English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For August 23/2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.august23.20.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person
First Letter to the Corinthians 03/10-23/:”According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’, and again, ‘The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.’So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 22-23/2020

S&P Downgrades Lebanon Bonds to Default after Missed Payments
Two New Arrest Warrants over Beirut Blast Raise Detainees to 19
Relief Efforts Continue to Flock into Disaster-hit Beirut
STL Specifies Importance of the Judgment in the Ayyash et al. Case
Lebanon Govt. Consultations Begin with Berri-Bassil-Hezbollah Meeting
3 Men Killed in North Lebanon Shooting
Beirut Blast Impact Reflects in Virus Cases
UK Sends Second Team of Medics to Support Hospitals in Blast-hit Beirut
Beirut Blast Shattered Taboos around Hizbullah
Hezbollah bought explosive material during time of port storage — report/Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/August 22/2020
Dotting the I’s in the Hariri Assassination Verdict/Rajeh Khoury/Asharq Al-Awsat/August 22/2020

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 22-23/2020

Canada/Minister Champagne travels to Lebanon and Europe
IAEA Chief Plans Trip to Pressure Iran on Access to Suspect Sites
US Imposes Visa Restrictions on 14 Iranians over Human Rights Violations
Former US intel director slams Germany for lifting Iran arms embargo
Pompeo to visit Israel, UAE this week; peace agreement on agenda
Turkish government converts former Byzantine church into mosque
Ex-Israeli Minister: Erdogan Set the Stage for Talks with Arab, Islamic States
GCC, Egypt welcome statements for ceasefire in Libya
Basra Killings Undermine Iraqi PM's Efforts to Rein in Militias
Iraq PM’s Visit to US Generates Positive Impact at Home
Israel Shells Hamas Posts in Gaza after Rocket Fired
Russia Strikes ISIS Positions in Eastern Syria

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 22-23/2020

Question: "What did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me” /GotQuestions.org/August 22/2020
U.S. officially moves to trigger sanctions ‘snapback’ against Iran despite opposition at U.N./Carol Morello and Karen DeYoung/The Washington Post/August 22/2020
Israel’s New Friendship With the UAE Will Come at a Cost/ Eli Lake/Bloomberg/August 22/2020
Coptic Christians Ordered to Sell Home and Leave Village/Raymond Ibrahim/Coptic Solidarity/August 22/2020
Turkey is looking to redraw the Mediterranean map/Damien McElroy/The National/August 22/ 2020
Optimism about Libyan ceasefire agreement but devil in the detail/Mona El-Mahrouki/The Arab Weekly/August 22/2020
What to do with the ‘last dictator’/Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/August 22/2020
Europe’s big beasts make plans for the future/Andrew Hammond/Arab News/August 22/2020
What a Biden presidency would mean for the Middle East/Hafed Al-Ghwell/Arab News/August 22/2020
Ordinary Gazans pay the price of this endless, futile conflict/Yossi Mekelberg/Arab News/August 22/2020
Erdoğan Needs New Enemies/Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/August 22/ 2020

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 22-23/2020

S&P Downgrades Lebanon Bonds to Default after Missed Payments
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 22/2020
Credit ratings agency S&P on Friday downgraded more Lebanese government debt issues after missed payments, citing the country's worsening economic crisis following the devastating explosion in Beirut earlier this month. S&P Global Ratings maintained the "selective default" or "SD" rating for Lebanon's foreign debt, after the country first defaulted in March, but three more bonds were cut to "D" from "CC," the agency said. "The recent catastrophic explosion in Beirut is deepening the country's economic crisis," S&P said in a statement. "A protracted political vacuum or weak new government could further delay policy reforms, external aid and debt restructuring negotiations." The capital was ravaged by a massive explosion at Beirut's port on August 4 that killed 181 people and wounded thousands. That was followed by protests against the government, leading the cabinet to resign.
Still reeling from the deadly blast, the country also entered into a new coronavirus lockdown Friday after a string of record daily infections tallies. "Even before these recent events, Lebanon had made limited progress in engaging creditors on debt restructuring negotiations," S&P said.
The IMF has been working with the government to try to reach an agreement on a new aid program that could undergird a debt restructuring and unlock billions more in aid. Lebanon's government says it needs $20 billion in external funding, which includes $11 billion pledged by donors in 2018. However, this "remains elusive as the key Lebanese political institutions and players are unable to agree on the causes and scope of the country's crisis." "Without a strong commitment to implement structural economic, fiscal and monetary reforms, and absent a policy anchor provided by an IMF program, we expect restructuring negotiations will be drawn out beyond 2020," the agency said.

Two New Arrest Warrants over Beirut Blast Raise Detainees to 19
Naharnet/August 22/2020
Judicial investigator into the Beirut port blast Judge Fadi Sawan issued two new arrest warrants on Friday, the National News Agency reported. "The investigating judge, Fadi Sawan, continued his investigations... and today issued two arrest warrants," the source said. According to the official National News Agency, the subjects of the warrants are Beirut's customs authority director, Hanna Fares, and Nayla al-Hajj, an engineer contracted for maintenance work at warehouse 12, where the explosion took place. A huge stock of ammonium nitrate stored unsecured for years in the rundown warehouse at the Lebanese capital's port exploded on August 4. The blast caused severe damage across swathes of the city, killed at least 181 people and injured more than 6,500. Lebanon has launched an investigation into the disaster, which many have blamed on official negligence and corruption. According to NNA, so far arrest warrants have been issued for 19 of the 25 people currently facing lawsuits over the blast, including Beirut Port director-general Hassan Koraytem and customs director-general, Badri Daher. While authorities have rebuffed widespread calls for an international probe, Lebanon's investigation is being aided by foreign experts, including from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. France, which counted among the dead several of its citizens, has launched its own inquiry.

Relief Efforts Continue to Flock into Disaster-hit Beirut
Naharnet/August 22/2020
Relief efforts arrived to Lebanon on Saturday this time coming from Italy, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. An Italian military ship loaded with medical equipment and food products arrived in support of those affected by the Beirut port explosion. Honorary Consul in Tuscany Charbel Shbair said in remarks to the National News Agency that another military ship loaded with fire trucks, protective equipment for firefighting and medical aid will sail from the port of Civitavecchia and will head to Lebanon in the next two days. From Saudi Arabia, King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Center, in cooperation with the High Relief Commission, handed over a donation to Lebanon after the disaster of the Beirut port explosion. Medical supplies and equipment were provided to government hospitals and charitable clinics, in the presence of the Secretary General of the High Relief Commission Major General Muhammad Khair, and head of the King Salman Center for Relief and Humanitarian Action in Lebanon Fahd bin Saleh Al-Qannas, and representatives of the Ministry of Health and governmental hospitals in Lebanon. Two Egyptian planes also landed at Beirut’s international airport carrying close to 26 tons of food aid, medicine and relief supplies provided by the Egyptian Church, Al-Azhar and the Egyptian Shifa Bank to help the Lebanese people. Egypt has been sending planes every 48 hours to Lebanon with necessary aid to the disaster-stricken city.

STL Specifies Importance of the Judgment in the Ayyash et al. Case
Naharnet/August 22/2020
https://youtu.be/tfcqnV4B1OE
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon shared a video on Saturday with media outlets in which the STL Spokesperson talked about the importance and relevance of the Judgment in the Ayyash et al. case.

Lebanon Govt. Consultations Begin with Berri-Bassil-Hezbollah Meeting
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
A lengthy meeting was held on Friday between Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, the head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), MP Gebran Bassil and a representative from Hezbollah to discuss the formation of the new government. The meeting was based on Berri’s proposal for the return of former Prime Minister Saad Hariri to head the new cabinet. Well-informed sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the talks were held in the presence of Berri’s aide, former Finance Minister Ali Hassan Khalil, and the political assistant of Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hussein Khalil.
Sources were quoted as saying that the meeting was the beginning of serious consultations over the new government and its tasks, but did not touch on the name of the prime minister. Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Najib Mikati criticized “the delay in calling for binding parliamentary consultations to name the next prime minister.”He stressed the need to “conduct consultations to form a rescue government of reliable figures, who would restore the citizens’ confidence in the state and commit to a specific and clear program aimed at swiftly addressing the repercussions of the Beirut port explosion and adopting the necessary reforms to launch cooperation with the relevant international institutions.” Mustaqbal Movement MP Hadi Hobeish emphasized “the need to accelerate the formation of the government” and to take advantage of the international and Arab movement in this direction. He said that communication was ongoing, but noted that the formation process might need some time “before reaching the desired results.” “If Hariri agrees to head the new cabinet, he will have his conditions, the first of which is for the government to be productive and effective, as the Lebanese people have had enough of disruption and vacuum,” Hobeish stated. FPM MP Edgard Maalouf said his party would support any prime minister who is “committed to implementing the required reforms.”In contrast, Lebanese Forces MP Wehbi Qatisha reiterated his party’s rejection to form a unity government. He wrote on Twitter: “Forming a national unity government or a cabinet of political parties is like someone who wants to extinguish the fire with another fire.”

3 Men Killed in North Lebanon Shooting
Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
Three men were killed in a shooting in a village in northern Lebanon overnight, security sources and the National News Agency said on Saturday. The gunfire came from a Honda Accord car which the men had stopped as it passed through the village of Kaftoun, the sources said. The vehicle was later found abandoned, containing a gun with a silencer, a small explosive device and electrical wire, the sources said. Two of the men died immediately. The third died later of his wounds. The victims have been identified as Alaa F., the son of the municipality chief, George S. and Fadi S. The motive for the shooting was not immediately clear.

Beirut Blast Impact Reflects in Virus Cases
Associated Press/Naharnet/August 22/2020
A two-week partial lockdown and nighttime curfew kicked off Friday in Lebanon after coronavirus cases increased sharply following an explosion in Beirut that killed and injured thousands of people. Confirmed cases of the virus have increased from 5,417 a day after the massive blast on Aug. 4 to more than 11,000 on Friday, leading officials to announce the lockdown. On Friday, Lebanon's Health Ministry tallied a record 628 confirmed new cases in the previous 24 hours, raising the total registered cases since late February to 11,580. The pandemic has killed 116 people in the tiny country, which was successful in limiting the spread of the virus during the early months. Many businesses were closed Saturday morning in Beirut even though some sectors, including banks, groceries, book shops and pharmacies were allowed to open. Restaurants, night clubs, beaches and clothes shops are among the businesses ordered to close by the Ministry of Interior. The country's top Sunni Muslim authority ordered all mosques closed and suspended prayers inside them around Lebanon until further notice. Virus cases had already been on the rise since the beginning of July, when an earlier lockdown was lifted and Lebanon's only international airport was reopened. At the end of June, Lebanon registered 1,778 cases. That number has since multiplied more than five times in seven weeks. But the numbers shot up dramatically following the Aug. 4, explosion of nearly 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate stored at Beirut's port. More than 180 people were killed, more than 6,000 injured and a quarter of a million people were left with homes unfit to live in. The blast overwhelmed the city's hospitals and also badly damaged two that had a key role in handling virus cases.After the blast, medical officials have warned of increased risk of catching the virus because of crowding at hospitals and funerals, or as people searched through the rubble. Protests and demonstrations also broke out after the blast as Lebanese vented their anger at authorities. The virus causes mild to moderate symptoms in most people, who recover within a few weeks. But it is highly contagious and can cause severe illness or death, particularly in older patients or those with underlying health problems. Lebanon's health sector has been challenged by the pandemic that hit amid an unprecedented economic and financial crisis.

UK Sends Second Team of Medics to Support Hospitals in Blast-hit Beirut
Naharnet/August 22/2020
A second team of UK-aid funded medics have flown to Lebanon Friday to help tackle coronavirus in hospitals affected by the explosion, the UK embassy said in a press release Saturday. The team of five, who left from London Heathrow Airport, are part of the UK’s Emergency Medical Team (UK EMT) and specialise in intensive care, infection control, and water and sanitation. They will join three colleagues deployed earlier this month, with five more medics expected to join in the coming weeks. An assessment from the first team of medics from the UK EMT, showed there was an urgent need for help to tackle the coronavirus outbreak in Lebanon, which has been made significantly more challenging by the explosion. The team will share their expertise with the WHO, which is coordinating health needs in the city. International Development Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:
“Beirut is still facing an uphill battle to get back on its feet, having to deal with the complex double challenge of the aftermath of the explosion at the same time as tackling a worrying increase in coronavirus cases. “I want to thank this team of British heroes, whose expertise will help co-ordinate the response to this tragic disaster.” British Ambassador to Lebanon, Chris Rampling said: “Our support to the Lebanese people continues in their time of need after the tragic explosion on August 4. Hospitals and clinics across the country are struggling to tackle the sharp rise in coronavirus cases. The arrival of five experts from the UK Emergency Medical Team will reinforce an existing team already on the ground, working closely with the World Health Organisation, and supporting public health facilities to respond to the pandemic. “Our British heroes will join forces with Lebanese heroes coming together in times of tragedy and crisis.”Lebanon has seen a stark rise in reported coronavirus cases, with the total numbers of cases doubling since the blast. The full team of 13 experts will meet needs on the ground by joining up with the WHO to coordinate the international response to the health crisis and embedding in two public hospitals to help tackle coronavirus cases.

