LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
June 01/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.june01.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’ For it is not those who commend themselves that are approved, but those whom the Lord commends
Second Letter to the Corinthians 10/12-18: “We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another, and compare themselves with one another, they do not show good sense. We, however, will not boast beyond limits, but will keep within the field that God has assigned to us, to reach out even as far as you. For we were not overstepping our limits when we reached you; we were the first to come all the way to you with the good news of Christ. We do not boast beyond limits, that is, in the labours of others; but our hope is that, as your faith increases, our sphere of action among you may be greatly enlarged, so that we may proclaim the good news in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in someone else’s sphere of action.‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’ For it is not those who commend themselves that are approved, but those whom the Lord commends.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on June 01/2019
Nasrallah Warns Region to Burn if Iran Attacked, Slams Hariri's Mecca Stance
Hezbollah Cautiously Monitoring US Move to Launch Border Demarcation With Israel
Lebanon’s President: We Seek to Develop Health Sector, Elevate Hospitalization Level
Mike Pompeo calls on Germany to ban Hezbollah as UK did
Aoun: Investigations into Irregularities Will Take Legal Course
Hariri at Mecca Summit: Arab Solidarity is the Path to Stability
IAEA Says Iran's Stocks of Nuclear Materials Still within Limits
We Won't Give Anything to Israel', Says Bassil on Border Demarcation
Lebanon Aims to Cut Budget Deficit to 4% by 2023
Saudi Embassy Denies Report on Bin Salman Visit to Lebanon
Sami Gemayel Criticizes New 2019 State Budget
Jumblat Says Citizens are Victims of 'Security Agencies Duel'
Jreissati Defends Bassil and Military Court Ruling on al-Hajj
Mashnouq from Dar al-Fatwa: Bassil Sabotaging Balance in Country
Mideast Protests in Iran, Lebanon, Elsewhere Mark 'Jerusalem Day'
Mustaqbal, Ziad Itani React to Acquittal of al-Hajj
Qabalan: Fitr moonsighting Tuesday
Bassil at news conference with Spanish FM: We hold onto our rights in border demarcation dossier
Washington's Arming Of The Lebanese Army Is An Own Goal
Analysis/Trump's Peace Plan Would Give Palestinian Refugees Many, Many Countries

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on June 01/2019
Arab League condemns Houthis, Iran’s behavior in final communique
Jubeir: World leaders realize Iran should act as a country, not a revolution
Islamic countries voice commitment to Palestinian cause as King Salman hosts Makkah summit
The OIC meeting called 'Hand in hand towards a future,' was the final meeting of a week of gatherings in Makkah
Two hostages, Swiss gunman die after Zurich standoff
GCC Summit Communique Supports US Measures Against Iran, Stresses Joint Defense Agreement
Houthis an ‘arm of Iran that threatens Yemen’s existence’
Algerians rally for change despite arrests
Abbas Officially Informs Bahrain of His Absence From Manama Workshop
LNA Spots Turkey-Sent Arms Shipment
US Peace Plan Might Be Postponed Until Next Fall
Morocco Launches Investigation Into Iron Market Glut
Pakistani FM to AAWSAT: Islamic Summit to Avoid War
King Salman Urges Firm Stand to Deter Iran

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on June 01/2019
Nasrallah Warns Region to Burn if Iran Attacked, Slams Hariri's Mecca Stance/Agence France Presse/Associated Press/Naharnet/May 31/2019
Washington's Arming Of The Lebanese Army Is An Own Goal/Ilan Zalayat/Jerusalem Post/May 31/2019
Analysis/Trump's Peace Plan Would Give Palestinian Refugees Many, Many Countries/Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/May 31/2019
Arab League condemns Houthis, Iran’s behavior in final communique/Al Arabiya/May 31/2019
GCC Summit Communique Supports US Measures Against Iran, Stresses Joint Defense Agreement/Makkah- Asharq Al-Awsat/May 31/2019
Is Peaceful Regime Change In Iran Possible?/Eric Mandel/Jerusalem Post/May 31/2019
Huawei Ban Threatens Wireless Service in Rural Areas/.Opheim Mont. - Cecilia Kang/The New York Times/May 31/2019
What Is Bernie Sanders Worried About?/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/May 31/2019
Netanyahu Should Talk to European Nationalists/Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/May 31, 2019
The New Smear Machine: Guilt by Association/Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/May 31/2019
How the Russian Orthodox Church survived communist rule/Peter Welby/Arab News/May 31/2019
Bahrain workshop must avoid repeating previous mistakes/Ray Hanania/Arab News/May 31/2019
Iraqi Kurdish leader faces a delicate balancing act/Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/May 31/2019

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on June 01/2019
Nasrallah Warns Region to Burn if Iran Attacked, Slams Hariri's Mecca Stance
Agence France Presse/Associated Press/Naharnet/May 31/2019
Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah warned on Friday that if there was a war against Iran the whole Middle East region would "erupt," amid escalating U.S.-Iranian tensions. U.S. President Donald "Trump, his administration, and his intelligence know well that any war on Iran will not remain confined to Iran's borders," Nasrallah said. "Any war on Iran will mean the whole region will erupt," said the head of the Iran-backed movement in a televised speech marking Quds Day, explaining that such a war was therefore unlikely. "And any American forces and American interests will be permissible" as a target, he said. Hizbullah is listed as a "terrorist group" by the United States, and has fought several wars with U.S ally Israel. Nasrallah on Friday also slammed a proposed U.S. peace deal to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Trump has dubbed "the deal of the century". "It's a void deal... a historic crime," he said of the plan, that has already been rejected by the Palestinians as it is expected to largely favor Israel. "This deal is a loss of Palestinian, Arab, and Islamic rights," Nasrallah said. Nasrallah also rejected what he called U.S. conditions for mediating a border and maritime dispute with Israel.He said that Washington is "using the talks" to discuss, and even make threats over, degrading his group's capabilities, bringing up an Israeli claim that Hizbullah has precision missile factories.
Nasrallah acknowledged his group has the weapons but denied it produces them. "We have precision missiles in Lebanon, and enough to be able to change the face of the region," he said. "So far in Lebanon there are no factories for precision missiles," he added. Nasrallah threatened for the first time, however, that Hizbullah could consider setting up such factories if Washington continues to use the talks on border demarcation to discuss his group's capabilities. He said it is Lebanon's right to defend itself. "The Americans have no business with this. It is our right to have weapons to defend our countries and it is our right to manufacture any weapons." A U.S. official has been shuttling between Israel and Lebanon, technically still at war, to settle the dispute. Washington considers Hizbullah a terrorist group. Nasrallah said he is supportive of the Lebanese government's positions in the talks. "My problem is allowing such discussion (of Hizbullah's capabilities)" he said. "This door must be closed."
Moreover, Nasrallah boasted that "today the axis of resistance is stronger than ever, contrary to what some are claiming." He also said that the Lebanese delegation's stance at Mecca's emergency Arab Summit is "rejected and condemned," noring that "it does not conform to the government's policy statement or dissociation policy." Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Saad Hariri condemned what he called "continuous attempts to infiltrate the Arab societies," in reference to Iran. He also strongly deplored "the attacks on the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," calling for "the widest Arab solidarity in confronting them."

Hezbollah Cautiously Monitoring US Move to Launch Border Demarcation With Israel
Beirut- Paula Astih/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 31 May, 2019/Hezbollah is cautiously monitoring the US move to mediate between Lebanon and Israel on border demarcation negotiations currently underway by Acting US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ambassador David Satterfield. The party appears to have succumbed to the government’s decision to proceed with the new US mediation, although it is still likely to be dealing with the US as an “impartial mediator” in the demarcation negotiations, as declared by Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah last year when he said that America was “Israel’s lawyer” in this battle. However, in a recent statement, Nasrallah stressed that the “resistance supports the position of the State and stands behind it.”The party insists that the Lebanese State should deal with any negotiations from a position of strength, arguing that if the Israelis could prevent Lebanon from obtaining oil and gas, Lebanon could also stop them from accessing this wealth. According to sources in March 8 forces, Hezbollah maintains that the demarcation of the land and maritime borders should be completed simultaneously. Lebanese negotiators have conveyed this demand to Satterfield. In addition, Hezbollah categorically rejects any compromise on the Lebanese territories, as Western sources have circulated proposals that Lebanon will abandon five out of 13 points of disputed land, over which the country had stressed its sovereignty. The sources added that Hezbollah was absolutely against any proposal that would lead to abandoning an inch of Lebanese territories, whether at sea or land. The head of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis – INEGMA, Riad Kahwaji, said that Lebanon today had a unique opportunity to demarcate its borders. “Therefore, any party that will try to sabotage what is happening means that it does not seek Lebanon’s supreme interest,” he noted.“The good and wise Lebanese option is to deal positively with the issue,” Kahwaji told Asharq Al-Awsat. Kahwaji said that the main question that arises at this stage is “whether Tehran is ready to abandon the tension in southern Lebanon or it will continue to exploit it for its own geopolitical purposes.”

Lebanon’s President: We Seek to Develop Health Sector, Elevate Hospitalization Level
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 31 May, 2019/Lebanese President Michel Aoun said on Thursday he was adamant to develop the public health sector in Lebanon, in a way that delivers best medical and hospitalization services to citizens.
Aoun was speaking at the ceremony to lay the cornerstone of the new health facility of the American University of Beirut's Medical Center (AUBMC). "We aspire to develop the health sector in Lebanon," Aoun said, stressing the paramount importance of raising the standards of government-run hospitals, at the organization, care and treatment levels, to restore citizens' faith in public health care domain. “We long to see the doors of the hospitals open for every citizen, and not allow them to die on their doorsteps,” the President said.
Health Minister Jamil Jabak had previously said that his ministry would cancel contracts with any hospital that denies admission to patients, who cannot afford the fees. Welcoming Aoun upon his arrival at the ceremony was President of the American University of Beirut Dr. Fadlo Khoury, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Mohammed Sayegh, and Chairman of the Board of Trustees Dr. Philip Khoury. The AUBMC's new center foundation ceremony was attended by scores of political and concerned dignitaries, including Vice Prime Minister Ghassan Hasbani, Ministers Selim Jreissati, Elias Bou Saab, Albert Serhan and Mohammed Daoud, in addition to US Chargé d'Affaires, Edward White. Aoun stressed the substantial need to consecrate and highlight Lebanon's distinguished and eminent message as a hub for hospitalization, tourism, openness, modernity, culture and science. “Lebanon was, and still is, the hospital, the university, the book, the newspaper, the tourism, the nature and the openness. This is the Lebanon we need to strengthen,” Aoun stressed. Former minister Raed Khoury met with Aoun on Thursday at the Baabda Palace to discuss the economic situation in the country. He said the President insists that the reform operation in Lebanon becomes constant, and not periodic.

Mike Pompeo calls on Germany to ban Hezbollah as UK did
ARAB NEWS/May 31/2019/The UK banned Hezbollah early this year, calling it “terrorist organization”. Pompeo is in Germany as part of a four-nation European trip. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Germany to also ban the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah during his state visit on Friday, saying it should follow the UK’s lead. The UK banned Hezbollah early this year, calling it “terrorist organization.”Pompeo made his first visit to Germany as secretary of state at the start of a four-nation European trip as tensions rise between the US and Iran. Pompeo was set to meet Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin on Friday before continuing to Switzerland, which has long represented Washington's interests in Tehran and has in the past been an intermediary between the two. Germany is one of the signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers that is trying to keep it alive after the U.S. withdrew last year. Pompeo's stop in Berlin makes up for a visit that he abruptly called off in early May to fly to Iraq. He is also traveling to the Netherlands and Britain.

Aoun: Investigations into Irregularities Will Take Legal Course
Naharnet/May 31/2019/President Michel Aoun on Friday said that approving the country’s 2019 state budget helps achieve financial regularity, which will be given priority in the upcoming draft budget of 2020. Aoun also confirmed that investigations into administrative and employment violations “will take their legal course,” and “will put an end to tax evasion.”The President’s remarks came at a meeting with a delegation of the Association of Lebanese Businessmen where discussions focused on the economic situation.

