LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
August 13/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.august13.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
we were all baptized into one body Jews or Greeks, slaves or free and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
First Letter to the Corinthians 12/12-13//27-30/”Just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body Jews or Greeks, slaves or free and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on August 12-13/2019
Hezbollah's Reality In Lebanon
Hezbollah Criticizes US Embassy Statement
Jumblat Receives Phone Call from Aoun
Hariri in United States on Official Visit
Canadian Foreign Minister thanks Bassil for Lebanon's efforts to release Canadian citizen from Syria
Hariri commissions Khair to follow up on issue of missing Lebanese in one of Guinea's rivers
Bassil: To contact Guinean authorities to unveil Fashikh's fate
Wadi Harba saved from an environmental disaster resulting from a huge fire
Adwan in a meeting with the people of Shmeis: We, in the Mountain, are the guards of reconciliation and coexistence
Hasbani Says Bassil Eying Post-Aoun Era
Geagea Condemns 'Israeli Army Practices against Unarmed Palestinians'
The Trump Administration Is Tackling One of the World's Most Dangerous Border Disputes

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 12-13/2019
1 killed, 29 injured after explosions reported at Iraqi Shia milita base
Bolton hopes nuclear deal signatories recognize its imperfections
British warship sets sail for tanker escort mission in Gulf
Zarif: US Turning Gulf Region into 'Tinderbox'
Iran's Zarif Blasts U.S. Arms Sales to Gulf
Iranian-Qatari Talks on Gulf Maritime Security
Iran can seize any ship, any time in the Gulf: Iranian navy commander
Campaign Pressuring Tehran to Release 8 Environmentalists
Turkey Continues to Escalate in Eastern Mediterranean
US, Turkey begin work to create Syria buffer zone
UK: Iran must stop its destabilizing actions in the regio
Iraqi FM: Foreign forces in the Gulf will increase regional tension
Syrian Regime Forces Control Strategic Town in Idlib’s Southern Countryside
One Million Moved into Camps, 184 Dead in India Monsoon Floods
Hong Kong's Airport Shut Down after Thousands Protest

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 12-13/2019
The Trump Administration Is Tackling One of the World's Most Dangerous Border Disputes/Robert G. Rabil/The National Interest/August 12/2019
1 killed, 29 injured after explosions reported at Iraqi Shia milita base/
Tzvi Joffre/Jerusalem Post/August 12/2019
UK: Going Easy on ISIS Terrorists, Hard on Those Who Fought Them?/Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/August 12/2019
China's New Naval Base: Cambodia/Debalina Ghoshal/Gatestone Institute/August 12/2019
Kashmir, Kirkuk And Jerusalem/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/August 12/2019
In Era of Extremes, Argentina's Candidates Fight for the Center/Mac Margolis/Bloomberg View/August 12/2019
Algeria: The Hammer and The Anvil/Robert Ford//Asharq Al Awsat/August 12/2019
Iran hopes a US election will solve its ‘Trump problem’/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/August 12/2019
Iran’s racist revisionism must be challenged/Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/August 12/2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on August 12-13/2019
Hezbollah's Reality In Lebanon
Dr. Walid Phares
Let's admit it, the only force in Lebanon that is fully organized, always prepared, knows what it want and is doing what it has planned, is Hezbollah. We fully oppose them and not shy about it, but that fact has to be recognized first, if we want to change it...

Hezbollah Criticizes US Embassy Statement
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 August, 2019
A member of the Democratic Gathering bloc, MP Bilal Abdallah, said that there are ongoing contacts between deputies of Hezbollah and the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), adding that the political problem must be resolved. In parallel, a minister representing Hezbollah in the cabinet noted that the relations between the two sides were not broken, but not at their best either. This comes in light of a political relief after the reconciliation meeting held in Baabda Palace between PSP leader Walid Jumblatt and the head of the Lebanese Democratic Party, MP Talal Arslan, an ally of Hezbollah. Lebanon's cabinet met on Saturday for the first time since late June. Two aides to a government minister from the LDP were killed during June's shooting in a town in Aley, and the minister's allies accused the PSP of attempting to assassinate him. Deputy Prime Minister Ghassan Hasbani noted that several elements have contributed to the reconciliation, including external factors and the fragile economic and financial situation. In a radio interview, he said: “We are half way through (Michel Aoun’s) presidential tenure, and we are facing one of the biggest economic and financial crises in the history of Lebanon.”
“External factors may have contributed to this [reconciliation]. Not only the US embassy statement, but a movement of American diplomacy to clarify Washington’s view on Lebanon’s political stability. There are indications that other countries have pushed for preventing the government paralysis because the current circumstances require it to convene perhaps on a daily basis,” the deputy premier added. Meanwhile, Hezbollah criticized a statement by the US embassy that called on Lebanese officials to resolve the recent dispute caused by the Aley shooting. Hashem Safieddine, the head of Hezbollah’s executive council, said that the statement was “rude,” describing it as a “blatant and shameless American intervention in Lebanese affairs.”For his part, Hezbollah Central Council member Sheikh Nabil Qaouq said: “The statement has one positive aspect: A tacit recognition of the decline of the role and influence of the US embassy and its tools in Lebanon.” At the same time, the party welcomed the reconciliation. “The recent reconciliation and the cabinet meeting have promoted a positive climate, which is a step to addressing the people’s economic and living crises,” Qaouq said.

Jumblat Receives Phone Call from Aoun
Naharnet/August 12/019
Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat received Monday morning a phone call from President Michel Aoun. A statement issued by the PSP said the talks tackled the “general situations.”The development follows Friday’s reconciliation at the presidential palace between Jumblat and Lebanese Democratic Party chief Talal Arslan, which put an end to weeks of tensions between the political parties and allowed the resumption of cabinet sessions. The tensions were sparked by the deadly incident in the Aley town of Qabrshmoun in which two bodyguards of State Minister for Refugee Affairs Saleh al-Gharib were killed in a clash with PSP supporters.

Hariri in United States on Official Visit
Naharnet/August 12/019
Prime Minister Saad Hariri arrived at dawn Monday in Washington on an official visit. “He will meet with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a number of U.S. officials on Thursday,” Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency said. The premier was welcomed at the airport by Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Gaby Issa and Lebanese Ambassador to the U.N. Amal Mudallali.

Canadian Foreign Minister thanks Bassil for Lebanon's efforts to release Canadian citizen from Syria
NNA -Mon 12 Aug 2019
Foreign Affairs and Emigrants Minister, Gebran Bassil, received Monday a telephone call from his Canadian counterpart, Chrystia Freeland, thanking him for Lebanon's efforts to free Canadian citizen, Christian Le Baxter, who was detained last year in Syria.
Bassil and Freeland praised the relentless efforts of General Security Director General, Abbas Ibrahim, that led to Baxter's release. It is to note that the Canadian state had earlier requested Lebanon's intervention to ensure the release of its detained citizen.

Hariri commissions Khair to follow up on issue of missing Lebanese in one of Guinea's rivers
NNA - Mon 12 Aug 2019
Prime Minister Saad Hariri commissioned Monday the Secretary General of the Higher Relief Commission, Major General Mohamed Khair, to initiate the necessary contacts with the Guinean authorities and the Lebanese Consul in Guinea to unveil the fate of young Lebanese expatriate, Hussein Fashikh (from Dinnieh), who has been reported missing since yesterday morning in one of the rivers of Guinea. Fashikh was trying to rescue a Lebanese woman and an Egyptian from drowning as they were swimming in the river in the Conakry area of Guinea, when he got swept away by the river and is still missing as rescue teams continue to search for him. In this context, Khair was assured by Guinean authorities of their keen concern over the incident, whereby they have dispatched a navy squad to speed up the search operation.

Bassil: To contact Guinean authorities to unveil Fashikh's fate
Mon 12 Aug 2019
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants' Media Office announced in a statement on Monday that the Ministry is following up on the case of the disappearance of young Lebanese emigrant, Hussein Fashikh (from Dinnieh), in Conakry, Guinea.In this framework, the statement indicated that Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil commissioned the Director of Political Affairs at the Ministry, Ambassador Ghadi Khoury, and Lebanon's Ambassador to Guinea, Fadi Zein, to connect with the Guinean authorities to unveil the fate of Fashikh, a resident of Guinea, who was swept away by river currents after he managed to save an Egyptian young woman and an African young man from drowning in one of the waterfalls.

Wadi Harba saved from an environmental disaster resulting from a huge fire
NNA - Mon 12 Aug 2019
Civil Defense teams in Batroun, Kfifan, Jbeil and Oqaiba centers succeeded in saving "Wadi Harba" from a major environmental catastrophe that almost destroyed its forest areas, as a result of the massive fire that broke out on the west side of the highway at Al-Madfoun Bridge on Monday. Fortunately, the Civil Defense teams managed to control and completely eliminate the fire that spread to nearby forest tree areas.

Adwan in a meeting with the people of Shmeis: We, in the Mountain, are the guards of reconciliation and coexistence
NNA - Mon 12 Aug 2019
MP George Adwan confirmed Monday that the components of Mount Lebanon's region are the guardians of reconciliation and mutual living. Addressing a crowd of citizens in the town of Shmeis who gathered at the residence of the Mayor of Shmeis - Ain al-Assad in the Iqlim al-Kharoub district during a visit to the region earlier today, Adwan expressed his well-wishes on the Adha occasion and considered that the Eid adds a special advantage in coming together as Lebanese. "We are the guards of coexistence, the guards of reconciliation, the guards of our love for life, the guards of preserving this country for all its citizens, equally under the law," he said. "Since the beginning of the Cedar Revolution, we have shown a great focus on living together in this region, which requires that we share our joys and sorrows and our occasions," noted Adwan. "The Chouf area is a model of coexistence," he added, stressing the need to preserve the blessing of living together as brethrens in an atmosphere of peace, security and tranquility, with love and devotion prevailing. "We, as children of the Iqlim, are the builders of this state, so we want to continue to build the state together, and to render it a strong, capable and just state that embraces its entire people," Adwan corroborated. He concluded by hoping that "all the holidays would carry Lebanon and the Lebanese comfort, security, tranquility, stability and peace-of-mind."

Hasbani Says Bassil Eying Post-Aoun Era
Naharnet/August 12/019
Deputy Prime Minister Ghassan Hasbani of the Lebanese Forces has noted that “through his actions and speeches, Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil seems to have started eying the stage that will come after this presidential tenure.” “Bassil is the foreign minister of Lebanon and the head of a political movement. Period,” Hasbani said in an interview on al-Jadeed TV. “If the Free Patriotic Movement’s ministers have accepted to sign their resignations and put them in Bassil’s hand, the LF will not give him a carte blanche… and it refuses to give a carte blanche for files marred by corruption,” Hasbani added. “We have responded through our steps and approach towards the files and the responses should not be through screaming,” the deputy PM went on to say, noting that the electricity file “is now being approached in a new way.”

