LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
July 26/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.july26.18.htm

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

Tech Leaders: Killer Robots Would Be ‘Dangerously Destabilizing’ Force in the World
Peter Holley/The Washington Post/July 25/18
In total, more than 160 organizations and 2,460 individuals from 90 countries promised this week not to participate in or support the development and use of lethal autonomous weapons. The pledge says artificial intelligence is expected to play an increasing role in military systems and calls upon governments and politicians to introduce laws regulating such weapons “to create a future with strong international norms.”
“Thousands of AI researchers agree that by removing the risk, attributability, and difficulty of taking human lives, lethal autonomous weapons could become powerful instruments of violence and oppression, especially when linked to surveillance and data systems,” the pledge says.
“Moreover, lethal autonomous weapons have characteristics quite different from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the unilateral actions of a single group could too easily spark an arms race that the international community lacks the technical tools and global governance systems to manage,” the pledge adds. Lethal autonomous weapons systems can identify, target and kill without human input, according to the Future of Life Institute, a Boston-based charity that organized the pledge and seeks to reduce risks posed by AI. The organization claims autonomous weapons systems do not include drones, which rely on human pilots and decision-makers to operate. According to Human Rights Watch, autonomous weapons systems are being developed in many nations around the world — “particularly the United States, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and the United Kingdom.” FLI claims autonomous weapons systems will be at risk for hacking and likely to end up on the black market. The organization argues the systems should be subject to the same sort of international bans as biological and chemical weapons.
FLI has even coined a name for these weapons systems — “slaughterbots.”
The lack of human control also raises troubling ethical questions, according to Toby Walsh, a Scientia professor of artificial intelligence at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who helped to organize the pledge.
“We cannot hand over the decision as to who lives and who dies to machines,” Walsh said, according to a statement from FLI. They do not have the ethics to do so. I encourage you and your organizations to pledge to ensure that war does not become more terrible in this way.”
Musk — arguably the pledge’s most recognizable name — has become an outspoken critic of autonomous weapons and the rise of autonomous machines. The Tesla chief executive has said that artificial intelligence is more of a risk to the world than North Korea.
Last year, he joined more than 100 robotics and artificial intelligence experts calling on the United Nations to ban autonomous weapons.
“Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare,” Musk and 115 other experts, including Alphabet’s artificial intelligence expert, Mustafa Suleyman, warned in an open letter in August. “Once developed, they will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at time scales faster than humans can comprehend.”According to the letter, “These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways.”Fighting killer robots with public declarations might seem ineffective, but Yoshua Bengio — an AI expert at the Montreal Institute for Learning Algorithms — told the Guardian that the pledge could rally public opinion against autonomous weapons. “This approach actually worked for land mines, thanks to international treaties and public shaming, even though major countries like the U.S. did not sign the treaty banning land mines,” he said. “American companies have stopped building land mines.”
**The Washington Post

Warnings for Tehran Could Not Be Clearer
Faisal J. Abbas/Asharq Al Awsat/July 25/18
There could be no more significant time for the powerful essay by the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Khalid bin Salman, published by Arab News on Monday. Entitled “Why Iran’s malign behavior should be confronted — not appeased,” and reinforcing Riyadh’s longstanding position of standing by its historical ally, the United States, the essay came just as a war of words between Tehran and Washington reached its climax.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned the US not to “play with the lion’s tail” and said a “war with Iran is the mother of all wars.” To which Trump responded via his favorite — and most effective — means of communication. “Never, ever threaten the United States again,” he tweeted. Further threats would bring “consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before.”Tehran would be well advised to take the US president seriously; he has proved, time and again, that he is not just a man of words, but a man of action. Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama, Trump’s red lines are real. Rouhani just has to remember that the current US administration bombed his allies — the Assad regime — twice in retaliation for using chemical weapons.  Even when differences between Riyadh and Washington were at their peak, during the “Obama doctrine” period, the Saudi government supported and cooperated fully with Washington in combating all forms of terror. That is as true now as it was then. As Prince Khalid points out: “Saudi Arabia’s policy is to confront evil wherever it may be found and in whatever form it takes.”
