English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For June 11/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.june11.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 06/12-19/:”Now during those days he went out to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God. And when day came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. He came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea, Jerusalem, and the coast of Tyre and Sidon. They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured. And all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on June 10-11/2020
Lebanon Records 20 New Coronavirus Cases
UN Chief Wants 'More Agile' Mission in Lebanon
Report: Lebanese Banks Seek to ‘Prosecute’ Govt, Central Bank
Long-awaited public appointments cast doubt over Lebanon’s ‘technocratic’ government
Aoun Slams Govt. Change 'Rumors', Diab Says Israel Wants Strife
Cabinet Approves Key Appointments amid Boycott of Marada Ministers
Hariri Lashes Out at Geagea over 'Political Fate' Remarks
Diab meets French ambassador, UN’s Kubis
Berri tackles latest political developments with Egyptian ambassador
Hitti participates in extraordinary meeting of OIC Foreign Ministers: For an urgent and effective action to prevent Israel from snatching 30% of West Bank lands
Future Bloc: We will not abandon our national responsibility in protecting the Lebanese formula and Taef
Najjar from Bkerki: Our absence from Cabinet session to disapprove of appointments
Road blocked outside Central Bank in Tripoli in protest against high dollar exchange rate
Protesters rally outside Central Bank in Hamra
Army chief meets ICRC's Martin
Report: Diesel Shortage, 'Pretext' to Increase Tariffs
Protesters Rally, Block Roads as Dollar Soars on Black Market
Lebanese govt fails to address fuel smuggling to Syria: MP
A Solidarity Fund to Save Lebanese Cultural Institutions
Home Farming Takes Root in Lebanon amid Coronavirus Shortages
Congress Sets Stage for Unprecedented Sanctions on Iran, its Proxies
The Lebanese-Syrian borders and Hezbollah’s priorities/Hanin Ghaddar/Al Arabiya/June 10/2020
Thrown out, domestic workers in Lebanon look for a way back to Ethiopia

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on June 10-11/2020
Iran ‘single, biggest’ threat to region: US commander
Rouhani Calls on Russia, China to Resist US Push to Extend Arms Embargo
Pompeo demands Iran release US detainees, urges Libya ceasefire
In Talks with Sisi, Trump Welcomes Egypt’s Ceasefire Proposal for Libya
US embassy: Syrian regime will face further sanctions if political solution is not reached
Syrians Fear Hunger over Record Currency Devaluation
World Bank Expects Turkey’s Economy to Shrink 3.8%
Tunisian MPs Reject Bid for French Colonial Apology
Iran’s Rouhani: We broke the knee of America that was on our throat
Germany Warns Israel against West Bank Annexation Plans
OIC Says Committed to Palestinian State According to 1967 Borders

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on June 10-11/2020
Turkey's president slams the US, so why does Trump take his calls?/Seth J. Frantzman/Jerusalem Post/June 10/2020
Hashd Reforms in Iraq Conceal More Than They Reveal/Michael Knights and Hamdi Malik/The Washington Institute/June 10/2020
The Worst Is Yet to Come in Libya/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat/10 June/2020
Saudi Journalists, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, Ahead Of Third Anniversary Of Qatar Boycott: Qatar Has Ties To Terrorist Organizations, Boycott Is Justified/MEMRI/June 10, 2020
After Arctic Oil Spill, Russian Columnists Slam The System For Allowing The Oligarchs To Operate Unsupervised/MEMRI/June 10/2020
More Power to Putin/Michael Young/Carnrgie MEC/June 10/2020
The Gaza They Do Not Want You to See/Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/June 10/2020
China, under the Veil of Virus, the Schoolyard Bully. Will the US Please Stop It?/Lawrence A. Franklin/Gatestone Institute/June 10/2020
It’s Your Fault They Turn to Violence!/Raymond Ibrahim/June 10/2020
Cairo Declaration can end the chaos in Libya/Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy/Arab News/June 10/2020
Why Netanyahu may be relieved if annexation plan is scaled back/Osama Al-Sharif/Arab News/June 10/2020
Iran’s treatment of Afghan refugees condemned again/Ajmal Shams/Arab News/June3 10/2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on June 10-11/2020
Lebanon Records 20 New Coronavirus Cases
Naharnet/June 10/2020
Lebanon on Wednesday confirmed twenty more COVID-19 coronavirus cases, the Health Ministry said. Twelve of the new cases were recorded among residents and eight among repatriated expats, the Ministry added in its daily statement.
Seven of the local cases were recorded in Bekaa’s Makseh, three in Barja, one in Minieh and one in Suwayri. As for the expat cases, two were recorded in Qana and one was recorded in each of Ashrafieh, Ain el-Rummaneh, Ghobeiri, Haret Hreik, al-Sharqiyeh and Shaqra. All of the local cases have been traced to known sources according to the ministry's statement. The new cases raise the country’s tally to 1,388.

UN Chief Wants 'More Agile' Mission in Lebanon
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 10/2020
The UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, criticized by the United States and Israel, needs to be "more agile and mobile," UN chief Antonio Guterres said in a report published Tuesday ahead of the mission's renewal in August. "Standard armoured personnel carriers are not entirely suitable for crowded areas, narrow streets and mountainous terrain," Guterres said. With lighter transport vehicles, troops would have fewer restrictions on their movement, he said. He also called for "better situational awareness" for UNIFIL. Lebanon and Israel are still technically at war, and UNIFIL usually patrols the border between the two. Set up in 1978, UNIFIL was beefed up after a months-long war in 2006 and tasked with guaranteeing a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from a demilitarized zone on the border. UNIFIL can have up to 10,000 troops on the ground, monitoring the truce and helping Lebanese troops secure the borders.
Guterres said the changes could come from "replacing some heavy infantry functions used for day-to-day activities with reconnaissance functions" using smaller "high-mobility light tactical vehicles and reconnaissance vehicles with improved monitoring capacity," he noted.
The shift "would result in a force sufficiently protected but with a lighter footprint, geared towards better situational awareness," he said. That could mean more troops working in observation and surveillance missions and a reduction in the number of battalions in the zone of operations, he said. The UN head said he wanted to see construction of observation posts and for UN troops to have modern technology to collect and analyze data and improve their communications. As well as the video surveillance and sensors already deployed, Guterres called for thermal-imaging cameras, hi-tech binoculars and drones which could bolster surveillance capacity, in particular on the Blue Line separating Lebanon from Israel. Focusing on its mission to deter any further hostilities, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon currently relies on a "saturation model" of deploying a high density of soldiers and hardware.
In recent years, Israel and the United States have frequently criticized the mission -- which is a peacekeeping operation rather than an enforcement mission -- for not going on the offensive enough. At the end of May, the Shia movement Hizbullah rejected a US demand to bolster the UN mission by giving it authority to search private property. Without referring to that explicitly, Guterres said in the latest report that UNIFIL should continue tackling different parties that do not respect their obligations to the mission. On the one hand, Hizbullah and other groups hold weapons that are beyond the control of the Lebanese state, which hinders its sovereignty across the country. On the other side, Israel carries out overflights of Lebanese territory almost every day, including for raids into Syria, which compromises the credibility of the UN mission, Guterres said.

Report: Lebanese Banks Seek to ‘Prosecute’ Govt, Central Bank
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/June 10/2020
Lebanon’s troubled banks are reportedly seriously considering filing lawsuits against the Central Bank of Lebanon and the Lebanese government to make them pay back their debts, al-Joumhouria daily reported on Wednesday. Banks who were reportedly “shocked” over the outcome of Baabda financial meeting, demand the collection of loans granted to the state, and recover the certificates of deposit (CD) offered to the Central Bank, said the newspaper. According to information, the lawsuit will be filed with the courts in New York if the banks decide to take the step. Parallel cases may be brought before the Lebanese judiciary, added the daily.

Long-awaited public appointments cast doubt over Lebanon’s ‘technocratic’ government
Jacob Boswall, Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 10 June 2020
Lebanon’s cabinet made 18 long-awaited financial appointments Wednesday, in a session dogged by allegations of sectarian power-sharing. The cabinet agreed on four new vice-governors at the central bank, Banque du Liban: Wassim Mansouri, Salim Shaheen, Bashir Yaqan and Alexander Muradian.
The appointees represent four of Lebanon’s power-wielding sects: Sunni, Shi’a, Druze and Armenian-Catholic, respectively. Other appointments included Maya Dabbagh, Marwan Mikhael, Joseph Haddad, Kamel Wazni, Adel Idrik and Crystal Walid Hakim to the Banking Control Commission.
The appointments are long overdue. The current vice governor terms expired a year ago, while the Banking Control Commission terms expired at the end of March. In April the government postponed a session to make the same appointments after Sleiman Frangieh, head of the Marada movement, threatened to withdraw his party’s ministers from the government. Frangieh ordered his ministers to boycott the session again on Wednesday, but could not be reached for comment. Despite Prime Minister Hassan Diab’s assertions that his government is “technocratic” and made up of “independent specialists,” the roster of candidates drew severe criticism in the build-up to Wednesday’s session. “These appointments have come about based on [spoils] as usual… Unfortunately, sectarianism is still strong in Lebanon and it will take more than protests to make this regime fall,” protester Hady Azzeddine told Al Arabiya English.
Industry Minister Imad Hoballah was among the many high-profile critics of the list of names put forward for positions which include director-general of the Economy and Trade Ministry, governor of Beirut, head of the Civil Service Council, and director-general of investment at the Energy Ministry.
“Do these appointments resemble us?” Hoballah tweeted Wednesday morning. After the session, he was quoted as saying: “I opposed [the appointments] based on the lack of a mechanism and transparency.” Economist and political activist Jad Chaaban criticized the names being discussed by cabinet, which include several prominent bankers according to local media. “The ‘independent technocratic government’ will appoint today… [a] banker from BankMed [as] head of Banking Control Commission, [two] bankers from BLOM & BBAC as BDL Vice governors, [a] banker from CEDRUS as Government Commissioner at [Banque du Liban]!!” he tweeted. Chaaban’s tweet drew angry reactions, with many pointing out conflicts of interest and alleged sectarian allegiances of banks. “Cedrus is the Aounist' representative. BankMed is the Future representative. Probably the BLOM and BBAC are representing two of the other groups of the political class. Amazing. How many people said people should give Diab government a chance. Well I think the results are in,” replied one Twitter user.

Aoun Slams Govt. Change 'Rumors', Diab Says Israel Wants Strife
Naharnet/June 10/2020
President Michel Aoun on Wednesday said the government and its ministers should not “waste time” in responding to “rumors and campaigns targeting the Presidency and the government, especially those mentioning a government change or ouster.”
“Some exploited the social protests to carry out condemned acts of sabotage that we had already warned against, and today I reiterate the need for extreme caution in the future, especially that the relevant security agencies have obtained information about the foreign links of some groups of participants,” Aoun added during a Cabinet session. Prime Minister Hassan Diab meanwhile warned that “there are black rooms fabricating and promoting lies to incite against the government and hold it responsible for the burdens of the past years.”“The strife scheme is ongoing and I assure that the Israeli enemy wants to stir strife in Lebanon to cover up for its plan to annex the West Bank. That’s why I call for the highest levels of vigilance and caution to confront and foil this Israeli scheme,” Diab added. Commenting on Saturday’s sectarian unrest and violent protests, the premier said “Lebanon went through a dangerous ordeal last week.”
“We overcame religious and sectarian strife schemes and I had warned of a scheme to spill blood and exploit it in politics,” Diab added.

Cabinet Approves Key Appointments amid Boycott of Marada Ministers
Naharnet/June 10/2020
Cabinet on Wednesday approved important administrative and financial appointments amid the boycott of Marada Movement’s two ministers Lamia Yammine and Michel Najjar. Wassim Mansouri, Salim Chahine, Bashir Yaqzan and Alexander Moradian were named as deputies for the central bank governor, as Maya Dabbagh was named head of the central bank's Banking Control Commission and Kamel Wazni, Joseph Haddad, Marwan Mikhail and Adel Dreiq were appointed as its members. Christelle Wakim was meanwhile named state commissioner to the central bank as Shadi Hanna was named as a member of the central bank's Special Investigation Commission and Wajeb Ali Qansou, Fouad Choucair and Walid Qaderi were appointed as members of the Capital Markets Authority. As for the administrative appointments, Cabinet named Marwan Abboud as Beirut Governor, Pauline Dib as Jbeil-Keserwan Governor, Mohammed Abu Haidar as director general of the Economy Ministry, Ghassan Noureddine as Director General of Investment at the Energy Ministry, Nisrine Mashmoushi as head of the Civil Service Council, Jeryes Berbari as Director General of the Directorate General of Cereals and Sugar Beet at the Economy Ministry. The long-awaited appointments had been the subject of controversy and disagreements for several months, especially those related to the governors and the deputies of the central bank governor. “The approach of the distribution of shares, which was the norm over the past years, is no longer valid today and we believe in the inevitability of abandoning it,” Marada sources told MTV earlier on Wednesday. “There is a need to move to a transparent mechanism for appointments that would be exclusively based on competence and skill,” the sources added. “We received more than one offer over the past two days, but we rejected them in line with our previous stances,” the sources went on to say, warning that “these appointments will destroy what’s left of the spirit of this state.”“We won’t be partners in this or witnesses,” the sources added.

Hariri Lashes Out at Geagea over 'Political Fate' Remarks
Naharnet/June 10/2020
Ex-PM Saad Hariri on Wednesday blasted his once-close ally Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea over remarks the latter made to Egyptian daily al-Ahram. “I didn’t know that your calculations are this accurate. Was I supposed to thank you because had it not been for you, I would have faced my end? Is this reasonable?” Hariri said in a sarcastic tweet. “You believe that my political fate hinged on your decision? This is ridiculous. Either vapor is engulfing Maarab or you don’t know yet who Saad Hariri is,” a defiant Hariri added. In his remarks to al-Ahram, which were released earlier in the day, Geagea suggested that Hariri would have faced the end of his political career had he not resigned as premier in the wake of the October 17 uprising. “I did not end my support for Saad Hariri, but the circumstances were totally inappropriate for him to remain as premier. It might have spelled his end. This was our belief and calculations,” Geagea said when told by his interviewer that he had “abandoned” Hariri. “We needed a big change in Lebanon and we still do, seeing as we cannot continue in the same way and with the same persons,” the LF leader added.

Diab meets French ambassador, UN’s Kubis
NNA/June 10/2020
Prime Minister, Dr. Hassan Diab, received today morning French Ambassador Bruno Foucher, heading a delegation that included the Ambassador’s first and political advisors, respectively Salina Grenet-Catalano and Stephanie Salha, as well as the regional economic advisor François de Ricolfis, in the presence of the PM’s Advisor for Diplomatic Affairs, Ambassador Gebran Soufan. The meeting touched on the events that took place in some Lebanese regions last Saturday. The meeting took stock as well at the reopening date of Rafik Hariri International Airport and the resumption of flights. The French ambassador has praised again thegovernment's work in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and containing it. He also considered the statement made by theIMF’s spokesman "very comfortable and positive, and it meets our expectations."On a different note, PM Diab met with UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, Jan Kubis, with whom he discussed latest developments in the country.--PM Press Office

Berri tackles latest political developments with Egyptian ambassador
NNA/June 10/2020
House Speaker, Nabih Berri, received this Wednesday at his Ain El-Tineh residence the Egyptian Ambassador to Lebanon, Dr. Yasser Alawi, with whom he discussed the general situation and most recent political developments in Lebanon and the broader region. Discussions also reportedly touched on the bilateral Lebanese-Egyptian relations. On emerging, Ambassador Alawi hailed Speaker Berri's recent national stances, saying his positions were an indispensable guarantee for stability in Lebanon and the Arab Levant.
Asked about his country's position regarding the situation in Lebanon, the Diplomat stressed the need to thwart any sedition attempt, adding that his country considers Lebanon's stability a red line, which reflects on the stability of Arab national security and the Levant.

Hitti participates in extraordinary meeting of OIC Foreign Ministers: For an urgent and effective action to prevent Israel from snatching 30% of West Bank lands
NNA/June 10/2020
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants, Nassif Hitti, participated in the extraordinary meeting at the level of Foreign Ministers of the member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which dwelled on the threat of the Israeli occupation to snatch parts of the land of the occupied Palestinian State of 1967. Hitti underlined "the need for effective and urgent action, in coordination between the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the League of Arab States, within the Security Council and in collaboration with international actors and relevant international and regional organizations, in order to prevent Israel from undertaking the annexation of 30% of the West Bank lands, which torpedoes the possibility of establishing an independent and viable Palestinian State."He stressed that "what is required is to get out of the state of no war, no peace -- which the Israeli occupation benefits from, and activate the role of the international Quartet in order to re-launch the peace process, according to known international references, including relevant Security Council resolutions and the Arab peace initiative, on the basis of a clear road map and a specific timetable."