Geagea Condemns 'Israeli Army Practices against Unarmed Palestinians'
Naharnet/August 12/019
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Monday deplored “the Israeli army’s practices against unarmed Palestinians” at the al-Aqsa mosque compound. “I strongly condemn this army’s attack against worshipers at the al-Aqsa mosque compound on Eid al-Adha,” Geagea said in a tweet. “I call for a quick international and Arab action for the sake of keeping a chance for a peace that would give each their right,” the LF leader added.

The Trump Administration Is Tackling One of the World's Most Dangerous Border Disputes
دراسة موسعة للأستاذ الجامعي روبرت رابيل تتناول دور الوساطة الأميركية بين لبنان وإسرائيل لحل المشاكل الحدود البرية والبحرية بينهما بهدف البدأ بالإستفادة من مخزوني الغاز والبترول
Robert G. Rabil/The National Interest/August 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/77495/%d8%af%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%a9-%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3%d8%b9%d8%a9-%d9%84%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%b3%d8%aa%d8%a7%d8%b0-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ac%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%b9%d9%8a-%d8%b1%d9%88%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%aa-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a8/
If Jerusalem and Beirut were to reach an agreement on the demarcation of their borders, then that would be a significant foreign-policy achievement.
AS THE Trump administration presses Arab countries to sign off on President Donald Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian “deal of the century” amid growing Arab polarization and vocal pessimism, little attention has been given to another sensitive regional matter that the administration has been aptly and quietly tackling. This matter revolves around the demarcation of the Lebanon-Israel maritime and land borders, which have been the focal point of skirmishes, a devastating war in 2006, and rising regional tension involving Iran and Israel.
Since last year, the Trump administration has been pursuing quiet shuttle diplomacy between Beirut and Jerusalem to demarcate their borders, while at the same time pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran and Hezbollah. The accomplishments achieved thus far because of the administration’s efforts, led by acting Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, have been quite impressive. Even if their success is incomplete, these efforts could help the economies of both Lebanon and Israel. More importantly, it could decrease the risk of a devastating war with regional repercussions.
Satterfield has extracted some essential concessions from both sides. The negotiations over Israel-Lebanon’s borders are highly sensitive because they involve the exploration of energy in disputed maritime Mediterranean waters and a dispute over land borders, the latter of which has been the focus of armed conflicts and a focal point of national and regional conflicts.
THE DISCOVERY of enormous oil and gas reserves in the Mediterranean has been auspicious for the economies of both Israel and Lebanon. The former is already producing gas from several gas fields, including Tamar and Dalit, and is preparing to produce gas from the Leviathan gas field, operated by the energy giant Noble Energy. Additionally, Israel is expanding its offshore exploration efforts via a second bid round, hoping to attract investment via exploration licenses in the country’s waters in the Mediterranean. Moreover, Israel and Cyprus have signed agreements delineating their maritime borders and are embracing further economic cooperation with assistance from Noble Energy.
The eagerness with which Israel would like to produce gas from these fields, especially Leviathan, and press ahead with its economic cooperation with Cyprus (with Greece to follow), is hedged by concerns about possible armed conflicts with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, due to disputes over the boundaries of these two countries’ exclusive economic zones. Lebanon and Israel both claim an area that is approximately 860 square kilometers in size. In fact, in 2011, the Obama administration’s special Middle East envoy, Frederic Hof, proposed what came to be known as the “Hof Line,” whereby Lebanon would have 550 square kilometers of the disputed area and Israel would take the rest. Lebanon rejected the proposal. In fact, last year Lebanon notably signed off on contracts with giants Total, Eni and Novatek to explore energy in its exclusive economic zone—including in a block disputed by Israel. Total expressed its awareness of the dispute and stated it will drill away from the disputed area, which consists of less than 8 percent of the block under its contract.
While the maritime border dispute may sound convoluted, it pales before the dispute over land borders. At the heart of this land border dispute are three areas: Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba Hills and Ghajar. The situation is complex and multi-faceted: there are disputes over the Lebanon-Israel border, the Israel-Syria border and Lebanon-Syria border. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the Lebanon-Israel-Syria tri-border, which can be traced to the old British and French mandates over Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Finally, the gradual evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the changes in de facto territorial ownership as a result of the conflict, adds an additional dimension of complexity to the situation.
Following twenty-two years of occupying a swath of southern Lebanon, Israel decided in 2000 to withdraw from Lebanon in accordance with un Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426. Yet the withdrawal created a problem over the exact location of the border, since Israel withdrew from contiguous Lebanese-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese territories.
The Lebanon-Syria border was mapped by the French in 1920, but the exact boundary has not been delineated by Lebanon or Syria since their independence. The mapping of the Israel-Lebanon border followed the 1949 armistice agreement that corresponded with the British mandatory border. As for the border between Lebanon and Syria, there was no international boundary agreement between the two of them. As such, the un mapped the border relying on the separation lines of its troops in the Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon. In his report to the un Security Council, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recognizing the lack of an international boundary agreement, recommended “to proceed on the basis of the line separating the areas of operation of unifil and undof [the un Forces in South Lebanon and the Golan Heights, respectively] along the relevant portions of the Lebanese-Syrian boundary…”
In short, following its own surveys of the region’s borders, the un simply drew the border demarcation, known as the Blue Line, and subsequently recognized the complete withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon as corresponding to the Blue Line. The Lebanese government and Hezbollah, with Syria’s consent, challenged the un position and declared that Israel’s withdrawal remains incomplete, since it still occupies the Lebanese Shebaa Farms. The un, adopting Israel’s position, emphasized that Shebaa Farms—located south of the Lebanese village of Shebaa, and comprising an area of 14 km in length and 2 km in width—are part of the Syrian Golan Heights.
Conversely, Lebanese authorities asserted sovereignty over the Farms by producing land deeds, official documents that place the Farms within Lebanon and pre-1967 tax receipts related to the Farms. These receipts indicated that taxes were paid by residents of Shebaa village (and adjacent town Nukheila) to the Lebanese government. Meanwhile, in response to Lebanon’s claim that Israel’s withdrawal is incomplete, Hezbollah asserted its right to continue its muqawama (resistance) against Israel.
THE DISPUTE over the village of Ghajar, meanwhile, is the product of both the Arab-Israeli conflict and a vagueness as to where the exact border between Lebanon and Syria lies. Essentially, there are no definite maps placing the village either in Lebanon or Syria. However, most of the Ghajar’s residents are Alawis and have been in close contact with their coreligionists in the Golan Heights, though many of them acquired Lebanese citizenship. When Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, Ghajar residents found themselves in a political no man’s land. They petitioned Israel to recognize them as residents of the Golan. Israel subsequently offered them citizenship when it formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. Interestingly, Ghajar residents, unlike many residents of the Golan Heights, accepted Israel’s offer. During Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, Ghajar’s residents were able to travel unimpeded between Lebanon and Israel due to their dual citizenships.
When Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000, Ghajar was split between Lebanon and Israel in accordance with the Blue Line, which cut across the village. As a result, the village was divided, with a majority of it formally located in Lebanon to the north, while the southern portion remained in Israel. Besides its militarily strategic position along the Israel-Lebanon-Syria tri-border, Ghajar’s boundaries scrape the Wazzani River, which is the main spring of the Hasbani River. This has led to tumultuous instances of water politics: Lebanese authorities have consistently accused Israel of trying to steal the water of the Hasbani, while Israeli authorities have been constantly worried about Lebanon diverting the waters of the Hasbani River.
During the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel took control of the whole village. unsc Resolution 1701, which ended the war, called on Israel to withdraw from the northern section of Ghajar. Israel, however, has not obliged, citing security considerations: in 2005, Hezbollah tried to kidnap Israeli soldiers stationed in the southern section of the village, and in the 2006 war, Ghajar was a fiercely contested area. The occupation of the northern section of Ghajar by Israel has thus reinforced both Lebanon’s claim that Israel’s withdrawal is not complete and Hezbollah’s right of muqawamah.
LAST BUT not least, the village of Kfar Shouba and its hills are another point of contention between Israel and Lebanon. Located in Lebanon, next to the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights, the village commands a military strategic position due to its location overlooking northern Israel and the Bekaa Valley. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinian Liberation Organization used the village as a steppingstone to conduct sabotage activities in Israel. In response, Israel heavily shelled the village and its hills and carried out punitive military missions there. In 1972, Israel occupied the village for a short period of time. Then, during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon (1978–2000), the Israel Defense Forces and their proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, used the village as an important observation post. Subsequently, Israel withdrew from the village but kept occupying the hills and the lands of Kfar Shouba in proximity to Israel’s border for security reasons. In the 2006 war, most of the village’s homes were either destroyed or damaged. As was the case with Shebaa and Ghajar, Lebanon and Hezbollah have insisted on their right to resist Israel’s occupation until the hills of Kfar Shouba are retrieved.
AS THE Trump administration presses Arab countries to sign off on President Donald Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian “deal of the century” amid growing Arab polarization and vocal pessimism, little attention has been given to another sensitive regional matter that the administration has been aptly and quietly tackling. This matter revolves around the demarcation of the Lebanon-Israel maritime and land borders, which have been the focal point of skirmishes, a devastating war in 2006, and rising regional tension involving Iran and Israel.
Since last year, the Trump administration has been pursuing quiet shuttle diplomacy between Beirut and Jerusalem to demarcate their borders, while at the same time pursuing a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran and Hezbollah. The accomplishments achieved thus far because of the administration’s efforts, led by acting Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, have been quite impressive. Even if their success is incomplete, these efforts could help the economies of both Lebanon and Israel. More importantly, it could decrease the risk of a devastating war with regional repercussions.
Satterfield has extracted some essential concessions from both sides. The negotiations over Israel-Lebanon’s borders are highly sensitive because they involve the exploration of energy in disputed maritime Mediterranean waters and a dispute over land borders, the latter of which has been the focus of armed conflicts and a focal point of national and regional conflicts.
THE DISCOVERY of enormous oil and gas reserves in the Mediterranean has been auspicious for the economies of both Israel and Lebanon. The former is already producing gas from several gas fields, including Tamar and Dalit, and is preparing to produce gas from the Leviathan gas field, operated by the energy giant Noble Energy. Additionally, Israel is expanding its offshore exploration efforts via a second bid round, hoping to attract investment via exploration licenses in the country’s waters in the Mediterranean. Moreover, Israel and Cyprus have signed agreements delineating their maritime borders and are embracing further economic cooperation with assistance from Noble Energy.
The eagerness with which Israel would like to produce gas from these fields, especially Leviathan, and press ahead with its economic cooperation with Cyprus (with Greece to follow), is hedged by concerns about possible armed conflicts with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, due to disputes over the boundaries of these two countries’ exclusive economic zones. Lebanon and Israel both claim an area that is approximately 860 square kilometers in size. In fact, in 2011, the Obama administration’s special Middle East envoy, Frederic Hof, proposed what came to be known as the “Hof Line,” whereby Lebanon would have 550 square kilometers of the disputed area and Israel would take the rest. Lebanon rejected the proposal. In fact, last year Lebanon notably signed off on contracts with giants Total, Eni and Novatek to explore energy in its exclusive economic zone—including in a block disputed by Israel. Total expressed its awareness of the dispute and stated it will drill away from the disputed area, which consists of less than 8 percent of the block under its contract.
While the maritime border dispute may sound convoluted, it pales before the dispute over land borders. At the heart of this land border dispute are three areas: Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba Hills and Ghajar. The situation is complex and multi-faceted: there are disputes over the Lebanon-Israel border, the Israel-Syria border and Lebanon-Syria border. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the Lebanon-Israel-Syria tri-border, which can be traced to the old British and French mandates over Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Finally, the gradual evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the changes in de facto territorial ownership as a result of the conflict, adds an additional dimension of complexity to the situation.
Following twenty-two years of occupying a swath of southern Lebanon, Israel decided in 2000 to withdraw from Lebanon in accordance with un Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426. Yet the withdrawal created a problem over the exact location of the border, since Israel withdrew from contiguous Lebanese-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese territories.
