Detailed Lebanese & Lebanese Related LCCC English New Bulletin For September 22/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.september22.18.htm

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

Ignore regime rhetoric, US sanctions are hitting Iran hard
د. ماجد ربيزاده: لا مصداقية للخطاب الإيراني المدعى عدم الإهتمام بالعقوبات الأميركية لأنها تصيب إيران بقوة
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/September 20/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67596/dr-majid-rafizadeh-ignore-regime-rhetoric-us-sanctions-are-hitting-iran-hard-%D8%AF-%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%84%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%82/

Analysis/'With Russian Presence in Syria, Israel Air Force Has to Be Very Precise'
عاموس هاريل من الهآررتس: على إسرائيل ان تكون غارتها دقيقة جداً في سوريا بسبب وجود روسيا فيها
Amos Harel/Haaretz/September 21/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67602/amos-harel-haaretz-analysis-with-russian-presence-in-syria-israel-air-force-has-to-be-very-precise-%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87/
Brig. Gen. Uri Oron, head of the Israeli Air Force Intelligence, talks to Haaretz about the fast-changing situation in the north, the new reality in Syria and how Israel maintains its aerial superiority.
When Brig. General Uri Oron spoke with Haaretz earlier this week, nobody could have foretold events, though Syria and especially the Russian aerial presence there were central to the conversation with the Israel Air Force’s head of intelligence.
Asked when he started the job, Oron answered, “With Putin.” Which means the summer of 2015, shortly after which the Russian president sent two squadrons to Syria. Back then Syrian President Bashar Assad seemed headed for defeat, but the Russian jets would later sway the civil war in Syria in his regime’s favor.
The Russian return to the region, two and a half decades after they had been perhaps present in spirit but missing in action because of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, changed the rules of the game on Israel’s northern front. In contrast to some of the earlier forecasts, published here too, Russia did not severely constrain action by the IAF. They did, however, demand that Israel not imperil Russian planes in the area, or its people on the ground. Russia and Israel consolidated an agreement to minimize friction, under which Israel would provide early warning to the Russian air force about its attacks in Syria, and in general would avoid flying near, let alone bombing near, Russian interests.
Analysis
When Moscow felt that Israel was nearing its line in the sand, it protested publicly, for instance in March 2017, February 2018 and just now, when the Syrian aerial defense shot down a Russian Ilyushin plane without meaning to, following an Israeli air raid in northwest Syria.
“Russia’s aerial involvement in Syria decided the war in Assad’s favor, categorically,” Oron told Haaretz. “In the summer of 2015 everyone was sure that ISIS was about to roll over Damascus too. The Russians’ arrival in Syria was one of the strongest things to shape reality in the area in recent years, together with the superpowers’ nuclear agreement with Iran. Does the Russian presence constrain the IAF’s activity? It challenges us. We have to be very precise. [But] that doesn’t mean that the IAF only flies in Israeli skies.”
According to statistics the Israeli army provided on the eve of Rosh Hashana, the IAF has attacked Syria more than 200 times since the beginning of 2017. There were dozens of attacks during the preceding five years (during which the civil war went on). At first Israel’s moves focused on preventing advanced weapons, mainly guided ones, from being smuggled through Syria to Hezbollah.
In the last 18 months this effort has expanded: Now a significant part of it is invested in curbing Iran’s attempt to establish itself in Syria. The military outposts of the Revolutionary Guards have been attacked, as have weapons systems, and the bases of Shi’ite militias financed by Tehran. What the army calls “the battle between the wars” has become the key mission of the IAF, as the main executor of the policy in recent years.
“This is a struggle over hegemony,” says Oron. “Iran isn’t monolithic. It isn’t that the entire Iranian public supports it, or even the whole system. But they do aspire to establish military abilities to enable themselves to establish a sort of hegemony in Syria, not an attempt to make Syria Shi’ite. It is a huge challenge and we are trying to prevent this process. It isn’t our mission to ensure that no Iranian flags fly over any Syrian settlement.”
The IAF is an effective tool in this struggle, Oron explains, and it is the job of IAF intel to analyze and describe the fight: Bottlenecks, points of influence. “The first months were different,” he says. “For the first time, we met Iranian forces in Syria.”
The first incident happened on February 10, 2018, when the IAF downed an armed Iranian drone that had penetrated Israeli airspace, and then, in reaction, bombed the Syrian air base called T-4, by the city of Homs. Syria’s air defense in turn shot down an Israeli F-16 that had participated in the assault, over Israeli soil. The pilot and navigator ejected and were hurt.
Oron dismisses the notion that the drone had been a planned Iranian-Syrian ambush, explaining, “The battle is a complex one in a non-sterile environment. The reality has changed. He [the Assad regime] is trying to confront us face-to-face. The Iranians, too, are trying to give Syria aerial defense systems and drones. We cannot accept harm to our freedom of movement. I have been saying for two years now: Look what’s happening in Yemen. Houthi rebels are doing much the same: Receiving and using weapons that originate in Iran.”
Four different elements are operating on Israel’s northern front, Oron says: Russia, Iran, the Assad regime and Hezbollah, at varying levels of coordination and sometime with discrepancies in their interests.