The ambassador’s essay is also a reminder that hostility between Riyadh and Tehran is not, as many analysts inaccurately claim, sectarian. He points out that the Kingdom fights both Shiite and Sunni extremism, and gives Riyadh’s ongoing battle against Daesh and Al-Qaeda as an example. As Prince Khalid says, terrorists in Saudi Arabia are on the run, while in Iran they run the country. Iran hosted Al-Qaeda leaders and helped facilitate terrorist operations aimed at destabilizing their neighbors. The Iranian regime finances and backs Shiite terrorist groups such as Asaib Ahl Al-Haq in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi militias in Yemen — who have fired over 160 ballistic missiles into Saudi Arabia.
The Houthis, against whom Riyadh leads a coalition, have overthrown the internationally recognized government of Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi; their slogan is “Death to America, Death to the Jews”; and they dared to attack the US Navy near Aden three times during the Obama era.
These attacks, which Riyadh strongly condemned, came months after President Obama had hoped the Iran nuclear deal would bring Tehran back into the fold. They were among many reminders that trying to appease the Iranian regime doesn’t work. As Prince Khalid’s essay reminds us, and as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has emphasized repeatedly, standing up to the forces of aggression may cost more in the short term, but it is the only real strategy for preventing already grave threats from snowballing into wider, and potentially far deadlier, conflicts.
As ever, Saudi Arabia stands shoulder-to-shoulder with its US ally. As for the “lion’s tail,” Rouhani should remember that it was his “ayatollahs’ revolution” of 1979 that not only cut that tail, but the whole lion — and this is not just a reference to the changes to the Iranian flag!
*Editor in Chief of Arab News

How Much Will Republicans Follow Trump on Russia and Putin?
Emily Guskin/The Washington Post/July 25/18
President Trump has evolved in his time in politics to be quite positive toward Russia and its president, and he expressed hope of a personal friendship with Vladimir Putin on the eve of his summit this week. “He’s not my enemy. And hopefully, someday, maybe he’ll be a friend. It could happen,” the president told reporters in Brussels. But according to most surveys, the American public isn’t as positive toward Russia, and their views overall haven’t thawed much since Trump began his presidential run. Trump’s fellow Republicans though, have shifted to be more favorable toward Russia and its leader in the time before Trump’s presidential run. In 2014, before Trump announced his candidacy, a Gallup poll found 26 percent of Americans and 22 percent of Republicans saying that Russia was either an “ally” or “friendly, but not an ally.” When they last asked earlier this month, the share of Americans overall who said the same increased by five points to 31 percent. But among Republicans it increased by a much larger 18 points to 40 percent who said that Russia was an ally or friendly. Still, nearly 6 in 10 Republicans call Russia “unfriendly” (38 percent) or “an enemy” (20 percent).
CBS News polls have tracked a more dramatic improvement in Republicans’ rating of Russia. In February 2015, their poll asked the same question found 38 percent of adults saying that Russia was an “ally” or “friendly, but not an ally,” along with 32 percent of Americans. CBS asked again earlier this week and found a five-point rise among adults overall and a far larger 27 point increase among Republicans to 59 percent saying Russia was either an ally or friendly.
Looking specifically at Putin, there’s evidence of positive movement on public opinion among Republicans from the Pew Research Center, which asked Americans how they felt about the Russian leader. In February 2015, before Trump announced his candidacy, 12 percent of Americans overall and 11 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had favorable views of the Russian president. By January 2018, opinion of Putin ticked up four points to 16 percent favorable. But among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, Putin’s favorable rating grew 14 points to 25 percent favorable. Still, a 62 percent majority of Republican-leaning adults were unfavorable of Putin this year, as were 76 percent of those who lean toward the Democratic Party.
Two other polls have not shown as much of a shift in public opinion on Russia and Putin. Surveys by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs show an overall decrease in positive views of Russia, with no rise in positive views among Republicans. In 2014, Americans rated Russia with an average score of 36 on a 0-to-100 “feeling thermometer” scale. That ticked up to 40 in 2016 but fell to 31 by last summer, the lowest level in their polls since 1998. Among Republicans, ratings of Russia were quite similar in both 2014 (33) and 2017 (34). Looking beyond the last few years, the Chicago Council finds views of Russia are far down from levels seen in the 2000s and early 1990s, and similar to latter parts of the Cold War.