Hariri at Mecca Summit: Arab Solidarity is the Path to Stability
Naharnet/May 31/2019/Prime Minister Saad Hariri stressed at the Mecca Summit that Arab solidarity remains the strongest weapon in the hands of Arabs, Hariri’s press office said in a press release on Friday. The Arab Extraordinary Summit, discussing the developments in the Arab region, started at 1:00 am in Mecca and ended at 2:30 am. It was held in al-Safa Palace under the chairmanship of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz. In his speech Hariri said: “President of the Summit, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz, Majesties, Excellencies, distinguished guests, Peace and the blessings of God be upon you, First, I would like to convey to you the greetings of His Excellency President Michel Aoun, and the wishes of the Lebanese people for the success of the Summit, which is taking place while of challenges are facing Arab countries and societies. We do not need much effort to describe the tragic reality of some brotherly states, a reality that arises mainly from external interference in their internal affairs and has security, social and economic effects on the surrounding countries, including Lebanon, which paid in the past decades a heavy price for the Israeli attacks and the wars of others on its land. Lebanon is also paying a very high price for hosting hundreds of thousands of Syrian brothers that escaped the ongoing fire in Syria. It is an occasion to confirm, in light of media and intelligence reports, Lebanon’s refusal of all settlement projects, and the commitment of the Lebanese to the Constitution and the National Accord. The Lebanese appeal to their Arab brothers to protect the Lebanese formula from the region’s storms and ask them to help them find an urgent solution to the Syrian displacement tragedy and block the continuous attempts to infiltrate the Arab societies. I also emphasize our support for the Palestinian people in their struggle to achieve their rights and establish an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.
Lebanon came out of its ordeal when the Arab brothers joined efforts to help and support it by achieving the Taef Accord in this blessed country. We strongly condemn the attacks on the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and call for the widest Arab solidarity in confronting them. Arab solidarity remains the strongest weapon in the hands of Arabs and the countries reunited here today on the protection of the Arab identity. We in Lebanon look forward to this solidarity and bet on it to activate the Arab joint action and find in it a path to reach the stability required on all levels, and to curb any irresponsible escalation in the region and any violation of the requirements of neighborhood and dialogue. Lebanon is an integral part of this nation and a founding member of the Arab League. It will not renounce this affiliation under any circumstances and will remain loyal to the loyalty of its brothers and to the development of its relations with them.The meeting in Mecca is a meeting on unity, faith and wisdom, a meeting on the good among all Muslims to face all kinds of discord. We are in the purest land, and ask God Almighty to unite the Arabs, protect their lands and help them address their issues with wisdom, patience and consultation. We thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people for their hospitality and we thank the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in the land of the Two Holy Mosques.”

IAEA Says Iran's Stocks of Nuclear Materials Still within Limits
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 31/2019/Iran's stocks of key nuclear materials have increased but are still within the limits set by a 2015 deal with world powers, the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on the matter said Friday. Despite an announcement from Iran earlier this month that it no longer considered itself bound by the agreed restrictions on stocks of enriched uranium and heavy water, stocks of both did not exceed the ceilings set in the 2015 agreement, the report said. As of May 26, Iran had 125.2 metric tonnes of heavy water, an increase of 0.4 tonnes on February but stilم under the 130-tonne limit. As of 20 May, Iran had 174.1 kg of enriched uranium, up from 163.8kg in February but again well within the relevant of limit 300kg. Earlier this month Iran announced it was suspending some of its commitments under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The move came a year after US President Donald Trump pulled out of the deal. His administration has also reinforced economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

We Won't Give Anything to Israel', Says Bassil on Border Demarcation
Naharnet/May 31/2019/Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil on Friday stressed that Lebanon is clinging to its rights regarding the demarcation of the land and maritime borders with Israel, noting that “the talks that will be held are in Lebanon's interest.”“We won't give anything to Israel. We will recover a usurped land and we will gain sovereignty over a stolen land or a maritime zone we consider to be Lebanese,” Bassil said during a joint press conference with his Spanish counterpart Josep Borrell in Madrid. “Anything that allows us to recover them or carry out gas, petroleum or oil activities in them is a win for Lebanon,” he added. “Today there is an opportunity to recover our rights and it should not be wasted,” Bassil went on to say. The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said Tuesady that Lebanon and Israel are close to establishing a framework for negotiations on demarcating the Lebanese-Israeli land and maritime borders.
In a statement, it said the form of negotiations to be held under United Nations auspices and the role of each of the concerned parties is still being worked out. The purported negotiations are to be overseen by Washington, which has been mediating between Lebanon and Israel. Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz's office said Monday in a statement that such talks could be "for the good of both countries' interests in developing natural gas reserves and oil."

Lebanon Aims to Cut Budget Deficit to 4% by 2023
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/May 31/2019/Lebanon hopes to slash its public deficit to less than 4 percent of GDP over the next five years, a top adviser said Friday, as part of measures to unlock key aid.The tiny Mediterranean country -- one of the most indebted in the world -- last year notched up a deficit of 11.5 percent of the GDP, the World Bank says. The Cabinet on Monday approved an austerity budget to access billions of dollars in aid to boost the country's ailing economy. The plan, reached after weeks of talks and still to be ratified by parliament, aims to reduce Lebanon's deficit to 7.59 percent by the end of the current year. But Nadim Mounla, who advises Prime Minister Saad Hariri, on Friday said the country hoped to further cut that deficit by the end of 2023. "The objective is to hit between 3.5 and 4 percent by 2023," he told journalists. Donors at the so-called CEDRE conference last year in Paris pledged $11 billion in aid and soft loans to Lebanon, which has promised to reduce its public spending including on electricity. The state power company receives one of the largest slices of the government's budget after debt servicing and salaries. "In 2020 we're expecting a further decline in the deficit coming from power sector," Mounla said. The government hopes to reduce spending on electricity subsidies by half by next year, he said. The adviser said donors have earmarked more than $1 billion of CEDRE commitments that are "in the pipeline," without providing further details. Growth in Lebanon has plummeted in the wake of repeated political deadlocks in recent years, compounded by the 2011 breakout of civil war in neighboring Syria. The country has been racking up public debt since the end of its own 1975-1990 civil war, which now stands at more than 150 percent of GDP, according to the finance ministry.

Saudi Embassy Denies Report on Bin Salman Visit to Lebanon
Naharnet/May 31/2019/The Saudi embassy in Beirut on Friday denied a media report claiming that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman intends to visit Lebanon in June.“What is being circulated by some electronic and news websites about a visit to Lebanon next month by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is baseless. We call on journalist brothers to verify information before publishing,” the embassy's press office said in a statement. Lebanon's privately-owned al-Markazia news agency had reported earlier on Friday that bin Salman would visit Beirut next month on a trip that would coincide with the launch of the CEDRE economic plan. “French President Emmanuel Macron will also visit Beirut” for the CEDRE launch, the agency said.

Sami Gemayel Criticizes New 2019 State Budget
Naharnet/May 31/2019/Kataeb party chief Sami Gemayel on Friday criticized the 2019 state budget saying it will trigger an “economic stagnation” and affect the people’s “purchasing power.”“Taxes will hit the entire Lebanese, and the %2 increase imposed on imports will lead to an increase in the overall prices,” said Gemayel during a press conference at the party's headquarters in al-Saifi. Gemayel said the new budget violates the constitution in terms of respect for deadlines and the accounting records. “The budget as presented includes flagrant violations of the constitution, and includes wrong figures” he said, lamenting any government measures to boost the economy instead of imposition of taxes. Last week, Lebanon's government approved a long-awaited austerity budget aimed at rescuing an economy crumbling under massive debt and unlocking billions in international aid. The new budget is expected to trim Lebanon's deficit to 7.59 percent of gross domestic product -- a nearly 4-point drop from the previous year. The draft budget still needs to be approved by parliament.

Jumblat Says Citizens are Victims of 'Security Agencies Duel'
Naharnet/May 31/2019/Progressive Socialist Party leader ex-MP Walid Jumblat on Friday lamented that “ordinary citizens” seem to have become the victim of the clash of security agencies. “The Itani-Ghabash-Hajj farce reminds me of the farce of Khalil Sehnaoui, who was accused of collaboration (with Israel) before being released after an agonizing ordeal because he also was a victim of the duel of agencies, the power struggle and the conflict among those who are in power,” Jumblat tweeted. “But who protects the ordinary citizen?” he asked. On Thursday, the Military Court acquitted Internal Security Forces Lt. Col. Suzanne al-Hajj and sentenced the hacker Elie Ghabash to a year in prison on charges of fabricating electronic evidence to frame the actor Ziad Itani in a spying for Israel case. Itani was cleared of charges and released in March 2018 after spending 109 days in detention. Hajj was briefly detained before being released on bail. Observers believe the case has been influenced by rivalry between the Internal Security Forces and State Security agencies which are respectively backed by the al-Mustaqbal Movement and the Free Patriotic Movement. State Commissioner to the Military Court Judge Peter Germanos, who is close to the FPM, has also been accused of seeking Hajj's acquittal in order to take vengeance on the ISF, which he believes has sought to implicate him in an ongoing probe into judicial corruption.

Jreissati Defends Bassil and Military Court Ruling on al-Hajj
Naharnet/May 31/2019/State Minister for Presidency Affairs Salim Jreissati on Friday threw his support behind Free Patriotic Movement chief and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, who has been criticized by several parties in recent days. “After the Cabinet's approval of the draft state budget, some people returned to the only refrain they're good at: Jebran Bassil, only because he is filling the political life with activeness, communicating with people on the ground and inquiring about their concerns,” Jreissati tweeted. Earlier in the day, Beirut MP and ex-interior minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq lashed out at Bassil, accusing him of “sabotaging balance in the country.” Mashnouq referred to remarks attributed to Bassil in which he allegedly attacks “political Sunnism” and vows to remove Internal Security Forces chief Maj. Gen. Imad Othman from his post. Turning to the Ziad Itani-Suzanne al-Hajj case, Jreissati said “a final ruling issued by competent judicial authorities has infuriated those who have attacked the judiciary and its judges.”On Thursday, the Military Court acquitted Internal Security Forces Lt. Col. Suzanne al-Hajj and sentenced the hacker Elie Ghabash to a year in prison on charges of fabricating electronic evidence to frame Itani in a spying for Israel case. Several political parties have described the ruling that acquitted al-Hajj as politicized.

Mashnouq from Dar al-Fatwa: Bassil Sabotaging Balance in Country
Naharnet/May 31/2019/Beirut MP and ex-interior minister Nouhad al-Mashnouq on Friday lashed out at Free Patriotic Movement chief and Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil, accusing him of “sabotaging balance in the country.”“This deterioration in the issue of the balance of powers must stop and the issue must be settled by those concerned with it. If we go back to the remarks that were voiced against (Prime Minister Saad) Hariri, (Speaker Nabih) Berri, (Progressive Socialist Party chief Walid) Jumblat, (Lebanese Forces leader Samir) Geagea and others, where would that take the country?” Mashnouq warned after meeting Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Daryan at Dar al-Fatwa. “There is a ceaseless series of attacks on all political parties by Bassil... and there is an unacceptable insolence that sabotages balance in the country and we won't tolerate its persistence,” Mashnouq added. “I agreed with Mufti Daryan that the continuation of things in the same manner is not in Lebanon's interest and that it is necessary to reevaluate all the current understandings, settlements or alliances which have only led to further collapse of the political balance in the country,” the former minister went on to say.
Turning to the controversial Military Court ruling in the case of framing the actor Ziad Itani over alleged spying for Israel, Mashnouq said “the days of the Syrian intelligence” in Lebanon “were better.”“The ruling was issued as a result of the interference of senior leaders and we don't understand how the prosecutor backpedaled on everything he had said in the beginning,” Mashnouq added. On Thursday, the Military Court acquitted Internal Security Forces Lt. Col. Suzanne al-Hajj and sentenced the hacker Elie Ghabash to a year in prison in the Ziad Itani framing case. Itani was released in March 2018 after spending 109 days in detention.

Mideast Protests in Iran, Lebanon, Elsewhere Mark 'Jerusalem Day'
Associated Press/Naharnet/May 31/2019/Iranians have begun rallies across the country to mark Quds, or Jerusalem Day, which will see demonstrations across the Mideast as the Trump administration tries to offer an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. The annual protests — also being held in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere — are held on the last Friday of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan. Iran under Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini began the demonstrations to offer support to Palestinians. Israel views Iran as its archenemy in the Mideast. Iran does not recognize Israel and supports the militant groups Hamas and Hizbullah. This year's protests come as the Trump administration is pushing a peace plan whose details remain unknown. It plans an economic summit in June in Bahrain about the deal, but Palestinian leaders say they won't attend.

Mustaqbal, Ziad Itani React to Acquittal of al-Hajj
Naharnet/May 31/2019/Al-Mustaqbal Movement on Thursday blasted the Military Court's acquittal of Internal Security Forces Lt. Col. Suzanne al-Hajj in the case of “fabricating a spying for Israel case for theater actor Ziad Itani.”Mustaqbal secretary-general Ahmed Hariri slammed the ruling as “politicized, vengeful and spiteful.”“A judge is settling personal scores at the expense of justice,” Hariri added in a tweet, apparently referring to State Commissioner to the Military Court Peter Germanos. Mustaqbal's press office meanwhile issued a statement quoting sources close to Prime Minister Saad Hariri as saying that “it would have been better for the Military Court judges to maintain their strike instead of issuing this ruling.” Itani himself stressed that he refuses to turn his cause into a “sectarian” one. “I will not accept to turn a crime committed against me into a crime against the country,” Itani tweeted, stressing that he will press on with his lawsuit and that he will “expose the big heads.”Earlier in the day, the Military Court acquitted al-Hajj and sentenced the hacker Elie Ghabash to a year in prison. The court, however, sentenced Hajj to two months in jail -- which can be substituted by a LBP 200,000 fine -- on charges of "withholding information."Itani was released in March 2018 after spending 109 days in detention. He shot to prominence in recent years because of a series of comedy plays on Beirut, its customs and the transformations it has undergone in recent decades. The works -- particularly "Beirut Tariq al-Jedideh", which refers to a majority-Sunni neighborhood of the city -- have been very well-received. Before becoming an actor, Itani worked as a journalist with Lebanon-based Al-Mayadeen television and with various regional newspapers.

Qabalan: Fitr moonsighting Tuesday
Fri 31 May 2019/NNA – Head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council, Sheikh Abdul Amir Qabalan, indicated in a statement on Friday that the moonsighting for Fitr Day shall take place forthcoming Tuesday at sunset.