“The dynamics are changing. I have to assume constant change and describe it in real time. What I saw in May I won’t see in December,” Oron says. And the major change in recent months is the regime regaining sovereignty over broader swaths of Syria. “In south Syria, the story is over,” Oron says. “The regime is back.”
Israel’s last major confrontation with Iran happened on May 10. The Revolutionary Guards shot missiles from Syrian territory at the Israeli side of the Golan border, in retaliation for attacks on Iranian fighters and Shi’ite militias beforehand. Most of the Iranian missiles landed in Syrian territory and four were intercepted by the Iron Dome system. Israel reacted with a massive attack on Iranian targets and Syrian anti-aircraft batteries.
Oron says that the map of Iranian presence in Syria constantly changes.
It isn’t that the Iranians are devoting less effort to their establishment, but on May 10 Israel demonstrated grit and ability, Oron says, and the neighborhood noticed. “But we never thought that this one action would lead to regional peace. Our situation is better than in May, but the attacks didn’t end Iran’s wish to establish itself in Syria.”
Iran has also been placing ground-to-ground missiles in Syria and recently in Iraq as well, and Israel is within their range. Oron confirms that Israel keeps a constant watch on Iran’s abilities, and Iraq has to stay in sight too. “A year ago we weren’t watching Iraq at all,” he says.
“The Iranians will try to bring more measures into Syria that could influence Israel from there. They understand the power of high-trajectory missiles,” he adds, referring not just to missiles but also to rockets. “We also see Iranian involvement in missile production sites in Syria and Lebanon.”Much of the Israeli effort devoted to thwarting arms smuggling and damaging production sites targeted Hezbollah’s project to integrate navigation systems into its arsenal of rockets. Oron suspects the organization hasn’t reached the maximal level of accuracy: “They aren’t where they’d like to be.”
Kibbutz kid
Oron, 51, is the son of former Meretz chairman Haim Oron. He grew up on Kibbutz Lahav in the Negev. His younger brother is also in the IAF. This, Oron’s first interview, was given ahead of his retirement from active service in October.
Drafted in 1986, Oron was a combat pilot for years, among other things commanding an F-16 squadron during the Second Lebanon War, and commanding the air force base in Hatzor.
“I fully believe that the success of the air force depends on its ability to operate as a relevant, effective aerial power, which relies on accurate intelligence,” Oron says. “We have to bring intelligence that enables us to overcome the enemy, to understand the rival system at the closest level. We can do it. We brought intelligence that will enable resolution. There are not a few places where I say: It works. The purpose is to cause accurate damage without major collateral damage. You see around us, in recent years, various attitudes towards using aerial force. I don’t want to judge others. It isn’t only a matter of the IAF intelligence but also of army intelligence. We cooperate day by day, minute by minute. It wasn’t like that in the past.”
The pace of events and their consequences require the IAF intelligence to have a grasp of strategic significance as well, Oron explains. “These are complex systems,” he says, and the IAF can’t just be tapped to bomb things. “Our unique quality is, after all, the ability to translate this information into precise information to bomb targets.”From his personal perspective too, the world is different now, he says. As a young pilot 25 years ago he was taught how to attack missile launchers based on intelligence that would pinpoint the location; the pilots would locate where the enemy was managing its fire, say a missile battery, and they’d take it out. “The final processing was in my head,” he says. “Today a critical component can be hidden inside a container or a house. I have to bring the pilot accurate intel. The good news is we’re managing to do it,” Oron says, thanks to a combination of visual and cyber information, and other sources.
Can the IAF maintain its aerial superiority? It can, says Oron.
“The number of antiaircraft missiles shot at us in Syria in the May attack – we hadn’t seen a thing like that since the Yom Kippur War,” he says. The IAF counted 170 of them. “But I think we are managing to maintain our freedom of action and aerial superiority, to take action when and where necessary. Our challenge is to develop combat systems that change at the same pace as the software system on your cellphone.” True, it will be harder and take more effort, he admits.
He keeps a copy of the reprinted list of targets the IAF gave its pilots at the start if the Six-Day War, which destroyed most of Egypt’s and Syria’s fighter jets on the ground. Noting that the intelligence available today is more detailed and accurate, espionage remains the same now as then – deciphering what the enemy is up to. “They worked on it for 11 years. They started the day after the [1956] Sinai campaign.”
In the summer four years ago, at the height of Operation Protective Edge, Meretz head MK Haim Oron talked with Haaretz. Both his sons and other family members were participating in the mission; his grandson Zamri, Uri’s nephew, who was in an elite military engineering unit, was badly wounded. “I reject and am outraged by the idea that left-wingers need to declare loyalty [to the state],” Haim Oron told Haaretz correspondent Gidi Weitz. “I absolutely refuse to allow anyone to put me in that position. I refuse to be a party to the horrific manipulation ... [and] to hold up a ‘Let the IDF win’ banner.”
Former Meretz chairman Haim Oron in the Knesset plenum, 2011
Former Meretz chairman Haim Oron in the Knesset plenum, 2011Tomer Applebaum
Once when he was addressing the Knesset plenum, Haim Oron said in the interview, and he spoke heatedly about the code of purity of arms, he got heckled, he thinks by Miri Regev (today the culture minister), who shouted that he was stabbing the soldiers in the back. “It’s insulting that I need some kind of character reference in the form of a fighting son or grandson,” he said.
