LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
October 03/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.october03.19.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying
heavy burdens, and I will give you rest
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 11/25-30/:”‘I thank you,
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the
wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for
such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my
Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father
except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ‘Come to me,
all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light.’”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News published on October 02- 03/2019
Report: Aoun Calls Hariri 'Lazy' after PM Asks Macron to Press President
Bassil Seminar Called Off amid FPM-Mustaqbal Tensions
Maronite Bishops Urge Refugee Repatriation, End to Smuggling
UK Trade Envoy: Great Potential for Trade and Investment in Lebanon
Soleimani Reveals Role in 2006 Israel-Hizbullah War
Nasrallah says Khamenei heavily involved in establishment of Lebanon’s Hezbollah
Lebanese TV Host Juomana Haddad On Racism In The Arab World: We Are Tenth, Not
Third, World; We're Wallowing In Our Own Backwardness
Berri calls for legislative session Oct. 15
Interreligious Dialogue in Lebanon: Toward the “Tripoli Human Fraternity Day”
Third protester dies of wounds in Iraq: medics, security sources
Hariri receives WPF delegation and Palestinian ambassador and reiterates support
for the judiciary
PM Johnson's letter to EU's Juncker on new Brexit plan
Lebanese Journalist Toni Francis: Iran Acting To Replace Armies Of Neighboring
Countries With Militias Under Its Control
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports
And News published on October 02- 03/2019
Huge Iranian Guards base rising near Baghdad for missile-drone attacks on Israel
Death Toll Rises to 5 as Iraq Protests Intensify
Rouhani Blames Trump for Failed France Bid to Initiate Contact
Iran to Cut Nuclear Deal Commitments, Supreme Leader Says
Iran Admits IRGC Role in Supporting Houthis
Rouhani Accuses US of Weaponizing the Dollar
Johnson Promises 'Compromise' Brexit Offer to Brussels
Greenblatt Hopes Both Parties Will Read Peace Plan Carefully and Not Make Hasty
Decisions
Aboul Gheit to Asharq Al-Awsat: Aramco Attacks Investigation Will Uncover
Complete Truth
Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on October 02- 03/2019
Lebanese TV Host Juomana Haddad On Racism In The Arab World: We Are Tenth, Not
Third, World; We're Wallowing In Our Own Backwardness/MEMRI/October 02/2019
Lebanese Journalist Toni Francis: Iran Acting To Replace Armies Of Neighboring
Countries With Militias Under Its Control/MEMRI/October 02/2019
Huge Iranian Guards base rising near Baghdad for missile-drone attacks
on/Israel/DEBKAfile/October 02/2019
Swedes are Fleeing/ Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/October 02/2019
Don't Go Wobbly' on Iran/Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/October 02/2019
Southern Syria Shows the War’s Changed Nature/Charles Lister/Asharq Al-Awsat/October
02/2019
How Thomas Cook’s ‘Excursions’ Lost Their Way/Leonid Bershidsky/Bloomberg/October
02/2019
Analysis/Trump-Rohani Phone Call May Have Dissipated, but U.S.-Iran Negotiations
Aren't Dead Yet/Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/October 02/2019
Erdogan’s plan for northeastern Syria fuels uncertainty/Talmiz Ahmad/Arab
News/October 02/2019
Retreat from Qatar suggests US is preparing for war/Abdulrahman Al Rashed/Arab
News/October 02/2019
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News
published
on October 02- 03/2019
Report: Aoun Calls Hariri 'Lazy' after PM Asks Macron to
Press President
Naharnet/October 02/2019
The latest tensions between al-Mustaqbal Movement and the Free Patriotic
Movement started after Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s visit to Paris and his
meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, a media report said.
The French president expressed to Hariri “his dismay over how the state
is being run, politically and financially, and the failure to make reforms,
slash deficit and manage the electricity plan, which is essential for lowering
the deficit,” informed sources told al-Akhbar newspaper in remarks published
Wednesday. Hariri for his part noted that “the President’s party, which is in
charge of the electricity file, does not want to offer any facilitations,” the
sources added. “The Aounists learned that the premier asked Macron to talk to
President Michel Aoun when he meets him in New York regarding the needed
reforms,” the sources went on to say. “The issue was raised during the two
presidents’ meeting in New York and Aoun was infuriated, especially after
learning of Hariri’s remarks, which prompted him to respond harshly and accuse
the prime minister of being lazy and unproductive,” the sources said. In remarks
to LBCI television later on Wednesday, governmental sources denied the
statements attributed to Hariri in al-Akhbar’s report.
Bassil Seminar Called Off amid FPM-Mustaqbal Tensions
Naharnet/October 02/2019
A meeting between Free Patriotic Movement chief Jebran Bassil and cadres of al-Mustaqbal
Movement has been called off amid fresh tensions between the two parties. No
official explanation has been given for the cancelation of the seminar at
Mustaqbal’s headquarters in Beirut’s al-Quntari area. But MP George Atallah of
the FPM’s Strong Lebanon bloc said his movement has obtained information that
“Mustaqbal officials had asked Prime Minister Saad Hariri to call off the
seminar following tweets by Strong Lebanon bloc MP Ziad Aswad over the past few
days.”
“Hariri agreed to their request,” Atallah added, in remarks to MTV.
“According to our information, the Mustaqbal officials demanded a
clarification about Aswad’s tweets in order to reconsider the meeting with
Bassil, but we have not heard any official announcement from al-Mustaqbal
following yesterday’s move,” Atallah went on to say.
Maronite Bishops Urge Refugee Repatriation, End to
Smuggling
Naharnet/October 02/2019
The Council of Maronite Bishops on Wednesday lauded President Michel Aoun’s
stance at the U.N. on the issue of the Syrian refugee crisis, as they called for
an end to smuggling and corruption in Lebanon. The president’s stance
“demonstrated the severity of the crisis in Lebanon and the solutions needed for
its salvation, especially as to asking world leaders to contribute to the safe
and dignified return of the Syrian refugees to their country,” the bishops said
in a statement issued after their monthly meeting in Bkirki. “The repatriation
conditions have become present in most Syrian regions, according to the
international reports,” the bishops added. Separately,
the Maronite bishops stressed that Lebanon cannot carry out reforms “unless
everyone seeks to end the waste of public funds, halt the smuggling of goods via
legal and illegal border crossings, and combat corruption bravely and
comprehensively without taking into consideration anything but the public
welfare.”
UK Trade Envoy: Great Potential for Trade and Investment in
Lebanon
Naharnet/October 02/2019
British Trade Envoy to Lebanon Lord Richard Risby has ended a two-day visit to
Lebanon. Lord Risby is the first trade envoy assigned to Lebanon by the UK Prime
Minister, a role dedicated to deepening trade and investment ties between the UK
and Lebanon. During his visit, Lord Risby met with a wide range of political,
economic and business figures and officials including President Michel Aoun,
Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Speaker Nabih Berri, in addition to MPs,
Ministers for Economy, Energy, Transport and Telecommunications.
Discussions focused on various economic and trade issues including the
UK’s growing bilateral trade relations with Lebanon after the signature of the
Association Agreement during the UK-Lebanon Tech Forum in London on September
19. “This agreement provides a platform for trade
between the UK and Lebanon to grow, with total trade worth £603 million in 2018.
It also provides the certainty for British and Lebanese consumers and businesses
to continue trading following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The agreement
will provide a framework for cooperation on and development of political,
economic, social and cultural links,” the British embassy said in a statement.
“Lord Risby’s visit comes at a challenging time for Lebanon. Earlier this month
the Government of Lebanon set out further proposed reforms on top of those
already committed to at CEDRE. Lord Risby discussed how the UK can continue to
support these reforms, including through the Capital Investment Program, and
getting more UK companies involved in infrastructure projects, oil and gas and
other opportunities,” the embassy said.
Lord Risby also visited the Beirut Container Terminal Consortium – operating
Beirut Container Port -- a joint venture between Lebanese and UK companies that
has in over 15 years created more than 3,000 local jobs and boosted container
handling four-fold to 1.2 million.
At the end of his visit, Lord Risby said: “I am pleased to visit Lebanon for the
first time after my appointment as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy for Lebanon,
a country that has great trade and business potential. It is clear there is much
work to be done to address the areas of economic concern here, but UK-Lebanese
relations have never been stronger.”“On 19 September we saw Lebanese and UK
Ministers sign the UK-Lebanon Agreement in London which signals continuity and
confidence in our trading relations as the UK leaves the EU. My meetings with
Lebanese officials and senior business people highlighted Lebanon’s great
potential and unfolded opportunities for more UK private companies to invest in
Lebanon,” he added.
“I look forward to more British and Lebanese companies doing business with each
other, as the UK remains a committed partner investing in Lebanon’s security,
stability and prosperity.”At a reception held in honor of Lord Risby, British
Ambassador Chris Rampling addressed his guests from across the business, trade
and political spectrums saying: “It’s a great pleasure
to receive Lord Risby whose role is dedicated to deepening trade and investment
ties between the UK and Lebanon. Coming less than a year after the inaugural
investment forum between the UK and Lebanon last December, and the Association
Agreement signature between both our countries in London on 19 September, this
is a clear demonstration of how rapidly our two countries ties have grown
stronger.”He added: “As I have said before, the UK supports the Government of
Lebanon’s program and CEDRE: economic reform will be painful, but it is urgent
for Lebanon to regain confidence. The Association Agreement is truly an
important milestone in UK and Lebanese relations, which are stronger today than
ever before. Britain remains firmly behind Lebanon’s steps towards long-term
security, stability, and prosperity.”'
Soleimani Reveals Role in 2006 Israel-Hizbullah War
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/2019
The shadowy head of Iran's elite Quds Force, Qassem Soleimani, has given an
insight on his role in Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Hizbullah war, in a rare
interview broadcast on Iran's state television. The 90-minute interview was
presented as the first of its kind with Soleimani, top commander of the
Revolutionary Guards branch that runs foreign operations. Soleimani said he
spent almost the entire duration of the 34-day conflict in Lebanon, which he
entered from Syria alongside Imad Mughniyeh, a commander of the Iran-backed
Hizbullah who was assassinated in 2008. The 2006 war killed more than 1,200
Lebanese, mostly civilians, and more than 160 Israelis, mostly soldiers. Apart
from a one-day mission back to Iran "one week" into the war to report to supreme
leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and return with a message for Hizbullah chief
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Soleimani said he remained in Lebanon to oversee the
fight. He also recounted how, under massive Israeli bombardment of Hizbullah's
stronghold in Beirut's southern suburbs, he and Mughniyeh evacuated Nasrallah
from his "operations room" where they were based.
According to his account, after ferrying Nasrallah to safety, he and Mughniyeh
returned to the command center. The broadcast of the interview, carried out by
Khamenei's office, comes days after it published a photo showing Nasrallah next
to Khamenei and Soleimani, in an apparent recent meeting between the three in
Tehran.
Nasrallah says Khamenei heavily involved in establishment
of Lebanon’s Hezbollah
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Tuesday, 1 October 2019
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was heavily involved in the establishment of
the Iranian proxy group Hezbollah, said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the
terrorist organization.In a five-hour interview with Khamenei.ir, the supreme
leader’s website, Nasrallah said that during “the early years of the
establishment of [Lebanon’s Hezbollah organization], he [Khamenei] was involved
in everything. The principles, goals, foundations, criteria, and guidelines that
we had, [he] provided a solution to every issue.”Hezbollah was founded in 1985
with the backing of Iran, which dispatched forces from its Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps (IRGC) to train and fund Lebanese Shiite militants during the
Lebanese Civil War. The organization has since operated as an Iranian proxy and
has been designated as a terrorist organization by actors including the US, UK,
and the Arab League.