Future Bloc: We will not abandon our national responsibility in protecting the Lebanese formula and Taef
NNA/June 10/2020
Former Prime Minister Saad Hariri chaired yesterday afternoon at the Center House a meeting for the Future Parliamentary Bloc. At the end of the meeting, MP Sami Fatfat read the following statement:
In light of the incidents and insults of religious symbols that occurred on the evening of June 6, the Future Parliamentary Bloc points out the following:
- The bloc expresses its strong condemnation of these actions, and thanks God that the voice of reason triumphed over the voices of ignorance and incitement. Lebanon survived, and we all survived, the evil consequences of the words that insulted our religious symbols and Aisha, the Mother of the Believers.
- The bloc extends its sincere thanks and appreciation to all the spiritual, political and partisan leaders who rushed to condemn and denounce, especially Dar al-Fatwa led by the Grand Mufti, the Supreme Shiite Islamic Council and its president, and the military and security leadership, officers and individuals for their role in curbing sedition.
- The bloc was saddened that the revolution and the popular movement have turned into a title of division, fragmentation of slogans and exchange of accusations, after they presented in previous periods a civilized scene that revived hopes in the hearts of the Lebanese that national loyalty among young men and women prevails over sectarian loyalty and political and regional fanaticism.
- The bloc considers that June 6, 2020 has nothing to do with October 17, 2019. Rather, it is a black day that deviated from the values and goals of the revolution towards sedition. It launched a malicious spark that almost toppled civil peace with the push of a button from a cursed ignorant, before the wise people rushed to extinguish it in its cradle.
-What some neighborhoods in the capital and some regions witnessed on this day is a tragic evidence of the high level of mutual tension in the political and sectarian arenas. If some think it is easy to justify the tensions by reminding of historical differences dating back to more than one thousand four hundred years, the facts of the recent years and the sectarian lineup that accumulated in the Arab and Islamic arenas and their devastating effects have formed a fertile ground for this tension to grow.
We did not spare, under the direct guidance of Premier Saad Hariri, any opportunity to spare Lebanon the fire and repercussions of all these events. We had the courage to make one sacrifice after the other to prevent its transfer to Lebanon, and to block those planning sedition and their tools from entering our national scene.
- The Future Movement, its president, parliamentary bloc and wide public, paid a heavy price for their choices and sacrifices in recent years. It accepted willingly to make the national interest prevail over any other interest, driven by its vision of the dangers besieging Lebanon, starting with the deliberate disruption of the constitutional institutions, the aggravated socio-economic crises, the security chaos, the bombings and the spread of sectarianism in Beirut and many other regions.
- Our decision since day one was and will always remain, to prevent discord among the Lebanese regardless of their sects and to stand in the face of those who are trying to ignite sectarianism regardless of their sect and position. On this basis, we worked to “freeze” the conflict with Hezbollah, without retreating from our principled stance regarding contentious issues. We gave priority to protecting internal stability and our people, supporters, and political environment from the horrors of discord. We also opened a loophole in the constitutional wall that was taking the country to an unknown fate.
- We do not reveal a secret if we say that “freezing” the conflict with Hezbollah aimed to prevent the conflict between two main components of the national equation, the Sunni and Shiite sects. Nevertheless, “freezing” the conflict and, after that, the presidential settlement, aroused the ire of many supporters of the Future Movement and Sunnis who view the Iranian expansion into Arab societies as a threat to their role in their homelands and an interference that threatens national peace.
- We regret approaching the developments from this angle, and draw the attention of all partners in the country- especially those who did not comply with the disassociation policy and those who breached the compromise due to the delusion of power- to the inherent danger of neglecting the reasons of the Sunni anger since the assassination of the martyr Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, to the outbreak of the Syrian war and the deliberate deviation from the requirements of national reconciliation and the rules of participation.
- The Future Bloc will not abandon its national responsibilities and advanced role in protecting the Lebanese formula and the Taef Agreement, in exchange of riding a sectarian populist wave. The school of martyr Prime Minister Rafic Hariri is that of moderation, dialogue and coexistence, which has not and will never drift toward extremism or invest in civil wars and divisions. But patience does not mean keeping silent about injustice and accepting the fait accompli as if it was a written destiny for half the Lebanese, among whom there is an essential group without which common life will not be established and economic advancement will not be achieved, no matter how much they try to do so.
About economic issues:
The bloc notes that confusion is still the master of the situation in terms of the estimated figures for the losses of the Central Bank, as the last financial meeting in Baabda came out with two contradictory positions: The first says that the participants agreed that the numbers mentioned in the government's financial reform plan will be a valid starting point for completing negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, and at the same time, media outlets were informed that these figures are modifiable.
This contradiction only leads to more loss of confidence in the state, the government and the banking sector. The talk since the meeting ended revolves around who will bear these losses and how much the haircut percentage will be. This increased confusion in the banking sector and the exchange market, especially since this issue is still being discussed in Parliament.
About judicial issues:
-The bloc praised the decision of the State Prosecutor Ghassan Oueidat, in which he requested to stop the farce of freeing the detainees in the case of the so-called defective fuel in the morning and returning them to prison in the afternoon. In this context, the bloc demanded that this scandalous file be deferred to the judicial inspection to take the appropriate measures against the violators.
-The bloc paid tribute to the four martyrs of justice (judges Hassan Othman, Imad Chehab, Walid Harmoush and Assem Bou Daher) on the 21st commemoration of their martyrdom in the court of Sidon.
The bloc discussed the decision of the President of the Republic to send back the decree of judicial appointments, which arrived, after a strenuous effort and a long path of obstruction and procrastination, to the corridors of the Presidential Palace where we expected this decree to see the light and acknowledge that a new stage of judicial independence and anti-corruption will begin with a pure judiciary will away from the logic of political interference. The bloc considered that returning this decree confirms the clear intentions of some to continue to put their hand on the judiciary and use it for political ends away from the logic of law and justice.
Turkish ambassador
Earlier, Hariri received the Turkish Ambassador to Lebanon Hakan Cakil and discussed with him the situation and the bilateral relations between the two countries.

Najjar from Bkerki: Our absence from Cabinet session to disapprove of appointments
NNA/June 10/2020
Minister of Public Works and Transportation, Michel Najjar, on Wednesday deplored the government's criteria in recent appointments, highlighting the obligation to adopt a clear and transparent mechanism for nominations.
"Our absence from the Cabinet session is a clear expression that we will not be part of any appointments which do not follow a certain mechanism," Najjar said in remarks made following his meeting with Maronite Patriarch Beshara Rahi in Bkerki. "We are keen to have the right person in the right place," he added.

Road blocked outside Central Bank in Tripoli in protest against high dollar exchange rate
NNA/June 10/2020
A number of protesters have cut off the road outside the Central Bank branch in Tripoli, and at the southern entrance to the city, using burning tires and waste containers, in protest against the high dollar exchange rate.

Protesters rally outside Central Bank in Hamra
NNA/June 10/2020
A number of protesters staged a sit in outside the Central Bank in Hamra, deploring the adopted financial policy, the NNA Correspondent reported Wednesday. Demonstrators also raised slogans against the high cost of living and the high dollar exchange rate. This took place amid deployment of the security forces and riot police.

Army chief meets ICRC's Martin
NNA/June 10/2020
Army Commander, General Joseph Aoun, received this Wednesday at his Yarzeh office the Head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation to Lebanon, Christophe Martin, with talks reportedly touching on the means to bolster joint cooperation between the two institutions.

Report: Diesel Shortage, 'Pretext' to Increase Tariffs
Naharnet/June 10/2020
A number of private power generator owners around Lebanon decided to ration power supply to their customers allegedly over diesel shortage, in a bid to pressure an increase in tariff, media reports said on Wednesday. The Lebanese will therefore have to endure a double rationing program during the summer season, one from the Electricite du Liban and another from power generators, said al-Akhbar daily. The newspaper said the problem reveals “responsibility of oil cartels fabricating the crisis in collusion with the Ministry of Energy and Water under the pretext of preventing its smuggling into Syria.” “The cartel duo - the ministry in cooperation with the owners of generators- seeks to impose an additional tax on diesel fuel for a value of five thousand Lebanese pounds and raise the tariff on subscribers by hiding behind the depletion of stocks and the rise in the price of the dollar,” added al-Akhbar. According to a gas station owner, “the biggest beneficiary is the oil cartel and owners of fuel stations, who seek to monopolize the diesel and store the quantities available.”The statement of generator owners in Tyre and in Tripoli on Tuesday “exposed the scheme,” said the daily. They complained that fuel station owners refused to sell them at less than LL18,000, accusing them of “monopolization.” The government set the price of diesel oil at 10,500. The Ministry of Energy and Water issues tariff guidelines at the end of every month for the pricing of generator services in Lebanon. “Whatever the hidden and apparent causes of the diesel crisis are, Lebanese residents are always the victim," it concluded.

Protesters Rally, Block Roads as Dollar Soars on Black Market
Naharnet/June 10/2020
Anti-government protesters on Tuesday rallied and blocked roads in several Lebanese regions as the U.S. dollar reached the record high of around LBP 4,500 on the black market. In Tripoli, a protest turned violent outside the house of ex-minister Ashraf Rifi where gunshots were fired after demonstrators tried to storm the guards’ rooms. The protesters “scuffled with the guards as army troops worked on pushing them away,” the National News Agency said. Protesters also rallied outside an office belonging to ex-PM Najib Miqati in the city, where they smashed its CCTV cameras and chanted slogans against the rise in prices. Demonstrators also blocked the highway between Tripoli and Akkar in the Bab al-Tabbaneh and al-Beddawi areas and staged a march in Tripoli. Residents of Minieh, Deir Amar and al-Beddawi meanwhile rallied outside the Deir Amar power plant in protest at a power outage that has been running since several days. “They blocked the international highway in both directions outside the power plant, which prompted army troops to intervene to remove them,” NNA said, reporting tensions in the area. In Beirut, protesters rallied outside parliament before moving to the Hamra area where they blocked the road outside the central bank, denouncing the rise in the dollar exchange rate. Demonstrations were also staged in the southern city of Sidon as protesters blocked roads in the Bekaa and the Halba road in Akkar.

Lebanese govt fails to address fuel smuggling to Syria: MP
Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 10 June 2020
The Lebanese government, made up of Hezbollah and its allies, has failed to secure the country’s border with Syria and prevent widespread smuggling. As the anticipated US Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, passed last year, comes into effect in one week, Lebanon will come under more pressure to halt dealings with the Assad regime and those helping him circumvent any sanctions. Fuel shortages have been reported in recent months in Syria and fuel tankers from the country have been seen lining the streets of Beirut, A video that went viral last week showed tens of trucks with Syrian license plates parked on the side of the road near the Beirut port. The Lebanese government has yet to comment on this video, which has drawn the ire of local officials. MP Ziad Hawat questioned the silence of the government on Wednesday. He tweeted the video and said: “We haven’t heard from the Lebanese government any clarification for these fuel trucks which were waiting to fill subsidized fuel.”Hawat was referring to items subsidized by Lebanon's central bank, which include fuel. “And some accuse us of exaggerating and that smuggling is minimal,” he said. “Why weren’t these trucks stopped? Or is the government, as usual, turning a blind eye?”Last month, the Lebanese Army found and removed 30 meters of pipes used for smuggling fuel along the northern border with Syria. On Wednesday, Hawat said: “Smuggling continues along the Lebanese-Syrian border and there are calls for the Lebanese Army to be given the green light to take control of the border.

A Solidarity Fund to Save Lebanese Cultural Institutions
Beirut - Sawsan al-Abtah/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
Arts are not prioritized anywhere in the Arab world, and this neglect poses an existential threat to many institutions, which may be forced to shut down, leaving their employees without jobs as a result of the coronavirus lockdown and the economic crises.
While the entire Arab world is struggling, Lebanon is in a dire situation because of the chain of events that began with the eruption of the October 17 revolution, followed by economic and financial collapse and then the total paralysis imposed by the epidemic.
In response to the threat facing the field of arts, donors have begun announcing various forms of support and funding in an attempt to curtail the crisis. The Arab Fund for Arts and Culture (AFAC) and the Cultural Resource Fund (CRF) launched a Solidarity Fund to support arts and culture in Lebanon, the first initiative on which the two collaborate.
Around 800,000 dollars have been allocated to the fund, and as many as 16 institutions may benefit from it, with contributions capped at 80,000 dollars per institution. Support for the Solidarity Fund comes from funders of AFAC and CRF, including Open Society Foundations and the Ford Foundation. The deadline for application submissions, to be made through the institutions' websites, ends on June 15. This funding is an existential assistance for cultural institutions to help them rethink their resources, goals, activities, and structure, and perhaps reconsider their role, or the possibility of cooperation with other institutions, to survive on the long term. In other words, it is meant to help them avoid collapse after years of fruitful work. Concerns about cultural work in Lebanon did not begin with the outbreak of the epidemic but with the start of anti-government protests. Discussions among the artists themselves are ongoing, as are discussions between them and the remaining financiers, especially since some of those who had been funding cultural activities in the past are now out of the picture. Like banks, for example, which are in crisis. Rima Mesmar, Executive Director of the Arab Fund for Culture and Arts (AFAC), explains that “applications for the fund’s grant will be examined by a neutral committee, composed of three people with knowledge of the cultural and artistic contexts and corporate management. This particular grant is special in that it is not linked to a project, and most importantly, it will quickly reach its recipients, given the pressing need for it.”Executive Director of the CRF Helena Nassif believes the main problem is that “there is no cultural welfare in the Arab region, nor is there a tradition of the rich transferring part of their property for the public service.” “This is one of the reasons for the deep crisis of cultural life in Arab countries in general following the pandemic, which compelled us to find a solution to this massive shortage.”Lebanon is not the only country struggling. Both foundations will also assist other Arab countries. AFAC will help around 150 artists from across the Arab world as individuals, providing each artist with 3,000 dollars over three to six months to allow them to complete a project that had been halting or start a new project. Beneficiaries are not obliged to submit results, though this would be well received. CRF, on the other hand, plans to provide up to 5,000 dollars per person to support artists who have no health insurance, have lost their work, or whose projects have stopped and could be completed through this grant.

Home Farming Takes Root in Lebanon amid Coronavirus Shortages
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
As Lebanon's coronavirus lockdown puts further strain on its already shrinking workforce and compounds dire food shortages, insurance specialist Fares Mdawar has invested his free time into converting the patch of land by his home into a farm. In the mountainous district of Keserwan, north of the capital Beirut, about 400 families have joined Mdawar, 62, to grow vegetables and other produce under a new initiative to promote home agriculture and self-sufficiency. "I'm from the mountains and my family farmed their entire lives, but we no longer farm," said Mdawar, one of the beneficiaries of the Ghaletna project, which since March has been giving families seedlings, training and other resources. "It's not my profession, but I have this land and because of circumstances caused by coronavirus and job scarcity, we got excited about this project." The initiative, which means "our crop" in Arabic, was founded in in March by university professor and former social affairs minister Selim Sayegh, and receives a mix of public and private funding. With lockdowns to slow the spread of COVID-19 closing borders and stalling transportation networks around the world, people in import-dependent cities are turning to urban farming as they realize how easily their food supplies can be disrupted. As inflation and unemployment soar in Lebanon - where food accounts for nearly a fifth of total imports, according to data from the World Bank - the movement to promote home-based farming has been gaining popularity. As well as the Ghaletna project, Oscar-nominated Lebanese filmmaker Nadine Labaki joined the call to grow-your-own. In May, she launched the "Plant of my Heart" campaign, bringing together several sustainable agriculture initiatives to help prospective home farmers. "Everything is affected, everything is more expensive. That's why local production - anything people can do - is so important," Mdawar said.
Food crisis
By the time the novel coronavirus reached Lebanon in March, shutting down businesses and disrupting imports, a financial crisis exacerbated by months of political instability had already taken a toll on the country of about 7 million people.
More than 220,000 jobs were lost between October and February, according to research firm InfoPro, and banks have imposed capital controls as dollars have become scarce and the value of the Lebanese pound has fallen by more than half.
Staple food prices have gone up in recent months, with the cost of rice rising by 41% and sugar by 50% between September and February, according to government statistics. The economy ministry has set up new plans to monitor costs, protect consumers and prevent illicit trade in an effort to combat price hikes, ministry media adviser Sally Haddad told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Last month, the Lebanese central bank issued a decision allowing importers to acquire essential items - such as rice and grains - at a fixed exchange rate of 3,200 pounds to the dollar, which is expected to lower food prices soon, Haddad said.
'Connect people to their land'
While food prices continue to soar in Lebanon's frail economic climate, poverty is affecting nearly everyone, said Sayegh of Ghaletna. "There's an issue of food security - communities are largely lacking resources that have become more expensive than the Lebanese people can afford," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a phone interview. "We want to connect people to their land again and motivate them." Traditionally, homeowners from previous generations would build multi-level farming basins in small, often steep, plots of land adjacent to their houses, but as a consumer economy flourished, people stopped farming, Sayegh said. Using its network of about 80 volunteers, Ghaletna reached out to more than 70 villages across Keserwan to recruit the first group of families for its pilot project, identifying those who had the capacity to farm and those who needed help. The first set of farmers under the initiative should be able to begin harvesting their yield this month, Sayegh said.
Free to farm
In his family's 50-square-meter plot, electrical engineering graduate Joe Daccache, 22, is growing parsley, rocket, zucchini and cucumbers. "At this point, we're producing enough just for the household," said Daccache, who lives with his family of five. Families with larger plots might choose to sell their surplus in local markets in the future, but for Daccache home farming is a way to relieve at least some of the burden of paying extortionate food prices. The real value will come from conserving or freezing portions of his harvest to use out of season, when items in the market can cost up to three times their original price, he said. Sayegh has future plans to expand the project if the results of the pilot are promising. People have even reached out to Ghaletna offering their land for free to be farmed so that its yield can be distributed to families in need, he said. As Lebanon eases restrictions and reopens businesses, there's a risk people might not have the same time to tend to their land, said Daccache. But he expects as more people lose their jobs in the long term, they'll have to turn to more self-sufficient practices like home farming. "We're now opening our eyes to the large amount of consumption we had been relying on without thinking of sustainability for the future," he said.

Congress Sets Stage for Unprecedented Sanctions on Iran, its Proxies
Washington - Rana Abtar/Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
Republicans in the US Congress have further escalated their pressure on Tehran by introducing the biggest sanctions bill aimed at paralyzing the Iranian regime and cutting off the arms of its regional proxies. Asharq Al-Awsat received a copy of the bill drafted by the Republican study committee. It would include the largest list of punitive measures introduced against Iran in the history of the Congress. The legislation aims to freeze Iran’s support to terrorism and to bankrupt the regime by stripping it from any liquidity. Republican Mike Johnson said the new legislation would impose "the toughest sanctions that have ever been proposed by Congress on Iran." So far, around 150 Republican lawmakers have supported the legislation. A member of the US House, representing Florida, Republican Greg Steube said the new sanctions are related to the expiration of the arms embargo on Iran. Steube also said that his party intends to propose a ban on US financial assistance to Lebanon. Supporters of the new bill lash out at the new agreement between Iran and the Iraqi government to export electricity to Iraq for a period of two years, fearing that such a deal could expand Tehran’s role in Baghdad. The proposed bill therefore requires President Donald Trump to get approval from the House and Senate to issue Iran sanctions waivers, the most important being those extended to Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity. It would also impose sanctions on every Iraqi militia that participated in the December 31, 2019 – January 1, 2020 attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. Concerning Lebanon, the Republican legislators are calling for a complete halt of US aid to Beirut. They argue that such assistance empowers Iran. The legislation also aims to halt any financial aid from the International Monetary Fund to save Lebanon from its deteriorating economic situation.

