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