LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
January 30.2020
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.january30.20.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
God says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up
for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be
proclaimed in all the earth. So then he has mercy on whomsoever he chooses, and
he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses
Letter to the Romans 09/14-18/:”What then are we to say? Is there injustice on
God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’So it depends not
on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to
Pharaoh, ‘I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you,
so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.’So then he has mercy on
whomsoever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomsoever he chooses.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News & Editorials published on January 29-30/2020
Exposure Of Iran's Big Lie Of Liberation &
Resistance/Elias Bejjani/January 29/2020
Lebanon Blasts Trump Mideast Plan
Aoun Discusses Trump Peace Plan with Hitti
Aoun contacts President Abbas, meets Foreign Minister to discuss implications of
so-called “Deal of the Century”
Berri: Deal of the century a bribe to sell Palestinian land with Arab money
Hitti: No One Can Impose Naturalization on Us
Report: Salameh Follows Up on Exchange Market Control Measures
Diab Expresses Solidarity with 'Palestinian Cause'
Fahmi meets Rampling, UN's Kubis, Lazzarini
Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon Insulted by Trump's 'Shameful' Deal
Geagea Says Popular Uprising wasn't Targeted against Hariri
Jbeil Highway Briefly Blocked after Activist Rabih al-Zein Arrested
Anti-Government Protesters Stage Demos in Beirut, Tripoli
Tokyo Prosecutors Raid Ghosn Ex-Lawyer's Office
'I'm Never Coming Back': Lebanon Crisis Fuels Brain Drain
Protesters rally outside Swiss Embassy demanding transparent investigations over
funds' transfer
Sami Gemayel stresses need to distance Lebanon from potential negative
repercussions of Deal of the Century
Kataeb meets in session to discuss latest developments
Msharrafieh tackles cooperation prospects with Norwegian, Danish delegations
Lebanon needs a long-term plans for its economy
WHO Says No Coronavirus in Lebanon, Reassures on Country's Measures
Minister of Health meets Chinese Ambassador, confirms no Coronavirus cases among
Lebanese in China
The Tentative Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan and its Postulations/Charles Elias
Chartouni/January 30/2020
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on
January 29-30/2020
Canada/Statement by Foreign Minister on the release of U.S.
Middle East Peace Plan
Yemen’s Houthis say have targeted Saudi Aramco facilities in Jizan
Saudi Arabia says it backs all efforts toward ‘comprehensive’ Mideast solution
Saudi Arabia’s King Salman affirms ‘steadfast’ support for Palestinian rights
Kuwait welcomes US bid to end Arab-Israeli conflict
Bahrain supports all efforts for ‘just’ peace in Palestine: FM
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE welcome Trump peace plan
The ‘Deal of the Century’: What are its key points?/Lahav Harkov and Herb Keinon/Jerusalem
Post/January 29/2020
Jared Kushner: Middle East peace plan guarantees Muslims access to Al-Aqsa/Ray
Hanania/Arab News/January 29/2020
Netanyahu to announce annexation of Maale Adummim next week/DEBKAfile/January
29/2020
Macron accuses Turkey of sending Syrian mercenaries to Libya
Syrian troops capture key town in rebel-held Idlib province
New Qatari prime minister allegedly involved in corruption case
Four family members infected with coronavirus in UAE
Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published on January 29-30/2020
Trump unveils the giveaway on the century on Middle
East peace/Robin Wright/The New Yorker/January 29/2020
Iran's Lobbyists and Agents in the West/Majid Rafizadeh//Gatestone
Institute/January 29/2020
Arabian Gulf Citizens and Changing Views/Najat AlSaied/Gatestone
Institute/January 29/2020
Atrocities against Muslims: Leaked Documents in China/Lawrence A. Franklin//Gatestone
Institute/January 29/2020
Germany's Selective Fight against Anti-Semitism/Judith Bergman/Gatestone
Institute/January 29/2020
Iran’s revenge might be to go nuclear/Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab
News/January 29/2020
Trump’s dead-on-arrival plan signals the end of an era/Dr. John C. Hulsman /Arab
News/January 29/2020
Lessons from Davos: Aramco is meeting climate change challenge/Frank Kane/Arab
News/January 29/2020
Cities at the forefront in climate crisis fight/Nidhal Guessoum/Arab
News/January 29/2020
UK faces foreign policy dilemmas as Brexit reality hits/Alistair Burt/Arab
News/January 29/2020
Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan will not bring peace – the US and Israel
know this/Jonathan Cook/The Nationa/January 29/2020
Details Of The Latest English LCCC Lebanese
& Lebanese Related News & Editorial published
on January 29-30/2020
Exposure Of Iran's Big Lie Of Liberation & Resistance
Elias Bejjani/January 29/2020
In fact the Trump-Netanyahu official announcement of the "Deal of
the Century", is a golden opportunity for Iran and Hezbollah to destroy Israel,
if indeed their goal is to liberate ... but because the emblem of liberation is
a lie, nothing will happen. Hezbollah and Iran were and still using and abusing
the liberation cause to serve their own Iranization, terrorism and expansionism
hostile-Evil agenda
Lebanon Blasts Trump Mideast Plan
Naharnet/January 29/2020
Lebanese political parties, religious figures and officials denounced on
Wednesday the US so-called Mideast peace plan unveiled Tuesday by US President
Donald Trump, while Palestinian refugees in southern and northern camps
expressed their rejection. Hizbullah said the plan represented an attempt to
"wipe out the Palestinian people's rights."This "shameful move... could not have
been made without the complicity and betrayal of a certain number of Arab
regimes", the Iranian-backed movement added. Al-Mustaqbal Movement expressed
solidarity with the Palestinian people, denouncing the deal as a “new Balfourd
Declaration.”“The deal cannot pass at the expense of the Palestinian people and
their historic struggle to defend their land and sanctities, or at the expense
of their legitimate rights to establish an independent state with Jerusalem as
its capital,” a statement released by the Movement said.
Sidon Mufti Sheikh Salim Susan called on mosques in the southern city to focus
their Friday speech on the “Palestinian cause.”“This Deal of the Century is ugly
and reprehensible, it is totally rejected. Palestine is not for negotiations or
bargaining, and it is not for sale,” said Susan. Senior Lebanese officials
including President Michel Aoun and PM Hassan Diab also expressed solidarity
with the Palestinian people rejecting Trump’s deal. Palestinian refugees in the
southern camps of Sidon and Tyre, and in the northern camps of Beddawi went on
strike as schools were closed in protest. Trump revealed the plan grants Israel
much of what it has sought in decades of international diplomacy, namely control
over Jerusalem as its "undivided" capital, rather than a city to share with the
Palestinians. The plan also lets Israel annex West Bank settlements. Unveiled on
Tuesday by US President Donald Trump, Lebanese officials and parties strongly
denounced the plan and Palestinians called it biased and deserving to go in the
"dustbin of history."
Aoun Discusses Trump Peace Plan with Hitti
Naharnet/January 29/2020
President Michel Aoun discussed with Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti at the
Presidential Palace the US President Donald Trump's Israeli-Palestinian peace
plan, the National News Agency reported on Wednesday.
The plan grants Israel much of what it has sought in decades of international
diplomacy, namely control over Jerusalem as its "undivided" capital, rather than
a city to share with the Palestinians. The plan also lets Israel annex West Bank
settlements. Unveiled on Tuesday, Lebanese parties strongly denounced the plan
and Palestinians called it biased and deserving to go in the "dustbin of
history." Hizbullah said the plan “attempts to eradicate the historical and
legal rights of the Palestinians,” and described it as “a shame deal,” stressing
that it “would not have taken place without the complicity and betrayal of a
number of Arab regimes that have been secretly and publicly involved in this
plot.”
Aoun contacts President Abbas, meets Foreign Minister to
discuss implications of so-called “Deal of the Century”
NNA /January 29/2020
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, on Wednesday stressed Lebanese
solidarity, President and people, with the people of Palestine in confronting
developments which arose from the so-called “Deal of the Century”, through a
phone call with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. The President also
assured the importance of Arab unity towards these developments, and stressed on
Lebanese adherence to the Arab peace initiative which was approved by the Arab
Summit (held in Beirut year 2002), especially regarding the Palestinian right of
return to their lands, and the establishment of a Palestinian independent State,
with Jerusalem as its capital.Moreover, President Michel Aoun received the
Foreign Minister, Nassif Hetti, at the Presidential Palace, and discussed with
him the general situation and recent regional developments. During the meeting,
both sides discussed the reactions to US President, Donald Trump’s, announcement
to the so-called “Deal of the Century”, and the Arab and international positions
towards it. The discussion also tackled diplomatic issues, and Hitti’s
perception of his ministerial role in the coming stage.—Presidency Press Office
Berri: Deal of the century a bribe to sell Palestinian land
with Arab money
NNA/January 29/2020
Speaker of the House, Nabih Berri, on Wednesday said in a press release issued
by his press office that "the deal of the century" has dashed the Palestinians'
little hope of building a country of their own, with Jerusalem its capital.
"This agreement is just a bribe to sell the rights, sovereignty, dignity, and
Palestinian Arab lands with Arab money," Berri said. "We reconfirm that Lebanon
and the Lebanese will not be false witnesses in the new death penalty against
the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights, including their right to
return home. We will not accept, regardless of the conditions, to be an
accomplice in the sale or exchange of these rights," the statement read. Finally
Berri called on Arab and Muslim countries, especially the Palestinian people, to
strengthen national unity and resistance in order to free up the occupied land
and preserve the little remaining Arab dignity.
Hitti: No One Can Impose Naturalization on Us
Naharnet/January 29/2020
Foreign Minister Nassif Hitti stressed Wednesday that no one can impose the
naturalization of Palestinian or Syrian refugees on Lebanon, a day after U.S.
President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Mideast peace plan, which does
not entail the return of Palestinian refugees. “The Arab Peace Initiative, which
was unanimously endorsed at the Beirut Arab Summit in March 2002, represents a
comprehensive and just approach to achieve permanent peace in the region,” Hitti
said in a TV interview. “No one can impose on us the naturalization of anyone,”
the minister added. Noting that he would stress commitment to the resolutions of
the 2002 Arab Summit during the upcoming emergency Arab League meeting which
will be held in Cairo, Hitti said no side has asked Lebanon to “agree to any
issue in return for aid.”“The issue is not a real estate deal, we are talking
about a people’s national identity,” the minister went on to say.
Report: Salameh Follows Up on Exchange Market Control
Measures
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 29/2020
Central bank governor Riad Salameh held a meeting to tackle the procedures
accompanying the arrest of some exchange house owners over violation reports,
and the ways to control the money market as the country grapples with an
unprecedented economic and monetary crisis, al-Joumhouria daily reported on
Wednesday. Salameh held his meeting on Monday with President of the Banking
Control Commission Samir Hammoud, Financial Prosecutor Ali Ibrahim, and head of
exchange houses in Lebanon Mohammed Mrad, said the daily. Discussions focused on
the procedures that will accompany Ibrahim's decisions, who on Tuesday had six
owners of exchange houses arrested for investigation over violations. The
meeting also discussed ways to control the monetary market, according to the
daily. Since October, the Lebanese pound, long pegged to the dollar, has lost up
to 60% of its value in the parallel exchange market against the dollar and banks
have imposed unprecedented capital controls to preserve liquidity. Money
changers in protests-hit Lebanon agreed last week to cap the dollar exchange
rate at 2,000 pounds as part of efforts to curb the local currency's devaluation
on the parallel market, which some failed to abide.
The Lebanese pound is officially pegged to the greenback at a rate of 1,500 to
the dollar but the country's sharp economic downturn has sent the currency into
a tailspin in foreign exchange offices. Money changers have in recent weeks been
trading dollars at more than 2,600 pounds. The Lebanese Money Changers
Association said it had agreed with the central bank on "an exchange rate for
the US dollar capped at 2,000 Lebanese pounds,” which was not respected by all.
Diab Expresses Solidarity with 'Palestinian Cause'
Naharnet/January 29/2020
Prime Minister Hassan Diab on Wednesday rejected a peace plan unveiled by US
Trump on Tuesday expressing solidarity with the "Palestinian cause."“Jerusalem
will remain the compass and Palestine will remain the cause,” he said in a
tweet. Trump unveiled the so-called “Israeli-Palestinian peace plan” that grants
Israel much of what it has sought in decades of international diplomacy, namely
control over Jerusalem as its "undivided" capital, rather than a city to share
with the Palestinians. The plan also lets Israel annex West Bank settlements.
Lebanese parties strongly denounced the plan and Palestinians called it biased
and deserving to go in the "dustbin of history."
Fahmi meets Rampling, UN's Kubis, Lazzarini
NNA/January 29/2020
Minister of Interior and Municipalities, Mohamed Fahmi, on Wednesday received
British Ambassador to Lebanon, Chris Rampling, with whom he discussed the
bilateral relations between the two countries and the projects undertaken by the
UK in Lebanon, especially in the social domain.
During the meeting, Minister Fahmi hoped that the British governments continues
its support to Lebanon and its people, stressing the need to give Lebanon'
current government a chance to prove itself, especially as it includes
specialists who seek to secure the country's unity and its recovery.
Fahmi stressed that the Interior Ministry is for all the Lebanese, saying the
security services are carrying out their duties away from politics in order to
preserve the peacefulness of demonstrations and the safety of demonstrators, and
public and private properties.
Ambassador Rampling, in turn, hailed the performance of the security forces,
hoping that they will not be part of the conflict, preserving their neutrality.
Rampling said that the security forces and the Lebanese army are drawing with
their performance, the map of the new Lebanon.
The UK Ambassador also expressed optimism regarding the new government in
Lebanon despite the surrounding circumstances and pressures, pointing out that
Britain is highly keen on Lebanon's stability and unity, and it distinguishes
between its position on Hezbollah and on the new government and the Lebanese
people. On the other hand, Minister Fahmi met with the UN Special Coordinator
for Lebanon, Jan Kubis, accompanied by the United Nations Resident Coordinator
for Humanitarian Affairs in Lebanon, Philippe Lazzarini.
Kubis stressed donor countries' support to Lebanon's unity, people and
stability. Kubis also expressed his readiness to work with the Lebanese
government and follow up on the implementation of the Rome 2 decisions in terms
of the equipment and development of the security forces.
Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon Insulted by Trump's
'Shameful' Deal
Associated Press/Naharnet/January 29/2020
"Insulting." "Shameful." "A disgrace." Those were some of the words used by
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon on Wednesday to describe a White House plan for
ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
At refugee camps across the country, Palestinians staged strikes, protests and
sit-ins a day after U.S. President Donald trump revealed the long-awaited
details of the plan, denouncing it as ridiculously lop-sided and saying it gives
them no rights. "Trump's words mean nothing to us. This isn't his land for him
to bargain or sell or give to someone else," said Sawsan Warde, a middle-aged
Palestinian woman at the crowded Bourj al-Barajneh camp in the Lebanese
capital’s suburbs. "He can give the Jewish people or Netanyahu a part of his
land, but Palestine is for us. It was, it is and will always be ours."
The words reflected the deep bitterness felt by Palestinians at the plan
unveiled by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White
House on Tuesday. The plan supports the Israeli position on nearly all of the
most contentious issues in the decades-old conflict and falls far short of
Palestinian demands, leaving them with disjointed areas and allowing Israel to
annex its settlements in the occupied territory.
"A thousand no's," said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in response.
Among Palestinian refugees, many likened the plan to the Balfour Declaration,
the British government's promise in 1917 to Zionists to create a Jewish home in
Palestine. "This is an extension of the Balfour declaration," said Mariam Jibril,
who took part in a protest at the Ain el-Hilweh refugee camp -- an
overpopulated, sprawling territory in the southern city of Sidon that houses up
to 70,000 refugees and their descendants. "Trump thinks he controls the world
and other countries. He imposes sanctions, opens and closes embassies as he
wishes. ... The world doesn't work this way," she said, saying Palestinians need
to fight back with weapons because diplomacy and negotiations do not work.
Protesters burned tires and pictures of Trump and Netanyahu. They also set fire
to American and Israeli flags. Many expressed outrage at Gulf Arab countries
they see as complicit in the plan unveiled Tuesday. Representatives from the
Arab countries of Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates were present at the
White House on Tuesday, but there were no Palestinian representatives.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced out of what is now
Israel during the 1948 war around its creation. Those refugees and their
descendants now number around 5 million and are scattered across the region. The
Palestinians believe they have the "right of return" to former properties,
something Israel has always rejected, saying it would destroy Israel's Jewish
character. The White House plan says "there shall be no right of return by, or
absorption of, any Palestinian refugee into the state of Israel." It says
refugees can live in the state of Palestine, become citizens of the countries
where they live or be absorbed by other countries, adding that the U.S. will try
to provide "some compensation" to refugees. "It is shameful and it makes you
want to cry," said Warde. "The collusion by Arab countries is what makes us want
to cry even more. Whether from Bahrain or the UAE, we would never have thought
an Arab country would take this stance." Many said a return to armed conflict
was now inevitable. "Neither Trump nor Netanyahu can decide for the 13 million
Palestinian people that this land belongs to Israel," said Mahmoud al-Haj, whose
family hails from what is now the Israeli city of Safed.
"This is the land of our grandfathers and we will not give up Palestine which
will only come back through resistance and arms."
Geagea Says Popular Uprising wasn't Targeted against Hariri
Naharnet/January 29/2020
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea announced Wednesday that the October 17
popular uprising has “managed to achieve several objectives” and was not
exclusively targeted at toppling Saad Hariri’s government. “It is not as some
has tried to depict it as being targeted against the premier in person; it is
rather targeted against the entire system,” Geagea tweeted. “The LF was part of
the system but it quickly interpreted the situations, facts and popular temper,
deciding to be in harmony with the people’s choices,” the LF leader added.
Jbeil Highway Briefly Blocked after Activist Rabih al-Zein
Arrested
Naharnet/January 29/2020
Mount Lebanon Examining Magistrate Bassam al-Hajj on Wednesday issued an arrest
warrant for the controversial activist Rabih al-Zein on charges of “incitement.”The
arrest warrant was issued after al-Zein was interrogated for two hours at the
Baabda justice palace. Al-Zein was accused of incitement over the recent
torching of an ATM belonging to the Credit Libanais bank in Zouk and a Molotov
attack on the Free Patriotic Movement’s office in Jounieh. Anti-government
protesters Georges Azzi and Mohammed Srour had been detained in the same case.
Later on Wednesday, protesters blocked the Jbeil highway with their cars for 15
minutes in protest at the detention of al-Zein, Srour and Azzi. They ended their
protest upon the arrival of an army patrol. Al-Zein has been known for leading a
group of road-blocking protesters in the northern city of Tripoli. He has also
appeared at other protest sites across the country, raising suspicions about his
role. He had been arrested for the first time in December over his controversial
presence at the Justice Palace during an altercation between Mount Lebanon
Prosecutor Ghada Aoun and MP Hadi Hbeish of al-Mustaqbal Movement.
Anti-Government Protesters Stage Demos in Beirut, Tripoli
Naharnet/January 29/2020
Anti-government protesters on Wednesday organized several rallies in the capital
Beirut and the northern city of Tripoli. In Beirut, protesters rallied outside
the Swiss embassy near the Ring bridge to demand that Switzerland carry out
“transparent investigations to unveil the stolen funds and freeze the assets of
Lebanese politicians accused of smuggling their money to Switzerland, especially
after October 17, 2019.”“Those stolen funds belong to the Lebanese people, must
be recovered and we will not remain silent about them,” the protesters said.
Separately, a group of protesters gathered outside the Interior Ministry in
Sanayeh to protest security forces’ Tuesday attempt to reopen roads around the
Martyrs Square protest camp, accusing the ministry of seeking to dismantle their
tents and end the sin-in, and consequently the popular uprising. The protesters
stressed that they will remain camped at Martyrs Square, criticizing the removal
of security forces guarding the site as a step that would leave them exposed to
attacks by counter-demonstrators. They also decried that any of their demands
has not been achieved until the moment. In Tripoli, protesters meanwhile rallied
outside al-Mustaqbal Movement's offices in protest at its bloc's participation
in a controversial parliament session that approved the 2020 state budget.
Tokyo Prosecutors Raid Ghosn Ex-Lawyer's Office
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 29/2020
Tokyo prosecutors on Wednesday raided the office of a key Japanese lawyer who
defended former Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn before he skipped bail and fled Japan,
local media said. Junichiro Hironaka had previously refused to comply with
prosecutors who obtained a warrant to seize a computer used by Ghosn. The former
auto tycoon's bail conditions restricted his internet use to a terminal at his
lawyer's office. Hironaka was still serving as Ghosn's lawyer when prosecutors
raided his office the first time, but he has since resigned. Hironaka and the
Tokyo district public prosecutor's office declined to comment on the reported
search, and it was not clear if the raid involved the seizure of the computer
Ghosn used. Ghosn smuggled himself out of Japan late December to Lebanon in an
elaborate escape, humiliating Japanese officials and his defence lawyers. Ghosn,
who was originally arrested in Tokyo in November 2018, faced multiple financial
misconduct charges, which he denies.
'I'm Never Coming Back': Lebanon Crisis Fuels Brain Drain
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/January 29/2020
When Lebanon's protests erupted in October, thousands found a renewed commitment
to their homeland and vowed to fix a country that has long fed its best and
brightest to the diaspora.
Then the economy unravelled. Students and young professionals who had mobilised
en masse to demand better opportunities in their home country started filling in
immigration forms and applying to universities abroad. Mothers on bustling
protest squares who had been complaining about their children living far away
have since seen even more leave. With no clear path out of Lebanon's worst
economic crisis in decades, the will to remain has petered out and many are now
scrambling for the exit. "I'm leaving and I'm never coming back," said Youssef
Nassar, a 29-year-old cinematographer who has booked a one-way ticket to Canada
for next month. "Nothing is going right in this country for me to stay
here."Lebanon is suffering its worst economic crisis since the 1975-1990 civil
war and everyone is feeling the heat. Scores of companies have closed, salaries
have been slashed, and unemployment rates are skyrocketing.
Inflation doubled between October and November, according to Lebanon's
Blominvest Bank, while the Lebanese pound has plunged by a third against the
dollar in the parallel exchange market. Nassar criticised the political class
for failing to chart a way out of the crisis.
"I have developed a hate for this country," he said.
'Won't wait forever'
Nassar used to make a decent earning every month from shooting photo and video
campaigns for fashion brands, advertising agencies and even English rock artist
Steven Wilson. But since Lebanon's economic crisis accelerated with the start of
anti-government protests in October, with banks temporarily closing and later
severely limiting withdrawals, he has only been booked once. Seven of his
clients, including a high-profile member of the Lebanese parliament, have so far
failed to pay the $25,000 they collectively owe him for previous projects. "I
want to work on my career and my future," said Nassar, who holds a Canadian
passport. "I'm not willing to wait forever for the country to get better." He is
not the only one seeking better chances abroad. Information International, an
independent Lebanon-based research body, estimates that the number of Lebanese
who left the country and did not return in 2019 jumped by 42 percent on the
previous year. Google searches from within Lebanon for the term "immigration"
hit a five-year peak between November and December, according to Google Trends.
The last time the search term was that popular was right after Lebanon's 2006
war with Israel. Immigration lawyers, for their part, say business is booming.
"Demand is up by at least 75 percent," said one immigration lawyer who asked not
to be named to protect his business. He said he is currently processing 25
applications. Most are to Canada, which along with Australia is among the most
popular destinations for Lebanese emigrants due to their demand for highly
skilled people, the lawyer said. The bulk of his clients are educated youths and
young professionals working in pharmaceuticals, information technology and
finance."They are leaving because of the economic and political situation," he
told AFP.
'Tired of fighting'
Decades of conflict, sluggish growth and corruption have prompted many Lebanese
to emigrate -- a fact touted by Lebanese officials who boast the success of the
country's expatriates. Although there are no official figures, Lebanon's
diaspora is estimated to be more than double the size of its domestic population
of four million. This chronic exodus has drawn the ire of demonstrators, who
accuse politicians they view as corrupt of hijacking the country and forcing its
people out. "I had been thinking about leaving ever since I was 16 years old,"
said Fatima, an architect by training who is now 28. "When the revolution
started, that was the very first time I ever felt like I belonged, the very
first time I ever felt that Lebanon's flag meant something to me."But last
month, Fatima lost a high-paying job at an international NGO after donors cut
funding due to the crisis. "This is when everything changed for me," she told
AFP. She found an immigration lawyer and is in the process of applying to
emigrate to Canada -- something she is determined to complete. "I'm tired of
fighting all the time," she said. "I don't think I will be failing my country if
I leave," she added. "I will be failing it if I stay and get more depressed and
do nothing."
Protesters rally outside Swiss Embassy demanding
transparent investigations over funds' transfer
NNA/January 29/2020
A group of protesters rallied outside the Swiss Embassy in Beirut near the Ring
Bridge, demanding the Swiss State to "conduct transparent investigations over
looted public money, and to freeze accounts of Lebanese politicians who are
accused of transferring funds to Switzerland, especially after October 17th",
NNA Correspondent reported on Wednesday. Protesters stressed that "the looted
public money belongs to the Lebanese people which must be recovered."
Sami Gemayel stresses need to distance Lebanon from
potential negative repercussions of Deal of the Century
NNA/January 29/2020
Head of the Lebanese Kataeb Party, MP Sami Gemayel, welcomed this Wednesday the
Egyptian Ambassador to Lebanon, Yasser Alawi, with talks touching on the latest
developments in Lebanon and the region, especially with regard to what is known
as the "Deal of the Century", whereby Gemayel stressed "the need to distance
Lebanon from any possible negative repercussions to generate from this Deal."
Kataeb meets in session to discuss latest developments
NNA/January 29/2020
Kataeb Party politburo held on Wednesday its periodic meeting, presided over by
Party ChieF, MP Sami Gemayel, to discuss most recent developments in the
country. In a statement issued in the wake of the meeting, Kataeb Party
considered that the 2020 state budget legislative session was "unconstitutional"
marked by several violations, most importantly that the government has not yet
obtained the confidence of Parliament, not to mention the absence of the closure
of accounts. The Phalange Party also said that the Parliament in its current
form no longer reflects the aspirations of the Lebanese people, who took to the
streets for more than a hundred days. As per the Party's statement, solution
lies in early parliamentary elections to reproduce political life. Kataeb also
called on the political authorities to step down and give way for a new group to
come to power to change the prevailing approach and show seriousness in engaging
in a profound reform process, without excluding the sovereignty of Lebanon, but
rather seeking to consecrate its neutrality, as a main gateway for the recovery
of the country.
Msharrafieh tackles cooperation prospects with Norwegian,
Danish delegations
NNA/January 29/2020
Minister of Social Affairs, Ramzi Msharrafieh, welcomed this Wednesday the
Director of the Norwegian Refugee Council in Lebanon, Carlo Gherardi, with whom
he discussed the main activities and achievements made by the NRC, and the means
to bolster cooperation with the Ministry. The Minister also met with a Danish
delegation headed by the Danish Ambassador to Lebanon, Merete Juhl, in the
presence of Senior Adviser of the International Economic Analysis Unit at the
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Torkild Byg. Discussion featured high on
strengthening cooperation between the two countries, especially at the social
level.
Lebanon needs a long-term plans for its economy
The National/January 29/2020
The country passed a budget for this year that fails to take into account its
financial crisis
One week ago, the Lebanese saw the arrival of prime minister Hassan Diab in the
Grand Serail. Yesterday, they witnessed his first day in action. Mr Diab oversaw
the passing of a new Lebanese budget in a half-empty Parliament building
surrounded by angry protesters.
The budget vote was boycotted by most western-leaning parties, such as Lebanese
Forces and Kataib, as well as former and current members of government, except
for Mr Diab. It was difficult to avoid attaching any symbolism to the image of
Mr Diab, alone amid rows of empty seats. In his solitude, he was defending a
budget that his own Cabinet did not draft, and that was championed most eagerly
by Hezbollah and its allies – the very political extremists from whom Mr Diab’s
appointment was meant to represent a departure. Lebanon’s new budget was
designed by its previous government – that of prime minister Saad Hariri, who
resigned in October, just before the country was hit with the full force of a
financial crisis that risks throwing the Lebanese pound into freefall. The
currency has already lost half of its value on the black market. Meanwhile,
banks have imposed draconian capital controls on foreign currency withdrawals in
the absence of any official guidelines from the Central Bank. The budget passed
yesterday fails to address any of those problems. The original draft was dated
and drawn up in haste just before Mr Hariri left office. It simply listed the
total sums of money allocated to 30 ministries, 10 of which, in Mr Diab’s new
cabinet, no longer exist. Mr Diab’s iteration is an adaptation containing
unrealistic projections of revenue and expenditure, and no plan for the
country’s economic crisis. Mr Hariri’s own Future Movement was among the parties
to vote against the budget their leader helped to draft. The MPs who did cast a
vote had to summon a certain amount of determination to do so; the entrance to
parliament was blocked for a time by protesters, who shouted that their
representatives in parliament no longer serve the very people they are supposed
to represent. MPs are seen by Lebanon’s cross-religious protest movement as the
perpetrators of a sectarian political elite, breaking faith with the population
and eroding the population’s faith in the pound. Mr Diab and his Cabinet do not
belong to any party. They were ushered into government by Hezbollah and its
allies in an attempt to appease the protest movement. But this tokenistic move
is only drawing further rage. Furthermore, a government that is truly hamstrung
from breaking with Hezbollah’s paradigm has little chance of attracting the
foreign financial assistance that Lebanon so desperately needs.
