism, and The New York Times publishes a piece praising The Reverend
Berrigan.
Now I want them to publish that piece because I do not believe in censorship,
but that piece was 10 times more provocative, 10 times worse, 10 times more
inaccurate than anything published by Senator Cotton.
Q: You have been a principled contrarian. Is there any hope for our country to
find its middle ground again when ordinary people are terrified now even to
approach the topic of race for fear of being labeled, sidelined as you yourself
have been in many fora?
Professor Dershowitz: Good question. Unfortunately, today it takes courage to
speak out on divisive issues in America. To speak out on issues of race. To
speak out on issues of sex and due process and free speech -- you endanger your
career if you do it. You endanger your standing and your status.
Being principled today is very difficult to do. Throughout my life, people
praised me for being principled. I did not deserve the praise because earlier in
my life, it took no courage to stand up for Israel, to stand up for democracy,
to stand up against suppression of free speech, to stand up against excesses of
race‑specific affirmative action programs. It did not take any courage to do
that.
Unfortunately, today, it not only takes courage, I think you have to be somewhat
foolhardy. I have to tell you, there are members of my family and my friends who
urge me to be quiet. Who say, "Look, you are too provocative. Look what has
happened to you. The 92nd Street Y will not allow you to speak. The New York
Times will not publish your op‑ed. CNN has banned you. All because you maintain
a principled willingness to speak on behalf of the Constitution without
necessarily taking partisan political sides."
I worry for our country. In a way, I am a perfect example of the cancel culture,
of how my reputation has been tarnished by people on the hard left, and by some
on the hard right. People on the hard right always hated me, but because of my
stands on principle the hard left has also turned against me.
I have been accused of all kinds of terrible things and as a result of speaking
on forums that others disagree with.
My point is, you have to get your views out there for all to hear. Because the
basic saving grace of democracy is the people.
As long as we can get our message out to the people, hopefully, the people will
come down in the center and understand that their interests are best served by
going back to the days when the debates were between liberals and conservatives
at the center, rather than extremists.
I worry that our voices are being cut off and that we cannot get access to the
media anymore.
Q: Do you think there will be a shift from the center‑left's being appalled at
the current situation, such as defunding the police, so that they would
considering leaving the party and voting for Trump?
Professor Dershowitz: It's a complicated question. I think there are many
Democrats who are very upset. If the platform of the Democratic Party were ever
to include defunding the police, which I believe it will not, but Bernie Sanders
might push in that direction. It also depends on who Biden nominates to be the
vice president.
If he nominates Elizabeth Warren and she tries to move the party further to the
left, I think we will see significant defections. President Trump is a very
divisive president. For better or worse, I am not commenting at this point on
the politics of it, but he is divisive.
There are people, you saw it in the papers the other day, many Republicans said
they would not vote for President Trump, but they could not vote for Biden
either. I think we are going to see people voting for the Libertarian candidate,
people staying at home.
I do not think you can stay at home in an election. You have to come and vote. A
lot of people will feel the same way I feel: homeless, not comfortable in the
current Democratic Party, not comfortable in the Republican Party. In the last
election, 2016, a great many Americans did not vote for a president; they voted
against a president. They voted against Hillary Clinton, thereby casting a vote
for President Trump, or they voted against President Trump, thereby casting a
vote for Hillary Clinton. The number of people who enthusiastically cast the
vote for Trump or for Clinton was less than in previous elections.
I think we are going to see something similar to that in the 2020 election, but
look, first, we have to have a 2020 election. It has to be fair. It has to be
open to everybody. We have to have massive voting, and let the people decide.
Q: Professor Dershowitz, as a lifelong liberal in the truest sense of the word,
do you not feel that the Democratic Party has left you and all others similarly
situated; would you consider moving over to the Republican Party, the party of
Lincoln?
Professor Dershowitz: Look, if the Republican Party were like the Conservative
Party in Great Britain, I would join it in a minute. The Conservative Party in
Great Britain supports a woman's right to choose, supports gay marriage,
supports environmental controls, supports reasonable gun control, opposes the
death penalty, and supports many aspects of what are the traditional,
non‑political, liberal agenda.
They are obviously to the right on economic issues and foreign policy issues,
but were I living in Great Britain, I would vote Conservative. Obviously, I
would not have voted for a Jeremy Corbyn. I would have voted for Boris Johnson.