Beirut Blast Shattered Taboos around Hizbullah
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/August 22/2020
Hizbullah's emphatic defence of the political status quo in Lebanon has exposed it since the deadly Beirut blast to levels of public contempt and anger it was once shielded from. The powerful Shiite movement remains the dominant player in Lebanon, but the special status it enjoyed and the fear it instilled were torn down by the explosion. In a scene that was almost unthinkable only a few months ago, an image of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was among the cardboard cutouts protesters hanged from their mock gallows this month. "In the hours that followed the explosion, many blamed Hizbullah," said Fares al-Halabi, who has been active since an unprecedented anti-government protest movement that erupted in October 2019. Last year, he said, "there had been a tacit agreement among the revolutionary camp not to raise the issue of Hizbullah and of its weapons." The group is the only faction to have kept its weapons long after the 1975 to 1990 civil war. Its military might rivals the state's and is seen by many as one of the main obstacles to democratic reform. The verdict of a special court based in The Netherlands on Tuesday found a Hizbullah member, Salim Ayyash, guilty in absentia of murder over the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafic Hariri, a Sunni. The investigation did not establish a direct link with Hizbullah's leadership but it stressed the evidently political nature of the crime. "Hizbullah operatives do not freelance," was how US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo put it.By jumping into the mainstream political swamp, the group has exposed itself to being held responsible, if not accountable, for the shortcomings of the state. Whatever investigations come to reveal of what triggered the August 4 port blast that killed more than 180 people, many Lebanese already agree one thing: that their entire corrupt ruling elite is the real culprit. Whoever may have owned the stock of ammonium nitrate that blew up and devastated swathes of Beirut, the main powerbrokers of a system that Hizbullah dominates and protects all knew about it. When protesters, in a rare show of non-sectarian unity, last year sought to bring down the system, it was Hizbullah that came to the rescue of Lebanon's reviled class of hereditary political barons.
'De-facto ruler'
"To me that was a significant move. Hizbullah could have shielded itself from this role but chose to protect this house that's collapsing," said Sami Atallah, who heads the Lebanese Centre for Policy Studies. Hizbullah has long enjoyed some level of popular legitimacy over its history of resistance against Israel, which has spared it some of the spite directed at other parties. The fervour surrounding Nasrallah as a religious leader also created a lese-majeste rule that made his fiercest opponents think twice about voicing their opinions with the same bravado they would use against other politicians. That restraint was laid to rest after the August 4 deadly blast as an angry public let rip at their political leadership, Nasrallah included, in ways not seen before. Many Lebanese saw the explosion as the starkest evidence yet that corruption kills. Tongues have loosened now and ridiculing Hizbullah is no longer sacrilege. A widely shared meme had a screen grab of Nasrallah choking back tears over the killing of Iranian spymaster Qasem Soleimani in a US drone strike in Iraq earlier this year, contrasting with another of him looking composed and smiling after the Beirut blast. Lebanon's worst peacetime disaster left more than 6,000 people wounded and maimed, 70,000 jobless, and hundreds of thousands without a home. Many victims said they will never forgive the state for failing to prevent the blast, and also for failing to respond adequately. Activist Naji Abou Khalil said that before the explosion "Hizbullah had managed to cast itself as an anti-establishment party". "Now Hizbullah's image as a governing party like any other dominates that of the resistance party," said Abou Khalil, also an executive committee member of the reformist and secular National Bloc party. Hizbullah long had the best of both worlds, wielding considerable behind-the-scenes power without having to answer publicly for its decisions. Now it is finding that being the boss comes with drawbacks, Halabi said of the movement which dominates parliament and government with its allies. "Hizbullah is the de-facto ruler and everything that happens falls under its authority, and the... ruler is always the one who bears responsibility for any negative consequences that occur," he said.

Hezbollah bought explosive material during time of port storage — report
Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/August 22/2020
"Hezbollah in Lebanon received large deliveries of ammonium nitrate, which are closely related to the material detonated in Beirut."
Hezbollah purchased a large amount of ammonium nitrate that was linked to the storage of the same chemical that was being stored at Beirut Port and led to a massive explosion in early August, German daily Die Welt reported Wednesday.
“Welt has exclusive information from Western secret services. Accordingly, the [Hezbollah] militia bought large quantities of the dangerous substance... After the disaster in the Port of Beirut, Hezbollah was suspected of having been involved in the storage of the explosive ammonium nitrate,” the report said.
“According to information from Western secret services that is available to Welt, Hezbollah in Lebanon received large deliveries of ammonium nitrate, which are closely related to the material detonated in Beirut,” Die Welt reported.
It is not certain if the ammonium nitrate at the port was the same that was shipped around the same time to Hezbollah in 2013 and 2014, according to the report. Some of the Lebanese terrorist group’s purchase was shipped through the port, and some was imported via airport or overland through Syria, the report said.The Jerusalem Post could not verify the unnamed Western intelligence sources mentioned in the report.
The explosion of the ammonium nitrate during the first week of August killed at least 171 people and injured 6,000. The explosive material was believed to have been stored at the port since 2014.
Hezbollah “had considerable quantities of ammonium nitrate delivered to Lebanon precisely at that time (late 2013 or early 2014). The Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, i.e., the part of those paramilitaries responsible for foreign operations, which also has a key political position in Iran, is said to have been responsible for the transport,” Die Welt reported.
THE DELIVERIES of ammonium nitrate to the Lebanese Shi’ite organization in 2013 must have occurred under the watch of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, who was assassinated by the US military in a drone strike in January, the report said.
The first delivery is believed to have taken place on July 16, 2013, and involved 270 tons of ammonium nitrate that was sent from Iran to Lebanon. The invoice was for €179,399. On October 23, 2013, a second delivery of 270 tons was delivered for €140,693. The amount of the third delivery could not be determined, Die Welt reported.
A fourth delivery on April 4, 2014 cost €61,248 euros, and Die Welt estimated that the tonnage ranged from 90 to 130 tons. The total of three deliveries of ammonium nitrate to Hezbollah, therefore, weighed between 630 and 670 tons.
“The freight from October 2013 is said to have been transported in flexible bulk containers by plane, presumably with one of the officially private Iranian airlines, which are considered the front companies of the Revolutionary Guard,” Die Welt reported.
One of the airlines, Iranian-based Mahan Air, “was deprived of the right to take off and land in Germany last year, with an explicit reference to the activities of the Revolutionary Guard,” the report said. The US government has designated the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization.
Die Welt listed a number of Hezbollah and Iranian regime operatives involved in the deliveries of ammonium nitrate to the port. Mohammad Qasir, who was sanctioned by the US government for financing the Lebanese terrorist group, was listed as a deliverer of the explosive material.
MATTHEW LEVITT, who serves as the director of the Washington Institute’s Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence told the Post: “Qasir heads Lebanese Hezbollah Unit 108, responsible for facilitating transfer of weapons and tech from Iran to Lebanon via Syria. Based in Damascus, Qasir and other senior Hezbollah officials work closely with officers from Quds Force’s Unit 190 – which specializes in smuggling weapons to Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza – under the supervision of the late Qasem Soleimani.”
The purported effort to procure the 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate that blew up earlier this month, he said, is not linked to his account of Qasir’s terrorist activities outlined to the Post.
Levitt, a leading Hezbollah expert, added: “The first link in the weapons transportation chain is Qasir’s Unit 108, which is responsible for moving weapons across Syria to the Lebanese border and then, together with Unit 112, transporting weapons across the border into Lebanon. Another Hezbollah unit, Unit 100, runs a ratline in the reverse direction, from Lebanon to Syria to Iran, ferrying Hezbollah trainees to and from advanced training in the handling and use of the rockets delivered from Iran.”
“Qasir, aka Hajj Fadi, is uniquely qualified to head a unit as sensitive and important as Unit 108,” he said. “One of Qasir’s brothers, Hassan, is reportedly the son-in-law of Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah. Another brother, Ahmed Qasir, was the suicide bomber who carried out the November 1992 attack on an Israeli military headquarters in Tyre. Nasrallah referred to Ahmed as the ‘prince of martyrs’ at a Martyrs Foundation event marking the anniversary of the attack.”
Die Welt documented additional operatives involved in the deliveries. Iranian Quds Force member Seyyed Mojtaba Moussavi Tabar is believed to have organized the Iranian transfer of ammonium nitrate to Hezbollah.
Tabar’s deputy, Behnam Shahriyari, who was sanctioned by the US in 2011, was also part of the delivery operation, the report said. He was sanctioned because of his support for Hezbollah, which is classified as a terrorist entity by the US, Canada, Germany, Britain, the Arab League, Lithuania, a number of Latin America countries and Israel.
Tabar played a role in the operation as head of the Iranian transportation firm Liner Transport Kish, which apparently delivered the ammonium nitrate to Hezbollah.
The US State Department under both the Obama and Trump administrations designated Iran’s regime, the chief sponsor of Hezbollah, as the worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Hezbollah denies involvement with the explosion of the 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate in early August. The German government justified its April ban of all Hezbollah activities because the organization was found to have stored the explosive chemical in the state of Bavaria. Members of Hezbollah’s network have also been seized with the substance in Cyprus, France and the UK.
Hezbollah may have amassed the ammonium nitrate to use during the civil war in Syria and advance the military aims of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, a Western security expert told Die Welt.
A second reason for accumulating the deadly chemical, the security expert said, may have been to detonate the material against Israeli targets via Hezbollah’s tunnel system.

Dotting the I’s in the Hariri Assassination Verdict
Rajeh Khoury/Asharq Al-Awsat/August 22/2020
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which issued its verdict on Tuesday in the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was not politicized like the Nuremburg trials of November 1945. Therefore, its verdict, which avoided politics directly, was very professional and refuted years of allegations that it was politicized and an American-Israeli tool. It is a professional tribunal, which proved in its verdict that it was for removed from politics because it respected the Statutes on which it was formed on May 30, 2007.
Of course, many people at first overlooked that the Statutes stipulate that the STL cannot make accusations against parties or countries. This condition was added to avoid Chinese and Russian vetoes that would have aborted its formation. So, at first glance, many people were disappointed with Tuesday’s verdict that only pinned blamed on Salim Ayyash for committing a premeditated terrorist act through an explosive that killed Hariri and his companions. As for Ayyash’s fellow Hezbollah members, Hassan Merhi, Assad Sabra and Hassan Oneissi, the STL found that they were not guilty of the charges against them. It did accuse leading party member Mustafa Badreddine of plotting the assassination, but he has been killed in Syria.
Hezbollah did not comment on the verdict because it has repeatedly said that it does not recognize the STL. Party chief Hassan Nasrallah had rejected the STL’s 2011 indictment, which was issued six years after the assassination. The indictment found that persons trained by Hezbollah’s military wing had the capabilities to carry out the terrorist attack, regardless if this attack was for its own gain or not. It was evident that the STL was committed to its Statutes and did not point blame to a party or a state.
Nasrallah at the time, however, described the indictment as politicized and renewed his refusal to cooperate with the court. “Anything issued from it is an act of aggression against the party,” he said, deeming it an American-Israeli tool and describing the accused as “honorable and wronged.” He vowed that they will never be caught, “never in 30 or 60 days or 300 years.” However, the STL has the jurisdiction to try suspects in absentia in line with Lebanese law that allows such trials, in contrast to Anglo-Saxon laws.
Before addressing the need to arrest or not arrest the only convict – Salim Ayyash – it is necessary to highlight formed PM Saad Hariri’s press conference at Leidschendam in front of the STL headquarters. He said: “The court has spoken and we, on behalf of Rafik Hariri’s family and the families of the victims, accept the ruling and want justice to be served. We have all found out the truth today and it remains for justice to be served, no matter how long it takes.” The STL was formed under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, allowing the Security Council jurisdiction in carrying out the verdict, if the Lebanese government fails in arresting Ayyash.
The verdict covers a whopping 2,500 pages and the tribunal on Tuesday offered a summarized summary of it in condemning Ayyash and Badreddine and acquitting the others. The announcement that it lacks enough evidence to implicate Hezbollah and the Syrian leadership has raised a lot of criticism among legal experts. They noted that it relied on contradictory standards in proving convictions, on the one hand, and addressing suspicions, on the other. In other words, what the STL viewed as a reason for acquittal in some instances, it used as a reason for conviction in another.
This could also provide damning evidence, yet again, that the STL was firmly determined to act professionally without becoming politicized, contrary to the accusations against it. It sought to state things as they should be out of its great and clear keenness on maintaining its professionalism. This is why we should highlight a number of elements mentioned in the verdict:
The verdict did not accuse Hezbollah or the Syrian regime because the STL does not have such jurisdiction, but it was clear that it did not spare them in its retelling of facts and developments. We must especially highlight the STL’s announcement that “the extensive political and background evidence points to it being a political act directed by those whose activities Hariri’s were threatening.”
Of course, this is not a direct accusation, but the strength of this possibility is tantamount to a condemnation given the well-known political circumstances that preceded the assassination.
The retelling of events that led to the assassination showed Syria’s control over political, military and security aspects of Lebanon. It noted that the crime took place soon after Muallem paid a visit to Hariri’s Qoreitem residence in Beirut. That was followed by a meeting of Lebanese figures who are opposed to Syria’s hegemony in what would be later be known as the “Bristol meeting”. This does not constitute a direct accusation against Syria, but it leaves a wide margin for conjecture and possibilities that any professional court must address during its judgement in a crime as massive and dangerous as this.
It is not beyond the tribunal to take into account the political context that preceded the crime and declaration that Hezbollah and Syria may have had motives to eliminate Hariri. It did not, however, have the physical evidence to prove this. It clearly said that it lacked the evidence to implicate the Hezbollah leadership and Syria in the crime.
When the court says the assassination was a terrorist act with political, not personal, goals, then understanding the political context of the attack will pave the way for understanding the motive behind it.
And since Lebanon is reeling from the crime of the era that destroyed the port and half of Beirut, killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 6,000, and displaced hundreds of thousands of citizens, the blessed Lebanese state must carefully read what the STL declared. It said that the investigation that Lebanese authorities carried out in the Hariri assassination was chaotic and the crime scene was tampered with and the Lebanese security forces removed crucial evidence from the scene of the crime. We are today facing a major crime that almost killed what is left of Lebanon. It remains to be seen whether Lebanon will comply with the STL verdict and hand over Salim Ayyash.
 