Mr Hariri’s own Future Movement was among the parties to vote against the budget
their leader helped to draft
Mr Diab has vowed to tackle Lebanon’s woes head-on with a “national rescue”
cabinet, and announced that his first diplomatic visit will be to some of
Lebanon’s traditional donors and allies in the Gulf. The country’s finance
minister is also set to meet with a senior official at the International
Monetary Fund. But, as donors have long pointed out to successive Lebanese
governments, securing funds requires serious initiatives to get the economy back
on track. It also means that Mr Diab must gain the trust of international
institutions and friendly countries that Lebanon has failed before. At the 2018
Cedre conference for economic development, international donors including France
and Saudi Arabia pledged $11 billion to Lebanon, conditional on sweeping
reforms. These reforms have yet to materialise. Mr Diab and his Cabinet now have
a chance to make things right for Lebanon. But passing a budget without a
long-term vision for the country’s embattled economy, and little support in the
street as well as in Parliament, is an underwhelming achievement and will not be
sufficient enough to secure the economy. Lebanon’s new cabinet would do well to
remember that currencies are not the only things that operate on the basis of
popular faith. Governments do, too.
WHO Says No Coronavirus in Lebanon, Reassures on Country's
Measures
Naharnet/January 29/2020
The Lebanon Office of the World Health Organization announced Wednesday in a
statement that there are "no Coronavirus cases in Lebanon," noting that the
Ministry of Public Health is “closely monitoring the situation for the early
detection of any Coronavirus infection, in line with the international health
regulations of 2005." "With the support of the WHO office in Lebanon, the
Ministry of Public Health is exerting intensive efforts and working closely to
increase preparedness and precautionary measures and to monitor the situation so
as to reduce the risk of Coronavirus finding its way into the country, knowing
that this global issue is rapidly developing," the statement said. "The World
Health Organization in Lebanon supports the national laboratory at the Rafic
Hariri University Hospital to import laboratory test materials (primers) for the
new Coronavirus from the World Health Organization to be able to confirm cases
of infection. Also, all hospitals in Lebanon have received detailed instructions
for diagnosis, prevention and care related to the new Coronavirus," it added.
The epidemic has killed more than 130 people and spread around the world since
it first emerged in a live food market in China’s Wuhan in December. It has
infected nearly 6,000 people across China. The maximum incubation period of the
virus -- the gap between infection and the appearance of symptoms -- is thought
to be two weeks, though in some cases symptoms have emerged within a matter of
days. It is also not fully clear whether transmission can occur if a patient is
not yet showing symptoms.
Minister of Health meets Chinese Ambassador, confirms no
Coronavirus cases among Lebanese in China
NNA/January 29/2020
The Lebanon Office of the World He
Minister of Public Health, Dr. Hamad Hassan, on Wednesday discussed with Chinese
Ambassador to Lebanon, Wang Kejian, the measures taken to prevent the spread of
the Coronavirus in Lebanon. In the wake of the meeting, Minister Hassan
delivered a statement in which he noted the preventive measures taken by the
Chinese authorities, especially within the Wuhan region where the epidemic is
spreading, stressing that these measures reflect a high level of responsibility.
"The steps that are being implemented in various Arab and international airports
are more than good, in addition to the measures being implemented by the World
Health Organization and the ministries of health," the Minister added. He went
on to stress that there weren't any Coronavirus cases among the Lebanese
citizens present in China, noting that expatriates from China are obliged to
cross through a third country, which increases protection measures to counter
the transmission of the Coronavirus. Asked whether the preventive measures in
Lebanon were sufficient enough to treat those infected with the virus in case of
an outbreak in Lebanon, the Minister explained that there was a unit at the
Rafic Hariri Governmental University Hospital that included four rooms in which
those infected could be isolated and taken care of in terms of prevention. "The
treatment of the Coronavirus is based on prevention, which is the most effective
to protect the patient pending studies en route to a drug discovery," he added.
For his part, the Chinese ambassador explained that he had briefed Minister
Hassan on the measures taken in China to terminate the spread of the Coronavirus
and the great interest shown by the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist
Party, headed by the Chinese President, to mobilize all the national capacities
to address this virus.
"We have taken all the possible measures to limit the spread of the virus in
China and prevent it from spreading to other countries, and we are cooperating
in full responsibility and transparency with the World Health Organization to
uncover studies that determine the means of treatment and prevention," the
Chinese diplomat explained.
"We have the full confidence and ability to halt the spread of the virus in
China, in cooperation with the World Health Organization and other countries,"
Kejian added. "The Chinese embassy is in close contact with the Ministry of
Public Health in Lebanon, the quarantine center, and the relevant medical
authorities, especially at Rafic Hariri International Airport," the Chinese
Ambassador explained. He announced that clear instructions had been circulated
to the Chinese community in Lebanon and all travelers from China in terms of
cooperating with the Lebanese health authorities, adhering to its directives and
promptly reporting any symptoms indicating a suspected illness. "So far, no
Coronavirus cases have been recorded among the Chinese community and travelers
from China to Lebanon," Kejian concluded.
The Tentative Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan and its
Postulations
Charles Elias Chartouni/January 30/2020
شارل الياس شرتوني: خطة السلام الإسرائيلية الفلسطينية المقترحة ومفترضاتها
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/82716/arabic-english-pdf-format-complete-text-of-the-deal-of-the-century-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%86%d8%b5-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b9%d8%b1%d8%a8%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%83%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%84-%d8%a8%d9%8a-%d8%af%d9%8a/
Far from being a surprise, the adumbrations which preceded the
release of the long awaited peace plan-drafted by the team commissioned by
President Trump- were quite instructive about the unveiled final version.
Otherwise, the endorsement of the proclamation of Jerusalem as the undivided
capital of Israel, the transfer of the American embassy, and the blatant support
of the Likud policies were, by and large, indicative of the clauses outlined in
this peace proposal. What’s new is the endorsement of the Two States solution,
the freezing of Israel’s colonization plans in the West Bank for four years, and
the chances of contestation it offers the Palestinians, if they would ever
engage this process, and the important financial offer ( 50 billion US dolllars
) to leverage Palestinian Nation-State building and developmental policies. The
question which pops up at this juncture is whether Palestinians are eager to
renounce their initial reservation, let alone boycott of the current
administration, and seize the opportunity offered by this plan, to set a
platform of negotiation and reengage the US administration and the Israelis, or
they are going to stick to their initial obstructionism, and move forward
towards relinquishing the Oslo agreement. Otherwise, are they able to overcome
their internal rifts, build a working consensus among the different ailes of the
Palestinian national movement and engage a different course of negotiations, at
a time when their options are quite limited in an imploding Middle East, under
the pressure of clashing international and regional power rivalries, and the
conventional manipulation of the Palestinian political landscape by the
contending Muslim and Arab power brokers. The endemic handicap of Palestinian
politics lies in its inability to overcome enduring political stonewalling ( لا
صلح، لا تفاوض، لا اعتراف، no peace, no negotiation, no recognition ), in spite
of a legacy of indirect and direct negotiations which led to mutual recognition,
working peace negotiations, and the formation of the Palestinian National
Authority in the West Bank. The stalled decade between 2010-2020, should not
serve as a template for future political posturing and portend the demise of
diplomatic overtures, however intricate they might be.
As for the Israelis they are challenged, on their turn, to overcome a legacy of
deliberate circumvention towards an operative Israeli-Palestinian partnership
towards peace making, unilateral policy crafting, and the fostering of an
autistic approach to their relationships with the Palestinians. The political
wisdom which guided the founding fathers of the State of Israel who engaged in
informal and formal diplomacy all their Arab neighbors, before and after its
emergence, with a firm intention on finding a sustainable solution to the long
hauled conflict, should serve as model which replaces the gridlocked policies of
national irredentism promoted by nationalist parties and messianic political
movements. The question to be raised at this stage, is whether Benjamin
Netanyahu is willing to swear off his expansionist drive if he ever gets
elected, and whether Benny Gantz would be able to uphold his commitment to a
negotiated and consensual approach to peace making, as he stated after the
release of the US peace proposal.
Departing from the customary diplomacy of equanimous arbitration and
institutional mediation, President Trump is offering a new platform of
negotiation that could be readily rejected by the different Palestinian
factions, and embraced by wide constituencies in Israel, but this would
disservice the cause of peace if the two entities are unwilling to jump start a
new stage of arduous conflict resolution which puts an end to a thwarted
dynamic. Palestinians cannot linger in their everlasting victimization pathos
and delirious dream of annihilating the State of Israel over time, and Israelis
have to adjust to the idea of normalization of their status in a, so far,
hostile vicinity. The burden of the past, the impact of radical worldviews on
both sides, the legitimate existential fears of the Israelis, the historical
grievances of the Palestinians, the imploded regional environment with its
cohort of Islamic radicalism, fermenting animosities and brutal power politics
are weighing heavily on the eventual new course. The Palestinian authority ill
advised boycott of the Trump administration is unaffordable, especially, if the
incumbent President gets re-elected, it’s about time for the Palestinians to
overcome their political stunted growth and usher a new era of constructive
engagement. Israelis have to face up to their immediate neighborhood, address it
directly as a better means to deal with their legitimate security concerns.
Otherwise, the US administration has to find its way back to fair arbitraging
and setting in motion a comprehensive and inclusive peace plan, which helps this
whole region extract itself from the subjugation of convoluted conflicts,
Islamic extremism, endemic developmental stagnation and cynical dictatorships.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace plan unveiled by President Trump and Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sounds more like a road map for their own futures
than for the Middle East.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News
published on January 29-30/2020
Canada/Statement by Foreign Minister on the release of U.S. Middle East Peace Plan
January 28, 2020 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today
issued the following statement:
“Canada remains committed to the goal of achieving a comprehensive, just and
lasting peace in the Middle East. This includes the creation of a Palestinian
state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and ensuring
Israel’s security within its own borders.
“Canada recognizes the urgent need to renew efforts toward a negotiated solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will carefully examine the details of
the U.S. initiative for the Middle East peace process.
“Canada has long maintained that peace can only be achieved through direct
negotiations between the parties. We urge the parties to create the conditions
for such negotiations to take place.
“Canada reaffirms its readiness to support meaningful dialogue between the
parties toward a negotiated and viable two-state solution.”
Yemen’s Houthis say have targeted Saudi Aramco facilities
in Jizan
Al Arabiya English/Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militia has targeted facilities belonging to Saudi
Aramco in Jizan on the Red Sea, its military spokesman said on Wednesday in
comments reported by the group’s Al Masirah TV. The military spokesman also said
the group had targeted the Abha and Jizan airports, Khamis Mushait military base
and other sensitive targets in Saudi Arabia “with a large number of rockets and
drones.” No official confirmation was given by Saudi Arabian authorities on the
attacks which reportedly took place last week while Aramco has so far declined
to comment. The Wall Street Journal cited Saudi Arabian officials as saying that
“all strikes on Saudi Arabia last week were foiled.” The Houthis have been
battling the Arab Coalition for nearly five years. If confirmed, the attacks
would be the first by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia since late September, when the
Iranian-backed group said it would halt missile and drone attacks if the
coalition ended air strikes on Yemen. (With Reuters)
Saudi Arabia says it backs all efforts toward
‘comprehensive’ Mideast solution
Ismaeel Naar, Al Arabiya/EnglishWednesday, 29 January 2020
Saudi Arabia supports all efforts aimed at reaching a just and comprehensive
solution to the Palestinian issue, the Kingdom’s foreign ministry says in a
statement after the White House announced its Middle East peace plan. “The
Kingdom appreciates the efforts made by the Trump administration to develop a
comprehensive peace plan between the Palestinian and Israeli sides and
encourages the initiation and direct negotiations of peace between the
Palestinian and Israeli sides,” the foreign ministry statement read. The
statement also urged both sides to address their differences on any aspects of
US President Donald Trump’s administration’s plan through direct negotiations in
order to push the peace process and move forward to reach an agreement that will
fulfill the legitimate rights of the brotherly Palestinian people.”Trump
announced his plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace at a White House event with
embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing at his side. It
includes what Trump called a four-year freeze by Israel on new settlement
activity.(With Reuters)
Saudi Arabia’s King Salman affirms ‘steadfast’ support for
Palestinian rights
Al Arabiya English/Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Saudi Arabia's King Salman affirmed the kingdom's steadfast support for
Palestinian rights in a phone call with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas,
according to a statement by the Saudi Press Agency. King Salman said he stands
by the Palestinian people and supports "their options and what achieves their
hopes and aspirations," according to the SPA report. Another statement from
Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry voiced appreciation for the new US peace plan
for the Mideast. “The Kingdom appreciates the efforts made by the Trump
administration to develop a comprehensive peace plan between the Palestinian and
Israeli sides and encourages the initiation and direct negotiations of peace
between the Palestinian and Israeli sides,” the foreign ministry statement read.
Kuwait welcomes US bid to end Arab-Israeli conflict
Reuters, Cairo/Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Kuwait “highly appreciates” US efforts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, the
foreign ministry said on Wednesday, a day after US President Donald Trump
announced a new peace plan. The statement, cited by the state news agency,
reiterated Kuwait’s commitment to an independent Palestinian state based on its
borders before the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967. Kuwait is an
ally of the United States in the Gulf region.