The Lebanese-Syrian borders and Hezbollah’s priorities
Hanin Ghaddar/Al Arabiya/June 10/2020
حنين غدار: الحدود السورية-اللبنانية وأولويات حزب الله
Hezbollah’s control of the Syrian-Lebanese border is attracting renewed controversy in Lebanon, where cross-border smuggling has recently intensified, and abroad, with the international community discussing Lebanon’s failure to establish sovereignty over its territory in line with UNSCR 1559. Lebanon can no longer ignore the economic repercussions of costly smuggling on its already fragile economy. As the country enters into negotiations for a bailout from the International Monetary Fund contingent on reform, controlling its borders is becoming an utmost priority for the Lebanese government.
It is the Lebanese Army’s duty to stop smuggling, arrest smugglers, and close off illegal borders. However, the recent measures it has taken appear to be superficial acts, designed as a show for the international community. The real issue is that Hezbollah is smuggling weapons and fighters from Lebanon to Syria and beyond, and vice versa. In addition to its military operations, Hezbollah has smuggled goods from Iran and Syria to sell in Lebanon. Meanwhile, fuel, US dollars, and flour, have crossed from Lebanon into Syria.
Hezbollah’s control of the borders, and the way it has used these borders to benefit Iran’s and Syria’s economy – at the expense of Lebanon’s economy – has recently been exposed and caused much uproar by activists and opposition figures. The new wave of the protests, expected to restart on June 6, will likely see this scandal placed at the center of corruption charges brought by protesters against the state, and it will implicate Hezbollah and Assad allies in Lebanon.
Last month, Lebanon’s Central Bank Governor Riad Salemeh hinted that the country has lost $4 billion a year to smuggling, at a time when Lebanon is asking the IMF for $10 billion in aid.
In response, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has called for “bilateral cooperation” with the Assad regime to control smuggling. A few days later, Hezbollah’s officials stated that Hezbollah will not allow the closure of illegal borders with Syria, because “Hezbollah needs to bring in weapons for the resistance.”
Despite some of the measures implemented by the Lebanese Armed Forces such the closure of some illegal crossings and a few arrests of smugglers, the issue has not been – and will not be – resolved anytime soon, at least not without a major concession from Hezbollah to the international community. Hezbollah will not be forced to cease its smuggling operations unless it is forced to do so.
This kind of concession will not be achieved without a serious maximum pressure campaign on Hezbollah itself, not on Iran and by default Hezbollah. A maximum pressure campaign on Hezbollah also means that Hezbollah’s network of allies and the business community – from all sects – needs to be put under pressure and sanctions. It also means that Hezbollah’s influence within security institutions should be weakened through using aid as leverage.
For example, US assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces could come with conditions catered to cut Hezbollah’s influence over certain military units and figures in the army. Otherwise, Hezbollah will continue to influence Lebanon’s economic, diplomatic and security decisions, and vital issues such as border control and smuggling will never be properly addressed.
This is a game that Hezbollah and its allies are good at playing. When they are cornered, they buy time. Today, Hezbollah’s government is cornered as the economy in Lebanon is deteriorating, and no measures have been implemented to stop this deterioration. The permission Hezbollah gave to the government to negotiate with the IMF is another way to buy time as they continue their smuggling operation along the Lebanese-Syrian borders.
It has become clear for many observers in Lebanon that receiving IMF aid seems unlikely as reforms are yet to materialize – at least not with this government. Between the IMF package that could save Lebanon, and Iran’s land bridge from Tehran to Beirut and the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah will chose Iran over Lebanon. For Hezbollah, a Venezuela scenario for Lebanon is better than cutting Iran’s route to Lebanon.
Therefore, the only solution is pressure on Hezbollah – a dual pressure that comes from both the Lebanese streets and the international community in a firm attempt to regain the political balance once Lebanon enjoyed.
*Hanin Ghaddar is the inaugural Friedmann Fellow at The Washington Institute's Geduld Program on Arab Politics, where she focuses on Shia politics throughout the Levant. She tweets @haningdr.

Thrown out, domestic workers in Lebanon look for a way back to Ethiopia
Abby Sewell/Video edited by Omar Elkatouri, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday 09 June 2020
A taxi pulled up to the Ethiopian embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, where a crowd of women were already gathered.
The women gathered around the car as a teary-eyed young woman got out. The driver, looking disgruntled by the attention, unloaded a large black suitcase, which a pair of the women hauled onto the sidewalk while another one hugged the crying new arrival, before walking her over to join the others sitting along the wall with their suitcases looking dejected.
Some of the women had slept on the sidewalk the night before. Some had small children with them. One young woman, who others said was mentally ill, stood alone, singing to herself and ignoring the crowd around her.
It is a scene that has become perversely normal in recent days.
On Friday, 35 women who had been sleeping in front of embassy were brought to a shelter run by the NGO Caritas. But by Monday, the numbers had swelled again.
The new arrival, Lomi, told Al Arabiya English that she was 20 years old and had arrived in Lebanon just over a year ago to work to help her parents in Ethiopia. With one of the other women translating from Amharic – Ethiopia’s official language – Lomi said her employer, who hadn’t paid her wages in four months, had thrown her out. After Lomi pushed for the money she was owed, her employer called a cab and sent her off – with one suitcase but without her passport. “What’s going to happen with me tomorrow or after tomorrow?” she said. “What can I do, where can I go? What am I going to eat and drink? Where is my money from the last four months?”
With the dramatic devaluation of Lebanon’s currency in recent months, even the cheap labor provided by migrant domestic workers from Ethiopia and other African and Asian countries has become unaffordable for many of the middle and working-class Lebanese households that previously took the presence of a live-in domestic worker for granted.
Increasingly, migrant domestic workers have gone unpaid or been cut loose.
Employers have begun dropping off their former workers in front of the embassy, where other workers have been gathering to demand assistance repatriating the women. “You see these ones? They brought them today with their bags,” said Hanna Tadasa, another one of the women in front of the embassy, gesturing at the line of women sitting against the wall. Tadasa said she had been in Lebanon for three years and has been out of work for six months and bouncing between different friends’ houses because she can’t afford to pay rent.
Addressing a hypothetical employer, Tadasa said, “Madame, my dear, you have parents. [These women] also have parents in their country. Don’t bring them and throw them outside. Shame on you. We are humans.”
She added that the embassy had given no clear answers about the repatriation process. “Every day they tell us come back on Monday, and when Monday comes there’s nothing,” she said. “I want to travel to my country and live in dignity with my family.”
Impossible Return
Ethiopian Consul Aklilu Tatere Wube did not respond to a request for comment. Iman Khazaal, head of the Lebanese Ministry of Labor’s employment department in Mount Lebanon, told Al Arabiya English that a major barrier to repatriation of the workers was the Ethiopian government’s requirement that those wanting to return must pay not only for the airplane ticket – at a cost of around $680 – but also for a two-week hotel stay to quarantine upon arrival, at a rate of $40 to $100 per night. “That makes departing impossible – not just hard, impossible,” Khazaal said. She said Lebanese officials had pushed for the Ethiopian government to drop the requirement, but without success. “The ball is in the playground of Ethiopia,” she said. “They have to facilitate (the workers’) departing.”Khazaal said employers who dumped workers at the embassy could face penalties but with many women lacking passports, it was difficult to ascertain which workers had been dumped by their employers and which were “irregular workers” who had left their employers of their own volition. Still, she added, “Even if they are irregular, they need protection.”
Fueling a push for reforms
Lebanon’s “kafala” sponsorship system for migrant domestic workers had been under fire by labor and human rights advocates long before the current crisis. Over the past year, officials have embarked on serious discussions about overhauling the system. The discussions have also gained new currency amid mass anti-racism protests in the US and worldwide that have thrown a spotlight on the treatment of African immigrants in Lebanon. The current legal framework for migrant workers ties the worker’s legal presence in the country to a specific employer, does not allow the worker to change employers without the permission of the first employer, and makes renewal of residency and work permits contingent on the employer. Migrant domestic workers are also not covered by the same labor protections as other employees. Zeina Mezher, the International Labour Organization’s focal person in Lebanon for labor migration issues, said the situation brought about by the coronavirus and Lebanon’s economic crisis has highlighted already existing problems in the kafala system. “The crisis situation shows the vulnerability of migrant workers under the kafala system,” she said. “…This whole crisis is highlighting these issues that we should not only dismantle kafala but approach domestic work differently.” In the current situation, Mezher said, “What’s happening is that many employers are no longer able to afford to pay the workers, and the worker has no option to change employers or leave the employer without becoming irregular.”
The ILO has been advocating for the Ministry of Labor to create a mechanism for migrant workers who do not want to leave the country to legally change employers, she said, as well as for protection of the right of the workers who do choose to return to pursue claims for unpaid wages.
Meanwhile, in order to put a halt to the practice of employers dumping workers on the streets, Mezher said “a strong message that they would be held accountable” is necessary. Hayat, an Ethiopian woman who is still employed but has been coming to the embassy to bring water and other items to the women stranded there, told Al Arabiya English, “If [the employer] doesn’t have money, she should send [the worker] back to her country, not dump her here.”She added, “For a long time we’ve been working in Lebanon and helping the old and young women and the children.”
She gestured at the women around her: “Now they can’t eat or drink. They don’t even have clothes…There’s no money in Lebanon, ok, but it’s wrong to dump her on the street.”

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on June 10-11/2020
Iran ‘single, biggest’ threat to region: US commander
Joseph Haboush/Al Arabiya English/Wednesday 10 June 2020
Iran remains the biggest threat in the region only behind al-Qaeda and ISIS, while China and Russia’s resurgence has forced Washington to shift resources, the top US military commander for the Middle East said Wednesday. As a result of the slaying of Iran Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani in January, Washington imposed a form of “contested deterrence with Iran,” CENTCOM Commander Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said. In a webinar with the Middle East Institute, McKenzie said that Iran - as the "single, biggest threat in the region" - was forced to recalculate its actions because they did not believe that the US would take such action to kill Soleimani. “They pushed for many years to find a red line and they finally did,” he said. The US general said that attacks attributable to Iran have not been generated following the drone strike on Soleimani, such as the attacks on Saudi Aramco in 2019. “They are deterred because they have seen that we have capability and will,” he said. “Iran can control early steps, but it is clear that we will control the final steps [in any confrontation],” he added. But McKenzie was quick to say that he does not want to paint “too rosy a picture” of the decline in tensions because this could change quickly. McKenzie also criticized Iran for preventing a solution to the yearslong conflict in Yemen. He praised Saudi Arabia for wanting a negotiated end to the conflict and their willingness to negotiate in good faith. Allowing Iran to buy, sell conventional weapons further destabilizes region: Hook
“The Houthis have an opportunity to come to an agreement to get a lot of things they want [in Yemen], but unfortunately, there is a third party,” McKenzie said, calling out Iran as wanting nothing but for the conflict to continue.
He said that it is in everyone’s interest to come to a negotiated settlement and voiced his belief that the United Arab Emirates “would sign on to that too.” “Iran is the only one who doesn’t want this and they can encourage at a relatively small investment and allows them to continue to dig at Saudi Arabia.” Turning to Russia and China’s roles in the Middle East, the commander said that both countries carefully studied the US in recent years. He said that the US would have to shift resources to be able to more directly confront threats, “most dangerously China in my opinion.” McKenzie admitted that China was moving in “principally economically,” to the region and that it wants access to “other things.”

Rouhani Calls on Russia, China to Resist US Push to Extend Arms Embargo
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called on Russia and China to stand against Washington's push to extend a UN-imposed arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with six powers. "Americans are already angry, upset, and wanting to take this issue to the Security Council. We want four permanent\members of the (UN Security) Council to stand up to America," stressed Rouhani in a televised speech. "Particularly, we expect Russia and China to resist this US plot. America will not succeed ... and we will increase our defense capabilities as we have been doing so even under sanctions." If the UN Security Council does not extend the embargo, Washington has threatened to trigger a so-called snapback of all UN sanctions on Iran, including the arms embargo, using a process outlined in the nuclear deal, Reuters reported. Meanwhile, Russia and China, both parties to the deal, have already started making the case at the United Nations against US's claim that it can trigger a return of all sanctions on Iran at the Security Council. The United States withdrew from the deal in 2018, arguing it was flawed to Tehran's advantage, and has reimposed sanctions crippling Iran's economy. Under the deal, Iran agreed to halt its sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran has gradually rolled back its commitments under the accord since the United States quit.

Pompeo demands Iran release US detainees, urges Libya ceasefire
Agencies/Arab News/June 10/2020
LONDON: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded on Wednesday that Iran release US detainees. Last week, Tehran released US Navy veteran Michael White, who had been detained in the country since his arrest in July 2018, and in exchange the Washington released Majid Taheri on Monday, an Iranian-American scientist detained for 16 months for violating US sanctions. Pompeo thanked US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook for securing his release and the Swiss government for their assistance. “The work is not done, Baquer Namazi, Siamak Namazi, and Morad Tahbaz are Americans still wrongfully detained by the Iranian regime. Tehran must release them immediately,” Pompeo said during a press conference to discuss an annual state department report on religious freedoms. Commenting on Libya, Pompeo welcomed the resumption of talks led by the United Nations and called on Libya’s warring parties to continue to negotiate in good faith. He said the agreement between the weak internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) and the Libyan National Army, led by eastern commander Khalifa Haftar, to reenter UN security talks “was a good first step, very positive. Quick and good faith negotiations are now required to implement a cease-fire and relaunch the UN-led intra-Libyan political talks.” Egypt called for a cease-fire starting on Monday, as part of an initiative which also proposed an elected leadership council for Libya. Pompeo’s comments come a day after European ministers also urged all parties to stop the fighting, end all military operations, and “engage constructively in the 5+5 negotiations,” they said in a joint statement, in reference to a joint military commission that helped broker the cease-fire in Cairo earlier this month. Pompeo said that “putting Libya on the path to economic recovery means preserving Libyan oil facilities and strong access to the national oil corporation.” Libya has been mired by fighting and chaos since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi was toppled in 2011. “It’s time, it’s time for all Libyans on all sides to act, so neither Russian or any other country can interfere in Libya’s sovereignty for its own gain,” he added. Also on Wednesday, Germany’s ambassador to Libya, Oliver Owcza, met with Haftar and expressed concern over the ongoing military confrontations and their worrying impact on the civilian population.

In Talks with Sisi, Trump Welcomes Egypt’s Ceasefire Proposal for Libya
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
US President Donald Trump welcomed on Wednesday Egypt's proposal for Libya ceasefire in a call with Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, said the Egyptian Presidency. Egypt called for a ceasefire starting on Monday, as part of an initiative which also proposed an elected leadership council for Libya. Russia and the UAE welcomed the plan, while Germany said UN-backed talks were key to the peace process. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday welcomed the resumption of talks led by the United Nations between Libya’s warring sides and urged speedy negotiations to achieve a ceasefire.
“The agreement between the GNA and LNA to re-enter UN security talks was a good first step, very positive,” Pompeo said in a news conference, referring to the Government of National Accord and Libyan National Army, commanded by Khalifa Haftar. “Quick and good-faith negotiations are now required to implement a ceasefire and relaunch the UN-led intra-Libyan political talks,” Pompeo said. The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) on June 2 said Libya’s warring parties had agreed to restart ceasefire talks. The US has lambasted Russian involvement in the conflict, a stance reiterated on Wednesday by Pompeo. “It’s time ... for all Libyans and all sides to act so that neither Russia or any other country can interfere in Libya’s sovereignty for its own game,” Pompeo said. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump discussed Libya in a call on Monday. Erdogan said the two agreed on “some issues” on Libya. nTurkey dismissed Egypt’s ceasefire proposal as an attempt to save Haftar following the losses he suffered on the battlefield.

US embassy: Syrian regime will face further sanctions if political solution is not reached
Arab News/June 10/2020
LONDON: The Syrian regime must take irreversible steps to implement a political solution in the country or face further targeted sanctions and isolation, the US embassy in Syria said on Wednesday. The embassy added that the US will continue targeted sanctions and increased economic pressure on the Assad regime until there is irreversible progress on the political process, including a nationwide ceasefire. President Bashar Al-Assad is responsible for Syria's economic meltdown and he is squandering “tens of millions of dollars each month to fund a needless war against the Syrian people instead of providing for their basic needs,” the embassy added.

Syrians Fear Hunger over Record Currency Devaluation
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
Umm Ahmed and her family have survived years of war, but now the mother of five is terrified uncontrolled devaluation of the Syrian pound will prevent her from feeding her children. "Since the war started, we've tasted all sorts of suffering," said the 39-year-old, displaced three times by fighting in the opposition stronghold of Idlib. "I think hunger will be among the next." The value of the Syrian pound has plummeted with dizzying speed in recent days on the informal market, sending prices skyrocketing, shuttering shops, and sparking unprecedented protests. Umm Ahmed said she was so alarmed she was considering buying flour in bulk to start hoarding supplies. In Idlib, the increase in the price of bread has sparked protests against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militants in charge of the region of three million people -- around half displaced by the conflict and many dependent on aid.
Some shops have closed, an AFP correspondent reported. In recent days the value of the Syrian pound on the black market has started to tumble even faster from one record to the next. From Saturday to Monday alone, the exchange rate soared from 2,300 to more than 3,000 pounds to the dollar, more than four times the official rate of around 700. It hovered close to 3,000 on Wednesday. Before the conflict, it stood at 47. Analysts say the recent spike is likely due to worries ahead of the introduction of new US sanctions from June 15, and the sudden fall from grace of tycoon and cousin of the president, Rami Makhlouf, which has set other top businessmen on edge. Prices have risen across the country, though the Turkish lira is used in some parts of the opposition-held north. The government has blamed the unofficial devaluation on US sanctions, and "manipulation" of the exchange rate.
But the rapid deterioration has sparked unprecedented criticism in regime-held areas, including in the southern city of Sweida, where dozens have demonstrated for three days since Sunday, boldly chanting against the president. In the capital Damascus, one lawmaker said Sunday that part of the blame for the unofficial devaluation lay with the "wrong policies practiced by the government". Another demanded action from the central bank, which increased the official exchange rate from 434 to 700 in March, but has since maintained that peg.