“The formation of this front [Hezbollah] coincided with the decision of [Khamenei’s
predecessor] Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini to send IRGC forces to Syria and Lebanon
to oppose and confront Israeli aggression,” claimed Nasrallah.
Since becoming Iran’s supreme leader in 1989, Khamenei continued Iran’s
“support for the resistance in the region, especially in Lebanon, even in the
face of changes within ministries and official entities in Iran as well as some
differences in their political policies,’ Nasrallah said.Nasrallah has headed
Hezbollah since 1992, when his predecessor was assassinated by Israeli forces,
and has maintained close relations with Iran
under Khamenei. According to Nasrallah, Khamenei was
key in solving differences between Hezbollah and its ally the Amal Movement, a
Lebanese political party associated with Lebanon’s Shiite community and
currently led by Nabih Berri.
Amal and Hezbollah are key members of the “March 8” political coalition which
supports the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The two organizations previously
competed for influence over the Lebanese Shiite community, but have since become
close allies. Nasrallah pointed to Khamenei’s role in
bringing the two organizations together. “[Khamenei]
opposed any issue, any conflict or dispute among Lebanese groups and constantly
stressed the need for extensive relations between them as well as achieving
peace by any means necessary among them,” he said.
According to the Hezbollah leader, “the foundations of the close relations
between Hezbollah and Amal that we see today were laid by the guidelines of [Khamenei],
and today the relationship between Hezbollah and Amal is not strategic, but
beyond strategic.”On Sunday, Iran released a “never before seen” photograph of
Nasrallah and Khamenei alongside the commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force Qassem
Soleimani.
Lebanese TV Host Juomana Haddad On Racism In The Arab
World: We Are Tenth, Not Third, World; We're Wallowing In Our Own Backwardness
MEMRI/October 02/2019
Lebanese TV host Joumana Haddad said in a September 19, 2019 monologue on Al-Hurra
TV (U.S.) that the Arabs are a racist people who lack human and ideological
awareness. She criticized the Arab nation for looking down upon other races and
nationalities and for not seeing anything shameful about its racism. She said
that Arab countries legally condone racism and forms of human trafficking,
slavery, and systematic humiliation, and that the Arab countries are "wallowing"
in their backward past. In addition, Haddad said that it is human advancement,
interest in culture, and intellectuality that determines the value of a country,
rather than how many skyscrapers a country has, and added: "We do not belong to
the third world, but to the tenth world."
Joumana Haddad: "Unfortunately, without generalizing, we are racist people. We
are racist because we still lack human and ideological awareness. We are racist
because we look down upon other races and nationalities, which we consider to be
'inferior' to us, while ignoring the fact that we ourselves are treated with
contempt by many cultures and countries. Maybe our ugly and criminal behavior
constitutes an act of revenge for the racism of some in the West towards us, but
our bigger problem is that we still do not see anything shameful about racism.
We even condone by means of the law, using many names, like the kafala
sponsorship system. These names do not conceal the fact that this is slave
trade, human trafficking, and systematic humiliation. I cannot understand how an
Arab can be so arrogant towards other peoples, races, and nationalities. In
Ethiopia, they have a female president, while we wallow in our backward
patriarchy. Sri Lanka has no power outages, and Nepal is one of the most ancient
civilizations in history. Meanwhile, we boast about the oil, which is, in fact,
our curse, and we are proud of progress form which we took only the scraps.
People, we do not belong to the third world, but to the tenth world. It saddens
me to tell you this. What increases the value of any country is its level of
human advancement, how much interest it shows in culture, and the role in plays
in thought – not how many skyscrapers it has."
Berri calls for legislative session Oct. 15
Wed 02 Oct 2019
NNA - House Speaker, Nabih Berri, told his visiting lawmakers within the
framework of "Wednesday Gathering" that he shall call for a legislative session
Oct. 15 to elect Parliamentary committee members. Speaker Berri also noted that
another session will be held Oct. 17 to discuss Constitutional Article 95.
Berri stressed that the Parliament's presidency is entrusted with the legal,
legislative and supervisory sovereignty of the House of Parliament, stressing
the need to activate the economic emergency committee to address the current
situation.
"The roadmap to salvaging the country is known, especially given that there was
a consensus during the recent Baabda economic meeting with political parties
unanimously agreeing on 22 items out of 49 items on its agenda," Berri said.
On the other hand, Berri met with former Minister Karim Pakradouni, with whom he
discussed the general situation in the country and the broad region.
Interreligious Dialogue in Lebanon: Toward the “Tripoli Human Fraternity Day”
NNA -Wed 02 Oct 2019
The first “Tripoli Human Fraternity Day” on "The Future of Christian-Muslim
Relations after Pope Francis’ Mission to Abu Dhabi" will take place at the St.
Francis Convent in Tripoli-Mina, on Sunday, October 6, under the auspices of the
Pontifical Missionary Union, the Pontifical Mission Societies-Lebanon, and the
Custody of the Land. The event is organized in cooperation with the Religion &
Security Council, Dialogue for Life and Reconciliation, and the Sustainable
Network of Religious Leaders in the North of Lebanon.
Numerous other bodies and NGOs are also featured as partners in this major
interreligious initiative, such as Caritas Lebanon, Tripoli Chamber of Commerce,
North Lebanon Local Economic Development Agency, Tripoli Entrepreneurs Club,
Maronite Youth Committee of Tripoli’s Archeparchy, Melkite Youth Patriarchal
Committee, Maronite Youth Pastoral Ehden Zgharta, Middle East Institute for
Research and Strategic Studies, Fly for the Lebanese Youth, Mousawat
Association, Utopia. The proceedings will consist of a
Youth Interreligious Forum and a Leaders Interreligious Forum. The Youth
Interreligious Forum will engage a delegation of 50 university students and
young professionals from the Sunni, Alawi, and Christian communities in Tripoli
and North Lebanon. The Leaders Interreligious Forum will feature prominent
Christian and Muslim religious figures, including Tripoli’s Grand Mufti and the
Vatican Nuncio. In the spirit of the Document on
“Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” signed in Abu Dhabi by
Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Sh. Ahmad El Tayyeb, the “Tripoli
Human Fraternity Day” aims to promote interreligious dialogue and cooperation
between Christians and Muslims as the way forward to advance peaceful
coexistence and societal harmony in Tripoli and throughout northern Lebanon.
The event will be held in the context of the ongoing Formation Program on
“The Mission of Young Christians in Tripoli and North Lebanon”, hosted by the
St. Francis Convent and promoted by the Pontifical Missionary Union and the
Pontifical Mission Societies-Lebanon.
Third protester dies of wounds in Iraq: medics, security
sources
NNA - Wed 02 Oct 2019
A third Iraqi demonstrator died from wounds sustained when police fired tear gas
and live rounds to disperse protests in Baghdad and the south, medics and
security sources said Wednesday.
The 55-year-old man was wounded in Tuesday's demonstration in Baghdad's iconic
Tahrir Square, the sources said. One other protester was killed and 200 wounded
in Baghdad on Tuesday, health sources said, while another died in the south. --
AFP
Hariri receives WPF delegation and Palestinian ambassador and reiterates support
for the judiciary
NNA -Wed 02 Oct 2019
The President of the Council of Ministers Saad Hariri received today at the
Grand Serail the Minister of Finance Ali Hassan Khalil, in the presence of a
judicial delegation that included: the President of the Higher Judicial Council
Judge Suhail Abboud, the president of the State Shura Council Judge Fadi Elias,
the president of the Court of Audit Judge Mohammad Badran, the State Prosecutor
Ghassan Oweidat, the president of the Judicial Inspection Committee Judge Burkan
Saad, the head of the Cooperative Fund of Judges Ali Ibrahim and the Secretary
General of the Council of Ministers, Judge Mahmoud Makkiye.
During the meeting, Prime Minister Hariri reiterated his full support for the
judiciary at all levels and his readiness to coordinate with them for all their
administrative, organizational and financial affairs. For their part, the judges
proposed ideas that could reflect positively on public finances.
Hariri also received the Palestinian Ambassador to Lebanon, Ashraf
Dabbour, who said after the meeting: “I discussed with Prime Minister Hariri the
situation of the Palestinians and their rights to work and live in dignity. We
spoke about the Ministerial committee that he heads and he promised to call for
a meeting soon. I perceived his keenness about the Palestinians so they can live
a dignified life in this hospitable country. He then
met with the President of the Association of Banks in Lebanon Joseph Torbey and
the Secretary General of the Association Wissam Fattouh.After the meeting,
Torbey said: “We briefed Premier Hariri on the activities of the Association,
most importantly the annual meeting that will be held in Lebanon on November
27th. A wide range of Arab bankers, central bank governors, investment funds and
international fund will attend it. It will be an opportunity to mobilize the
friends of Lebanon and its brothers in the Arab private sector to show the
Lebanese situation as it is, far from the political tensions.There will be an
important session in which very important financial figures will participate,
about investment in Lebanon, including the CEDRE Conference, which is based
largely on Arab financing.”Hariri also received a delegation from the World Food
Program WFP that included its regional director for the Middle East, Muhannad
Hadi, and its Lebanon director Abdallah Al Wardat.
After the meeting, Hadi said: “Our relationship with Lebanon is a partnership.
It was a constructive meeting and we listened to the Prime minister’s opinion on
the WFP's assistance to Syrian refugees in Lebanon, the school projects and the
projects to combat poverty. Prime Minister Hariri gave us important guidelines.
We appreciate these guidelines and look forward to improving the performance of
the organization in Lebanon.”
PM Johnson's letter to EU's Juncker on new Brexit plan
NNA - Wed 02 Oct 2019
Britain issued its proposals on Wednesday for how to deal with the Irish border
after Brexit, removing the so-called backstop but with measures it said would
avoid the need for checks or physical infrastructure.
Below is the letter sent by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Jean-Claude Juncker,
president of the European Commission.
Dear Jean-Claude,
A FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPROMISE: UK PROPOSALS FOR A NEW PROTOCOL ON
IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND
There is now very little time in which to negotiate a new Agreement between the
UK and the EU under Article 50. We need to get this done before the October
European Council.
This Government wants to get a deal, as I am sure we all do. If we cannot reach
one, it would represent a failure of statecraft for which we would all be
responsible. Our predecessors have tackled harder problems: we can surely solve
this one.
Both sides now need to consider whether there is sufficient willingness to
compromise and move beyond existing positions to get us to an agreement in time.
We are ready to do that, and this letter sets out what I regard as a reasonable
compromise: the broad landing zone in which I believe a deal can begin to take
shape.
Our proposed compromise removes the so-called “backstop” in the previous
Withdrawal Agreement. I have explained the difficulties with this elsewhere,
including the fact that it has been rejected three times by the UK Parliament.
Equally important in this context, the backstop acted as a bridge to a proposed
future relationship with the EU in which the UK would be closely integrated with
EU customs arrangements and would align with EU law in many areas. That proposed
future relationship is not the goal of the current UK Government. The Government
intends that the future relationship should be based on a Free Trade Agreement
in which the UK takes control of its own regulatory affairs and trade policy. In
these circumstances the proposed “backstop” is a bridge to nowhere, and a new
way forward must be found.
This is entirely compatible with maintaining an open border in Northern Ireland.
Goods trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland makes up a little over one per
cent of UK-EU total trade in goods. It is entirely reasonable to manage this
border in a different way. Any risks arising will be management in both the EU
single market and the UK market, particularly as all third country imports will
continue to be controlled by the EU and UK customs authorities.
We are proposing that all customs processes needed to ensure compliance with the
UK and EU customs regimes should take place on a decentralised basis, with
paperwork conducted electronically as goods move between the two countries, and
with the very small number of physical checks needed conducted at traders’
premises or other points on the supply chain. To enable this, we should both put
in place specific, workable improvements and simplifications to existing customs
rules between now and the end of the transition period, in the spirit of finding
flexible and creative solutions to these particular circumstances. These
arrangements can be underpinned by a close cooperation between the UK and Irish
authorities. All this must be coupled with a firm commitment (by both parties)
never to conduct checks at the border in future.