Bahrain supports all efforts for ‘just’ peace in Palestine: FM
Al Arabiya English/Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Bahrain supports all efforts to achieve a “just and comprehensive solution” for
the Palestinian cause, said Bahrain’s Foreign Affairs Ministry in a statement
commenting on the peace plan outlined by the administration of US President
Donald Trump on Tuesday night. On Wednesday, the ministry thanked the United
States for its work on the plan and urged the Israeli and Palestinian sides to
start direct negotiations under US sponsorship. The comment came the day after
President Trump outlined the “deal of the century” plan aimed at solving the
Israel-Palestine conflict. The plan was accepted by Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu but rejected by Palestinians. While unveiling the plan, Trump
thanked the ambassadors of the Arabian Gulf states of Bahrain, Oman and the
United Arab Emirates for their support of peace efforts and for attending the
event. - With Reuters.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE welcome Trump peace plan
Jerusalem Post/January 29/2020
"The Kingdom reiterates its support for all efforts aimed at reaching a just and
comprehensive resolution to the Palestinian cause," said the Saudi Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE on Tuesday issued
statements welcoming the Trump administration's peace plan.
"The Kingdom reiterates its support for all efforts aimed at reaching a just and
comprehensive resolution to the Palestinian cause," said the Saudi Ministry of
Foreign Affairs."The kingdom appreciates the efforts of President Trump's
administration to develop a comprehensive peace plan between the Palestinian and
the Israeli sides, and encourages the start of direct peace negotiations between
the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the auspices of the United States," the
statement reads. It also called to resolve any disagreements with aspects of the
plan through negotiations, "to move forward the peace process to reach an
agreement that achieves legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."
Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad Bin Salman told Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas that "our position towards the Palestinian issue has not
changed, all the Arabs and we are with you. The establishment of a just and
comprehensive peace must be worked for. Peace is a strategic choice, which will
bring a permanent solution that will fulfill the rights of the Palestinian
people," according to Channel 13.
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a similar statement, calling the
sides to consider the plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"The Arab Republic of Egypt appreciates the continuous efforts exerted by the US
administration to achieve a comprehensive and just settlement of the Palestinian
issue, thereby contributing to the stability and security of the Middle East,
ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict," the ministry said Tuesday.
"Egypt recognizes the importance of considering the US administration's
initiative from the perspective of the importance of achieving the resolution of
the Palestinian issue, thus restoring to the Palestinian people their full
legitimate rights through the establishment of a sovereign independent state in
the Palestinian occupied territories in accordance with international legitimacy
and resolutions," the statement reads.
It went on to call the two sides "to undertake a careful and thorough
consideration of the US vision to achieve peace and open channels of dialogue,
under US auspices; for the resumption of negotiations to present their
respective views on reaching an agreement that satisfies the aspirations of both
peoples, to achieve a comprehensive and just peace and the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state."
THE QATARI News Agency released a statement, saying that "the State welcomes all
efforts aiming towards a longstanding and just peace in the occupied Palestinian
territories."
"It also appreciates the endeavors of President Trump and the current US
administration to find solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. All
solutions should be consistent with international law and the relevant UN
resolutions," the statement continues.
Qatar also called on the sides to hold direct negotiations. However, unlike
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Qatari statement also calls for a Palestinian state
"within the 1967 borders, including East Jerusalem," as well as the right of
return.
Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates, Yousef Al Otaiba, said that his country
appreciates continued US efforts to reach a Palestine-Israel peace agreement.
"This plan is a serious initiative that addresses many issues raised over the
years," he wrote. "The plan announced today offers an important starting point
for a return to negotiations within a US-led international framework," he added.
Otaiba was among the three Arab ambassadors who attended the ceremony at the
White House earlier on Tuesday. Ambassadors of Oman and Bahrain attended the
event as well, signaling warming ties with Israel and support for the
administration's vision.
Jordan and Turkey, on the other hand, were critical of the plan. Foreign
Minister Ayman Safadi said in a statement following the announcement of the US
peace vision that an "independent Palestinian state on June 4, 1967, lines with
East Jerusalem as its capital – living in peace side by side with Israel on the
basis of the two-state solution that fulfills the legitimate rights of the
Palestinian people, in accordance with international law – is the only path to a
comprehensive and lasting peace."
Safadi warned against "the dangerous consequences of unilateral Israeli
measures, such as the annexation of Palestinian lands; the building and
expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian occupied lands; and
encroachments on the Holy Sites in Jerusalem, that aim at imposing new realities
on the ground." He stressed that Jordan condemns such measures, "as a violation
of international law and provocative actions that will push the area toward more
conflict and tension."Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement
saying that, "the so-called US peace plan is stillborn. This is an annexation
plan aiming to destroy the two-state solution and seize the Palestinian
territories. The people and the land of Palestine cannot be bought
off.""Jerusalem is our redline," the statement reads. "We will not allow any
step seeking to legitimize Israel's occupation and atrocities. We will always
stand by the brotherly Palestinian people and will continue to work for an
independent Palestine on Palestinian land. "We will not support any plan
that does not have the support of Palestine," the ministry added. "There will
not be any peace in the Middle East without ending Israel's
occupation policies."
The ‘Deal of the Century’: What are its key points?
Lahav Harkov and Herb Keinon/Jerusalem Post/January 29/2020
T. Belman. The most important point is that Trump has taken 30% of Area C off
the table and given it to Israel. Sunday, Israel will vote to apply Israel law
over these lands thereby making them an integral part of sovereign Israel.
Borders: Trump’s plan features a map of what Israel’s new borders will be,
should it enact the plan fully. Israel will retain 20% of the West Bank and will
lose a small amount of land in the Negev near the Gaza-Egypt border. The
Palestinians will have a pathway to a state in the vast majority of territory in
the West Bank, while Israel will maintain control of all borders. This is the
first time a US president has provided a detailed map of this kind. Jerusalem:
The Palestinians will have a capital in east Jerusalem based on northern and
eastern neighborhoods that are outside the Israeli security barrier – Kafr Akab,
Abu Dis and half of Shuafat. Otherwise, Trump said Jerusalem will remain
undivided as Israel’s capital. Settlements: Israel will retain the Jordan Valley
and all Israeli settlements in the West Bank in the broadest definition
possible, meaning not the municipal borders of each settlement but their
security perimeters. This also includes 15 isolated settlements, which will be
enclaves within an eventual Palestinian state. Within those settlements Israel
will not be able to build for the next four years. The IDF will have access to
the isolated settlements. For the settlement part of the plan to go into effect,
Israel will have to take action to apply sovereignty to the settlements, which
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he plans to do at the upcoming cabinet
meeting on Sunday. Security: Israel will be in control of security from the
Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The IDF will not have to leave the West
Bank. No change to Israel’s approach to Judea and Samaria would be needed.
Palestinian state: The plan does not include immediate recognition of a
Palestinian state; rather, it expects a willingness on Israel’s part to create a
pathway toward Palestinian statehood based on specific territory, which is about
70% of Judea and Samaria, including areas A and B and parts of Area C. The state
will only come into existence in four years if the Palestinians accept the plan,
if the Palestinian Authority stops paying terrorists and inciting terrorism and
if Hamas and Islamic Jihad put down their weapons. In addition, the American
plan calls on the Palestinians to give up corruption, respect human rights,
freedom of religion and a free press, so that they don’t have a failed state. If
those conditions are met, the US will recognize a Palestinian state and
implement a massive economic plan to assist it
Refugees: A limited number of Palestinian refugees and their descendants will be
allowed into the Palestinian state. None will enter Israel. Triangle: The plan
leaves open the possibility that Israel will swap the area known as the
“Triangle” – consisting of Kafr Kara, Arara, Baka al-Gharbiya, Umm el-Fahm and
more – into the future Palestinian state. According to the plan, “the Vision
contemplates the possibility, subject to agreement of the parties, that the
borders of Israel will be redrawn such that the Triangle Communities become part
of the State of Palestine.”
Jared Kushner: Middle East peace plan guarantees Muslims
access to Al-Aqsa
Ray Hanania/Arab News/January 29/2020
Trump adviser criticizes Palestinian leadership for calling for 'days of rage'
Kushner said establishing a Palestinian state undermines the propaganda
narrative of jihadist groups like Daesh
WASHINGTON: The US peace plan will guarantee the Muslim world access to holy
sites in Jerusalem, Jared Kushner said on Wednesday, as he defended the deal as
offering more than just Palestinian statehood.
Donald Trump’s senior advisor and son in law, who had a key role in preparing
the plan, said the Palestinians could still negotiate aspects of the deal
unveiled on Tuesday.
But he made it clear one of the deal’s priorities is to address the concerns of
the larger Arab and Muslim worlds over the status of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the
Haram Al-Sharif, which Israel calls the Temple Mount.
Under the deal, the current status quo arrangement in which Jordan’s King
Abdullah II is responsible for one of Islam’s most sacred sites, is set to
continue. “Israel, at America’s behest, reaffirmed and appreciates the role of
the King of Jordan with regards to the Muslim holy sites and made a firm
commitment saying that any Muslim who wants to come and pray at the mosque is
welcome to do so,” Kushner told reporters.
“That is a very important thing to clarify in the Middle East and Islamic world,
that Israel is willing now to welcome any Muslim who wants, and that the Al-Aqsa
Mosque is not under attack and Jerusalem is an open city and all Muslims are
welcome who want to come and pray peacefully.”
Kushner also said the peace plan undermines the propaganda narrative of jihadist
groups like Daesh, which have used Palestinian suffering as an issue to engage
in violence and terrorism.
“This offer takes away that argument from the jihadis … basically the
Palestinians have an opportunity for a state and have a capital in east
Jerusalem,” Kushner said. He said the Palestinians had to show they are ready to
have their own nation as the Arab world cannot afford to have another failed
state in its midst.
“The Palestinians have been demanding their rights and they want a state and
they have been saying this for a long time, but not everyone is entitled to a
state. You have to show you are ready for a state because the Middle East has
suffered when you have failed states,” Kushner said.
“You look at what’s happened in Yemen, you look at what’s happening in Syria
with the civil war and in Libya. Those become vacuums for jihadists who then
threaten people who want to live their lives peacefully. You cannot afford to
have a failed state right there next to Jordan, Israel and Egypt.”
At least three Arab countries attended the Trump peace plan unveiling on Tuesday
- Oman, the UAE and Bahrain. Kushner said he believes protecting Al-Aqsa Mosque
is a key to winning support from other Muslim and Arab nations. Kushner gave a
stern warning to the Palestinians, saying the plan “is negotiable,” criticizing
calls for “days of rage” from the Palestinian leadership.
“While this has gone on, Israel continues to take more and more land and they
haven’t been interested in getting a deal done,” Kushner said. “And then the
Palestinians, they just continue to get billions of dollars of aid from a lot of
countries throughout the world. They have made this an international cause. They
have built a good business off of it. A lot of their leaders are rich, their
friends are rich, their families are rich and they really don’t care about the
people.”Kushner said that if the Palestinians join the process, Israel will be
flexible to negotiate issues and specifics of the plan. But, if they refuse, the
US will move on to other priorities. “The Palestinians over the last 25 years
have not shown the capabilities that they can run themselves in a responsible
way,” Kushner said. “We created a framework that if they are interested – it is
a hard work—instead of running around declaring days of rage, they have an
opportunity to do it.”US ambassador to Israel David Friedman told reporters
later that nothing will change in the near future until discussions begin. “We
would like the region to be open and free with respect to religion. In Israel
and a Palestinian state,” Friedman said, explaining that also means Jews would
have access to the “Temple Mount.”But he said it will only be something that
will be subject to a change if there is agreement as a result of the Trump peace
plan.
Netanyahu to announce annexation of Maale Adummim next week
DEBKAfile/January 29/2020
DEBKA Exclusive: PM Binyamin Netanyahu will next week declare Israel sovereignty
over Maale Adummim, a small town 7km east of Jerusalem, as the first step
towards realizing the Trump peace plan. The details of this step are still
unclear, since the town is located in an area called E1, which connects it to
Jerusalem and has not yet been precisely mapped. Therefore, the prime minister
may just make a general statement of Israel sovereignty and leave the details
until after the March 2 election. This decision comes against the background of
comments heard on Wednesday, Jan. 29, from the authors of the peace plan, the
president’s special adviser Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, that they don’t
expect Israel will go forward in the coming days to annex all the Jewish locales
across the Green Line, as set forth in the plan. US Secretary State Mike Pompeo
later said in a TV interview that he is sure the Israeli government will act
according to the law and its tempo. DEBKAfile’s Washington sources disclose that
the Trump administration has asked Netanyahu to submit the “Deal of the Century”
to the Knesset for endorsement before going forward to execute its share of the
plan, i.e., proclaiming Israeli sovereignty over 34pc of the West Bank area.
Opposition leader Benny Gantz picked up on this request and decided to run off
with it. He plans to table the Trump peace plan in the Knesset himself next
week. According to our sources, Trump officials urged Israel to hold its horses
after being asked by Saudi Arabia and Egypt to give them a chance to prepare
their domestic public opinion and allow people to digest the import of the Trump
peace plan before it takes off. Both Arab governments informed Washington that
they are not opposed to the plan, but they want to make sure that the Arab
League’s foreign ministers meeting in Cairo on Saturday, Feb. 1, approve a mild
resolution. This will be difficult if Netanyahu has meanwhile rushed forward
with annexations. Our sources also reveal that Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the
Palestinian Authority, who has rejected the Trump blueprint with “a thousand
noes,” secretly approached the Saudis and Egyptians with a request to try and
slow down the Trump blueprint’s implementation. Its immediate realization, he
said, would leave him without an Arab umbrella and no choice but to join up with
the extremist Hamas and Islamic Jihad to fight the plan. In any case, Abu Mazen
reported he is planning to revoke Yasser Arafat’s signature on the 1994 Oslo
accords, including the attached letter he wrote to the late Israeli prime
minister Yitzhak Rabin affirming Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel.
Macron accuses Turkey of sending Syrian mercenaries to
Libya
AFP/January 29, 2020
Macron says Erdogan not keeping ‘his word’ on Libyan meddling
’What Turkey is doing in Libya contradicts what Erdogan has pledged’
PARIS: French President Emmanuel Macron accused Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip
Erdogan Wednesday of failing “to keep his word” to end meddling in Libya, saying
Ankara was sending ships with Syrian mercenaries to the conflict-torn country.