World Bank Expects Turkey’s Economy to Shrink 3.8%
Ankara - Saeed Abdul Razzak/Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
Turkey’s economy is expected to shrink by 3.8 percent in 2020, according to the World Bank’s (WB) Global Economic Prospects report published Tuesday for June. In its January report, the WB expected the Turkish economy to grow by three percent in 2020 but later published a review over the Q1 2020 in April dropping the rate to 0.5 percent. The WB also revised its forecast on the Turkish economy’s growth for the year 2021. In its reports published in January and April, it expected growth in Turkey's GDP by four percent, but raised this percentage to five in June’s report.
The WB’s forecasts come in line with those of Moody’s credit rating agency, which expected Turkey’s economy to shrink by five percent at the end of this year. The agency had previously expected the Turkish economy to shrink by 1.4 percent, but it adjusted this forecast, which is contrary to statements by Turkish economic officials in this regard.  Treasury and Finance Minister Berat Albayrak said he remains optimistic the country will meet its five percent growth target by the end of 2020. In a previous report, Moody’s dropped its forecasts for the Turkish economy’s growth from three percent growth to 1.4 percent shrink due to the coronavirus outbreak. “Risk aversion among international investors will translate into constrained market access for Turkish banks, partly offset by lower loan demand.”Banks with high exposure to small and medium-sized enterprises, along with the tourism and transportation industries, will be particularly affected, the ratings agency said in its report. It stressed that lower lending volumes for banks and higher provisions for loan-losses would pressure profitability, while there would be additional capital strain caused by currency depreciation. “The authorities' support measures will only partly offset the weakening of the credit profiles of Turkish banks,” it noted.

Tunisian MPs Reject Bid for French Colonial Apology
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
After a heated, 14-hour debate, Tunisia’s parliament on Wednesday rejected a motion calling on France to apologize for crimes committed during and after colonial rule, and pay reparations. The motion to demand an “official and public apology from the French state for crimes, assassinations, torture, rape, forced deportation and looting of natural resources” was presented by the Islamist nationalist party Coalition Al Karama, which has just 19 lawmakers in the 217-seat assembly. Opponents argued that such a move would spell economic disaster, given that France is Tunisia’s top trade partner and No. 1 foreign investor. It’s also home to 1 million Tunisians. But proponents of the motion said an apology is necessary to “turn the page on this dark period” in the history of the two countries and put their relations on a more equal footing. The debate was rejected early Wednesday after 14 hours of debate, with 77 legislators voting in favor, 46 abstentions and five votes against. To be adopted, it needed an absolute majority of 109 votes. Tunisia was a French protectorate from 1881 until it gained independence in 1956. A year later, it was declared a republic with Habib Bourguiba as its president. The bill also demanded “compensation to the Tunisian state and to all those who suffered the pain of colonization.”“We are not animated by any bitterness or hatred, but such apologies will heal the wounds of the past,” argued head of Al Karama Seifeddine Makhlouf. However, he provoked an outcry when he attacked Bourguiba, calling him “the servant of France.”Lawmaker Mustapha Ben Ahmed of the Tahya Tounes party said, “We are for the most part the children of Bourguiba, who led the liberation struggle of the country after long years of imprisonment and deportations and built modern Tunisia by generalizing education and by emancipating women.”The leader of Ennahdha was among those who said the motion could harm Tunisia’s economic interests and its most important international alliance. Others noted Tunisia’s years-long economic crisis and 15% unemployment rate and said the motion was too hastily prepared. “We are not going to feed Tunisians with such motions,” said Osama Khelifi of the Qalb Tounes party.'

Iran’s Rouhani: We broke the knee of America that was on our throat
Jerusalem Post/June 10/2020
Rouhani said the US has been trying to defeat Iran for decades and that Iran has outwitted the US. He referenced pressure going back to 1997 and other eras. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani gave an inflammatory speech at a cabinet meeting, according to Fars News Agency in Tehran. Referencing the police killing of George Floyd in the US. He claimed that America has had a “knee” to the throat of Iran for years and that Iran has broken its will. “Our dear nation broke this knee by breaking their unity and now they no longer have the knee to put pressure on the Iranian nation.”
It was not clear which “unity” he meant: whether he meant that internally the US was divided or that Western unity was broken. Rouhani said the US has been trying to defeat Iran for decades and that Iran has outwitted it. He referenced pressure going back to 1997 and other eras.
He says the last four months have shown extreme pressure on Iran but that Tehran has survived. Rouhani discussed the COVID-19 crisis which struck Iran in February and has led to thousands of deaths and more than 100,000 recorded cases. Iran likely has had more deaths than it admits. “Thank God, we have redoubled efforts in this situation and created suitable conditions for the people,” he said. He warned that the virus crisis was not over and that with the summer, it was unclear if there will be a reduction in its spread. Nevertheless, Iran has re-opened.
The Iranian leader said that Iran was investing in the Health Ministry but then touched on US sanctions. He claimed revenues have dropped by $50 billion compared to last year’s budget. But Iran was making up for problems using innovative online technologies. He also wants to reduce rent and housing prices.
It was the Americans he lashed out at most harshly. “The US government has been discredited and has become discredited.” He said in the fight against the virus, the US performed worst among world nations and that it doesn’t have the necessary managers at the top to even run Washington. "They brought the knee to the throat of the nation, but our dear nation broke this knee by breaking their unity."Iran’s media has been pushing support for the protests in the US against racism. Tehran suppresses and kills protesters but supports them abroad to undermine adversaries.Now the US is conspiring again, Rouhani claimed. “Our expectation is that the UN Security Council will stand up to the US conspiracy,” predicting that Russia and China would stand by Iran.

Germany Warns Israel against West Bank Annexation Plans
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas warned on Wednesday Israel that its plan to begin annexing parts of the West Bank would violate international law, but he stopped short of threatening sanctions. Maas was speaking on a visit to Israel one month before Berlin assumes the European Union presidency, a role which gives it great influence in guiding EU policy. It was his first trip outside of Europe since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. Israel’s new unity government next month intends to begin discussing extending sovereignty to its settlements in occupied land that Palestinians claim for an envisaged independent state. The plan has been criticized by Arab and European powers as likely to finish off long-moribund efforts to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel says annexation would be in keeping with a unilateral plan announced by US President Donald Trump in January. “I repeated here today the German position as well as our serious concerns as a special friend of Israel of the possible consequences of such a step,” Maas told reporters alongside his Israeli counterpart Gabi Ashkenazi. “We still believe the negotiated two-state solution is the right way, that annexation will not make this solution more probable.”“We are also in agreement in the EU that we seek dialogue with all parties to this process. I am here in Israel to receive information about the plans of the new government,” Maas continued. Ashkenazi, a former military chief who recently assumed his post with the establishment of a new Israeli government, claimed the Trump plan has its upsides and presents an opportunity. "The plan will be pursued responsibly," he said. “We intend to do it in a dialogue with our neighbors," mentioning Jordan, among others.
Maas also met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Benny Gantz. Netanyahu's office said the prime minister told Maas that “any realistic plan needs to recognize the reality of Israeli settlement on the ground, and not nurture the illusion of uprooting people from their homes.”
It made no direct mention of annexation. But it said Netanyahu spoke of ensuring Israel’s “vital interests”, such as maintaining “full security control” over the West Bank. Maas planned to travel from Israel to Amman later for separate talks with Jordanian officials and Palestinian leaders. The European Union has made clear that it is opposed to annexation and considers it illegal under international law. For now, diplomats are trying to engage Israeli officials and convey the message that unilateral annexation would have negative repercussions on relations. They have not indicated how the EU might respond.

OIC Says Committed to Palestinian State According to 1967 Borders
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 10 June, 2020
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation reiterated on Wednesday its commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital. Saudi Arabia chaired the extraordinary OIC foreign ministers meeting, which was held as Israel’s new unity government next month intends to begin discussing extending sovereignty to its settlements in occupied land that Palestinians claim for an envisaged independent state. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan stressed during the virtual meeting the need for implementing international resolutions on Palestine.
The Kingdom condemns Israel’s intention to annex parts of the West Bank, he declared. Prince Faisal said Israel’s declaration that it plans to annex Palestinian territories was a blatant violation of international resolutions and a dangerous escalation that threatens the chances to resume the peace process.
He called for reaching a fair and comprehensive solution that meets the aspirations of the Palestinian people. OIC Secretary General Yousef bin Ahmad Al-Othaimeen urged the international community to take action and condemn Israel’s aggressive acts.The Palestinian cause remains a priority for the OIC, he stated, while condemning Israel’s unilateral measures as a violation of United Nations Security Council 2334. “We warn of the dangerous repercussions Israel’s actions will have on regional stability,” he continued. The OIC completely supports the Palestinian people’s right to establish their own state. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki declared that the Israeli government was escalating its crimes against the people, accusing it of persisting in its settlement policy in order to alter demographics. He reiterated his commitment to the implementation of the 2002 Arab peace initiative. Israel’s annexation plans have been met with an international chorus of condemnation. They have been criticized by Arab and European powers as likely to finish off long-moribund efforts to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel says annexation would be in keeping with a unilateral plan announced by US President Donald Trump in January.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on June 10-11/2020
Turkey's president slams the US, so why does Trump take his calls?
Seth J. Frantzman/Jerusalem Post/June 10/2020
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was one of the first to try to exploit the recent protests in the US, echoing comments of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In recent years, Turkey has accused the US of “training terrorists,” has worked with the anti-American Venezuelan regime of Nicolás Maduro, detained a US pastor, bashed US President Donald Trump’s policy on Jerusalem, detained US journalists and worked with Iran and Russia.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was one of the first to try to exploit the recent protests in the US, echoing comments of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he hinted that Turkey stands against the “unjust order” of the US role in the world. Yet, on June 8, Trump spoke with Turkey’s president about cooperation in Libya and Syria and listened as Erdogan claimed the US-based “Antifa” movement is linked to leftist Kurdish forces in Syria, the same forces the US works with to defeat ISIS.
Turkish media has played up the close relations between Trump and the Turkish president. Trump appears to speak to Turkey’s Erdogan more than any other world leader, despite the constant criticism Turkey levels at the US and Turkey’s work with US adversaries.
In December 2018, Anadolu news agency in Turkey said the US would leave Syria after a conversation between the presidents. According to readouts from Anadolu news, the two leaders also spoke in November 2016, April, June, September and November 2017, April 2018, June 2018, October 2018, three times in November 2018, December 2018, January 2018, twice in January and then in February 2019, September 2019, February 15 and February 28, 2020, and June 8, 2020.
There doesn’t seem to be any parallel in the world for the constant conversations between Erdogan and Trump, and yet, Turkey is one of the most hostile countries to US policy in the world and Turkey works with Hamas against Israel, a key US ally.
While Turkey’s officials constantly bash the US, attacking the US for suppressing press freedom, US officials appear to have orders to never critique Turkey in response. Turkey’s president has become the foreign leader that Trump appears to speak to the most on a variety of issues. This, despite the fact that Turkey had threatened US troops last year in Syria and ordered the US to leave Syria and abandon US partners who were fighting ISIS.
Twice, the White House has spoken with Erdogan and then decided to reverse five years of successful operations in Syria and walk away from partners. It is unclear why Turkey’s ruling party has such influence with the highest levels of the current administration.
On June 3, after Turkey slammed the US for attacks on journalists during recent protests, the US Ambassador to Ankara went on Turkish government TV and agreed with the critique of the US. Turkey’s TRT World news put up an image of the US Embassy in Turkey, noting that ambassador David Satterfield had spoken with Turkey’s Presidential Communications Director Fahrettin Altun about the “mistreatment of journalists” and that he had agreed with the Turkish leaders that “press freedom is a backbone of democracy.”
According to Amnesty International, Turkey is the world’s largest prison for journalists, but while Turkish officials bash the US for abusing press freedom, the US officials in Ankara never critique press abuses.
Turkey’s targeting of the US on the press freedom issue is unique because Turkish officials such as Altun never critique Iran, China or Russia as harshly as they slam the US, and they never critique Iran’s treatment of journalists. Only the US. Yet, when Turkey detained two more journalists on June 8, there was no comment from the US Embassy about “press freedom.”
Turkey, which is buying Russian weapons, including the S-400 air defense systems, is now trying to sell Washington on a theory that it will confront Russia in Syria and Libya, even as Ankara works with Russia on joint patrols in Syria.
For instance, the same Turkey that threatened to overrun US outposts in eastern Syria in October 2019, forcing the US to withdraw from the border, is the same Ankara that does joint patrols with the Russians. Ankara wouldn’t do joint patrols with the US, despite the US being a NATO ally. Ankara is uniquely hostile to the US, claiming the US supports “terrorists” in Syria. However, Ankara is not nearly as hostile to Russia, which supports the Assad regime in Syria.
There is a lack of clarity on US policy toward Turkey. While the US Congress was outraged at the withdrawal in October 2019, watching some 200,000 Kurds who had helped the US fight ISIS forced to flee a Turkish invasion with harrowing images of Turkish-backed militants murdering civilians, there was no pushback from the White House. The US even had to launch a secret raid to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October 2019 when he was found within walking distance of Turkey’s border and evidence emerged that ISIS members had transited Turkey.
Similarly, the US has had to target al-Qaeda affiliates in Turkish-controlled Idlib in Syria. This wouldn’t be the first time a US ally has harbored extremists. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were accused of fostering anti-American extremism in the 1990s and early 2000s during the era that led up to 9/11. Saudi Arabia has reversed course now, although Pakistan appears to still work with extremists.
WHEN IT comes to Ankara, there are only murmurs of critique of US policy. Former anti-ISIS envoy Brett McGurk was critical of Turkey’s role, but he left the US administration. One US official did write a memo condemning the October 2019 Turkish attack on eastern Syria as ethnic cleansing and war crimes. But other officials, led by US Syria envoy James Jeffrey, have consistently supported Ankara’s stance.
This is largely because some Trump administration officials want to reverse Obama-era policies and view the US partnership with anti-ISIS fighters in eastern Syria, called the Syrian Democratic Forces, as an Obama policy. Among these US voices are those who believe Ankara might eventually aid US sanctions on Iran. Instead, Turkey recently reopened customs checks at a border with Iran, and Ankara and Iran both support Hamas.
The Trump-Erdogan relationship is the bedrock of the current American policy. Turkey has benefited from this relationship but the US has rarely gotten what it wants in a change in Ankara’s rhetoric or policy. Because the Trump administration tends to take personal foreign relationships seriously, believing this is part of the “art of the deal” that Trump champions, Ankara has skillfully used supporters in Washington to seek out a personal connection.
In May 2017, during the first Trump-Erdogan meeting, Turkish security attacked US protesters and police near the Turkish ambassador’s residence. There was tepid condemnation from US officials over the unprecedented assault on US soil, and later charges were quietly dismissed in May 2018 against the Turkish presidential security guards. In November 2019, Erdogan again came to Washington to meet Trump.
Today, Ankara wants to exploit the US protests, both supporting them and also trying to pretend that US partners in Syria are linked to “Antifa.” In fact, it is US partners on the ground in Syria who have been the most successful fighters against ISIS.
In the last weeks, they have been clearing ISIS cells throughout Syria. But Ankara will do whatever it can to sabotage those efforts, to try to stir chaos in eastern Syria and get the US to leave so that Ankara’s Russian and Iranian partners can move into eastern Syria. At the same time, Turkey is trying to tell the White House it can confront Russia in Libya and in Idlib.
With the US wanting to reduce its role in the Middle East, outsourcing policy to Ankara has seemed like a good deal. It is similar to the deal with Israel which foresees Israel being given a free hand against Iran’s threats in southern Syria, while Turkey works northern Syria. Somewhere in the US administration there is a fantasy that this could all work together and shared Israeli-Turkish interests against Hezbollah, for instance, might even knit together what is a mostly toxic Israel-Turkey-US relationship.
For now, Ankara continues to try to exploit the crisis in the US for its own benefit.