In December 2014, CNN polling found 10 percent of Americans and 11 percent of Republicans had favorable opinions of Putin. In January 2017, a CNN poll found 23 percent of Republicans favorable of Putin, suggesting at least a temporary increase in favorability, but it was back down to 14 percent in May 2018 and 14 percent in June. By last month, that inched up one point among the population overall to 11 percent and three points among Republicans to 14 percent. Both are quite low ratings, with 72 percent of the public overall with an unfavorable opinion along with 67 percent of Republicans.
The bipartisan skepticism toward Russia hasn’t led to bipartisan rejection of Trump’s handling of the summit with Putin this week. The CBS News poll from this week finds just under a third of Americans approved of how Trump handed the summit with Putin earlier this week while more than two-thirds of Republicans approved. The same poll found 46 percent of Americans who think Trump is too friendly to Russia — up from 35 percent who said this in Trump’s first months in office — though a much smaller 15 percent of Republicans hold this view. A majority of Republicans think Trump is “about right” toward Russia.The CBS poll also found 15 points lower approval for Trump’s handling of the summit among Republicans (68 percent) than Democratic disapproval of him overall (83 percent), pointing to less agreement among Republicans than Democrats. This may be related to longstanding skepticism among Republicans about being friendly toward Russia.

Palestinian Authority Silences Students
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/July 25/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12753/palestinian-authority-silences-students
By targeting Palestinian journalists and university students, the Palestinian Authority shows that it has turned the territories under its control into a dictatorship that systematically grinds public freedoms into the ground.
Palestinians are permitted to badmouth Israel and the US -- but that is where their "freedom of speech" ends. Let a Palestinian utter a bad word about his leaders -- he will find himself (or herself) behind bars. This bodes rather poorly for the future of democracy and free speech in a Palestinian state. In fact, it discloses exactly what a Palestinian state would look like, if and when it is ever established.
Failing to hold the PA leadership accountable for its actions against journalists and university students drives Palestinians into the open arms of Hamas. Yet the international media remains mute in the face of the PA's flouting of the right to freedom of expression. Why? Because, for the foreign media, a story that does not serve to bash Israel is not "news that's fit to print."
A Palestinian electric engineer from the West Bank is facing up to one year in prison and a heavy fine. Ibrahim Al-Masri, who was arrested by the Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces on June 19, is the latest victim of the PA's continued crackdown on its political opponents and dissenters.
Al-Masri's lawyer said that his client was taken into custody under the PA's new controversial Cyber Crime Law, which targets Palestinian social media users. His family said they learned about his detention more than 24 hours after he was taken into custody. They pointed out that Al-Masri was arrested for posting comments on Facebook criticizing the PA security forces for beating him during a demonstration in Ramallah last month. The demonstration was organized by Palestinian activists to protest the economic sanctions imposed by the PA government on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The Cyber Crime Law, which has drawn sharp criticism from Palestinian human rights and media organizations, states that, "Anyone who creates or manages or an information technology platform that aims to publish news that would endanger the integrity of the Palestinian state, the public order or the internal or external security of the State, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of at least one year and no more than 5,000 Jordanian dinars (approximately $7,000) or by a combination of both punishments."
The law effectively authorizes the PA security forces to arrest Palestinians for their activities on social media, especially if their postings are deemed "offensive" to senior Palestinian officials or harmful to the "integrity of the Palestinian state" which, one might note, remains to be established. Palestinians are now wondering whether the Ramallah-based PA leadership has created a "Facebook Police" to monitor their activities on the giant social media portal.
Reem Abu Laban, a Palestinian journalist, said she was summoned by the PA security forces about her Facebook postings. "I have the feeling that they had been following my Facebook page for some time," she said. Another journalist, Fadi Abu Sa'di, said that he, too, was convinced that the PA security agencies were closely following his Facebook postings. "Sometimes this affects what I publish on Facebook, and that can be very stressful," he said.
