Detailed Lebanese & Lebanese Related LCCC English New Bulletin For November 11/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

To Read The Detailed English News Bulletin For November 11/2018 Click on the Link below
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.november11.18.htm

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

The Second Chapter of Trump’s Presidency
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 10/18
There are two long years left in the fast-paced world of US President Donald Trump’s administration. He has relentlessly taken many decisions and made fast moves without backing down or stopping at impediments. There are only a few like-minded people who are daring enough to change the world around them, hence he has made many adversaries. Perhaps the hopes of these opponents, at home and abroad, have been shattered after they had been counting on cutting Trump's upper hand in the recent midterms. Republicans gained a Senate majority, which will protect Trump and allow him to pass key legislation. Clearly, Trump is still on his feet, and this will last until the end of his presidency.
As the White House is set to unveil the roadmap for the second half of the presidency, the focus seems to remain on the same key issues. Trump is still pressuring the Iranian regime; evidence of this being that he deliberately re-imposed oil and financial sanctions two days before midterm voters took to the polls. He instructed US authorities - the Treasury, State Department, Department of Defense and the Pentagon – to implement the sanctions, while adding more sanctions to Iran-backed militias, such as Hezbollah. The exceptions that Trump offered to allied states were aimed at curbing a surge in oil prices, giving a six-month leeway for allied countries to end their oil purchase contracts. And of course, Trump gave plenty of time for the Khamenei regime to make concessions, rather than getting itself trapped in a tight corner. The goal is not to overthrow the regime, so much as it is to modify its behavior.
The second main issue is the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which only a year ago was an object of ridicule from skeptics and opposers. Now, everyone in the region has to take the issue seriously, and it’s not impossible to imagine that the course of the conflict and its mechanisms may soon change. Recent news from Oman following the Israeli Prime Minister's visit reflects a new reality; that most of the countries in the region will engage with Israel. Iran was the cause of this, as Tehran conspired to dominate Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Bahrain. Israel has an important role in a coalition against the Iranian Supreme Leader's project. President Trump and his advisor Jared Kushner in the next two years will play a major role in changing the current understandings of disagreements and alliances in the region.
In the next two years, the war in Yemen will also be a priority for Trump who will seek to support his Saudi ally. This comes especially as Yemeni forces, along with their Saudi and UAE partners, are advancing in difficult enemy areas, including Saada province, the homeland of the Houthis, as well as Hodeidah and its key port.
As for the most dangerous and critical issue of Syria, most of the administration’s plans were accomplished in the first half of Trump’s presidency. The president changed his policy on Syria, from withdrawal to survival, and openly declared that he would keep a US military presence in the country, in defiance of the continued presence of Iranian forces and Iranian-backed militias. The difficult challenge now is to persuade Russia to abandon the Iranians or to allow Israel to resume airstrikes on the Iranian military presence, despite Israel’s paralysis following the introduction of a Russian anti-aircraft missile system in Syria.
Still, this is all without taking into account the surprises of the region. We cannot rule out that Iran would retaliate in the coming period to embarrass the Trump administration and force it to make concessions. We have seen this from Iran before with the Obama administration when Iranian forces detained US Marines. This time, Iran may provoke confrontations with Gulf forces or instruct their militias to carry out attacks on US interests in Iraq. While this is all plausible, it would be a dangerous exploit for Iran itself.

UN Member States: Migration Is a Human Right
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/November 10/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13263/un-migration-human-rightIt cannot be stressed enough that this agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration -- for any reason -- is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.
The UN has no interest in admitting that its agreement promotes migration as a human right; until recently, there has been little debate about it. More debate might risk jeopardizing the entire project.
UN member states are not only supposed to open their borders for the migrants of the world, but should also help them pick and choose their future country by providing them with comprehensive information about each country they may wish to settle in.
A new UN agreement, which almost all member states plan to sign in December, propagates the radical idea that migration -- for any reason -- is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected. Pictured: Thousands of migrants, who plan to enter the United States, walk near Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico on October 21, 2018, after having illegally crossed into Mexico from Guatemala. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
The United Nations, in a non-binding agreement that almost all UN member states will sign at a ceremony in Morocco in early December, is making migration a human right.