Uri Oron says the family context is there in the background for him: “I can’t say it isn’t. When my family and people dear to me are attacked and sullied, it’s less gratifying. But the separation of powers with us is very clear. My father deals with it by himself, well. People who know what his boys do keep things in proportion. I never took it to rage and anger. I think it would make my father angry, to stand on the dais and be accused of treachery – I assume it’s not pleasant.”
Do they talk about values in warfare in the house? They do, says Oron, like in a lot of homes in Israel. “The dialogue at home was always very businesslike. Even when I had to explain, I explained the same things at home and to officers. I am talking about two aspects of values: decision-making processes and faith in commanders. When you trust both, you can take action.”

Analysis/Putin Has Little Choice but to Allow Israel to Continue Operating in Syria
أنشل بفافر من الهآررتس: ليس أمام بوتين خيار غير السماح لإسرائيل متابعة غارتها في سوريا
Anshel Pfeffer/Haaretz/September 21/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/67605/anshel-pfeffer-analysis-putin-has-little-choice-but-to-allow-israel-to-continue-operating-in-syria-%d8%a3%d9%86%d8%b4%d9%84-%d8%a8%d9%81%d8%a7%d9%81%d8%b1-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1/
Putin is an expert dancer in the delicate balance of feeding anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to his public while maintaining personal relations with Israel. The public contradictions serve him - and are central to his Syria strategy.
There is a carefully maintained dissonance between the way the Kremlin’s propaganda television channels, Russia Today and Sputnik News, talk about Israel and the tone of their paymaster Vladimir Putin.
While RT and Sputnik both employ and regularly host a cast of conspiracy theorists, Holocaust deniers and Jew-baiters of George Galloway’s ilk, Putin is in public almost constantly respectful, at times verging on deferential, of Israel. Since coming to power nearly two decades ago, he has made sure to periodically meet with Israel’s leaders, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and since his re-election in 2009, has had an ever-intensifying dialogue with Benjamin Netanyahu.
Those close to Putin say he is both a philo-Semite and that in his analyses of the decline and fall of the Soviet empire, has come to the conclusion that one of the biggest mistakes of its leaders was to have made enemies of Israel and world Jewry. But if Putin admires and respects Jews, why allow his propagandists to smear them?
RT and Sputnik play a central role in Putin’s campaign to undermine the western democracies and their alliances. Their audiences are the growing fringes of the nativist-right and “anti-imperialist” left. Anti-Semitism, of the overt kind and the more subtle "anti-Zionist” and “globalist” types, have been used as fodder to the masses’ paranoia since the time of the Czars. It’s a tried and trusted formula. Putin relies, however, on his personal relations with Jewish and Israeli leaders to offset this. It’s the kind of delicate balance he is an expert dancer of.
On Tuesday, as news arrived of the shooting-down of the Russian spy-plane by a Syrian missile, both approaches were on display simultaneously. The Defense Ministry in Moscow fed the Russian media a lurid story of how Israeli F-16s had intentionally hid behind the Russian aircraft, perfidiously engineering the deaths of fifteen Russian airmen. The fact that any military expert worth their salt would have immediately realized the outlandishness of such a scenario was immaterial. The Kremlin’s audience of addicts needs its conspiracy fix. Meanwhile, Putin spoke with Netanyahu and released a contradictory statement saying that he had both authorized his Defense Ministry’s version and that it was “a chain of tragic accidental circumstances.”
Putin needs to make these public contradictions. Not only to assuage both his anti-Semitic fans across the world and his Israeli counterparts, but because it is central to his Syria strategy.
One of the misconceptions of the Russian deployment to Syria is that it is a symbol of resurgent Russian military power. The truth is that in raw military terms, the Russian contingent is rather small - at its peak barely twenty fighter-bombers, and backed by a paltry “package” of support aircraft in the MEDEVAC, ELINT, air-tanker and command-and-control roles. A similar deployment by the United States, would have involved dozens of support aircraft, an aircraft carrier sailing nearby with a carrier wing of nearly fifty F-18s, and the full resources of a super-power capable of operating and fighting across the globe.
Russia does not have those resources. Its air-force and navy are still undergoing a drawn-out process of re-equipment after long years of post-Soviet neglect. Its Syrian deployment has stretched its long-range capabilities to the maximum and the shooting-down of the Ilyushin is not only a human tragedy but a loss of a scarce asset. According to assessments, Russia has only about ten of these nearly 50-year-old aircraft, which need long periods of maintenance between missions. Attempts to develop a successor are not going well.
The Russian intervention in Syria has achieved its objective of preserving the Assad regime, not because of any unique military advantage, but simply because there was no significant opposition. All it needed to tilt the balance between the regime and the rebels back in Assad’s favor was a relatively small investment of Russian air-power, backed by Shi’a cannon fodder, “boots on the ground,” provided by Iran. The United States, had it chosen to, or even Britain or France, could have fielded far superior forces to try and save civilian lives on the rebel side, as they did in Libya.