Hashd Reforms in Iraq Conceal More Than They Reveal
Michael Knights and Hamdi Malik/The Washington Institute/June 10/2020
The reform measures called for by PMF leaders are so opaque that they could enable militia consolidation masquerading as security sector improvements.
On June 3, a new reform memorandum was issued by the head of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (al-Hashd al-Shabi in Arabic). The one-page document resembles prior PMF statements in two respects. First, it recycles unmet aspirations for security sector reform that have been awaiting implementation for at least a year, or years in some cases. Second, it references a range of secret decrees whose contents are not explained. As U.S. officials head into their formal Strategic Dialogue with Iraq beginning June 10, such statements pose more questions than they answer, underlining the need for the Iraqi government to establish a firmer grip on the reform process and ensure greater transparency over all elements of the security forces.
THE NEW HASHD DIRECTIVE
The June 3 memo was issued in the form of a letter from Faleh al-Fayyad, the chairman of the Hashd Commission in the Prime Minister’s office (he also serves as national security advisor and head of the National Security Service, an intelligence organization). The letter signals the recommencement of “Hashd reform” under Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi’s new government, making reference to the Popular Mobilization Commission Law (Number 40 of 2016) and Executive Decree 237 of July 1, 2019. The text focuses on the following changes:
Removing unit nomenclature. Fayyad reiterates a longstanding commitment to the cosmetic renaming of PMF units, stating that the current nomenclature will be replaced with brigade numbers alone (e.g., the PMF’s 12th Brigade will no longer be referred to as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba).
Incorporating the tribal Hashd. A committee established under PMF Administrative Decree 2155 (a non-public document) will begin fully incorporating the Tribal Mobilization Forces (al-Hashd al-Ashair) into the PMF by July 3.
Depoliticizing the Hashd. All Hashd members are to disengage from political activities, another longstanding demand by government and religious officials.
Clarifying legal and personnel issues. The memo references two other non-public documents (PMF Administrative Decrees 2153 and 2156) that purportedly help clarify PMF membership, legal status, service conditions, and retirement rights.
Closing (some) PMF offices in cities. Following on a measure called for in previous memos, the letter specifies that “all offices of brigades and regiments” will be closed in urban areas, seemingly carving out the right for higher-level offices (provincial, axis command, and national headquarters) to remain.
Reiterating command-and-control. The memo underlines that the PMF exists under the prime minister’s command, prohibits any activities not approved by the premier, and threatens legal repercussions against violators. The Hashd security directorate is given the responsibility for enforcing discipline in the case of “infringement.”
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Fayyad’s memo did not come completely out of the blue—in theory, the start of a new government is an appropriate occasion to issue such a document, and previous laws and executive orders have demanded Hashd reforms. In this case, however, the memo was generated without a specific request from the prime minister’s office, and it arrived at a moment when Kadhimi’s team was greatly distracted by negotiations over cabinet completion and the austerity budget.
The letter’s timing may have been driven by Fayyad’s desire to improve his standing in the new government, perhaps with an eye toward representing the PMF and various anti-American factions in this week’s Strategic Dialogue with U.S. officials. Alternatively, Fayyad and other militia leaders may just be trying to steer Hashd reform in the direction they wish before the new government can focus its attention on the issue.
Whatever the case, it is difficult to assess the memo’s substance because it references private administrative decrees that have not even been seen by the Kadhimi government. When Fayyad issued a previous memo on July 29, 2019, he attached all of the supporting documents it mentioned. By failing to do so this time around, he has reinforced the existing uncertainties surrounding PMF reform. Key questions include:
Intentions for tribal forces. Decree 2155 could describe some perfectly innocuous administrative matter, but it is impossible to know for sure because the document has not been disclosed—even the Iraqi government does not seem to fully understand the issue it covers. Fayyad may be trying to lock in the predominantly Sunni tribal Hashd, who are semiautonomous and may aim to break away from the PMF leadership like the “shrine units” (Atabat) did earlier this year. He might also be trying to increase the Hashd payroll by expanding its ranks before austerity measures bite deeply this summer—a highly questionable move at this moment of severe economic stress.
Residual PMF presence in cities. In theory, the new carve-outs for urban headquarters make some sense, since the Hashd Commission is necessarily headquartered in Baghdad. Yet the memo’s provisions on this matter will likely be used to help U.S.-designated terrorist group Kataib Hezbollah and other larger militias on two fronts: keeping their economic ventures running in the cities, and intimidating the government by posting tactical units in sensitive locations (e.g., adjacent to the prime minister’s office, or even within the Republican Palace complex, a key site for government meetings).
Policing the Hashd. The memo’s treatment of discipline underlines the Hashd Commission’s determination not to submit to any judicial or security authority outside its own ranks. Moreover, the key Hashd disciplinary mechanism—the security department—is currently headed by a U.S.-sanctioned human rights abuser, Hussein Falah al-Lami (aka Abu Zainab al-Lami), a Kataib Hezbollah member.
IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY
The United States must always respect Iraq’s sovereign rights. Yet as a major donor to the country’s security sector and the leader of the global coalition supporting its recovery from financial crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, Washington has every right to expect the Iraqi government to stay abreast of the decisions being made inside an official organ like the Hashd. Although Prime Minister Kadhimi and his team are understandably distracted by the vital tasks of government formation and economic firefighting, they still need to be fully informed of proposed security changes in advance, and fully in control of Fayyad and the PMF.
Rather than rushing Hashd reform in an opaque manner, the process should be nested within a broader national security reform effort that identifies roles and missions for all components of the armed forces. A deliberate pace, under the full control and oversight of the civilian government, would produce real reforms, not self-serving power moves. In this week’s Strategic Dialogue meetings, U.S. officials should seek assurances that all future reform measures will be coordinated by the Kadhimi government, not simply announced by PMF elements in a manner that presents the prime minister and the international community with a fait accompli.
*Michael Knights, a senior fellow with The Washington Institute, has conducted extensive on-the-ground research in Iraq alongside security forces and government ministries.
*Hamdi Malik is a London-based Middle East analyst at IITV. Together with Aymenn Al-Tamimi, they coauthored the recent Institute study Honored, Not Contained: The Future of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces.

The Worst Is Yet to Come in Libya
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat/10 June/2020
Two factions have been battling for power in Libya since 2015. Like all regional wars, this war started as a simple domestic conflict, then escalated as it became entangled in regional and international agendas.
The developments in the country during the past few days are important on a number of levels. In a move of a kind not seen since the fall of the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago, Turkey crossed the Mediterranean to fight in Libya under the flag of the Government of National Accord (GNA).
The GNA, which is effectively an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood, recently began to record military victories after a long string of defeats. Indeed, its forces managed to break the lines of the Libyan National Army (LNA), led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, which had besieged them in Tripoli for a year, and then defeated the LNA in the neighboring city of Tarhuna and advanced east toward Sirte. As a result, the area under GNA control has doubled. Even with that, however, it controls less than 20 percent of the country, while the army controls more than 60 percent, including the oil fields.
Time will tell whether the Turkish troops — who will lead air and ground forces, supported by militias they brought from Syria — can make advances and take control of eastern cities and other areas.
If the Turks seize Sirte and Benghazi, their victory would be dangerous and might change the rules of the game, not only in Libya but throughout the region. For the time being, however, although they have seized neighborhoods on the outskirts of Tripoli, Tarhuna and Bani Walid, the war is far from over.
Haftar and Aguila Saleh, the speaker of the Libyan House of Representatives, participated in the Cairo Declaration this week in the Egyptian capital. It was a conciliatory initiative that included a proposed cease-fire agreement. Some observers dismissed it as the actions of the defeated, but in fact it represents the best chance for a peace process that would bring all parties together. The initiative included proposals for a government that features a president and two vice presidents, a transitional phase for its implementation, a new constitution, and elections. However, the Turks and their allies quickly rejected it.
Is the Cairo Declaration really just a tactical maneuver imposed by recent military developments? The truth is that it is a necessary diplomatic step ahead of the next stage of the conflict — which is expected to be the worst, militarily — and represents the foundation for any future resolution. It has found acceptance with Western and other international institutions but, without any power to promote it and without the defeat of the Turks, it will not be feasible.
Does the Turkish invasion of Libya have the blessing of the West — or at least the absence of any objection? Perhaps, because Ankara could not have transported this amount of troops and military equipment so publicly without running the risk of being intercepted by European or, in particular, American warships.
Is this apparent Western apathy a response to what is considered the vanguard of Russian forces? Moscow, too, has for the first time established a presence in the region, which is an important development for the world, because of the oil and for the security of Southern Europe.
After months of denial, Ankara finally admitted its military involvement in North Africa a few days ago. “Our soldiers, along with their brothers in Libya, have recently been marching toward achieving the targeted plans,” said President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He added: “The Turkish military has control in Libya, whether in Tripoli or in Tarhuna and the surrounding airports, where they have cleared all these areas, and they are now marching toward the desired goals.”
What are these desired goals? These are words with vast meanings. The war in Libya is no longer only a conflict between Libyans.
Much like Iran before it, Turkey is going through an insane proliferation stage. It has deployed military forces throughout the region, including in northern Iraq, a military base in Qatar, Libya, Syria, and Somalia.
The Turkish intervention in Libya will achieve one thing, which is not to take control of the country and provide the GNA with full authority over it, but rather the escalation of a conflict that has plagued this war-torn country since the Arab Spring. That is why the Cairo Declaration might be the final chance to save Libya before a new and more dangerous phase of the war begins.

Saudi Journalists, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, Ahead Of Third Anniversary Of Qatar Boycott: Qatar Has Ties To Terrorist Organizations, Boycott Is Justified
MEMRI/June 10, 2020
Ahead of the third anniversary of the boycott imposed on Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain,[1] and in light of reports that the U.S. has renewed its efforts to mediate a reconciliation between the sides,[2]Saudi journalists have written that the boycott is justified and should remain in place. These writers, including senior journalist 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed and journalist 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Turiri, stressed that the main reason for the boycott is Qatar's support of multiple terror organizations – such as Al-Qaeda, the Nusra Front in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen in Somalia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan – some of which target the Gulf states themselves. Qatar, they said, finances these organizations and shelters their leaders. Al-Turiri also stated that, in the 2000s, Qatar's Al-Jazeera network served as a "mouthpiece" for Al-Qaeda, broadcasting videos of the organization’s top leaders, and that recently it has been doing the same for the Nusra Front. He stated further that Qatar uses its ties with terrorist organizations to position itself as a mediator between these organizations and the West, a role that earns it prestige and influence in the West and enables it to maintain its ties with the organizations without fear of sanctions.
Al-Turiri directed criticism also at Turkey, noting that it has close ties with Qatar and claiming that it too maintains links with terrorist organizations to further its interests, albeit less openly and directly than Qatar. Both writers noted that Qatar's support of terror and its efforts to destabilize its neighbors has been ongoing for years, and therefore any attempt to mediate a reconciliation between the sides is pointless.
The following are translated excerpts from Al-Rashed's and Al-Turiri's articles:
"Qatar's funding" of terror brings death to "the Middle East" (Al-Arab, London, February 20, 2020)
'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed: Qatar Will Never Stop Supporting Terror And Trying To Undermine Its Neighbors; The Boycott Must Continue
Saudi journalist 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote on June 6, 2020 in the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "The Qatari government used every means at its disposal to try to tempt the Iranian regime to release an American prisoner [in return for] America’s release of an Iranian prisoner and to open up a channel of communication between Washington and Tehran.[3] [Qatar did this because it] wants to help Iran out of its crisis. It also provided hundreds of Taliban [operatives] and their children with regular salaries and other services, to persuade this movement [to sign] an agreement with the Americans on Afghanistan.
"Why? Because Doha is trying to draw close to the U.S. administration and is trying to persuade it to broker, for the third time, a renewal of its relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. [But] the truth is that these countries understand that rapprochement with Qatar will not last long and that the disputes with it will resurface, and therefore prefer not to restore the relations.
"Doha keeps repeatedly pelting Washington with its claims: that the boycott is hurting it, [and] that it is weakening the front vis-à-vis Iran [because] the closure of Saudi airspace [to Qatari planes] forces Qatar to use Iran's airspace [instead]. Nobody in the world complains louder than Qatar and with less credibility. The talk that it is suffering as a result of the boycott is completely divorced from reality. Its population is two million, but its airport saw 38 million passengers last year. [For comparison,] Egypt's population is 90 million, and its airport saw [only] 10 million people [last year]. So where is the boycott and the suffering?! The boycott is limited to just four countries, while the rest of the world is not party to it.
"Qatar has been wanting to end [the boycott] for three years, [but] for purely political reasons, not economic ones. The four countries boycotted it out of opposition to its actions, not only because of its policy. For a quarter of a century, Qatar has never stopped financing governments and individuals that oppose [Saudi Arabia] and seek to harm it, both inside and outside the country, and it is almost the sole financer [of these elements] to this very day. Riyad tried [to change this using] every measure of reconciliation and cooperation. [In 2014] it suspended its relations with Qatar to signal [its anger], but renewed them after Qatar signed a commitment to stop [its actions], which it never fulfilled. Why not? Because [the essence of] its policy is harming these governments and supporting the efforts to destabilize them…
"Qatar is still helping to finance [efforts to] target Saudi Arabia's borders and cities by supporting the insurgents in Yemen. It also financed the Saudi extremists who fled to Iraq and Syria to join Al-Qaeda and Jabhat Al-Nusra. In addition, it finances organizations like the [Muslim] Brotherhood, a fascist Islamic movement currently based in Turkey; [supports] oppositionists in the West, and finances hostile campaigns in several countries. The damage is also suffered by Bahrain, the UAE and Egypt, and that is why all of them decided to sever their relations with Doha.
"Some may say that ending the rift will prompt Qatar to end campaign [against the boycotting countries]. But even if we achieve reconciliation for now, Qatar will not end its hostile action that has been going on since the 1990s, [action] that did not [really] stop even in the years in which Qatar pretended to be a friend and a sister. Qatar will lie to the Americans that it is willing to turn over a new leaf, just as it fooled Kuwait, which tried to mediate [between Qatar and the boycotting countries]. The only measure Qatar took in the recent period [to promote a reconciliation with the boycotting countries involved] groups hostile to these four countries whom it had been hosting in Doha. It moved most of these groups to Istanbul [after] securing a budget for their continued activity, and then declared that they had left Doha!
"The sad truth is that the Qatari regime is a chronic and incurable disease, and therefore a boycott is the least harmful [option]."[4]
'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Turiri: Qatar Has A Long History Of Media, Political And Economic Relations With Terrorist Organizations
'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Turiri wrote in the English-language London-based paper Arab Weekly:[5] "…Somalia has been consumed since the early 1990s by civil wars caused by tribal ambitions. The absence of a strong central authority led to the emergence of piracy off the Somalian coast at the beginning of the current century.
"Among the many extremist movements that had emerged in Somalia is the al-Qaeda-inspired al-Shabaab Movement. The movement quickly developed close ties with Doha since 2004; and it was no coincidence that 2004 was the same year Qatar weaved its web of ties with the Houthis in Yemen. Houthi elements were granted Qatari passports which gave them freedom of movement.
"Any organization that has relations with the Qatari regime automatically has relations with the Turkish regime. This is very evident today in the case of Libya, where both regimes support the so-called National Accord Government which is misleadingly called the 'recognized government,' while in fact it has yet to be recognized by the Libyan Parliament to acquire any legitimacy, as required by the Skhirat Agreement.
"Of the two rogue regimes, the one in Turkey was less daring [in] openly and directly maintain[ing] ties to terrorist organizations, perhaps because of Turkey's membership in NATO. This did not, however, prevent the Turkish regime from setting its eyes on the Gulf region, motivated perhaps by the new Sultan's daydream of resurrecting the Ottoman Empire, especially after his dream of being accepted by the European Union was shattered, followed by the quick shipwreck of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ambitions in Egypt on the rock of the Saudi-Emirati alliance.
"The new Turkish Sultan was relentless in his Gulf dream. First, he leased the Sudanese island of Suakin to build a military base there, then he signed a military agreement with the Qatari regime, which turned the Turkish army into a royal guard at Al-Wajbah Palace in Doha, most likely to keep a cautious eye on the Emir there[6].
"His latest achievement, however, was in Somalia, where he built in Mogadishu the biggest Turkish military base outside of Turkey. The base was inaugurated in 2017 and many projects were undertaken to market Turkey in Somalia. Not to be ungrateful towards the Sultan, and the Somali government closed all of the schools in Somalia associated with Turkish guru and Erdogan's archenemy Fethullah Gulen.
Qatar's "support of extremist movements" is drowning it (Al-Arab, London, May 23, 2020)
"Wanting to expand its influence in Somalia and restrict the influence of any alternative Gulf country there, Doha was very generous in assisting several Somali parties, especially the al-Shabaab Movement, the al-Qaeda affiliate which claimed independence from al-Qaeda Central following bin Laden's death in 2012.
"By 2015, the movement's offensive tactics changed, which did lend credence to the theory that al-Qaeda chiefs Saif al-Adl and Abu Muhammad al-Masrihad [had] chosen to push on to Somalia after leaving Iran for Yemen, in order to flee the increasing drone attacks on known al-Qaeda leaders by the Americans.
"Last year, the New York Times published a leaked audio recording of a call between the Qatari ambassador to Somalia, Hassan bin Hamza Hashem, and the Qatari businessman Khalifa Kayedal-Muhannadi, who is close to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, in which al-Muhannadi said 'We know who carried out the attacks that targeted the Emiratis in Somalia,' and that the goal behind these attacks was to 'expel the Emirati (investments) by not renewing their contracts' and replacing them with Qatari investments.[7]
"The investment that Al-Muhannadi intended to expel from Somalia is an investment in Bosaso Port, where the Dubai-owned P&O Ports Company had signed in April 2017 an agreement with the breakaway region of Puntland, according to which the company obtained a 30-year concession to invest in the port at a cost of $336 million.
"In retrospect now, Al-Qaeda's choice of the Qatari-owned Al-Jazeera TV channel as its mouthpiece was not a coincidence, but rather the result of a strong relationship that binds the two parties, a relationship that also served some Western parties. Thanks to [this] relationship, the Qatari regime could offer services which these Western governments could not legally perform, such as paying ransom for the release of Western prisoners. And who can forget the al-Qaeda videos broadcast by Al-Jazeera, which contributed to the re-election of Bush Jr.?
"Speaking of paying ransom, it was easy to see in the case of the Syrian war that no other party enjoyed better relations with the Islamist organization Al-Nusra Front than the Qatari regime. Al-Jazeera went as far as to broadcast a whole interview with the organization's leader al-Joulani. The interview was conducted by Ahmed Mansour and the program carried the telling title, 'No Limits.'
"Doha has even brokered prisoner exchange deals between Hezbollah and the Islamic State, allowing entire busloads of ISIS elements to freely leave Lebanon heading for Idlib in Syria.[8] This is not surprising since Doha has always provided cover and financing for deals of this nature to create a balance between terrorist groups from all sects and orientations, in coordination with Turkey and Iran.
"Ronald Sandee, a Dutch analyst specializing in counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, published European intelligence information regarding a secret deal, whereby Qatar would finance the extremist organization Boko Haram in sub-Saharan Africa, provided it would later be able to negotiate with the terrorist group [for] the release of kidnapped Western citizens. By negotiating the release of the hostages and pay[ing] their ransom on behalf of the Western governments Doha would gain popular acceptance in European official circles and public opinion. This is how the Qatari regime was able to finance terrorist groups such as Boko Haram, without being subjected to inquiries or sanctions.[9]
"Today, the same questions about Qatar's relations with al-Qaeda, and the al-Shabaab Movement in Somalia in particular, float back to the surface with the liberation of the Italian aid worker in Somalia Silvia Romano. The head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Brothers of Italy party, called Carlo Fidanza, called on Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte to disclose the details of the liberation of the kidnapped Romano, and of Qatar’s role and that of Turkish intelligence in the affair.[10]
"As we can see, we have here a long history of media, political and of course economic relations between Qatar and terrorist organizations. It was all part of the tiny state's quest for a greater regional role. Of course, the sly nature of the services rendered to Western capitals makes them bless this role. This in turn comforts us every day that the boycott decided by the Arab quartet against this country was the right decision in order to stabilize the region and combat terrorism”.
[1] On June 5, 2017, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain announced that they were severing their ties with Qatar, on the grounds that it supports Iran and various terror organizations and acts to destabilize various Arab states. They imposed a comprehensive diplomatic and economic boycott on it, including the severance of diplomatic relations, the closure of border crossings, and the closure of their territory and airspace to the passage of Qatari traffic. (On the outbreak of the crisis, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1315, Uproar In The Gulf Following Alleged Statements By Qatari Emir Condemning Gulf States, Praising Iran, Hizbullah, Muslim Brotherhood And Hamas, May 25, 2017). The boycotting countries presented Qatar with a list of 13 demands that it had to fulfil as a condition for the renewal of the relations, which included breaking off its ties with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, stopping its collaboration with Turkey, closing down the Al-Jazeera TV network and discontinuing its funding of terror (Al-Ahram, Egypt,, June 24, 2017). Qatar, for its part, rejected these demands, claiming that they infringed on its sovereignty (Al-Watan, Qatar, July 25, 26, 2017; Al-Masri Al-Yawm, Egypt, July 25, 2017) and tightened its relations with Iran and Turkey in order to overcome the economic difficulties resulting from the boycott.
[2] The Wall Street Journal reported recently that the Trump administration is pressuring Saudi Arabia and the UAE to lift the boycott. The journal noted that the closure of Saudi airspace to the passage of Qatari aircraft has forced Qatar to use Iranian airspace instead, which is a source of revenue for Iran that the U.S. wishes to stem (The Wall Street Journal, U.S., June 3, 2020).
[3] In early June 2020, Iran released Michael White, an American imprisoned in the country on charges of espionage, shortly after Sirous Asgari, an Iranian scientist detained in the U.S., was deported to Iran. Both countries denied that this was the result of a prisoner exchange deal. It should be noted that, to date, there is no information on any Qatari involvement in this affair. Usatoday.com, June 4, 2020.
[4] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), June 6, 2020.
[5] Thearabweekly.com, May 23, 2020. The text has been very slightly edited for clarity and consistence with MEMRI style.
[6] On Qatar's close ties with Turkey, see MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1482,
Turkey-Qatar Relations: From Bilateral Ties To A Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, November 12, 2019.
[7] The reference is apparently to two attacks perpetrated last year by Al-Shabab in the Somali port city of Bosaso, whose port is managed by an Emirati company: the February 4, 2019 assassination of the port’s manager, and a May 11, 2019 car bomb explosion in front of a courthouse in the city.
A July 11, 2019 article in The New York Times presented quotes from a phone conversation between the Qatari ambassador to Somalia and Kayedal-Muhannadi, the businessman close to the emir of Qatar, in which the latter said that the militants had carried out the bombing in Bosaso to advance Qatar's interests by driving out its rival, the UAE. "Our friends were behind the last bombings," the businessman assured the ambassador. Qatar did not dispute the authenticity of the phone conversation, but stated that Kayedal-Muhannadi had spoken as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Qatari state.
For more details on Qatar's involvement in Somalia, see MEMRI JTTM report, Media Reports In Somalia, Saudi Arabia, And UAE Following Appointment Of Former Al-Jazeera Journalist Fahad Yasin To Head Of Somalia Security Apparatus: Qatar's Man In Somalia Has Connections to Al-Qaeda Affiliate Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen, September 9, 2019.
[8] On this see Al-Nahar (Lebanon), July 27, 2017.
[9] For Ronald Sandee's report on Qatar's ties with Boko Haram, see Eeradicalization.com, September 5, 2019.
[10] It should be mentioned that Brothers of Italy party member Carlo Fidanza criticized Turkey's role in brokering Romano's release and demanded clarifications from the Italian government, but did not mention Qatari involvement in the affair. See News1.news, May 11, 2020.