The Lebanon-Syria border was mapped by the French in 1920, but the exact boundary has not been delineated by Lebanon or Syria since their independence. The mapping of the Israel-Lebanon border followed the 1949 armistice agreement that corresponded with the British mandatory border. As for the border between Lebanon and Syria, there was no international boundary agreement between the two of them. As such, the un mapped the border relying on the separation lines of its troops in the Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon. In his report to the un Security Council, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recognizing the lack of an international boundary agreement, recommended “to proceed on the basis of the line separating the areas of operation of unifil and undof [the un Forces in South Lebanon and the Golan Heights, respectively] along the relevant portions of the Lebanese-Syrian boundary…”
In short, following its own surveys of the region’s borders, the un simply drew the border demarcation, known as the Blue Line, and subsequently recognized the complete withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon as corresponding to the Blue Line. The Lebanese government and Hezbollah, with Syria’s consent, challenged the un position and declared that Israel’s withdrawal remains incomplete, since it still occupies the Lebanese Shebaa Farms. The un, adopting Israel’s position, emphasized that Shebaa Farms—located south of the Lebanese village of Shebaa, and comprising an area of 14 km in length and 2 km in width—are part of the Syrian Golan Heights.
Conversely, Lebanese authorities asserted sovereignty over the Farms by producing land deeds, official documents that place the Farms within Lebanon and pre-1967 tax receipts related to the Farms. These receipts indicated that taxes were paid by residents of Shebaa village (and adjacent town Nukheila) to the Lebanese government. Meanwhile, in response to Lebanon’s claim that Israel’s withdrawal is incomplete, Hezbollah asserted its right to continue its muqawama (resistance) against Israel.
THE DISPUTE over the village of Ghajar, meanwhile, is the product of both the Arab-Israeli conflict and a vagueness as to where the exact border between Lebanon and Syria lies. Essentially, there are no definite maps placing the village either in Lebanon or Syria. However, most of the Ghajar’s residents are Alawis and have been in close contact with their coreligionists in the Golan Heights, though many of them acquired Lebanese citizenship. When Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, Ghajar residents found themselves in a political no man’s land. They petitioned Israel to recognize them as residents of the Golan. Israel subsequently offered them citizenship when it formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. Interestingly, Ghajar residents, unlike many residents of the Golan Heights, accepted Israel’s offer. During Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon, Ghajar’s residents were able to travel unimpeded between Lebanon and Israel due to their dual citizenships.
When Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000, Ghajar was split between Lebanon and Israel in accordance with the Blue Line, which cut across the village. As a result, the village was divided, with a majority of it formally located in Lebanon to the north, while the southern portion remained in Israel. Besides its militarily strategic position along the Israel-Lebanon-Syria tri-border, Ghajar’s boundaries scrape the Wazzani River, which is the main spring of the Hasbani River. This has led to tumultuous instances of water politics: Lebanese authorities have consistently accused Israel of trying to steal the water of the Hasbani, while Israeli authorities have been constantly worried about Lebanon diverting the waters of the Hasbani River.
During the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel took control of the whole village. unsc Resolution 1701, which ended the war, called on Israel to withdraw from the northern section of Ghajar. Israel, however, has not obliged, citing security considerations: in 2005, Hezbollah tried to kidnap Israeli soldiers stationed in the southern section of the village, and in the 2006 war, Ghajar was a fiercely contested area. The occupation of the northern section of Ghajar by Israel has thus reinforced both Lebanon’s claim that Israel’s withdrawal is not complete and Hezbollah’s right of muqawamah.
LAST BUT not least, the village of Kfar Shouba and its hills are another point of contention between Israel and Lebanon. Located in Lebanon, next to the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights, the village commands a military strategic position due to its location overlooking northern Israel and the Bekaa Valley. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinian Liberation Organization used the village as a steppingstone to conduct sabotage activities in Israel. In response, Israel heavily shelled the village and its hills and carried out punitive military missions there. In 1972, Israel occupied the village for a short period of time. Then, during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon (1978–2000), the Israel Defense Forces and their proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, used the village as an important observation post. Subsequently, Israel withdrew from the village but kept occupying the hills and the lands of Kfar Shouba in proximity to Israel’s border for security reasons. In the 2006 war, most of the village’s homes were either destroyed or damaged. As was the case with Shebaa and Ghajar, Lebanon and Hezbollah have insisted on their right to resist Israel’s occupation until the hills of Kfar Shouba are retrieved.
Taking all of this under consideration, it is clear that the Trump administration’s mission of mediating between Israel and Lebanon so as to demarcate their maritime and land borders and pacify their tinderbox border is no small feat. Yet, in a painstaking and persistent manner, the administration, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Satterfield, has used the right dose of diplomacy, statecraft, and at times, pressure to bring the two antagonists to agree on an initial set of measures to address their longstanding grievances.
Satterfield, in a space of two weeks in May, was able to bring the two countries to tentatively agree to meet and hold negotiations at the unifil headquarters in Naqoura in south Lebanon. Reportedly, Lebanon and Israel are close to establishing a framework for negotiations under un auspices. Lebanon’s demands and Israel’s objections to hold the negotiations under the auspices of the un were met by having the United States act as an overseer. So as to avoid the public appearance of speaking to the enemy, the two sides are sending military officers to hold the negotiations. Similarly, Israel apparently sent a “positive” message with Satterfield to Lebanon: it will reconsider the demand that negotiations should be limited to six months instead of there being no limit at all.
Satterfield was apparently able to ensure from Lebanese president Michel Aoun, a political ally of Hezbollah, a promise of his country’s “unified position” regarding linking the demarcation of both the maritime and land borders. In contrast to Hezbollah’s loud and bellicose rhetoric, President Aoun has reportedly stressed to Satterfield that, although Hezbollah is viewed as a legitimate resistance movement with popular support and representation in the government, demarcation of both the land and maritime borders with Israel is imperative to peace in the region. American and Israeli authorities have been concerned about Hezbollah taking a divergent stance regarding the talks. To be sure, reports from the president’s office indicate that Hezbollah’s view of maintaining the peace along the borders with Israel is at the heart of its tacit endorsement of the president’s “unified position.” Hezbollah’s main concern has been about Washington using its mediation of the border disputes as a condition to degrade the deterrence of Hezbollah’s missiles.
Evidently, Satterfield, along with members of his team, showed President Aoun, Speaker of the House Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Army Commander General Joseph Aoun pictures of the missiles and their respective locations. But the U.S. delegation did not make a link between the issue of the missiles and that of border demarcation. Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, in a recent fiery speech on Jerusalem Day (Also known as Quds Day, an event inaugurated by Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 to express solidarity with Palestinians and opposition to Zionism), admitted that Hezbollah does not have factories to develop precision missiles, but asserted that the “Americans have no business with this. It is our right to have weapons to defend our countries.”
Notwithstanding Hezbollah’s rhetoric, Lebanon would like to resolve its maritime border dispute with Israel in order to access nearby oil and gas resources. Beirut is already set to start drilling in December, with a later date in the disputed block with Israel. The country could certainly use the economic boost: Lebanon’s government is burdened with a heavy international debt estimated at more than $85 billion, comprising over 150 percent of its gdp. And its income from the tourism sector, a major component of the economy, is virtually in doubt, given the ongoing crisis in Syria and the heightening tensions between the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran and Hezbollah on the other. Meanwhile, many Lebanese across the communal divide have been deeply affected by the country’s weak economy and severe power shortages. No less significant is Hezbollah and its Shia partisans’ need for this potential new energy revenue. After all, the Hezbollah’s military wing has been fighting a costly war in Syria, while at home, U.S. sanctions have significantly reduced the organization’s revenue stream. Conversely, Israeli energy minister Yuval Steinitz’s office released a statement emphasizing that the talks could be “for the good of both countries’ interests in developing natural gas reserves and oil.”
IT BEHOOVES the Trump administration to separate this current Lebanon-Israel negotiation from the separate but also ongoing Israeli-Palestinian “deal of the century.” Lebanese parties and groups across the political divide are worried that the Trump administration is seeking to put pressure on Lebanon to bring it on board with its proposed Israeli-Palestinian deal, namely via the suggestion that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be granted Lebanese citizenship. This central concern is intensified by the presence of approximately one million Syrian refugees and thousands of their Lebanese-born children whose repatriation to their homeland is not certain. The Shia, Christian and Druze communities will refuse any attempt to formally settle and/or nationalize Palestinian or Syrian refugees, since most of them are Sunnis. Doing so would result in the collapse of Lebanon’s delicate religious balance, and with it, its communal peace.
The United States has deftly capitalized on the rising tension in the region, the threat of war, and the delicate existing economic and political dynamics to pursue quietly a channel of diplomacy with Israel and Lebanon. During Satterfield’s recent July shuttle diplomacy though, a couple of problems have surfaced that have left both sides frustrated over the delay in launching the talks. According to Lebanese and Israeli reports, whereas Lebanon would like to have parallel land and maritime border talks, Israel will not sign off on a written commitment to simultaneously pursue these. Israel, for its part, would like the talks to focus solely on the maritime border. This is partly because Jerusalem worries that, since the un regards them as part of the Golan Heights tri-border dispute, including the Shebaa Farms in the negotiations would add a complicating Syrian dimension to the talks. Moreover, whereas Beirut insists that the un should sponsor the talks with U.S. mediation, Jerusalem has asserted the preeminent role of the United States in mediating the talks, partly because Israel is not a signatory of the un Convention for the Law of the Sea. Nevertheless, despite this frustration and these impediments, both capitals believe that it is in their interest to reach a compromise and launch the talks.
If the two countries were to reach an agreement on the demarcation of their borders, that would by itself be a significant foreign policy achievement, reducing the threat of a devastating war to a minimum. Pending the final framework and unfolding of the negotiations, an agreement over the disputed maritime borders could either promote a parallel agreement over the more complicated land borders or provide a critical incentive to keep the border quiet. This is extremely important for a region that is, according to an Arabic saying, “standing on the palm of Afrit (a malevolent supernatural being).”
*Robert G. Rabil is professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). He is the author of numerous books, most recently White Heart (2018). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of FAU.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 12-13/2019
1 killed, 29 injured after explosions reported at Iraqi Shia milita base
By Tzvi Joffre/Jerusalem Post/August 12/2019
 One person was killed and 29 others were injured after explosions were reported at a base of Iranian-backed Shia militias south of Baghdad, Iraq, according to Sky News Arabia. Shortly after, shells fell in the Green Zone of Baghdad where the American Embassy in Iraq is located, according to Sky News Arabia. The Iraqi Ministry of Health earlier said 13 people were injured in the explosion, according to the Iranian IRNA news agency. An Al Mayadeen correspondent reported that the explosions were caused by shells hitting the base held by al-Hashd ash-Sha'abi or Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) located in the Abu Dshir area, according to preliminary information. Al-Ain news reported that an unidentified aircraft carried out the attack on the base to which the PMU recently transferred heavy weapons and missiles.
Video from the site showed clouds of smoke billowing from one of the weapons stores belonging to the PMU. Reuters reported that the explosions were caused by a large fire at the weapons depot and injured 14 people when rockets stored in the depot went off and hit neighborhoods in the area.
A police source said the fire was probably caused by negligence leading to poor storage conditions and high temperatures, according to Reuters.Two attacks have hit bases held by Iranian-backed Shia militias in Iraq since the beginning of July. The first attack happened on July 19 at a base in Amerli in the Saladin province north of Baghdad. Iraqi and Iranian sources blamed Israel at the time, and Asharq Al-Awsat reported that “diplomatic sources” confirmed the attack, specifying that it was carried out by an Israeli F-35. Al Arabiya television news reported that Iranian-made ballistic missiles were transported to the base shortly before the attack via trucks used to transport refrigerated food. The identity of the aircraft which conducted the attack was unspecified at the time, and the US denied any involvement. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah members were killed in the airstrike, according to Al Arabiya. However, the Iranian-backed al-Hashd ash-Sha’abi (Popular Mobilization Forces) denied that any Iranians were killed, according to Fars News Agency. A source from the IRGC told the Kuwaiti Al-Jarida newspaper that preliminary investigations indicate that Israel was behind the attack. An Israeli drone launched from a US base in Syria attacked the base, which stored short- and medium-range missiles. The IRGC reached this conclusion because the type of missile that hit the camp is the same used by the IAF in attacks on Syria. Asharq Al-Awsat also reported that a second attack by Israel on Sunday on a base in Ashraf, northeast of Baghdad, had targeted Iranian advisers who were present at the base and a shipment of ballistic missiles that had just arrived from Iran.
*Anna Ahronheim contributed to this report.