These were the latest charges set out by the French president against Erdogan on
issues ranging from Syria to the Mediterranean in an increasingly strained
relationship between Ankara and Paris. “We have seen in recent days Turkish
ships accompanying Syrian mercenaries arriving on Libyan territory,” Macron said
at a meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. This deployment, he
added, was “a clear violation of what President Erdogan pledged at the Berlin
conference” where world leaders vowed to keep out of the Libyan conflict. “It is
a failure to keep his word,” the French leader added. Activists have accused
Turkey of sending to Libya pro-Ankara Syrian fighters who hardened their skills
fighting Kurdish militia and militants in the Syria conflict. Ankara however has
denied meddling in the conflict, with Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu saying
last week that only a limited number of Turkish troops were present in the
country and were there for training but not to fight. Libya has been mired in
chaos since a 2011 NATO-backed uprising that killed longtime dictator Muammar
Qaddafi, with two rival administrations vying for power. Fighters loyal to
eastern commander Khalifa Haftar have been trying to take control of Tripoli
from the Government of National Accord (GNA) since April last year. Although the
weak GNA under Fayez Al-Sarraj is recognized by the UN as Libya’s legitimate
government, the world body’s member states do not agree when it comes to the
oil-rich North African country. The GNA is backed by Qatar and Turkey, which is
accused of sending hundreds Syrian fighters to Libya to shore up Sarraj’s
embattled government. Turkey’s parliament this month approved a bill approving a
military deployment to Libya to shore up the government. Earlier this month in
Germany, the presidents of Russia, Turkey, France and Egypt, as well as US
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and UN chief Antonio Guterres attended a summit
where they agreed to end meddling in Libya and to uphold a weapons embargo as
part of a broader plan to end the conflict there. Macron on Wednesday described
Turkey’s recent actions as “detrimental to the security of all Europeans and
Sahelians” — referring to the regions north and south of the Libyan conflict.
South of Libya, local and foreign troops are struggling to quell militant
violence raging across Sahel states Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, and there are
fears arms from the North African country could flood into the region while
giving more free reign to terror groups eyeing African and European targets.
Macron also denounced what he said were “the intrusions and provocations of
Turkey” against Greece and Cyprus, and announced the creation of a strategic
security partnership between France and Greece.
The project, to be detailed in the coming weeks, will see an enhanced French
naval presence “to ensure the full security of a strategic region for Europe,”
the president said.
Syrian troops capture key town in rebel-held Idlib province
AP/January 29/ 2020
The town of Maaret Al-Numan in Idlib province sits on the highway linking
Damascus with Aleppo and is considered critical to Assad’s forces
DAMASCUS: Syrian government forces captured one of the largest and most
strategic rebel-held towns in the country’s northwest, the Syrian military and
opposition activists said Wednesday, part of a Russian-backed military assault
that has displaced hundreds of thousands of people fleeing to safer areas. The
town of Maaret Al-Numan in Idlib province, which had been in rebel hands since
2012, sits on the highway linking Damascus with Aleppo and is considered
critical to President Bashar Assad’s forces. The town is now largely empty as a
result of intense bombardment in recent weeks.
Its capture is the latest in a series of military triumphs for Assad. His forces
have retaken control of most of the country from rebel fighters, largely because
of blanket air support from Russia, which helped turn the tide in the nearly
nine-year civil war.
Syria’s nearly nine-year conflict has left more than 400,000 people dead and
displaced half of Syria’s population, including more than 5 million who are
refugees, mostly in neighboring countries.
An exception to the Syrian government’s success in retaking territory from rebel
groups has been Idlib province in the northwestern corner of the country near
the Turkish border, which is held by opposition fighters and is dominated by
Al-Qaeda-linked militants. The province is home to some 3 million people, many
of them internally displaced.
Syrian government forces have been on the offensive for more than a month in
Idlib province, the last rebel stronghold in the country. But in recent days,
the government captured more than a dozen villages in the area as the
insurgents’ defenses began to crumble.
“Our armed forces continued operations in southern parts of Idlib with the aim
of putting an end to crimes committed by terrorist groups,” said army spokesman
Brig. Gen. Ali Mayhoub. He listed more than a dozen villages and towns captured,
including Maaret Al-Numan.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition war
monitor, said insurgents withdrew from the town late Tuesday. Syrian troops had
left a road west of the town opened apparently to give a chance for insurgents
to pull out and to avoid street battles inside the town.
But the push appears to have angered Turkey, which backs the opposition and has
for years coordinated with Russia, a main backer of Assad, during the conflict.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed frustration with Moscow over
its failure to halt Syrian government attacks in Idlib.
Erdogan said Russia is not loyal to agreements reached with Turkey over the
situation in Idlib, including a cease-fire that collapsed earlier this month. He
said he is in contact with the Russians to tell them to stop the bombing “in
Idlib or our patience will run out.”
Amid intense airstrikes and heavy bombardment, trucks loaded with displaced
people from areas surrounding Maaret Al-Numan, including Jabal Al-Zawiya, headed
toward areas near the Turkish border, already bursting with internally displaced
people.
“Only God knows where our destination will be, where we will find a house. We do
not know anything, maybe we will sleep in the car,” said one woman who was among
those fleeing with her family Tuesday. She declined to give her name, fearing
for her safety.
The Syrian Response Coordination Group, a relief group active in northwestern
Syria, reported that until the end of December more than 216,000 people fled
their homes in Idlib. In a new release, the group said 167,000 fled since the
beginning of January, bringing the total number to more than 383,000 people.
Farther north, government forces began an offensive on the western suburbs of
Aleppo in an attempt to push insurgents away from Syria’s largest city. Around
noon Wednesday, Syrian troops captured a major suburb west of Aleppo, according
to state media.
Maaret Al-Numan sits on the highway linking Damascus with Aleppo, once Syria’s
main commercial hub. With the town’s fall, government forces are now closer to
retaking the critical north-south highway.
In August, Syrian troops captured another town along the highway, Khan Sheikhoun.
Now that Syrian troops are in control of Maaret Al-Numan, their next target is
likely to be Saraqeb, which would become the last major town on the M5 highway
that remains outside government control.
New Qatari prime minister allegedly involved in corruption
case
Al Arabiya English/Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Qatar’s newly appointed prime minister is reportedly connected to an allegedly
corrupt deal meant to bring top sports events to the country, according to
French publication Mediapart and British newspaper The Guardian. Prime Minister
Sheikh Khalid bin Khalifa al-Thani, a member of Qatar’s royal family who also
serves as interior minister, allegedly discussed a money transfer agreement with
“disgraced” International Association Athletics Federation (IAAF) marketing
consultant Papa Massata Diack just before a $3.4 million payment was made,
according to The Guardian.
The payments, under investigation by French authorities, were made in October
and November 2011, one month before the IAAF voted to decide the host country of
the 2017 athletics world championships. “French investigators suspect the
payments may have been a bribe to win votes for Qatar for the event,” according
to The Guardian report. Nasser Al-Khulaifi, President of Paris Saint-Germain
football club, has been under investigation for corruption since 2019 when it
was announced that a former IAAF official had received two payments totaling the
same amount that Sheikh Khalid al-Thani allegedly discussed with Diack. In the
alleged email obtained by The Guardian and Mediapart, Diack says, “You will find
attached the bank details for the transfer of $4.5 million which must be done as
agreed. The balance of 440,000 must remain in Doha in cash, I will pick it up
the next time I come,” The Guardian reported.
Diack allegedly specified that the payment must be made “urgently today so that
I can finalize things with the president,” The Guardian reported. “The
‘president’ in question appears to be [Diack’s] father Lamine, who was at the
time the IAAF president,” according to The Guardian.
Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani appointed Sheikh Khalid al-Thani as
the country’s new prime minister on Tuesday.
Four family members infected with coronavirus in UAE
Joanne Serrieh, Al Arabiya English/Wednesday, 29 January 2020
Four people from the same Chinese family are infected with coronavirus in the
UAE, state news agency WAM on reported on Wednesday. The family infected with
the virus, also known as corona, is from China’s central city of Wuhan, where
the first cases of the virus were detected. The family members are in a stable
condition and under medical observation, the ministry said in a statement
carried by the state news agency. A health ministry official said that the four
Chinese citizens were from Wuhan and were tourists who arrived in the UAE on
January 16. Dr. Hussein al-Rand, an assistant undersecretary at the UAE's
Ministry of Health and Prevention, told The Associated Press that there was no
reason to panic over thevirus. However, he acknowledged Emirati officials were
tracing the family's steps since landing. “Their condition is stable, they are
awake, they are all receiving all the measures,” al-Rand said. “I would say to
the public: Please, don't be panicked. The health condition within the United
Arab Emirates is safe.” The coronavirus outbreak that began in the Chinese city
of Wuhan has killed more than 130 people and has infected more than 6,000
globally, most of them in China. As cases are recorded in an increasing number
of countries around the world, other states have begun screening processes in
airports for flights coming in from China. Here is a timeline of the spread. The
symptoms of the virus range from nothing to a cough and virus - to eventually
death. Al Arabiya English has put together a video and instructions of how to
protect yourself from the virus here. In the Middle East, Jordan has also
reported a case of coronavirus. While heightened fears of the virus in the UAE
have led to a shortage of face masks, experts have cautioned against panic. “At
this point, unless you are in China you are much more at risk of being infected
with influenza than with this new virus,” said Joseph Eisenberg, chair of the
Department of Epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public
Health.- With Agencies
The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published on January 29-30/2020
TRUMP UNVEILS THE “GIVEAWAY OF THE CENTURY”
ON MIDDLE EAST PEACE
Robin Wright/The New Yorker/January 29/2020
Three years after he said that peace in the Middle East was “not as difficult as
people have thought,” President Donald Trump unveiled a lopsided plan that gives
Israel much of what it has long sought and imposes daunting requirements on the
Palestinians before negotiations can even begin. The President described his
plan, orchestrated by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as “the last opportunity”
for a Palestinian state. Yet it fails to address many of the problems that led
to the collapse of earlier peace initiatives. The plan calls for a two-state
solution, but largely in name only. It grants Israel’s long-standing demands on
settlements and borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees. Israel will have the
right to annex parts of the West Bank that it now occupies, significantly
reducing and further dividing Palestinian territory. It gets control of
Jerusalem as its “undivided” capital. And it will assume security control over
the entire West Bank, the Jordan River Valley, and Jerusalem. The Palestinians
will be left with a proto-state that is physically divided, economically
challenged, and possibly not viable as a modern country. Trump’s plan also lacks
diplomatic energy—with no formal mechanism to get the two sides together—or any
sense of urgency, since it offers a vague four-year window for the Palestinians
to complete a long list of preconditions just to talk with Israel.
Netanyahu called the Trump plan “the deal of the century.” Paul Salem, the
president of the Middle East Institute, in Washington, D.C., and the son of a
former foreign minister of Lebanon, called it the “giveaway of the century”—or
“apartheid on steroids.” Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and
Egypt, called the plan “the latest example of this administration’s snake oil
diplomacy—packaging useless ideas and trying to market them as innovative.
Having spent three years punishing Palestinians and distancing U.S. policy from
any realistic positions that might lead to peace, the administration has
unveiled a plan that Palestinians will justifiably reject, thus giving the
administration an opportunity to support annexationist actions by Israel.”
The dim prospects for Trump’s long-delayed peace plan were reflected in the
rollout, in the White House East Room, during a noon break in the impeachment
hearings. The President was flanked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who
praised the “brilliant” proposal as a “realistic path to a durable peace.” But
no Palestinians were present. In September, 2018, Trump ordered the Palestine
Liberation Organization (P.L.O.) diplomatic mission to close and its diplomats
to leave Washington, on the grounds that Palestinians had not done enough on
peace. A tattered flag still flies over its red-brick mission near Georgetown,
but a big yellow banner underneath declares that the “embassy-style” building is
for sale. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has participated in previous
peace talks, flatly rejected the new plan. “I say to Trump and Netanyahu:
Jerusalem is not for sale, all our rights are not for sale and are not for
bargain. And your deal, the conspiracy, will not pass.”
The only Arabs present at the White House on Tuesday were the Ambassadors of
Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates—three out of the twenty-two members
of the Arab League. The League is due to meet this weekend to discuss the plan,
but most states still firmly back the Palestinians’ core demands—and are likely
to say so. Two hours after the plan was rolled out, Netanyahu’s office announced
that the Israeli Cabinet will vote on annexing parts of the West Bank on Sunday.
Neither event is likely to move the plan forward.
Martin Indyk, a former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, told me that Trump’s proposal
isn’t viable because the Palestinians will not accept what amounts to a
“Bantustan”—a term for a small black enclave in apartheid South Africa—on just
seventy per cent of the West Bank, with only a sliver of East Jerusalem as their
capital, and Israeli sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif, or the Temple Mount,
the third holiest site in Islam. “It will also be opposed by the right wing in
Israel,” Indyk said, “which is vehemently opposed to a Palestinian state and
giving up even one inch of Area C in the West Bank.”
The Trump plan calls for a remapping of the West Bank, including a land swap
that would give the Palestinians desert territory disconnected from much of
their state in exchange for prime real estate in the middle of the West Bank,
according to Ilan Goldenberg, the former chief of staff to the Special Envoy for
Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at the State Department. Refugees who fled the
wars in 1948 and 1967 would be granted some form of compensation, “wrapped in
very condescending language,” but not even a symbolic number would be allowed to
return, Goldenberg, who is now a fellow at the Center for a New American
Security, noted. Because the plan has security criteria set by Israel, Israel
will decide when the occupation ends. “That is a recipe for a permanent
occupation,” Goldenberg said. “If you put it in Israel’s hands, it will never
happen.”
Law Professors Testify on What Makes an Impeachable Offense
Trump’s proposal also calls for the demilitarization of Palestinian areas,
including the total disarming of Hamas, which currently controls the Gaza Strip,
and all extremist movements. Given the history of conflict in the area, getting
all Palestinian factions to surrender weaponry despite Israel keeping all of its
arms will be extraordinarily difficult. A long-standing problem in peace efforts
has been the division among Palestinians, with P.L.O. politicians running the
West Bank and Hamas controlling Gaza since the 2006 elections. (The polls were
urged by the Bush Administration as a step toward consolidating the Palestinians
into a more unified political whole to facilitate peace. It only further divided
the Palestinian rivals.) The Trump plan’s long list of demands also includes an
end to all “malign activities” among Palestinian groups, including eliminating
the “culture of incitement” in textbooks. To create incentives, the fifty-page
plan offers a thirty-page annex of economic plans for the West Bank and Gaza
that was unveiled last summer. But it too was rejected by the Palestinians.
“The Trump proposals released today were formally presented as a basis for
negotiations, but that’s not in fact how they are structured. They are
structured as a diktat,” Tamara Cofman Wittes, a former deputy assistant
secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs who is now at the Brookings
Institution, told me. “The Administration has made it clear that it plans to
recognize Israeli sovereignty over all the land indicated for the Israelis in
Trump’s map, whether the Palestinians accept it or not. That makes the Trump
plan an imposed peace.”