Overall, we recognise that our proposals will man changes from the situation
that prevails in Ireland and Northern Ireland now. Our common task is to make
sure that these changes entail as little day-to-day disruption as possible to
the current situation. I believe that our proposals will achieve that.
Finally, in order to support Northern Ireland through this transition, and in
collaboration with others with an interest, this Government proposes a New Deal
for Northern Ireland, with appropriate commitments to help boost economic growth
and Northern Ireland’s competitiveness, and to support infrastructure projects,
particularly with a cross-border focus.
Taken together, these proposals respect the decision taken by the people of the
UK to leave the EU, while dealing pragmatically with that decision’s
consequences in Northern Ireland and in Ireland.
- They provide for continued regulatory alignment for a potentially prolonged
period across the whole island of Ireland after the end of the transition
period, for as long as the people Northern Ireland agree to that.
- They mean that EU rules cannot be maintained indefinitely if they are not
wanted - correcting a key defect of the backstop arrangements.
- They provide for a meaningful Brexit in which UK trade policy is fully under
UK control from the start.
- They ensure that the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland will remain
open, enabling the huge gains of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement to be
protected.
I hope that these proposals can now provide the basis for rapid negotiations
towards a solution, together with finalisation of the necessary changes to the
Political Declaration reflecting the goal of a comprehensive Free Trade
Agreement, so that an Article 50 agreement can be reached, and the UK can leave
the EU in an orderly fashion on 31 October. This will allow us to focus on the
positive future relationship that I believe is in all of our interests.
I am copying this letter and paper to other members of the European Council and
to Michel Barnier.
Yours ever,
Lebanese Journalist Toni Francis: Iran Acting To Replace Armies Of Neighboring
Countries With Militias Under Its Control
MEMRI/October 02/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79038/%d8%b7%d9%88%d9%86%d9%8a-%d9%81%d8%b1%d9%86%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%b3-%d8%a5%d9%84%d8%ba%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ac%d9%8a%d9%88%d8%b4-%d9%84%d9%85%d8%b5%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%a9%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d9%8a%d9%84/
In August 2019 Yousuf Al-Nasseri, an official in the Shi'ite Iraqi pro-Iranian
militia Harakat Hizbullah Al-Nujaba, called to dissolve the "mercenary" Iraqi
army and replace it with Al-Hashd Al-Sha'bi [the Popular Mobilization Units –
PMU], the umbrella of Shi'ite militias of which Al-Nujaba is part.[1] In
response, Lebanese journalist Toni Francis, a columnist for the Al-Hayat daily,
wrote that Al-Nasser's statement was part of the Iranian campaign to take over
Iraq. Iran, he claimed, uses its ties with Shi'ite leaders and militias in Iraq,
as well as in other countries in the region, in order to expand its influence
zone and promote its agenda, including its struggle against the American
influence, especially in Iraq. He added that the attempt to take over Iraq using
the PMU is similar to the efforts of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)
to take over other countries by means of its militias, such as the Houthi
militia in Yemen and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Therefore, we must not be surprised
if we hear calls to disband the armies of those countries as well, he said.
The following are excerpts from Francis's column:[2]
"The call of Yousuf Al-Nasseri, an official in the Iraqi Harakat Al-Nujaba
militia, to disband the Iraqi army did not come out of nowhere. Harakat [Al-Nujaba]
forms an active part of the PMU militias, most of which are loyal to the Iranian
leadership and follow its orders. Therefore, Al-Nasseri's campaign cannot be
viewed separately from the Iranian program aimed at turning Iraq into an empty
husk and completing its takeover of it.
"Iran does not hide its aspiration to replace the armies of the neighboring
countries with the militias it supports and funds. It managed to take the first
important steps in this direction in Iraq after the [2003] U.S. invasion and the
notorious decision to disband the Iraqi army. It is no secret that the attitude
of [Iraq's] Kurdish and Shi'ite sectors towards the Iraqi army was negative [at
the time], because the Shi'ite sectors had been oppressed by the Saddam Hussein
regime – oppression that only intensified as a result of [their] uprisings
against the dictatorial regime – and the Kurds suffered from oppression
throughout [their] history, including from massacres and abuses. Therefore, it
was a foregone conclusion that the relations of these two sectors [the Kurds and
the Shi'ites] with the military establishment would be somewhat tentative.
"However, the downfall of the former [Saddam Hussein] regime led to [the
adoption of] a new Iraqi model, which placed Shi'ites in senior defense
positions while granting the Kurds a right to autonomy and an independent
region. Why then does the negative attitude towards the army persist? Why do
Iraq's Shi'ite politicians maintain their former negative attitude towards their
country's army even today, when they are senior officials and commanders?
"This has nothing to do with genes or customs, but stems from the Iranian
perception that the new [Iraqi] regime must be subjugated to the needs of the
[Persian] Empire... Iran, which has fostered ties with prominent Shi'ite leaders
[like Yousuf Al-Nasseri], makes every effort to bring Iraq, like other countries
[in the region], into its sphere of influence. It does so by using the militias
deployed in Iraq and other countries and turning them into frontline divisions
in its war to expand its influence [zone] and in the conflict with the U.S.
"Iran's ideology is based on spreading the [Shi'ite] doctrine, but it obscures
this with the discourse about the resistance axis, which it leads by means of
the IRGC, which assigns tasks and sets out priorities. Recent statements by IRGC
officials provide detailed explanations [of this]: The task of the PMU is to
fight the American influence in Iraq and threaten the Arab presence there, and
if it encounters difficulties, there is nothing wrong with suggesting to disband
the Iraqi army. The task of the Houthis [in Yemen] is to keep pestering Saudi
Arabia and take over Yemen. As for Hizbullah [in Lebanon], its task is to
destroy Israel in the case of an attack on Iran, as IRGC Commander Hossein
Salami said several days ago.
"The Iranian lexicon does not include a country [called] Iraq, but only the PMU
militias. It does not include a country [called] Yemen but only the Houthis, and
the Lebanese state is also absent [from the Iranians' lexicon] when they talk
about Hizbullah. [Therefore] we should not be surprised if we hear calls to
disband the armies in favor of the militias even sooner than we expect."
[1] Al-Nasseri's statement, made in an August 13 interview with Iraq's Aletejah
TV, sparked widespread criticism in Iraq – including from the leadership of the
PMU, which issued a communique renouncing it (rudaw.net, August 14, 2019) – as
well as demonstrations of support for the Iraqi army (alarabiya.net, August 16,
2019). Following the uproar Al-Nasseri denied making the remarks, claiming that
the channel had edited his statements selectively (baghdadtoday.news, August 14,
2019).
[2] Al-Hayat (Dubai), August 20, 2019.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on October 02- 03/2019
Huge Iranian Guards base rising near Baghdad
for missile-drone attacks on Israel/DEBKAfile/October 02/2019
موقع دبيكا: الحرس الثوري الإيراني يقيم قاعدة له قرب بغداد مجهزة بالصواريخ
والمسيرات بهدف مهاجمة إسرائيل
ذكر تقرير لموقع دبيكا الإسرائيلي بأن الحرس الثوري الإيراني بدأ بجهد قوي وجدي
وسريع بتجهيز قاعدة عسكرية تبعد 48 كيلومتر عن العاصمة بغداد تعرف باسم قاعدة الشيخ
مزهر الجوية وهو يزودها بصواريخ وبمسيرات استعداداً لمهاجمة إسرائيل.
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79046/%d9%85%d9%88%d9%82%d8%b9-%d8%af%d8%a8%d9%8a%d9%83%d8%a7-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ad%d8%b1%d8%b3-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ab%d9%88%d8%b1%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86%d9%8a-%d9%8a%d9%82%d9%8a%d9%85/
Exclusive: The Shaykh Mazhar Air Base 48km southwest of Baghdad
is under intense renovation by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as their
primary base for missile and armed drone attacks on Israel, DEBKAfile’s
exclusive military and intelligence sources reveal.
The base is 1,200km from northern and central Israel as the crow (or a missile)
flies. Iranian Air Force fighter jets are to be brought in to provide Baghdad
with air cover against Israel air strikes, such as those recently staged against
Iran’s Iraqi arm, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMU), the umbrella of Iraq’s
Shiite militias.
Our military sources report that during September, one of those militias, the
Imam Ali Battalions, took control of the air base, known also as Suwayrah, for
intensive construction work, placing its entire area off-limits to Iraqi
military personnel.
The conversion is providing fortified hangars alongside the runways to protect
planes, drones and ballistic missiles from Israeli air strikes. Tehran has also
installed at the air base Bavar-373 air defense missiles, the Iranian version of
the Russian S-300s.
The PMU has a fighting strength of some 160,000 men, whose superior weaponry is
more advanced than the Iraqi army’s equipment.
Iraq’s prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi’s tacit consent to the construction of
Iran’s main base of attack against Israel near Baghdad is consistent with his
policy of rapprochement with Tehran.
On Monday, on his instructions, the Al Qaim border crossing to Syria was
reopened for the first time in eight years of warfare, offering Iran free
passage for its convoys of missiles and other weapons systems via Iraq to Syria
and Lebanon in the guise of commercial freights.
This new Iranian air base in Iraq, which brings its deadly weaponry closer to
Israel, and Tehran’s deepening military foothold in that country presents Israel
and its military with tough decisions on how far it can afford to expand its
attacks on Iranian targets in Iraq.
The Israeli air force has so far confined itself to striking imported Iranian
ballistic missiles and the Iraqi Shiite militias serving Tehran as active
proxies. However, attacking a large Iranian air base under construction deep
inside Iraq would start a whole new ball game.
This decision is up to Israel’s top policy makers and strategists. But the
highest government levels are unfortunately preoccupied at present with the task
of forming a new government or, alternatively, getting set for their third
election campaign in a year, instead of dealing full time with the expanding
peril advancing ever closer from Tehran.
Death Toll Rises to 5 as Iraq Protests Intensify
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/2019
Two demonstrators were shot dead Wednesday in the southern Iraqi city of
Nasiriyah, a health official said, bringing the death toll in violent protests
across the country this week to five. Abdulhussein al-Jaberi, the health chief
for Dhi Qar province, told AFP that another five protesters and 11 security
force members were wounded in the latest clashes. For a second day, angry crowds
had gathered across Iraqi cities to protest unemployment, corruption and poor
public services, in a rare leaderless movement. On Tuesday, security forces in
Baghdad confronted crowds with water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets and live
fire, leaving two dead and more than 200 wounded. Demonstrations in Nasiriyah on
Tuesday also left one dead. The violence prompted frantic calls for calm from
Iraq's president and the United Nations, but protesters descended into the
streets again on Wednesday. In addition to Baghdad and Nasiriyah, crowds also
gathered in the holy city of Najaf and the flashpoint southern city of Basra,
which was rocked by protests last year.
Rouhani Blames Trump for Failed France Bid to Initiate Contact
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/2019
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday blamed his U.S. counterpart Donald
Trump for the failure of French efforts to initiate a historic phone call
between them last week at the United Nations. The
Islamic republic is prepared "to hold fruitful negotiations", he told the
Iranian cabinet, referring to two days of diplomatic efforts by French President
Emmanuel Macron. "From my point of view, the path (to dialogue) remains clear,",
he said in a speech carried on state television, thanking the French leader.
France's efforts at the U.N. General Assembly in New York "could have
been acceptable, in a certain way", he said. "If anyone tried to prevent
(contact taking place), it was the White House and nobody else".