Bolton hopes nuclear deal signatories recognize its imperfections
Monday, 12 August 2019
US National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday he hopes all of the signatories of the nuclear deal with Iran recognize the same imperfections in the deal as the US does.

British warship sets sail for tanker escort mission in Gulf
Reuters, London/Monday, 12 August 2019
British warship HMS Kent set sail for the Gulf on Monday to join a US-led mission protecting commercial shipping vessels in the region amid heightened political tension between the West and Iran. Britain has joined the United States in a maritime security mission in the Gulf to protect merchant vessels. That comes after Iran seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. On July 4 British marines seized an Iranian vessel, which is suspected of smuggling oil to Syria, off the coast of Gibraltar. “Our focus in the Gulf remains firmly one of de-escalating the current tensions,” said Andy Brown, the ship’s commanding officer. “But we are committed to upholding freedom of navigation and reassuring international shipping, which this deployment on operations aims to do.” The deployment was first announced last month and will see the Kent relieve another British ship, the Duncan, already working in the region. The US and the UK have announced an “international maritime security mission” to protect merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz amid heightened tensions, as P&O Cruises has cancelled cruises around Dubai and the Arabian Gulf in response to Iran seizing foreign vessels.

Zarif: US Turning Gulf Region into 'Tinderbox'
Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 August, 2019
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the United States in a television interview on Monday of turning the Gulf region into a "matchbox ready to ignite.”Oil tanker traffic passing through the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz has become the focus of a US-Iranian standoff since Washington pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and reimposed sanctions to strangle Tehran's oil exports. After explosions that damaged six tankers in May and June and Iran's seizure of a British-flagged tanker in July, the United States launched a maritime security mission in the Gulf, joined by Britain, to protect merchant vessels. According to Reuters, Zarif said in the interview that the Strait "is narrow, it will become less safe as foreign (navy) vessels increase their presence in it". "The region has become a matchbox ready to ignite because America and its allies are flooding it with weapons," he said. Last month, Iran's Revolutionary Guards seized the British tanker, Stena Impero near the Strait for alleged marine violations, two weeks after Britain seized an Iranian oil tanker near Gibraltar, accusing it of violating sanctions on Syria. The tanker dispute has tangled Britain in the diplomatic dispute between the EU's big powers - which want to preserve the Iran nuclear deal - and the United States which has pushed for a tougher policy on Iran. Also Monday, Iranian Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri charged that Washington's unilateralist policies and its emphasis on sanctions threaten the stability of the region. He was speaking at an economic forum hosted by Turkmenistan.

Iran's Zarif Blasts U.S. Arms Sales to Gulf
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 12/019
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the United States on Monday of transforming the Gulf into a "tinderbox" with its arms sales to regional allies. "The U.S. (sold) $50 billion worth of weapons to the region last year. Some of the countries in the region with less than a third of our population spend $87 billion on military procurement," Zarif told Qatar's Al Jazeera broadcaster during a visit to the Gulf state.Washington is pursuing a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force Iran to limit its nuclear and military activities. Tensions between Tehran and Washington have seen a steep rise since President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from a nuclear accord between Iran and world powers in May 2018, reimposing biting sanctions. "If you are talking about threats coming from the region, the threats are coming from the US and its allies who are pouring weapons into the region, making it a tinderbox ready to blow up," Zarif said. Washington is seeking to assemble a coalition to secure maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz -- key to the global oil trade -- following a number of attacks on oil tankers blamed by Washington on Tehran. Iran strongly denies involvement. While in Qatar, Zarif met with Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani and discussed "issues of common interest", the state-run Qatar News Agency reported. Doha is a close ally of Washington and hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region, while also maintaining cordial ties with Iran.

Iranian-Qatari Talks on Gulf Maritime Security
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 August, 2019
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday that his country “attaches a great importance” to maintaining regional security, especially in the Arabian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Rouhani’s stance was made during a phone conversation with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. “Iran has put all its effort in this regard and believes that maintaining security in this region guarantees the development of the region, as well as the interests of its peoples,” Rouhani said. Iran’s IRNA news agency said on Sunday that the Emir exchanged greetings with Rouhani on the advent of Eid al-Adha during a phone call. It quoted Rouhani as stressing that the security and stability of the Gulf could only be realized through cooperation and synergy of its littoral states in the form of joint security measures. “The experience of this reality has proved it to everybody that foreign intervention has only made the problems more complicated and increased tensions,” he said. IRNA also quoted the Qatari Emir as telling Rouhani that Doha would spare no efforts to de-escalate tension in the region. “The security of the region must only be ensured by its littoral states, and the stances of the Qatari government is this regard is completely clear; we want to deepen our cooperation with Iran for better bilateral relations and regional security,” he said. Before calling the Emir, Rouhani telephoned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and expressed his desire to enhance relations with Ankara. “Iran is fully ready to deepen ties with Turkey as a friendly and brotherly country,” the president’s official website quoted Rouhani as saying. For his part, Erdogan said: “Ankara is ready to further promote relations with Tehran in all fields.”The Iranian Foreign Ministry also said in a brief statement that Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif flew to Doha for talks with Qatari officials.

Iran can seize any ship, any time in the Gulf: Iranian navy commander
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Monday, 12 August 2019A
Iranian authorities can seize any ship, any time, even if accompanied by American or British forces, claimed a senior Iranian naval commander on Sunday. Rear Admiral Alireza Tangsiri, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) navy, made the claim in an interview with al-Mayadeen TV Channel. Tangsiri was sanctioned by the US on June 24, along with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and seven other IRGC commanders, under Executive Order 13876 in response to Iran’s downing of a US drone on June 20 and its long-term promotion of terrorism in the region.
Tangsiri also warned about any potential Israeli presence in the Arabian Gulf, saying that it would be illegitimate and could lead to a war in the region. The IRGC navy is responsible for ensuring the security of the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Gulf, said Tangsiri, adding that there is no need for foreign forces. Iran will ensure the security of the Strait of Hormuz as long as it is able to export oil, he said, criticizing the US and the UK’s presence for designing “various scenarios” in the region to legitimise their presence in the Arabian Gulf. He also accused the US of targeting oil tankers near Iranian waters and blaming Iran for the attacks. Iran has seized three tankers in strategic Arabian Gulf waters since last month, including the British-flagged oil tanker the Stena Impero. The US and the UK have announced an “international maritime security mission” to protect merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz amid heightened tensions, as P&O Cruises has cancelled cruises around Dubai and the Arabian Gulf in response to Iran seizing foreign vessels.

Campaign Pressuring Tehran to Release 8 Environmentalists
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 August, 2019
Social media users have interacted regarding the issue of eight environmentalists facing security charges in Iran, one week after they started a hunger strike. Two hashtags were launched to pressure Iran to release the activists. Kaveh Madani, water management expert, tweeted that 564 days have passed since arresting the activists, and eight days since the hunger strike. He stressed that their only demand is to work based on justice. Human Rights Watch said last week that the authorities should immediately release all eight environmentalist experts detained for over 18 months without being provided with the evidence concerning their alleged crimes. “Members of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation have languished behind bars for over 550 days while Iranian authorities have blatantly failed to provide a shred of evidence about their alleged crime,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should take the long-overdue step of releasing these defenders of Iran’s endangered wildlife and end this injustice against them,” Page added. HRW quoted a reliable source as saying that the environmentalists on hunger strike are demanding that authorities end their legal limbo and either release them on bail until a verdict is issued against them or transfer them to the public ward of Evin prison. They are inward 2-Alef of Evin prison, which is under the supervision of the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization, the source added. Their trial in Branch 15 of Tehran’s revolutionary court was halted before March, then resumed at the beginning of August. The court reportedly did not allow lawyers to review the evidence before the trial opened on January 30. Article 48 of Iran’s 2014 criminal procedure law says that detainees charged with various offenses, including national or international security crimes, political, and media crimes, must select their lawyer from a pre-approved pool selected by Iran’s judiciary during the investigation. Defendants had been under psycho-social torture and were coerced into making false confessions, experts said.
On February 10, 2018, a few weeks after their arrests, family members of Kavous Seyed Emami, a Canadian-Iranian professor and environmentalist arrested with the other members of the group, reported that he had died in detention under suspicious circumstances. Iranian authorities claimed that he committed suicide, but they have not conducted an impartial investigation into his death. Several senior Iranian government officials have said that they did not find any evidence to suggest that the detained activists are spies. On May 22, 2018, Issa Kalantari, the head of Iran’s Environmental institution, said that the government had formed a committee consisting of the ministers of intelligence, interior, and justice and the president’s legal deputy, and that they had concluded there was no evidence to suggest those detained are spies. Kalantari added that the committee said the environmentalists should be released. On February 3, Mahmoud Sadeghi, a member of parliament from Tehran, tweeted that according to the information he has received, the National Security Council headed by President Hassan Rouhani also did not deem the activities of their detained conservation activists to be spying. On October 24, 2018, Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi, the Tehran prosecutor, said that the prosecutor’s office had elevated the charges against four of the detainees to “sowing corruption on earth,” which includes the risk of the death penalty. Dolatabadi claimed that the activists were “seeking proximity to military sites with the cover of environmental projects and obtaining military information from them.”