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 22-23/2020

Canada/Minister Champagne travels to Lebanon and Europe
August 22, 2020 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada
On his first overseas trip since the Covid-19 pandemic began, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, will travel to Beirut, Lebanon, later this week and make stops in Switzerland, Italy and the United Kingdom.
While in Beirut, the Minister will witness first-hand the devastation on the ground and meet with Michel Aoun, Lebanon’s president, and Charbel Wehbe, Lebanon’s foreign minister. Minister Champagne will also meet with Lebanese, Canadian and international humanitarian partners to witness the work of first responders and express Canada’s solidarity with the Lebanese people following this month’s tragedy. The Minister will take this opportunity to highlight Canada’s ongoing support for the international response to the crisis in Lebanon, including institutional reforms demanded by the Lebanese people.
In Switzerland, Minister Champagne will visit Bern and Geneva to meet with Minister Ignazio Cassis, head of Switzerland’s Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as Roberto Azevêdo, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization. He will also meet with Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and with Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In Italy, the Minister will meet with Luigi Di Maio, Italy’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.
Lastly, the Minister will travel to the United Kingdom to meet with Dominic Raab, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State.
Minister Champagne will follow all applicable health and safety protocols, including public health advice measures, and will quarantine for 14 days upon his return to Canada.

IAEA Chief Plans Trip to Pressure Iran on Access to Suspect Sites
Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
The UN nuclear watchdog's chief Rafael Grossi will make his first trip to Tehran in that role on Monday to pressure Iran to grant inspectors access to two suspected former atomic sites after a months-long standoff, he said on Saturday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation Board of Governors passed a resolution in June raising pressure on Iran to let inspectors into the sites mentioned in two quarterly IAEA reports because they could still host undeclared nuclear material or traces of it. "My objective is that my meetings in Tehran will lead to concrete progress in addressing the outstanding questions that the Agency has related to safeguards in Iran and, in particular, to resolve the issue of access," Grossi, who took over as IAEA director general in December, said in a statement.
The statement said Grossi would meet "high-level Iranian authorities", without specifying whom. Diplomats in Vienna have said they hope the standoff over access will be resolved before the next Board of Governors meeting in September.
"We hope this visit will lead to reinforced mutual cooperation," Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Kazem Gharibabadi, said, according to a statement posted by his mission on Twitter.

US Imposes Visa Restrictions on 14 Iranians over Human Rights Violations
Asharq Al-Awsat/Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
The United States on Friday said it was imposing visa restrictions on 13 Iranian individuals for their involvement in “gross violations of human rights” regarding a 1990 assassination of an Iranian opposition figure in Switzerland.
“These 13 assassins, who posed as Iranian diplomats, were acting under the highest orders of their government to silence opposition and show that no one is safe from the Iranian regime, no matter where they live,” the State Department said in a statement. “The United States will not stand for the Iranian regime silencing its critics through violence and terror.”It did not disclose the names of the individuals. The State Department said it was also designating Hojatollah Khodaei Souri, who it said as director of Iran’s Evin Prison ran an institution “synonymous with torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” “Evin Prison has been used to oppress peaceful Iranian protestors and journalists, as well as foreigners who are swept up and imprisoned to be held hostage to squeeze concessions out of their home governments,” it continued.
“These actions send a message of support to Iran’s many victims worldwide that we will promote accountability for those who spread terror and violence,” it added. “The United States will continue to pressure Iran to treat its own people with dignity and respect,” it vowed. “Iran conducts assassinations and terrorism abroad to spread its reign of terror well beyond its own borders.” “The United States looks forward to the day when the perpetrators of Iran’s innumerable human rights violations will face true justice and hopes that these measures offer some comfort and reassurance to the families and friends of those lost to the Iranian regime’s violence and oppression at home and abroad,” the State Department said.

Former US intel director slams Germany for lifting Iran arms embargo
Benjamin Weinthal/Jerusalem Post/August 22/2020
German vote “effectively neutralizes the positive step Berlin had taken by revising its Hezbollah policy." The former acting director of intelligence for the US Richard Grenell authored a stinging indictment of Germany’s government for its failure to vote in favor of an extended weapons embargo against Iran’s regime, a deadly adversary of the United States, Israel as well as the West. Writing in his The Hill column, Grenell, a former Ambassador to Germany, declared “this was a particularly troubling decision by Germany, which recently took the bold step of circumventing EU policy by designating the entirety of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Germany also regularly reaffirms its special commitment to the security of Israel, the country most threatened by Iranian arms.”He added that “Germany’s decision not to prevent Iran from importing Chinese and Russian weapons systems is so consequential for Hezbollah’s resourcing capacities that it effectively neutralizes the positive step Berlin had taken by revising its Hezbollah policy.“ Germany banned all Hezbollah activities within the territory of the Federal Republic in April. Grenell said the reason for Germany’s vote, along with France and the United Kingdom, to abstain last week at the United Nations Security Council, was due to its goal to preserve the controversial 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formerly known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The US withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 because the unsigned agreement did not advance American national security interests to stop Iranian terrorism and its nuclear weapons ambitions, according to the Trump administration. The title of Grenell’s Hill commentary reads: Why would our allies allow an enemy like Iran to rearm? Chancellor Angela Merkel's government has provided diplomatic and economic support for Iran over the years. Germany’s foreign ministry routinely celebrates Iran’s Islamic revolution at Tehran’s embassy in Berlin.German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier congratulated Iran’s regime in the name of the German people in 2019 in connection with the Islamic revolution. Merkel’s administration also sends government officials to economic workshops to circumvent US financial sanctions against the mullah regime. Israel supports the extension of the UN arms embargo against Iran. Merkel told the Knesset in 2008 that the security of the Jewish state is “non-negotiable” for her government.

Pompeo to visit Israel, UAE this week; peace agreement on agenda
Arab News/August 22/2020
WASHINGTON: The Trump administration will send two top officials to the Middle East this week in a bid to capitalize on momentum from the historic agreement between Israel and the UAE to establish diplomatic relations. Three diplomats say Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner plan to make separate, multiple-nation visits to the region in the coming days to push Arab-Israeli rapprochement in the aftermath of the Israel-UAE deal. Pompeo is expected to depart on Sunday for Israel, Bahrain, Oman, UAE and Sudan, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the itinerary has not yet been finalized or publicly announced. Kushner plans to leave later in the week for Israel, Bahrain, Oman and Morocco, the diplomats said. Neither trip is expected to result in announcements of immediate breakthrough, the diplomats said, although both are aimed at finalizing at least one, and potentially more, normalization deals with Israel in the near future. Pompeo also plans to meet in Qatar with members of the Talban to discuss intra-Afghan peace talks that are key to the withdrawal of remaining US forces in Afghanistan, the diplomats said. The White House and State Department had no comment on the planned trips, which will come as the administration steps up efforts to push for Arab-Israeli normalization even without a resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. They also come as the administration has taken the step of triggering the restoration of all international sanctions on Iran. Israel and the UAE announced on August 13 they would establish full diplomatic relations, in a US-brokered deal that required Israel to halt its contentious plan to annex occupied West Bank land sought by the Palestinians. The historic agreement delivered a key foreign policy victory to Trump as he seeks re-election. US and Israeli officials have suggested that more Arab nations may soon follow the UAE's lead.

Turkish government converts former Byzantine church into mosque
The Arab Weekly/August 22/2020
ANKARA - The Turkish government formally converted a former Byzantine church into a mosque Friday, a move that came a month after it turned Istanbul’s landmark Hagia Sophia into a Muslim place of worship.
The decision to covert Hagia Sophia into a mosque was criticized by the UNESCO. It also triggered protests by European nations and Turkish secularists. But was welcomed at home by Erdogan’s Islamist supporters.
The new decision by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, published in the country’s Official Gazette, said Istanbul’s Church of St. Saviour in Chora, known as Kariye in Turkish, was handed to Turkey’s religious authority, which would open up the structure for Muslim prayers.
Like the Hagia Sophia, which was a church for centuries and then a mosque for centuries more, had operated as a museum for decades before Erdogan ordered it restored as a mosque. It was not immediately known when the first prayers would be held there. The church, situated near the ancient city walls, is famed for its elaborate mosaics and frescoes. It dates to the 4th century, although the edifice took on its current form in the 11th-12th centuries. The structure served as a mosque during the Ottoman rule before being transformed into a museum in 1945. A court decision last year canceled the building’s status as a museum, paving the way for Friday’s decision. And as with the Hagia Sophia, the decision to transform the Chora back into a mosque is seen as geared to consolidate the conservative and Islamist support base of Erdogan’s ruling party at a time when his popularity is sagging amid an economic downturn. Greece’s Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the move, saying that Turkish authorities “are once again brutally insulting the character” of another U.N.-listed world heritage site. “This is a provocation against all believers,” the Greek ministry said in a statement. “We urge Turkey to return to the 21st century, and the mutual respect, dialogue and understanding between civilizations.” Elpidophoros, the Greek Orthodox archbishop of America, wrote on Twitter: “After the tragic transgression with Hagia Sophia, now the Monastery of Chora, this exquisite offering of Byzantine culture to the world!”“The pleas and exhortations of the international community are ignored,” he wrote. Several Istanbul residents rushed to the building Friday, some hoping to hold prayers there, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency reported. “Like the Hagia Sophia, this is an important mosque for Muslims,” the agency quoted Istanbul resident Cuma Er as saying. “We came here to pray after we learned about the decision. But we have been told that it has not yet been opened for prayers. We are waiting for the opening.”Last month, Erdogan joined hundreds of worshipers for the first Muslim prayers in Hagia Sophia in 86 years, brushing aside the international criticism and calls for the monument to be kept as a museum in recognition of Istanbul’s multi-faith heritage. As many as 350,000 took part in the prayers outside the structure.