While diplomatic efforts were in full swing, "the American president on
two occasions" in the space of 24 hours "clearly announced an intensification of
sanctions against Iran", said Rouhani.
"I said to our European friends: it's good but who should we believe? Should we
believe what you are saying, that America is ready (to lift sanctions), or what
the U.S. president is saying?" Trump phoned Rouhani on the sidelines of the U.N.
summit but he refused to take the call, a French diplomatic source said Tuesday.
The call on September 24, the source said, came after Macron had shuttled
between the US and Iranian leaders in a bid to arrange a historic encounter that
he hoped would reduce the risk of all-out war in the Middle East.
"In New York, up to the last moment, Emmanuel Macron tried to broker
contact, as his talks with presidents Trump and Rouhani led him to think contact
was possible," the diplomatic source said. The source said Macron made a
last-ditch attempt before flying back to Paris, with French technicians
installing a secure phone line linking Trump's Lotte hotel and the Millennium,
hosting the Iranian delegation. Macron went to the
Millennium to ensure the phone call took place. Trump made the call, but Rouhani
informed the French president he would not take it, the source said.
Speculation was abuzz last month that the leaders could meet on the
sidelines of the General Assembly. But Rouhani stressed he would only hold talks
with the US if Trump lifted economic sanctions on Iran.
Tensions between Tehran and Washington, which severed diplomatic ties in
the aftermath of the 1979 revolution, have been escalating since May 2018 when
Trump pulled out of a landmark nuclear accord and began reimposing sanctions
that have crippled the Iranian economy.
Iran to Cut Nuclear Deal Commitments, Supreme Leader Says
Asharq Al-Awsat/October 02/2019
Iran will continue reducing its commitments under its 2015 nuclear deal until it
reaches the "desired result," Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday,
according to his official website.
"We will continue the reduction of commitments," Khamenei said in a meeting with
commanders of the Revolutionary Guards.
"The responsibility is with the Atomic Energy Organization and they must be
carry out the reduction ...in a precise, complete and comprehensive way and
continue until the time we reach a desired result."A plan for talks presented to
the United States and Iran by French President Emmanuel Macron is broadly
acceptable to Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday during a cabinet
meeting that was broadcast live.
He said some wording needed to be changed in the plan, which outlines that Iran
will not pursue nuclear weapons and will help the security of the region and its
waterways, while Washington will remove all sanctions. It would also allow Iran
to immediately resume oil sales.
But Rouhani also told the cabinet meeting, broadcast on state TV, that mixed
messages about sanctions received from the United States while he was there last
week had undermined the possibility of talks. Rouhani attended the United
Nations General Assembly in New York.
He added that it was not acceptable for US President Donald Trump to say in
public that he would intensify sanctions while European powers were telling
Tehran in private that he was willing to negotiate. "The American president on
two occasions, once in his speech at the United Nations and another time, said
explicitly that we want to intensify sanctions. I told these European friends,
so which part should we accept? Should we accept your word that you say America
is ready?" Rouhani said.
"Or the words of the president of America who in 24 hours said explicitly twice
... that I want to intensify sanctions? [The Europeans] didn't have a clear
answer."
Iran Admits IRGC Role in Supporting Houthis
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 2 October, 2019
Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein
Bagheri admitted on Tuesday that the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) offer support
to the Houthi militias in Yemen. “We offer our advisory and intellectual support
to Yemen’s national army,” Bagheri told Phoenix Chinese channel during his last
visit to Beijing. However, Bagheri failed to mention what kind of intellectual
and advisory help his Guards were offering to Houthi rebels. In the past years,
Iran had used the term “advisory” to describe the Quds Force, an IRGC unit
directed to carry out unconventional warfare and intelligence activities. He
said the Guards gave support to Iraq and Syria upon the request of their
governments, and offered advisory and armed assistance to them, without
specifying what capacities those weapons had. At the same time, Bagheri denied
his country had sent missiles and arms to the Houthis, saying “Yemen has been
besieged completely for years, so how is it possible to send large missiles to
Yemen?” The General reiterated that Iran would stand by the Yemeni people until
victory. This is not the first time that an Iranian official admits IRGC’s
support to the Houthis.
In 2017, former IRGC head Major General Ali Jafari said Iran was assisting the
militias at the advisory and spiritual level. Also, last May, IRGC deputy
commander Admiral Ali Fadavi said that Iran helps the Houthis as much as it can
but not as much as it would like to, due to the “blockade of Yemen.”He said that
if Iran could go to Yemen as it went to Syria, the situation there would not be
as it is now.
Rouhani Accuses US of Weaponizing the Dollar
London- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 02 October, 2019
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani accused the US administration of using the
Dollar as a weapon and demanded that the international community confront
American “unilateralism.”Rouhani’s comments came in an address at the summit of
the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in the Armenian capital of Yerevan on
Tuesday. The leader is partaking in the summit at a time his country is
suffering economically due to the maximum pressure policy imposed by the Trump
administration. After an attack on Saudi oil installations, the US also
sanctioned Iran’s central bank. “The international community must confront
America’s hostile and unilateralist approach by taking a definitive decision and
effective actions,” Rouhani said, according to the official IRNA news agency.
Rouhani warned that the use of the dollar “as a weapon will lead to (economic
terrorism),” a term used by the Iranian government in recent months to describe
US sanctions. On another note, Rouhani said Iran was prepared to make
concessions to expand trade with the EAEU group, which includes Russia, Belarus,
Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. Before leaving for Armenia, Rouhani had
pledged to discuss ways to establish economic and trade ties in a bid to end
Iran's isolation caused by US economic sanctions which are looking to force
Tehran to accept a new deal that includes regional security and its ballistic
missile programs. Rouhani vowed to establish economic progress by building
economic relations and competition with the global economy. He said his country
is looking forward to export 502 commodities to the five EAEU countries as of
November.The Iranian government says it wants to counter economic sanctions by
relying on exports of non-oil goods. Iran rejects any direct negotiations with
the US administration unless Washington first lifts off economic sanctions. On
the other hand, the Trump administration insists on its “maximum pressure”
policy to deter Tehran's aggressive behavior.
Johnson Promises 'Compromise' Brexit Offer to Brussels
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/October 02/2019
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he would submit "compromise" plans for a
Brexit agreement to Brussels on Wednesday but again warned that Britain was
prepared to leave the European Union later this month without a deal, despite
fears it could herald an economic slump. In his closing speech to his
Conservative party's annual conference, Johnson said the plans would address the
contentious issue of how to keep open Britain's border with Ireland. "This is a
compromise by the UK," he told delegates in the northwestern city of Manchester,
adding that he hoped EU leaders "understand that and compromise in their
turn".But he emphasized that if they did not, Britain would still leave the EU
on October 31. A no-deal exit "is not an outcome we
seek at all. But let me tell you my friends it is an outcome for which we are
ready", he said, to big cheers from delegates.
Johnson is expected to speak to European Commission President Jean-Claude
Juncker later on Wednesday to discuss the revised offer.The Confederation of
British Industry said a no-deal would be "a historic failure of statecraft"
which would dog growth and trade "for years to come".
Leaked blueprint
Johnson, a leading "leave" campaigner in the 2016 EU referendum, took office in
July vowing to deliver Brexit at the end of this month in all circumstances. But
like his predecessor Theresa May, he has struggled against a hostile parliament
and the complexities of untangling four decades of EU integration. His promise
to leave without a deal was derailed when MPs last month passed a law demanding
he seek to delay Brexit if he has not reached an agreement by an EU summit on
October 17. Johnson is now racing to renegotiate the
exit terms May agreed with Brussels, which were rejected by the British
parliament three times. His proposals focus on finding an alternative to her
controversial "backstop" plan, which aims to keep an open border between British
Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit.
The current arrangement would keep Britain in an effective customs union with
the EU, which critics argued would force London to abide by the bloc's rules
indefinitely. Johnson said his plan would "under no
circumstances have checks at or near the border in Northern Ireland". It would
seek to protect cross-border agricultural trade by extending existing regulatory
arrangements -- indicating Northern Ireland will continue following some EU
rules. But the province will remain part of the same customs territory as
mainland Britain, he said. "We will allow the UK -- whole and entire -- to
withdraw from the EU, with control of our own trade policy from the start," he
said. The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported the plan would potentially create
two new borders -- regulatory checks between mainland Britain and Northern
Ireland along the Irish Sea, and customs checks on the island of Ireland.
It added that Johnson wanted to keep this arrangement until 2025, when
the devolved assembly in Belfast would be able to decide how to proceed.
But the EU has warned many times it will not accept any attempt to put a
time limit on the border plan.
'Not good news'
Juncker's spokeswoman said Brussels has yet to see the legal text of the plan.
But she warned that any deal must meet "all the objectives" of the existing
backstop arrangement. The British government's Brexit negotiator, David Frost,
is in Brussels and will hold "technical talks" with his EU counterparts later in
the day. Johnson on Tuesday denied a media report that he was looking at
installing customs posts along the Irish border, amid outrage from Dublin. The
removal of border posts was seen as key to bringing peace to Northern Ireland
after three decades of violence over British rule that left thousands dead.
Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Coveney said he had not seen the plans in
detail yet, but said the initial reports suggested "it's not good news". "We
don't believe that customs checks on the island of Ireland will be the basis of
an agreement between the EU and the UK," he told Ireland's RTE broadcaster. May
twice delayed Brexit as she tried and failed to push her deal through the House
of Commons. Johnson has also faced significant opposition among MPs and lost his
wafer-thin Commons majority during a rebellion over his EU strategy earlier this
month. Yet even after being slapped down last week by Britain's Supreme Court
for unlawfully trying to suspend parliament, Johnson still insists he will never
ask for a delay.
Greenblatt Hopes Both Parties Will Read Peace Plan
Carefully and Not Make Hasty Decisions
Washington - Heba El Koudsy/Asharq Al-Awsat/October 02/2019
Outgoing US Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt, who spent nearly three years
trying to bring Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiation table, made last
month a sudden decision to resign, before he even got a chance to show the world
the policy that he secretly shaped. His resignation opened the door to a lot of
speculations that the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan may not be fully revealed
or is doomed to fail.
The Trump administration had said it would release the plan, dubbed the deal of
the century, in the days following the Sept. 17 election in Israel, though no
date has been announced.
Here is the full text of Greenblatt’s interview with Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper:
* What prompted the sudden announcement of your departure?
This was not really a sudden announcement. My family and I were mulling over
this decision for a long time. I originally intended to take this position for
around two years. It's very hard on my family to be separated all week ... Among
my primary responsibilities was to study the conflict, come up with a vision
together with my co-workers, educating people about the conflict, and be out
there changing the conversation about the conflict, which has been an enormous
priority for us. My role also included connecting Israel with the Arab world in
ways I don't think I could have imagined two and a half years ago. We don't take
full credit for that - credit is certainly due to the Trump Administration, but
also to each of the Arab leaders and Prime Minster Netanyahu who have made this
happen. We have now studied the conflict and have completed our vision for
peace. I think this is a good time for me to make the transition.
* Skeptics say you're leaving because the plan may not be fully revealed or is
doomed to fail. How would you respond?
I've heard a lot of theories about my departure since it was announced. Let me
dispel those myths. This has very much a family decision. I am a father; I'm a
husband. I have responsibilities, and my family deserves to have me more fully
in their lives. I'm proud of the work we've done, but I know I'm leaving it in
good hands with Jared Kushner, David Friedman, Brian Hook, Avi Berkowitz, as
well as some others. It's still very much a team approach and I look forward to
their continued progress and to helping support them from outside of government.
*The plan seems to have been delayed several times. Will it be released any time
soon?