Turkey Continues to Escalate in Eastern Mediterranean
Ankara - Said Abdelrazek/Monday, 12 August, 2019
Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar reiterated the country’s keenness on its rights and those of the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in the wealth of the Eastern Mediterranean. "We have defended the rights of our own, and the people of TRNC to the end and will continue to defend. Nobody should test our strength," Akar said during his visit to the frigate accompanying the Turkish drilling vessel Yavuz. "We won't turn a blind eye to a fait accompli in Cyprus, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Aegean… We won't let any decision against our rights over this issue to be taken in any way," Turkey's defense minister affirmed. Fatih and Yavuz vessels continue their tasks in the Mediterranean Sea near Cyprus. “We are in favor of peace and good neighborhood in the Aegean, Eastern Mediterranean, and Cyprus. We are sincere and we stand behind our words,” said Akar. “When we say ‘peace’ they perceive our statement as a weakness. When we say ‘we will get what is our right when necessary’ they perceive it as a threat,” he said adding that Turkey’s neighbors need to look at the situation objectively. “To date, we have fulfilled our responsibilities in the scope of guarantee and alliance agreements and we are determined to do so. To continue this, the existence of the Turkish Armed Forces on the island is a must, and everyone should know that.” Turkey will dispatch a third drilling vessel to the Eastern Mediterranean end of August, stated Turkey's Energy and Natural Resources Minister Fatih Donmez. Moreover, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed a proposal by President of Northern Cyprus Mustafa Akinci on the administration of hydrocarbon resources. Guterres said in a letter on Saturday to Akinci that all moves to ease tensions are welcomed. On July 13, Akinci offered the Greek Cypriot side to set up a joint committee on hydrocarbon resources in the Eastern Mediterranean.

US, Turkey begin work to create Syria buffer zone
AFP, Istanbul/Tuesday, 13 August 2019
A US delegation arrived in Turkey on Monday to begin working with Ankara on creating a buffer zone in northern Syria, under a plan strongly rejected by Damascus. Turkish and US officials struck a deal last week to establish the safe zone to manage tensions between Turkey and US-backed Kurdish forces in war-torn Syria. But Damascus has accused Ankara and Washington of violating its sovereignty with the “expansionist” and “aggressive” project. Turkey’s defense ministry said that six US officials arrived in the southeastern city of Sanliurfa on Monday to start setting up a joint operations center, which is to open “in the coming days.”No details have been provided on the size or timetable for the safe zone, but the deal appears to have provided some breathing room after Turkey had threatened an imminent attack on the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which control a large swathe of northern Syria. The YPG has been a key US ally in the fight against ISIS in Syria, but Ankara brands them “terrorists”, viewing them as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has fought a bloody insurgency inside Turkey for 35 years. Turkey has called for the safe zone to be 30 kilometers (18 miles) wide - a demand reiterated by Defense Minister Hulusi Akar on Monday. “We have said on every occasion that we need a width of 30 to 40 kilometers,” Akar told state-run TRT television. The Kurds have agreed to a buffer zone, but have requested it to be five kilometers wide, a proposal rejected by Turkey. While fighting ISIS; a terrorist organization, the Kurds have taken advantage of the Syrian war to set up an autonomous region in the northeast. But as the fight against ISIS winds down in the region, the prospect of a US military withdrawal has stoked Kurdish fears of a long threatened Turkish attack. Turkey has already carried out two cross-border offensives into Syria in 2016 and 2018, the second of which saw it and allied Syrian rebels overrun the Kurdish enclave of Afrin in the northwest.

UK: Iran must stop its destabilizing actions in the region
Reuters, London/Monday, 12 August 2019
The UK prime minister’s spokesman says Iran must stop its destabilizing actions in the region. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will discuss a range of security issues, including Iran, with the US’ John Bolton later on Monday, the spokesman added.

Iraqi FM: Foreign forces in the Gulf will increase regional tension
Reuters, Dubai/Monday, 12 August 2019
The presence of Western forces in the Gulf is fueling regional tension, Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Hakim said on Monday. “The states of the Gulf can together to secure navigation,” he said on Twitter. “Iraq is seeking to reduce tension in our region through calm negotiations and the presence of Western forces in the region will increase tension,” he added.

Syrian Regime Forces Control Strategic Town in Idlib’s Southern Countryside
Beirut – London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Monday, 12 August, 2019
In their first ground advance inside Idlib province where a military offensive started more than three months ago, regime forces backed by Russian warplanes seized on Sunday a strategic town. "Regime forces seized the town of al-Hobeit in Idlib's southern countryside at dawn," said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, adding it was the first in southern Idlib to be taken by the regime since the start of its operation in April. The Observatory said the capture of al-Hobeit, one of several strategic targets for advancing pro-government forces, came after another night of deadly fighting. According to the Britain-based monitor's tally, 70 combatants were killed on Saturday, more than 45 of them pro-regime forces. Al-Watan newspaper, which is close to Damascus, reported on Sunday that the Syrian forces managed to establish control over al-Hobeit and damaged the equipment of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (Nusra Front).
The Observatory said that the government’s new advance allows its forces to gain access to the largest city in the countryside of southern Idlib, Khan Sheikhoun. Idlib province is part of a deal reached on September 2018, between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to set up a demilitarized zone along the contact line between the armed opposition and the government forces. On Saturday, the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides in Syria said it registered militant movement near the Idlib de-escalation zone. “About 120 Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militants, three armored vehicles and four pickup trucks with heavy machine guns are moving from the area close to the inhabited community of Hish,” the center’s head, Major General Alexei Bakin, told reporters. He added that the Ajnad al-Kavkaz extremist group has dispatched about 200 militants, five armored vehicles, ten pickup trucks with heavy machine guns and two mine-studded trucks from the inhabited community of Kafr Sajna to the contact line.

One Million Moved into Camps, 184 Dead in India Monsoon Floods
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 12/019
Indian authorities have moved around a million people into emergency camps in recent days as the death toll from monsoon floods jumped Monday to at least 184. The southern state of Kerala, a tourist haven known for its beaches, hill resorts and backwaters, has been the worst hit region for the second consecutive year, forcing the closure of the Kochi international airport for three days last week. "At least 76 people have died, 58 are missing and another 32 have received injuries," Pramod Kumar, Kerala police spokesman, told AFP. Around 288,000 people across the state's worst affected districts including Wayanad, Malappuram and Kozhikode have been moved to relief camps. At least 42 people have also lost their lives in neighboring Karnataka state, which has seen some of its worst flooding of recent years. "We have evacuated over 580,000 people", a senior Karnataka government official told AFP. Many key highways and roads across the affected regions have been damaged or cut off by rising waters. Local emergency personnel and troops from the army, navy and air force have been deployed for search, rescue and relief operations. Indian media have also reported 66 deaths in the western states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, with tens of thousands of people shifted to relief camps. While the monsoon rains are crucial to replenishing water supplies in drought-stricken India, they kill hundreds of people across the country every year. Last year Kerala was hit by its worst floods in almost a century with around 450 people killed.

Hong Kong's Airport Shut Down after Thousands Protest
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 12/019
All flights in and out of Hong Kong were cancelled on Monday after thousands of pro-democracy protesters flooded the city's airport to denounce police violence. The abrupt shutdown at one of the world's busiest hubs came as the Chinese government signaled its rising anger at the protesters, denouncing some of the violent demonstrations as "terrorism". The developments marked yet another dramatic escalation in a 10-week crisis that had already become the biggest challenge to Chinese rule of Hong Kong since the 1997 British handover. A crowd of protesters that authorities said numbered more than 5,000 descended on Hong Kong airport on Monday carrying placards and chanting slogans denouncing police violence. Although other rallies had been held at the transport hub over the previous three days, the airport authority said Monday's one had caused significant chaos. "Airport operations at Hong Kong International Airport have been seriously disrupted as a result of the public assembly at the airport today," it said in a statement. "Other than the departure flights that have completed the check-in process and the arrival flights that are already heading to Hong Kong, all other flights have been cancelled for the rest of today." It warned that traffic to the airport was "very congested" and the facility's car parks were completely full. "Members of the public are advised not to come to the airport."Loudspeakers at the airport were periodically telling people: "All flights have been cancelled, please leave as soon as possible".
Serious injuries
At the airport, protesters held signs reading "Hong Kong is not safe" and "Shame on police". They accuse police of using increasingly violent and disproportionate tactics to suppress protests. Over the weekend police fired tear gas into subway stations and crowded shopping streets as they confronted protesters at nearly a dozen locations across the city. Protesters responded by hurling bricks and spraying riot police with fire extinguishers and water hoses. Demonstrators were also enraged at police apparently dressing in the black T-shirts worn by the pro-democracy movement to infiltrate the rallies and make surprise arrests. A government official said 45 people were hurt in the clashes, including two who were in serious condition. Among them was a woman who suffered a serious face injury, reportedly after being hit by a bean bag round, with rumors circulating that she had lost her vision in the incident. Images of her lying on the ground with blood pouring from her face quickly went viral and featured on posters calling for new demonstrations.
- 'More and more dangerous'-
Many of the demonstrators at the airport on Monday wore eye patches or bandages in solidarity with the injured woman.
"It is becoming more and more dangerous, but if we don't still come out at this point, our future will become more frightening, and we will lose our freedoms," said one 22-year-old protester who gave her family name as Chan. It was the 10th consecutive weekend that protesters had taken to the streets in a movement that began over opposition to a bill allowing extradition to mainland China. The protests have morphed into a broader bid to reverse a slide of democratic freedoms in the southern Chinese city. In Beijing, authorities slammed violent protesters who threw petrol bombs at police officers, linking them to "terrorism"."Hong Kong's radical demonstrators have repeatedly used extremely dangerous tools to attack police officers, which already constitutes a serious violent crime, and also shows the first signs of terrorism emerging," said Yang Guang, spokesman for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council. "This wantonly tramples on Hong Kong's rule of law and social order."The protests have infuriated Beijing, which has lashed out at the city's carrier Cathay Pacific, imposing new regulations on the airline that ban staff sympathetic with the demonstrations from flying to or over the mainland. Cathay has found itself caught in the crossfire in the increasingly bitter standoff in the city, and warned staff on Monday that they could be fired if they participated or supported "illegal protests."