Since the law was approved last year by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, dozens of Palestinians, including journalists, have been arrested or summoned for interrogation for posting critical comments on Facebook.
According to the Committee for Supporting Palestinian Journalists, the journalists who were arrested by Abbas's security forces include Hazem Nasser, Islam Salem, Mustafa Sabri, Ala Rabi, Emad Abu Awwad, Rami Samarah, Tareq Abu Zeid, Thaer Al-Fakhouri, Shadi Badawneh, Ahmed Halaykeh, Mamdouh Hamamreh, Kutaiba Azem, Amer Abu Arafeh, Mohammed Abu Jheisheh, and Fahed Shaheen. The committee expressed "deep concern" about the PA's use of the new law to suppress public freedoms in the West Bank.
"If you want to be a journalist or work in the media in the West Bank, you need to be wary of the Israeli occupation forces that could target you at any moment; however, you need to be twice as careful about the Palestinian security forces," said Palestinian journalist and writer Nader Al-Safadi. "What the Palestinian security forces have committed against public freedoms and journalists exposes the true face of the freedom of expression that the Palestinian Authority has been boasting about."
Because of the new law and the subsequent crackdown by PA security forces on journalists and Facebook users, Palestinians say they are now afraid to post any critical comments on social media. "The Palestinian Authority wants us to become its spokesmen," complained a Palestinian journalist from Nablus. "The Cyber Crime Law allows the Palestinian security forces to arrest anyone who dares to express a different view on social media. This is a dangerous assault on public freedoms."
Palestinian journalists, however, are not the only ones to feel the heavy hand of the PA security forces. In recent weeks, the PA's campaign against its political critics reached several Palestinian university campuses, where scores of students have been arrested or summoned for interrogation.
The PA's tough security measures at university campuses are seen by Palestinians in the context of the PA leadership's ongoing effort to silence and intimidate its critics and political rivals.
Although these measures are not new, Palestinian sources say that the PA has recently stepped up its measures against university students, particularly those who are affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian rival groups.
Last week, the PA security forces arrested university students Abdel Salam Kamil and Bilal Tamimi in Hebron. Earlier, they also arrested Adam Ziadeh, a student at the Al-Quds Open University, and Mohammed Turkeman, Rayan Kharyoush, Oday Khatib, Awies Al-Ouri, Yazan Tayyah, and Hamzeh Abu Qari, of Bir Zeit University. These are only a few of the dozens of university students who have been arrested or summoned for interrogation by the PA security forces in recent weeks and months.
As part of the Palestinian Authority's ongoing effort to silence and intimidate its critics and political rivals, a number of students from Bir Zeit University (pictured) have been arrested or summoned for interrogation by PA security forces. (Image source: Oromiya321/Wikimedia Commons)
By targeting Palestinian journalists and university students, the PA shows that it has turned the territories under its control into a dictatorship that systematically grinds public freedoms into the ground. This does not come as a surprise, given the PA leadership's intolerance of criticism. Palestinians are permitted to badmouth Israel and the US – but that is where their "freedom of speech" ends. Let a Palestinian utter a bad word about his leaders – he will find himself (or herself) behind bars. This bodes rather poorly for the future of democracy and free speech in a Palestinian state. In fact, it discloses exactly what a Palestinian state would look like, if and when it is ever established. It would be a carbon copy of other Arab dictatorships, where journalists and academics are nothing but mouthpieces for their president and government.
The international community, which funds the PA, must wake up to the fact that this crackdown on public freedoms plays directly into the hands of Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups. It is precisely these groups that stand waiting to receive those who run, disillusioned and desperate, from the PA. Failing to hold the PA leadership accountable for its actions against journalists and university students drives Palestinians into the open arms of Hamas. Yet the international media remains mute in the face of the PA's flouting of the right to freedom of expression. Why? Because, for the foreign media, a story that does not serve to bash Israel is not "news that's fit to print."