Ex-Israeli Minister: Erdogan Set the Stage for Talks with Arab, Islamic States
Tel Aviv - Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
Former Israeli Foreign Minister and Minister of Regional Development Silvan Shalom disclosed that during his time in office between 2003 and 2016, he had visited several Gulf, Arab and Islamic countries, and met with a number of their officials. Shalom revealed that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had set the stage for many of the meetings, some of which were held in Turkey. Speaking to a local radio station in Tel Aviv, Shalom indicated that Erdogan was keen to expand Israel's relations with Arab and Islamic states, in return for Israel helping him join the European Union.
The Minister believes that establishing relations between Israel and the Arab countries could help settle the conflict with Palestine. He said he had conveyed this to Erdogan and leaders of Arab and Islamic states. The Turkish president had organized a number of these meetings, including talks with the Pakistani foreign minister, announced Shalom. The official welcomed Israel’s recent agreement with the United Arab Emirates. However, he warned of its "price" noting that he categorically rejects a US deal to sell F-35s to the UAE. He explained that US President Donald Trump "is backing us now, but what if he changed his mind? Or if another president who decided not to support Israel was elected? We should rely on ourselves and reject any sale of advanced weapons to other countries in the Middle East." Meanwhile, former spokesman for Sudan’s Foreign Ministry Haidar Badawi Sadiq told Israel’s Kan TV channel that he could no longer remain silent about his country’s relations with Israel. He indicated that he confirmed Sudan's relations with Israel when asked by local reporters on Intelligence Minister Eli Cohen’s claim that official ties could be inked between the countries by the end of the year.
Sadiq was axed Wednesday after publicly disclosing normalization talks between Sudan and Israel. He said he didn’t understand why his comments had caused such uproar, claiming that Sudan had begun warming relations with Israel before the UAE had. “We need to be brave, just like President al-Burhan who met with Netanyahu and like the senior officials in the UAE,” Sadiq said. “I very much support peace with Israel because it will benefit Sudan,” he said, hoping to visit Israel in the future.

GCC, Egypt welcome statements for ceasefire in Libya
The Arab Weekly/August 22/2020
RIYADH--Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Nayef Falah M. Al-Hajraf welcomed Friday the statements by rival administrations in Libya for an immediate ceasefire in the North African country. According to Emirati news agency WAM, Al-Hajraf called on all parties in Libya to “adhere to this constructive step” and to urgently engage in political dialogue, through the mediation of the United Nations, “towards reaching a permanent and comprehensive solution to end the conflict in Libya and achieve security and stability for the brotherly Libyan people.”
In a separate statement published Friday, the United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation said a political solution is the sole path to end the Libyan conflict under UN supervision. ”The UAE considers this decision to be an important step in the road to reaching the political settlement and fulfilling the ambitions of the Libyan people for building a better future that realises their aspirations for stability, peace and prosperity in accordance with the outcomes of the Berlin Summit, Cairo Declaration and the Skhirat Agreement,” the statement said.
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire in the country made by Libya’s Presidential Council and backed by the Tobruk-based House of Representatives.”“The government stresses the need for the start of an internal political dialogue that places the Libyan national interest above all considerations. It calls for finding a permanent solution that guarantees security and stability for the Libyan people, and preventing external interference that exposes Arab regional security to risks,” the statement read. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi welcomed the ceasefire declarations, calling them an “important step” on the path to restoring stability. “I welcome statements by Libya’s presidential council and the House of Representatives calling for a ceasefire and halting military operations in all Libyan territory,” Sisi said in a tweet
Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA) announced Friday a ceasefire across the country and called for demilitarising the contested strategic locations of Sirte and the Jufra region. A call for a ceasefire was also issued in a separate statement by Aguila Saleh, speaker of the rival Tobruk-based House of Representatives, which is loyal to the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar. The GNA statement said “instructions were given to all military forces to immediately cease fire and stop hostilities across all Libyan territory.” It also called for early presidential and parliamentary elections next march based on “an adequate constitutional platform agreed upon among Libyans”. Saleh’s statement said the ceasefire “should make Sirte the temporary headquarters of the new presidential council, which should bring all Libyans together.” The capital should be “secured by an official police force form all regions of the country in preparation for unifying state institutions,” it added. It called on all parties to “turn the page of the past, build the state based on an electoral process in accordance with the constitution” and launch a process of “comprehensive national reconciliation.”
The two Libyan administrations called for an end to an oil blockade imposed by rival forces since earlier this year.

Basra Killings Undermine Iraqi PM's Efforts to Rein in Militias
Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
Iraq's Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi had just embarked on a state visit to Washington when gunmen shot dead the young protest leader Reham Yacoub in her car in Basra on Wednesday. Yacoub, 29, was an outspoken critic of the Iran-backed militias whose power and influence Kadhimi has been trying to rein in since taking office in May. The attack was the third on activists in the southern city in a week. Tahseen Oussama, 30, was gunned down on Aug. 14 and four others were shot at while together in a car Monday, Reuters reported.
Her killing cast a pall over the prime minister's trip to the US. The violence reignited anti-government protests in Basra and the US State Department publicly urged Kadhimi to hold the militias accountable, just two days after he sacked the Basra police and national security chiefs and formed a special committee to investigate the attacks. "The reality is the PM and his team are unable to control these groups," said Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House. "Removing a police chief ... is not even scratching the surface of the problem."
Kadhemi's visit was intended to cement US support for his government and while he was there, five US firms, including Chevron Corp, signed agreements with Iraq aimed at boosting its energy independence from Iran. "The PM is hoping he can go to the US and sign a bunch of deals and say this is how he can fix things, but it doesn't look good that while you're away young activists are being killed by militias and forces under your government," said Mansour. Most of the militias come under Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella grouping of paramilitary forces. Although formally integrated in Iraq's security forces, in practice they operate independently and have resisted all attempts to curb their influence. Neither do they tolerate any dissent from the population. Yacoub and Oussama were killed two weeks after a national umbrella grouping of activists, to which both belonged, announced it would form a political party to challenge the dominance of militia groups in parliament. The Basra killings come after Husham al-Hashemi, a well-known security analyst and government advisor, was gunned down outside his Baghdad family home in July by men on a motorbike.
Kadhimi talked tough after Hashemi's killing, pledging to hunt down his assailants and keep the armed groups in check. But there have been few developments since. His efforts to employ law and order to restrain the groups earlier in the year also backfired. According to Reuters, when Iraqi forces arrested 14 fighters in June for their alleged involvement in rocket attacks on US installations, their comrades drove vehicles into the heavily fortified Green Zone to pressure Kadhimi for their release. All but one were let go. "The situation in Iraq has devolved to the point that gunmen can roam the streets and shoot well-connected members of civil society with impunity," said Belkis Wille, senior Crisis and Conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. "One has to question whether the federal government is even capable of reining in the violence at this point."

Iraq PM’s Visit to US Generates Positive Impact at Home
Baghdad - Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi's recent visit to the US has been praised by some Iraqi factions but strongly rejected by a number of Iran-affiliated groups. Member of the parliamentary foreign relations committee Dhafer al-Ani said that despite the unjustified exaggeration and intentional underestimation of its achievements, the Prime Minister's visit was “successful by all standards." Ani told Asharq Al-Awsat that ripping the benefits of the visit depends on the government’s ability to carry out effective reforms which will enable it to win the confidence of the international community and the support of the Iraqis.
Dean of the Political Science Faculty at al-Mustansiriya University Khaled Abdelilah, in remarks to the newspaper, said some Iraqi parties demanded Kadhimi for guarantees on the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq at a time when Washington discusses means to fight ISIS.
He indicated that signing an agreement with a major US company worth over one billion dollars is the key to bringing back US companies to Iraq. Kadhimi seeks to gain the support he needs for his government. He is after bilateral deals by activating the economic, oil, aid, and investment agreement signed between the two parties. The head of the Iraqi Advisory Council, Farhad Alaaldin, confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the strategic dialogue between Baghdad and Washington remains the most important aspect of the visit. Alaaldin indicated that other major issues were discussed such as oil, the economy, and the coronavirus pandemic, especially that the visit is the result of the first round of talks that began in June. He indicated that the US stressed the importance of the strategic dialogue given that the Iraqi government needs the support of Washington to face the financial and economic challenges as well as its fight against ISIS. However, Alaaldin pointed out that this support is not unconditional, especially after the parliament’s decision to remove US forces from Iraq. He also believes that during his talks in Washington, Kadhimi was under tremendous political pressure from the Iraqi forces that reject improved relations with the US.

Israel Shells Hamas Posts in Gaza after Rocket Fired
Agence France Presse/Saturday, 22 August, 2020
Israeli tanks shelled military positions of Gaza's ruling Hamas movement early Saturday, the army and Palestinian security sources said, hours after a rocket was launched at southern Israel. A statement from the military said the Israeli "tanks targeted Hamas military posts in the southern Gaza Strip" in response to the Friday fire. The rocket, which set off sirens in southern Israel, was intercepted by air defences without causing any casualties or damage. Gaza security sources said the Saturday tank fire targeted Hamas observation posts east of Rafah and east of Khan Yunis, causing no casualties. Israel has bombed Gaza almost daily since August 6 in retaliation for the launch of balloons fitted with fire bombs, or, less frequently, rockets. On Thursday night, Gaza militants fired a dozen rockets at Israel, which responded with air strikes on a rocket manufacturing plant and underground infrastructure. Israeli firefighters meanwhile continued to put out blazes on farmland and scrub set alight by incendiary balloons launched from Gaza. An Egyptian delegation was trying to broker a return to an informal truce. Egypt has acted to calm repeated flare-ups in recent years to prevent any repetition of the three wars Israel and Hamas have fought since 2008. According to a source close to Hamas, the movement wants the extension of an industrial zone in the east of Gaza, and the construction of a new power line.Hamas also wants the number of work permits in Israel issued to Gazans to be doubled to 10,000 once anti-coronavirus restrictions are lifted, the source said.

Russia Strikes ISIS Positions in Eastern Syria
Beirut - Asharq Al-Awsat/Saturday, 22 August, 2020 - 06:30
Hours after ISIS announced its responsibility for killing a Russian major general in Syria’s Deir Ezzor, a squadron of Russian warplanes attacked the terrorist group’s positions in the Syrian Desert. The groups' Amaq News Agency said that a Russian patrol passed over a minefield planted by the militias in the city of Sukhnah, which lead to the death of one major general, while two servicemen were wounded. Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that a Russian major general was killed in eastern Syria’s Deir Ezzor on Tuesday after a convoy hit an IED. The IED attack reportedly took place near the At-Taim oil field, about 15km outside the city of Deir Ezzor. The Ministry said that as a result of the explosion, three Russian servicemen were injured. “During evacuation and while receiving medical assistant, a senior Russian military advisor with the rank of major-general died from the serious injuries sustained,” it wrote in a statement. For its part, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said a squadron of seven Russian jets flying over the Syrian Desert in Homs and Al-Suwaidaa executed several airstrikes, targeting ISIS positions. Also, Observatory activists documented the killing of three regime soldiers and the injury of three others in an IED explosion in Sadd Al-Zalaf area in Al-Suwaidaa desert. It said that since March 24, 2019, SOHR has documented the killing of at least 658 regime soldiers and loyalists of Syrian and non-Syrian nationalities, including at least two Russians, and 140 Iranian-backed militiamen of non-Syrian nationalities. All were killed in attacks, bombings and ambushes by ISIS west of Euphrates in the deserts of Deir Ezzor, Homs, and Al-Suwaidaa. Meanwhile, the war-monitor quoted sources as saying that the large-scale campaign by regime’s intelligence service is still underway, targeting regime officers and soldiers, as well as employees and other individuals working in businesses and associations belonging to Rami Makhlouf, the cousin of Syrian regime president Bashar Assad. SOHR activists have confirmed that 39 regime officers and soldiers were arrested in the past few days and weeks, while 15 others who had been arrested previously were released. The regime’s intelligence service also arrested 22 former fighters in “Al-Bostan Association”. It said that in the past months, Syrian Intelligence service have arrested nearly 200 regime officers, soldiers and ex-fighters in Makhlouf’s “military wing.”
 