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 12-13/2019
UK: Going Easy on ISIS Terrorists, Hard on Those Who Fought Them?
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/August 12/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14320/uk-returning-isis-terrorists
While the UK government is seemingly intent on prosecuting those who have fought against ISIS, what has it been doing about the at least 425 returned ISIS terrorists themselves?
Prosecuting around 400 ISIS terrorists means Britain would "lose a generation"? What about the loss of security that these terrorists pose to the rest of British society?
Killing, torturing, raping and abusing Yazidis, Christians and others for sport was something that looked "bright and attractive"?
The law does not appear to apply to ISIS terrorists the same way it applies to those young Britons who went to fight against them. The United Kingdom's moral compass seems to be entirely broken.
The West has mercilessly let down persecuted minorities in the Middle East, while showing great concern for the well-being of returning ISIS terrorists, their children and their spouses. There seems to have been no such concern for the victims of ISIS terrorists, particularly the Christians and Yazidis.
In the Netherlands, the Dutch immigration service has been sending Yazidi asylum seekers back to refugee camps in northern Iraq, and arguing that they have sufficient access to food and other facilities, Dutch media outlet Trouw recently reported. By contrast, in February, Dutch Minister of Justice Ferdinand Grapperhaus said that the Netherlands is "looking into" the option of trying to move Dutch women and children living in refugee camps in Syria to safe areas where they can return to the Netherlands.
"What we are looking into is can we get them to safe areas, with the help of the people who have power over the camps," Grapperhaus said. "Then they can register at the Dutch consulate and we can get them to the Netherlands and the children to social services. That is my main motivation." As of May, the Netherlands was negotiating the safe passage of 10 women and their children, who have been staying in refugee camps in northeast Syria. The Netherlands, according to the Dutch news outlet AD, wants to ensure that these women and children can reach the nearest Dutch consulate in Erbil, Iraq without being arrested, tried and sentenced to death.
Pari Ibrahim, the founder and executive director of the Free Yezidi Foundation (FYF), told the website Kurdistan 24 that she is very concerned about the Yezidis in Iraq. "We do not think European immigration authorities should be rejecting Yezidi asylum cases," she said. "Survivors of a genocide have special and unique needs that should be recognised."
Some officials in the Netherlands, evidently, appear to think otherwise.
In addition, some European countries are actually in the process of prosecuting nationals who travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight against ISIS.
In the UK, it is estimated that just a few dozen British volunteers fought against ISIS. By comparison, approximately 850 UK nationals travelled from the UK to join ISIS.
Jim Matthews was the first person prosecuted for fighting with the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). The YPG is not a proscribed terrorist group in the UK; its forces were backed by the British military and international airstrikes to drive ISIS out of its Syrian territories. Nevertheless, Matthews was charged with "attending a place used for terrorist training" for attending the training camp used for all YPG recruits. He told the Independent, "We [British YPG volunteers] went out there because our government was not doing enough. It was a job that needed doing, we had to get Isis out of that territory." He was also evidently "jolted" to join the fight against Isis after seeing a photograph of a jihadi holding a woman's severed head on Facebook. "It seemed like one of the most evil single images I've ever seen in my life," he said.
When he came back to the UK, he was arrested and accused of terrorism. In February 2019, the charges against him were dropped, seemingly for lack of evidence.
A second British national, Aidan James, who fought with the YPG against ISIS, was arrested and charged with terror offences in February 2018. James was charged with receiving training from the PKK, before going on to fight with Kurdish YPG units in Syria. James's case, tried in April, was inconclusive: the jury failed to reach a verdict on whether he had committed terror offences by fighting against ISIS. Prosecutors said they would be seeking a retrial of his case.
Other European countries have also prosecuted fighters against ISIS for terrorism. In Denmark, Tommy Mørck became the first person sentenced under a Danish law that went into effect in September 2016, prohibiting Danish nationals from travelling to areas of conflict in Syria. Mørck fought with Kurdish militias against the Islamic State in 2016 and 2017. In June 2018, he was sentenced to six months in prison in Denmark. He appealed the sentence, but in November 2018, the High Court confirmed the verdict.
While the UK government is seemingly intent on prosecuting those who have fought against ISIS, what has it been doing about the at least 425 returned ISIS terrorists themselves?
In February 2018, the UK government was asked why it was refusing to release figures on the number of returned jihadists being prosecuted. In response, the government seemed to admit that "a significant portion" of the more than 400 Islamic State fighters who had returned to Britain at that time were at large and unpunished. They had been deemed "no longer of national security concern".
Victoria Atkins MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, without answering how many returning jihadis had actually been prosecuted, responded:
"I am told that a significant proportion of the 850 [British nationals who joined ISIS], minus the more than 15% of those who have been killed in the region, are assessed as no longer being of national security concern... Indeed, the police and Crown Prosecution Service have already investigated and prosecuted a number who have returned... As hon. Members have identified, given the nature of this conflict, it is not always possible to gather sufficient evidence to seek prosecution".
Ben Wallace, Secretary of State for Defence, however, has admitted that only one in ten of all returned ISIS terrorists, around 40 people, "have been successfully prosecuted so far – either because of direct action they have carried out in Syria or, subsequent to coming back, linked to that foreign fighting".
Cressida Dick, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, has also stated that the security services do not know how many of ISIS's surviving British recruits intend to return, and that evidence of a criminal or terrorist offence was needed to prosecute. "The very fact of going is not an offence," she added.
"Some people returned from that area in the early days who had almost certainly done nothing other than humanitarian aid work. We talked to them and assessed their risk ... Many people have come back and just gone on with peaceful lives."
Similarly, earlier this year, then Home Secretary Sajid Javid said that all who returned had been investigated and "the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low security risk".
In October 2017, Britain's then Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill, remarked in an interview that returning jihadists should not be prosecuted.
"... we're told we do have a significant number already back in this country who have previously gone to Iraq and Syria. That means that the authorities have looked at them, and looked at them hard, and have decided that they do not justify prosecution and really we should be looking towards reintegration and moving away from any notion that we're going to lose a generation due to this travel..."
His remarks came a few days after the head of MI5, Andrew Parker, "said the country was now facing an intense threat from violent Islamist extremists who were devising plots at a tempo he had not seen before in his 34-year-career."
Prosecuting around 400 ISIS terrorists means Britain would "lose a generation"? What about the loss of security that these terrorists pose to the rest of British society?
"[I]t's not a decision that MI5 and others would have taken lightly," Max Hill said in his 2017 interview.
"They, I'm sure, will have looked intensely at each individual on return. But they have left space, and I think they're right to do so, for those who travelled, it's beyond our ordinary experience, but who travelled out of a sense of naivety, possibly with some brainwashing along the way, possibly in their mid-teens... and who return in a state of utter disillusionment and we have to leave space for those individuals to be diverted away from the criminal courts."
His colleague, Richard Barrett, former global counter terrorism director of MI6, agreed:
"Well I think that's absolutely right, Max makes a very important point, why did they go and then indeed why did they come back? And many of them I think went to join something, join something new, something that looked bright and attractive, and to satisfy some of the needs in their lives and probably found that didn't exist out there and so came back highly disillusioned. Then also, somebody going off to join the Islamic State is not likely, initially, to be somebody going off to train to be a domestic terrorist. They seem to me to be two different motivations."
Killing, torturing, raping and abusing Yazidis, Christians and others for sport was something that looked "bright and attractive"?
The law does not appear to apply to ISIS terrorists the same way it applies to those Britons who went to fight against them. The United Kingdom's moral compass seems to be entirely broken.
*Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