Today's Republicans are hard for liberals to join, because of their views on
abortion and gay rights. I write about this in my book, The Case for Liberalism.
My brother‑in‑law is a brilliant person who votes Republican, even though he
supports all the liberal elements.
What he says is: "Look, we have won gay rights. We have won equal rights for
blacks. We have won many of the other issues. The issues that are now more
important are the fight against terrorism, the fight against extremism."
He believes the Republicans do a better job on that. I understand that argument,
and that is why I never criticize friends of mine who vote Republican or who
vote Democrat. I am on Martha's Vineyard now where it is easy for me to socially
distance because nobody wants to see me or talk to me -- for the fact that I
defended President Trump in front of the United States Senate. By the way, I was
told I was the oldest person ever to argue an impeachment case of a president.
It is nice to have been the youngest professor in Harvard's history and the
oldest person ever to argue against the impeachment of a president.
As the result of taking that on -- I thought it was patriotic and based on the
Constitution -- old friends of mine, people whose kids I recommended to college,
people whose kids I helped bail out of jail at 3:00 in the morning, people whose
fathers and mothers I helped represent pro bono [free of cost] when they were in
trouble, will not talk to me, will not have anything to do with me. They are
socially distancing from me without regard to the coronavirus, but that is the
price you pay for principle today.
I am very happy living in my house with my family on Martha's Vineyard, taking
my walks every day, writing three or four op‑eds a week, and I will continue to
do that without regard to how I'm treated on Martha's Vineyard. The idea of
making a transition from the Democrats to the Republicans, I am not there yet.
When Keith Ellison, who is now the Attorney General of Minnesota, was running to
become chairman of the Democratic Party, I issued a public statement saying I
would leave the Democratic Party if he had been elected -- because he is a
Farrakhan supporter, has a history of association with anti‑Semitic causes. He
lost the election, but he is now an Attorney General. It is an open question.
Right now, as I sit here today, I am a liberal Democrat who is trying very hard
to keep the Democratic Party bipartisan on the issue of Israel, and bipartisan
on so many other issues of importance to all of Americans.
If I fail, if the Democratic Party moves even further away from where I stand,
obviously I have an open mind on these issues.
Q: You mentioned the impeachment and not following the Constitution, etc., but
we now know that Adam Schiff, his cohorts, and others actually lied, and
slandered and libeled the President of the United States in the allegations they
made regarding the testimony they gave in committee.
Is there really no recourse under the law, other than the ballot box?
Professor Dershowitz: Great question. There is no recourse for senators and
congressmen who lie in the course of their work. The Constitution provides for
immunity, but there is recourse against the media for lying. Take, for example,
CNN. I answered a question put to me by Senator Cruz, whether or not a quid pro
quo [a deal, "this for that"] is enough to impeach a president. I said, "It
depends on the quid pro quo."
If there was anything illegal about the quid pro quo, of course a president can
be impeached. But just because a president does something legal to get himself
re‑elected in what he believes is the national interest, however, that is not
impeachable. I clearly made the distinction between legal and illegal. CNN
doctored the tape.
They edited the tape to take out "illegal" and had me saying that a president,
even if he does anything illegal, cannot be impeached, that a president is free
to do anything he wants, legal or illegal.
That was clearly defamatory and I am trying to put together a legal team to
consider suing CNN for defaming me and trying deliberately and willfully to
destroy my reputation by doctoring a tape, by changing a tape and making me say
exactly the opposite of what I said.
CNN -- unlike Adam Schiff and others who do have immunity for lies they told on
the floor of the Senate -- does not have immunity. I am seriously considering,
if I can put together a legal team and fund a legal team, to sue CNN to try to
hold them accountable for doctoring tapes.
Can you imagine? What could be worse for a journalist or a station than to
doctor a tape to make you say the opposite of what you said? Then you had many
of the commentators saying explicitly, "Alan Dershowitz has said that even if a
president does something illegal, he can't be impeached."
I said exactly the opposite. If a president does something illegal, he can be
impeached. But that is CNN. How do we hold the media accountable? I never
expected I would be spending the last years of my life and career bringing
lawsuits, but I am now contemplating a lawsuit against Netflix for falsely
accusing me of having sex with a woman I never met, never heard of -- we have
audio tapes and emails and manuscripts in which she admits, her lawyers admit,
that she never met me and could never have met me; and yet Netflix runs this and
does not publish what I gave them, all the material showing that I could never
have met this person. I am going to be spending quite a bit of time in court
these days, defending my reputation.