Bassil at news conference with Spanish FM: We hold onto our rights in border demarcation dossier
Fri 31 May 2019/NNA – Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil on Friday renewed Lebanon’s holding onto its rights in the border demarcation dossier, stressing that the related talks that will take place are in favor of Lebanon. “We won’t give Israel anything but we will rather recuperate a once-stolen land and sovereignty over a zone that we deem belonging to Lebanon,” Bassil told a news conference he held jointly with his Spanish counterpart, Josep Borrell. “What matters is Lebanon’s ability to obtain its rights and make gains,” he said. “Today, there is a chance to recuperate our rights and we must not miss it,” he added. On the displaced Syrians’ issue, Bassil highlighted the necessity of an action plan that involves Lebanon, Europe, Russia and the US to end this dossier and assure refugees’ repatriation to the safe areas in Syria. Moreover, he highlighted Lebanon’s utter rejection of refugee settlement, calling for the return of Palestinians to their land to establish their state in Palestine.On a different note, Bassil thanked Spain for its contribution to the UNIFIL. “Our role today is to defuse and not to fuel tensions, since Lebanon is part of the solution and it constitutes a bridge of communication between the sides at loggerheads to protect itself,” he underlined.

Washington's Arming Of The Lebanese Army Is An Own Goal
Ilan Zalayat/Jerusalem Post/May 31/2019
ايلان زلايات/ يروزالم بوست: تسليح واشنطن للجيش اللبناني هو لغايات خاصة بها
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75348/%d8%a7%d9%8a%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%b2%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%ac%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%b2%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85-%d8%a8%d9%88%d8%b3%d8%aa-%d8%aa%d8%b3%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%ad-%d9%88%d8%a7%d8%b4%d9%86/
Today Hezbollah is not just a part of the government, but even its local opponents – headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri – have accepted its legitimacy as an armed group and political component.
The Trump administration is boosting its “maximum pressure” policy against Iran, but the US remains the main benefactor of the Lebanese Armed Forces, despite it having been penetrated and influenced by Hezbollah, the powerful and loyal proxy of Tehran in Lebanon. This paradoxical situation is based on a misconception, and as such it must be stopped.
During the first few months of 2019, the US imposed new sanctions targeting fund-raising sources of Hezbollah, listed by Washington as a terror group in 1997 and responsible for the killing of hundreds of Americans, as well as posing a severe military threat to Israel.
At the very same time, under the radar, shipments of American advanced military equipment have landed in Beirut, suggesting that the current administration is continuing the strategy of its two predecessors to strengthen the military forces of the Middle Eastern country: Since 2005, the US has provided the Lebanese army with aid valued at $2.3 billion – including tanks, light aircraft, and drones – thus becoming the source of about 80% of its equipment, in addition to training more than 30,000 Lebanese soldiers. While no one is deluded that the Lebanese army could confront and disarm Hezbollah, the military support is presumably supposed to turn the army into a strong governmental force that would pose a moderate counterweight to Hezbollah within the Lebanese arena. This is a very simple and logical rationale, but its only flaw is that it belongs in the past.
The hard truth is that Hezbollah and the Lebanese state are, in fact, no longer two different entities. The radical Shi’ite organization, which has both military and civilian branches, has turned to politics over the years, and has gradually become an intrinsic part of the Lebanese political system.
During the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese government had disavowed the organization. Today, however, Hezbollah is not just a part of the government, but even its local opponents – headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri – have accepted its legitimacy as both an armed group and political component.
In the elections held last year, the political bloc that is dominated by Hezbollah gained decisive power in the parliament and the cabinet, including in nominating the president (a position filled today by Hezbollah’s ally, Michel Aoun).
Considering the vast identification and affection Hezbollah currently maintains in Lebanon, particularly among the Shi’ite sect – which encompasses between 30% to 40% of the population, many of whom are employed by, study at or receive social services from Hezbollah’s civil affiliations – the expectation that the local armed forces would remain impartial was somewhat naive.
This illustrates how the lessons from five years ago, when the US-equipped Iraqi army collapsed in the face of ISIS, have yet to be learned, proving that the backing of states’ governmental forces must be carried out in tandem with taking account of the particular social context.
Indeed, Hezbollah has been significantly increasing its sway over the Lebanese army: Last year, Israeli intelligence reports pointed out operational and intelligence collaboration between the army and Hezbollah, such as joint patrols in which Hezbollah members wore army uniforms.
Further, the organization has been able to infiltrate its agents into the ranks of the army as soldiers and officers. For instance, a unit commander in the Israeli border area with a high rank was exposed as a Hezbollah insider. In military parades in 2016, Hezbollah itself showed off US-made armored personnel carriers, presumably taken from the Lebanese military. In general, the army is proving time after time its incompetence – or unwillingness – to prevent Hezbollah’s increasing buildup, which largely consists of Iranian weapons systems smuggled into the country, either under the nose of the army or in its tacit consent.
Although the decision-makers in Washington seem to be aware of these realities, in advocating the armament of the Lebanese military, American officials have stressed that this aid is crucial to prevent external menaces to Lebanon – such as another destructive war between Hezbollah and Israel, or spillover of the war in Syria into Lebanon.
Yet, these arguments still do not hold true. Regarding the tensions with Israel, the Lebanese military is clearly not fulfilling the mission assigned to it in the UN resolution following the 2006 war: to enforce the prohibition on Hezbollah from being in the southern region adjacent to Israel. In December, it was revealed that Hezbollah had dug military tunnels right under the Israeli border.
Sources within the UN peacekeeping force even accused the Lebanese army last year of helping Hezbollah to violate the resolution, by preventing the UN inspectors from reaching the border villages in which the organization hides its weapons. As for the threats looming from Syria, the US-backed Lebanese army was not successful in undertaking the low-scale military challenge of defending northeastern Lebanon, which was faced in the recent years with jihadi infiltration from Syria. Instead, Hezbollah – yes, Hezbollah – was called in to accomplish this national duty.
The temptation to bolster the Lebanese forces to enhance Lebanon’s sovereignty is understandable, but given the discernible clout of Hezbollah over the Lebanese army, the insistence to continue to distinguish between the two is not merely a fruitless investment, but pure malpractice that endangers the security of both Lebanon and Israel.
Halting the military aid to Lebanon could be a last-ditch wake-up call to the local opposition against Hezbollah – and everyone concerned with the country’s sovereignty – clarifying that they must strive to push Hezbollah out of power. Under the current circumstances, the American armament of the Lebanese army is an own goal for the US.
*The writer is a Middle East and security analyst.

Analysis/Trump's Peace Plan Would Give Palestinian Refugees Many, Many Countries
تحليل سياسي من الهآرتس لزفي بارئيل: خطة ترامب للسلام تعطي اللاجئين الفلسطينيين بلدان كثيرة وكثيرة
Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/May 31/2019
التحليل يتناول جهود السفير الأميركي ديفيد ساترفيلد التوسط بين لبنان وإسرائيل فيما يتعلق بترسيم الحدود بين البلدين والتوصل إلى اتفاق يرضي الطرفين للبدأ باستخراج الغاز والنفط على الحدود المشتركة والتحليل يقول بأن موقف أميركا المتساهل حيال لبنان إسرائلياً والذي يحمله سترفيلد هو في مقابل أن يؤيد لبنان خطة ترامب للسلام ويعطي الجنسية اللبنانية إلى اللاجئين الفلسطينيين المقيمين في لبنان
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75344/%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%AA%D8%B3-%D9%84%D8%B2%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%A9/
By taking a soft stance with Beirut in border demarcation talks, the U.S. is hoping Lebanon will provide citizenship to its Palestinian refugees and support its Mideast peace plan
American diplomat David Satterfield is currently shaking things up in Lebanon. In the space of about two weeks, the acting assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Near East Affairs has visited Beirut twice to mediate between Lebanon and Israel on demarcating the land and maritime border between the two countries. Satterfield, who speaks perfect Arabic and has served in the Middle East for about 40 years - including a stint as ambassador to Lebanon in 1998 - is a familiar but not necessarily well-liked figure among Lebanese officials.
Now that he is representing the Trump administration in such sensitive negotiations, he is perceived as mainly serving Israel's interests, and that is precisely what the Lebanese are concerned about. According to Lebanese commentators, the demarcation of the Israeli-Lebanese frontier may be the focus of the talks, but as they see it, it is clear that there is also "a hidden agenda."
The newspaper Al-Akhbar has reported that at a meeting about two weeks ago Satterfield presented hardline conditions for continued talks, reflecting a pro-Israel bias. According to the reports, the talks on the maritime border would be separate from the land border. The United States would be the only mediator and sponsor of the talks, and the negotiations would be conducted for half a year at most.
Lebanon rejected most of these demands. It wants the negotiations to be unlimited in time so that all of the issues are resolved, and demanded that the talks be under United Nations auspices, and that the two tracks, the maritime and land border, be discussed together.
Beirut believes that Israel is seeking to accelerate the negotiations so that it can can begin signing contracts for drilling in the Mediterranean with foreign oil companies, and without an agreement on the location of the border, no company will begin drilling.
But this week, according to these reports, Satterfield arrived with encouraging responses, to the effect that the United States (meaning Israel) is prepared to discuss the land and sea frontiers together and that the talks would be held under UN wardship - with the participation of American representatives. A territory swap between Israel and Lebanon was also proposed to make it possible to quickly demarcate the stretches of the border that are still in dispute, but talks do not include the frontier in the Shaba Farms area, which the UN Blue Line draws as part of the Golan Heights.
What caused the United States and Israel, which have usually been insistent over every comma, to retreat from their prior position? In Lebanon, the amazing flexibility is attributed to Trump's peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The perception at this time is that the U.S. is pressing to bring Lebanon on board with Trump's "deal of the century" by granting Lebanese citizenship to Palestinian refugees living in the country.
In the process, this is seen as defusing the issue of the right of return of refugees to Israel, which has been a major obstacle to resolving the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to UNRWA, the UN's Palestinian refugee relief agency, there are about 450,000 Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon. Amnesty International, for its part, pegs the number at about 300,000, and about two years ago, a Lebanese panel found that the real number is no greater than about 174,000, following a census taken for the first time in the country's 13 official refugee camps and among concentrations of Palestinians elsewhere in the country.
The figure aroused major controversy in Lebanon, with Hezbollah and its political partners claiming that the census was conducted under American pressure designed to underreport the real numbers, thus making possible the claim that Lebanon can absorb a population of such size without particular difficulty.
From the Lebanese standpoint, it really doesn't matter how many refugees are living in Lebanon. The Lebanese constitution provides that the country's territory is indivisible and that refugees living there are not to be given citizenship. The official reason for this is that absorption of Palestinian refugees would harm the legitimacy of their claim to the right of return, would remove the primary basis for the fight against Israel and free it of historic responsibility for the refugee problem.
Lebanon's Shi'ite Muslim Hezbollah movement has another reason to oppose giving the refugees Lebanese citizenship, related to the delicate demographic balance in the country, which dictates how political power in the country is allocated. Simply put, the addition of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Sunni Muslims to the Lebanese population would undermine it. Hezbollah is concerned that the Trump peace plan, which according to recent leaks is expected to provide Lebanon with tens of billions of dollars either directly or through absolution of debt, would also seek to disarm the Shi'ite militia movement and neutralize its claim its weapons are necessary to help the Palestinians realize their rights.
For the Lebanese government, which so far has not been invited to the economic conference being held in late June in Bahrain, the plan is liable to provide an essential lifeline to extract Lebanon from its own economic crisis. Its debt is estimated at more than $85 billion (about 155 percent of its GDP). Its tourism sector is paralyzed and its trade with the Arab world has shrunk due to the war in Syria. This has rendered the country bankrupt, unable to invest in development and barely managing to finance ongoing activity.
But the issue of citizenship for Palestinian refugees is seen as a matter of national honor, as senior Lebanese officials deemed it recently. And that's in addition to concern that giving Palestinians citizenship might also prompt the roughly one million Syrian refugees living in the country to demand similar status. The panic over the implications of the Trump peace plan on Lebanon has led Hezbollah to call for dialogue with the Palestinian leadership so they can work together to foil the plan.
Lebanon isn't the only country concerned about Washington dictating a solution to the refugee problem. Jordan is horrified over the prospect that the U.S. will demand that it absorb hundreds of thousands or even about a million Palestinian refugees in the country.
Investigative journalist Vicky Ward recounts in her recently released bestselling book "Kushner Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption" that the Trump administration's peace plan envisages that Jordan would provide territory to the Palestinians and get Saudi territory in return. The Saudis, for their part, would get the islands of Sanafir and Tiran from Egypt.
It's doubtful that such a territorial swap would be acceptable to the countries involved. Saudi Arabia has already been transferred the islands, following a confrontation with Egypt that ended with presidential approval to return the islands to the Saudis in exchange for generous economic aid. In Jordan, any territorial concession would be considered national betrayal, particularly if it is done in the context of a Trump plan that is viewed as an Israeli-American deal.
The exchanges of territory appear to be the magic formula that the Trump administration has adopted, and not just when it comes to Jordan. According to Ward, it has been proffered to Egypt that it give up territory in Sinai between Gaza and El-Arish along the Mediterranean coast to which a portion of the population of the Gaza Strip would be transferred. In return, Israel would give Egypt territory of equivalent size in the western Negev.
Israel would allow the Egyptians to dig an underwater tunnel between Egypt and Saudi Arabia that would include a rail line and oil pipeline. The funding for the projects would come from European countries, the United States and wealthy Arab states. Manufacturing plants, a port and an airport would be built in the Egyptian territory transferred to Gaza and Gazans and Egyptians would be employed there.
The Egyptians have also been promised the whopping sum of about $65 billion, which would provide major assistance in boosting the country's economy. When it comes to Palestinian refugees in Syria, Iraq and other Arab countries, the plan posits they would be nationalized in exchange for generous assistance to their host countries.
If such things were proposed regarding refugees from Earth who fled to Mars or people rendered homeless by a tsunami, one might have thought a plan that includes generous financial compensation and empty tracts of land for new housing would be highly rational and humane. The problem is that the Palestinian refugees are the supreme symbols of Palestinian nationhood. An American deal that blatantly relies on buying up that symbol for cash, albeit a lot of cash, cannot be acceptable to the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza.
The Arab peace plan agreed upon at a summit meeting in 2002 proposed that the refugee problem should be resolved through a just and agreed upon solution in the spirit of UN Resolution 194 of 1948. That is a much more flexible formula than the regular Arab stance that the right of return to their homes in Israel is not subject to bargaining.
In the past, Israel actually conducted negotiations over the return of about 100,000 refugees who would be taken in over a number of years, but the circumstances have since changed. Israel is still adamant that there will be no agreement on the refugee issue until a deal is reached on everything else, while the Palestinians have demanded that everything be discussed separately and that understandings reached during the negotiations be individually implemented.
But since negotiations have been suspended and the two sides are not engaged in any contacts on the peace process - and after President Donald Trump retracted his partial support for a Palestinian state - the question of absorbing refugees in Arab countries is apparently becoming the method through which he is is seeking to do away with the problem.
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-trump-s-peace-plan-would-give-palestinian-refugees-many-many-countries-1.7310057