We'll release the plan when the time is right and when we think it has the best
chance of success. We think both parties - and the whole world, really - want a
realistic solution to this conflict. It's our hope that our vision can advance
the cause of peace and bring people together to start a productive, realistic
discussion - even if it's not embraced immediately. But it's important to
remember that nobody can force this vision upon anyone. When the plan is
released, it will be up to both sides to decide how to proceed. When the vision
is released, we hope that both parties will read it carefully and not make any
hasty decisions.
* How would you respond to criticism from some that this administration's
decisions are more advantageous for Israel?
I think people conflate the issues. All those decisions - Jerusalem recognition,
the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli
sovereignty over the Golan - were not made only through a peace process lens. Of
course, we consider the potential impact on the peace process, but that's only
one lens that we put on it. We made those decisions because they are the right
decisions for the United States. Jerusalem was done because of the Jerusalem
Embassy Act, a law in the United States since 1995; the same thing is true with
the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Golan was an essential decision for
Israel's security and had nothing to do with the Palestinian issue. Imagine what
could have happened to Israel if Syria had control of the Golan. Closing the PLO
office was based on a law triggered when President Abbas threatened to bring
Israel to the International Criminal Court. Cutting funds to UNRWA was done
because UNRWA is a horribly broken system that only perpetuates bad lives for
Palestinians who live in refugee camps, and provides them with no future. It is
high time for the Palestinians who live in these refugee camps, who are used as
political pawns, to have better lives. I think people have to view the decisions
separately. We made them and we stand by them. If we did not make these
decisions, we would be no closer to peace. With these decisions, we might
achieve peace- peace can only be built on truth.
*The US has cut off funding to the PA and you chose not to speak at the most
recent Ad-hoc Liaison Committee Conference in New York. Will the US ever restore
assistance?
Countries gathered at this bi-annual international donor conference for
Palestinians may have been well-intentioned, but their efforts have proven to be
ineffective. Palestinians are among the largest recipients of donor assistance
per capita in the world today. Yet despite decades of work, billions of dollars,
euros, shekels, and dinars donated, life continues to get worse for
Palestinians. The world can't continue to throw money and resources at this
problem in the same way; when they do, we get the same results we've gotten for
decades, which is just continued suffering for Palestinians. Donor countries
must ask themselves why they should keep struggling to raise money when everyone
can plainly see that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are squandering the
opportunities for a better future for Palestinians donor money could provide.
The United States won't continue to invest in temporary solutions that only
prolong the cycle of suffering and violence. It's time to help Palestinians live
better lives. And in that process, hopefully we will also achieve peace.
*In your opinion should there be precondition for any future talks?
No. If we start going down the precondition road, both sides have will have
preconditions and we're never going to get anywhere. Whether we agree with one
or the other side's preconditions, they have them. We're approaching it
differently by saying: Move the preconditions to the side, here's the plan, and
in the course of negotiations those preconditions will be addressed. If they
cannot be addressed, then they likely will not achieve a peace agreement in any
event. That being said, I can't imagine a world in which a peace agreement is
signed where issues like the Palestinian Authorities' "Pay to Slay" program
remain - a program that rewards terrorists who murder or attack Israelis. It's a
basic concept that you cannot encourage people to kill and expect a peace deal
that works. I can't imagine the Israeli government ever signing such an
agreement. It would make no sense and it's completely antithetical to the
concept of peace. To deal with that abhorrent program, the USA has cut all
funding to the PA and we continuously raise awareness of this issue to other
donor countries. I cannot understand how donor countries continue to donate
funds knowing that some of their taxpayers' money is used to fund terrorism and
the murder of Israelis.
*Are you optimistic that the region can be stabilized and that the plan can
succeed amid growing tension between Washington and Tehran?
I am hopeful, but anyone who understands this conflict knows that there's a
tremendous amount of work to be done and difficult decisions to be made by all
involved. But it is important to remember that this is not the core conflict of
the region. It is a conflict that would be better for the region if it's
resolved, but it is not going to resolve all of the other serious threats to the
region - most notably, Iran. It's the Iranian regime that is the worlds' largest
state-sponsor of terror.
Aboul Gheit to Asharq Al-Awsat: Aramco Attacks Investigation Will Uncover
Complete Truth
New York - Ali Barada/Asharq Al-Awsat/October 02/2019
Arab League Secretary General Ahmed Aboul Gheit expressed his “full confidence”
that the “moment of truth is coming very soon” in the ongoing investigation into
the attacks against oil installations in Saudi Arabia. He noted that the
investigations would “accurately determine” the party behind the attacks, and
the identity of those who fired missiles and drones. “Then, the move will take
place in all influential institutions,” including the Security Council, Aboul
Gheit told Asharq Al-Awsat in an exclusive interview. While he praised the
“great wisdom” of the Saudi leadership, he accused the Iranian regime of still
seeking to export its revolution and called for curbing the Iranian behavior in
the region.
“No state has the right to move against another in these illegal methods… I am
not saying that Iran fired missiles and drones. I wait for the report. But I
have indications that these weapons were made in Iran,” the Arab League
secretary-general emphasized. He continued: “Modern observation in military
science through new technologies fully provides the facts about the firing,
bombing and destruction… I am quite sure that we will reach a conclusion, as my
confidence in the ability of a forensic doctor to determine the cause of the
death of someone in an accident.”
Aboul Gheit noted that when the report is revealed, the appropriate action will
then be taken, whether in the Security Council, in the General Assembly, in the
League of Arab States or in all influential institutions. “Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov told the General Assembly that this is a fabricated
story. I do not see it at all fabricated. There is certainly damage to Saudi
Arabia and bombings with highly advanced tools of destruction,” he underlined.
He accused Iran of trying to promote its revolution since 1979. He said that
Tehran was responsible for pushing Lebanon’s Hezbollah to clash with Israel in
2006, adding that Iran should not be allowed to interfere in the internal
affairs of Saudi Arabia or the Gulf.
Asked about an Arab strategy to confront Iranian influence in Lebanon, Aboul
Gheit replied: “The issue in Lebanon is very complex, and the intra-Lebanese
balance sometimes imposes on the Arab parties a certain situation, because the
Arabs do not want to see a clash on Lebanese territory that either repeats the
experience of the 1975- 1976 civil war, or reinstates the 2008 experience when
Beirut fell in the grip of one party [Hezbollah].” “Hezbollah is also part of
the Lebanese government. I do not want to touch on such a sensitive issue,
because this is something that concerns the Lebanese in their relationship with
the party,” he added.
On whether the Arab League was about to reopen its doors to Syria, Aboul Gheit
said: “Not yet. The Arab collective will has not yet reached the moment to say
that we have no problem with governance in Syria.”
“There is an internal Syrian conflict,” he noted. “A regime that describes
groups as terrorist, and an opposition that says this regime applies a
philosophy that we do not accept. There are mutual accusations.”
Aboul Gheit went on to say: “When the people of Syria, both in the opposition
and government, reach a form of internal consensus on the basis of a new or
amended constitution… when things settle down, and a new Syria takes shape, I
imagine it returning to its Arab League seat. One important thing is that the
new Syria will not be thrown into the arms of Iran. This is a key Arab condition
in order to allow Syria to return to the League.”
When asked about any silver lining in the Palestinian file, he answered: “The
current situation does not indicate this, because there is a US government that
is completely biased to Israel.”He stressed that Israel was seeking to put an
end to discussions over important and vital issues, such as Jerusalem, the
refugees and the Golan Heights. “At the moment, I am not optimistic about the
prospects for a serious move, especially since Israelis also mistakenly imagine
that they have succeeded in extending their hands through the Palestinians to
the Arab countries. This is not true… and won’t happen,” he remarked.
He stressed that those who think that the Arabs would abandon the Palestinian
cause were mistaken. “The Arabs are committed to supporting the Palestinians.
They cannot accept that Israel dominate historic Palestine and abolish the
rights of the Palestinians. This will not happen,” Aboul Gheit concluded.
The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on October 02-03/2019
Swedes are Fleeing
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/October 02/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14894/swedes-are-fleeing
As a consequence of taking in so many migrants within a relatively short time
span, not only during the extraordinary migration crisis in 2015 but generally
in the years 2012-2017, municipalities are fighting high unemployment, a rise in
child poverty and rising social welfare expenditures, according to Jim Frölander.
"I have tried to defend Malmö," Emma Zetterholm said, "But the more time passes
and you notice that there is no improvement, you eventually lose your
resilience".
"As a parent, you become angry, desperate... The result is that those who can,
and can afford it, move.... To a quieter part of the country or abroad. Those
who do not have the same opportunities [to move] remain where they are. It's
devastating..." — Former Minister of Labour Sven Otto Littorin, who now lives
and works in Dubai, on Facebook.
"About 13 percent of the population in Sweden experience problems in their own
residential areas with crime, violence or vandalism. It is one of the highest
proportions in Europe." By comparison, the other Nordic countries were placed
among the countries with the lowest percentage of the population who experience
such problems...." — Statistics Sweden, April 25, 2019.
Problems in many municipalities are prompting Swedes to leave for other areas
with fewer socioeconomic problems. Between 2012 and 2018, in the small town of
Filipstad (population 10,000), 640 native Swedes left and 963 foreign-born
people moved to the town. Jim Frölander, the municipality's integration manager,
says: "We are experiencing a population exchange... it is simply a statement of
fact..." Pictured: Filipstad, Sweden. (Image source: iStock)
Swedes are on the move. Problems in many municipalities are prompting Swedes to
leave for other areas with fewer socioeconomic problems. The issue has recently
gained the attention of the Swedish mainstream media.
Take the small, picturesque town of Filipstad (population 10,000), for example.
Swedish television recently made a documentary about the town, which finds
itself in both a financial and an existential crisis. "We are experiencing a
population exchange. You can think of that what you want... But it is simply a
statement of fact that this is actually what we are going through and we have to
deal with it", Jim Frölander, integration manager in the Filipstad municipality,
says in the documentary. Between 2012 and 2018, 640 native Swedes left the town,
and 963 foreign-born people moved into the town. Those leaving are people of
working age (20-64), which means that the municipality's tax revenues are
shrinking, exacerbating town's financial crisis.
The largest influx of immigrants came during the migration crisis in 2015.
Filipstad, according to the documentary, was one of the municipalities that
received the highest number of immigrants as a percentage of its population.
Claes Hultgren, head of the municipality, wrote in Filipstad's latest financial
report:
"In Filipstad, there are around 750 adults from Syria, Somalia, Eritrea,
Afghanistan and Iraq.... In this group, unemployment and dependency are very
high, while education levels are very low. This group runs the risk of ending in
an eternal exclusion that is already heavily burdening the municipal economy."
Hultgren explained that many of the newcomers do not have the qualifications to
enter the labor market.
"[They] are maybe too old and illiterate, or have a very low educational level.
We must accept that there will be some people who will need the support of
society for their livelihood."
According to the documentary, unemployment is at 80% among the non-Western
foreign-born residents of the town, even while the town is suffering a severe
lack of teachers and nurses. In ten years, Filipstad's expenditures on social
welfare have increased 300% -- from 10 million kroner ($1 million) in 2009 to
almost 30 million ($3.1 million) in 2018. The projection for 2019 is 31 million
Swedish kroner ($3.2 million). This year, Filipstad simply does not have the 30
million kroner in its budget.
Filipstad is far from the only Swedish municipality to experience these
problems.
As a consequence of taking in so many immigrants within a relatively short time
span, not only during the extraordinary migration crisis in 2015 but overall in
the years 2012-2017, municipalities are fighting high unemployment, a rise in
child poverty and rising social welfare expenditures, according to Frölander.
"It becomes much more visible in smaller municipalities. There you cannot
isolate it [the problem] in a suburb and then [pretend] 'business as usual',
because it affects the entire body of that society and that is what is going to
happen in all of Sweden, too."
Frölander is clear that he is not against immigration and thinks that the
immigrants are "good people."