The finalized text of the agreement, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, although officially non-binding, "puts migration firmly on the global agenda. It will be a point of reference for years to come and induce real change on the ground..." according to Jürg Lauber, the representative of Switzerland to the UN -- who led the work on the agreement together with the representative of Mexico.
One immediate irony, of course, is that few countries have entry requirements as restrictive as Switzerland's. If one wishes to stay more than three months, not only is a "residence permit" required, but, "In an effort to limit immigration from non-EU/EFTA countries, Swiss authorities impose strict annual limitations on the number of residence and work permits granted to foreigners."
These hard-to-come-by-residencies have, unsurprisingly, become a source of income as "[r]ich foreigners 'buy' Swiss residency."
The UN agreement, on the other hand, notes: "Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times." (Preamble, section 4)
It cannot be stressed enough that this agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration -- for any reason -- is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected. Almost all UN member states, except for the United States, Austria, Australia, Croatia, Hungary and possibly also the Czech Republic and Poland, are expected to sign it.
The UN has denied that migration is being made into a human right. "The question of whether this is an invidious way to start promoting a 'human right to migrate' is not correct. It's not in the text; there's no sinister project to advance that," Louise Arbour, the UN special representative for international migration, recently said.
The UN has no interest in admitting that the agreement promotes migration as a human right; until recently there has been little debate about it. More debate might risk jeopardizing the entire project. The wording of the agreement, as documented below, leaves little doubt, however, that with the signing of the agreement, migration will indeed become a human right.
The agreement is divided into 23 objectives toward which the signatories apparently wish to work. Objective number three, for instance, envisions the promotion and enabling of migration through a number of means. Signatory states commit to:
"Launch and publicize a centralized and publicly accessible national website to make information available on regular migration options, such as on country-specific immigration laws and policies, visa requirements, application formalities, fees and conversion criteria, employment permit requirements, professional qualification requirements, credential assessment and equivalences, training and study opportunities, and living costs and conditions, in order to inform the decisions of migrants."
States, in other words, are not only supposed to open their borders for the migrants of the world, but should also help them pick and choose their future country by providing them with comprehensive information about each country they may wish to settle in.
The service level envisioned to facilitate more migration is also high. Countries are called upon to: "Establish open and accessible information points along relevant migration routes that can refer migrants to child-sensitive and gender-responsive support and counselling, offer opportunities to communicate with consular representatives of the country of origin, and make available relevant information, including on human rights and fundamental freedoms, appropriate protection and assistance, options and pathways for regular migration, and possibilities for return, in a language the person concerned understands."
Once migrants have arrived at their chosen destination, the signatory countries commit to:
"Provide newly arrived migrants with targeted, gender-responsive, child-sensitive, accessible and comprehensive information and legal guidance on their rights and obligations, including on compliance with national and local laws, obtaining of work and resident permits, status adjustments, registration with authorities, access to justice to file complaints about rights violations, as well as on access to basic services."
Migrants are, evidently, citizens of a new world, in which all countries must spring to the assistance of anyone who has chosen to travel and reside there for whatever reason. Borders may exist in theory, but the UN -- comprising nearly all governments of the world -- is working hard at making them disappear in practice.
Migrants, according to the agreement, must also be "empowered to realize full inclusion and social cohesion" in their new countries (objective 16). This means, among other things, that countries must:
"Promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of communities of destination and of migrants by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programmes and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion."
All cultures are equal and must be equally respected. Presumably, this means that, for example, the tradition of female genital mutilation (FGM), which almost all Somali women experience in Somalia, must be acknowledged in London and Paris as deserving of "mutual respect" in the same way that it would back in Mogadishu.
The agreement goes on to enumerate the work that states must initiate to accommodate migrants. "National... policy goals regarding the inclusion of migrants in societies, including on labour market integration, family reunification, education, non-discrimination and health" should be developed. In addition, the host country should facilitate "access to decent work and employment for which they are most qualified, in accordance with local and national labour market demands and skills supply."