China's New Naval Base: Cambodia
Debalina Ghoshal/Gatestone Institute/August 12/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14700/china-naval-base-cambodia
"[Scepticism] has grown louder recently, with the release of satellite images from the European Space Agency showing that the runway for the site's airport is far longer than is required for civilian aircraft" — Andrew Nachemson, Cambodia-based journalist, South China Morning Post, March 5, 2019.
"Over the past two years [Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen] has accepted more than $600m (£480m) in loans as part of China's controversial Belt and Road initiative." — Hannah Ellis-Petersen, South-east Asia correspondent, The Guardian, July 22, 2019.
"It appears that there are massive strings attached to these loans. If Cambodia had said no, do you think China would continue its massive investment in Cambodia?" — Sophal Ear, Cambodian political scientist, to The Guardian, July 22, 2019.
Without a change of government in Phnom Penh, brought about by an election that truly reflects public sentiment, China could be given virtually free rein in Cambodia to further its political and military designs on Asia.
A recent Wall Street Journal report claims that China has signed a secret deal with Cambodia that gives the Chinese military access to Cambodia's Ream Naval Base. Washington has expressed worry over Cambodia's move away from democracy and American influence, and its descent into autocratic rule and towards China's orbit. Pictured: U.S. Marines and Royal Cambodian Navy sailors participate in the multinational "CARAT Cambodia 2016" exercise near Ream Naval Base, November 2, 2016. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Chief Petty Officer Lowell Whitman)
China's efforts to establish regional hegemony were highlighted recently by a Wall Street Journal report claiming that Beijing signed a secret deal in the spring with Phnom Penh, giving the Chinese armed forces access to Cambodia's Ream Naval Base on the Gulf of Thailand, "not far from a large airport now being constructed by a Chinese company."
Although the report was vehemently denied by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, who called it "the worst-ever made up news against Cambodia," Washington has cause to take it seriously. The United States is aware of China's attempts to strengthen its strategic foothold in Southeast Asia in general and the South China Sea in particular. Washington also has expressed worry over Cambodia's move away from democracy and American influence, on the one hand, and its descent into autocratic rule and towards China's orbit on the other.
In spite of Article 1 of its Constitution, which states that "the Kingdom of Cambodia shall be independent, sovereign, peaceful, permanently neutral and non-aligned country," in January, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats -- who just resigned his post -- assessed that "Cambodia's slide toward autocracy... opens the way for a constitutional amendment that could lead to a Chinese military presence in the country."
Meanwhile, both Beijing and Phnom Penh claim that all investment by the Chinese-owned Union Development Group in the Koh Kong province and along the Cambodian coastline -- such as an international airport, luxury tourist resorts, casinos and golf courses, among others -- are part of a major project for civilian use alone. However, as Cambodia-based journalist Andrew Nachemson reported in March:
"... scepticism has grown louder recently, with the release of satellite images from the European Space Agency showing that the runway for the site's airport is far longer than is required for civilian aircraft...
"The satellite images suggest there was a flurry of construction on the runway after US Vice-President Mike Pence delivered a letter to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen in November, expressing concern that the project had a military use."
In response to the Wall Street Journal report, the U.S. State Department released a statement reminding Cambodia that it had a "constitutional commitment to its people to pursue an independent foreign policy," and warning that:
"We are concerned that any steps by the Cambodian government to invite a foreign military presence in Cambodia would threaten the coherence and centrality of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in coordinating regional developments, and disturb peace and stability in Southeast Asia."
As The Guardian reported in July:
"Over the past two years [Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen] has accepted more than $600m (£480m) in loans as part of China's controversial Belt and Road initiative. China has also committed almost $2bn to build roads and bridges across Cambodia, with further infrastructure and multimillion-dollar business deals in the works, and given another $150m in aid."
Sophal Ear, a "prominent Cambodian political scientist," told The Guardian:
"It appears that there are massive strings attached to these loans. If Cambodia had said no, do you think China would continue its massive investment in Cambodia?"
America's newly confirmed ambassador to Cambodia, W. Patrick Murphy, is facing particularly tough challenges as he enters his role. Alluding to Chinese encroachment on Washington-Phnom Penh relations, Murphy said that he intended to "advocate for reconciliation, adherence to the principles enshrined in the Cambodian Constitution and efforts to protect the country's sovereignty."
Murphy also pointed to the unfortunate "backsliding in governance, rule of law and corruption," and repeated the Trump administration's disappointment in the country's July 2018 "sham" general elections, in which Hun Sen's ruling party banned the main opposition party and imprisoned its leader.
On July 30, 2019, the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh marked the first anniversary of the election with a statement that said:
"... That vote was neither free nor fair, and it failed to represent the will of the Cambodian people.
The elections excluded the country's principle opposition party and further eroded the country's achievements in promoting political reconciliation and economic growth since the 1991 Paris Peace Accords..."
It does not seem likely, therefore, that Hun Sen will be shunning China's advances in favor of the principles of democracy and sovereignty spelled out in its constitution. Without a change of government in Phnom Penh, brought about by an election that truly reflects public sentiment, China could be given virtually free rein in Cambodia to further its political and military designs on Asia.
Debalina Ghoshal is an India-based non-resident fellow at the Council on International Policy in Canada. She is also an Asia Pacific Fellow with the East West Institute.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Kashmir, Kirkuk And Jerusalem
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/August 12/2019
It’s hard to be born on the line of contact. Fear will remain your companion. The line of contact between nationalities, religions, sects, and states. I know some are quick to say that pluralism is a source of wealth. But the reality is that pluralism remains a project of clash, unless the culture of tolerance takes root. Accepting to live under one roof with someone who doesn't resemble you, and drinks from springs other than the ones you drink from.
A child born on the contact line often inherits his parents' songs and his ancestors’ fears, which most oftenly nurture anxiety over heritage, tradition and the right to live freely. I am thinking here, for example, of a Muslim child born in the Indian part of Kashmir, inheriting from his parents the dream of joining his hometown in Pakistan.
Mistakes made in the creation of maps are never easy to correct. It is not enough to say that the population should be allowed to exercise the right to self-determination through a fair referendum. The story is more complex and dangerous. Disagreements at the contact line often imply a national wound. The entire country is captured by a small part, the sovereignty of which is disputed with a neighboring country or another nation-state.
The fate of this part becomes a constant and stormy test, and any failure with it parallels with disaster. In dealing with these national wounds, every moderation becomes a betrayal, especially when the street resonates, warning both the moderates and the extreme.
Since its birth in 1947, Kashmir has turned into a severe wound in the heart of Indo-Pakistani relations, triggering two wars between the two countries, whose streets are rife with the poor. None of the successive military and civilian leaders in Pakistan could defuse this explosive device. The same can be said of all those who took over the decision-making in India.
The United Nations failed to resolve the Kashmir problem, so did other mediators and advisers. It is no exaggeration to say that the scenario of confrontation over Kashmir is a constant item for the generals of the two armies. The possession of nuclear weapons by the two countries did not extinguish tensions in Kashmir, but it was enough to program the confrontations in such a way as to prevent them from becoming an all-out war that would portend a nuclear feast.
The new chapter of tension began when the government of Narendra Modi abolished the special status of the state of Jammu Kashmir which was guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The parliament, controlled by the Hindu nationalist party, approved the move, including a decision to divide the Indian side of Kashmir into two areas directly under the authority of New Delhi. This was accompanied by sending Indian military reinforcements to the area, cutting off contacts to prevent protesters from gathering and organizing large-scale and violent protests.
The problem quickly turned into an acute crisis threatening to inflame the contact line. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has warned of widespread conflict, while Pakistani generals started updating previously prepared military plans. This was accompanied by the expulsion of the Indian ambassador from Pakistan, the severing of diplomatic ties and the decrease of trade.
Perhaps the most dangerous comments by Pakistan were that Indian measures, especially the division of the state, were aimed at making the Muslims a minority and opening the door to a change in identity and demographic equation.
The Kashmir contact line reminded me of the latent or burning lines of our region. In September 2017, days before the referendum called for by then-President of Kurdistan Massoud Barzani, I visited the region and made sure to tour Kirkuk, which chose to be included in the referendum project.
I traveled around this area, which is burdened by two riches turned two curses, namely, multiple affiliations and oil. On the streets of the city, Kurdish shops are adjacent to those of Arabs and Turkmen. The various clans there have found a mechanism to control disputes and prevent them from turning into large-scale conflicts.
Despite the attempt of those whom I met to lessen their anxiety over the future, it was clear that fear is the only common feeling among this mixture that was sentenced to live in one place. The Kurds were afraid that the turnout of the referendum would be low due to Kurdish-Kurdish differences and a long history of maneuvers and stabbing. Arabs dreaded the future of living in this area if Kirkuk chose to renew its Kurdish dream and join the region. It was no secret that some Turkmen were betting that neighboring countries, notably Turkey, would never allow the province to annex Kirkuk, nor would it allow the birth of an independent or semi-autonomous Kurdish entity.
What happened weeks later is that the countries were the Kurds are scattered, chose to abort the results of the Kurdish referendum and punished the Kurdistan region.
Pakistan’s comments about a demographic coup in Kashmir have happened repeatedly in Kirkuk. The people of the city talk about campaigns of Turkification, Arabization and Kurdification across different eras. Campaigns have led to changes in population equations that have deepened the wounds at the contact lines. The crises of the contact line are long-standing crises. Neither the officials nor the parties dare to make concessions about them. The masses demand unequivocal positions, a complete victory, which is impossible or expensive. Governments in Iraq have changed, the name of the strongman has changed, and Kirkuk remained a fire that can be stifled, but not extinguished.
Issues which become more complicated and inflamed over time. Jerusalem also resides on the lines of contact. Attempts to make compromises are similar to igniting fire near gunpowder barrels. Efforts to encircle the dispute are in full swing.
But oppression is not a permanent solution. Suppressed identities hide, harden and then emerge. From Kashmir to Jerusalem to Kirkuk, a world mired in fears along the contact lines. In these identity battles, officials prefer to pay for disputes rather than settlements.

In Era of Extremes, Argentina's Candidates Fight for the Center
Mac Margolis/Bloomberg View/August 12/2019
As Argentines headed to the polls for primary elections last Sunday, there was a puzzler for voters: How to choose between political campaigns that demonize one another as ruin incarnate, but whose candidates have raced to claim the middle ground?
To hear it from officialdom, incumbent President Mauricio Macri of the Let’s Change Party is the country’s backstop against a return to the authoritarian populism that would convert South America’s second biggest economy into a Venezuela on the River Plate. And yet to his opponents, Alberto Fernandez and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, from the iconic Peronist “Front for All” party, Macri is the tool of avaricious neoliberals whose cold-blooded austerity will strangle the economy and soak the poor.
Much of this is political theater to juice the party faithful ahead of the election in October. Strip away the histrionics, however, and what remains is a fight between the two most competitive of Argentina’s 10 presidential contenders to stake out the same, narrow policy space and poach moderate votes from the center. The convergence between the candidates is more than a matter of political style. It also shows how Argentina electorate has changed for the better, as crisis-battered voters demand plans and proposals not moonbeams.
Alberto Fernandez, a moderate and conciliator who heads the opposition Front for All ticket, cuts a sharp contrast with his running mate Cristina Fernandez – known to all simply as Cristina – an alpha Peronist whose eight years of wealth-destroying populism crippled the economy and alienated millions of Argentines. Macri, too, has bent backward to rebrand his struggling campaign, choosing as his running mate Miguel Angel Pichetto, a Peronist legislative power broker, in a clear gesture to estranged moderates.
Nor is there much daylight between their political positions. If Macri is vilified for his business-friendly reforms, austerity and a pact with the International Monetary Fund, then what to say of Fernandez, a pragmatist, who quit his post as Cristina’s chief of staff over her abrasive style, statist policies and fights with industrial leaders and the national media? As president, Cristina frequently bashed Argentina’s powerful farmers. Fernandez has courted them, proposing to cut taxes on agriculture exports if the economy grows.
The convergence makes sense in a country where political dissonance has only worsened chronic economic misfortune. The economy is in recession, unemployment hit a 13-year high and inflation has surpassed 50%. Sure, the US-China trade war could give Argentina’s farmers a momentary bump. Yet global turmoil puts added pressure on the volatile peso, already the emerging market’s weakest currency.
Even as analysts say the economy is responding to reforms, sacrifice is widespread. More than a third of urban Argentines are poor and nearly half of children live on less than they need, a Catholic University of Argentina survey reported in June. In greater Buenos Aires, home to 28% of the national electorate, one in two households live in poverty. An urban crimewave and recrudescent corruption complete the kind of dismal tableau that creates an opening for populists.
Argentine populism is hardly dead, just attenuated, as the campaign’s turn to Peronism illustrates. “The Peronist brand is everywhere, but it’s populism lite,” said Argentine historian Federico Finchelstein, who teaches at the New School for Social Research. Peronism, after all, conveniently spans the political spectrum. This formfitting movement suits a society still enamored of personality politics but—perhaps because memories of dictatorship are still vivid—uneasy with the raging ideologies of the day. “No one from the Argentine right would dream of praising the dirty war or torture,” said Finchelstein, referring to the bilious mantras of Brazil’s populist President Jair Bolsonaro. “Remember Juan Peron described himself as the vegetarian lion.”
The campaigns have made a nod to that tradition. Macri can no longer run with the anti-politician mantle he wore in 2015, nor boast of his economic achievement, so he’s asking voters to have faith his reforms will eventually deliver results. Fernandez cannot promise a return to good times—Cristina’s government left Argentina prostrate—only an end to misery. “Both candidates are essentially saying ‘Believe in me’. That’s a populist framework not a platform,” said Finchelstein.
Attenuated populism won’t revive growth or drive reform. But hard knocks may help. Whoever is elected in October will have to negotiate more lenient terms (a smaller primary surplus) with the IMF and honor payments to creditors, according to Oxford Economics.
“Even if Fernandez and Fernandez win, indications are they won’t repeat Cristina’s last mandate. Investors and creditors will be swift to punish any return to populism,” said Goldman Sachs emerging market analyst Alberto Ramos. Such is the civilizing effect or straightjacket—pick your party line—global markets impose upon policymakers, regardless of ideology. Argentina’s political hopefuls ignore that at their peril.