Every fourth municipality and every third region, according to a report by the
Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL), had a budget deficit
in 2018, wrote the journalist Lotta Gröning recently in an op-ed in the Swedish
newspaper Expressen. Municipalities are supposed to receive an extra 5 billion
kroner ($517 million) per year for three years, but Gröning writes that this sum
is not nearly enough, as 22 billion kroner ($2.27 billion) is still "missing":
"There is simply not enough money for schools, and [health] care -- the core of
the social democratic welfare state. The refugee wave put tremendous pressure,
not least [on] poor municipalities and now the costs of social welfare are
increasing. In addition, the population is getting older, and add to this a
coming recession...
"The criticism [of the government] comes not only from local politicians, it
also comes from former [Social Democratic] party leader Göran Persson, who warns
about the municipalities' vulnerable position. LO's chairman Karl-Petter
Thorwaldsson, also a member of the party's executive committee, warns [Prime
Minister] Stefan Löfven of the municipalities' crisis and demands action..."
Swedes are leaving their towns and cities for other reasons as well, such as a
lack of personal security. The frequently reported gang violence, assaults,
shootings, bombs and car-torchings have been taking their toll. On August 31,
Aftonbladet ran a story about Emma Zetterholm, who chose to leave Malmö with her
family after living in the city for 18 years. "I still love Malmö but my family
and I cannot live here" she told the newspaper. "The violence crept closer and
closer to me, my relatives, friends and colleagues."
Six years ago, Zetterholm moved into an idyllic area with old villas. Soon
enough, however, car-torchings, shootings and explosions filled the night. An
illegal nightclub operated close by and the noise around it -- explosions and
shootings -- went on all night. Neighbors who complained received verbal threats
and stones thrown through their windows. One day, a man was murdered in broad
daylight, close to a playground full of people. At other times, children were
nearly hit by bullets that had gone through windows.
Zetterholm explains that she felt that her family's situation was bizarre but
she still kept trying to convince herself that it was not that dangerous. She
says it feels "awful" to be part of a trend where "well-educated, white middle
class flee problematic areas."
"I have tried to defend Malmö," she said, "But the more time passes and you
notice that there is no improvement, you eventually lose your resilience". At
least ten families have left the area now, she said, many for other areas in the
south of Sweden.
Many Swedes are leaving their cities, but some have decided to leave the country
altogether. On September 4, an explosion occurred in front of an apartment
building in Malmö. The blast was heard in many parts of the city. A Danish man
in the neighborhood, Magne Juul, told Kvällsposten that after this latest
bombing, he is now considering moving back to Denmark after living for 15 years
in Malmö.
Former Minister of Labour Sven Otto Littorin, who now lives and works in Dubai,
recently wrote on his Facebook page:
"I cannot say that I regret the decision to move abroad. We came to a country
with one of the lowest reported crime rates in the world... The question is
whether one dares and wants to move back [to Sweden]".
Littorin, who also served in the past as Secretary of the Moderate Party, was
prompted to write his post after reading about a Swedish boy who was abused,
robbed and whose life was threatened by gangs, with Swedish authorities telling
him not to report it to the police as this would make things 'worse' for him.
"This was one of the vilest texts I've read in a long time" wrote the former
minister about the story.
"As a parent, you become angry, desperate...The result is that those who can,
and can afford it, move. From Uppsala or Saltsjö Boo. To a quieter part of the
country or abroad. Those who do not have the same opportunities [to move] remain
where they are. It's devastating..."
Sweden is, however, as documented by Statistics Sweden, among the countries in
which the highest percentage of residents experience problems in the areas they
live. In 2017, according to Statistics Sweden, "About 13 percent of the
population in Sweden experience problems in their own residential areas with
crime, violence or vandalism. It is one of the highest proportions in Europe."
By comparison, the other Nordic countries were placed among the countries with
the lowest percentage of the population who experience such problems in their
own residential area. In Norway, about 4% experience problems with violence,
crime and vandalism. The corresponding proportions for Denmark and Finland were
8% and 6%, respectively.
It is little wonder, then, that many Swedes choose to leave their homes --
either to look for Swedish cities that function better or other countries
entirely.
*Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished
Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Don't Go Wobbly' on Iran
Peter Huessy/Gatestone Institute/October 02/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14946/wobbly-on-iran
Iran has, indeed, seen its economy crumble, inflation and unemployment soar, and
its oil exports rapidly fall to under 200,000 barrels a day from more than two
million.
In short, through a combined policy of military restraint and economic pressure,
the Trump administration has shifted the entire discussion on Iran.
No longer is preserving the JCPOA the issue, but rather jettisoning it and
perhaps starting over. No longer is the use or abuse of American military power
the focus of debate, but rather Iran's terrorist activities -- not just against
America and Israel -- but against the entire world's energy sources.
Under the American administration's "maximum economic pressure" campaign, Iran
has seen its economy crumble, inflation and unemployment soar, and its oil
exports rapidly fall to under 200,000 barrels a day from more than two million.
Iran's financial and military support for the terrorist organizations Hezbollah
and Hamas also has markedly declined. Pictured: An oil production platform in
Iran's Soroush oil fields. (Image source: VOA)
Since the Islamic Republic of Iran was created in 1979, the regime in Tehran has
been at war with the United States and its allies, revealing itself to be an
expansionist nation, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and having
"blood lust for its enemies."
The 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which Iran
did not sign -- and otherwise bafflingly known as the "nuclear deal with Iran,"
was falsely claimed by its supporters in the West to prevent the ayatollah-led
regime from obtaining nuclear weapons, even though its most salient feature was
its "sunset clause" enabling Iran to have as many as it liked in just a few
short years. As the Israeli government repeatedly warned, the JCPOA actually
"put Iran on a glide path" towards a nuclear-weapons capability.
Furthermore, the Iranian government refused to allow the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect sites at which there was suspected nuclear
activity for military purposes. It was not until the Israeli Mossad retrieved a
trove of documents from a warehouse in Tehran in mid-2018 that concrete evidence
of such activity was shown.
It was partly on the basis of the above evidence that US President Donald J.
Trump made the final decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in May 2018, and to
reinstate sanctions against Iran's regime. The US administration's move was
criticized heavily by America's European allies, such as France and Germany,
which sought to work around the sanctions by providing billions of dollars of
credit to Iran and trade through a system called INSTEX.
Even some professional security-policy pundits in Washington, D.C. kept arguing
that the JCPOA was working well, and that the Iranian government was on the
verge of moderating its terrorist behavior.
Iran's response to the White House policy -- and European appeasement -- was to
attack American drones and foreign-owned oil tankers, culminating in a multiple
missile- and drone-strike on two major Saudi oil production-and-processing
facilities, which caused a 5% drop in worldwide oil production and a 15% spike
in oil prices.
Iran's aggression set off a round of critical commentary against the American
administration, and many calls on Washington to engage in diplomacy with Tehran
towards a return to the JCPOA. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for instance,
recently argued that by returning to the 2015 nuclear deal and dropping
sanctions, the American administration could secure an end to Iranian attacks on
the oil infrastructure that powers the world's industrial economy. It took
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to explain that something very positive was
being accomplished by America's new Iran policy.
First, America's fracking revolution has boosted daily oil and gas production in
the US from 5 million barrels a day to between 12-17.87 million barrels, making
it the largest oil producer in the world. That is why the decline in Saudi oil
production -- due to Iranian aggression -- did not cause a panic in global oil
markets, and prices settled at a relatively modest increase.
Second, the European Union and its key leaders -- France, Germany and the UK --
all concluded for the first time (using diplo-speech, of course) that the JCPOA
was terribly flawed and is now "dead."
Third, because of forensic evidence gathered by Saudi Arabia, the Europeans no
longer could ignore or cover for Iranian and Iranian-backed terrorism, despite
Tehran's surreal repeated denials of any complicity in the oil-tanker attacks.
Fourth, the criticism of the American administration's "maximum economic
pressure" campaign against Iran suddenly muted, as the strategy both to change
European and other allies' attitudes toward the JCPOA and to bring down Iran
economically appeared to be working.
Iran has, indeed, seen its economy crumble, inflation and unemployment soar, and
its oil exports rapidly fall to under 200,000 barrels a day from more than two
million. Iran's financial and military support for the terrorist organizations
Hezbollah and Hamas also has markedly declined.
Why the positive development?
In response to the Iranian military attacks, the American government, which had
been flirting with the idea of renewed diplomacy, instead enhanced its already
tough economic sanctions and avoided a retaliatory military strike. Washington
thus revealed itself to be far more clever than its critics: if the US had taken
military action, and Iranian civilian casualties had been incurred, Tehran would
have claimed to be the victim -- and US aggression would have become the center
of debate. Even without that pretext, Iran has been claiming to be the victim
and accused the US of being the "supporter of terrorism in our region."
In short, through a combined policy of military restraint and economic pressure,
the Trump administration has shifted the entire discussion on Iran.
No longer is preserving the JCPOA the issue, but rather jettisoning it and
perhaps starting over. No longer is the use or abuse of American military power
the focus of debate, but rather Iran's terrorist activities -- not just against
America and Israel -- but against the entire world's energy sources.
The late US President Ronald Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union through taking
down its proxies around the world, with the help of such groups as the
Solidarity movement in Poland and the democratic resistance in Nicaragua. His
programs, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, made it untenable for Moscow
to maintain its empire, which broke up in 1991.
One hopes that the Trump administration's use of economic pressure against Iran
-- with the help and missile-defense mechanisms of America's Middle East allies,
including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- may cause the four-decade run of the
Iranian mullahs' war against America and Western civilization to come to an end.
But this can only happen if -- in the words of the late British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher -- America and its allies "don't go wobbly."
*Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting
firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at
the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He was also for 20 years, the
senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Southern Syria Shows the War’s Changed Nature
Charles Lister/Asharq Al-Awsat/October 02/2019
Since the beginning of 2018 until today, the Syrian regime has expanded its
control of territory across the country from approximately 52% to 62%. That 10%
of territory gained was a crucially important, encompassing opposition-held
areas in Syria’s southwest, rural Homs and eastern Ghouta, as well as a small
pocket of northern Hama’s countryside.
That territorial expansion – in part facilitated by increasing international
fatigue with the crisis in Syria – saw opposition holdings decline from
approximately 13% to 10%. As ISIS’s territorial “state” was simultaneously
rolled back and then defeated, an international consensus increasingly emerged
that claimed Syria’s war was “winding down.”
There is no doubt that the geographic scope and intensity of conflict is not
what it was at the height of hostilities in 2014 and 2015, but it is certainly
not finished either. In fact, the Syrian regime’s most important test case for
capturing and then stabilizing “reconciled” territories – in the southwest
governorates of Quneitra, Daraa and al-Suwayda – has not been a success. In
fact, it continues to destabilize in dangerous ways, with more than 160 attacks
reported in the last six months – ranging from drive-by shootings and
assassinations, to armed raids, organized assaults and bomb attacks and
ambushes. The scale and sophistication of these attacks has increased over time,
as evidence of an armed insurgency is becoming ever more obvious.
When pro-regime forces took control of Syria’s southwest, they did so under the
guise of “reconciliation,” a process through which civil and military components
of the opposition were offered the chance to “reconcile” through an “amnesty”
and remain present in their home areas. While guarantees of aid and humanitarian
assistance mostly failed to materialize, the regime’s near-constant violation of
the amnesty clauses appear likely to have been the most significant catalyst for
renewed resistance. Arbitrary arrests, frequent disappearances and forced
conscription sharply eroded confidence in the “reconciliation” process and
despite the presence of 100 Russian military police in the region, this
repressive situation has only worsened over time.
In addition to the abandoned promises of “reconciliation,” a dramatic influx of
pro-regime checkpoints controlled by a wide array of different, often rival or
competing security bodies and factions has generated deep discontent.