Putin is highly aware that Syria has two well-armed neighbors, Israel and Turkey, that could have easily disrupted his plans, should they have chosen to. Of course, both Benjamin Netanyahu and Recep Tayyip Erdogan have little interest in a military confrontation with Russia. But the fact that both regional powers have the capability to wield more firepower in Syria than Russia could bring all the way there is a reason for Putin to treat them with respect and seek accommodations.
That’s why on Monday, at their meeting in Sochi, Putin accepted Erdogan’s demands to cancel the planned Syrian-Russian assault on the remaining rebel enclave in Idlib province, on Turkey’s border. And why Putin is always prepared to talk to Netanyahu on the phone, even on Tuesday after his Defense Ministry had just accused Israel of causing the deaths of fifteen Russian servicemen.
It’s understandable that Russia cannot allow itself to lose face and therefore will not be blaming its Syrian ally in public – although unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and are brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that fired the fateful missile. That’s why the Russian double-speak is necessary and Israel has to go through the motions of sending its air-force commander to Moscow to present his version of events. But this is mainly for appearances sake.
The facts on the ground haven’t changed. If anything, the shooting-down of the Ilyushin has served to underline just how threadbare the Russian deployment is and how little it can trust its Syrian allies. Israel may have to lower the profile of its operations in Syria for a while, but it cannot allow Iran and Hezbollah free rein to smuggle weapons. A suspicious Putin needs to make sure Israel won’t cause damage to the regime and ruin his plans and therefore has little choice but to allow Israel to continue operating.

Can Turkey, Israel strike a balance?
Sinem Cengiz/Arab News/September 21, 2018
After the deal between Moscow and Ankara to prevent a Syrian regime offensive in Idlib province, there have been reports of talks between Turkey and Israel next month to repair relations and exchange ambassadors.
Turkish-Israeli ties over the past decade have seen ebbs and flows. The latest blow was in May, when Turkey recalled its ambassador and expelled Israel’s following the killing by Israeli forces of 60 Palestinians during protests along the Gaza border. Israel responded by expelling Turkey’s consul general in Jerusalem and summoning its deputy ambassador in Tel Aviv, while a war of words erupted between Turkey’s president and Israel’s prime minister.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry recently issued an internal tender to fill the position of ambassador to Turkey in the summer of 2019. Turkey has sent a commercial attache to its embassy in Tel Aviv after a years-long absence.
Turkish-Israeli relations have seen ups and downs politically but not economically. Even during political standoffs, commercial ties have developed. If the latest “secret” discussions make progress, the embassies will reopen in early October and the two countries will accelerate efforts toward economic cooperation.
Israel and Turkey also share an interest in opposing growing Iranian dominance in the region
There have been reports that Turkish and Israeli diplomats flew to the UAE to hold secret back-channel talks in a bid to repair relations. Even if such a meeting were held, it would not be made public. We will only know the truth if in the coming weeks Israel and Turkey exchange ambassadors.
Turkish-Israeli cooperation in the region is beneficial for both sides, and the timing of reports of rapprochement does not seem to be a coincidence. A number of factors form the basis for bilateral cooperation despite disagreements. Among the most important are concerns over security threats both countries face due to instability in Syria.
Israel and Turkey also share an interest in opposing growing Iranian dominance in the region. Though their threat perceptions regarding Iran differ significantly, their efforts to rekindle relations are pragmatic and realistic, particularly when it comes to Iran gaining the upper hand in Syria.
Also, Ankara’s complex relations with the US, its rapprochement with Russia and the latest developments regarding Idlib seem to have once again pushed Turkey and Israel to repair relations out of mutual interest. Although a partner with Tehran in the Astana peace process, Ankara’s silence over recent Israeli airstrikes against Hezbollah and Iranian targets in Syria can be read in this context. History is a good reminder of Turkish-Israeli cooperation against common threats. In 1996, they signed an agreement to cooperate in military training when Turkey was troubled with threats from Syria, Iraq and Iran. One of the most important regional developments in the 1990s was the rise of strategic ties between Turkey and Israel. Today is not much different in terms of security threats and mutual interests.
It would be unrealistic to expect a return to those halcyon days in Turkish-Israeli relations, and Israel has done little to change its negative image among the Turkish public, but mutual interests on several fronts can provide the basis for repairing ties.
• Sinem Cengiz is a Turkish political analyst who specializes in Turkey’s relations with the Middle East.

How Kissinger drew up the future of Jordan, Israel and Palestine
Shehab Al-Makahleh/Al Arabiya/September 21/18
On September 2, 2018, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told a number of Israeli lawmakers in his office in Ramallah that US President Donald Trump’s senior adviser Jared Kushner and US special envoy Jason Greenblatt have asked him earlier if he advocates for the formation a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation, as a prelude to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Supposedly, if Abbas is factual and the Americans have really commended a peace plan hinging on a Palestinian-Jordanian confederacy, is it the right move? Is it the best time for such a move? For many Jordanians and even Palestinians, it is opaque why Abbas included Israel in the proposed confederation: Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians. Is he repeating what former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sought to achieve in the 1970s between Arabs and Israelis through a gradual peace process?