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 22-23/2020

Question: "What did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23)?"
GotQuestions.org/August 22/2020
Answer: Let’s begin with what Jesus didn’t mean. Many people interpret “cross” as some burden they must carry in their lives: a strained relationship, a thankless job, a physical illness. With self-pitying pride, they say, “That’s my cross I have to carry.” Such an interpretation is not what Jesus meant when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me.”
When Jesus carried His cross up Golgotha to be crucified, no one was thinking of the cross as symbolic of a burden to carry. To a person in the first-century, the cross meant one thing and one thing only: death by the most painful and humiliating means human beings could develop.
Two thousand years later, Christians view the cross as a cherished symbol of atonement, forgiveness, grace, and love. But in Jesus’ day, the cross represented nothing but torturous death. Because the Romans forced convicted criminals to carry their own crosses to the place of crucifixion, bearing a cross meant carrying their own execution device while facing ridicule along the way to death.
Therefore, “Take up your cross and follow Me” means being willing to die in order to follow Jesus. This is called “dying to self.” It’s a call to absolute surrender. After each time Jesus commanded cross bearing, He said, “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?” (Luke 9:24-25). Although the call is tough, the reward is matchless.
Wherever Jesus went, He drew crowds. Although these multitudes often followed Him as Messiah, their view of who the Messiah really was—and what He would do—was distorted. They thought the Christ would usher in the restored kingdom. They believed He would free them from the oppressive rule of their Roman occupiers. Even Christ’s own inner circle of disciples thought the kingdom was coming soon (Luke 19:11). When Jesus began teaching that He was going to die at the hands of the Jewish leaders and their Gentile overlords (Luke 9:22), His popularity sank. Many of the shocked followers rejected Him. Truly, they were not able to put to death their own ideas, plans, and desires, and exchange them for His.
Following Jesus is easy when life runs smoothly; our true commitment to Him is revealed during trials. Jesus assured us that trials will come to His followers (John 16:33). Discipleship demands sacrifice, and Jesus never hid that cost.
In Luke 9:57-62, three people seemed willing to follow Jesus. When Jesus questioned them further, their commitment was half-hearted at best. They failed to count the cost of following Him. None was willing to take up his cross and crucify upon it his own interests.
Therefore, Jesus appeared to dissuade them. How different from the typical Gospel presentation! How many people would respond to an altar call that went, “Come follow Jesus, and you may face the loss of friends, family, reputation, career, and possibly even your life”? The number of false converts would likely decrease! Such a call is what Jesus meant when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me.”
If you wonder if you are ready to take up your cross, consider these questions:
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing some of your closest friends?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means alienation from your family?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means the loss of your reputation?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your job?
• Are you willing to follow Jesus if it means losing your life?
In some places of the world, these consequences are reality. But notice the questions are phrased, “Are you willing?” Following Jesus doesn’t necessarily mean all these things will happen to you, but are you willing to take up your cross? If there comes a point in your life where you are faced with a choice—Jesus or the comforts of this life—which will you choose?
Commitment to Christ means taking up your cross daily, giving up your hopes, dreams, possessions, even your very life if need be for the cause of Christ. Only if you willingly take up your cross may you be called His disciple (Luke 14:27). The reward is worth the price. Jesus followed His call of death to self (“Take up your cross and follow Me”) with the gift of life in Christ: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:25-26).

U.S. officially moves to trigger sanctions ‘snapback’ against Iran despite opposition at U.N.
Carol Morello and Karen DeYoung/The Washington Post/August 22/2020
All sanctions against Iran that were suspended under the 2015 nuclear deal will resume in 31 days under a process Secretary of State Mike Pompeo started Thursday, in a move that is exposing deep divisions between the United States and other countries on the U.N. Security Council and could spell the death of the landmark agreement. Pompeo filed an official complaint with the president of the Security Council, accusing Iran of violating the 2015 nuclear deal, which President Trump withdrew from two years ago. Under the agreement, that means sanctions will be “snapped back” into place next month unless the Security Council votes to keep them lifted — a move certain to trigger a U.S. veto.
The process includes an extension of an arms embargo due to expire in mid-October. A U.S. proposal to keep it in place was roundly defeated in a Security Council vote last week in which only the Dominican Republic sided with the United States.
“Our message is very, very simple,” Pompeo told reporters after meeting with the Security Council’s president and U.N. Secretary General António Guterres. “The United States will never allow the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism to freely buy and sell planes, tanks, missiles and other kinds of conventional weapons.”
The U.S. action, though long expected, drew sharp condemnation from Russia and the three European countries that were partners in negotiating the agreement, which lifted all sanctions against Iran in return for limits on its nuclear program.
France, Germany and Britain issued a statement questioning the authority of the United States to demand a snapback since it is no longer a participant in the agreement, which is known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The countries noted that the United States “ceased to be a participant to the JCPOA following their withdrawal from the deal on May 8, 2018,” said the statement, which was issued in the name of the countries’ foreign ministers. “We cannot therefore support this action which is incompatible with our current efforts to support the JCPOA.”
They warned that the U.S. effort could undermine the U.N. Security Council.
“We remain guided by the objective of upholding the authority and integrity of the United Nations Security Council,” the statement said. “We call on all UNSC members to refrain from any action that would only deepen divisions in the Security Council or that would have serious adverse consequences on its work.”The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, said the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the agreement means it cannot initiate snapback. “I will continue to do everything possible to ensure the preservation and full implementation of the JCPOA by all,” he said in a statement, calling the agreement a pillar of nonproliferation and regional security.
Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, dismissed the U.S. move as “nonexistent,” saying only a country that is still in the deal can legitimately trigger a snapback.
“He’s not triggering a snapback,” Nebenzia said of Pompeo, even before he arrived in New York. “Snapback can be triggered by a country that is a participant of the JCPOA, which the U.S. is not.”
The U.S. decision to start the process toward the snapback of sanctions suspended almost five years ago now enters a murky phase. China and Russia, also signatories to the agreement, oppose the resumption of sanctions and want to sell weapons to Iran. The Europeans share many of the U.S. concerns over Iran’s interference in neighboring countries. The JCPOA has been hanging by a thread since the Trump administration began reapplying a stream of U.S. sanctions, but the Europeans want to keep the deal alive.
The U.S. allies, several of whose officials spoke on the condition of anonymity out of what they said was a rapidly deepening Council divide, were taken aback at Pompeo’s description of them, in his U.N. news conference, as siding with Iran’s “ayatollahs” and privately thanking the administration for Thursday’s action. “We understand the views on Iran,” said one European official. “But ultimately we take a different view on their ability to trigger snap-back.” While acknowledging that the text of the resolution was not clearly written, this official and others said that it was clear to all that it was composed to deal with an Iranian withdrawal from the agreement, not for the withdrawal of one of the Western signatories. European reaction ranged from irritated to infuriated, while “Russia and China want to be talking about this as much as possible,” the official said.
There is allied agreement that removing the conventional weapons embargo is a bad thing, although the Europeans say they are more concerned that Iran will use the situation to further enhance its nuclear capabilities than to buy more conventional weapons. Russia and China already flout U.S. sanctions regularly.
Europeans had made what they said were strenuous efforts in recent weeks to persuade both Moscow and Beijing to agree to extend the embargo. Those efforts, officials said, were ultimately undercut by U.S. rhetoric and insistence that only the snap back of all sanctions against Iran would suffice, and that it had the unilateral right to demand them. Pompeo made clear that once the suspended sanctions return, the United States will go after any nation that violates them, whether friend or foe.
“We will continue to enforce the sanctions after these U.N. Security Council resolutions come back in place,” Pompeo said. “The country is immaterial. If there’s a violation of the sanctions, we’ll do our level best to enforce them.”
Except for a few allies, the United States is largely alone in its contention that it still has the authority to trigger snapback sanctions. The argument stems from a State Department legal opinion that any country that was a “participant state” in the original agreement has the right to trigger snapback even if it no longer is a participant in the deal.
“That right endures regardless of whether one views the United States as being in non-performance of the commitments it made under the JCPOA or as not currently participating in that political arrangement,” the legal opinion said.
Pompeo said Thursday that the Security Council could have inserted language that excludes dropout nations from triggering sanctions. But it didn’t, he said, and so the United States is still listed as a participant in the U.N. resolution that endorsed the deal and lifted U.N. sanctions.
Pompeo started the procedure with a letter to Indonesia’s U.N. ambassador, Dian Triansyah Djani, who is president of the Security Council this month. Pompeo wrote that Iran had exceeded its limits under the agreement for uranium enrichment and heavy water production, as well as research on advanced centrifuges. He wrote that “exhaustive diplomacy” with Iran by the European countries that co-signed the pact with the United States — Britain, France and Germany — had failed.
“The United States is therefore left with no choice but to notify the Council that Iran is in significant non-performance of its JCPOA commitments,” the letter states.
Now that the United States has started the procedure for returning to a pre-2015 set of sanctions against Iran, one of the big questions is whether Tehran will walk away from the JCPOA as Trump did.
Since the United States withdrew and began reimposing its own sanctions, Iran has gradually been ramping up its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. It has exceeded some limits prescribed in the agreement, but it has not given up on a deal Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has characterized as “half alive,” and it continues to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor its activities. Numerous Iranian officials have said that invoking snapback sanctions would signal the death of the agreement.
In an ominous sign of a potential escalation in the confrontation between Tehran and Washington, Iran on Thursday unveiled two medium-range missiles, including one named after Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, whom Trump ordered killed in January.
Pompeo’s plan to set into motion the eventual resumption of sanctions was heavily advertised ahead of time. He has been threatening to do so since the spring, and Trump announced Wednesday that he had ordered Pompeo to go to the United Nations to start the process.
*Michael Birnbaum contributed to this report.

Israel’s New Friendship With the UAE Will Come at a Cost

 Eli Lake/Bloomberg/August 22/2020
The U.S. has long guaranteed Israel a military edge, but that may have to change.
Anwar Gargash, the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, doesn’t understand why Israel would object to the U.S. selling his country the F-35 fighter jet. The UAE is one of the few Arab states that has never been at war with Israel, after all, and now it’s working to normalize relations with the Jewish state. What’s an advanced weapons system between new friends?
When asked this week at a conference sponsored by the Atlantic Council about Israeli objections to the F-35 sale, Gargash said it might have to do with domestic Israeli politics. He concurred with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks that the arms sale was not part of the normalization agreement. Nonetheless, he also said he expected that signing the agreement with Israel would remove any hurdles with the U.S. government on the sale of the F-35s.
Yet that is far from clear. Since 1973, the U.S. has largely followed a policy designed to give Israel a “qualitative military edge,” or QME, over the other Arab states in the region when it comes to arms sales. In practice, this means that the U.S. will not sell weapons systems to Arab states that give them capabilities comparable to Israel’s. Israel has a role in this process and is influential in Congress, which also must approve such arms sales.
But Israel does not always get its way. In 1981, for example, the U.S. sold surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia over the objections of Israel, and Congress narrowly approved the sale.
Israel said this week that it disapproved the sale of the F-35s to the UAE. The U.S., however, has signaled that it’s open to it. David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, told the Jerusalem Post this week that future military sales to the UAE would go through the QME process. He also allowed for the possibility that one day, the U.S. might sell the F-35 to the UAE.
There are two good arguments for the Israeli position. First, today’s friends can be tomorrow’s adversaries. The best recent example of this is what has happened in Turkey. As a NATO ally, Turkey was for decades armed with some of America’s most sophisticated weapons systems. Israel has also enjoyed a close relationship with Ankara for much of its history.
But Turkey has more recently gone rogue, purchasing sophisticated air defense systems from Russia and signing agreements with Venezuela. Last week, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to suspend diplomatic relations with the UAE after it announced the normalization deal with Israel. The UAE’s leadership today is moderate and reasonable, but there is no guarantee this will always be the case.
The second argument is that it sets a bad precedent to sell the UAE the fighter jet platform that Israel has also purchased. Other, more volatile Arab allies of the U.S. will want it too — and possibly demand it as a price for normalization with Israel. To this day, the QME process still applies to Egypt and Jordan, which have peace treaties with Israel.
Not everyone agrees. “The UAE is a path breaker,” said David Wurmser, a former adviser to the U.S. National Security Council under President Donald Trump. “The path breaker has to get a reward.” And while Wurmser said he did not believe it would be wise to sell the F-35s to Saudi Arabia, he had more confidence that the UAE would be stable in the coming years, and he saw no reason why selling F-35s to UAE would mean that the Saudis should get them too.
Add to this another pending concern: The U.S. is currently planning to “snap back” sanctions on Iran to keep in place a conventional arms embargo that expires in October. But this maneuver is risky. There is a very good chance that Russia and China will simply ignore any arms embargo imposed by the U.S., which is no longer a part of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Strengthening the UAE with state-of-the-art fighter jets is one way to hedge against the very real possibility of Chinese and Russian arms sales to Iran.
Friedman hinted at this in his interview. “Ultimately, under the right circumstances, both the U.S. and Israel would benefit greatly from having a strong ally situated across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran,” he told the Jerusalem Post.
Which highlights an irony about shifting alliances in the Middle East. By turning the UAE from foe to friend, Israeli is enhancing its national security. It may well be, however, that the price of that friendship will be the erosion of the military advantage its most important friend has provided Israel for nearly 50 years.
Given the clear and present danger Iran represents to its Arab neighbors, you’d expect their leaders to be lobbying furiously with members of the Security Council to help the U.S. ensure that Tehran doesn’t get its hands on more sophisticated weapons. But aside from a single statement from the Gulf Cooperation Council, calling for the extension of the arms embargo on Iran, there has been no visible Arab assistance for the American effort.
And even that GCC statement was undercut by one of its members: Officials in Doha said the language didn’t accurately represent the Qatari view. The appearance of Gulf unity was only a mirage.
To a great degree, the Arab reticence represents a diplomatic failure on the part of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in rallying allies to the American cause. But there are several reasons why the Arab states have not fallen in line behind the Trump administration’s Iran strategy. Some can’t, others don’t dare and still others are making alternative arrangements for their security.
There was never going to be any help from Iraq and Lebanon. In Baghdad and Beirut, Iran exerts decisive influence through its control of powerful Shiite militias and political parties. Iraq, additionally, is bound to its eastern neighbor by trade.
In Syria, the dictator Bashar al-Assad is beholden to the Islamic Republic for his very survival: Iranian soldiers and arms, as well as Iranian proxies in the form of Lebanese Hezbollah and Afghan militias, helped turn the tide of the civil war in his favor. Until recently, Iranian oil kept Assad’s home fires burning.
Arab states in the Maghreb are too far away to feel threatened by the Islamic Republic. Egypt, the largest of them, has tended to hedge its bets: It has no direct relations with Iran and is a participant in the Arab coalition fighting against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, but Cairo pulls its rhetorical punches against Tehran.
On the Arabian Peninsula, views on Iran are far from uniform. Kuwait and Oman have been careful to maintain relations, waxing cool and cordial according to circumstance, with the regional giant on the opposite shore of the Persian Gulf. Both countries are within easy striking range of the missiles of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Kuwait, heavily dependent on oil exports through the Gulf, is additionally vulnerable to the threat of the Iranian navy.
Qatar, which historically adopted the same caution toward Iran as Kuwait and Oman, has more recently drawn — or, arguably, has been pushed — closer to the Islamic Republic. The Saudi-led embargo imposed on Qatar in 2017 has made Doha more dependent on Tehran, strengthening the countries’ economic and diplomatic ties. (Ironically, one of the explanations offered for the embargo was Qatar’s friendliness with Iran.)
That leaves Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf’s most powerful nations, and the most frequent targets of Iranian belligerence, in word and deed. (Tiny Bahrain tends to go along with Saudi Arabia in economic and foreign-policy matters.) Iran and its Houthi allies have launched rocket and drone strikes deep into Saudi territory, culminating in last fall’s devastating attack on the world’s biggest crude processing plant in Abqaiq.
Iran’s verbal attacks on the Emirati city-states have grown more frequent in recent years. Long before last week’s agreement between Israel and the UAE, Tehran was threatening them both in the same breath. Iran and its proxies have also attacked Emirati and Saudi shipping.
So you’d expect the Saudis and Emiratis to be even more anxious than the Trump administration to deny Iran access to the advanced systems that Russian and Chinese arms manufacturers are so keen to sell. You might even expect Saudi and Emirati leaders to be engaging in vigorous shuttle diplomacy between the world powers to ensure the weapons embargo is extended well beyond October.
And yet, the two prominent crown princes — Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh and Mohammed bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi — did little to support the American effort in the Security Council last week, and raised barely a murmur of protest when it failed. Nor have they been heard from this week, as the Trump administration plays its last card in the UN, invoking the snapback clause of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
The silence can be explained at least in part by a reluctance to support a lost cause: The U.S., having pulled out of the deal two years ago, will struggle to make the case it retains the right to invoke the snapback. Or perhaps, the Saudis and Emiratis have every confidence that unilateral American sanctions will serve their purposes even if the other powers demur.
In either case, they have been making alternative arrangements to deal with the Iranian menace. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have both been splurging on the latest military hardware from the U.S. and Europe — and even China and Russia. And the new Emirati agreement with Israel was inspired in no small part by a desire to box in the Islamic Republic.
The best the Trump administration can expect from its Arab allies if the snapback gambit fails is quiet commiseration.