Algeria: The Hammer and The Anvil
Robert Ford//Asharq Al Awsat/August 12/2019
Algeria is approaching a crossroads but it is not clear which path it will take between evolution and violent revolution. There is a dialog commission that is trying to devise a plan for elections acceptable to the Algerian people. This commission is between the hammer of the army and the anvil of the street protest movement (the Algerians call it the hirak). On the one hand, the Army chief of staff Gaid Salah last week again warned that the military institution would accept no conditions from the new dialogue commission or from the hirak protest movement before the dialog begins. He pledged no release of arrested protesters, continued bans on carrying the Amazigh banner and continued deployment of security forces on the margins of the protest marches. Above all, Gaid Salah insisted that a presidential election be held as soon as possible under the authority of the existing government. In response to Gaid Salah’s latest speech, we saw August 9 the twenty-fifth week of large protest marches across Algeria. One sign in an Algiers protest march said “Gaid Salah is Bouteflika the Second”. Some protesters again carried the Amazigh banner. The marches from East to West again demanded a complete rupture with the existing government and rejected Gaid Salah’s elections until after the existing government is completely replaced. Many in the protest movement and some opposition parties refuse to meet with the dialog commission, fearing its purpose is to give a new life to the old regime.
It is important to note that both the army and the hirak have weaknesses. The hirak has no clear leader. The number of protesters in the streets every Friday and Tuesday has diminished. Another reason is that after six months, there is frustration that the protest movement has not achieved the fall of the regime. Notably, some of the protesters are beginning to call for civil disobedience. Adopting that strategy would intensify the confrontation between the army and the hirak. Many Algerians still remember the black decade of the 1990s, and therefore there is no agreement yet inside the hirak about civil disobedience.
The army too has its problems. Most important, it is isolated. Gaid Salah and President Abdelkader Bensalah do not always agree. For example, Bensalah last week indicated that perhaps some of the demands of the protest movement, such as releasing prisoners of opinion, could be considered in order to build confidence. The dialogue commission chairman Karim Younes welcomed Bensalah’s acknowledgement and emphasized that the dialog commission can succeed only if the government makes some concessions to the hirak. Gaid Salah, however, still rejects concessions. The only two political parties that agree with the Army commander are from the old regime, and they lack credibility and have no popular base. The dialog commission, appointed by the army’s government, said it would not meet with the two parties because they cannot help solve the political confrontation. At the same time, a court in the city of Annaba released a protester who had been arrested for carrying an Amazigh banner. Many in the judicial system criticize the government which is why Bensalah is trying to make changes in the Justice Ministry and the judges. Algerian journalist El-Qadi Ihsan wrote last week that Gaid Salah thinks he can save the current system by intimidating the population without giving any concessions. The Algerian journalist called this political suicide.
Friends of Algeria hope this country that has many different cultural histories and characters and talents can avoid political suicide. There is appreciation around the world that in the confrontation up to now both sides have exercised restraint. Can Algeria avoid the fate of countries like Libya and Syria ? Perhaps the dialog commission will be useful, but will Gaid Salah accept offering concessions to the protest movement so that the dialog commission wins some credibility with the hirak? Can Algerian politicians and thinkers devise a political plan that the population trusts? What I saw in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 in cooperation with the United Nations was that building an independent, strong and neutral election mechanism from zero needs much negotiation and time. And if the dialog commission and Algerian experts create a political plan, how can they convince the street protest movement that has no leaders and doesn’t want leaders? Will the frustrated hirak protesters continue to avoid direct confrontation that could slip into violence ? In this hot summer when I observe Algeria, I like the Arabic saying, “in haste, there is regret and in deliberateness there is safety.”

Iran hopes a US election will solve its ‘Trump problem’
د.مجيد رافيزادا: يتمنى ملالي إيران أن تحل الإنتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية مشكلتهم مع ترامب
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/August 12/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/77486/%d8%af-%d9%85%d8%ac%d9%8a%d8%af-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%b2%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%aa%d9%85%d9%86%d9%89-%d9%85%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%8a-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a3%d9%86-%d8%aa%d8%ad/
One of the characteristics of democracies in the West is that every government or administration generally comes to office for a few years, and is then replaced by another with new plans and policies. One of the strategic advantages Iran has over the West is that, without such democratic accountability, the theocratic establishment can plan decades ahead.
It is true that presidents in Iran change every four or eight years, but they do not make final decisions. Presidents and foreign ministers work for the Supreme Leader, the ultimate political and religious authority, who rules until his death and enjoys the final say in domestic and foreign policies. This continuity has given Iran a platform for a multifaceted strategy in an attempt to wait out the Trump administration. When Donald Trump became US president, Iranian leaders knew they would have several difficult years ahead; Trump had made his intention of confronting the Iranian regime crystal clear. At the same time, because Trump did not win the popular vote, Iran’s leaders guessed that they would have to survive only four years of his administration.
Pitting Europe against the US paid off for Iran as the EU fell into its divide-and-conquer political trap. The EU also worked hard on avenues that can preserve the nuclear deal, and continues to do so.
Trump began by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal with world powers to curb Iran’s nuclear program in return for an end to sanctions. When the US re-imposed those sanctions, Iran did not immediately respond by also pulling out of the nuclear deal, for three main reasons. First, a swift withdrawal could have tilted the European Union toward the US position and intensified the pressure on Tehran. Instead, Iran played the victim by saying it would stick to the agreement in spite of the US having pulled out. Since the US was to blame, the international community should reimburse Iran’s financial losses, it argued.
Pitting Europe against the US paid off for Iran as the EU fell into its divide-and-conquer political trap. The EU also worked hard on avenues that can preserve the nuclear deal, and continues to do so. To circumvent US sanctions that bar access to the dollar, Germany, France and the UK set up a new mechanism called the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX). Second, by not swiftly and openly withdrawing from the nuclear deal, Tehran was also attempting to prevent the crisis from spiraling into military confrontation with the US. From Iran’s perspective, some of Trump’s officials — such as national security adviser John Bolton — would not hesitate to confront Iran militarily; and such a war would be the end of the clerical regime, because Iran’s military capabilities are much inferior to those of the US.
Third, by claiming that Iran is still adhering to the terms of the nuclear deal, Tehran is encouraging the next Democrat president to rejoin the JCPOA and lift all the sanctions imposed by Trump. That is why, despite openly breaching the JCPOA’s limits on enriched uranium, Iran argues that these are remedial measures in response to US actions, and are both permissible and reversible.
In tandem with this strategy, the regime also deployed more hard power in the Gulf while simultaneously warning that to confront them would be a catastrophe for the world. According to President Hassan Rouhani: “Peace with Iran is the mother of peace. War with Iran is the mother of all war.” Their belief that the EU is on Iran’s side and that the US is alone has emboldened Iran’s leaders to implement such aggressive polices. US presidential elections take place next year, and Iran’s leaders believe their wait will soon be over. We shall see.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. He serves on the boards of the Harvard International Review, the Harvard International Relations Council and the US-Middle East Chamber for Commerce and Business. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Iran’s racist revisionism must be challenged
Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami/Arab News/August 12/2019
State-sponsored media outlets play a major role in political, cultural and diplomatic promotions. They are, sometimes, also exploited by countries and governments to slander enemy states, to disseminate lies about them, and to work to distort their image. Despite a decline in its rhetoric targeting Western audiences, Iran has achieved relative success in recent years in exploiting its media for propaganda purposes as well as using it to promote its role in the region. Iran has claimed that it contributes to counter-terrorism operations and, by doing so, it is doing the West a big favor. This is reiterated by Iranian politicians, as they claim that Iran’s fight against terrorism in Syria and Iraq has prevented Sunni terror groups from spilling over into Europe.
Iran’s regime also tugs at the heartstrings of history by referring to cultural and civilizational commonalities between Iran and Western nations. For example, in the lectures and symposium speeches delivered by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif in Western capitals or in his interviews with Western press agencies, he focuses on the historical links between the Western and Persian civilizations, underlining the deep-rooted nature of these commonalities. Zarif does the same thing in his articles published in Western newspapers. He writes about the commonalities between the Roman and Persian empires as well as focusing on the necessity of cooperation between Europe and Iran to resolve the crises in the Middle East. Zarif further adds in his writings that the two sides cannot ignore the situation in the region because the security of neighboring nations is of utmost importance.
Through his writings, Zarif wants to convey the idea that Iran enjoys security and stability in a volatile Arab region despite the fact that some non-Persian ethnic areas in Iran frequently witness instability followed by state-sponsored oppression such as in Sistan and Baluchistan, Ahwaz and Kurdistan provinces.
More importantly, the points made by Zarif in his articles disregard the central fact that Iran’s regime is one of the primary instigators of tensions in the Arab region through its support for terror groups and militias in several countries, with Tehran supplying them with money and weapons. Tehran’s regime, which also sends its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to fight in Syria, Iraq and Yemen is, in effect, an arsonist posing as a firefighter, setting the region on fire and then claiming to be engaged in helping to extinguish the fire.
Unfortunately, the Western media’s attention has not been brought to this issue, and we, Arabs, are being blamed for the fires ignited by Iran’s regime.
Meanwhile, Iranian politicians seize every opportunity to defame their Arab and Gulf foes as well as to demonize them in the West by either slanderously accusing them of supporting terrorism and sectarianism in the region or by claiming in the most racist and offensive of ways that Arabs lack historical experiences and the essential prerequisites of civilization. These are not just racist insults, but open and flagrant lies and efforts by Iran to revise historical realities.
Tehran’s regime is, in effect, an arsonist posing as a firefighter, setting the region on fire and then claiming to be engaged in helping to extinguish the fire.
Iran’s regime and its representatives seem arrogantly certain that the media and news consumers in the rest of the world will not bother with verifying facts or investigating the veracity of their claims, especially since these are in harmony with Orientalist stereotypes prevalent in the West about the Arab region.
Iran’s regime is not content with this slander and these lies; it has taken further measures, through recruiting Iranian columnists and researchers as well as regime-friendly associates overseas to aid its propaganda. Tehran has used financial incentives as well as social pressures not only to promote the regime’s policies directly and indirectly but also, and more importantly, to demonize Saudi Arabia and to introduce it to Western readers as the primary source of evil. The most dangerous aspect of this issue is that ordinary Western readers are not informed of the fact that these writers are of Iranian origin or that they are linked in one way or another to the Iranian regime. In addition, there is ignorance on behalf of Westerners as they cannot differentiate between Middle Eastern names even at the best of times. More dangerously, many in the West believe that these Iranian figures understand what is happening in the region better than Westerners. The reasons for this false belief are numerous.
All of this has happened amid an almost total absence of serious foreign-language Arab media outlets.
*Dr. Mohammed Al-Sulami is head of the International Institute for Iranian Studies (Rasanah). Twitter: @mohalsulami