It sounds like Abbas has assigned himself as a representative of two countries: Jordan and Israel to assign this responsibility to declare a theoretical move that would be acceptable for some players but not for the main ones, which are Jordan and Israel.
As Israel is reluctant, even unwilling, to pull out from any of the disputed areas, and as long as the Palestinians are not alacritous to relinquish their rights in an independent state, the proposed scenario seems spooky
Jordan has confirmed its rejection of this idea, which goes viral in the media every time, and then promoting this confederation scenario to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Will this proposal bring a settlement to the long festering conflict? Will this be accepted by Israel and Jordan at a later stage?
As Israel is reluctant, even unwilling, to pull out from any of the disputed areas, and as long as the Palestinians are not alacritous to relinquish their rights in an independent state, the proposed scenario seems spooky. In 1974, Henry Kissinger said: “Due to lack of verifications and readiness that Israel is prepared to withdraw from at least some of the disputed territories, or that the Palestinians are eager to settle for something less than an independent state, what is there to talk about thereto? What territories, if any, will be given up by Israel? Who shall rule there? And what security arrangements will prevail after Israel’s pullout?”
In fact, there is no crystal clear answer to any of these queries, mostly due to the gloomy outlook of the future relationship between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The major concerns are: The peace process and the spirit of the Oslo Agreement which was signed by Palestinian and Israeli leaders in 1994, the predicament of Palestinian representation and the nature of the final solution to the conflict.
The confederal scenario
Some politicians on both sides of the Jordan River started to promote the notion of a confederacy. Politically, the unanimity on this agreement between Palestinians and Jordanians is vague because it does not reveal what Palestinian polity or state would be in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. As long as the Palestinian leadership insists on an independent state based on a two-state solution, what does Abbas really mean by saying: Tripartite confederation?
In the 1970s, Kissinger said that a confederation requires constitutional authority for the Palestinians based on an agreement between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinians, which ensures the new body a sovereign entity, where Palestinians are granted internationally recognised passports. This would give the security and foreign policy to Jordan to tackle, where citizens of the three states enjoy economic and business activities that help the flow of goods and commodities and movement of people across borders without hindrances.
Jordanian political elites were preoccupied with talking about a confederate regime between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian state after Abbas had raised this notion. The important thing is not the idea or the principle, but that Arabs do not read history, which has been proposed long time before.
The declaration of this notion is simply to end the talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the right of return, by integrating the rest of the state of Palestine into an internationally recognized political entity to gain international political character to break the deadlock of the two-state solution and end any future negotiations about the return of refugees, which Israel says are only 80,000 in Jordan and 20,000 in Lebanon.
In the absence of any indication of Israel’s willingness to withdraw from at least some of the disputed areas with the Palestinians, have any of those wars between Arabs and Israelis resolved aggression? Did all these wars resolve the escalation or restored lands, wondered Kissinger. In this context, is there any realistic diplomacy that can ignore the questions posed by Kissinger at that time: “What land, if any, will Israel replace? Who will rule there, and what security arrangements will prevail after the Israeli withdrawal?”
Pressuring Jordan
In the 1970s, Kissinger sought a tripartite confederation: Jordanian - Palestinian - Israeli. Today, according to the deal of the century, this formula is closer to being formed because of common denominators between Jordanians and Palestinians. Kissinger said to a group of Jewish leaders in New York City in 1974: “We wanted to keep the Soviets out of the diplomatic game in the Middle East so that they would not have a hand in the region.
We also sought to strengthen the Israeli army to help find a diplomatic solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. When the 1973 war broke out, we had to think about a number of things: First, what would be the impact of the oil crisis on Western Europe and Japan to keep them away from Israel, and I should tell you that every European leader I saw told me that he would not allow any European country to witness recession.
Second, our impression is that Israel must be strong, but the Israeli force does not prevent the spread of Communism in the Arab world, the Israeli force provides security for Israel, the best defense against the Communist tide in the Arab world is to strengthen moderate Arab governments. It is hard to claim that Israel is strong and that it serves US interests. Washington’s goal is to support Israel to prevent the spread of Communism in the Arab world in exchange for ensuring Israel’s security. Later on, comes the solution of the Arab conflict through gradual talks.
Simply what Abbas did is exercising more pressure on Jordan to act more to resolve the impasse in Palestinian-Israeli talks at a time where Jordan is undergoing high security threats, tough economic conditions and some political turmoil due to regional developments.
Any future solution to the Israeli issue will not be far from what Kissinger proposed and worked on for many years. Arabs should have read his papers thoroughly to assimilate his concepts and tricks before outfoxing Israelis as the final solution will be at the expense of Jordanian and Palestinian interests.

Surviving office politics without going mad
Dr. Mohamed A. Ramady/Al Arabiya/September 21/18
Nearly all professional white-collar employees have had to cope with internal office politics that sometimes leads to acute depression, verging on going mad.
In the Gulf, with multi nationalities working together, differences in work ethics and management style adds to this real or imaginary paranoia that becomes detrimental to the efficient working of the organisation.
No amount of written corporate ethics and company policies can overcome the negative effects of internal office politics. In recent European work place surveys, estimated three-quarters of employees say their boss is the most stressful part of their job, while a third dread going to work because of colleagues.