Notwithstanding the intimidating presence of Syria’s Air Force, Military and
Political Security directorates, as well as the Fourth Mechanized Division,
locals have become increasingly aware, fearful and hostile to a proliferating
network of positions controlled by Syrian proxies for Hezbollah.
Indeed, as Syrian and Russian attention has drifted elsewhere, Iran and
Hezbollah have invested heavily in re-establishing a presence in Syria’s
southwest, in close proximity to Israel. Whereas two years ago Iran’s strategy
encompassed a substantial non-Syrian component, the mission today appears to be
almost entirely Syrian. In fact, just as they are in Syria’s eastern desert,
Iran and Hezbollah are recruiting heavily from within the local Sunni and even
Druze communities. Until now, Iran’s southern strategy appears to be centered
around four key military facilities – in Daraa city (managed by Hezbollah); in
the al-Lajat region; in the Brigade 52 base (run by Hezbollah commander Eyad
Qassem); and in the al-Sabr base (commanded by Hezbollah figure Mustafa
Mughniyeh).
All of this, and more – including corruption, unemployment, insufficient
humanitarian aid and negligible stabilization assistance – have created
conditions for a resurgence of insurgent activity. In simple terms, none of the
root causes of the war have been ameliorated. In fact, by remaining unaddressed,
most of the root causes have worsened. According to three separate sources who
have been deeply involved in southern Syria’s opposition since 2011, a
substantial portion of attacks in recent months were part of a fledgling
organized insurgency whose roots date back to the earliest days of armed
resistance in Daraa in the Spring and Summer of 2011. Based primarily along
tribal and familial lines, small numbers of cells have begun to form
semi-autonomously from each other and for now remain dependent on secret caches
of weapons, ammunition and explosives hidden by the Free Syrian Army’s Southern
Front before “reconciliation” in July 2018. There has been no formal attempt to
unify or centralize the efforts until now, though some cells are aware of each
other’s existence and operations.
While it’s extremely unlikely that such localized insurgent activity will become
anything like what we witnessed in Syria in years past, it is far from
insignificant. In fact, while the Syrian regime continues to suffer from a
crippling manpower shortage and conflict in Idlib and potentially later in
eastern Syria sucks up valuable resources, any level of sustained insurgency
will prove a serious challenge to Syrian stability. Without a meaningful and
just political process and settlement and the implementation of real change,
this is a virtually inevitable eventuality. The war in Syria is far from over –
it has merely changed nature. The fact that neither al-Qaeda nor ISIS has
managed to re-emerge as an equally serious player in Syria’s south is
reassuring, but it is by no means a long-term guarantee.
How Thomas Cook’s ‘Excursions’ Lost Their Way
Leonid Bershidsky/Bloomberg/October 02/2019
The bankruptcy of Thomas Cook Group Plc, the company whose founder is credited
with inventing the modern tourist industry, is being blamed on Brexit, a series
of bad management decisions and an unsustainable debt level. Perhaps, however,
it’s worth looking at Thomas Cook’s failure as the beginning of the end of the
tourism model the company helped create.
Thomas Cook’s rise from organizing train “excursions” for the masses in Britain
to “Cook Pasha,” as he was known in the British-dominated Middle East and North
Africa, is well-documented. Driven by the idea of distracting ordinary Brits
from drink, the lay Baptist preacher lured them with the idea of going places
and seeing things while never leaving their comfort zone. Eventually, Cook
arrived at a concept that is still central to the tourist industry. As F. Robert
Hunter wrote in a 2004 paper about Thomas Cook & Son, the modern company’s
predecessor:
The centerpiece of this new structure was the ‘Resort’. Resorts were places
dedicated to tourists. They could be sites of great scenic beauty, located in
the mountains, or along coastlines. Mineral water locales, once reserved only
for the sick, were becoming attractive to tourists. The resort contained a
variety of accommodations, geared to different income levels. These ranged from
the pension, to the hotel, to the grand hotel (containing hundreds of rooms).
The most developed popular resorts had all three types of accommodation, with
meals and other services. The resort also included a promenade, or strolling
area, whose form (for example, the jetty at Brighton) varied. And it contained
small armies of people hired to provide services to travelers – pageboys,
waiters, chefs, nurses, physicians, tour guides, etc. To convey passengers
quickly from their homes to the resorts and back again, tourist networks
appeared. These comprised steamships, railways, and other means of conveyance,
and a host of agencies, offices, and sub-offices. Tour agencies were established
with their own staff and schedules. Promoters like Cook & Son created tourist
‘seasons’ – fixed periods that corresponded to the most advantageous times for
travel.
This was the invention of what researchers call “enclave tourism”: Whatever
experiences – such as trips to various “exotic” locations or tourist adventures
– can be organized out of the resort, the enclave holiday has the
characteristics of an exhibition where visitors file past objects without
interacting with them. (The alternative is “integrated” tourism, in which
travelers get to interact with the communities they visit.) As Waleed Hazbun
from the University of Alabama wrote in 2007:
The enclave model thus facilitates expanding tourism volume and extending travel
to new, unfamiliar territories despite little prior development of tourism
facilities. Enclave tourism relies on a dedicated tourist infrastructure, which
is easier to build than a public one but is generally used only for tourism
purposes.
Thomas Cook settled on the enclave model because he expanded his business to
territories invaded and controlled by the British Empire, such as Egypt and
Sudan. The locals were often hostile to Europeans, especially the English, and
neither the empire nor the local kings and sheikhs had any interest in building
European-quality infrastructure for everyone to use. So the tour organizer built
its own – and bribed the locals to tolerate it. “Those donkeys are subsidized by
Cook; that little plot of lettuce is being grown for Cook, and so are the fowls;
those boats tied up on the bank were built by the sheikh of the Cataracts for
the tourist service with money advanced by Cook,” British journalist George
Warrington Steevens wrote of the Cook operation in British-occupied Egypt.
In that way, Cook created whole worlds superimposed on the actual places and
cultures that supported his business. We often still travel in these worlds.
According to the U.K. tourism industry association, ABTA, in 2018, 49% of
Britons traveling abroad bought a package tour, most of them because it meant
“everything was taken care of” and many others because it was relatively cheap.
But even without a package, many travelers end up in resorts as Cook envisioned
them, because the whole infrastructure of travel – airports, accommodation,
opportunities for cultural exploration and fun with the kids – is geared to the
model. Let’s not kid ourselves: By booking flights and accommodation separately,
and even by going with a service like Airbnb, we’re not really avoiding enclave
tourism, just approaching it from a different angle.
At Thomas Cook itself, the management appeared to believe the enclave-tourism
model was immortal, and it was simply a matter of serving to each generation the
package that it prefers. In its 2019 Holiday Report, the company wrote of a
shift in demand from the alcohol-soaked, nightlife-oriented vacations the
under-35 clientele used to like, to “poolside yoga, nutritious dishes and
contemporary cocktails designed by in-house mixologists.” “Today’s ‘Millennials’
and ‘Gen Z’ (those aged between 18 and 35) want to look after their bodies, shy
away from one-night stands and hangover fry-ups, and favour wheatgrass smoothies
(which make for better Instagram fodder),” the company wrote.
Thomas Cook chose to treat the most recent generational trends as fads. There’s
increased demand for more sustainable travel? Sure, we’ll stop laundering towels
as often as we used to, and advertise the same old resorts as eco-friendly.
Tourists want “instagrammable” experiences? Sure, we’ll design them with a
square picture frame in mind. Tourists want a “genuine local experience”?
Difficult, but then, “genuine” is only an advertising label.
So far, there’s no statistical evidence that this approach is failing. Hotel
occupancy rates are going up in most regions of the world. Overtourism is a
problem, undertourism isn't.
But imagine for a moment that sustainability, simplicity, sincerity and the
rejection of a colonialist mentality aren’t just fads – that society is actually
changing. Then the failure of Thomas Cook will start to look like a symbolic
event, a sign that an era is ending, not just the consequence of poor management
and being headquartered in the wrong country.
Flight shame, the uncomfortable feeling that one leaves too big a carbon
footprint by flying, is already undermining cheap air travel. Young people are
increasingly uncomfortable treating locals at tourist destinations as their
social inferiors, and their quest for experiences is impossible to satisfy with
cookie-cutter tourist products. The locals still take the tourists’ money, but
whenever I travel to popular tourist destinations, I sense an undercurrent of
the same irritation that once informed the British poet William Wordsworth’s
protest against mass train “excursions” to England's Lake District: “As for
holiday pastimes, if a scene is to be chosen suitable to them for persons
thronging from a distance, it may be found elsewhere at less cost of every
kind.”
At the same time, even in poor countries, the infrastructure is becoming
navigable even for someone who has grown up in the West. Unpackaged travel,
which allows more contact with one’s surroundings, is more accessible than ever,
especially since it’s become easier to find accommodation online. It’s a world
increasingly out of sync with the tourism industry as invented by Thomas Cook in
the 19th century (plus a few bells and whistles).
I’m not predicting the end of seaside resorts, big hotels or packaged tours.
There is a niche for them, just as there is one for vinyl records. It’ll
probably remain a relatively big niche, too. But it won’t likely remain the
dominant model for long, for all its legacy power.
Analysis/Trump-Rohani Phone Call May Have Dissipated, but
U.S.-Iran Negotiations Aren't Dead Yet
تحليل سياسي لتسفي بارئيل من الهآرتس:
صحيح بأن المكالمة الهاتفية بين ترامب وروحاني لم تتم ولكن التفاوض بين إيران
وأميركان لا يزال احتمالاً قوياً
Zvi Bar'el/Haaretz/October 02/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79042/%d8%aa%d8%ad%d9%84%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%b3%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%b3%d9%8a-%d9%84%d8%aa%d8%b3%d9%81%d9%8a-%d8%a8%d8%a7%d8%b1%d8%a6%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d8%b5%d8%ad/
Despite the insult Trump endured when Rohani refused to speak with him, it seems
that both the U.S. and Iran are willing to return to the negotiating table with
sufficiently vague conditions to give each side great flexibility.
The story revealed by the New Yorker magazine regarding the failed efforts of
French President Emmanuel Macron to arrange a phone call between U.S. President
Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rohani is reminiscent of the
matchmaking efforts featured in the Israeli hit television series “Shtisel.”
Everything appeared to have been arranged. A secure telephone line was installed
in a special room at the Millennium Hilton Hotel in New York where the Iranian
president was staying. Trump was anxiously waiting at the White House for Rohani
to leave his hotel suite and walk a short distance to the phone so that together
they would make history. But it didn’t happen.
Rohani didn’t even go to the phone after Macron and his staff gathered at
Rohani’s door. Trump was left holding the telephone receiver and Macron probably
felt like kicking himself. From all of the accounts, it’s not entirely clear
whether there had been an Iranian commitment to have the call, whether Rohani
got cold feet at the last moment, whether Macron had made the technical
arrangements in the hope that the call would take place, or whether it involved
a complete misunderstanding.
Trump’s longing for a direct conversation with Rohani has become almost an
obsession. Back in August, at the G7 summit in the French town of Biarritz,
Trump had tried to impose himself on Macron’s meeting with Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Macron tried to include Trump, but Zarif rebuffed
the pressure.
Zarif insisted that the United States had to remove the sanctions against Iran
before there could be such a photo-op. Or, as Rohani put it in a speech to the
United Nations General Assembly, the souvenir photo comes after the
negotiations, not before. After that, Trump invited Zarif to visit the White
House, but the Iranians shelved the invitation.
A short time later, the United States imposed sanctions on Zarif and other
senior Iranian officials. And then came the phone call that never was. It will
be interesting to see how Trump takes revenge for the insult.