Coptic Christians Ordered to Sell Home and Leave Village
Raymond Ibrahim/Coptic Solidarity/August 22/2020
An Egyptian government-appointed village mayor has just ruled that a Christian family must sell its home and leave their village, in what is being described as a strange and unprecedented incident for that village.
This happened during a traditional “reconciliation session.” In Egypt, local authorities and involved parties of a dispute often meet outside of courtrooms in an effort to resolve matters and restore peace before getting the law involved.
The case revolves around a young Coptic Christian who accidentally ran over and killed a Muslim girl in the village of Hawarat al-Maqta. Despite the fact that such accidents are very common in the chaotic and near lawless roads of Egypt; despite the fact that even the girl’s father acknowledged that it was an accident and is not accusing the Christian youth; and despite the fact that these sessions are informal and meant to find the most equitable solution before the courts get involved—Mayor Hanni Snofar of Fayum governorate, who was invited to the session, ordered not just the expulsion of the youth, but his entire family, who must sell their home as soon as possible and essentially go in “exile.”
According to the August 15 report:
It was just another reconciliation session but it turned into a courtroom with the animated mayor ordering the selling of the Christian family’s home and their expulsion. By what right does the mayor judge and issue mandatory decrees to expulse a family, force them to sell their home, and create other problems? Do we no longer have judiciaries to rule on such cases?
Needless to say, if the Muslim girl was accidentally killed by a Muslim youth, no one would be ordered to sell their home and move.
Reconciliation sessions are regularly used against Coptic Christians—particularly when they are attacked, by pressuring them to drop charges against their persecutors. This is so common that a 2009 book is entirely devoted to it. According to a review of the book, which is titled (in translation), Traditional Reconciliation Sessions and Copts: Where the Culprit Emerges Triumphant and the Victim is Crushed:
In some 100 pages the book reviews how the security apparatus in Egypt chooses to “reconcile” the culprits and the victims in crimes where churches are burned; Coptic property and homes plundered, and Copts themselves assaulted, beaten and sometimes murdered; and when even monks are not spared. Even though it stands to reason that such cases should be seen in courts of law where the culprits would be handed fair sentences, this is almost never allowed to take place. And even in the few cases which managed to find their way into the courts, the culprits were never handed fair sentences since the police invariably fell short of providing any incriminating evidence against them.
The farcical scenario of reconciliation sessions has thus without fail dominated the scene where attacks against Copts are concerned, even though these sessions proved to be nothing but a severe retreat of civil rights.
Politically speaking, the authorities’ aim—through the reconciliation sessions—to secure a rosy façade of the “time-honoured amicable relationships between Muslims and Copts,” implying that they live happily ever after. The heartbreaking outcome, however, is that the only winners in these sessions are the trouble mongers and fanatics who induce the attacks in the first place and who more often than not escape punishment and emerge victorious. The Coptic victims are left to lick their wounds.

Turkey is looking to redraw the Mediterranean map
Damien McElroy/The National/August 22/ 2020
European nations are increasingly alarmed by how quickly Ankara is staking claims in contested waters. Since its earliest days in late 2002, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government of Turkey has been opportunistic.
At first, it used the country’s EU ambitions to barge aside the hostile elite of Ataturk’s republic by promoting Brussels-friendly reforms and democratic standards. But when the going got rough, Mr Erdogan effectively abandoned the EU accession process and set about entrenching his own form of statecraft.
What the opportunism long obscured was that Mr Erdogan is a politician driven by ideological considerations. As time has gone on and Mr Erdogan has grown more set in his ways, the implications have become increasingly clear.
President Emmanuel Macron provided a stark readout of Mr Erdogan earlier this week. Speaking to Paris Match, a French weekly, Mr Macron discussed how much effort he has expended engaging with his Turkish counterpart. In the end, he hinted, there was a basic fruitlessness to the talking. Europe faces from Mr Erdogan a destabilising expansionist policy that mixes nationalist and Islamist tenets.
It is not the first time Mr Macron has clashed with Turkey's President in recent months. He has accused the Turkish government of holding "criminal responsibility" for its intervention in Libya, where it has sent thousands of extremist fighters drawn from the Syrian battlefield. Critical of its "dangerous game", Mr Macron also accused Ankara of violating Nato rules of engagement after a clash between a French frigate and a Turkish naval vessel during a suspected arms shipment to Libya.
None of this is likely to push Mr Erdogan off his chosen course, especially after he announced the surprise discovery of a massive natural gas field in the Black Sea on Friday. With the unflinching but canny resolve of an ideologue, Mr Erdogan has shown his colours in the camp of the Muslim Brotherhood. As one research report from Washington detailed last week, he has offered a haven to as many as 20,000 Egyptians tied to the Muslim Brotherhood since 2013. On August 13, he was to be seen making the Muslim Brotherhood hand salute to the faithful of his ruling party, the AKP, at a meeting in Ankara.
Opportunities have come thick and fast on this path. Turkey's Libyan alliance with factions in Misurata has been sealed on Muslim Brotherhood affinities.
That has pitched the entire Mediterranean basin into a new era of instability. The current situation goes a long way to explaining why Mr Macron is so exercised. In his Paris Match interview he described France as a Mediterranean power.
What Europe as a whole is confronted with is a Turkish effort to carve up the Eastern Mediterranean. Ankara has already signed a memorandum of understanding with the Tripoli authorities to establish an exculsive economic zone.
The resulting dotted lines on the map run from the Libyan coast to Turkey, taking in Crete and the Dodecanese Islands. The idea behind the move goes far beyond demonstrating an alliance between Tripoli and Ankara. It attempts to stymie rivals to Turkey’s plans to develop a Mediterranean natural gas pipeline. A not unrelated development has seen Turkish exploration vessels move into the waters around Cyprus. The EU has sanctioned Turkey for unauthorised drilling, but to the chagrin of Mr Macron plus the governments of Greece and Cyprus, the bloc seems disinclined to do any more. Germany has even risked disagreement with France in its diplomatic offensives in the Mediterranean and Libya.
Greece has been left particularly targeted by Mr Erdogan. The latest encroachments raise conflicting issues about Turkey’s territorial waters and the exclusive economic zones that derive from the fact that Greek islands like Kastellorizo lie so close to the Turkish mainland. But international laws and treaties are clear. There is, in fact, some scope for mediation between Turkey and Greece on some of the issues.
Mr Erdogan is not pursuing talks, but instead engaged in jockeying on the high seas. After another clash at sea – this time between Kemal Reis, a Turkish frigate, and Limnos, a Greek one – on August 12, Mr Erdogan issued a warning to Athens.
“If this goes on we will retaliate,” he said. Students of history noted that Kemal Reis was a 15th-century Ottoman admiral who fought the Venetian fleet. The exploration vessel the frigate was protecting was the Oruc Reis, named after an Ottoman admiral who became governor of Algiers.
At this rate of deterioration and with only France seeming to appreciate the stakes in the region, it may be reasonable to ask how long other Turkish-Greek territorial disputes that were previously resolved will remain so.
In making power plays, Mr Erdogan is detracting attention at home from the slumping lira and myriad economic problems. To view his current battles on all fronts through that prism is to see the veteran Turkish leader as a political opportunist.
It is much more valuable to witness this as the strategising of an ideologue – one with an agenda stretching far beyond his own country’s exclusive concerns.
*Damien McElroy is the London bureau chief of The National