After Arctic Oil Spill, Russian Columnists Slam The System For Allowing The Oligarchs To Operate Unsupervised
MEMRI/June 10/2020
On the afternoon of May 29, 2020. depressurization of a diesel fuel tank occurred at a thermal power plant in Norilsk in Russia's Arctic region of Krasnoyarsk. According to the Norilsk Nickel company press release on the same day the incident was reported to the regional headquarters of the Ministry of Emergencies. about 20 thousand tons of fuel spilled over an area of about 350 square meters. On the same day, it became known that diesel fuel from the spill got into water, in particular, into the "Daldykan" river.
On June 3, 2020, Svetlana Radionova, head of Rosprirodnadzor (The Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources), reported that the maximum permissible concentration of harmful substances in water bodies in Norilsk had been exceeded tens of thousands of times. She added that about 6 thousand tons of oil products had leached into the soil, and about 15 thousand tons had polluted the water bodies.[1] The spilled fuel after polluting Lake Pyasino would then pollute the Kara Sea.[2] Krasnoyarsk Governor Alexander Uss lamented the disaster: "Fuel got into Pyasino. This magnificent lake is about 70 kilometers long, of course, there are fish and a good biosphere. But it's impossible to predict how it will bear this load now."[3]
Water turned red by the oil spill (Source: Rbc.ru)
The power plant chief was detained as a suspect in criminal cases involving the pollution. [4] The question arose why a state of emergency was proclaimed only two days later. Vladimir Putin charged that the regional authorities "had learned about the accident only from the social networks." Kommersant's investigation showed however that news of the accident had reached Moscow within an hour after the accident had been reported to the Civil and Emergency Defense Office of the Norilsk administration.
This fueled speculation that there were other explanations for the delay. The ecologist Aida Levatova wrote in Echo of Moscow: "The company [Norilsk Nickel] and the [Norilsk] city administration waited several days before they reported the accident to the Ministry of Emergency Situations, because of this, the incident turned into an ecological disaster. The company claims that the issue was reported on-line to one of the situational centers. The city authorities say that they learned about the scale of the disaster from social networks. As a result, the state of emergency in Norilsk and Taimyr was introduced only on June 1 (…). Bureaucratic infighting and cabinet proceedings are horrifically tardy in responding to the events." [5]
However, the discussion soon moved beyond the immediate response. Responsibility for the ecological disaster could not be laid at the power plant chief. Local residents reported "These [fuel] tanks stood for 30 years and nobody cared about them. The inspectors did not see that the soil was washed out and all this washes away so much that the bottom exploded. Environmentalist Sergei Shakhmatov deputy chairman of the Krasnoyarsk City Council's Environmental Commission who flew to Norilsk to examine the situation asked pointedly: there are questions for the operator - TPP-3 and for the supervisory and inspection bodies. There is information that the tank has been under repair since 2016. And where were you then? A tank of 30 thousand tons is not a needle in a haystack, and if there is no operational permit for it, this is a criminal case."[6]
The elephant in the room could not be ignored either. The company that operated the plant is owned by oligarch Vladimir Potanin, reportedly Russia's richest man. A chink in Putin's armor is the public perception that he is too close to oligarchs like Potanin and less sensitive to the average Russian.[7] Putin believed that he had an opportunity to correct that perception. In a June 5, 2020 video, broadcast nationally, Putin publicly chastised Potanin for failing to check the fuel tanks' condition. A penitent Potanin, standing at the site of the spill said "I say this not as a businessman but as a person who is sorry about what happened, as much as is needed is what we will spend.[8] his company would defray the cost of the cleanup efforts estimated at 10 billion rubles ($146 million) and would pay fines for damage to the environment. Putin then added to Potanin's humiliation by pointing out that replacing the aging fuel tank would have cost a tiny fraction of that amount. Putin also promised inspections to assure that such a disaster would not recur. [9]
Putin's public chastisement of Potanin did not convince everyone. Dmitry Drize, a featured columnist for Kommersant noted that Putin was basically repeating his performance during 2008 when he had forced oligarch Oleg Deripaska to sign an order rescinding the closing down of a factory and had then reminded him to return Putin's pen with which he had signed the order. Such displays did not translate into proper oversight on the actions of the oligarchs. Dmitry Popov a columnist for Mk.ru, believes that the state had ample warning that this disaster would occur, and Putin despite his claims to curb the oligarchs had only manually tweaked the system that he had inherited.
Below are Drize's article titled "It Is Necessary To Keep An Eye on the Oligarchs[10] and excerpts from Popov's article titled "Putin's Anger Descends on the Oligarchs.[11]
Drize: Putin Used The Humiliation Of Potanin To Bolster His Own Image
"It looked very dramatic: with the abundant nature of the Russian north as a backdrop, [stood] the billionaire and oligarch Vladimir Potanin, together with the immediate supervisors of the ill-fated TPS [thermal power station] operator company and the recently scolded Governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory Alexander Uss. They, like fined school boys were held accountable before the president to the entire country. At the same time, Vladimir Putin showed generosity - he does not judge harshly, he is rather lenient. The very answer to the head of state served as a punishment: a world-famous businessman was in a simple company uniform jacket, not in a Mercedes, not in the palace, but in the tundra, however beautiful."
"Eh, Vladimir Olegovich [Potanin], you should've just changed one fuel storage tank, but now you will have to spend 10 billion.” [says Putin]. Potanin replies this won’t happen again [the author uses the stock response of children caught in the act].
"Next scene: Putin has finished with Potanin, communication with Moscow was disconnected: "get back to work", as they say. Now Putin is listening to volunteers - these are the good heroes in contrast to the disgraced big managers. Does this scene sound familiar? – You, are correct. Vladimir Putin has a rich experience in flogging oligarchs publicly. 11 years ago, as Prime Minister, Putin was in the city of Pikalevo, Leningrad Region. There was, another big businessman, Oleg Deripaska (an old acquaintance of Potanin by the way), who did not pay workers' wages. Do you remember this? Putin's quote “give me back my pen” went down in history. So next in line for a public reprimand was Vladimir Potanin.
"To top this all off, this entire beautiful performance is extremely useful from the perspective of bolstering the leader's image.
"But the most important thing is, of course, not a television picture. Just as diesel fuel melted into the tundra soil, numerous sources literally cried out: "Potanin you have really done it! It's time to hold the owner of Norilsk Nickel accountable. What have you done [with the company]? The time has come for him to answer!"
"As a result, State Duma deputy from United Russia Alexander Yakubovsky asked the Investigative Committee to remove Potanin from the management of Norilsk Nickel. Against this background, calls to nationalize the company appeared. Mikhail Prokhorov stood up for his former partner, he said that the country can't allow the redistribution of property. Dmitry Peskov reiterated this thesis: The Kremlin is not going to do anything like that. Maybe not, but these are difficult times now.
"As is known, Norilsk Nickel (one of the most attractive Russian assets) has repeatedly been the subject of major corporate wars. We can say that the embers [of these wars] are still smoldering. In times when oil and gas are getting cheaper, and the West is closed off up due to sanctions, there are fewer and fewer "tasty morsels" in the Russian economy. Naturally, there are many who want to take a bite of them. Well, speaking theoretically of course. And it is hard to come up with a better pretext to get these enterprises than an environmental pollution. Ecology is really a scourge for such enterprises.
"The fact that the president was very lenient to Potanin suggests that the Kremlin understands the magnitude of the problem. A new war for property is a direct threat to Russian stability. This is even worse than Western sanctions. But that is not all.
"This story highlights another systemic flaw: what is in fact the role of the state? We are talking about a particularly dangerous facility [Norilsk Nickel]. Where is the state supervision? Where are the inspections? It is necessary to keep an eye on the oligarchs; however influential and rich they may be. Where and who is keeping watch? Who is responsible? Whose area of responsibility is it? – It's all unclear. But the saddest thing is that the lessons are not being learned."
Popov: The Danger Was Known And Nobody Did Anything About It
"The north reeks of diesel fuel. This alas is the biggest news of the week. Norilsk and the accident are our lives in miniature: scary, harsh, uncomfortable, rusty, unfair and fantastically beautiful at the same time, bewitchingly spacious, majestic and wide open. Below the cemetery, above the sun ... Summer, the traditional time of bluebells, [arrived in Russia]. However, the authorities, it seems, took a hoe in hand and went to weed them out.
"What does one need to know about the accident in Norilsk? Somewhere in the early 2000s, the Ministry of Emergency Situations warned that permafrost will melt, which means that inevitable soil subsidence under the facilities and the deterioration of infrastructure built back in Soviet times will lead to a series of disasters in 10-15 years. Unless, of course, you start urgently repairing, rebuilding, investing and not squeezing profits from what is left of a great country, following the principle of "after us, the deluge."
"20 years have passed since that prediction. After an emergency with diesel fuel, Deputy Prime Minister Victoria Abramchenko instructed Rostekhnadzor [the Federal Service for Ecological, Technological and Nuclear Supervision] and Rosprirodnadzor [Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources] to inspect the technical condition of hazardous production facilities in the Arctic zone. The Ministry of Emergencies requested a foreign satellite survey of the scene of the accident…
"Perhaps, that is all one needs to know about the issue. The rest is details, common signs of the ordinary life of the country.
"Putin's fury descended upon the oligarchs. In principle, one can understand the president.
"As the philosopher [Alexander] Dugin says, Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin] made capitalism in Russia a bit more national. So, in theory, the president can demand more responsibility from businessmen, who are getting fatter by milking the country. But in practice, Putin is forced to work in (again as Dugin puts it) an 'operating system' that was downloaded in 1991 to a computer called 'Russia'. Since this operating system is spiritually anti-people, it increasingly collapses. And Vladimir Vladimirovich [Putin] in manual mode is trying to patch the holes and make it a bit more 'user-friendly' for people…"
Dmitry Popov (Source: Mk.ru)
[1] Tass.ru, June 3, 2020.
[2] Tass.ru, June 4, 2020.
[3] Gazeta.ru, June, 9, 2020.
[4] Ria.ru, June 3, 2020.
[5] Echo.msk.ru, June 4, 2020.
[6] Spbdnevnik.ru, June 8, 2020.
[7] Levada.ru, April 14, 2020.
[8] Currenttime.tv/a/Russia. June 5, 2020.
[9] Rbc.ru, June 5, 2020.
[10] Kommersant.ru, June 5, 2020.
[11] Mk.ru, June 7,