Hopefully courts remain an institution open to people who have been victimized
by false accusation. The framers of our Constitution intended that, the First
Amendment permits it. When the false accusation is done with malice, and of
course, both CNN and Netflix did it with malice.
I think it is important for the First Amendment to hold irresponsible media --
powerful, irresponsible media -- accountable. Checks and balances also include
using the courts to check the power of the media.
The above are from a briefing to Gatestone Institute on June 9, 2020.
**Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Iran's Sprint to the Bomb
Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/July 23/2020
It cannot... be a surprise that Iran is still sprinting toward deliverable
nuclear weapons with the very uranium enrichment technology permitted by the
2015 agreement. While the U.S. Senate was told the deal would halt Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weaponry, the deal only camouflaged the mullahs' ambitions to
acquire it.Worse, when the deal's provisions were to sunset this decade, Iran would have
been free to acquire full nuclear capability without pretending it was not.
China is buying time for Iran. Perhaps China believes that its presence in the
region will persuade the United States to show "restraint." The United States
should not take the bait.
The prospects ahead are possibly dark. A change in US administration may likely
see a return to the JCPOA, an end to sanctions and maximum pressure, and an
Iranian sense of having won a major struggle with the "Great Satan." That is not
a prospect America's allies want to accept. The United States should not risk
waiting, either.
The world knows that the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) never ended -- or even
intended to end -- Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The ticking clocks you
hear denote a race between America and its allies pursuing the destruction of
Iran's nuclear weapons program on the one hand, and Iran's sprint to the bomb
and an umbrella of terror on the other. (Image source: iStock)
In 2013, Danny Danon, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister, warned that Iran was
speedily moving to develop advanced centrifuges that will enable it to enrich
uranium needed for nuclear weapons within one month. "We have made it crystal
clear ," Danon said, "Israel will not stand by and watch Iran develop weaponry
that will put us, the entire Middle East and eventually the world, under an
Iranian umbrella of terror."
This concern was shared by the United States and thus, in 2015, a nuclear
agreement -- the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) -- was made
between the United States, along with Russia, China, France, Great Britain and
Germany, and supposedly Iran, which never signed the deal. Ostensibly Iran would
give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons and the U.S. would withdraw its economic
sanctions.
Iran, of course, had no intention of giving up its pursuit of nuclear weapons;
contrary to what JCPOA supporters claimed, the Iranians, even under the JCPOA
deal, could continue pursuing their quest for nuclear capability. This
"loophole" was clear especially after it was revealed the Obama administration
had conceded that Iran had a right to enrich uranium, which is not required for
"peaceful" nuclear energy.
It cannot therefore be a surprise that Iran is still sprinting toward
deliverable nuclear weapons with the very uranium enrichment technology
permitted by the 2015 agreement. While the U.S. Senate was told the deal would
halt Iran's pursuit of nuclear weaponry, the deal only camouflaged the mullahs'
ambitions to acquire it.
Worse, when the deal's provisions were to sunset this decade, Iran would have
been free to acquire full nuclear capability without pretending it was not.
At the time of the 2015 deal, the Obama administration warned that Iran was
probably a year way from having enough nuclear material to fashion a bomb. Now,
it is reported by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International
Security (ISIS) that until recently, Iran was no more than one or two months
away from a nuclear weapons capability.
Some people take solace in the partial destruction of the building at Natanz
that housed many of Iran's centrifuges, in which a mysterious explosion occurred
in early July. Although ISIS says the damage is serious, other sources say the
hall underneath the building, where the centrifuges are located, was not
destroyed.
The Natanz facility, which was finished in 2018, was to mass-produce thousands
of advanced centrifuges for nuclear weapons fuel production. It took six years
for the building to be completed; it is important to remember that Iran was
building its major nuclear weapons capability all during the negotiations that
led up to the JCPOA deal and for three years afterward.
As the United States, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel have argued all
this time, Iran's Islamic rulers never gave up their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Obviously, somebody took these arguments seriously: Natanz, a key facility in
the Iranian nuclear program, was likely bombed. Some experts say to rebuild the
facility will take upwards of two years, while others say the nuclear program is
only delayed by a few months. The latter opinion is supported by the fact that
Iran maintains numerous complexes for nuclear weapons work and, as noted, the
centrifuge hall under Natanz is said to remain intact.