Wittes noted that the timing of the plan conspicuously aids Trump and Netanyahu
politically. Both men face tough reëlection bids this year, and also perilous
legal challenges. The Israeli leader has been indicted on three corruption
charges. He is now competing for his political life in the third election in a
year. The last two polls failed to produce a government. Benny Gantz, the leader
of the Blue and White Party and Netanyahu’s main rival, also endorsed Trump’s
plan after he met separately with the President. But Israel faces its own
divisions on peace. Naftali Bennett, the former head of the right-wing Jewish
Home Party and the defense minister in Netanyahu’s coalition government, said on
Tuesday that he and his party would “not allow the government of Israel to
recognize a Palestinian state in any eventuality” or cede even a centimeter of
land to the Arabs.
The Trump initiative may also face legal challenges, Salem told me. The U.S.’s
decision to recognize all settlements on the West Bank as effectively part of
Israel violates international law and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242,
which emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. The
new U.S. plan paves the way for Netanyahu or his successor to annex all the
settlements, which comes after the U.S.’s recognition of Israeli occupation of
the Golan Heights and the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. “The U.S. has
thus recognized a de facto Greater Israel State” with no conditions on it, he
said.
The plan also faces criticism at home. Senator Patrick Leahy, of Vermont, called
the plan “farcical,” because it only benefits one party and may hurt America’s
image as the only viable broker with all sides. “It is a plan that would
diminish the prospects for peaceful coexistence, while damaging our country’s
hard-won role as a force for stability in the Middle East,” he said, in a
statement.
The conflict between Israel and the Arabs—now in its seventy-second year—is one
of the world’s longest. The Trump plan will probably let it rumble on for
another four years, with ominous implications for all countries in the volatile
Middle East—and, quite possibly, to the benefit of no one.
*Robin Wright has been a contributing writer to The New Yorker since 1988. She
is the author of “Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World.”
Iran's Lobbyists and Agents in the West
Majid Rafizadeh//Gatestone Institute/January 29/2020
Recently, three Republican senators, Ted Cruz (TX), Tom Cotton (AK) and Mike
Braun (IN) have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to open an
investigation into the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
According to the Iranian American Forum: "Some of these documents are posted
here and reveal NIAC's relation and collaboration with Iranian officials and
business interests inside Iran. They show that NIAC coordinated its lobby with
the Iranian ambassador to the UN to influence the US policy with Iran."
Why do those who may lobby for the mullahs attempt to fly under the radar, act
less conspicuously and fail to register?
Now is the time for the US and other Western governments to investigate and
closely watch those who beat the drum for the anti-American and anti-Israeli
Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran's Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi (center) has boasted that Tehran runs
a lobby group in Washington that promotes the hardline agenda of his country's
ruling mullahs. (Photo by Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images)
Iran's leaders have freely admitted that they have lobby groups and operatives
in the West, including the US, working hard to advance Tehran's anti-Western,
anti-American, fundamentalist ideas. Iran's Intelligence Minister Mahmoud Alavi
even boasted that Tehran runs a lobby group in Washington that promotes the
hardline agenda of his country's ruling mullahs. According to the Washington
Examiner:
"A 'lobby group for the Islamic Republic of Iran' is actively bolstering
Tehran's status in the international stage and helping to sell and legitimize
its nuclear ambitions as just causes to the globe, Alavi claimed."
The chairman of "Oil Contracts Restructuring Committee" in Iran, Mehdi Hosseini,
when asked whether there are Western entities that pressure their governments on
behalf of the Islamic Republic, stated: "Yes. They have done this in the past."
These efforts, he added, "will help us and we should exploit these
opportunities."
Recently, three Republican senators, Ted Cruz (TX), Tom Cotton (AK) and Mike
Braun (IN) have called on the U.S. Department of Justice to open an
investigation into the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The congressmen
believe that this entity is a lobby group which is acting as a "foreign agent of
the Islamic Republic." NIAC is not registered as a lobby group and has been
reportedly operating for over a decade. The organization calls itself a
"nonpartisan, nonprofit organization advancing interests of [the]
Iranian-American community."
According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, anyone who is paid to lobby the US
federal government is required to "register with the Secretary of the Senate and
the Clerk of the House of Representatives." The Senators who have urged the
Justice Department to look into NIAC's activities, added:
"FARA [the Foreign Agents Registration Act] requires persons acting as agents of
foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic
public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as
activities, receipts, and disbursements in support of those activities. FARA
does not compel any American to refrain from certain types of speech; rather, it
helps guarantee transparency and accountability in our political system."
Intriguingly, according to the senators' statement:
NIAC's former acting policy director, Patrick Disney, admitted in internal
emails that he and the organization's legislative director spent more than 20
percent of their time conducting lobbying activities. He wrote, "I believe we
fall under this definition of 'lobbyist'...." Thus, as of 2008, senior NIAC
employees openly acknowledged their role as lobbyists for Iranian interests.
In addition, the former FBI associate deputy director, Oliver Revell, stated:
"Arranging meetings between members of Congress and Iran's ambassador to the
United Nations would in my opinion require that person or entity to register as
an agent of a foreign power; in this case it would be Iran."
Revell's statement came after NIAC's Swedish-Iranian founder reportedly arranged
meetings between members of the US Congress and the Iran's then ambassador to
the United Nations (and current Foreign Minister) Mohammad Javad Zarif.
According to the Iranian American Forum:
"Some of these documents are posted here and reveal NIAC's relation and
collaboration with Iranian officials and business interests inside Iran. They
show that NIAC coordinated its lobby with the Iranian ambassador to the UN to
influence the US policy with Iran. Some of NIAC's internal documents released
during the lawsuit have been used to prepare this report."
Why do those who may lobby for the mullahs attempt to fly under the radar, act
less conspicuously, and fail to register?
In democratic states, declaring a connection with an autocratic government that
has been designated the "foremost" state sponsor of terrorism might run the risk
of affecting the legitimacy and status of Iran's lobbyists.
Those who advocate for the mullahs in the US appear determined to satisfy Tehran
by cajoling, prodding and persuading US policy-makers into believing that
appeasement, the lifting of sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps,
and a soft touch is the only way to contain the top state sponsor of terrorism.
Now is the time for the US and other Western governments to investigate and
closely watch Iran's apologists who beat the drum for the anti-American and
anti-Israeli Islamic Republic of Iran.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated
scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and
president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has
authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at
Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
© 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.
Arabian Gulf Citizens and Changing Views
Najat AlSaied/Gatestone Institute/January 29/2020
Whenever there is any hope of good relations with Israel, Qatar tries to
embarrass Saudi Arabia by mentioning that the kingdom is the keeper of the Two
Holy Mosques. Conversely, when Saudi Arabia says something negative about
Israel, such as that Israelis may not visit the kingdom, Qatar quickly publishes
it in English to show Westerners how intolerant Saudi Arabia is.
Disappointingly, the Western mainstream media is no different from the Arab Gulf
media in weakening the position of pro-peace advocates in the Arab Gulf
countries.
Members of the mainstream media seem, in fact, to have an interest in
perpetuating conflict, perhaps as more newsworthy, telegenic or enticing to
advertisers. Members of the mainstream media also seem, wrongly, to regard
anti-Semitic advocates of political Islam as representative of "moderate" Islam.
Worse, they actually appear to be against anyone who is promoting peace.
The worldwide lack of support for those who advocate peace or the reform of
Islam has brought about exactly what the extremists want: a fear of speaking up.
Many of us Muslims do not want to be viewed as traitors, labelled "enemies of
the nation"... and have our lives put under threat...
The views of Gulf Arabs towards Israel have been marginalized by a lack of
support from both the Arab and Western media, indicating a need for greater
emphasis on "digital diplomacy" from the public... and "normalization"....
Arab Gulf societies often differ from other Arab and Muslim societies on their
views about Israel. There is an urgent need for greater emphasis on "digital
diplomacy" from the public, as well as for more social gatherings and
"normalization" -- especially in Western countries -- to strengthen the
relationship between the Israeli people and the citizens of the Arab Gulf.
Pictured: Manama, Bahrain. (Image source: B.alotaby/Wikimedia Commons)
Since General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed by an American airstrike, it has become
even clearer that the Middle East is divided. We find some here were supportive
of the strike that rescued the world from a most dangerous terrorist; others
were completely outraged. Is the Middle East, then, on the verge of new
alliances and further fragmentation?
The reactions of the Arab Gulf countries, including their citizens -- especially
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain -- are the same as Israel's. Other Arab
countries and the Palestinian territories -- mainly Hamas, which is a client of
Iran -- have responded quite differently.
Arab Gulf societies often differ from other Arab and Muslim societies on their
views about Israel. Lately, however, the most hostile rhetoric has disappeared,
especially among the younger generations. It has, in fact, been largely replaced
by a more moderate tone and a desire better to understand Israeli society.
Many writers and political analysts from the Arab Gulf have written about the
different political doctrines and perceived enemies among Arab Gulf countries
and other Muslim countries, mainly from the Levant. A recent article by Kuwait's
former minister of information, Saad Al-Ajmi, explains these differences. Arabs,
he states, particularly the Palestinians, have been attributing all the problems
in the region to Israel.
As the Iranian regime has formally declared their occupation of four Arab
capitals -- Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sanaa -- many of its members see only
the supposed Israeli "occupation" and do not think about all the Arab and Muslim
blood spilled by Iran and its proxies. To many Arabs and Muslims, only the
Palestinian people seem to have been important. Sadly, this concern has often
appeared to be less about the Palestinians' well-being, over which they do not
seem unduly distressed -- having preferred to let them languish as second class
citizens in Jordan, Lebanon or Kuwait. Rather, expressions of concern often
appear to have been a way of deflecting attention from the problems of
governance at home.
In the eyes of some Arabs, Al-Ajmi writes, especially the Palestinians, Arab
Gulf leaders are regarded as traitors and US agents because they are affiliated
with an ally of Israel: America. In the view of these Arabs, Al-Ajmi continues,
the US has invented an imaginary enemy in Iran in order to steal the riches of
the Arab Gulf. To many Arabs, he posits, Iran is just a peaceful Muslim neighbor
that supports the "resistance" and works towards "liberating Palestine," and the
Arab Gulf countries are nothing but stupid and cowardly traitors.
The traditional media in the Arab Gulf countries are often controlled by a
Palestinian-Lebanese-Egyptian triangle. Al Arabiyya, Al Jazeera and many other
outlets in the region espouse Nasserist, Islamist, or pan-Arab nationalist
ideologies that claim to see Israel as the primary threat. Frequently, the
executive managers and news editors who run the Arab Gulf media use the Al-Aqsa
Mosque in Jerusalem to skew the news and portray the Palestinian issue as the
main preoccupation in the region; they then set about embarrassing anyone who
might not see the situation the same way as they do.
The result is that many people in the Gulf, especially the younger generations,
complain that their media does not speak for them and is controlled by the
Levant. Saudis who have read that "the traditional media in the Arab Gulf
countries are often controlled by the Palestinian-Lebanese-Egyptian triangle"
have remarked, often in person, that the traditional media, whether broadcast
news or the press, must probably be controlled and run by Saudi professionals
because the Arabs' views do not represent their views.
Twitter user B_Alarij wrote:
"We need to consider the issue of our Gulf media: to get rid of this triangle
and localize media jobs to achieve our goals and spread our culture on the
global level and get rid of Arab ideologies of the Levant?!!"
Twitter user SalmaAlmeqbali wrote:
"Yes, this is what should have happened a long time ago. Media and educational
institutions are sensitive institutions that must be taken care of by countries
and their cadres must be localized, so that media institutions' mission and
goals will serve the country."
Disappointingly, the Western mainstream media is no different from the Arab Gulf
media in weakening the position of pro-peace advocates in the Arab Gulf
countries. Members of the mainstream media seem, in fact, to have a greater
interest in perpetuating conflict, perhaps as more newsworthy, telegenic or
captivating to advertisers. Members of the mainstream media also seem, wrongly,
to regard anti-Semitic advocates of political Islam as representative of
"moderate" Islam. Worse, they actually appear to be against anyone who is
promoting peace.
The American mainstream media not only supports anti-Semitic political
Islamists, but, ironically, sometimes even gives them a platform as columnists
with which to spread their views. The late Jamal Khashoggi, for instance, with
whom the media seemed infatuated, was actually a strong advocate of the Muslim
Brotherhood, who are openly dedicated to "eliminating and destroying Western
civilization from within."
A tweet from November 17, 2017 by Khashoggi says:
"Israel does not occupy Saudi soil nor does it pose a direct threat to it.
Therefore, it is assumed that the Kingdom does not need a relationship with it,
even if it is forced, but the collapse of a group of Saudi intellectuals towards
cheap normalization indicates a serious intellectual defeat from within."
Khashoggi also threatened this author for pursuing peace with Israel:
"I wish you and people like you would shut up because you are the cause of the
Arabs' and Palestinians' hatred of our country."
In the Arab world, such a message from someone highly connected can be taken as
a death threat. After Khasoggi's murder, the media, depicted him, as many did
the Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani, as some kind of virtuous idol.
The worldwide lack of support for those who advocate peace or the reform of
Islam has brought about exactly what the extremists want: a fear of speaking up.
Many of us Muslims do not want to be viewed as traitors, labelled "enemies of
the nation" -- not to mention the region -- and have our lives put under threat.
One need only look at how even Westerners who have spoken out have been treated
-- from the trial of the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci to the murder in 2004
of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, or the unrelenting death threats and court
cases against the outspoken member of the Netherlands' Parliament, Geert
Wilders. For the past 15 years, Wilders has had to live in safe houses with
round-the-clock police protection. "The people who threaten us are walking
around free," he has said, "and we are the captives."
Just imagine, then, how public support for Israel by Muslims might also cause
embarrassment, to say the least, for some countries, such as the guardian of the
Two Holy mosques, Saudi Arabia -- a country viewed as the defender of all
Muslims. For Egypt's former president, Anwar Sadat, speaking out led his murder.
Egypt's current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, delivered a historic address at
a Coptic church on January 15, 2015, for which he was mentioned as a possible
candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize:
"Yes, a humanistic and civilizing message should once more emanate from Egypt.
That is why we must not call ourselves anything other than 'Egyptians.' This is
what we must be -- Egyptians, just Egyptians, Egyptians indeed! I just want to
tell you that -- Allah willing -- we shall build our nation together,
accommodate make room for each other, and we shall like each other, love each
other, love each other in earnest so that people may see."
Soon after, one never heard any of that from him again.
The media that are hostile to Saudi Arabia, such as the Qatari and the Iranian
media, exploit pro-Israel Saudi journalists and writers to attack Saudi Arabia.