In other words, newly arrived migrants in, say, Europe, should have the same, or at least very similar, rights to education, the labor market and health care, as Europeans, who have worked hard and paid taxes for half a century to gain access to those very same things. Europeans, of course, will have to pay for all of this out of their tax money.
The authors of the agreement evidently do not expect it to go down all that well with their populations. An agreement to facilitate mass migration into primarily Western countries from the rest of the world (there is no migration to speak of in the opposite direction) may prove a bit much for people in the West. The agreement therefore clearly signals that any disagreement with the agenda will not be accepted and that the signatory states will work to dispel "misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants."
To make this objective a reality, the signatory states first commit to:
"Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media." (Objective 17)
This is Orwell on steroids. Almost all UN member states will sign an agreement that says media outlets that disagree with government policies will not be eligible for public funding? On top of this, the agreement claims, bizarrely, that it is being written "in full respect for the freedom of the media", as if that is going to make anyone actually believe it.
Second, the signatory states commit to:
"... eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law." (Objective 17)
The agreement, conveniently, offers no definitions of what constitutes "racism" or "xenophobia" in this context. What, for example, is "related intolerance"? Is criticism of UN migration policies, for instance, "intolerance"?
Originally, all UN member states, minus the United States, had approved the finalized text of the agreement and appeared ready to sign it in December. Recently, however, more states have announced that they are withdrawing from the agreement.
In July, Hungary withdrew from the agreement. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto described it as "entirely against Hungary's security interests," and added:
"This pact poses a threat to the world from the aspect that it could inspire millions [of migrants]. Its main premise is that migration is a good and inevitable phenomenon. We consider migration a bad process, which has extremely serious security implications."
In July, Australia also indicated that it would withdraw from the agreement, at least in its present form. According to Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton:
"We're not going to sign a deal that sacrifices anything in terms of our border protection policies... We're not going to surrender our sovereignty – I'm not going to allow unelected bodies dictate to us, to the Australian people."
In November, both the Czech Republic, and Poland announced that they were very likely to withdraw from the agreement and Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic wrote in a statement that she would not be signing the agreement. "Our sovereign principles on securing our borders and controlling migration flows are absolutely the priority for us", said Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
Also just this month, Austria announced that it also would not be signing the agreement. "We view some points of the migration pact very critically, such as the mixing up of seeking protection with labour migration," Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz said.
The European Union immediately criticized Austria's decision. "We regret the decision that the Austrian government has taken. We continue to believe that migration is a global challenge where only global solutions and global responsibility sharing will bring results" said an unnamed spokeswoman from the European Commission.
This is, by the way, the same EU that is supposedly going to be "cracking down" on migration. If you are "cracking down" on migration, why are you signing agreements that will facilitate and exponentiate it as a human right?
**Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 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.

Iranians pray for a normal country
Camelia Entekhabifard/Arab News/November 10/18
With the reintroduction last week of US sanctions on Iran’s oil trade, there were fears that the price of oil would soar. Those fears were misplaced. At the end of the week the price was at its lowest for six months.
That is good news for most of us, especially US President Donald Trump, but bad news for Iran, which had hoped for a price rise to bolster its struggling finances. In addition, those countries that have obtained waivers allowing them to continue purchasing Iranian oil still cannot pay Tehran directly; the funds must go into a special account, which Iran can use to pay for humanitarian necessities.
President Hassan Rouhani of Iran has vowed to sell oil regardless of the sanctions. Perhaps he intends to do so on the black market, where customers may be willing to take the risk because of the high quality of Iranian oil, and low prices. In that way Iran may earn some revenue to pay for its continued regional meddling, but whether its rulers can pacify ordinary Iranians, already angry at medicine shortages and daily price increases, is another matter.
The sanctions were originally imposed by Barack Obama’s administration in 2010. They worked. Despite the ayatollahs’ hatred of the US, they came to the negotiating table and signed the 2015 agreement to curb their nuclear program and have the sanctions lifted.
Donald Trump wants to talk about Iran’s behavior in the region, and the sanctions are back until that behavior changes.