Optimism about Libyan ceasefire agreement but devil in the detail
Mona El-Mahrouki/The Arab Weekly/August 22/2020
Several Western powers were receptive to the Friday’s developments as they feared a conflagration in Libya would force them to take sides in the conflict.
TRIPOLI--The announcement of a ceasefire by the rival factions in the Libyan conflict sparked cautious optimism, amid fears that its implementation could be stalled due to the likely emergence of differences over details.
The head of the Presidential Council of the Government of National Accord, Fayez al-Sarraj, and the Speaker of the Libya House of Representatives, Aguila Saleh, issued two statements on Friday, declaring a ceasefire across the whole of the Libyan territory.
The two statements included a call for “the resumption of oil production and export, and blocking its revenues in a special account at the Libyan Foreign Bank, which will not be touched until a political settlement is reached in accordance with the outcomes of the Berlin Conference, and with the guarantee of the UN mission and the international community.”
The two statements reflected consensus on a number of points, including the issue of dispositing of oil revenues and making Sirte and Jufra regions a demilitarized zone. But divergences on some details regarding the contested regions, which were the focus of escalation during the last period, may impede the implementation of the agreement.
Political analyst Jalal Harchaoui, a researcher specialising in Libyan affairs at the Clingendael Institute for International Relations in The Hague, wondered if “this declaration was fully achievable.” He believes that “its implementation is likely to be difficult,” noting that there are several regional powers that may play a destabilising role in the agreement.
It is clear that there are concerns about the commitment of the Tripoli government (the Government of National Accord) to the ceasefire, as it might simply take it as a truce to give Turkey time to rearrange its cards in Libya, and to fragment the regional position rejecting Ankara’s interventions. This is why a complete ceasefire would be the appropriate formula for any agreement that may occur.
According to observers, Turkey’s experiences of ceasefires in Syria confirm that Ankara is good at using them to manoeuvre. Besides, it wants to resort to a temporary truce in order to absorb regional and international anger.
Some analysts view the Tripoli government’s approval of the ceasefire with suspicion. They attribute its acceptance of the ceasefire to the pressures it is experiencing, whether externally or internally, especially the financial crunch caused by the stoppage in oil exports.
Observers say that the devil lies in the details of implementing the ceasefire and the necessary security arrangements regarding the demilitarized zone, and in how to prepare for parliamentary and presidential elections next March.
Al-Sarraj stressed that “achieving an actual ceasefire requires that the areas of Sirte and Jufra become demilitarised, and that the police forces of both sides agree on security arrangements inside the two areas.” Aguila Saleh, however, did not even mention Jufra and only suggested that “the city of Sirte be the temporary seat for the new Presidential Council, bringing all Libyans together and closer, provided that an official police force from various regions would secure the city, in preparation for the unification of state institutions as a basic consensual stage of the process of construction, provided that military arrangements are completed according to the UN-sponsored negotiation track (5 + 5), whose outputs will be binding once they are agreed upon and officially announced.”
While Aguila Saleh stressed the need for the police forces to be “official security forces,” that is to say, they must have national police badge numbers since before 2011, observers do not rule out that the Government of National Accord would not hesitate to provide militia elements who recently underwent some training in policing in order to prepare them for this particular task and offer them as regular police forces.
It is unlikely that the army, which has not commented on the agreement, will agree to withdraw from Sirte and Jufra before receiving guarantees that GNA mercenaries and militias will not be part of the forces which will secure the demilitarised zone. There are expectations, however, that the army will demand to leave negotiations regarding Sirte and Jufra till last and not start with them as the Islamists and Turkey want.
Aguila Saleh’s statement reflects an endeavour to transform the city of Sirte into a political capital that does not belong to any of Libya’s three historical regions: Tripoli, Barga and Fezzan. However, it is unlikely that the GNA, and behind it Ankara and Washington, will be open to the idea, given that Tripoli believes that the central region belongs to it and will not easily let go of it, especially since most of the oil fields and terminals are concentrated there.
The Libya Revival bloc led by the Parliament’s envoy to the European Union and the African Union had proposed to United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, an initiative aiming “to declare the city of Sirte a demilitarized zone under the control of the United Nations, and to freeze all battle fronts in order to avoid the risk of an imminent regional clash between the two largest armies in our region, namely the Turkish army and the Egyptian army.”
Since the Libyan Army’s withdrawal from Tripoli, Turkey has been threatening to launch a war to seize Sirte, Jufra and the oil terminals, which was met with a clear Egyptian threat to counter any attack on them.
Several Western powers were receptive to the Friday’s developments as they feared a conflagration in Libya would force them to take sides in the conflict. They find the ceasefire agreement a convenient solution to satisfy the GNA and Turkey without having to openly broach the thorny topic of Syrian mercenaries in Tripoli for the moment, and without having to put pressure on Khalifa Haftar after his approval of resuming oil production and export a few days ago.

What to do with the ‘last dictator’
Cornelia Meyer/Arab News/August 22/2020
After 26 years in office, Alexander Lukashenko was accused of rigging this month’s presidential election in Belarus that gave him a landslide win. Opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya fled to safety in Lithuania after more than 7,000 protesters were arrested and many were beaten by police.
Workers went on strike across the country and Lukashenko called Russian President Vladimir Putin for help. This was quite the U-turn: Only a month earlier he had accused Moscow of “engineering plots to overthrow him and sending mercenaries to disrupt the presidential elections.”
Putin does not take kindly to criticism, whether internal or from foreign leaders — especially as Russia exports energy to Belarus at below market prices, a substantial support to the its economy, and state-owned Belneftekhim refineries export oil at market prices to the West.
Although there are no clear parallels, events in Belarus have echoes of Ukraine in 2014. More importantly, they brought to the fore tensions between Europe and Russia that have existed since 1990. When the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union was dissolved and the Warsaw Pact unraveled, power structures on the European continent changed for good. The late Egon Bahr, architect of Willy Brandt’s detente toward the former East Germany, never tired of reminding leaders that an eastward expansion of NATO would create new antagonism between East and West.
Both the EU and NATO did expand eastward in what seemed to make sense to many former Warsaw Pact countries and to the Baltic nations, which had belonged to the Soviet Union; these countries were glad to be freed from Moscow’s yoke, and were seeking protection.
Many also joined the EU and even the eurozone, liberating the entrepreneurial spirits of their well-educated populations and helping their economies grow.
Although there are no clear parallels, events in Belarus have echoes of Ukraine in 2014. More importantly, they brought to the fore tensions between Europe and Russia that have existed since 1990.
For the EU it was an expensive but in their view worthwhile exercise, the motto being that prosperous and stable neighbors help overall prosperity and stability. NATO was pleased to expand its bulwark against Russia, which remained a nemesis — increasingly so over the past two decades.
The expansion of the EU and NATO into Russia’s erstwhile sphere of influence has for a long time been a thorn in the side of Vladimir Putin. While he may have a tenuous relationship with Lukashenko, he cannot allow the situation in Minsk to get out of hand. This may not be easy. Unlike in Ukraine, Putin does not have an array of Moscow-friendly politicians and oligarchs to fall back on. Lukashenko rules with an iron fist, not allowing any divergent views, even if they favor Russia.
Putin has cautioned against EU intervention in Belarus, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: “No one is making a secret of the fact that this is about geopolitics, the fight for the post-Soviet space.”
For the EU the situation is clear; it is a union based on the values of democracy and human rights, and events in Minsk over the past two weeks do not conform with those values. However, the bloc is treading carefully because of the geopolitical ramifications. They held a virtual summit, after which German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council president Charles Michel called Putin. “For us, it’s quite clear that Belarus must find its own path for itself,” Merkel said, which must have gone some way to appeasing Moscow.
Both the EU and Russia would prefer a harmonious resolution. Brussels is preoccupied with the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout. Russia does not want to see the situation in Belarus spiralling further out of control either. The Kremlin is dealing with its own share of civil protests, especially in eastern Siberia after the arrest of local governor Sergei Furgal. The situation has not been improved by the suspected poisoning of opposition leader Alexander Navalny.
Nevertheless, Russia will do what it can to keep Belarus close. It may even work with a democratic government, if it is willing to cooperate with Moscow. The problem with democracy, though, is that a government that collaborates with Russia today can be voted out tomorrow and replaced by one that favors the West. Even if a mutually acceptable and hopefully democratic solution to the situation in Belarus can be found, there is something in Lavrov’s statement about the “fight for the post-Soviet space.” As long as this is Moscow’s perception, it becomes Europe’s reality. And as Henry Kissinger once observed, perception is as important as reality.
*Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macro-economist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources

Europe’s big beasts make plans for the future
Andrew Hammond/Arab News/August 22/2020
The meeting at Fort de Bregancon, the summer residence of French leaders, was the first there since 1985. At that time, Helmut Kohl and Francois Mitterrand forged a trusted partnership, and Merkel and Macron are working more closely together now than at any time during their periods in office.
While the Franco-German alliance has long been the motor of European integration, cooperation between the two powers ebbs and flows. The current high point in the Macron and Merkel relationship partially reflects the fact that the former faces an uncertain election outlook in 2022, while the latter is leaving office next year. “We need to ramp up our co-operation, whether it’s Lebanon or Belarus or Covid-19 … even though we don’t enjoy global leadership, we will ensure the EU makes its voice heard,” Merkel said, echoing Macron’s theme of “European sovereignty.” It is this combined context that is bringing out both of their concerns to come together to try to steer the EU’s future, internally and externally. Both, in their own ways, are extraordinary politicians with an eye on their legacies, and see Germany’s current six months presidency of the EU as a key vehicle to realize their ambitions.
Since his remarkable rise to power, Macron has emerged as one of the most authoritative defenders of the liberal international order. Indeed, the young French president and Donald Trump currently embody perhaps more than any other democratic leaders the current battle in international relations between a populist tide and the liberal center ground.
Macron aside, Merkel, in office since 2005, has been the most important political leader in continental Europe. Four French presidents (Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy, Francois Hollande and now Macron himself) have already served during her long tenure.
Both Merkel and Macron believe that Europe is now, a century and a half after Bismarck’s time, in another critical period in the midst of a massive recession and political tumult.
By the end of her fourth term next year, she will have matched Kohl’s 16 years in office. Indeed, in length of tenure she will sit behind only Otto von Bismarck, who served for almost two decades from 1871–90 and was a dominant force in European affairs, having helped drive German unification.
Both Merkel and Macron believe that Europe is now, a century and a half after Bismarck’s time, in another critical period in the midst of a massive recession and political tumult. The fact that they perceive this political window of opportunity reflects not just the economic stresses that the coronavirus has brought to the continent, but also Brexit, given that the UK would have been skeptical of key elements that Macron and Merkel are now pushing, including stronger defense union. Their agenda last week was therefore far reaching, including the turmoil in Belarus, Lebanon and Mali; Greek-Turkey tensions; re-imagining the shape of the EU post-Brexit; carving out a role for Europe as a defense power to match its economic might; and the relationship the EU should have with China, post-pandemic. While these are all key issues, it could be Belarus that becomes the most pressing business for Macron and Merkel this month.
They made the offer of EU-led mediation for Belarus. They also told Vladimir Putin that Alexander Lukashenko's government must stop using violence against peaceful demonstrators, engage with the opposition, and immediately release political prisoners. Some EU leaders want to go further and agreed last week to draw up a list of targets for a new round of potential sanctions. The situation remains combustible, and Putin says the EU placing external pressure on the leadership in Minsk is unacceptable. Belarus is one of Russia's closest allies and a full member of two Moscow-dominated alliances that are alternatives to the EU and NATO in Europe; the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
Much of this German-Franco agenda may not be realized in 2020, but a significant start was made last month as they worked together to persuade squabbling EU members to give the bloc, for the first time in its history, debt-raising powers to finance a 750 billion euro pandemic recovery plan.
A UK-EU trade deal would be another key success for the German presidency of the EU after years of Brexit angst. Both Macron and Merkel now want to see an agreement with London to avoid a hard, disorderly end to the UK transition period, and use this as a platform for the continent, in the midst of continuing division, to come together again and forge a new path into the 2020s and beyond.
*Andrew Hammond is an Associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics

What a Biden presidency would mean for the Middle East
Hafed Al-Ghwell/Arab News/August 22/2020
The first “virtual” convention of the Democratic half of the US political duopoly was a flashy, star-studded showcase of the party's vision for the challenging years ahead should Joe Biden win the presidential election in November. Speakers prescribed a much-needed course correction at home, given how a poor public health response to the global pandemic went horribly awry. With millions out of work, school closures, strained healthcare facilities and intensifying anxieties about the “new normal,” concrete ideas for dealing with these crises are likely to resonate with the electorate.
For the rest of the world, however, it was the events of the second day that were of more interest, as speakers and montages played up the former vice president’s foreign affairs experience, not just as a member of the Obama administration, but as chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee. Unfortunately, the rules of politics demand only hints about what a President Biden’s international agenda will look like, instead of concrete policy goals.
The broad message was that Biden had the experience, competence and gall to navigate a global stage teetering on the precipice and unclear of what lies at the bottom of the ravine. What we do know is that the unipolarity of old is giving way to a muddled geopolitical mess of multilateralism, regionalization and strong-arm interventionism. It is impossible to turn back to a time when Foggy Bottom and the White House led the world order and it would be far too risky for America to suddenly vanish altogether.
Fortunately, even the seven paragraphs dedicated to the Middle East in the 2020 Democratic platform make it abundantly clear that the US will not abandon the region— even if the fuss and alarmism now appear to say otherwise. Indeed, planned troop reductions in Afghanistan and Iraq are a little concerning, but with US defense spending rising it is perhaps another sign of a changing world, where the number of boots on the ground is no longer a credible gauge of America’s commitment.
Both parties are eager to turn a page on large-scale military interventions abroad and getting bogged down in endless wars, necessitating a return to a Middle East policy model that centers on allies and partners. Thus, under a Biden administration is likely to eschew violent conflict, and even the threat of it, in favor of pragmatic, non-ideological diplomacy, which deters with economic might, soft power and balanced relationships.
Despite the inevitable criticism for not radically departing from establishment foreign policy (which the Trump administration tried, and failed), the Middle East must prepare for a “leading from behind” foreign policy on steroids. In other words, a Biden administration will avoid re-engaging in Iraq and Syria, while urging allies bogged down in Libya and Yemen to commit to negotiated settlements. In matters that may still require a show of force, such as deterring Russian encroachment or Tehran’s wayward adventurism, a coalition of Gulf states, Israel and Egypt will gradually shoulder more of Washington’s military obligations, with US “advisers” in the shadows. The recent accord between the UAE and Israel is almost providential, intensely favorable to a Biden-style multipolar foreign policy vision.
US policy theory in the region has been reliant on cordiality between Israel and Washington’s Arab allies, despite the reality being vastly different.
The treaty is a massive step in Washington’s long game to make Iran, not Israel, the driving force behind the realignment and unifying of disparate interests in the region. As much as the Trump administration may seek to tout this development as a major accomplishment, the treaty is a culmination of a patient strategy to isolate Tehran and cement its pariah status for events between 1979 and 1981.
US policy theory in the region has been reliant on cordiality between Israel and Washington’s Arab allies, despite the reality being vastly different. However, with other Arab states likely to follow Egypt, Jordan and the UAE in normalizing relations with Israel, Washington is closer to its ideal framework for fostering regional security and stability, and safeguarding shared interests. Additionally, annexations in the West Bank will probably be halted indefinitely and deepening ties may require Israel to shelve those plans altogether. It also saves from the impossible dilemma of expressing solidarity with the plight of the Palestinians while giving carte blanche to Benjamin Netanyahu.
Iran should be wary of this real, practical avenue aimed squarely at curbing its activities without firing a single shot. Biden is keen on drawing Tehran back to a revived, possibly updated Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that will require playing diplomatic hardball. After all, it is highly unlikely his 2,000 foreign policy advisers will urge a U-turn back to the 2015 agreement. What is needed now is something more iron clad, expanded to include ending Tehran’s interventionism in Yemen, Syria and Iraq as a prerequisite for its return to the global economy. Iran will also have its own demands, banking on Russia or China’s veto powers as leverage, but refusal to engage will be far more costly.
Moscow has little in common with Tehran save for the latter being a wrench in Washington’s designs for the region. Beijing is far more inclined to support stabilizing mechanisms than risking entanglements that could result in sanctions or costly delays in its regional Belt and Road Initiative. Russia could be easily convinced to scale back its ambitions if its plans for warm water Mediterranean ports are not at risk in Syria and Libya. In addition, should Tehran reject efforts at a negotiated settlement, it risks becoming yet another geopolitical battleground, rendering its revolutionary claims of sovereignty moot.
There are a lot of upsides to prudent multilateralism, both for antagonists and allies; Biden’s extensive experience and the depth of wisdom in his ranks of policy advisers could be the lynchpin in shaping a new Middle East. The Trump administration’s isolationism and penchant for bilateral arrangements certainly has some appeal to those exhausted by regional entanglements. However, the results speak for themselves, and in November it will be up to American voters to approve a permanent shift away from the interventions of old and reactionary isolationism in the Middle East toward “pragmatic diplomacy” centered on cooperation and shared interests.
*Hafed Al-Ghwell is a non-resident senior fellow with the Foreign Policy Institute at the John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He is also senior adviser at the international economic consultancy Maxwell Stamp and at the geopolitical risk advisory firm Oxford Analytica, a member of the Strategic Advisory Solutions International Group in Washington DC and a former adviser to the board of the World Bank Group. Twitter: @HafedAlGhwell

Ordinary Gazans pay the price of this endless, futile conflict
Yossi Mekelberg/Arab News/August 22/2020
Over the past weeks hostile incidents have increased on the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The form these hostilities take is not unfamiliar, and neither side has any interest in a full-blown conflict. Instead, Hamas is trying to break with the status quo by launching dozens of incendiary balloons into Israel, causing fires and burning fields; and Israel is reacting with air strikes on what it describes as Hamas targets, and in addition has halted all financial aid from being transferred to the Gaza Strip and prevented diesel fuel shipments to the only power station in the blockaded territory. Both measures are bound to cause further hardship to the two million Palestinians in Gaza, including a reduction in their power supply to three or four hours a day, making the lives of ordinary Gazans even more difficult than they already are.
On this occasion, as on quite a few others in the past, Egypt has assumed the role of the mediator attempting to prevent escalation, with Qatar weighing in, desperately trying to prevent what might lead to another round of bloodshed. Both sides know from experience that days, even weeks, of fighting won’t end in a decisive victory for either, only some tactical gains at best. Experience also teaches us that this deadly ritual always ends with many Palestinian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure in the tiny piece of Hamas-controlled territory; while Hamas keeps firing rockets and missiles deep inside Israel, disrupting life there, though with limited number of casualties thanks to Israel’s effective air-defence systems, until another cease-fire is brokered.
Egypt was quick to send senior intelligence officials to meet Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders to try and de-escalate the situation; however, it will take more than leaning on the leadership of these organisations to ensure long-term calm along the border with Israel. For Hamas especially, its options are to either demonstrate to the people of Gaza that it can improve the dire conditions they have endured since it came to power in 2006, or else fashion itself as the last Palestinian movement to continue the armed struggle against Israel. And even then, its leaders can only hope that the long-suffering population will still stay loyal to them.
The Gaza Strip has never recovered from several rounds of hostilities in which infrastructure has been partly or completely destroyed, let alone the horrendous consequences of 14 years of blockade.
Nevertheless, the Hamas 2020 model is mainly a status quo organisation that would like to consolidate its control over the Gaza Strip in the hope that if and when elections are held it will make substantial electoral gains there, as well as in the West Bank, which at the moment is firmly controlled by Fatah. As frustrating for Israel as are the incendiary balloons, especially for its citizens living close to the border, they are mainly a disruptive irritant; unlike the strategic threat represented by Hezbollah’s capabilities on the country’s northern border with Lebanon, these balloons are more of a reminder by Hamas that it is mainly interested in the implementation of understandings reached earlier this year that Israel will ease its blockade in exchange for calm along the Gazan border. Hamas, for now, is refraining from the use of firearms, including rockets and missiles, to signal that it wants to avoid raising the threshold of violence, but nevertheless is keen to remind all concerned that the current situation is unacceptable, for the organization itself and the people of Gaza.
For Hamas to maintain its power base in Gaza it needs to improve living conditions in this tiny piece of land, which is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and it can’t do that unless Israel eases the blockade and Egypt allows more people and goods to enter Gaza through the Rafah crossing. On the face of it there is nothing unreasonable in what Hamas is asking. The Gaza Strip has never recovered from several rounds of hostilities in which infrastructure has been partly or completely destroyed, let alone the horrendous consequences of 14 years of blockade. In their meeting with the Egyptian officials who visited Gaza this week, Hamas asked for controversial dual-use goods to be allowed to enter the Strip, for restrictions on trade to be eased by issuing permits for up to 100,000 Gazans to work in Israel and the West Bank, for their fishing zone to be enlarged, and for the maintaining of the continuous and predictable movement of people inside and outside Gaza; and together with UNRWA to enable projects that will create jobs and improve lives.
While the interests of both Israel and Hamas favor an easing of the blockade in exchange for calm along the borders, not only to avoid further conflict but also to create a culture of dialogue and long-term coexistence ranging from a permanent cease-fire to a permanent peace, the continuing distrust and hostile rhetoric serve only to further undermine those mutual aspirations. Israel still refuses to accept that Hamas is a political fact of life, even if an undesirable one that it has little hope of eliminating militarily, and that it is not going to be challenged from within Gaza no matter how miserable Israel makes the lives of its people. Moreover, it has also not faced the fact that Hamas is not the same movement it was when it came to power, but is now a much more pragmatic one despite its rigid ideological framework.
In this context both Israel and Hamas, with the proactive involvement of the international community, must ensure that the security and wellbeing of Gaza’s people does not become a bargaining chip and that both sides, despite their mutual suspicions, learn to build a constructive and peaceful coexistence.
*Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg

Erdoğan Needs New Enemies
Burak Bekdil/Gatestone Institute/August 22/ 2020
All those Turkish-Greek tensions in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas bolster a century-long Turkish nostalgia to take back some of the Greek islands. Yeni Safak, a fiercely pro-Erdoğan newspaper, suggested that the Turkish military should invade 16 Greek islands.
"Discussion of wars and invading Greek islands is... a tactic used by the regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to distract the Turkish population from the woeful economic situation." — Greek City Times.
Erdoğan needs epic stories of military might against real or fabricated foreign enemies to tell an increasing number of grudging voters in the face of an ailing economy. That is bad news for the entire region.
Election data and research show that Turks have a tendency to unite behind their leader in times of crises or confrontation with foreign enemies. According to the Turkish pollster Metropoll, for example, Erdoğan's approval rating peaked to 71.1% in December 2013, when he portrayed a slew of corruption allegations about him and his family as "a coup attempt." In parliamentary elections in 2015, Erdoğan's nationwide vote fell to 37.5% and his Justice and Development Party lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since it came to power in 2002.
Erdoğan's approval rating rose sharply again to 67.6% after a failed putsch against his government in July 2016. At the height of the COVID-19 crisis his rating was a strong 55.8%. Metropoll said Erdoğan's current approval rating is at 50.6%. He thinks he needs new tensions with Turkey's past and present-day adversaries. Most recently, condemning the historic normalization deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Erdoğan said that "because we stand by Palestine," he is considering withdrawing Turkey's ambassador from the UAE. "I gave instructions to my foreign minister... We may suspend diplomatic relations [with the UAE] or recall our ambassador to Abu Dhabi," Erdoğan added.
If he does so, Turkey will be the only country in the region that has no diplomatic relations with Armenia and Cyprus, and no ambassadorial-level relations with Syria, Israel, Egypt and the UAE. Turkey's relations with many countries where it has full diplomatic ties are not in much better shape.
In late July, even before the UAE-Israel deal, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar told Al Jazeera that Turkey would hold Abu Dhabi, the leading emirate, accountable at the right time and place for "malicious actions committed in Libya and Syria." He said that the UAE is "a functional country that serves others politically or militarily and is used remotely."
Turkey evidently has deep ire for any deal that may help stabilize one of the world's most volatile regions. On August 3, the Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned an oil agreement concluded between a US-based company and Syrian Kurds for the development of oil fields in northeastern Syria. In northwestern Syria, where Turkey controls small pockets of land, Ankara threatened to respond militarily to potential attacks on its forces.
There are "hotter" disputes, as well. Ignoring international efforts to find a diplomatic solution to maritime border disputes with its traditional Aegean rival, Greece, on August 10, Turkey resumed oil and gas exploration in the Mediterranean Sea -- only days after Turkey's government said it would delay offshore surveys to seek a diplomatic resolution with Greece.
French President Emmanuel Macron called for Turkey to be sanctioned and accused its government of violating the rights of Greece and Cyprus. In the face of increasing Turkish assertiveness, Macron also ordered the French Navy to the Eastern Mediterranean to provide military assistance to Greece. In a further move, France signed a defense deal with Cyprus. The agreement came into effect on August 1. The two-year Defense Cooperation Agreement covers energy, crisis management, counter-terrorism and maritime security cooperation between Cyprus and France.
While the standoff was deepening, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis convened his national security council. A statement issued after the meetings was reminiscent of pre-war times: "We are in complete political and operational readiness," Minister of State George Gerapetritis said on state television channel ERT. "Most of the fleet is ready to be deployed wherever necessary."
If you add to that perilous picture the Cypriot, Israeli and Egyptian navies, Turkey is up against formidable naval forces in the Mediterranean. In one dangerous incident on August 14, two warships, the Greek Navy's Limnos frigate and Turkey's TCG Kemalreis, collided in the Eastern Mediterranean.
All those Turkish-Greek tensions in the Aegean and Mediterranean seas bolster a century-long Turkish nostalgia to take back some of the Greek islands. Yeni Safak, a fiercely pro-Erdoğan newspaper, suggested that the Turkish military should invade 16 Greek islands.
The website Greek City Times commented:
"Discussion of wars and invading Greek islands is... a tactic used by the regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to distract the Turkish population from the woeful economic situation,"
Erdoğan's idea of vote-hunting by regional troublemaking is not limited to naval adventures only. Against the background of a sudden border flare-up between Azerbaijan and Armenia on July 12, the Turkish and Azeri militaries launched a two-week long joint military exercise, involving the traditional allies' air and ground forces. In Turkey's southeast, Iraq blamed Ankara for a drone attack that killed two high-ranking Iraqi military officers. The incident occurred shortly before a planned visit by Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar to Baghdad. A fuming Iraqi government said the Turkish minister was no longer welcome.
Erdoğan needs epic stories of military might against real or fabricated foreign enemies to tell an increasing number of grudging voters in the face of an ailing economy. That is bad news for the entire region.
*Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from the country's most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
© 2020 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.