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on June 01/2019
Arab League condemns Houthis, Iran’s behavior in final communique
Al Arabiya/May 31/2019
An emergency summit of Arab leaders in Islam’s holiest city of Mecca condemned the actions of the Houthi militias and urged the international community to shoulder its responsibilities in confronting Iran’s behavior in the region.This came in a final communique delivered by Secretary General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit at the conclusion of the Arab Extraordinary Summit held at Al-Safa Palace in Mecca on Thursday.
Following is the text of the final communique:
“At the invitation of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud to his brothers the leaders of Arab countries to discuss the serious repercussions of the attack by the Iranian-backed Houthi terrorist militias on two oil pumping stations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the attack on commercial vessels in the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates.
In accordance with Article Three of the Charter of the Arab League for the periodic convening of the Summit, the Council of the Arab League held an extraordinary session in Makkah, on 25/9/1440AH corresponding to 30/5/2019, where the Arab leaders discussed these developments and their implications on the higher Arab interests. The deliberations concluded with the following positions:
1. Condemning the actions of the Iranian-backed terrorist Houthi militias, including attacking two oil pumping stations inside Saudi Arabia using unmanned aerial vehicles and the sabotage of commercial vessels in the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates.
2. Emphasizing that the Arab States seek to restore security stability in the region and that the only true way is for all states in the region to respect the principles of good neighborliness, refraining from the use of force, interfering in the internal affairs of States and violating their sovereignty. Also, that the conduct of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the region is contrary to those principles and undermines the requirements of confidence and thus directly and dangerously threatens the security and stability in the region, stressing that the cooperation relations with Arab countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran must be based on the principle of good-neighborliness, not interfering in the internal affairs of States and respecting their sovereignty.
3. Affirming the solidarity and unity of Arab countries with each other in the face of Iranian interference in their internal affairs, whether directly or indirectly, with the aim of destabilizing their security and stability, in addition to intensifying the means of cooperation and coordination among them in the face of resulted dangers.
4. Condemning the continued firing of Iranian-made ballistic missiles on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from Yemeni territory by the Iranian-backed Houthi militias, counting this as a threat to Arab national security. Also, emphasizing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s right to defend its territory in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and its support for its actions against such attacks within the framework of International legitimacy.
5. Condemning the continued Iranian support for the Houthi anti-government militias in Yemen.
6. Condemning and denouncing the continuing Iranian interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain, supporting terrorism, training terrorists, smuggling arms and explosives, and inciting sectarian strife to destabilize security, order, and stability.
7. Condemning the ongoing occupation by Iran of the three occupied islands of the United Arab Emirates and supporting all peaceful measures taken by the United Arab Emirates to restore its sovereignty over its occupied islands.
8. Continuing the restriction of satellite channels funded by Iran on Arab satellites.
9. Intensifying the diplomatic efforts between the Arab countries, regional and international organizations to shed light on Iran’s practices that endanger peace and security in the region, calling upon the international community to take a firm stand against Iran and its destabilizing activities in the region, standing firmly and strongly against any Iranian attempts to threaten energy security and the freedom and safety of maritime installations in the Arabian Gulf and other waterways, whether carried out by Iran or through its arms in the region.
10. Denouncing the Iranian interference in the Syrian crisis and its implications for Syria’s future, sovereignty, security, independence, national unity, and territorial integrity, and that such intervention does not serve the exerted efforts to settle the Syrian crisis according to the content of the Geneva Convention 1 and the relevant international resolutions. On the issue of Palestine, the main Arab issue, the summit affirmed its adherence to the resolutions of the 29th Arab summit in Dhahran (Jerusalem Summit) and the resolutions of the 30th Arab summit in Tunisia”.
King Salman: We will confront aggressive threats and acts of sabotage
Saturday, 1 June 2019/Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz tweeted on Friday saying that Riyadh will confront aggressive threats and acts of sabotage.
“We're gathering in Mecca to work on building a future for our people and achieve security and stability for our Arab and Muslim countries. We will confront aggressive threats and acts of sabotage, so that they don’t stop us from developing our countries and societies,” the King said.The 14th Islamic Summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) will kick off later today in the holy city of Mecca, following the Arab League and GCC emergency summits that happened on Thursday.

Jubeir: World leaders realize Iran should act as a country, not a revolution
Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya English/Saturday, 1 June 2019/Mecca - Saudi Arabia's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, told reporters that the world is coming to the conclusion of the need to press Iran to comply with international law and to act as a country rather than a revolution. “I think the world is coming to the conclusion and the realization of the importance of pressing Iran to comply with international law and to act as a country rather than a revolution, and abandoning the principle of exporting the revolution which is enshrined in its constitution,” al-Jubeir told reporters following the conclusion of the three Mecca summits held over the past two days.
Asked on how the Gulf, Arab and Islamic’s message regarding Iran, al-Jubeir said it was clear from the statements that Iran’s destabilizing activities affect the entire region and not only the Arabian Gulf, especially the recent attacks on Saudi oil pipelines and ships off the coast of the UAE. “The Islamic community rejects Iran’s behavior and it is telling Iran that enough is enough. If you wanted to be a country which is respected, then you have to adopt policies that will lead to the other’s respect. Killing diplomats, bombing embassies, planting terror cells in other countries, smuggling weapons and explosives, supporting terrorist militias, launching ballistic missiles on other cities, all this is not the behavior of a country which wants to gain the respect of its neighbors,” Jubeir said. The Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council called on Iran to reconsider its role in the region, the Secretary-General of the Arab League told reporters following the conclusion of two emergency summits held in Mecca. The emergency summit came after drone strikes on oil installations in Saudi Arabia and attacks on four vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman told an emergency Gulf Arab meeting on Thursday that Iran’s development of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities threatened regional and global security.

Islamic countries voice commitment to Palestinian cause as King Salman hosts Makkah summit
The OIC meeting called 'Hand in hand towards a future,' was the final meeting of a week of gatherings in Makkah
Arab News/May 31/2019/MAKKAH: Heads of Islamic countries renewed their commitment to the Palestinian cause on Friday at Islam’s holiest site. “Palestine is our main issue until the Palestinians get their rights,” Saudi Arabia King Salman said as he opened the 14th Organization of Islamic Cooperation summit in Makkah. “We reaffirm our unequivocal rejection of any measures that would prejudice the historical and legal status of Al-Quds Al-Sharif,” the king said referring to Jerusalem. “We hope that the Summit will achieve the aspirations of the Islamic countries for progress, development and prosperity,” the king told Leaders and heads of states of 57 countries in the OIC. He also reiterated that efforts must be made to confront terrorism and those who sponsor it. The king also put the blame of recent attacks on oil tankers in the Arabian Gulf squarely on Iranian-backed terrorist groups.
“During this holy month, commercial vessels, including two Saudi oil tankers, were subjected near the UAE's territorial waters to terrorist sabotage. This poses a serious threat to the security and safety of maritime traffic and regional and international security. Also, two oil pump stations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were attacked by drones launched by Iranian-backed terrorist militias,” said the king.”“We emphasize that these subversive terrorist acts not only target the Kingdom and the Gulf region, but also the security of navigation and world energy supplies.”

Two hostages, Swiss gunman die after Zurich standoff
Reuters, Zurich/Friday, 31 May 2019/A 60-year-old Swiss man apparently killed two female hostages and himself when a three-hour standoff in Zurich ended early on Friday. Police in Switzerland’s financial capital said the unnamed gunman took the women captive in a flat in the south west of the city, then kept police at bay by threatening to shoot the hostages unless the officers withdrew. Shortly after he promised to surrender in 10 minutes, shots rang out, police said. Police officers then stormed the flat and found three critically injured people who all died at the crime scene, police added. Prosecutors were still piecing together what happened and trying to determine the nationalities of the female victims aged 34 and 38. Gun violence is relatively rare in Switzerland, where voters this month agreed to adopt stricter gun control.

GCC Summit Communique Supports US Measures Against Iran, Stresses Joint Defense Agreement
Makkah- Asharq Al-Awsat/May 31/2019
Leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states condemned, in the final communiqué of the Gulf summit held in Makkah, attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi militias against Saudi Arabia and the UAE, affirming that such terrorist acts represented a direct threat to peace and security in the region, the freedom of maritime navigation, international trade and the stability of oil markets.
The Supreme Council reviewed the critical circumstances and serious challenges facing the region as a result of the recent attacks on the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Council expresses solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the face of these terrorist threats aimed at provoking unrest in the region and reiterated support to all measures taken by the Kingdom to protect its security, stability and territorial integrity.
The GCC extraordinary session was held at an invitation of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, under the chairmanship of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and in participation of Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the United Arab Emirates' Armed Forces; King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of the Kingdom of Bahrain; Shihab bin Tariq Al Saeed, Advisor to the Sultan of Oman; Prime Minister and Interior Minister Sheikh Abdullah Nasser Al Thani of the State of Qatar; Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah of the State of Kuwait, and Secretary General Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Member States.
The GCC leaders lauded the leading role played by the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques as well as his call to hold this extraordinary summit and the Arab and Islamic summits in order to unite ranks to face the challenges facing the region and maintain security and stability.
They also lauded the level of coordination and consultation with the United States of America and the US-GCC joint cooperation within the framework of the existing strategic partnership in order to achieve security and stability in the region. They reiterated their support for the US strategy towards Iran, including Iran nuclear program, ballistic missile program, Iran's activities to destabilize the region, its support for terrorism, and combating the hostile activities of Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards, Houthi, and other terrorist organizations.
The GCC final communique condemned the terrorist attacks carried out by the Houthi terrorist militias through bomb-laden drones targeting two oil pump stations in Dawadmi and Afif provinces in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, affirming that these acts of terrorism pose a serious threat to the security of the region and the global economy. It also condemned the firing of ballistic missiles by the Houthi militias, totaling more than 225 missiles toward Saudi Arabia, including attacks on Makkah, and more than 155 unmanned aerial vehicles.
Furthermore, it denounced the sabotage acts on four civil commercial vessels in the territorial waters of the United Arab Emirates, which affected UAE oil tanker, two Saudi tankers, and Norwegian oil tanker, considering it a dangerous escalation that threatens the security and safety of maritime navigation in this vital region of the world and negatively affects regional and international peace and security as well as stability of oil markets. The Council affirmed its solidarity with the UAE and its support for all measures taken by the UAE to protect its security, stability, and territorial integrity, calling upon the international community and the international maritime authorities to shoulder their responsibilities to prevent such acts of sabotage.
The Council emphasized the strength and coherence of the GCC and the unity of its ranks to confront these threats, and reviewed the GCC defense policy based on the principle of collective and integrated security for the purpose of defending the entity, fundamentals and interests of its countries, territories, airspace and territorial waters, affirming the principles embraced by the GCC Joint Defense Agreement and the indivisible security of GCC States as a whole unit. The Council also asserted the contents of the principles of the Statute of the Cooperation Council and the decisions of the Supreme Council on integration and cooperation among the GCC States to maintain security, peace and stability in the GCC States.
As for relations with Iran, the GCC emphasized the stances taken by the Supreme Council and urged the Islamic republic to abide by the basic principles based on the Charter of the United Nations and the international laws, principles of good neighborliness, respect for the sovereignty of States, non-interference in internal affairs and non-use of force or threat. The Council restated that Iran must stop supporting, financing and arming terrorist militias and organizations as well as feeding sectarian conflicts, calling upon the Iranian regime to prevail wisdom, keep away from hostilities, and destabilizing security and stability. The Council called upon the international community to shoulder its responsibility to maintain international peace and security, take firm action against the Iranian regime, as well as more effective and serious steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability and put more stringent restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile program. The communique highlighted the need that Iran spares the region the dangers of war by abiding by the international laws and conventions, stops interference in the internal affairs of the countries of the region, and stops supporting terrorist groups and militias threatening the security of maritime navigation. Furthermore, the Council affirmed the GCC keenness to maintain stability, security, and peace in the region, the growth of the world economy, and the stability of oil markets. Finally, the GCC Supreme Council expressed thanks and appreciation to King Salman and the Saudi government and people for the warm reception, good hospitality, and sincere brotherhood.