Similar surveys in the Gulf would probably evidence the same results. So how can employees who really wish to make a successful contribution to their firm navigate, mitigate or deal with office politics?The problem becomes more acute if one is dealing with truly underhand colleagues. But the reality is there: in most organisations, especially where bosses allow this type of behavior to run rampant, the office setting is one where it even involves backstabbing bosses to co-workers who try to sabotage your work, thus ensuring that relationships and power are tightly knit in the workplace.
A better way to deal with difficult colleagues is to ask them for a private conversation, and calmly ask them why they acted how they did, rather than accusing them
Demoted or alienated
Office politics can be either a positive or negative influence on your career. If you aren’t successful in dealing with it, you can lose your job, get demoted or be alienated from key projects or people. If you are successful in dealing with politics, you can gain access to key influential players inside the company and even gain a promotion. To start with, no one is going to help you but yourself. To fix a toxic work culture, you need to get involved for it is a truism that that when people feel they don’t belong in a group, their physical health and wellbeing plummets. The first step is an obvious one – if one is feeling isolated or excluded by negative office politics, it makes sense to try to make friends.
If one person at work is the main source of conflict, the best way to deal with them is to unite with your co-workers, in effect grouping against a bully. By doing this, it can hopefully contain the bully, who, with their behaviour exposed, loses the power to terrorise – and faces the threat of isolation.
This strategy also works with game-playing colleagues – people with bullying tendencies often try to isolate victims, so the more people you have on your side, the less likely you are to be taken advantage of at work, but this strategy calls for confidence and strong leadership character.
A major source of office politics is when predator office colleagues poach the hard work of employees. In this case, when you are subject to colleagues’ political tactics – such as taking credit for your work – it’s important not to retaliate.
People are human and it is very tempting to expose the co-worker or boss in front of others, but this can backfire. Be smarter and document your work efforts. This ensures that when documenting your work thoroughly this lets let co-workers and your bosses’ superiors know what you are doing and have done.
This protects your reputation: if colleagues call your work ethic into question, you then have a way to prove your productivity. Another simple advise is not to sink to their underhand level and be above them.
When colleagues try to make you look bad or undermine you, it’s tempting to do likewise. However, this can backfire: you may come across as petty, and is unlikely to change your boss or co-worker’s behaviour, and in fact worsen your position.
Level of frustration
Making others look bad brings work politics to an elevated level of frustration and resentment. Most of the time, you don’t consciously try make someone look bad. However, you can be careless or not aware of the impact of your actions on others.
Actively try to make people look good because this will come back and look favourably on you. If you’re voicing concerns or criticism of your own, be confident and assertive but not aggressive. And make sure that you take an organizational perspective, and not simply a selfish one.
A better way to deal with difficult colleagues is to ask them for a private conversation, and calmly ask them why they acted how they did, rather than accusing them. Again, people respond to frankness and this is often the best way to change behaviour, as it requires them to reflect on their actions. Other actions that an individual can take seem impossible on the surface but are worth an effort. These include keeping it professional at all times. No matter how frustrated, irritated or short-tempered you become, it’s vital you keep your professional composure. Things will affect you at work that you don’t want to react to and lose yourself. Remember that part of the political game is keeping yourself level headed and composed and especially don’t whine and complain. It’s easy to complain about management, your boss, other people, your workload, deadlines and projects.
Also, you will find many others who will join you in the complain game because it’s a nice release and feels good to find others who share your frustrations. However, whining and complaining is a passive approach that is about standing on the side-lines and judging versus proactively working toward eliminating the cause of the problem.
Burning bridges
Another simple advice, sometimes done through gritted teeth, is don’t make enemies or burn bridges. There will be people at work you won’t like or respect. It’s important to not let this affect your ability to get along with them.
It’s easy to make enemies or have someone not like you or you not like them. However, this makes your job more difficult and just expands the work politics that already existed.
Some advocate that it is better to change the whole office culture from within. Office politics should be looked at as something that can be reframed into a positive, and an effective way to do this is to praise others, encourage teamwork and be empathetic to your co-workers.
By making an effort to change the culture to one of kindness and honesty, you can create a better environment for everyone. However, this is a long term and often lonely road to take, with others too timid to join in this office cultural change especially if it involves senior bosses doing the bullying. For some people, the effort of attempting to navigate and even change poor office politics is too much of an uphill battle. If this happens then there is a simpler option: ditch the co-workers entirely by working for yourself. This is a final desperate option, as it implies that you really do not understand the formal and informal organizational structure of your company. Employees are often fixated on people’s rank or job title. There are other ways of mapping an organization’s power structure. To do this, ask yourself questions like, “Who are the real influencers?,” “Who has authority but tends not to exercise it?,” “Who is respected?,” “Who champions or mentors others?,” and “Who is the brains behind the business?