They describe calls for peace by Saudi intellectuals as a green light from the
Saudi government to sue for peace with Israel, thereby distorting the image of
Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world.
Almost all of the hostile Qatari media are blocked in UAE, to prevent them from
inciting more hatred and chaos. Whenever there is any hope of good relations
with Israel, Qatar tries to embarrass Saudi Arabia by mentioning that the
kingdom is the keeper of the Two Holy Mosques. Conversely, when Saudi Arabia
says something negative about Israel, such as that Israelis may not visit the
kingdom, Qatar quickly publishes it in English to show Westerners how intolerant
Saudi Arabia is.
Such pro-Qatari media propaganda videos -- such as those on the Lens Post
website -- are blocked in the UAE, and can only be seen through the twitter
account. These videos are often highly critical of Saudi Arabian King Salman,
Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS), and Abdul Hameed al-Ghobein, a Saudi
journalist. Al-Ghobein, a supporter of MBS, ended up having his citizenship
revoked. Headings in the video about Al-Ghobein say that he became Zionist to
please MBS and his father, and that Al-Ghobein is not a great supporter of the
Palestinian issue. He calls, on air, for the recognition of the right of the
Israel to its land and to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Without any
embarrassment, he also thanks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his
efforts at "normalization," and goes on to announce many times that Jerusalem
and its rulers are no longer important to Saudi Arabia. He is called a Zionist
trumpet in an Arab suit by orders from the Saudi intelligence, but surprisingly
for everyone, after he was regarded as exceeding a limit, his citizenship was
revoked. Again, the video was made by pro-Qatari media.
A tweet by al-Ghobein says:
"Abdul Hameed al-Ghobein's interview with The Times of Israel: The idea of the
Saudis and Arabs toward #Israel has changed. It has transformed from [Israel as]
a country that kills children and usurps land to a friendly country and part of
the region. The Arabs, especially the Saudis, are impressed by the Israeli
scientific, technological, and knowledge development in all fields."
In the past, the focus of the media was on the official views of Arab countries
about Israel; now there is more of a focus on the people's views. One of the
episodes of a talk show, "Ayn Ala AlKahleej" ("Eye on the Arabian Gulf") on
Israel's i24 News, embodied most of the differences between the Arab Gulf
countries and Israel.
The main difference, in general, based Arab Gulf intellectuals in the local
press and the general public on social media and on talk shows such as "Eye on
the Arabian Gulf" is that most of the Arabian Gulf citizens do not see Israel as
their primary enemy; to them, the primary enemy is Iran. Many seem to think
there is no problem between Israel and Arabian Gulf countries and that the only
reason for boycotting Israel had been the Palestinians.
The reason for the moderate tone among Gulf Arabs and many Saudis can be seen on
"Eye on the Arabian Gulf" in Souad Al-Shammari's response. Saudi people, she
said, have changed because of the Palestinians' rhetoric, which is full of envy,
hatred and malice towards Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have experienced hostility
not from Israel but from the Palestinians.
Mohammed Saud, a Saudi blogger and social media activist, then described a visit
of some Jewish friends with dual citizenship in Israel and another country, who
live in Israel, and who came to see him in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, after he
had visited Israel. He described their visit to the kingdom as a dream come
true, because it demonstrated to the world that the Saudi people are peaceful.
It was also, he said, an opportunity, to clarify the facts away from an
apparently biased and politicized media. Saud said that he wanted his real view
of Israel, after his visit, to replace the views of the traditional media. He
described his visit to Israel as successful because it assured him that what is
in the media was incorrect. He said that in Israel he had witnessed cultural and
religious diversity, and had received from Israelis a warm and peaceful welcome.
He said he found that Israel is actually a model for peaceful coexistence.
In response, he received a flood of insults from Palestinians. They had
apparently thought that, because of his traditional Saudi clothing, he would
automatically be sympathetic to their cause. He also said that he had witnessed
Palestinian children being raised on stories of hatred and malice.
One Palestinian Middle East expert, Hassan Merhej, who appeared in the same
episode, described Saud's comments as embarrassing. He asked how there could be
peace when Palestinians have been living in the diaspora for 70 years because
they were not able to achieve their independence. He failed, however, to mention
that they had been offered a state seven times, but each time had rejected it.
Merhej went on to say that Saudis may visit Jerusalem after the Palestinian
territories get their independence. Then he asked how Saudis would feel if their
country were occupied by Iraq or another country.
The question was a repetition of the false hypothesis that Jews, who have lived
in the area for more than 3,000 years, are presumed not to belong there. He also
failed to mention that the Arabs had been offered a sizeable amount of land by
the United Nations in 1947, but had refused then offer, and that Arabs and
Muslims had then initiated wars, terrorist attacks, uprisings [intifadas],
rocket barrages, stabbings, car-rammings, arson-kites and other hostile
activities against Israel to the present day.
Merhej went on to emphasize that, to him, social normalization among people is
far more dangerous than diplomatic and political normalization. Reciprocal
visits between leaders, he continued, as happens between Jordan and Egypt, he
views as acceptable, as these relations might be beneficial for resolving the
Palestinian issue, but that normalization between people should exist only if
there is an independent Palestinian state. To him, the greatest danger to the
Palestinian issue begins with normalization among people, such as that of
Mohammed Saud, because it is the people who will determine if there will be
peace or if the situation will remain the same.
Souad Al-Shammari, a female Saudi human rights activist on the same show, said
that she recognized what Merhej was trying to hint at when he challenged Saudis
to imagine their country occupied by Iraq. She reminded him that many
Palestinians as well as the Palestinian Authority had supported Saddam Hussein's
invasion of Kuwait and had encouraged Saddam to occupy Saudi Arabia. She added
that in the past 30 years, Israel had not been a direct or real enemy of Saudi
Arabia or even of the Gulf states; on the contrary, the real hostility had come
from Arab and Muslim countries such as Iran and Turkey. She affirmed that what
she was saying represented the views of the majority of the Saudi public. It is
a view, she said, that differs from the country's official political position,
which is that boycotting Israel will continue "for the Palestinian cause".
Al-Shammari also said that the Saudi people have changed, not because of a
change in the Saudi government's rhetoric towards the Jews and Israel, but
because of the Palestinians' rhetoric, which is full of envy, hatred and malice
towards Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, she said, have experienced hostility not from
Israel but from the Palestinians. She went on to say that as many Palestinians
hold Israeli passports and live and work peacefully in Israel, why should Saudis
be in conflict with it? Palestinians do not occupy Jerusalem, controlling who
comes in and who goes out; Saudis (and anyone else) can enter whenever they
want.
She also noted that Saudi Arabia gives billions of dollars to Palestinians and
expects nothing in return. The Saudi money that flows to the United States,
however, is for investments and weapons: both mutually beneficial. The
Palestinians have nevertheless always been ungrateful and their rhetoric has
always been abusive and inflammatory towards the Saudi people and the
government.
Al-Shammari's comments apparently drove Merhej to express anger towards Saudi
Arabia. He repeated several times that the Palestinians do not need money from
Saudi Arabia, a country that has also paid millions of dollars towards
destroying Syria, Yemen and Iraq. He proudly said that he is not ashamed to
support Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah, but that he is ashamed to call for peace
with those whom he claimed occupy the Palestinian land. He then attacked Al-Shammari
with a flood of insults: "You are a liar". "You do not respect yourself". "You
are an agitator". "You are a degenerate".
So, differences do exist between Arab Gulf citizens and other Arabs and Muslims,
including those from the Levant. Currently, many Arab Gulf citizens seem to see
as their main enemy the Iranian regime, while other Arabs and Muslims still seem
to see their main enemy as Israel and consider any opposing view as treasonous.
Regrettably, the positive views of Gulf Arabs towards Israel have been
marginalized by a lack of support from the media, both in Arab countries and in
the West. There is therefore an urgent need for greater emphasis on "digital
diplomacy" from the public, as well as for more social gatherings and
"normalization" -- especially in Western countries -- to strengthen the
relationship between the Israeli people and the citizens of the Arab Gulf.
*Najat AlSaied is a Saudi-American independent academic researcher in political
communication and societal development based on productivity rather than
religion or race.
© 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.
Atrocities against Muslims: Leaked Documents in China
Lawrence A. Franklin//Gatestone Institute/January 29/2020
The detainees, from the province of Xinjiang, are treated to a strict
"re-education" program that includes what one escapee described as horrific
physical abuse, including forced organ removal, abortions and medical
"experiments."
The release of the documents is personally embarrassing for President Xi Jinping,
who has been trying to portray himself internationally as a benign and moderate
statesman.
Muslim-majority states may now more than ever view China's Communist regime as
an enemy of Islam -- just as it is an enemy of the West.
Leaked documents obtained by the New York Times reveal Chinese President Xi
Jinping's directives to round up and incarcerate the one million or so Muslims
in detention centers. Pictured: A giant portrait Xi at the official parade to
celebrate the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, on October 1,
2019 in Beijing, China.
Leaked documents obtained by the New York Times reveal Chinese President Xi
Jinping's directives to round up and incarcerate the one million or so Muslims
-- Uighurs, Kazakhs and others -- in detention centers. The detainees, from the
province of Xinjiang, are treated to a strict "re-education" program that
includes what one escapee described as horrific physical abuse, such as forced
organ removal, abortions and medical "experiments."
These camps are part of what the New York Times calls "the country's most
far-reaching internment campaign since the Mao era."
President Xi claims that the purpose of these camps is to protect the country
from Islamic radicalism. This excuse for the mass detention of Muslims seems to
stem from the fact that an estimated 4,000 volunteers from Central Asian
countries joined ISIS.
The round-ups and arrests began after Xi's visit to Xinjiang in April of 2014 --
his first since taking office in 2012 -- when Uighur terrorists launched several
attacks against China's majority Han population and killed scores of citizens.
Those deadly attacks were most likely carried out by the East Turkestan Islamic
Movement (ETIM), which first claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks in
2008. ETIM and other Uighur irredentist groups -- such as the East Turkistan
Liberation Organization -- are fighting to secede from China and establish an
independent Uighur Republic. Twice, in the last century, from 1931-1934 and
1944-1949, Xinjiang had enjoyed brief periods of independence.
In recent years, ETIM members reportedly received training by Al-Qaeda
instructors in Afghanistan.
Repression against the Uighurs accelerated in 2016, after China's ruling
Communist Party ousted its branch chief in Xinjiang, Zhang Chunxian, who, in the
eyes of Beijing, proved unable to curb ethnic violence and failed to maintain
discipline over his subordinates. One such subordinate, for example, was Wang
Yongzhi, who reportedly released about 7,000 detainees without approval from
authorities.
Zhang was replaced by Chen Quanguo, a hardliner who quickly transformed Xinjiang
into a giant gulag. Chen's chief of security, Zhu Hailun -- who stepped down in
2018 -- was revealed in the leaked documents to have been a key and ruthless
player in carrying out the internment campaign.
According to the New York Times, of the more than 400 pages of documents, the
"most detailed discussion of the indoctrination camps" was in the "directive on
how to handle minority students returning home to Xinjiang in the summer of
2017," and asking the whereabouts of their family members who had disappeared.
The release of the documents is personally embarrassing for Xi, who has been
trying to portray himself internationally as a benign and moderate statesman.
China's propaganda themes -- including its false depiction of the impetus for
its "Belt and Road" initiative as resurrecting a great legacy between China and
Europe -- have lost their luster. It is now clear that the so-called "free
vocational training centers" in Xinjiang are actually prison-like ghettos.
Muslim-majority states may now more than ever view China's Communist regime as
an enemy of Islam -- just as it is an enemy of the West.
*Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a
Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.
© 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.
Germany's Selective Fight against Anti-Semitism
Judith Bergman/Gatestone Institute/January 29/2020
"[T]here is no reason to give the all-clear. The threat situation in Germany
remains tense; it has stabilized on a high level...Germany continues to be a
target of jihadist organizations such as ISIL or al-Qaeda. Consequently, Germany
as well as German interests in various regions in the world are facing a
constantly serious threat, which may any time manifest itself in terrorist
attacks motivated by jihadism." — 2018 Annual Report on the Protection of the
Constitution, Germany.
The new governmental initiative, however, appears to be directed only against
anti-Semitism committed by right-wing extremists.
The question, then, is why jihadi anti-Semitism does not appear to have been
included in the German government's package of initiatives to combat
anti-Semitism?
Given the official threat scenario, the German government owes all its citizens
an explanation as to why it is so "selective" in its response to anti-Semitism.
German authorities do not always appear to take Islamist anti-Semitism
seriously, even when it has obviously deadly potential. On October 4, a
knife-wielding Syrian man tried to enter a Berlin synagogue (pictured) while
shouting "Allahu Akbar." The police released him the next day. (Photo by John
MacDougall/AFP via Getty Images)
The German government recently announced that it would be cracking down on free
speech, with Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht claiming that the German
government "is confronting right-wing extremism and anti-Semitism by all means
enabled by the rule of law." The government presented a package of measures,
including some that will limit free speech. According to German news outlet
Deutsche Welle:
"[O]nline service providers, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter will be
obliged to report hate speech to German authorities, and also pass on the IP
address of the conspicuous user. Until now, such social media giants have only
been required to delete hate speech within a certain time period."
Germany's controversial censorship law, known as NetzDG, which came into effect
on October 1, 2017, requires social media platforms to delete or block any
online "criminal offenses" such as libel, slander, defamation or incitement,
within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint. Social media companies receive
seven days for more complicated cases. If they fail to do so, the German
government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply.
Lambrecht, in announcing the package, referred to the attack on the synagogue in
Halle, in which a German man, Stefan Balliet, tried to enter the synagogue to
kill Jews there, but failed. He subsequently murdered two people in other
locations. Balliet admitted that anti-Semitic and right-wing extremist beliefs
motivated him to commit the attack. He is believed to have sought inspiration
for the attack on the internet. "What the disinhibition and unleashing of hatred
in the net can lead to was shown again in the terrible attack on the Jewish
community in Halle", Lambrecht said.
According to Die Welt, the new package will ensure that, "Existing and proven
approaches to prevention against right-wing extremism are to be continued and
developed. Specifically, programs to promote democracy and prevent extremism...
as well as political education measures in general..." In addition, according to
Die Welt, "The work of constitutional protection against right-wing extremism is
to be intensified" and measures be taken so that "security authorities and the
judiciary are adequately equipped to combat politically motivated crime from the
right as necessary".