Houthis an ‘arm of Iran that threatens Yemen’s existence’
Arab News/May 31/2019/MAKKAH: The Houthis are an arm of Iran and aim to threaten the existence of Yemen and neighboring countries, the Arab coalition said on Friday. Speaking at a joint press conference organized on the sidelines of the Gulf, Arab and Islamic summits in Makkah, coalition spokesman Col. Turki Al-Maliki said that Iran was seeking to find a foothold in the Bab Al-Mandab Strait through Yemen. He added that Iranian intervention was a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and that the “stability of the region” depended on the stability of Yemen. Al-Maliki added that Houthi missiles were supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and Iranian experts were training the militias. “Houthi militias planned a coup against Yemen and planned to threaten the Kingdom and the Gulf nations’ security, and our military operations are recognized by the international community,” he said.
“The current situation and the international and regional political events prove the interrelationship between regimes practicing terrorism and the terrorist groups and militias, especially in the Middle East.”About the military objectives, Al-Maliki said they were to protect Yemeni citizens in cities and villages, as well as to destroy the militia’s capabilities and return legitimacy to the Yemeni state. He added that a comprehensive plan for humanitarian operations in Yemen was being prepared, in addition to financial support worth $1.5 billion.
The Facts in Minutes
An exhibition held on the premises of Jeddah’s King Abdul Aziz International Airport showcased missiles, unarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs), boats and other equipment used by the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen to target Saudi Arabia. Leaders of delegations from 56 different states participating in the Gulf, Arab and Islamic summits have had a look at models of the Iranian ballistic missiles, equipment and weapons used by the Iranian-backed Houthis militias to target Saudi Arabia, where the number of missiles that targeted the Kingdom has reached more than 225 ballistic missiles, including one that targeted Makkah. The two ballistic missiles featured at the exhibition were intercepted in an attempt targeting Makkah in 2017 and another one targeting Riyadh in 2018. The “Facts in Minutes” exhibition also features models of ballistic Qiyam missiles, remote-controlled boats, Iranian-made optical binoculars and Iranian Dahlawi anti-armor weaponry used by Houthi militiamen. The exhibition included a TV screen showing physical evidence of the Iranian regime’s involvement in providing these arms to the Houthis. The exhibition was organized by the Saudi defense and foreign ministries, as well as the Yemen Development and Reconstruction Center. Al-Maliki briefed the leaders participating in the three summits on the details of the Iranian regime’s involvement with and support to the terrorist Houthi militias.

Algerians rally for change despite arrests
Arab News/May 31/2019/ALGIERS: Algerians took to the streets of the capital despite a spate of arrests Friday to push for further change two months after the resignation of leader Abdelaziz Bouteflika. A thousand demonstrators in central Algiers chanted slogans decrying a push to hold presidential elections in July and rejecting calls by the armed forces chief for dialogue. “No elections with this gang in power,” the crowd shouted. Protesters are looking to keep up the pressure on the North African state’s ruling elite with weekly rallies despite the end of Bouteflika’s two-decade rule.
Police had earlier rounded some 50 people, mainly young men, in the heart of Algiers ahead of the planned protest. Those detained had their IDs and mobile phones confiscated and were loaded into vans, an AFP journalist reported. Demonstrators taking to the streets are demanding the resignation of all those tainted by ties to the former regime.Armed forces chief Ahmed Gaid Salah has become the main powerbroker in the country after he turned on his boss Bouteflika and helped ease him from office in the face of the mass protests. He is pushing for elections on July 4 but demonstrators insist there must be a wholesale change at the top of the country before a new vote can be held. Only two little-known figures have submitted their candidacies on time for the disputed poll, raising doubts about plans to stage it. The rallies that erupted across the coutry in February after Bouteflika announced plans to seek a new term have largely been tolerated by security officials overwhelmed by the vast crowds. Last Friday the police made numerous arrests in central Algiers of protesters carrying placards and the national flag.

Abbas Officially Informs Bahrain of His Absence From Manama Workshop
Ramallah - Asharq Al-Awsat/May 31/2019/Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has informed Bahrain of the Palestinian Authority’s decision not to participate in the US workshop in Manama. During a meeting in Jordan, Abbas told Sheikh Abdullah bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, the envoy of the King of Bahrain, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the PA’s final decision to boycott the summit. The Bahraini envoy, who stepped in Amman before heading to Saudi Arabia, emphasized during the meeting the historical ties between the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Palestinian people and leadership. He also conveyed the greetings of King Hamad bin Isa to Abbas and his pride in the historical relations, stressing the depth of cooperation between the two peoples and the adherence to a political solution of the Palestinian issue on the basis of international legitimacy and the Arab peace initiative. Abbas expressed his thanks to the King and his confidence in his wisdom and steadfast stance towards the Palestinian cause. The Authority had announced in advance that it would not participate in the economic workshop organized by the US in Bahrain at the end of next month, and launched a campaign against it.

LNA Spots Turkey-Sent Arms Shipment
Cairo- Khalid Mahmoud/Asharq Al-Awsat/May 31/2019/ The Libyan National Army (LNA), led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, accused Turkey of unlawfully sending military experts and arming militias loyal to Government of National Accord (GNA) headed by Fayez al-Sarraj.
This came in parallel to the eruption of fierce clashes vying for control over the Libyan capital, Tripoli. On that note, Russian media hinted that Haftar paid a secret visit to Moscow to review ongoing developments in the embattled African state. But no details on the alleged meeting were given.
According to LNA command centers cited in an official army statement, pro-Sarraj paramilitaries were presented with direct support approved by the Turkish parliament. A Turkish C130 air freight delivered top Turkish military advisors accompanied by a team of experts and a ready-for-action operations room to Misrata, a northwestern district situated 187 km east of Tripoli. Turkey has already shipped a convoy, dubbed “Amazon,” carrying a arms payload to Libya. The Ankara-sent shipment docked at Tripoli port coming from Turkey’s port of Samsun in spite of arms embargo imposed by the United Nation to stop the bloodshed in Libya. Reports said the ship had on board 40 armored vehicles to support militias. As for battle developments, military sources and local residents in Tripoli said fierce battles took place in early Thursday, May 30th, pitting LNA forces against pro-GNA militias, especially in the Ain Zara-Tripoli access. Loud explosions were heard. LNA intelligence also arrested 7 members of what it labeled a “budding terrorist militia.”While fighting intensified, Sarraj praised the bravery and efficiency of GNA loyalist paramilitaries, calling their advances a victory for the “state” and a defeat for the “aggressor.” Citing a lack of trust, Sarraj later noted that there was no room for negotiations with LNA’S Hafter. In statements made to Italian and Swiss press, Sarraj lauded his government for “merging over a hundred militias into four umbrella paramilitaries.”

US Peace Plan Might Be Postponed Until Next Fall
Washington- Elie Youssef//Asharq Al Awsat/May 31/2019/Will US President Donald Trump’s adviser, Jared Kushner, succeed in putting forward the peace plan this year, or will a new Israeli election - held after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to form his government – postpone it for a relatively long term? This question has been widely debated in Washington over the past two days, after Israel appeared to be on the verge of a political crisis, as the interventions that Trump’s administration reportedly carried out to support Netanyahu did not succeed. According to political circles, the search now exceeds the conditions that Washington was preparing to secure in order to guarantee the success of its plan for peace in the Middle East, especially at the political level. These sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Palestinians succeeded in garnering supportive Arab stances, especially from the Gulf States, including Bahrain, which will host a conference on June 25, during which the US will explain the economic part of its plan. The same sources noted that the US administration was trying not to present the peace plan before the completion of the recent Israeli elections, due to the sensitivity of this project and its possible political impact on the election campaigns. This means that the peace plan will be postponed at least until next fall, according to the sources, which also said that the equation today differed, as the Arab States required progress in the file of the conflict with Iran before talking about any peace project. They added that the Arabs sent a warning to the United States that any peace plan should guarantee the rights of the Palestinian people. According to the sources, the current and urgent issue in the region is Iran, its political and military behavior and its nuclear and regional ambitions, while the 70-year-old Palestinian cause can wait for a few years before a settlement is reached, especially since all parties have clearly stated that a two-state solution and East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state are irrevocable demands. The sources went on to say that the preparations for the Bahrain conference, in which the United States will present the economic aspect of its plan, will continue to ensure a partial achievement of the peace plan. The economic benefits promised by the peace deal, according to Washington, are not limited to Palestinians and include other countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. Achievements made at the Bahrain conference can be built on politically at a later stage, according to the sources.

Morocco Launches Investigation Into Iron Market Glut
Casablanca - Lahcen Mokena/Asharq Al Awsat/May 31/2019/The Moroccan Ministry of Industry, Investment, Trade, and Digital Economy has launched an investigation into a glut of iron and steel sheets in the market. The investigation is expected to take up to nine months extendable to one year. This came as a response to a complaint by Maghreb Steel and feedback issued by the import control committee in this regard during its latest meeting on May 22. The ministry said that Moroccan imports of relevant products rose 31 percent during 2017-2018 and increased 54 percent between 2014-2018. It attributed this rise to updated conditions including the increased global productivity of steel and iron products, the intensity of commercial war and the countries seeking refuge in protective procedures. Maghreb Steel underwent huge damage due to the rise of imports coinciding with the drop of sales, product, and the company’s share in the market, as well as its exports’ volume – the statement of the ministry, added that Maghreb Steel’s situation is threatened to worsen in the near future. The ministry also addressed companies concerned in Maghreb Steel's complaint with questionnaires. It determined July 4 as a deadline for relevant parties to express their points of view and pass their written remarks.Iron and steel sheets are of great significance to Morocco within the expansion in the automobiles sector – high hopes are pinned on this sector to rescue Maghreb Steel from its crisis and keep it distant it from having the fate of other iron products' companies.

Pakistani FM to AAWSAT: Islamic Summit to Avoid War
Jeddah- Mohammed Al-Ayed/Asharq Al Awsat/May 31/2019/Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has affirmed that the summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) hosted by Saudi Arabia in attendance of Arab, Gulf, and Islamic leaders is an opportunity to address the tensed conditions in the region and avoid the breaking out of the war. Amid the tension arising from the Iranian interventions in the region, Qureshi said that the war won’t be in the best interest of anyone, and won’t serve the region or the global economy. In fact, it would weaken the investment and increase the threat of terrorist activities, he added. Despite all, Iran remains part of the region and can’t be removed and that’s why there should be a way to deal with it, Qureshi asserted. As for the ballistic missiles launched by Houthis - Iran’s arm in Yemen – towards Makkah, Qureshi told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper that any attack against the kingdom and the Two Holy Mosques is equivalent to an attack targeting Pakistan. Qureshi stressed that his country will be ready in case any danger threatens the Saudi territories, lauding the continuous Saudi support to Pakistan. Commenting on the attacks against energy sources and passages in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, the Pakistani FM stated that these energy sources don’t only contribute to economy and trade development on the level of Saudi Arabia but the world overall. Further, he considered that the Iranian intention to close the Strait of Hormuz would escalate regional crises -- Qureshi urged Iran to desist from escalation and to open up to diplomacy because extremist means would not be constructive. Qureshi noted that the visit of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, to Pakistan brought several achievements to both countries, adding that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have key roles in the Islamic world that could boost stability and security in the region.

King Salman Urges Firm Stand to Deter Iran
Makkah/Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 31 May, 2019/Saudi Arabia’s King Salman told an emergency Arab summit on Friday that decisive action was needed to stop Iranian “escalations” following attacks on Gulf oil assets, as US officials said a military deployment had deterred Tehran. The right of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to defend their interests after the attacks on oil pumping stations in the kingdom and tankers off the UAE was supported in a Gulf Arab statement and a separate communique issued after the wider summit.
“The absence of a firm deterrent stance against Iranian behavior is what led to the escalation we see today,” King Salman told the two consecutive meetings late on Thursday. The ruler of the world’s top crude exporter said Iran’s development of nuclear and missile capabilities and its threats on world oil supplies posed a risk to regional and global security. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday that attacks on four vessels near a major bunkering hub, just outside the Strait of Hormuz, were “efforts by Iranians to raise the price of crude oil around the world.”
Riyadh accused Tehran of ordering the drone strikes. The attacks were claimed by the Iran-aligned Houthi group which has been battling a Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen for four years. US national security adviser John Bolton said on Thursday that evidence of Iran being behind the tanker attacks would be presented to the UN Security Council as early as next week. “The kingdom is keen to preserve the stability and security of the region, to spare it the scourge of war and to realize peace and stability,” King Salman said. Tensions have risen between the United States and Iran after U.S. President Donald Trump a year ago withdrew Washington from a 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran, re-imposed sanctions and boosted its military presence in the Gulf. Bolton has said that Iranian mines were “almost certainly” used in the tanker attacks. An Iranian official dismissed that as “a ludicrous claim.”US special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, said on Thursday that a repositioning of US military assets in the region had deterred Iran, but that the United States would respond with military force if its interests are targeted. The United States has deployed 900 additional troops to the region and extended the stay of 600 other service members, after speeding up deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and sending bombers and additional Patriot missiles. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi told the summit it was time to renew discussions on joint Arab defense mechanisms. The United States and the UAE, which hosts a US air base, on Wednesday activated a defense cooperation agreement signed earlier this year.

Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on June 01/2019
Is Peaceful Regime Change In Iran Possible?
أريك مانديل/جيرازولم بوست: هل من الممكن تغيير النظام في إيران بشكل سلمي؟
Eric Mandel/Jerusalem Post/May 31/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/75352/%D8%A3%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%83-%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%AC%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%84%D9%85-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%85%D9%83%D9%86/
According to the research of Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth, more than half of nonviolent revolutions are successful, as long as more than 3.5% of the population participates to ensure regime change, whereas less than 25% of violent uprisings succeed.
Is the hostile behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran just a mild thorn in the United States’ side, or is it a direct and growing danger to American and allied security interests?
With the exception of those married to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement at any cost, the idea of a nonviolent regime change in Iran is a very appealing notion. In theory, it would serve American interests by removing a dangerous nemesis with American blood on its hands, and it could also create the possibility of turning a malignant enemy into a potential ally in the Muslim world, while freeing the Iranian people from 40 years of terror, repression and hardship.
But does regime change always mean kinetic military action, or is it possible to change a malevolent regime without force?
According to the research of Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth, more than half of nonviolent revolutions are successful, as long as more than 3.5% of the population participates to ensure regime change, whereas less than 25% of violent uprisings succeed.So why not Iran?
Just think about how many nations challenged their authoritarian rulers, without violence, successfully overthrowing their governments.
From the nonviolent overthrow of Communist governments in Poland, East Germany, the Baltic states and Czechoslovakia, to the peaceful overthrow of apartheid South Africa, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the 1986 People Power Movement in the Philippines and the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, regime change without violence is possible.
Even in the Muslim world, peaceful change occurred in Tunisia after the Arab Winter – and this year, authoritarian leaders in Sudan and Algeria were removed in peaceful movements.
We missed the boat in 2009 when, in the name of pursuing the Iranian nuclear deal, our last administration chose to side with Ayatollah Khamenei, abandoning the Iranian people’s Green Revolution when millions of Iranians went into the streets to protest against their authoritarian government.
As Eli Lake wrote in a 2006 Bloomberg article titled “Why Obama Let Iran’s Green Revolution Fail,” the president “wanted a nuclear deal, not regime change.”
Since the US reimposed and increased sanctions, anti-regime protests have increased due to rising unemployment, a collapse of the Iranian currency, pervasive regime corruption and a dramatic decrease in the average Iranian’s quality of life.
Sanctions have hurt the average Iranian, but they have also motivated their desire for political action and change. Is there anything else America can do to support the Iranian protester?Are there risks in supporting nonviolent regime change in Iran?
Critics of sanctions and regime change like New York magazine and The Intelligencer said “Iranians may want change, but the collapse of their economy, society and state is surely not the kind of change they have in mind... there is no better way to discredit a legitimate protest movement than by linking it to a nefarious foreign enemy.”
What might start off nonviolently could spiral out of control, dragging America and its allies into a war without clear goals – other than replacing the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. They point to America’s recent failures in Iraq and its unpreparedness for nation-building in the aftermath of the Iraq victory in 2003.The recent escalating tensions and rhetoric between Tehran and Washington have highlighted these choices and the dangers that might lie ahead.
What 21st-century Westerners never seem to have learned is that military strength combined with diplomacy is the best way to avoid war in the Middle East. As evidence, when President Donald Trump indicated his intention to withdraw troops from Syria, this was perceived as weakness, which emboldened America’s enemies.
Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is indeed an enemy of America. Too many pundits and politicians cannot differentiate between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people. The Iranian people are not the same as the Islamist revolutionary mullahcracy. In fact, only 55% of the Iranian population is Persian. The overall population is widely believed to be, given the chance, the most Westernized and potentially politically West-aligned populace in the Muslim Middle East.
However, the nature of this regime has not changed since day one, and its goal is still to export, with its proxies, its Islamist revolution throughout the world. In the Western hemisphere, they have engaged in money laundering, drugs, terrorism and support for like-minded regimes in Venezuela and Cuba.
Iran does not want war now, hoping that the next presidential election will bring a Democratic candidate pledging to rejoin the JCPOA and offering Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in potential sanctions relief without ever having to change their spots or actions.
There is plenty of regret and blame about US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the formula of robust diplomacy backed by credible military force remains the best way to avoid wars in the volatile Middle East. A strong US stance is also to be seen as tacit support for Iranians who crave change and want to politically challenge the regime in the streets.
Which brings us back to the question: can regime change in Iran be encouraged without starting a kinetic war?
Nobody knows for sure. But if Iran were a medical patient, then the benefit is greater than the risk to American interests in supporting the Iranian protests that are bound to come. Once we accept this choice, the next question is how to hasten the journey of this repressive, fanatical, violent, anti-American regime to – as Ronald Reagan put it – the “ash heap of history.”
**The writer is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network. He regularly briefs members of the Senate and House, and their foreign policy advisers. A regular columnist for The Jerusalem Post and i24TV international, he is a contributor to The Hill, JTA, JNS and The Forward.

Huawei Ban Threatens Wireless Service in Rural Areas
.Opheim Mont. - Cecilia Kang/The New York Times/May 31/2019
Many small carriers depend on inexpensive equipment from the Chinese company. Now they must rethink expansion plans, and perhaps replace existing gear.
Kevin Nelson was recently in the middle of his 3,800-acre farm in northeast Montana, where the landscape stretches out like an ocean, when his tractor broke. He tried to find a cellular signal strong enough to send a photo of the broken part to a repair shop 65 miles away, but failed.
“It’s really frustrating,” Mr. Nelson, 47, said about the poor reception. “We keep being told it’s going to improve, it’s going to improve.”
Now it’s not likely to improve anytime soon.
Plans to upgrade the wireless service near Mr. Nelson’s farm halted abruptly this month when President Trump issued an executive order that banned the purchase of equipment from companies posing a national security threat. That includes gear from Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, a major supplier of equipment to rural wireless companies.
The chief executive of the wireless provider in Mr. Nelson’s area said that without access to inexpensive Huawei products, his company could not afford to build a planned tower that would serve Mr. Nelson’s farm.
The Trump administration’s ban, its latest move against the company, rippled through the telecommunications industry. Wireless carriers in several countries, including Britain and Japan, said they would no longer sell the company’s phones. Google said it would stop providing its Android operating software in new Huawei smartphones, which are popular in Europe and Asia.
But perhaps nowhere will the changes be felt more acutely than in rural America, where wireless service is spotty despite yearslong government efforts to improve coverage. They also add to the economic uncertainty created by the White House’s trade war with China. Farmers are fearful of an extended hit to their exports.
Huawei is essential for many wireless carriers that serve sprawling, sparsely populated regions because its gear for transmitting cell signals often costs far less than other options.
The president’s ban is forcing carriers like Nemont, which serves Opheim, to scrap expansion plans. In addition, some of the companies already using Huawei equipment fear that they will no longer receive government subsidies meant to help get service to remote areas.
Joseph Franell, the chief executive of Eastern Oregon Telecom, a small carrier that relies on Huawei products, said he was being forced to rethink his business.
“The reason why we are able to serve our customers is because we are mindful of costs,” he said. “We don’t go out and buy a Lamborghini when you can buy a Ford pickup.”
While Huawei sells many types of technology, including smartphones, the vast majority of its revenue comes from sales of equipment that moves data through networks and to devices. Only a few other companies, like Nokia and Ericsson, both based in Europe, sell comparable gear.
American intelligence officials have accused Huawei of being an extension of the Chinese government, and say its equipment could be vulnerable to espionage and hacking. Mr. Trump also appears to be using Huawei as a bargaining chip in his escalating trade battle with China.
“Huawei is something that is very dangerous,” the president said on Thursday. “It’s possible that Huawei would be included in some kind of trade deal.”
Huawei denies that it is a security risk, saying it is an independent business that does not act on behalf of the Chinese government. It says 500 carriers in more than 170 nations use its technology.
“Restricting Huawei from doing business in the U.S. will not make the U.S. more secure or stronger,” Huawei said in a statement. “Instead, this will only serve to limit the U.S. to inferior yet more expensive alternatives.”
Much of Mr. Trump’s focus has been on the next generation of wireless technology, known as 5G. But Huawei already provides equipment to about a quarter of the country’s smallest wireless carriers. The Rural Wireless Association, a trade group that represents 55 small carriers, estimates that it would cost its members $800 million to $1 billion to replace equipment from Huawei and ZTE, China’s other maker of networking gear.
Nemont, based near Opheim, is one of those companies. Its footprint is 14,000 square miles, bigger than Maryland, and requires huge amounts of wires, towers and other costly infrastructure. But the company has only 11,000 paying customers.
Nemont first reached out to Huawei nine years ago, when its members decided to upgrade their cellular network. With subsidies from the federal government, Nemont was prepared to spend about $4 million on networking equipment like routers and other gear to put on dozens of cell towers across the region.
Even at the time, officials in the Obama administration voiced concerns about Chinese equipment makers and their ability to break into American networks to steal intellectual property or hack into corporate or government networks. Defense Department officials and lawmakers said they were concerned that the Chinese government and military could use the equipment to intercept American communications.
The officials were vague about their concerns over Huawei, then a little-known firm. But Mike Kilgore, the chief executive of Nemont, said he had outlined Nemont’s plans to buy Huawei equipment in a letter to Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, and asked whether Mr. Tester had security concerns.
Mr. Kilgore said he was ready to go another route if Huawei’s equipment would put customers at risk. “I was begging for them to say, ‘No, don’t buy it,’” he said.
Mr. Tester's office called him and said it didn’t see any major concerns with picking Huawei, Mr. Kilgore said. A spokesman for Mr. Tester said an aide had told Mr. Kilgore to contact the F.B.I. and other intelligence officials for advice.
After the call, Mr. Kilgore chose Huawei, which offered to customize its equipment and charge 20 to 30 percent less than competitors.
Nemont has since expanded its high-speed wireless network using almost all Huawei equipment. Mr. Kilgore even visited Huawei’s headquarters in Shenzhen. He is the president of the Rural Wireless Association, the trade group. Huawei has a representative on the group’s board without voting rights, one of two board members who don’t represent a wireless carrier.
“The other vendors hardly gave us the time of day, and now they have been acquired or are out of business,” Mr. Kilgore said. “We took a gamble, but we clearly made the right bet.”
The technological upgrade changed lives. Kevin Rasmussen was recently in the cab of his tractor using an iPad connected to high-speed internet beaming from a nearby cell tower. The connection worked with software on the iPad to help direct where the tractor poked holes in the soil and dropped seeds and fertilizer.
“I can sit up here in my tractor and do my banking, monitor six weather apps and read up on things like trade and Huawei, all on my phone,” Mr. Rasmussen said. “Rural America needs this so badly.”
Nemont had plans to extend that high-speed service. It had leased land in Opheim for a new cell tower that would have delivered a strong signal. That is the tower that would have improved the service on Mr. Nelson’s farm.
But the company tabled those plans after Mr. Trump’s executive order.
“We have no idea what we are going to be able to do,” Mr. Kilgore said. “I’m not getting sleep at night.”
Many companies that extend wireless broadband to rural areas, like Nemont, depend on subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission. But Ajit Pai, the commission’s chairman, has proposed cutting off that money to carriers using equipment from Huawei or ZTE.
“We believe that it is important that networks are secure not just in urban areas, but in rural areas as well,” the agency said in a statement. “There are currently many rural broadband providers that use equipment that does not pose a national security risk.”
Mr. Kilgore estimated that it would cost $50 million to replace his Huawei equipment. If that is the only option, he said, he might have to shut down the company, leaving his customers without wireless service.
Mr. Rasmussen said that would be a big blow to his farming operation.
“We’re getting squeezed on all sides,” he said. “The tariffs and trade affect our prices, and now this could affect our ability to farm.”
Mr. Kilgore has argued, through his work with the Rural Wireless Association, for an exemption to the F.C.C. rule for small rural carriers, or for subsidies to replace the Huawei equipment. A bipartisan group senators recently introduced a bill that would set aside about $700 million in grants to carriers forced to rip Huawei equipment from their networks.