“Now that you know how existing relationships work, you can start to build your own social network. Look beyond your immediate team, and cross the formal hierarchy in all directions – co-workers, managers and executives. Don’t be afraid of politically powerful people. Instead, get to know them, and build high quality connections that avoids flattery at all cost, as astute managers can see through this. In the final analysis, like it or loathe it, office politics are a fact of life in any organization and it not going to go way. However, it is possible to promote yourself and your cause without compromising your values or those of your organization. All workplaces are political to some extent, simply because people bring their personal emotions, needs, ambitions, and insecurities into their professional lives. Office politics arise when these differences of personality and opinion become difficult to manage as humans are swayed by emotions, and no wonder many companies are trying to replace humans with robots and Artificial Intelligence at work. Robots don’t complain unless employees metamorphose into human robots, but this will take out the fun from office politics.

Will Imran Khan’s visit to Saudi Arabia further Pakistan’s core interests?
Sabena Siddiqui/Al Arabiya/September 21/18
As Prime Minister Imran Khan completes his visit to Saudi Arabia, it is seen as the initiation of a new foreign policy to further Pakistan’s core national interests. Maintaining close strategic, military and economic ties since decades, Saudi Arabia was the first choice of the young government for upgrading ties to a new dimension. Additionally, it seems that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Khan will be able to synchronize Pak-Saudi ties on a personal level as they share similar interests. Somewhat like Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s holistic package for economic, cultural and societal reforms, Vision 2030, Imran Khan also has plans for social reform and has taken the first steps towards austerity. Trying to diversify Pakistan’s economy with tourism and attract more foreign investment, Khan wants to solve the housing problem and provide employment opportunities for the youth.
Likewise, appreciating the effective anti-corruption drive run in Saudi Arabia under the supervision of the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Khan has resolved to end corruption in Pakistan.
Economic assistance
On the sidelines, there were reports that Imran Khan might seek Riyadh’s economic assistance instead of going for a bailout package from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Accordingly, the entourage accompanying Khan included his Finance Minister Asad Umar and financial advisor, Abdul Razzak Dawood. Such a bailout package might mean that Saudi Arabia would deposit a certain amount in Pakistan’s exchequer and provide it the necessary “cushion” to survive the drastic depletion in foreign exchange reserves. Oil on deferred payments might also be offered by Saudi Arabia just like in the past when Pakistan had to face international economic sanctions after carrying out the 1998 nuclear explosions. Right now, Pakistan requires $12 billion at least to survive the economic crisis, which is deepening with every passing day. Reaching out to friendly countries for the assistance might be a better option than resorting to the IMF, but these speculations are not confirmed yet.
Noting the upgrade in relations, thinktank RUSI recently reported that Pak-Saudi relations had entered the “strategic domain where both countries are fine with each in pursuing their own interests independently.” Notwithstanding any political differences in the past, the two sides are exploring new avenues of trade collaboration. Sharing intelligence to combat terrorism, strategic working groups have been formed and the two countries have a more inter-dependent security relationship, which remains unaffected by their ties with any other countries.
Announcing Saudi participation in CPEC and Pakistan’s role in furthering “Vision 2025”, both the countries have now “institutionalized” their strategic ties, says the report. Thus, Pak-Saudi ties have been further consolidated due to a convergence of interests and become an unflinching force. More inter-dependent in nature now, bilateral relations remain unaffected by their ties with any other countries. Even though this equation had needed a reset since a while due to divergences over the regional scenario, there have never been any trust issues between the two states. Describing Pak-Saudi relations as “probably one of the closest relationships in the world between any two countries without any official treaty”, former intelligence head Prince Turki al-Faisal had aptly assessed the depth of bilateral ties.
CEPEC and Middle East
As the China- Pakistan Economic Corridor (CEPEC) makes its way towards the Middle East, the synergy in Pak-Saudi relations makes sense as the economic, strategic and security interests of both nations are conjoined. Not only does Saudi Arabia host the largest Pakistani diaspora in the world, Pakistan’s energy security also depends on it. In reciprocation, Pakistan facilitates the kingdom with military training programs and a security guarantee for its holy sites as the only Muslim nuclear power. Any destabilization of Saudi Arabia directly impacts Pakistan’s interests and as the sole Muslim nuclear power it guarantees security. Having had close military ties over the years, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir observed that, “Pakistan had a role to play in sharing with the world the lessons it had learned from its own war on terror.” Addressing strategic and security issues together, both nations are on a solid upward trajectory. Working on Vision 2030 as well as the CPEC will bring both nations closer. As far as trade is concerned, Saudi Arabia is among the main 15 export partners of Pakistan and trade is above $4 billion per annum with prospects that a Bilateral Investment Treaty could be signed.
Remaining the biggest exporter of oil and petroleum products to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is also the key market for Pakistani goods and services. Interestingly, both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a young population in the majority and need to provide employment. With its partnership in Saudi Vision 2030, Pakistan can provide technical and managerial workforce required for these mega-projects and it can also help with training in skills.

Caring about individuals’ rights is the goal
Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/September 21/18
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote ‘Ecce Homo: How One Becomes What One Is’ when he was ill and tired and in a state of disgust. His work however was not random in focusing on man as the “individual” in the philosophy of Nietzsche occupies an important place, as he is the one who should live “high up” right there near the “spring” with the “cold winds and eagles” embracing the mountains and confronting the sunrays with his fiery heart. Nietzsche wishes that this superior state can take man away from false morals, bad habits and a hypocritical social system, because such a system suppresses instincts of the body and the boldness of the spirit. In his ‘Social Contract’, Jean-Jacques Rousseau built his theory on society and the civil state on the principle of ‘contract’, which cannot come about without an authorization from the “individual”. As such, although the transition to the “city” resulted in something of an apparent limitation to the freedom of the individual, it was within the context of preserving and consolidating it, and creating a healthy legal and social environment in which the individual lives.