More Power to Putin
Michael Young/Carnrgie MEC/June 10/2020
In an interview, Anton Mardasov discusses rising Russian influence in Syria and where this might lead.
Anton Mardasov is a Russian analyst, nonresident scholar in the Middle East Institute’s Syria Program, military affairs expert, and journalist focusing on Syria, Iraq, and extremist organizations. He is also a nonresident expert at the Russian International Affairs Council. In early June, Diwan interviewed him to get his perspective on Russia’s role in Syria, in particular a number of recent developments that suggest that Moscow is increasing its power in the country.
Michael Young: Two significant events today in Russian-Syrian relations are the fact that Russia’s ambassador to Syria, Alexander Efimov, was recently named President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy to the country. At the same time Russia and Syria are discussing an agreement to expand Russia’s presence in Syria, including expanding Russian military bases. Can you explain the significance of these developments and what they tell us about Russian-Syrian ties.
Anton Mardasov: Putin’s appointment of Alexander Efimov serves to tighten the president’s control over the Syria portfolio. It is the Kremlin that determines the composition of the main players in Russian policy toward Syria and evaluates their performance. Putin’s “personalization” of the Syria file also makes decisionmaking less predictable, while introducing a degree of stress into the chain of command to suit the needs of the Russian leader and his interpretation of events. The fact that Putin is in charge of the Syrian portfolio also means that decisions are going to be taken in a reactive manner, as he tends to resolve issues as they come rather than formulating any long-term strategies.
Changes of personnel among Russian officials in Syria also reflect Putin’s desire to receive more comprehensive feedback from the country, soliciting not just the views of the military but also opinions coming from diplomats. Ever since Russia’s return to the Middle East, it has used informal channels of influence—private military contractors and businesspersons—in addition to relying on diplomats and officials. The problem with relying solely on bureaucrats is that they lack the necessary flexibility and efficiency to carry out their tasks and cultivate links with local players. Under conditions where there is no alteration of power in Russia, the Kremlin knows its decisions will not be scrutinized under future administrations. Therefore, it is relaxed about using private actors to its advantage. This means security companies can conduct military activity abroad, while Russian private firms engage in business opportunities using nontransparent practices—therefore pay no taxes.
The work of those private actors in Syria has been overseen by the Defense Ministry’s officers and advisers. By 2017 it became clear that the military and special security services had effectively sidelined diplomats from decisionmaking, first in Syria and then Libya. Moreover, the Russian military has apparently demonstrated an ability to act in a coordinated way in Syria and Libya by helping recruit combatants in Syria to fight on Khalifa Haftar’s side in the Libyan conflict. Military bases in Syria, meanwhile, are now hubs for Russian activity in Libya, Sudan, and the Central African Republic.
On the political side, the Russian military encouraged and managed the creation of the so-called “deescalation zones” in Syria, with the purpose of weakening and fracturing the Syrian opposition. All this led to a situation where the Syrian regime at one point came to view the Russian military, intelligence services, and private military contractors hired by certain businessmen as the only players with real political weight who were backing it.
Efimov’s appointment serves to somewhat mitigate this imbalance and goes at least some way toward restoring the importance of diplomats. Given his experience in the region, Efimov can offer a unique perspective on the situation and report directly to the Kremlin, bypassing other institutions. His appointment, therefore, enhances the position of Russia’s Embassy in Damascus, as it will no longer be perceived by the Syrian regime as lacking in power.
As for the possibility of Russia’s expanding its footprint in Syria, Moscow has a tendency to raise issues publicly only after they have already been settled in private. That means that what you described as “discussions” regarding military bases are likely to have already been concluded and that the Russian military will see more territory transferred to its control.
MY: There has been speculation about the rivalry between Russia and Iran, who each seek to assert their influence in Syria. What can you tell us about this?
AM: From a practical standpoint, Russia needs Iran in Syria more or less to the same extent that Iran is interested in a continuing Russian presence. Moscow gave President Bashar al-Assad diplomatic cover, while also providing necessary military systems and air support. Russia also conducts police and special operations in the country and, where necessary, can mediate between the government and the opposition. Iran, for its part, maintains influence through links with Shi‘a networks and local militias such as the Local Defense Forces.
That does not mean that an element of competition is completely absent from Moscow-Tehran relations. In recent years, Moscow has been seeking to tighten its grip on the Syrian military, pushing its own reform agenda and limiting corruption within military ranks. However, Russia still cannot monopolize influence in this area and is unable to eradicate Iranian influence over military formations. Moreover, Iran is still relied upon to provide training to Syrian pilots.
There is also a stereotypical view that Russia seeks to centralize Syrian military formations, while Iran is pulling in the opposition direction. In reality, however, it is Moscow that has backed units that, initially, were not institutionally part of the Syrian armed forces, such as the Fifth Corps, Liwa al-Quds, the Tiger Forces, and some tribal militias. It was only later that some of those structures were integrated into the Syrian armed forces, as the country’s military command was unhappy with their having a special status. For its part, Tehran is supporting two main Syrian security formations, the Fourth Armored Division, effectively led by Maher al-Assad, and the Republican Guard. Iran helps recruit new fighters for these formations from Shi‘s militias such as Liwa’ al-Imam Hussein and the Local Defense Forces.
I do not think that Russia is ready for any decisive action against Iran in Syria. Nor do I believe that Moscow will attempt any dramatic intervention, even if Tehran should use Syria as a new military theater—along with Lebanon and Palestine—to escalate pressure on Israel. Russia is, more or less, trying to be on good terms with all the key players in the region. What it might be prepared to do, however, is to show greater tolerance toward an Israeli escalation of its bombing campaign in Syria against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iranian proxies. Israel is unlikely to allow Iran to grow too powerful in Syria and will use the lack of integration of the country’s air defense systems to its advantage by attacking Iranian positions.
MY: How do Russian-Iranian and Russian-Israeli relations play out in the Syrian context?
AM: Following the decision of the United States to pull out of the nuclear deal with Iran, and Israel’s taking a more robust line vis-à-vis Tehran, the Iranians have been trying to make their activities in Syria less visible. To this end, Iran provides civilian and economic cover for its military projects in Syria, while buying property in the country to serve as hubs for pro-Iran loyalists in Damascus and other large cities.
Tehran has also been trying to legitimize operations outside Shi‘a groups by mixing them with Syrian formations, such as the Fourth Armored Division, comprising former rebels. Nevertheless, Iran will continue to exercise influence in Syria and infiltrate the country using Hezbollah and its contacts with local groups. Demographic changes in Syria, including Shi‘a settlements on the border with Lebanon, create additional infiltration opportunities for Tehran.
While it was Iran’s decision to lower its profile in Syria, Russia would prefer this to be seen as the product of its own efforts to contain Iranian ambitions, without taking sides between Tehran and Israel. Moreover, this purported “containment” of Iran helps Russia’s relationship with potential investors in the Syrian economy among the Arab states, most notably the United Arab Emirates. Damascus, too, benefits by maintaining the appearance of a Russian-Iranian rivalry and using it as leverage to extract benefits from both sides.
MY: President Bashar al-Assad is up for reelection in 2021, and some Russian media outlets have hinted that he may not return to office. Do you believe that the presidential election will represent a significant new moment for Russian policy in Syria, or not? And if so, how might Moscow choose to act?
AM: The importance of the anti-Assad campaign in Russian media outlets is overestimated. As far as I can judge, while it is true that this campaign had resonance and was provocative, many analysts have misinterpreted its meaning. I do not believe that the anti-Assad mood in some fringe publications should be construed as Russia’s official position. Perhaps those publications might benefit some special interests within Russia. More pertinently, however, this wave of criticism against Damascus became an opening shot in Assad’s presidential campaign. I am reasonably confident that the publications served as political spin for Assad and his campaign. Namely, debate around the publications created the appearance of an open society in Syria, where the regime can both be criticized and respond to criticism, like some proponents of the government did by urging Moscow to respect Damascus’ autonomy. It is notable that Mahdi Dakhlallah, a member of the leadership of Syria’s Ba‘th Party, referred to the debate in Russian publications as proof that free speech in Syria had reached a new level.
It may sound counterintuitive, but another episode that can benefit Assad in manipulating public opinion is the story involving his cousin and Syria’s wealthiest man, Rami Makhlouf, who has fallen out of favor with the regime. Makhlouf’s Facebook videos might help bolster the narrative of a Syrian system open to dissenting voices and create the image of a Syrian president opposed to corruption. The reality is more nuanced. Assad’s aim is not to eradicate any corrupt practices as such, but first and foremost to consolidate all financial resources in his hands and ensure that businesses contribute to the state budget in taxes, or contribute to Assad-linked financial entities, such as the Martyrs’ Fund.
On a broader point regarding Russia’s strategy, I do not expect Moscow to shift its position vis-à-vis the Syrian regime in any significant way or abandon Assad. As the presidential election looms larger, Russian officials and advisers may try to nudge Assad toward creating the appearance of real competition at the polls. This would serve as a contrast to the previous presidential election in 2014, or the municipal elections of 2018, both of which were dull and did not offer competition, even on superficial level. The question is what Damascus will do and whether it will be ready to acquiesce to Russian demands.
MY: How will the imminent implementation of the Caesar Act—U.S. congressional legislation designed to sanction the Assad regime and all those cooperating with it—play into Russian calculations in Syria?
AM: I do not believe that the Caesar Act can seriously affect Russia’s position, not least because of the fact that a lion’s share of Russian business activity in Syria is managed by Kremlin-linked businesspersons already on the U.S. sanctions list. However, current circumstances can further incentivize those businesspersons to engage in smuggling activities to minimize risks associated with sanctions. Overall, Moscow’s main task, at least for the time being, is to preserve the balance within the current Syrian institutional settlement. Otherwise, there is a risk of political structures unraveling and political and economic opportunities being lost. All this would require Moscow to commit more resources to stabilizing the situation. Meanwhile, both Moscow and Damascus place high hopes on receiving financial investments from the Persian Gulf countries, thus mitigating the impact of the Caesar Act. In order to attract those investments, Moscow and Damascus have created an appearance that they are limiting Iran’s reach, while also containing Turkey.

The Gaza They Do Not Want You to See
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/June 10/2020
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes, and various types of luxury goods are being opened every few weeks in the Gaza Strip?
These images are also an embarrassment to anti-Israel propagandists seeking to portray a completely different reality of life in the Gaza Strip as part of their campaign to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews by holding them fully responsible for the "suffering" of Palestinians.
Why are foreign correspondents and Palestinian journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dumping photographic documentation of these sunny, positive developments in the Gaza Strip into the dustbin? Is it because such images do not fit their anti-Israel narrative and agenda?
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery in the Gaza Strip when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes, and various types of luxury goods are being opened there every few weeks? Pictured: A newly-opened shopping mall in Gaza City on February 22, 2017. (Photo credit should read Mohammed Abed/AFP via Getty Images)
The Palestinian terror group Hamas has warned Palestinians in the Gaza Strip not to publish photos from the Gaza Strip on social media platforms.
In a June 9 statement, the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Interior claimed that "Israeli intelligence agencies have been asking residents of the Gaza Strip -- through social media -- to use their mobile phones to take pictures of various places in the Gaza Strip."Hamas warned Palestinians against complying with the alleged Israeli request and claimed that Israel was using social media accounts to "recruit collaborators and obtain information."
Hamas added that its security forces were monitoring Israeli and Palestinian social media accounts and would take "legal measures" against Palestinians who interacted with the purported Israeli intelligence agencies.
Is Hamas actually worried that the Israeli security authorities would use the photos to "recruit" informants or that Palestinians might take pictures of its tunnels and rockets? Not exactly.
Hamas is worried that the photos and videos taken by Palestinians would reveal to the world a different reality of the situation in the Gaza Strip -- a reality that runs contrary to all the stories and images of "poverty," "misery" and "suffering" of Palestinians there. What Hamas seeks to conceal from the world are the shopping malls, supermarkets, fancy restaurants, sleek coffee shops and modern clothing stores that have sprung up in the Gaza Strip in recent years.
Such images are excruciatingly embarrassing for the leaders of Hamas, who want to continue lying with impunity about Palestinians in the Gaza Strip suffering as a result of Israel's "blockade" on the Hamas-controlled coastal enclave. These images are also an embarrassment to anti-Israel propagandists seeking to portray a completely different reality of life in the Gaza Strip as part of their campaign to delegitimize Israel and demonize Jews by holding them fully responsible for the "suffering" of Palestinians.
The Hamas warning came after several photos and video clips depicting the good life of many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip appeared on a number of social media platforms, particularly Twitter.
One popular Twitter account called, @Imshin, has been disseminating videos, blog spots, and news from the world of the middle-class and wealthy of the Gaza Strip that never makes it into the mainstream media. Relying on videos and photos taken by Palestinians, the account provides unique insight into the comfortable life of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as they engage in shopping sprees and enjoy their outings at swimming pools, upscale restaurants, luxurious hotels and beach resorts.
On June 2, the account featured a post about the Royal House Chalet, south of the University of Gaza -- one of the most modern and lavish resorts in the Gaza Strip, fully equipped with an impressive swimming pool and state-of-the-art suites.
Another post features the Viola Restaurant and Café, a popular spot in the Gaza Port famous for its variety of desserts and snacks.
Palestinians planning a barbecue for Thursday night (the last day of work in the week) are invited to purchase all their barbecue supplies at the Care4Mall in the Gaza Strip. Located in the Tal al-Hawa suburb of Gaza City, the mall includes stores for home appliances, food stores and a fast-food court. "We provide all goods and services the citizen needs," the shopping mall says on its Facebook page. "We strive to achieve customer satisfaction and appreciation by providing competitive prices."
Ironically, the shopping mall also boasts that among the goods it provides is the Israeli instant coffee brand, Elite's "Namess". Apparently, Hamas and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have not heard of (or do not seem to care about) the anti-Israel campaign to boycott Israeli products and manufacturing companies, including the large food company Elite.
In other videos posted on YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, the children of the Gaza Strip are documented purchasing mobile phones and enjoying the taste of various flavors of ice cream and slushies.
One of the popular ice cream businesses is the Kazem Ice Cream shop in the neighborhood of al-Rimal in the Gaza Strip, home to a number of Hamas leaders. Smartphones, including the iPhone 11, the most recent version of Apple devices, are available for sale in supermarkets throughout the Gaza Strip, as recently announced by Metro Market, one of the largest supermarkets in the area.
A few weeks ago, one of the Gaza Strip's fanciest shopping malls was inaugurated in Nusierat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. The new Al-Danaf Hyper Mall includes a large supermarket where shoppers can purchase various imported goods that are often not even available in Israeli markets.
Earlier this year, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip celebrated the opening of the Deux Fashion clothing store, located on Ahmad Abd al-Aziz Street in Gaza City. The large store offers various clothing brands, mostly imported from Turkey and other countries. "The best place to buy men's clothes, online or offline, with the highest quality for the best price," reads the advertisement published on the store's Facebook page.
These are only a handful of images from the Gaza Strip that make Hamas nervous. How can Hamas continue begging for financial aid from the United Nations and other international humanitarian aid organizations when Palestinians are posting photos families on shopping sprees and children eating ice cream and buying smartphones?
How can Hamas and its supporters around the world continue to complain about poverty and misery when new shopping malls and supermarkets filled with clothes and various types of luxury goods are being opened every few weeks in the Gaza Strip?Why are foreign correspondents covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ignoring the greener pastures in the Gaza Strip? Why are Palestinian journalists based in the Gaza Strip dumping photographic documentation of these sunny, positive developments in the Gaza Strip into the dustbin? It is because such images do not fit their anti-Israel narrative and agenda.
The foreign and Palestinian journalists are complicit in the Hamas coverup: they want to continue blaming Israel for everything negative that Palestinians encounter. Given the latest Hamas warning, it is only a matter of time before one hears about Palestinians being imprisoned or killed for "betraying" the Palestinian cause by posting photos of the Gaza Strip's newest version of "the Ritz" and children gleefully licking their multicolored ice-cream cones.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

China, under the Veil of Virus, the Schoolyard Bully. Will the US Please Stop It?
Lawrence A. Franklin/Gatestone Institute/June 10/2020
Beijing's hostility is likely a message to New Delhi that China will aggressively target any attempt by an increasingly pro-Western India to establish a military alliance with the U.S and its allies and obstruct China's far-reaching claims of sovereignty in the Western Pacific Ocean and beyond.
China apparently plans to deploy air, sea, and ground forces in an amphibious assault exercise on the Pratas Islands, an island chain also claimed by Taiwan.
The US needs urgently to develop a policy committed to countering China's escalating aggression. The policy should ideally include no commerce with China whatsoever. Beijing clearly has no intention of honoring any deal to which it agrees and has already been caught trying to steal remedies for the virus it unleashed.
Just as the U.S. would not have tried to enrich the Third Reich or the former Soviet Union, the U.S. -- and all countries hurt by China -- should have no place enriching a China that has shown itself to have killed more than 100,000 Americans, more than 400,000 people worldwide, has thrown more than 40 million Americans out of work, cost the world trillions in crippled economies and is openly bent on dominating the planet.
In response to China's threatening posture toward both Vietnam and Malaysia, the U.S. Navy reacted by dispatching several attack submarines to Pacific waters. The U.S. Navy also sent an aircraft carrier and the USS Bunker Hill, a missile-equipped destroyer, to the South China Sea. Pictured: The USS Bunker Hill. (Image source: U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Clarence McCloud)
While Western media is almost exclusively focusing on supposed "race riots" and the messy wake of the Covid-19 virus, China has quietly been going about consolidating recent gains in the South China Sea. It has, as dangerously, still been attempting to expand its influence throughout the entire Indo-Pacific Region and everywhere else the world will let it.
Beijing's latest provocative stances -- in addition to sparking recent incidents with mainland and archipelago states in Southeast Asia such as Vietnam and Malaysia -- include generating a rock-throwing brawl with India's mountain troops at a disputed border post in Northern Sikkim, raising tensions with Taiwan, and threatening the liberty of Hong Kong.
On May 9, Chinese soldiers initiated a squabble with Indian border troops in a disputed section of China's boundary with India, possibly by attempting to cut off the crucial Galwan River area there. Indian soldiers resisted the repeated attempts of Chinese soldiers to cross the existing line of control at Naku La (Pass) in Northern Sikkim until the incident finally degenerated into fisticuffs and stone throwing.
Several military personnel were injured before commanding officers from both militaries arrived to negotiate a cessation to the struggle. China claims that India still occupies tens of thousands of square miles of Chinese territory, seized by the British when the United Kingdom colonized the Indian Sub-Continent. The two nuclear powers had fought a brief war in 1962 when China's Peoples' Liberation Army (PLA) troops invaded India along three sectors of the 2,167-mile bilateral border.
Beijing's hostility is likely a message to New Delhi that China will aggressively target any attempt by an increasingly pro-Western India to establish a military alliance with the U.S and its allies and obstruct China's far-reaching claims of sovereignty in the Western Pacific Ocean.
In addition, during the months that the coronavirus was peaking in the U.S and Europe, China moved assertively to solidify its existing occupation of disputed islands in the South China Sea. Beijing was evidently sending a clear message to its neighboring states that China will employ its military superiority to settle disputed claims in China's favor, as well as demonstrate its hegemony over waters adjacent to some of its neighboring states in Southeast Asia. On May 1, for instance, while claiming that constant harvesting of marine life in waters off Vietnam was depleting fish species, China unilaterally declared a moratorium on fishing in waters above the 12th parallel. This area encompasses Vietnamese coastal seas including the Gulf of Tonkin, the Paracel Islands (Xisha), and the Scarborough Shoal. Alleging that these fishing zones are decimated, China then extended the fishing moratorium to August 16. On April 3, A full month before the moratorium was scheduled to take effect, a Chinese marine surveillance vessel sank a Vietnamese fishing boat near the Paracel Islands, an archipelago claimed by both China and Vietnam.
China, in April, also bullied the archipelago Asian country of Malaysia. The Chinese vessel "Haiyang Dizhi 8," while on a surveillance mission, menaced an oil exploration boat contracted by the Malaysian state-owned petroleum company Petronas. In response, the U.S. Navy dispatched three warships to the region near the China-Malaysian standoff to strengthen Malaysia's ability to explore these waters for oil and natural gas. Subsequently, Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah denounced China's rationale for its claim of sovereignty, in the disputed zone as "ridiculous". Chinese Communist Party bureaucrats, however, such as foreign ministry official Lin Songtian, try to claim that islands in the South China Sea "have been within Chinese territory since ancient times." This claim, if made legitimate by force or by law, would give China over 85% of the South China Sea.
In recent weeks, Chinese expansionist plans can also be seen elsewhere. Taiwan, apparently in an effort to head-off a future threatening naval exercise scheduled by China for this August, alerted the U.S. Pacific Fleet of China's planned exercise. China evidently plans to deploy air, sea, and ground forces in an amphibious assault exercise on the Pratas Islands, an island chain also claimed by Taiwan. China in recent weeks flew an early-warning aircraft over several other disputed islands in the South China Sea while continuing to introduce new weapons systems -- such as the deployment of an AEW&C (airborne early warning and control) system and its Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft on Yongshu Reef -- on islands in the South China Sea where ownership still remains in dispute.
On May 22, at the opening session of the Chinese Communist Party's National Peoples' Congress, China's Premier Li Keqiang proposed the passage of a new security law to become Article 23 in Hong Kong's City Charter. This new legislation would strengthen Beijing's role inside Hong Kong, allegedly to suppress any behavior by the citizens of Hong Kong that China might regard as injurious to its national security or to Communist Party control, as well as to root out anti-Chinese foreign-based intelligence meddling. According to the BBC, the new law suggests that China "would set up its own institutions in Hong Kong responsible for security," and "make criminal any act of
secession - breaking away from the country
subversion - undermining the power or authority of the central government
terrorism - using violence or intimidation against people
activities by foreign forces that interfere in Hong Kong."
These new laws for Hong Kong are vague enough to mean anything China might want them to mean, and would presumably include being able, on any pretext, to extradite people to the mainland.
The response of Hong Kong's citizens was immediate. On May 24, crowds, demanding independence, crammed downtown Hong Kong.
In response to China's threatening posture toward both Vietnam and Malaysia, the U.S. Navy reacted by dispatching several attack submarines to Pacific waters. The U.S. Navy also sent an aircraft carrier and the USS Bunker Hill, a missile-equipped destroyer, to the South China Sea. These deployments were amplified when Admiral John Aquilino, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, declared that China "must end its pattern of bullying Southeast Asians out of offshore oil, gas, and fisheries."
As if to underscore American resolve to keep open the air above and the sea below in the entire Indo-Pacific region, on May 27, the U.S. Air Force dispatched two B-1B bombers to conduct a flyby of the South China Sea near the Chinese border.
Fortunately, on June 3, in a move that should certainly go down as a highlight for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's place in history, he vowed to offer asylum to "350,000 Hong Kong residents who hold British national overseas passports, as well as some 2.5 million people who meet the requirements to apply for them."
The U.S. Navy, presumably in an effort to bolster its firepower in the South China Sea, has sent more ships on patrol in the area and also announced plans to increase the number of Tomahawk anti-ship missiles on its Virginia Class Attack Submarines from 12 to 40 and deploy newer longer range missiles to the region for use, if necessary, by both the Navy and U.S. Marines.
While China is likely to continue to insist that the world accept the legitimacy of its exaggerated claims of sovereignty, Beijing's Communist leaders might pause before testing the ever-increasing lethality of weapons systems aboard U.S. submarines and surface ships.
The U.S. needs urgently to develop a policy committed to countering China's escalating aggression. The policy should ideally include no commerce with China whatsoever. Beijing clearly has no intention of honoring any deal to which it agrees and has already been caught trying to steal remedies for the virus it unleashed.
Just as the U.S. would not have tried to enrich the Third Reich or the former Soviet Union, the U.S. -- and all countries hurt by China -- should have no place enriching a China that has shown itself to have killed more than 100,000 Americans, more than 400,000 people worldwide, has thrown more than 40 million Americans out of work, cost the world trillions in crippled economies and is openly bent on dominating the planet.
*Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.
© 2020 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