*Bassam Tawil, an Arab Muslim, is based in the Middle East.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Iran: Khamenei's New Poem - Pure Wine and Deadly Poison
Amir Taheri/Gatestone Institute/July 25/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12759/iran-khamenei-poem
However, one cannot ignore the fact that the man currently ruling Iran appears unsure of his impact on life, feels he is the victim of some unspecified injustice and sees a schizophrenic "id" (in the Freudian sense) that is "sometimes pure wine, sometimes deadly poison."
"I wish I could get out of self-absorption that
Pulls me this way and that like a straw"
— Iran's Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"From whom can I seek redress for the injustice done to me?" — Iran's Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The annual poetry congress in Tehran, held at the beginning of July, included what state-owned or controlled media have described as an "historic literary event," which, according to one establishment literary commentator, Muhammad-Ali Mujahedi, electrified those present.
The "event" was the public reading of a new ghazal (sonnet) by "Supreme Guide" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose poetical ambitions date back to his early youth more than 60 years ago. He has often said that he wished he had spent more time and energy on his poetry rather than on politics, and in anecdotal accounts of his life has cast himself as a disciple of such great contemporary classicist Persian poets as Amiri Firuzkuhi and Muhammad Qahreman, not to mention the great Mohammad-Hussein Shahriar and Rahi Mo'ayyeri.
However, still unsure of how his poetry might be received, Khamenei -- who uses "Amin" as his literary sobriquet (takhallos in Arabic) -- has always shied away from publishing a diwan or even reciting his poems in public. But because few poets could resist the temptation of reading their work to others, the "Supreme Guide" holds occasional private recitals of his poetry for a handful of confidants who have sworn never to reveal to others what they have heard or try to put it into print.
Thus, the event was a rare occasion, when Khamenei overcame his fear of not pleasing an audience and agreed to have his latest work recited to a group of fellow poets and aspiring poets. To be sure, Khamenei is not the first political leader to harbor poetical ambitions. Both Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong wrote poetry. And Iran's own Naser al-Din Shah Qajar spent more time committing poetry than running the country. More recently, we had Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a closet poet, keeping his poetical production, full of libertine sentiments and Bacchanalian images, quiet until his death. The founder of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, Kim Il-sung, one of Khamenei's heroes, also committed some imitations of the Japanese haiku.
But how good is Khamenei's new ghazal?
To start with, by classical standards of ghazal, it is one line (beyt) too short. The standard classical ghazal consists of a minimum of seven lines (abyat) and a maximum of 13. Khamenei has stopped at six lines. If we set aside two lines that experts might see as "superficial adornment" (hashw al-qabih in Arabic), Khamenei's poem could be best categorized as an "incidental confession" (muwashshah in Arabic), a form rare in Persian poetry, but highly cherished by Arab poets, especially in the pre-Islamic era. Next, Khamenei's work also moves away from the classical ghazal's thematic unity in diversity, in which each line seems to have an independent content while being indirectly linked to the content of other lines. Here, Khamenei goes for a very modern introspective narrative style, in which all the lines (abyat) come together to depict the poet's mood at a certain moment in time.
But what is this mood? As you would see in the translation of the poem that follows, the ghazal depicts the poet as a disturbed person, divided against himself and struggling with the pull of events. Khamenei has chosen one of the favorite meters (owzan in Arabic) of the great Persian Sufi poet Mawlawi (known in the West as Rumi), originally developed by Arab poets of the pre-Islamic era, including Labid, Zuhair Ibn Abi-Salma and the black slave warrior Antar Ibn Shaddad. This meter is extremely rhythmic, and the pre-Islamic (jaheliyah) poets regarded it as suitable for war poetry being recited with the beating of drums.
In contrast, Mawlawi and other Persian poets, for example Athireddin Akhsikati and Khwaju Kermani, used it to accompany Sufi-style dance, which includes gyration to the beat of a small drum (tablah). Another poet, Monjik Termezi, of Jewish origin, also used the meter in his narrative odes (qasidah), presumably because of its musical quality that adds spice to public recitations.