The preservation of people’s safety in society and the safety of those detained in prisons are responsibilities that have the same value because everyone is a citizen, with the same rights and duties, living in a legal entity which is the “state”
The Kingdom and preserving human rights
This centrality of man in modern philosophies was the main reason for writing my last two articles in the Riyadh newspaper about the Binaa program for detainees at the General Intelligence Prison in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom. I am mentioning this because someone asked me a question about the purpose of writing about this program. The preservation of people’s safety in society and the safety of those detained in prisons are responsibilities that have the same value because everyone is a citizen, with the same rights and duties, living in a legal entity which is the “state”.
In the year 1435 H, the Kingdom issued the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mohammed al-Muadi, the official spokesperson of the Human Rights Commission, “the Kingdom is a party in five conventions and three optional protocols of the United Nations' basic international human rights conventions and is also a party in many regional charters pertaining to human rights.” The laws and treaties referred to have not been signed as a luxury, but rather to be executed and developed. They are part of the culture and the therapeutic behavior on which modern approaches to “prisons” have been built and transformed into rehabilitation centers and spaces for intellectual reviews and discussions rather than punitive places.
The modern state is far from the concept of "revenge" because it is an entity that cannot coexist with the concept of “hatred”. One of its most important functions is to regulate the lives of citizens and guarantee their rights, including those who have violated the law. The failure of some people to abide by these regulations does not permit others or even institutions to react to this by non-compliance, otherwise the "law" will lose its meaning, and society will return to the life of the jungle. During a discussion with a number of the ‘Binaa’ program team, I found that they had an open mindset about the importance of the individual and expressing his problems without coercion during the sessions of the rehabilitation courses. This is one of the strengths of the program and a key factor behind its success.

The trial of Al-Rashid and Al-Ma’mun in the Iraqi parliament!
Mashari Althaydi/Al Arabiya/September 21/18
A recent scene at the new Iraqi parliament looked like it was from a history series or a modern comedy series that’s mocking old historical scenes like Egyptian actor Mohammed Saad, who’s famous for his character El-Limby, did when he wore Abu Dulama’s turban and spoke formal Arabic in his character’s sarcastic way. The scene was an angry and loud comment by a Member of Parliament who is supposed to represent the Iraqi people, especially the people of Basra, Nasiriyah, Samawah and Hillah. The angry MP was Ammar Tohme, the head of the Islamic Virtue Party, one of the parties which God troubled Iraq with, similar to the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s branch in Iraq. Why was MP Ammar angry? Is it because of the extreme thirst of the people in Basra during these days when they are commemorating the memory of Husseini’s Karablan thirst in 14 centuries ago? Regardless of the shallow and primitive perspective he has on history and even if we assume his genius theory is accurate, what is more important for the Iraqi people in central and south Iraq near Kufa and Najaf? Today’s problems or the vendettas against the Abbasid era?
Upset for the wrong reasons
Was Mr. Ammar Tohme voicing anger over the hundreds of billions of dollars that were stolen from the Iraqi state funds, as late Ahmed Chalabi, the founder of al-Bait al-Iraqi al-Shiite (the Shiite home) confirmed?
Did Tohme’s veins pop out of his neck because of violations against Iraq’s sovereignty, whether by Iraq or even the Americans? No, he wasn’t angry for any of these reasons. He was screaming and his eyes popped out when a “civil” MP, who was the parliament’s pro term speaker given his age, until Mohammed al-Halbousi was elected speaker of parliament, spoke about the country’s situation. During the first parliament session to be attended by all MPs, the respectable civil MP Mohammad Ali Zainy, who belongs to a movement that fights sectarianism, whether Sunni or Shiite, spoke in sorrow and national innocence about the tragedy of the Iraqi people due to the collapse of services and spread of corruption. He voiced surprise how this has become the situation of Baghdad, the center of the world, the jewel of the ancient world and the home of Al-Rashid and Al-Ma’mun.
All that Tohme found in Zainy’s statements to be angry about was that he mentioned Haroun Al-Rashid and Al-Ma’mun. Because they killed the imams of Ahl al-Bayt. This is what Tohme said. Regardless of the shallow and primitive perspective he has on history and even if we assume his genius theory is accurate, what is more important for the Iraqi people in central and south Iraq near Kufa and Najaf? Today’s problems or the vendettas against the Abbasid era?
Iraqi writer Adnan Hassan wrote in the Iraqi Al-Mada newspaper: “Islamic Virtue Party MP Ammar Tohme was not agitated that the Iraqi people are still suffering from injustice and are still deprived and humiliated and their rights and dignity are violated during the current regime in which political Islam groups are influential. He was not provoked by the fact that Baghdad has become one of the dirtiest capitals in the world and the least suitable for human life.”Iraq really deserves better than this. We wish they would have done for Baghdad one quarter of what Haroun and his son Abdullah (Al-Ma’mun) did.