What Is Bernie Sanders Worried About?
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/May 31/2019
"No war with Iran!" The shop-worn slogan, in circulation for four decades, is back in vogue as self-styled peaceniks in the West seek a fig-leaf to hide their shameless support for a regime rejected by its people. In Britain, the neo-Marxists who control of the Labour Party bandy the slogan around on airwaves and meetings of militants. In France, the pro-Putin Standing France outfit led by Jean-Luc Melenchon makes similar noises. And in the US, we have Senator Bernie Sanders, currently the front-runner to become the Democrat Party’s nominee in the next presidential election, donning the mantle of supreme-peacemaker, in effect offering himself as a human shield for the Islamic Republic.
"Recently I've been criticized … because of my opposition to war," he says in a video message. "So let me be very clear: I make no apologies that when I was a young man before I was elected to anything, I opposed the war in Vietnam. And I know what that war did to my generation."
He adds "I'm going to do everything that I can to prevent a war with Iran because if you think the war in Iraq was a disaster, my guess is that war in Iran would be even worse."
In a sense Sanders is right. No one should apologize for opposing war in general. However, the truth is that war has been, is and is likely to remain, a part of our human story, the tragic undertone of which we would ignore at our peril. The important point is what war one talks about, when, where and against which adversaries. The bland assertion “I oppose war against X or Y” is a sign of intellectual laziness if not of moral bankruptcy.
Sanders says he opposed the war in Vietnam. But he does not say when and which part of the war he opposed. The Vietnam war started in 1950 as Communist guerrillas, backed by Maoist China tried to capture a niche in French Indochina. That dragged the French into a war which morphed into a forlorn attempt at protecting the southern part of what was to become Vietnam from the “Red virus.” The Americans became seriously involved from 1963 onwards after betraying their erstwhile ally Ngo Dinh Diem, killed in a putsch by his own military.
There is no evidence that Sanders, a young man at the time, opposed that war in any of its initial phases. Had he done so, he would have had to support one side against another. Which side would he have supported? He could say that he was only opposed to US involvement. In that case, he cannot cast himself as an “anti-war” paragon.
Sanders says he opposed the war in Iraq.
However, again he forgets that war has at least two sides. His real position, which he does not dare admit, is that he would have preferred to see Saddam Hussein rule Iraq, ignore 14 unanimous UN Security Council resolutions, invade and/or threaten neighbours and America’s allies, rather than see the US apply what turned out to be homeopathic dose of force, compared to major wars, to give the Iraqi people a chance to seek a different future.
Sanders also forgets that Iraqis were, in fact, co-liberators of their country if only because they chose not to fight for Saddam.
In that context, Sanders never tells us which side he would have supported: Saddam Hussein or a majority of the Iraqi people? One may justly infer that he is opposed to wars only where the US is fighting real or imagined enemies.
During the two-decades-long Vietnam war saga in its various phases, many other wars erupted. There was the Korean War, triggered by the Communists in the North invading the southern part of the Peninsula was one such war. Soviet invasions of Poland, Hungary and later Czechoslovakia to crush popular revolts were others. There were also the Arab-Israel wars which Sanders never talks about. Whose side would Sanders have taken in those wars?
Sanders is wrong in pretending that Iraq was a “disaster”. Since 2003, Iraq has gone through many ordeals, paying a heavy price. And yet, today no one could deny that most Iraqis enjoy freedoms they never thought possible under the dictatorship. By most measurements such as economic growth rate, frequency and freedom of elections, the scope for social and political self-expression and power-sharing across ethnic and religious divides, post-Saddam Iraq is far from the disaster Sanders claims.
Sanders is also wrong on Iran.
No one wants or preaches military action against Iran. But the fact is that Iran has been at war against the US for more than 40 years, the initial casus belli coming with the capture by Khomeinist thugs of the US Embassy in Tehran and the holding of its diplomats as a hostage. The killing of hundreds of US diplomatic and military personnel in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia by terrorists remote-controlled from Tehran form other parts of this tragic back-story. The only military action the Americans took in this long war was in 1988 when the US Navy attacked Islamic Revolutionary Guard land and sea assets along Iran’s southern coastline.
Sanders may have hoped to portray President Donald Trump as another “warmonger” in reparation for the presidential campaign. But Trump seems determined to cast himself as a president of peace, even if that risks sending wrong signals to adversaries.
This is what Trump said in his inaugural speech in 2019: “As a candidate for president, I loudly pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.”
Could that mean he intends to end the “endless war’ with the Islamic Republic that started in 1979? Perhaps, he hopes that by deploying America’s economic, trade, diplomatic and military power in the context of specific demands he might be able to do so without an actual shooting war.
I am not sure that such a strategy will produce the desired results. But what matters in the context of this article is that Trump isn’t a warmonger, as Sanders implies.
At the same time, Khomeinist leaders also insist that there is no prospect of a war with the US.
“Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei whistles that tune at every opportunity. And Muhamad-Javad Zarif, the man who plays the role of Foreign Minister, has praised Trump as a man of peace.
So, what is Sanders worried about?

Netanyahu Should Talk to European Nationalists
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/May 31, 2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14312/netanyahu-european-nationalists
The nationalist leaders of central and eastern Europe are a mixed picture when it comes to Israel. They strongly support Jewish nationalism, Zionism, and the nation state of the Jewish people. But their attitude toward Jews and the Holocaust is often highly questionable.
The prime minister of Israel must put the interests of his country before ideological purity or attitude toward Jews in general. In a world in which so few nations support Israel and in which so many vote routinely to condemn it at the United Nations, Israel must not easily give up support from right-wing nationalists.
So let us condemn European nationalists when their actions warrant condemnation, but let us welcome their support for Israel at a time when such support is becoming more and more essential.
Critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argue that he should never speak to European nationalists because European nationalism often goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism.
Ironically (or perhaps hypocritically) many of these same critics urged Israeli prime ministers to speak to Yasser Arafat and other terrorist leaders who have advocated and practiced the murder of Jews. What is the difference? In both cases elected leaders have to hold their collective noses to speak to other leaders of whose ideologies and actions they strongly disapprove. But when you are the leader of a country, pragmatic realpolitik must often prevail over pure ideology.
Recall the grimace on the face of Yitzhak Rabin when President Clinton urged him to shake the hand of Yasser Arafat, a man who was personally responsible for ordering the murder of Israeli children, women and men. When I subsequently discussed this with Rabin, he said that his hand was shielded by the velvet glove of diplomacy. The left praised Rabin, as well they should have. But many of the same people now condemn Netanyahu for extending the same velvet glove of diplomacy to extreme European nationalists.
There are lines, of course, that no one should ever cross even with the protection of a velvet glove. But if that line was not crossed with Arafat, it certainly is not being crossed with Viktor Orbán and other nationalist leaders. The line cannot be based on the whether the alleged villain is right-wing, left-wing, Muslim or Christian. It must be a line based on objective factors.
The United States dealt, though quietly, with the leaders of Iran, and even dealt with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin back in the 1930s and 1940s. President Roosevelt, when asked why he was dealing with the tyrannical leader of a central American dictatorship, famously responded: "He is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch."
The nationalist leaders of central and eastern Europe are a mixed picture when it comes to Israel. They strongly support Jewish nationalism, Zionism, and the nation state of the Jewish people. But their attitude toward Jews and the Holocaust is often highly questionable. The prime minister of Israel must put the interests of his country before ideological purity or attitude toward Jews in general. In a world in which so few nations support Israel and in which so many vote routinely to condemn it at the United Nations, Israel must not easily give up support from right-wing nationalists.
One of the accusations made against Viktor Orbán is that he has attacked George Soros, the Jewish multi-billionaire whose activities in Europe and around the world are highly controversial. The reality is that Soros deserves to be criticized and the fact that he happens to be a Jew should not exempt him from such criticism. Soros has long been an enemy of Israel and has never been a particularly strong supporter of Jewish values. It is, therefore, ironic that criticizing him has seemed to be a benchmark for anti-Semitism.
Beyond Soros, however, there are good reasons for opposing many of the policies and statement of Orbán and his fellow right-wing nationalists. Their attitude toward the Holocaust, especially glorifying anti-Semites who collaborated with the Nazis, deserved serious condemnation, as does the refusal of these leaders to own up to the responsibility of some of their citizens for the "final solution" against the Jews.
Life always presents mixed pictures, especially when it comes to politics and international relations. So do not condemn Prime Minister Netanyahu for doing what virtually every Israeli prime minister has done, beginning with David Ben Gurion accepting reparations from Germany. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and international politics makes even stranger ones. So let us condemn European nationalists when their actions warrant condemnation, but let us welcome their support for Israel at a time when such support is becoming more and more essential.
*Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democrats Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2018. He is a Distinguished Senior
Follow Alan M. Dershowitz on Twitter and Facebook
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

The New Smear Machine: Guilt by Association
Douglas Murray/Gatestone Institute/May 31/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14248/guilt-by-association
During the speeches one of the representatives from 'Jewish Voice for Labour' (a shell organisation set up to defend Jeremy Corbyn from accusations of anti-Semitism) claimed that Jews are 'in the gutter'. Nothing was particularly noteworthy in all of this -- except for one interesting fact, spotted by the British-based 'Campaign Against Anti-Semitism'. This organization, having attended the march to monitor it, noticed a number of extremely interesting attendees. According to the 'Campaign Against Anti-Semitism', these included a man called Tony Martin, who is the leader of a neo-Nazi organisation called the National Front. This is not an organisation that is called 'neo-Nazi' or 'fascist' as some sort of rhetorical colouring required to win a debating point. It is described as that because that is what it is.
Perhaps we can cut out the middle man and just call all the members of the Parliamentary Labour party who attended the May 11 march 'neo-Nazis', 'far-right' and 'fascist'. It is hard to see why not. By their own standards and tactics they eminently qualify for the description. Perhaps they will embrace the terms. Or perhaps they will begin to recognise that the stick they have been using to take out perfectly innocent opponents for political gain is in fact a boomerang that can just as easily come right back at them.
One of the favourite tactics of the far-left in the West today is to carry out hit-jobs by utilising the tool of 'adjacency.' This is the new only slightly fancy term for what has usually been known as 'guilt by association'. However, while UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn is endlessly pictured with Islamist extremists or a whole range of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, his proximity to the worst people is never evidence of 'adjacency': merely of saintliness at best, and bad luck at worst. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
One of the favourite tactics of the far-left in the West today is to carry out hit-jobs by utilising the tool of 'adjacency.' This is the new only slightly fancy term for what has usually been known as 'guilt by association'. Where there was once an agreement that people should be held responsible for their own views, now they can apparently be held responsible for the views of anyone beside whom they once stood.
So for instance, last month Jordan Peterson was denied a visiting fellowship at Cambridge University because he had once been photographed (at a post-speaking event meet-and-greet) with somebody wearing a T-shirt saying 'I'm a proud Islamophobe'. Activists who wish to take decent people out of the parameters of legitimate discussion no longer merely smear them by trying to claim that their opponent is an extremist. Instead, they hint that even if their opponent might not be an extremist, here – for instance – is a photograph of him standing beside someone better able to be described as an extremist. Thus has the smear machine found a happy pastime and a fairly useful tool in its game of political warfare.
This tactic is rarely used by the right against many on the left. Or if it is, its legitimacy is denied. For instance when the British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, for instance, is endlessly pictured with Islamist extremists or a whole range of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, it is agreed that he is not 'adjacent' to these people, but merely to be pursuing his often strangely uncredited role as the international community's informal peace-keeper-in-chief. His proximity to the worst people is never evidence of 'adjacency': merely of saintliness at best, and bad luck at worst.
If there is a reason for this, it is that the far-left utilises the 'adjacency' tool most readily on people it can claim to be far-right. It tends to have little interest in Islamist extremists (let alone, for obvious reasons, far-leftists) and would appear in general to have rather little interest in anti-Semites in general. So a recent event in London provides an interesting opportunity to return a favour in the arts of tactical political warfare.
On May 11, in London there was a march – attended by around three thousand people – and organised under the banner 'National Demonstration for Palestine: Exist! Resist! Return'. The event was backed by – among others – the leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. In Twitter and Facebook messages sent to marchers, he expressed his support. This message, read out at the rally said, among much else, 'We cannot stand by or stay silent at the continuing denial of rights and justice to the Palestinian people.'
The message was not read out by some obscure anti-Israel activist, but rather by one of Corbyn's closest political aides, the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott. Other speakers included the Labour party's Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, Richard Burgon, who just last month was found to have lied to the British media about an earlier speech he had given in which he said that 'Zionism is the enemy of peace.'
In many ways there was nothing remarkable about the protest. Aside from the addresses from senior members of the Parliamentary Labour party, it consisted of the usual commonplace acts and claims by ordinary participants. Protestors, for example, waved placards claiming that 'Israel provokes anti-Semitism'. During the speeches, one of the representatives from 'Jewish Voice for Labour' (a shell organisation set up to defend Jeremy Corbyn from accusations of anti-Semitism) claimed that Jews are 'in the gutter'.
Nothing was particularly noteworthy in all of this. Except for one interesting fact, spotted by the British-based 'Campaign Against Anti-Semitism'. This organization, having attended the march to monitor it, noticed a number of extremely interesting attendees. According to the 'Campaign Against Anti-Semitism', these included a man called Tony Martin, who is the leader of a neo-Nazi organisation called the National Front. This is not an organisation that is called 'neo-Nazi' or 'fascist' as some sort of rhetorical colouring required to win a debating point. It is described as that because that is what it is. The National Front in Britain is steeped in the politics of the far-right and actual neo-Nazism, hard as it might be for people to credit that in an era in which nearly everything and everyone can be called by these names.
The presence of the obscure and reprehensible Mr Martin at the demonstration in London on May 11 raises an important question. Does this not mean that Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, Richard Burgon and others (including everybody else who attended or otherwise gave their support to Saturday's march) should now be described as 'fascist-adjacent' or 'neo-Nazi adjacent'? Or perhaps the type of slippage in definition and association in which many on the far-left have so merrily engaged over recent years can be played back at them. Perhaps we can cut out the middle man and just call all the members of the Parliamentary Labour party who attended the May 11 march 'neo-Nazis', 'far-right' and 'fascist'. It is hard to see why not. By their own standards and tactics they eminently qualify for the description. Perhaps they will embrace the terms. Or perhaps they will begin to recognise that the stick they have been using to take out perfectly innocent opponents for political gain is in fact a boomerang that can just as easily come right back at them.
*Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England. His latest book, an international best-seller, is "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam."
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