The meter (wazn) consists of the double alternation of one long and one short syllable: mufta'alan mufta'al, mufta'alan mufta'al, perfect for inciting warriors to combat or inspiring Sufis to gyrate in the "remembering Allah" (zikr in Arabic) and "hearing the divine voice" (Se'maa in Arabic) ceremonies perfected by the "whirling dervishes."In his ghazal, Khamenei has gone for an interesting rhyming scheme usually used by Persian poets to evoke sorrow. This is a bold choice, as the mournful rhyme scheme is opposed by the joyful beat of the meter.
The rhyme in question uses words that contain the Arabic letter M (mim) twice, like two wings of a wounded bird, inspiring a sense of forlornness. At the same time, because the letter "mim" isn't a loud one, it helps create an atmosphere of intimacy, as if the poet were whispering his sufferings in your ear. Whispering, of course, is also the art perfected by Satan (al-wasswas al-khannas in Arabic) in pursuit of evil aims. Here, Khamenei uses whispering in a quest for a human understanding of his pains, if not actual tenderness.
The problem is that the poet cannot keep up the chosen rhyme scheme all through his six lines as, for example, Amiri- Firuzkuhi or Hushang Ebtehaj would have done. Thus, three of the six lines (abyat) fully stick to the scheme, while three others offer words that contain only one "mim." In two of the lines, the Arabic letter L (lam) replaces the letter "mim." This may have been meant as a side glance at the Koranic surah starting with ALM (aleph, lam, mim in Arabic). Despite more than 60 years of interest in poetry, the "Supreme Guide" is still unable to master the full technique of classical Persian poetry.
Such imperfections, however, do not damage the ghazal as a whole, which is well-crafted in terms of prosody. The poem also evokes some of the classical concerns of the Sufis as to how to liberate oneself from one's earthly reality in the hope of reaching for a greater transcendental truth. Khamenei uses many clichés of classical Persian poetry, including being "drunk, utterly gone," "pure wine," and "the skirt of love." Nevertheless, there are enough fresh, modern concepts in his ghazal to save it from becoming another insipid imitation of the great classics.
Reading too much politics in this short ghazal may be out of order. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the man currently ruling Iran appears unsure of his impact on life, feels he is the victim of some unspecified injustice and sees a schizophrenic "id" (in the Freudian sense) that is "sometimes pure wine, sometimes deadly poison." He craves purity but sees himself as a "synthetic mix," which makes him cry. At times, this divided "id" plants his claws into his own "bleeding heart," a masochistic image. At other times it attacks his "own flock like a wolf," an image that evokes Sadism. All in all, I liked the ghazal, maybe because I am a sucker for classical Persian-style poetry.
Here is the translation of the ghazal, for you to judge for yourself: I am disturbed by the cacophony in me I wish I could get out of self-absorption that Pulls me this way and that like a straw Obsession with this and that, capriciousness of the self
I have plunged my claws into my bleeding heart
Like a wolf I have attacked my own flock
At times I am pure wine, at others deadly poison
I cry out of the synthetic mix that I am
I am a child, resting my head on the skirt of love
Hoping that lullaby will release me from my ego.
I am drunk, utterly gone, Amin, heedless of was and is
From whom can I seek redress for the injustice done to me?
Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987.
This review was originally published in shortened form in Asharq al-Awsat. It is being published here by the kind permission of the author.
© 2018 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.

Analysis/Israel Defends Itself by Downing Syrian Fighter Jet – but Won’t Interrupt Assad’s Return to the Border
عاموس هاريل من الهآررتس: دفاعاً عن نفسها إسرائيل تسقط مقاتلة سورية، لكنها لن تتدخل لإزعاج الأسد من العودة إلى حدوده معها
Amos Harel/Haaretz/July/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/66278/amos-harel-haaretz-israel-defends-itself-by-downing-syrian-fighter-jet-but-wont-interrupt-assads-return-to-the-border-%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1/
With Syrian forces facing zero resistance in the southern Golan Heights, Israel is already eyeing the bigger problem: keeping Iranian and Shi’ite forces out of the region
The main stories on the television news and websites are talking about an escalation in the north. But this is not a long-term escalation and does not herald a war on the Syrian border. The two latest incidents – missiles fired by the Syrian army toward Israel on Monday; and the Israel Defense Forces’ downing of a Syrian fighter jet on Tuesday – are side effects of the main operation that is already underway: the Syrian Army’s retaking of southern Syria.