But the failure of public meetings to take place is not an indication that the
diplomatic process is dead. It has been some time since Iran shifted its
position regarding new negotiations with the United States and the four other
countries that signed onto the Iranian nuclear accord.
Instead of flat-out refusing to conduct any kind of negotiations until the
United States lifts its sanctions and rejoins the nuclear agreement, Iran has
been taking a more flexible stance. At first Iran proposed expanding the
inspection regime at its nuclear sites beyond what was provided in the nuclear
accord, as a gesture to advance the negotiations. Relying on the opinion of his
national security adviser at the time, John Bolton (who has since been fired)
and of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump rejected the offer.
In September, Iran’s “supreme leader” Ali Khamenei stated that if the United
States reconsidered its withdrawal from the nuclear accord, the United States
would be able to join negotiations with the other four permanent members of the
UN Security Council and Germany (which with the United States are known as the
P5+1, the original signatories to the agreement).
On Monday, just before he set out on a trip to Armenia, Rohani announced that
his country had held important meetings in New York with the four foreign
ministers of the P5 that are still signatories to the nuclear agreement, at
which he said that preparations had been made for talks with the P5+1 and that
all the parties had agreed to the framework for the discussions. He did not
provide details but did say that the United States would take part in the talks.
Rohani’s remarks are an extension of a statement that he made in New York that
“what we believe is that the nuclear accord does not express the maximum of the
agreements [that can be arrived at]. It expresses what was possible at the time.
Now, if we want to do something above and beyond the agreement, it’s possible.
But it depends first upon the full and exact implementation of the nuclear
accord.”
It’s worth noticing that Rohani’s encouraging remarks were made after he
understood from the French president and other leaders that Trump would be
prepared to lift the sanctions on Iran when the negotiations begin. Immediately
after that, however, Trump not only denied that but imposed additional sanctions
on Iran, the 16th this year. Nevetheless, Rohani promised to provide additional
details on Wednesday on the understandings that were reached when he reports to
the Iranian parliament on his visit to New York.
The United States doesn’t remain apathetic to Iran’s flexibility and the
Americans are presenting a new, more modest formula for the conduct of
negotiations. In May of last year, the U.S. demands on Iran included access to
every site in Iran at any time, the withdrawal of all Iranian forces from Syria,
a halt to support for Hezbollah, a dismantling of Iran’s Quds Force and the end
of support for Houthi rebels in Yemen. There were also demands on the subject of
suspending Iran’s ballistic missile program and reporting on past Iranian
nuclear development plans.
Instead the White House developed four goals for future negotiations with Iran:
The promise not to develop nuclear weapons over time; a halt to assistance to
the Houthis and help in bringing the war in Yemen to an end; implementation of a
plan to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz; and
non-intervention in regional conflicts.
These are sufficiently vague conditions to give each side great flexibility in
conducting negotiations but at the same time, due to their amorphousness, they
could lead to endless talks, the potential for failure of which is high. It
appears that Iran is prepared to enter into this sort of negotiation but on
condition that it obtains concrete concessions in advance on the sanctions
issue.
It isn’t counting on American assurances and has already been disappointed by
the efforts by the European countries to bypass the American sanctions. A review
of commentary in the Iranian media shows that Iran’s policy is based on two
working assumptions: Iran is not facing the risk of an American military attack,
and it can still withstand the economic pressure of the sanctions.
The Iranian economy has in fact been hurt badly, but it is not destroyed, and,
most importantly, the sanctions have not fomented civil revolt that would
endanger the regime. Another Iranian assessment is that at this time, Trump
needs a diplomatic achievement more than Iran does, and therefore there is a
better prospect to obtain greater concessions, but for that to happen, talks
must begin soon rather than waiting until Trump’s presidential term ends.
There are differences of opinion inside Iran between those who oppose any
negotiations with the Americans and returning to the original nuclear program
and those who support negotiations that would lead to an end to the economic
crisis threatening the Iranian regime. This is not the traditional dispute
between conservatives and reformists but is rather between various segments of
the conservative leadership, as well as between the command of the Revolutionary
Guard and Rohani.
In the near future, this disagreement is expected to become part of the public
debate through the media and then it will also be possible to assess what
strategic decision the regime takes.
Erdogan’s plan for northeastern Syria fuels uncertainty
Talmiz Ahmad/Arab News/October 02/2019
Recep Tayyip Erdogan asserted: “We have earned the title of the world’s most
generous provider of humanitarian aid and accepted the most displaced people.”
He was referring to his country hosting 3.6 million refugees from war-torn Syria
and having spent $40 billion on their care.
This care and attention could now come to an end. In the same speech, the
president proposed the creation of a “peace corridor” in northeast Syria, east
of the Euphrates, which would initially be 480 kilometers long and 30 kilometers
deep and accommodate about 2 million Syrian refugees from Turkey. He added that
the depth of the “safe zone” could be extended further south to the Raqqa-Deir
Ezzor line and take in a further 1 million refugees, including some who are
presently in Europe.
The “safe zone” appears to be a quick solution to several of his problems. The
expenditure on refugees is a drain on Turkey’s economy, which is experiencing a
downturn. Added to this is the increasing hostility directed at the refugees by
Turkey’s own nationals, who see them as stealing jobs and a source of law and
order problems.
In response to these concerns, Ankara initiated a tough policy: In July,
unregistered Syrians were given a deadline of Aug. 20 to depart. But the
implementation of this harsh measure was relaxed and more accommodative
approaches began to be adopted, with the deadline for deportation being further
extended.
Turkey’s Islamic organizations had opposed the tough approach toward fellow
Muslims in dire straits. Again, Erdogan wanted to highlight the refugee issue
before the governments of the US and EU and seek their backing not just for
greater financial support, but for the “safe zone” plan itself.
To pressurize the EU, Erdogan said in early September that, absent Western
backing, he would have no choice but to “open the gates” for the refugees to go
to Europe. He gave up this option under the 2016 agreement with the EU, which
retained the refugees in Turkey in return for the promise of €6 billion ($6.5
billion) of financial support.
For Turkey, the key country to get on board is the US, which has about 2,000
troops embedded with the largely Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces
For Turkey, the key country to get on board is the US, which has about 2,000
troops embedded with the largely Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the
northeast of the country — the very space that Erdogan wishes to use to realize
his relocation plan.
Erdogan attempted to pressurize the US by getting closer to Russian President
Vladimir Putin and, contrary to NATO practice, buying the Russian S-400 missile
system, leading to Turkey’s expulsion from the development of the F-35 fighter
aircraft. Turkey also moved its troops to the border, facing the towns of Tal
Abyad and Kobane.
This has encouraged the US to find a way to address Turkey’s concerns relating
to the Syrian Kurds at its border. In August, the two countries set up a joint
operations center at the border and, from early September, began joint air
patrols. Erdogan viewed this as the first step toward getting US backing for his
“safe zone” idea.
At the sixth summit of the Astana peace process in Ankara in mid-September,
Turkey also got the backing of Russia and Iran for the “peace corridor” to
relocate the refugees and combat terrorism. The Syrian foreign office in
Damascus, encouraged by Tehran and Moscow, has also backed Turkey by describing
the SDF as “a terrorist militia serving as subcontractors to the US.”
Erdogan has kept alive the prospect of a unilateral military intervention in the
region — orders have been issued by the Turkish Ministry of Health canceling the
leave of its doctors in preparation for military operations.
But not everything is going Erdogan’s way. US officials were able to ensure
that, on the sidelines of the UNGA, he did not have a one-to-one meeting with
Trump; they feared that Erdogan would persuade his US counterpart into an
ill-advised commitment.
US officials have not disguised their hostility to Turkey’s plans for
northeastern Syria. They have affirmed military support for the SDF and the
military importance to the US of large parts of the space coveted by Turkey for
its resettlement proposal. EU nations, such as the UK, France and Germany, have
shown interest in joining the US-sponsored “Autonomous Administration of North
and East Syria,” suggesting that America is unlikely to vacate the region any
time soon.
There are other problems with the Erdogan plan: The space he has defined for the
resettlement of Syrian refugees already has about 850,000 inhabitants, 75
percent of whom are Kurds. Thus, the plan cannot be implemented without
significant demographic changes. Also, the refugees are not from northeast
Syria, but from the west and south, and are hardly likely to be enthusiastic
about their relocation. Finally, the area is an arid desert, with limited
infrastructure, so is hardly capable of accommodating 2 or 3 million people.
With Erdogan’s hostility to the Kurdish presence and concerns that his
brinkmanship could lead to military action, the outlook for the region remains
very uncertain.
*Talmiz Ahmad is an author and former Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman
and the UAE. He holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis
International University, Pune, India.
Retreat from Qatar suggests US is preparing for war
Abdulrahman Al Rashed/Arab News/October 02/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/79051/%d8%b9%d8%a8%d8%af-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%ad%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b4%d8%af-%d9%87%d9%84-%d9%8a%d8%ba%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%b1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%83%d9%8a%d9%88%d9%86/
Amid escalating Iranian threats and attacks targeting Saudi oil facilities,
shipping, and a $110 million US drone, one would expect America to be
strengthening its military presence in the Gulf.
But, no, quite the contrary. In an unannounced operation, which the Washington
Post was invited to observe, the US this week transferred the command and
control center of its air operations in the Middle East from its
long-established base in Qatar to South Carolina. The transfer of the so-called
US Air Force Combined Air and Space Operations Center from Al-Udeid Air Base in
the Qatari desert to the Shaw Air Force Base amounts to a “dress rehearsal,”
especially after the Iranians succeeded in penetrating air defenses and bombing
the state-owned Saudi Aramco oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais
using low-flying cruise missiles and drones.
Although the Washington Post pointed out that the US wants to gradually transfer
command from Qatar to the US, some consider this move to be part of a gradual
reduction of the US military presence in Qatar, at a time when the Pentagon has
increased its deployments in Bahrain, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Who should regard this development with apprehension? Saudi Arabia and the rest
of the Gulf nations, which are in the middle of an unofficial war with Iran, or
Qatar, which has built all its policies on being the headquarters of the US
forces in the region and has, to that end, invested huge sums to tempt the
Americans to stay?
Doha has invested heavily in Al-Udeid in recent years, spending as much as $2
billion renovating the base. Qatar is confronting other countries in the region,
such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan and others, only because
it believes that the US military presence will protect it from the consequences
of its actions.
Qatar has built all its policies on being the headquarters of the US forces in
the region
For the time being, the most important thing for the region is to examine the
possibility of a US withdrawal based on the narrative of the transfer of its
center of operations from Qatar. There are two fundamental issues, at least from
my point of view. The first is that the Americans cannot withdraw from this
strategically important region, which is the energy key to the world, including
US competitors like China. The major power that controls this region practically
controls the world’s energy market. Secondly, a reduction in the US military
presence will be offset by increased Iranian military activities, with
repercussions including damage to American and allied interests. Moreover, a
withdrawal would mean the failure of the economic boycott that is at the heart
of the White House’s Iran policy.
The Americans’ experimental transfer of their air command and control operations
from Qatar is likely to suggest that, contrary to rumors, Washington is
preparing for the prospect of war. Against this backdrop, the US feels it is
critical to fine-tune its air operations out of Al-Udeid, which it fears could
be the first target in the event of conflict between the US and Iran. It matters
little what the Iranian propaganda keeps claiming, which is that Iran is capable
of destroying US power in the Gulf, since the truth is just the opposite.
But why then is Washington hesitating? Well, this reflects a political logic
that finds it preferable to exercise economic pressure on the Iranian regime and
force it to retreat, rather than wage a war. The US ability to destroy Iran’s
capabilities is real and frightening, but this may be the last resort.
*Abdulrahman Al-Rashed is a veteran columnist. He is the former general manager
of Al Arabiya news channel, and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat.
Twitter: @aalrashed