Throughout all this, critics still maintain that the United States policy of
"maximum pressure" is what drives the Iranians to accelerate their quest for
nuclear weapons.
Their solution? The U.S. should rejoin the JCPOA!
Such arguments fall apart for a number of reasons. First, the Iranians have
never given up their pursuit of nuclear weapons: they never complied with the
JCPOA from its start. Second, as USAF General and former CIA Director Michael
Hayden explained, the JCPOA actually allowed Iran to build an "industrial
strength nuclear program" with a capability that served no other purpose than to
allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. And third, the
"maximum pressure" campaign seems to be working, and working so well that it
drove the Iranians to make a fateful decision: sprint to a nuclear weapon and
risk being found out -- or suffer further economic deterioration that would
eventually bankrupt Iran and threaten the survivability of the regime.
The mullahs obviously chose to continue their sprint to a bomb. They enriched
more uranium, refused IAEA inspections for military sites where nuclear work was
done, illegally sought nuclear technology from Germany, and expanded their
violations of the JCPOA, all the while trying to keep the U.S. military at bay
and enticing the Europeans to increase investment and trade.
The strategy might have worked: the White House is reluctant to go to war in an
election year, even if the U.S. could destroy the entire Iranian nuclear weapons
program. After America tried regime change in Iraq to eliminate Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction, "not again" became the Pentagon watchword. With
U.S. military leaders remaining wary of an escalation of rising tensions between
Iran and the United States, the mullahs are counting on U.S. restraint to shield
them from attack.
U.S. restraint is one thing, but what about the friends of the United States? In
1981, for instance, the Israelis destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq
with a perilous long-range air attack without air-to-air refueling. Then, in
September 2007, the Israelis destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria that was being
built by North Korea and paid for with Iranian cash.
In short, the U.S. may not need to end Iran's nuclear weapons program by "going
to war," the argument used by JCPOA supporters who said that the U.S. had a
choice either to agree to a flawed nuclear deal (even one allowing Iran
eventually to get nuclear weapons) or go to war. A better choice is to recognize
that the United States has allies that could get the job done, such as an
Israeli government that understands how to deal with difficult military
problems, and a Saudi Arabia willing to help with matters such as over-flight
permission and airfield use to refuel returning airplanes.
The Iranian leadership knows this. They understand they are facing an alliance
of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United States and Israel, all of which see
the JCPOA as a dangerous failure. The mullahs also know that all the Middle East
allies need to "get the job done" is an American green light.
As a result of that understanding, current events, and sanctions, Iran is
seeking to be rescued by China. Although first explored in 2016, and to a degree
previewed last year, the Iranian government has now formalized a new historic
deal with China. In exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in promised
investment, Iran is promising cheap oil for 25 years and access to the Persian
Gulf for military facilities and bases.
As one analyst put it, Iran is "selling its soul to China," apparently giving up
on Europe to provide enough investment to prop up its economy. China is buying
time for Iran. Perhaps China believes that its presence in the region will
persuade the United States to show "restraint."
The United States should not take the bait. It is clear that Iran is "crossing
important [nuclear] thresholds that dangerously reduce its breakout time" to
anywhere from two to four months, according to John Hannah of the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies.
Combined with IAEA concerns over the equipment and nuclear material at two sites
targeted for inspection but denied access by Iran, it is obvious the nuclear
weapons threat from Iran is only getting worse. In addition, in April, Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), launched a military satellite into
orbit. It was no doubt a prelude to a nuclear-armed missile being launched.
The prospects ahead are possibly dark. A change in U.S. administration may
likely see a return to the JCPOA, an end to sanctions and maximum pressure, and
an Iranian sense of having won a major struggle with the "Great Satan." That is
not a prospect American allies in the Middle East want to accept. The United
States should not risk waiting, either.
The world knows that the JCPOA never ended -- or even intended to end -- Iran's
pursuit of nuclear weapons. The ticking clocks you hear denote a race between
America and its allies pursuing the destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons
program on the one hand, and Iran's sprint to the bomb and an umbrella of terror
on the other.
*Peter Huessy is Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell
Institute. He is also senior consulting analyst at Ravenna Associates, a
strategic communications company.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.