Israel is not sliding into a war with Syria; it is trying to clearly mark and defend its security interests while the Assad regime completes its mission.
The Sukhoi jet shot down Tuesday afternoon was en route to a mission against the rebels in Syria’s southern Golan Heights. The local militias have already surrendered to the regime in most of the Golan Heights.
President Bashar Assad’s forces are advancing with practically zero resistance and Israel is keeping its contact with the area to a minimum. Soon, it will have to consider shutting down the “Good Neighbor” mission that in recent years has provided food, medicine and medical treatment to tens of thousands of Syrians from villages across the border.
The last stronghold of resistance to the regime is in the southwestern corner of the Golan Heights. Most recent estimates say there are some 1,200 fighters there from the local branch of the Islamic State group. The current airstrikes, rocket fire and heavy artillery fire are all meant to wear down the fighters’ resistance. As it looks now, the deviations and spillover into Israel are due to errors on the part of the Syrian military and not meant as deliberate provocations.
As was the case with the SS-21 missiles fired toward Israel on Monday, Israel cannot really concern itself with the intentions of the missile launchers or the pilots who approach its territory. Again in recent days, warnings have been relayed through various channels – including UN observers and Russian forces – that Israel will view any violation of its sovereignty gravely and act forcefully to eliminate any potential security threat.
The Sukhoi jet, which took off from the T-4 airbase near Homs, northern Syria (a base where Israel has allegedly conducted airstrikes against Iranian forces), flew from north to south and penetrated nearly 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) into Israel airspace. The plane was downed by two Patriot missiles – the second such downing in less than four years.
As soon as Assad’s forces and the Russians vanquish the rebels, there will be a new situation on the border. Israel is trying to “reset” the situation in the Golan Heights, based on the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement that applied there until the regime withdrew under pressure from the rebels four years ago. Hence the daily statements by Israeli officials about this agreement going back into effect. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated it again Tuesday evening after the downing of the Syrian plane.
From an Israeli perspective, though, the Syrian regime is the smaller headache.
The heart of the current discussion with Russia – the real power calling the shots in Syria – is about the wider arrangements for the day after the rebels fall: that is, keeping the Iranian forces and Shi’ite militias out of southern Syria.
This was the reason behind Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Chief of Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov’s visit to Israel on Monday (the first visit by a Russian military chief of staff to Israel, as far as the IDF can recall). The two came to ensure Israel will not hinder the continued conquest of the southern Golan Heights, and also to calm Israeli fears about Iran exploiting the new situation in southern Syria.
The diplomatic source who briefed Israeli reporters after the meeting sounded very optimistic. Russia is pledging to keep the Iranians and their allies as far as 100 kilometers (62 miles) from the border, in an arc that passes far to the east and north of Damascus (in previous talks, it used to be 80 kilometers).
Israel is demanding the removal of long-range Iranian missiles from all of Syria; a halt to the manufacture of precision missiles within Syria that are meant for Hezbollah; and the closure of the border crossings that are used for arms smuggling. And in the future, Israel will insist upon its original demand that all Iranian fighters be removed from all of Syria.
The Russians have responded positively, it seems. Still, certain questions should be asked: How durable is a promise from Moscow? How does Russia intend to enforce the details of the new arrangement? How can it be ensured that Shi’ite fighters, ununiformed or disguised in Syrian Army fatigues, don’t infiltrate the forces that will be permitted to remain in the south? And is Israel placing too much faith in Russian promises?
The problem of an Iranian presence in southern Syria is not an immediate one. Tehran will likely take its time to study the new situation before it makes any new moves near the border.
And events of the past few months have also taught Iran three things: That Israel has excellent intelligence in Syria; that Israel will not hesitate to attack there to safeguard its interests; and that Moscow doesn’t care anymore if Iranian sites are hit.
But the Iranians have patience. A long-term strategic game is now going on to our north, and the last word has yet to be spoken.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-defends-itself-by-downing-syrian-jet-but-won-t-stop-assad-1.6313216