From the beginning, however, there have been two issues on the table: Not just the nuclear program, but Iran’s regional behavior too. Obama’s policy was to settle the nuclear issue first, and leave other matters for later. In that, he succeeded. Iran’s nuclear program has been dismantled to the extent that it cannot easily be restarted, however much Iran’s leaders may wish it.
For Obama’s successor, however, this is not enough. Donald Trump wants to talk about Iran’s behavior in the region, and the sanctions are back until that behavior changes. Essentially, Trump wants to complete Obama’s unfinished business.
This will not be an easy task. The region is in chaos, in Syria and elsewhere, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have taken advantage of that chaos to pursue their own regional goals and expand their networks.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called on Iran to behave like a normal nation, and a normal Iran is what ordinary Iranians pray for every night. However, it is hard to say if the rulers in Tehran are able to withdraw their support for groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Assad regime in Syria. The challenge confronting the ruling clerics in Tehran comes not just from the US, but from the regional mercenaries Iran has funded.
Unfortunately for the regime, while they look for a way to negotiate and settle their bills with all these militias, the country will be ruined — and it is not clear that the Iranian people have the patience for that.
**Camelia Entekhabifard is an Iranian-American journalist, political commentator and author of Camelia: Save Yourself By Telling the Truth (Seven Stories Press, 2008). Twitter: @CameliaFard

Let’s promote healthy aging for the elderly
Dr. Razan Baker/Arab News/November 10/18
I am sure their are many of you with old parents or grandparents who are inactive and whose health is deteriorating. Then again, many of you will have parents like my father, who in the late 1970s was a footballer. And even though he is getting old, he still knows the importance of exercise. Vision 2030 in Saudi Arabia aims to promote increased participation in sport and this includes the elderly.
But how can we encourage them to become more active?
Using social media is a great way for getting children off the sofa and onto the sports field, but it does not work in the same way for older people. Saudi Arabia is a young country dominated by 15 to 25-year-olds. But according to the General Authority of Statistics, there are over a million people in the Kingdom over the age of 65 and we need to make sure they are not left behind in the drive to become a fitter, more healthy nation.
We need to target the places older people visit, such as parks and mosques. The family-oriented nature of Saudi society encourages gathering at the homes of the elderly at least once a week, but we still have people with no families or people who check up on them.
Sport is a corporate social responsibility and we as individuals are responsible for ensuring older people get active.
What we can do as individuals?
Next time you visit grandparents encourage them to exercise a little bit.
What can a hospital do?
Open a free room with exercise classes so they can join and have fun. This week, I attended a seminar at Brunel University in London and one of the guests speakers was Prescilla Simpson, sport and physical activity manager of a big district in the capital. Simpson said that despite having 200 parks furnished with outdoor gyms, some people were not aware of how to use them. So the council hired coaches to encourage people and ensure the public used the equipment in the right way.
Simpson noted that as the elderly tend to visit libraries, the council made sure to offer classes which focused on sedentary movement, suitable for getting them active. And they made sure they trained the staff at the library to continue the work. The importance of reaching the elderly and motivating them to participate has many benefits, health, of course, is top. But another positive consequence is that participating in exercise can prevent loneliness and depression.
Studies show that deterioration of physical fitness with advancing age is to one of the major causes of dementia. Studies also reveal that the elderly who join a sports group enjoy a better life as they continue to feel they belong to something and have a goal to reach.
Sport is a corporate social responsibility and we as individuals are responsible for ensuring older people get active. We should have a day when people can take their older friends and relatives out and encourage them to get more active.
Sport never has to be expensive or tough, and this is especially so for the elderly. Walking is a great example of this. A study published this year showed the benefits of walking for those suffering with diabetes and coronary heart disease and found regular strolls reduced the risk of heart disease to levels they had before diabetes. Walking is an easy, safe and accessible form of physical activity — and I cannot think of a better starting point in getting the elderly more active.
*Dr. Razan Baker is a member of the board of directors at the Saudi Bowling Federation, a specialist in corporate social responsibility in sports, and a sports columnist/journalist. Twitter: @RazanBaker