It’s Your Fault They Turn to Violence!
Raymond Ibrahim/June 10/2020
According to the media narrative, whatever unpleasant behavior a person or group is engaging in—from criminal activity to sheer terrorism—if you’re white and they’re not, that proves their behavior is entirely your fault. Your insufferable racism and xenophobia have pushed them over the top; their criminal behavior is a reflection of their many grievances against you.
This would certainly require ameliorating, if it were but true. It’s not. This is not to say that there is no racism or xenophobia, things which cannot be “legislated”; rather, it is to say that the overwhelming majority of criminal behavior is and always has been fueled by things other than grievances.
Take Islam for instance. Following the savage 9/11 terror attacks, the great question was “why do they hate us?” The answer from the media and its array of “experts” was that they had grievances against America.
Thereafter followed a litany list of supposed American/Western crimes against Muslims: originally it was Western political “sins”—from the crusades to colonialism to the creation of Israel. But with each new Islamic terrorist attack or outrage, the “grievances” Muslims had grew: free speech, churches, even teddy bears were included.
The media might as well have mentioned your sheer existence as a free infidel as the ultimate grievance, which would have been closer to the truth. After all, unjustified Muslim attacks on the West began nearly 1400 years ago, a few years after Islam was born; they continued for a millennium, swallowing three-quarters of the Christian world and bombarding every corner of Europe, whence many millions of slaves were abducted.
Even America’s first war as a nation was with North African Muslims, who were raiding and enslaving American vessels. When Jefferson and Adams asked the Barbary ambassador what “injury” the newborn American state could possibly have committed to provoke such attacks, “the ambassador answered us,” Jefferson wrote to Congress in 1786, “that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, … that it was their right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all.”
Muslim attacks on the West finally went on hiatus in the early nineteenth century, when Europe, fed up by Islamic depredations, invaded and colonized the Muslim world. Even that “process of European expansion and empire,” explains Bernard Lewis, “has its roots in the clash of Islam and Christendom…. The victorious liberators [Europeans], having reconquered their own territories [from Muslims], pursued their former masters whence they had come.”
Regardless, the West has been so inundated with “it’s your fault,” Muslim “grievances,” and “Islamophobia” propaganda from their own media that the Islamic State itself (ISIS) made it a point to clarify that it hates and terrorizes the West first and foremost because Islamic law requires it to do so, irrespective of Western behavior.
Or consider the abysmal way Muslim nations treat their minorities, chiefly Christians. How could these peaceful, tiny, and politically disenfranchised communities possibly “aggrieve” Muslims? They are often the same race, ethnicity, and speak the same language as their Muslim counterparts; you cannot tell them apart except for religion—and that is the “grievance” their persecutors have: non-Muslim minorities are “infidels” and therefore to be despised and oppressed.
Despite such outrageous persecution, which often leads to the murders of several Christians every month, the Western media seldom mentions this truly systemic and endemic topic, and never honestly: doing so would throw a wrench in their “grievances” narrative that Muslim misbehavior is a byproduct of “grievances” against the West.
Now consider how the media is using this same grievance-paradigm to justify criminal behavior and violence: a black man was killed by a police officer; although the latter was properly arrested and charged with murder, that’s not enough. If you’re white, the current turmoil—the looting, burning, and killing—is again and ultimately your fault: “grievances” coming to roost; or, to quote a recent Politico headline, “White America is reckoning with racism.”
And yet, just as with Islam, the media’s “black lives matter” narrative is extremely selective and manipulative: the cold-blooded murder of several admirable black Americans, such as 77-year-old retired police captain David Dorn, who was tragically shot to death for protecting a pawn shop from looters, apparently do not matter (whose “protesting” for them?); nor do the many lives of hardworking American blacks whose businesses have been ransacked and destroyed.
Nor, for that matter, does the fact that several thousand black lives are snuffed out by other blacks every year matter to the media (American blacks have killed 324,000 other blacks between just 1979 and 2014). As for the fact that, although amounting for about 15 percent of the U.S. population, blacks commit half of all murders—which at the very least means they end up in violent confrontations with police—what difference does that make?
Only those very, very few black lives that can possibly be made to conform to the grievance narrative will ever matter for the media.
The irony of all this is that only a naturally fair-minded people would ever care let alone allow the accusation that they are not being fair enough to their minorities shake them. Try telling any non-Western nation (we’ve already seen how it goes under Islam) that they are mistreating their minorities—or better yet, that they need to get on their knees and apologize for their race—and see where that gets you.

Cairo Declaration can end the chaos in Libya
Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy/Arab News/June 10/2020
Things have become clearer regarding the situation in Libya. One party is trying to end violence for the sake of stability and unity, expelling militias, and fighting terrorism, while another is seeking to hide behind the walls of Turkey, which supports it with mercenaries and terrorists to shed more blood and give Ankara greater influence in the region. Things became clearer as a result of the “Cairo Declaration,” which was launched from the Egyptian capital last week by Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, the head of the Libyan National Army (LNA) Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, and eastern Libyan House of Representatives Speaker Aguila Saleh. This was the first international meeting between the military and political bodies of the project to reconstruct the Libyan state. It was a great paradigm shift that corrected one of the biggest deficiencies in the performance of the project by Haftar and his supporters.
Haftar’s problem and big mistake was his insistence on controlling the military and political files together when he is new to the political arena. Many believed that the political file should have remained untouched by the military command, whose role is limited to making progress in the field that gives positive points to the political team representing it.
The power of the Cairo Declaration lies in that it conveys a political message to the world that eastern Libya has an elected parliament and not a specific presidential council (even if it is internationally recognized), and that this parliament supports its army despite the previous disagreements between Haftar and Saleh. The declaration also conveys the message that it is backing Saleh’s initiative, in which he demanded that each of the three historical Libyan regions (Tobruk, Fezzan, and Tripoli) be represented in a new presidential council, whether by consensus between them or by way of secret selection under the UN’s auspices. The declaration is an attempt by the Egyptian side, in coordination with several Arab and other regional parties, to give prominence to the voice of reason, put aside Libyan-Libyan differences, and not give any regional power the opportunity to get between the two local parties to the conflict. It seems, however, that the internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA), led by Fayez Al-Sarraj, is determined to implement its plan to secure protection by opening Libyan lands and waters to Turkey.
The Cairo initiative focuses mainly on the outcomes of the Berlin summit, which produced a comprehensive political solution, including clear steps for implementation (on the political, security, and economic tracks) and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. It recommends the continuation of the 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission in Geneva under the auspices of the UN and everything that would ensure the success of the other tracks. The Cairo Declaration also takes into consideration the importance of the UN and the international community obligating all parties to remove foreign mercenaries from Libya, dismantle militias, and hand over their weapons so that the LNA, in cooperation with the security services, can assume their responsibilities.
The initiative also aims to support the Libyan state in restoring its national institutions, while stepping up the appropriate national mechanism to revive the political track under the UN’s auspices and to invest in the efforts of the international community to resolve the Libyan crisis. In addition, the initiative seeks to restore state control over all security institutions and support the military (the LNA) in assuming its national responsibilities.
The restoration of control by Libya’s state institutions is extremely important to achieving stability, which Egypt has sought since the beginning of the conflict, as it has always used the slogan: “The security of neighboring countries is an extension of Egypt’s security.” Libya has an important strategic depth for Cairo, and stability there means greater stability in Egypt, especially as their shared border has been a route for smuggling weapons and terrorists into Egypt.
El-Sisi said at the press conference announcing the initiative: “The practices of some parties on the Libyan scene and external interference are a source of concern for us.” He warned against some parties’ insistence on a military solution to the Libyan crisis, adding: “Egypt, with the brothers in Libya, is following what is happening on the ground there and rejects the escalation that will have disastrous consequences throughout the region.”
The initiative consolidates one of the current pillars of the Egyptian state. This means that Egypt will not be afraid to strategically defend the integrity of its lands, which are clearly threatened by the Turkish-backed militias.
Libya is now facing two potential scenarios, the first of which is achieving the Cairo Declaration’s goals based on the outputs of the Berlin conference and under UN auspices. It must, in particular, implement the steps aimed at organizing all the Libyan state institutions, especially the main economic institutions (the central bank, National Oil Corporation and the Libyan Investment Authority). Their boards of directors must be reformed in a way that guarantees the effectiveness of the new government’s performance, provides the necessary resources to manage the transitional phase, and organizes presidential and parliamentary elections while preserving the unity of the state and the army.
The second scenario will undoubtedly lead to more conflicts and chaos, as the current situation on the ground warns of this. The GNA, assisted by external forces, seeks to advance to Sirte and elsewhere after re-establishing full control over Tripoli, as it endeavors to enter negotiations on more solid ground — this is what one of its leaders said last Friday. This endeavor will undoubtedly increase the cycle of violence in Libya.
The restoration of control by Libya’s state institutions is extremely important to achieving stability.
The threat of Russian-Turkish “understandings” remains one of the most serious challenges facing the Egyptian move. Despite that, Moscow officially announced its support for the Cairo Declaration and there was a phone call between El-Sisi and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But the threat of these understandings remains.
Another challenge that Cairo faces is its ability to achieve breakthroughs in the west of Libya among the tribes, with some members of the GNA, and among political elites to return to the negotiating table and build a new Libya away from extremist and terrorist groups.
*Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy is a critically acclaimed multimedia journalist, writer and columnist who has covered war zones and conflicts worldwide. Twitter: @ALMenawy

Why Netanyahu may be relieved if annexation plan is scaled back
Osama Al-Sharif/Arab News/June 10/2020
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trapped in a labyrinth of his own making. He still sees a “historic opportunity” that can’t be missed to go ahead with his plan to do something that no previous premier has dared: To annex territories in the West Bank. The opportunity being the fact that US President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan allows him to annex major chunks of Palestinian land, including the Jordan Valley.
But that was the easy part. The problems and challenges are piling up, blocking his way as he attempts to meet the July 1 deadline he set himself to go ahead with full or partial annexation. On Sunday, Netanyahu met with 11 settlement leaders who do not oppose Trump’s plan and revealed a number of interesting developments. He said that the White House has not yet given him the green light to go ahead with annexation. He added that the territory to be annexed may be less than what was originally planned, and that maps for the annexation are yet to be drawn.
Moreover, Netanyahu stated that, although Trump’s plan includes forming an independent Palestinian entity, he “does not call it a state.” In short, Netanyahu, who had embraced Trump’s plan when it was revealed at the White House in January, wants to pick and choose certain parts of the plan without committing to anything in return. Not that the Palestinians, the Arab states and the international community back the plan. On the contrary, the Palestinians have rejected it and on Tuesday submitted a counterproposal for a demilitarized state to the Middle East Quartet. President Mahmoud Abbas had also declared last month that all Oslo-related agreements with Israel and the US were null and void. European countries have threatened Israel with sanctions if it goes ahead with the illegal annexation, while Jordan warned of a “massive conflict” with Israel as a result. Key Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE made their position clear in rejecting the annexation, while Riyadh reiterated its support for the two-state solution.
But, ironically, Netanyahu’s real problems come from inside his Cabinet and from the Israeli security and military cadre, as well as from the Israeli public. Last week, a number of settlement leaders expressed opposition to parts of Trump’s plan, while the chair of the Yesha Council, an umbrella group representing Jewish settlers, has said that Trump is no friend of Israel. The settlers object to the plan’s proposal to create a Palestinian state; even when that state will be on less than 50 percent of the West Bank — a noncontiguous mishmash of territories and enclaves with no real sovereignty.
So-called Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage Minister Rafi Peretz last week said that Trump’s peace plan has “clauses we cannot accept,” adding that “we will not accept the establishment of a Palestinian state in my homeland. I will oppose any mention of recognition of a Palestinian state in the legislation to come.” In response, Netanyahu told the settlers that, if annexation was brought to a vote before the Knesset, it would be done independently from the other stipulations in Trump’s plan.
Former Israeli military and security officials have warned Netanyahu that annexation would have no real value for Israel but would add security risks. Others have questioned whether Netanyahu understands the political and demographic consequences of annexation on Israel’s survival as a democracy. On Saturday, tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs protested against the planned annexation in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square, indicating the rupture that annexation would bring to an already divided Israeli society.
US officials have not recently commented on the planned annexation — not since Secretary of State Mike Pompeo paid a one-day visit to Israel last month. But a source close to White House officials told this writer that the US position is clear that annexation is part of the plan and not the full plan. The source said that the Trump administration is not committed to the July 1 deadline and that it still hopes the Palestinians will resume contacts to discuss the plan in the coming weeks. If they fail to do this, the US would allow Netanyahu to go ahead with gradual and partial annexation, without being specific. It may be restricted to Israeli settlements as a first phase and may not include the Jordan Valley.
He wants to pick and choose certain parts of the Trump plan without committing to anything in return.
This would present Netanyahu with the exit he is looking for. He would fulfill part of his pledge, satisfy the settlers, and remain uncommitted to recognizing a Palestinian state. Restricted annexation that excludes the Jordan Valley may also save the peace treaty with Jordan.
One would question the wisdom of Abbas’ decision to sever contacts with the White House at this critical juncture. The source told me that Trump would be ready to put everything on hold if Abbas made a telephone call to the Oval Office. The Palestinian side has accepted engaging with the Middle East Quartet at this point, but neither Israel nor the US is showing any interest.
*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. Twitter: @plato010

Iran’s treatment of Afghan refugees condemned again
Ajmal Shams/Arab News/June3 10/2020
As a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, millions of Afghans migrated to neighboring Pakistan and Iran, as well as many other parts of the world. In general, Afghans have been grateful to their host countries for their support and generosity, and for being made to feel welcome among their communities. However, not all countries treated the incoming Afghan migrants the same. Iran is Afghanistan’s western neighbor, where millions of Afghans settled to stay safe from the conflict in their homeland and where they sought employment and economic opportunities. Most of those that migrated to Iran were either Persian-speaking or belonged to the Shiite Hazara community.
Two recent tragic incidents have triggered a renewed debate over Afghan migrants in Iran. Last month, dozens of Afghan migrants were reportedly drowned in the Harirud River by the Iranian border police as punishment for illegally crossing into Iran. The incident caused outrage among Afghans, civil society organizations and the Human Rights Watch group.
Then, last week, another tragic incident occurred that was as barbaric as the first. This time, a car carrying Afghan refugees in Iran’s Yazd Province was shot at by the Iranian police, causing it to catch fire. Three passengers were killed and four others hurt. Video footage of the incident went viral on social media and the Iranian authorities were severely criticized for being inhuman and brutal toward Afghan migrants. The issue has already been raised by the Afghan government, which has demanded a full investigation.
Iran’s treatment of Afghan refugees has always been subject to criticism. Afghans are believed to be generally humiliated within Iranian society. There have been reports of hundreds of them either being mistreated or subjected to human rights violations by the Iranian state. Many hospitals in Iran have declined to provide medical care to Afghans and several schools and colleges have denied access to Afghan students. For example, it was reported in March that Iranian hospitals had declined to treat Afghan refugees suffering from the coronavirus disease.
Despite all of the aforementioned injustices, millions of especially Persian-speaking and Shiite Hazara Afghans have been attracted to Iran for employment and economic opportunities.
Iran is considered to have politicized the presence of Afghan refugees in the country by using their presence for political gains and without humanitarian considerations. The burden of hosting millions of Afghan refugees for almost four decades has generally been appreciated by the Afghan government and the country’s people, but the general record of mistreatment by the Iranian government and society is considered as being humiliating and in violation of the international norms of decency.
The other issue with Iranian refugee politics is its discrimination of Afghans due to their various religious and linguistic affiliations. For example, Iran has looked upon the Hazara community of Afghanistan as its own strategic asset to be used for political intervention in Kabul’s internal affairs.
The general record of mistreatment by the Iranian government and society is considered as being humiliating.
Iran has not been happy with Afghanistan’s engagement with the international community and, at times, has been categorical in its opposition, which is a clear intervention in the internal affairs of its neighbor. Afghanistan has been virtually dependent on foreign assistance for its survival. Its partnership with the international community is of vital importance for its geopolitical and economic interests, which have traditionally been looked upon with antagonism by Iran.
The peoples of Afghanistan and Iran share a long history spanning thousands of years. Their cultural and religious ties must be used by both countries as a source of stability in the region. Iran must treat Afghanistan as a good neighbor and economic partner rather than as a rival. The key question is whether the current state of affairs inside Iran vis-a-vis Afghan refugees is due to general hatred within the Iranian state and society or if it is a systematic effort to force them out. Regardless, Iran is under no obligation to host Afghans forever. It is up to the Afghan leadership to help create the conditions inside Afghanistan that are conducive for the refugees to return home and start a dignified life with access to economic opportunities.
*Ajmal Shams is President of the Afghanistan Social Democratic Party and based in Kabul. He was a Deputy Minister in the Afghan National Unity Government. Twitter: @ajmshams