How the Russian Orthodox Church survived communist rule
Peter Welby/Arab News/May 31/2019
As Notre Dame in Paris smoldered last month, the world’s great and good were scrambling to fund its reconstruction. France’s government pledged to rebuild the cathedral within five years. Wildly varying costs ranged as high as €1 billion ($1.1 billion) — a huge amount to be spent by the government, in a country that is meant to have strict separation between religion and state.
Generating far less coverage, but more significant in its effect, was news last week that the Russian government is to rebuild the Feodorovsky Godorok in St. Petersburg, at a cost of £34 million ($42.8 million), as a home for the Russian Orthodox patriarch of Moscow when he is in the city. The Feodorovsky Godorok was first built as a home for the clergy of the nearby cathedral by Tsar Nicholas II between 1914 and 1917, when he was overthrown. The Bolshevik reign of terror included an ideological assault on the Russian Orthodox Church. Within five years of the Bolshevik government being established, at least 28 bishops and 1,200 priests of the Church had been executed.
The persecution continued throughout the communist era with varying degrees of intensity, until by the 1980s the once-dominant Church was reduced to fewer than 7,000 churches across the country, with only 31 percent of Russians describing themselves as Orthodox in 1991.
From this low point, the Church has recovered to anything between 43 and 72 percent of Russians today (depending on the survey), and a claim in 2016 that three new Russian Orthodox churches were opening daily across the country.
This rapid advance is thanks, in large part, to the symbiotic relationship between the Church and Russian President Vladimir Putin. In exchange for government largesse and legislative favor, the Church lends the government and its leader authority and legitimacy.
The communist era was an aberration in the history of relations between the Church and the state in Russia, and more broadly in Eastern Orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church took the form it holds today through its close interaction with the state, from the time of Emperor Constantine onward.
The Russian Orthodox Church was founded upon the baptism of Vladimir the Great (after whom the current president is named) — an act that was probably one of political expediency for a marriage alliance with the Byzantine emperor.
Whatever his reasons, the mass baptism of Vladimir’s subjects followed, and a close relationship between the rulers and the Church began. Through the fluctuations in the fortunes of Vladimir’s successors, the Church and the government remained intertwined, if not always happily. Sometimes the leaders of the Church would exercise effective governmental control; at others, strong rulers would clip the Church’s wings.
The communist era was an aberration in the history of relations between the Church and the state in Russia, and more broadly in Eastern Orthodoxy.
One of the most notable examples of this was the Church reforms of Peter the Great, which abolished the position of patriarch in favor of a ruling holy synod (or council of senior bishops), removing an individual as a rival power base within the country. The patriarchate was not revived, with coincidental timing, until a vote within days of the Bolshevik coup in October 1917.
After its initial stance of resistance to communist oppression, the Russian Orthodox Church as an institution ultimately survived communist rule through tense acquiescence, with its senior ranks deeply infiltrated by the security state, and opponents driven out. It was in this form that the Church emerged in the 1990s.
These connections stood it in good stead: Then-President Mikhail Gorbachev approved a law in 1990 guaranteeing freedom of religion, and by 1997, after lobbying from the Church, his successor Boris Yeltsin had signed one privileging the Russian Orthodox Church over other Christian churches.
The Church has done its bit to earn this privileged position, by sanctifying state policy and Putin himself. In 2012, just before Putin’s re-election to the presidency, the patriarch described his rule as a “miracle of God,” and compared the complaints of his opponents to “ear-piercing shrieks.” Priests who fail to toe the party line are defrocked or demoted.
The Church has also sought to lend legitimacy to Russia’s military adventurism. It described Russia’s intervention in Syria as a “holy war” (a term that it has since expanded to describe the global fight against terrorism). This choice of words was not lost on the Islamist fighters who believe the same.
During the invasion of Georgia in 2008, then-Russian Patriarch Aleksy appealed for peace and continued to regard the breakaway territories as part of the jurisdiction of the Georgian Church. But his successor was fully behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, describing those fighting against the separatists in Ukraine’s east as “uniates” (under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church). He later said Ukrainians and Belarussians belong to the “Russian world.” Ultimately, this full-throated support for Russian policy led to a schism with the wider Eastern Orthodox churches in 2018.
Despite appearances, church attendance is not particularly high in Russia. A 2017 Pew survey put it at 6 percent of the population. But the Church itself is perhaps in its strongest political position in centuries, all thanks to its close embrace of Putin’s rule.
In the calculations of the Church’s leadership, the benefits of this embrace are worth the cost, even of a split in Eastern Orthodoxy. And from Putin’s point of view, the Church’s support is a crucial plank of his claim to legitimacy.
*Peter Welby is a consultant on religion and global affairs, specializing in the Arab world. Previously, he was the managing editor of a think tank on religious extremism, the Center on Religion & Geopolitics, and worked in public affairs in the Gulf. He is based in London, and has lived in Egypt and Yemen. Twitter: @pdcwelby

Bahrain workshop must avoid repeating previous mistakes
Ray Hanania/Arab News/May 31/2019
An international economic workshop organized by the US as the foundation for President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” peace plan for Palestinians and Israelis can only work if a basis for peace and justice already exists.
So far, everything the Trump administration has done in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict suggests it does not really care about the concerns of Palestinians, who have themselves made failure even more certain with their self-destructive policy of rejectionism.
Leaders on all sides of the fractured Palestinian movement have declared they will boycott the workshop, which is to take place in Bahrain on June 25-26.
It would be foolhardy to believe that improving the economic situation of Palestinians before ending Israel’s violations of their civil rights and international laws will somehow make it easier to achieve peace. It is a strategy that has already been tried and has failed many times.
The idea of pursuing an economic soothing of Palestinian suffering under Israel’s brutal oppression originates with Israel and Trump’s advisers, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt. Kushner and Greenblatt are strong defenders of Israel, but apparently they know very little about its history. What they are doing is a rehash of an economic plan that was put forward by Israel in the 1970s, not to achieve peace but to undermine what was then the rising power of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its leader, Yasser Arafat.
It is worth looking back at that failed strategy, maybe to avoid making the same mistakes that undermined peace and provoked more violence.
Arafat rose to international prominence after the October 1974 Arab League summit in Rabat stripped Jordan of its authority over Palestinian interests and declared the PLO “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”
What Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt are doing is a rehash of an economic plan that was put forward by Israel in the 1970s.
The following month, Arafat delivered a powerful speech to the UN General Assembly, in which he argued the PLO was fighting for justice against Israel’s violence and terrorism. Equating peace with justice, Arafat argued that the core of the conflict was Israel’s refusal to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
Until that point, Israel was enjoying the arrogance of power, reinforcing its occupation of lands captured during the six-day war in June 1967 and building a wave of new settlements on Palestinian lands with the support of the US.
Arafat’s rise and his embrace by the international community was a shock that forced Tel Aviv to devise a plan to undermine him. The plan was to give Palestinians economic support in exchange for surrendering certain civil rights.
In 1977, Israel elected Menachem Begin, the leader of the Irgun terrorist organization during the 1940s, as prime minister. Begin recognized the threat that Arafat and the PLO represented to Israel’s expansion in the Occupied Territories, so he launched a plan to empower an Islamist movement to rival Arafat’s secular leadership, beginning in the Gaza Strip, where Arafat had the least influence.
Begin enabled quadriplegic religious leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to build that anti-Arafat movement, and he assigned the task to Ariel Sharon, who was accused of massacring 69 Palestinian civilians at the village of Qibya in 1953.
What Begin and Sharon really wanted to do was undermine Arafat and stifle the growing momentum for Palestinian statehood.
Israel recognized Yassin’s “humanitarian” organization, Mujama Al-Islamiya, and gave it funding. Begin and Sharon hoped Yassin would oversee Palestinian lives in the Gaza Strip under a system called the Village Leagues, which was intended to eventually expand to the West Bank.
Yassin reportedly used the Israeli money to operate a network of schools, medical clinics, social service agencies, and religious institutions, providing direct services to the poverty-stricken Palestinian population.
The Village Leagues became a breeding ground for Palestinian collaborators, who were blackmailed or bribed into reporting on the activities of other Palestinians associated with Arafat and the PLO. According to reports, many of them held leadership positions in the Village Leagues while being friendly to Israel.
The Israeli military gave the leagues’ members protection from PLO retribution, as well as widespread powers. As many as 200 of them were given weapons training by Israel. Israel’s Shin Bet is said to have recruited paid informers from this network, with Israeli sources estimating that the number of informants was in the thousands. The Israeli Military Governorate employed as many as 19,000 Palestinians, with 11,000 of them working as teachers, clerks and administrators.
Of course, we know what happened after that.
On Dec. 8, 1987, an Israeli military truck collided with a civilian vehicle, killing four Palestinians. Relatives and friends protested the deaths and the failure of Israel to punish those responsible. Within days, the protests spread throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank. In what became known as the First Intifada, armed Islamists empowered by Yassin’s Village Leagues launched Hamas. Yassin was declared a co-founder.
Arafat saw his authority dwindle as Hamas grew in strength. As the Intifada raged, Arafat was prompted to enter into secret peace negotiations with Israel in 1988.
There is no doubt that any effort to improve the economic standing of Palestinians living under Israel’s apartheid oppression can be a good thing. But, as history has proven, economic benefits can never replace genuine peace and a people’s drive for justice.
*Ray Hanania is an award-winning former Chicago City Hall political reporter and columnist. He can be reached at his personal website at www.Hanania.com. Twitter: @RayHanania

Iraqi Kurdish leader faces a delicate balancing act
Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/May 31/2019
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq elected a new president, Nechirvan Barzani, on Tuesday, filling a position left vacant for almost 18 months following the Iraqi Kurdish independence referendum.
Barzani won the votes of 68 of the 81 members present in the 111-seat chamber. His election followed a deal between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) on the formation of a new KRG government.
The 52-year-old is the nephew and son-in-law of the previous president, Masoud Barzani, who occupied the office from the creation of the KRG in 2005 until late 2017, when he quit following an independence referendum that backfired, drawing opposition from Baghdad, Turkey, Iran, the US and UN.
The incoming president is expected to be sworn in by June 10. He will then ask his cousin and brother-in-law Masrour Barzani, the KRG’s security chief, to form a new government.
Before Barzani’s election as leader, the president’s powers were divided between the prime minister, Parliament and the judiciary in a makeshift arrangement.
The KRG — the only regionally and internationally recognized Kurdish entity — has represented the autonomous region since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Iraqi Kurds manage their own affairs in northern Iraq, have their own army — the Peshmerga — and pursue their own foreign policy. The Barzani family have dominated Iraqi Kurdish politics through the KDP for generations.
The new president has been a central figure in the region since the late 1990s and is credited not only with its economic success, but also its developing relations with regional countries.
Barzani is known for his economic acumen and is considered the main architect of the close working relationship with Ankara on trade, energy and security. He has also played a significant role in smoothing relations with the KRG’s neighbors, Iran and Turkey, following the 2017 independence referendum.
Meanwhile, the KDP has served as a counterbalance to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization, by allowing Turkey to establish military bases to monitor PKK activities.
The KRG election was closely followed by regional countries. Soon after the vote, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and the US State Department congratulated Barzani on his victory.
The challenges facing the KRG leave it with no option but to normalize relations with Turkey and Iraq.
SThe KRG’s economy depends mainly on oil exports, and has suffered severely due to the referendum crisis. Barzani’s challenge will be to push on with economic and security reforms that have made the region relatively prosperous and safe in the past two decades. Since the referendum, Irbil and Baghdad have been at odds over the distribution of resources, control over oil and disputed territory — a dispute that has also affected neighboring Turkey.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi visited Turkey this week and met with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss bilateral issues and the fight against terrorism. Turkey, which had frosty relations with Baghdad just a year ago, and strained relations with the KRG due to the referendum, is today trying to walk a thin line between the two parties. In the past decade, Ankara has played a major role in helping the KRG develop its economic and financial infrastructure.
For Turkey, being on good terms with both sides is important. In the past, having better relations with the KRG at the expense of Baghdad left Ankara facing many challenges. Iraq fell under the influence of Iran, becoming a route for Tehran to expand its regional power.
Ankara fears that any instability in Iraq — a key trading route for oil — will create a vacuum that the terrorist PKK will not hesitate to fill. In the week of Barzani’s election, Turkey conducted cross-border operations in northern Iraq, where the PKK has hideouts used to launch attacks on Turkey. The fight against the PKK was one of the major topics on Erdogan and Abdul Mahdi’s agenda since it is a major security concern for both countries.
The challenges facing the KRG leave it with no option but to normalize relations with Turkey and Iraq, with some media reports suggesting new and more extensive oil and gas agreements in the near future.
What lessons KRG leaders have drawn from the referendum — and whether such an attempt will be repeated in the future — remain open to question.
However, at the end of the day, landlocked KRG needs revenue and friendly relations with its neighbors, and must be able to walk a thin line to keep the balance of power in the region. For the new president, that means a heavy diplomatic and economic agenda.
**Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkey’s relations with the Middle East. Twitter: @SinemCngz