The new governmental initiative, however, appears to be directed only against
anti-Semitism committed by right-wing extremists. It appears, for example, to
ignore anti-Semitic acts committed by Islamist extremists -- a peculiar
omission, considering the findings of the EU's Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA):
"Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU,
published in December 2018. According to the survey:
"With respect to the most serious incident of antisemitic harassment, on
average, across the 12 Member States surveyed, the most frequently mentioned
categories for perpetrators were: 'someone else I cannot describe' (31 %);
'someone with an extremist Muslim view' (30 %); 'someone with a left-wing
political view' (21 %); 'work or school/college colleague' (16 %); 'teenager or
group of teenagers' (15 %); 'an acquaintance or friend' (15 %); 'someone with a
right-wing political view' (13 %)".[1]
Germany was among the 12 member states surveyed.
Previously, in November 2018, the EU's Agency for Fundamental Rights published a
report, "Antisemitism - Overview of data available in the European Union
2007–2017," which quoted the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
(ECRI) for stating that in 2017:
"The main perpetrators of antisemitic incidents are 'Islamists' and radicalised
young Muslims, including schoolchildren, as well as neo-Nazis and sympathisers
of extreme-right and, in some cases, extreme-left groups".[2]
Perhaps most importantly, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) -- Germany's
domestic intelligence service -- published a report in June 2019 on
"Anti-Semitism in Islamism." The purpose of the report was "to raise public
awareness of Islamist anti-Semitism". According to the report:
"In order to get an idea of the extent and manifestations of anti-Semitic
propaganda and events in the Islamist milieu in Germany, since the end of 2015
the BfV has been recording... anti-Semitic events with a suspected Islamist
background...
"The recording of these events proves that anti-Semitic events with an Islamist
background are not uncommon in Germany. For the period from January to December
2017 alone, more than 100 incidents were recorded, ranging from anti-Zionist
sermons to anti-Semitic graffiti to verbal and physical attacks against
individuals. Probably this is just the proverbial 'tip of the iceberg'.
[Emphasis added].
"Violent events have so far been recorded only to a limited extent. Even
individual cases, however, make it clear that the ideological radicalization of
people and the incitement to hatred and violence through anti-Semitic ideas
provide the breeding ground for violent escalations.
"It is also noteworthy that numerous incidents have been caused by individuals,
who have so far had no evidence of a link to organized Islamism. For example, in
April 2016, a woman in Berlin was addressed by two Arab men because of her
necklace pendant in the shape of the land of Israel. The two men then insulted
her with the words 'You shit Jews! You are the scum of the world'. In December
2017, an Arab classmate attacked a Jewish high school student in Berlin with the
words: 'You are child murderers; you should have your heads cut off!' Also in
December 2017, two unknown persons attacked a synagogue in North
Rhine-Westphalia and insulted the staff there with the words: 'Al-Quds belongs
to us! Disappear from here, you sons of whores!'
"Such events suggest that the anti-Semitic ideas spread by Islamists are
increasingly also found in Muslim social groups outside Islamist organizations.
Whether this is a permanent phenomenon – perhaps even a sustained trend –
remains to be seen.
"Irrespective of the perspective, however, it should be noted that the
anti-Semitic ideas spread by Islamist groups and individuals already present a
considerable challenge to peaceful and tolerant coexistence in Germany today".
The question, then, is why jihadi anti-Semitism does not appear to have been
included in the German government's package of initiatives to combat
anti-Semitism?
Especially as, in April 2018, according to Die Welt, Chancellor Angela Merkel
admitted in an interview:
"We now also have new phenomena, whereby we have refugees or people of Arab
origin who bring another form of anti-Semitism into the country."
Furthermore, German authorities do not always appear to take Islamist
anti-Semitism seriously, even when it has obviously deadly potential. On October
4, a knife-wielding Syrian man tried to enter a Berlin synagogue while shouting
"Allahu Akbar" and "Fuck Israel." According to the regional newspaper Neues
Deutschland, police took the man into custody in a psychiatric hospital, because
there was "no urgent suspicion of a crime, only the initial suspicion of
trespassing". In addition, "there were no indications of the possible
radicalization of the man". The police released him the next day, even though he
had literally been "caught in the act" by the synagogue guards.
The foiled knife attack, however, did cause Berlin's interior administration to
announce an increased police presence in front of Jewish institutions. What,
however, is the point of an increased police presence, when potential
perpetrators are immediately set free and only seen as causing a "suspicion of
trespassing?"
The Central Council of Jews in Germany criticized the man's release. "The speedy
release of the perpetrator is incomprehensible," said President Josef Schuster,
adding that the prosecutor's office had "negligently handled an attempt to
attack a synagogue".
German intelligence assessments, found in the 2018 Annual Report on the
Protection of the Constitution, confirm the magnitude of the jihadi threat, not
only against German Jews, but against all Germans:
"Considering nothing but the hard numbers, one can say that the Islamist
extremist following increased slightly to a total of 26,560 individuals in 2018
(2017: 25,810). While no Islamist extremist attack was staged in Germany in
2018, the detection of a number of attack plans in various stages of preparation
has shown that there is no reason to give the all-clear. The threat situation in
Germany remains tense; it has stabilized on a high level...Germany continues to
be a target of jihadist organizations such as ISIL or al-Qaeda. Consequently,
Germany as well as German interests in various regions in the world are facing a
constantly serious threat, which may any time manifest itself in terrorist
attacks motivated by jihadism".
Given the official threat scenario, the German government owes all its citizens
an explanation as to why it is so "selective" in its response to anti-Semitism.
*Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished
Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
[1] Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU, p 53.
[2] Antisemitism - Overview of data available in the European Union 2007–2017 p
14.
© 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.
Iran’s revenge might be to go nuclear
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/January 29/2020
By posting the words, “No thanks” on Twitter, US President Donald Trump replied
to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif’s latest overture. In an
interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel last week, Zarif said that Iran was
ready to resume talks with the US if the latter lifted its sanctions on Tehran.
He added that it was the US that had left the negotiating table, not Iran.
However, Zarif’s approach is a bit strange. This was also the previous proposal
of Iran, and the US rejected it. Was it expecting a change in the position of
the US or was it just a distraction?
One should put the different elements into context. Following the targeted
killing of Qassem Soleimani, Iran has been keeping a low profile. It toned down
its belligerent discourse, except for the instance where Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei insulted Trump, describing him as a “clown.” This calm is unusual for
Iran, whose operatives have caused havoc throughout the region since the
beginning of the Arab uprisings. A rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad on
Sunday resulted in no serious injuries. It is as if they don’t want to provoke
the US. Have they been contained? Was Soleimani indispensable and his role
irreplaceable, and hence this is the end? Will we see a gradual retrenchment of
Iran’s role in the region? That is the wishful thinking of many, but it might
not be the case. Iran might be preparing for revenge. It might be preparing for
a new “era,” as Hassan Nasrallah said in his eulogy to the slain Soleimani.
It is important to note that Iran has said it is enriching more uranium today
than it was before the 2015 nuclear deal. At the beginning of November, Iran had
already announced that it had increased its enrichment of uranium tenfold, but
the killing of Soleimani hastened its departure from the deal’s terms.
The relative calm on the Iranian side should not be understood as an admission
of defeat. The US appears more adamant than ever about its policy of maximum
economic pressure on Iran and it feels emboldened now that the main architect of
Tehran’s regional operations is gone. However, one should keep a close eye on
Iran. Chances are, Iran is preparing — but for what? Nasrallah has vowed to
drive American forces out of the region. Are the Iranians sending these signals
through their foreign minister, showing willingness to negotiate, while they are
preparing for a stronger response? It was widely reported that when Iran bombed
two military bases in response to Soleimani’s assassination, it passed advance
details of the strikes to the Iraqis, who then passed the information to the
Americans. Iran did not want to inflict any casualties that might drive the US
to retaliate. It was described as a staged response — a farce — but it also
might have been a distraction. While Zarif announced at the time that the
retaliation was complete, Iran might just be preparing for the real retribution.
One possibility is that Iran is planning to go nuclear in order to garner a
better negotiating position with the US. North Korea is a good example. The US
was not able to get any tangible concessions from Pyongyang because it already
has the bomb and, hence, is untouchable. Today, bombing nuclear Iran is
different to Israel’s attack on Osirak in Iraq in the 1980s. Also, the trend in
Iran’s behavior is that, as it makes a concession on one front, it compensates
on another. It does that in order to avoid looking like it is relinquishing any
of its principles or is in a weak position.
The relative calm on the Iranian side should not be understood as an admission
of defeat.
Now that the architect of Iran’s regional operations is gone and his
replacement, Esmail Qaani, is not of the same caliber, Iran might use its
nuclear program to prop up its position. Qaani does not have the experience or
the connections of Soleimani. He reportedly does not speak Arabic and his
involvement has previously only been in Afghanistan — he has no experience in
other territories. Qaani’s task is becoming increasingly difficult. The people
of Iraq and Lebanon are protesting against their governments, which are allies
of Iran. The pro-Iran Cabinet just formed in Beirut is facing widespread
rejection from the people, while the international community is reluctant to
deal with it. It is judged to be dead on arrival.
As Iran’s power through its proxies and allies seems shaky, going nuclear might
offer it adequate compensation. This might be the best way to pressure the US,
or it might even allow Iran to conduct its revenge for the death of Soleimani
while remaining untouchable.
*Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on
lobbying. She holds a PhD in politics from the University of Exeter and is an
affiliated scholar with the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and
International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.
Trump’s dead-on-arrival plan signals the end of an era
Dr. John C. Hulsman /Arab News/January 29/2020
When I was a bright young thing in Washington, like every other ambitious
foreign policy analyst, I craved nothing so much as a desire to somehow capture
the elusive holy grail and come up with a Palestinian-Israeli peace plan that
worked. Dutifully, I threw myself into a year of Track II projects, produced the
outline of — at least to my eyes — what was an objectively fair outcome, and
presented it at a conference to thinkers from both sides.
The arresting thing was their common, gentle cynicism. They kindly thanked me
for all my work, praised what they both admitted were objectively (relatively)
fair terms, and then quickly concluded by saying that no one in either of their
leaderships would ever agree to such a plan, or could agree, given the
unrealistic goals on both sides.
A senior American diplomat, who was also present at the meeting, fondly patted
me on the shoulder and praised my abilities, suggesting I steer my efforts to
more achievable goals. In leaving, he gave me some invaluable advice: “You
cannot want peace more than the Israelis and the Palestinians, and expect
America to make up the difference.”
The just-announced US plan, spearheaded by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law
Jared Kushner, will obviously never be enacted. That is not the interesting
point. What it truly signals is the end of an era; a time where the US
strenuously tried to broker a way out of this most intractable of situations.
With the publication of the Kushner plan, it is clear that the US is now just
going through the motions, with the president virtually signaling to the
Israelis, and the many US voters who care about Israel, his staunch ties to the
Netanyahu government and beyond.
To be clear, Trump did not destroy the chances for a Palestinian-Israeli deal;
that happened long ago, particularly over the crucial Palestinian failure to
accept President Bill Clinton’s generous terms at the Camp David Summit of 2000.
But, with this plan, he has clearly buried once and for all the prospects of any
American-sponsored solution to the conflict. And, in an odd way, given the kind
US diplomat’s comment to me mentioned above, that may actually be a good thing.
The form in which the Kushner deal was arrived at is a major clue as to its lack
of seriousness. During the formulation of the plan, Kushner developed detailed
points for the two sides to accept, rather than actually meeting with any
interlocutors face to face. In essence, it amounts to a highly skewed,
pro-Israeli, US-dictated peace in exchange for a significant amount of money for
the beleaguered Palestinian cause.
If the form of the deal is highly provocative for the Palestinians, the terms
are even worse. The Kushner plan recognizes Jerusalem as solely the capital of
Israel. The Jordan Valley, long proposed as the breadbasket of any emerging
Palestinian state, is instead granted to Israel, along with much of the West
Bank, meaning that land west of the Jordan River would become Israel’s settled
eastern border. And the Arab world would have to recognize Israel as an
explicitly Jewish state. The Kushner deal amounts to a wish list beyond Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wildest dreams.
The terms specifically related to the Palestinians are no more even-handed. Gaza
is to be demilitarized. A Palestinian state would only exist on disconnected
fragments of the land they had hoped for. For example, to compensate them for
the loss of about 30 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians would receive
additional territory near Gaza, amounting to mostly desert. Gaza and the West
Bank are to be linked by high-speed rail. The new state is to have no army.
Before the new Palestinian state can even come into being, certain utterly
unrealistic conditions must be met, including (somehow) “the complete
dismantling of Hamas.” Palestinian refugees from past conflicts are
categorically refused the right of return to houses lost to Israel.
In return for accepting these impossible terms, the US promises significant
economic aid to the Palestinians; $50 billion in total, enough money (President
Trump estimates) to create 1 million new Palestinian jobs over the next decade,
tripling Palestinian gross domestic product. But even this significant bribe
does not pass the laugh test, for we all know that no Palestinian leader would
ever accept such terms, or could — given the often unrealistic hopes of the
Palestinian base — ever accept such terms.
With this plan, Trump has clearly buried once and for all the prospects of any
American-sponsored solution to the conflict.
What this Kushner plan does signal is America’s weary abdication of its
thankless role over decades of striving to be an even-handed interlocutor in a
peace process that neither side has ever wanted so much as the diplomats in
Washington.
The only bright side in all this gloom is that Palestinian-Israeli peace will
never successfully come about when imposed by outsiders, however well-meaning.
Only when the two sides take collective ownership of a deal (and both make
actual concessions in order to reach an accord) will a final agreement actually
be struck. The Kushner plan makes it startlingly clear that it is up to the
people of the region to find a way out of this mess, as it always should have
been.
*Dr. John C. Hulsman is the president and managing partner of John C. Hulsman
Enterprises, a prominent global political risk consulting firm. He is also
senior columnist for City AM, the newspaper of the City of London. He can be
contacted via www.chartwellspeakers.com.
Lessons from Davos: Aramco is meeting climate change
challenge
Frank Kane/Arab News/January 29/2020
There is always lots of “instant reaction” post-Davos along the lines of “my big
take-away was ...” but I think it’s better to let your brain thaw out a bit —
both figuratively and literally — after the trek back down the Magic Mountain
before you deliver a verdict on the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting.So,
after a few days of reflection in the relatively balmy climate of the Gulf, here
are my two big Davos lessons: First, climate change is the single biggest item
on the minds of political and business leaders for 2020; and second, Saudi
Aramco is going to lead the field in finding ways to tackle that big challenge.
One Davos participant, the director of the Columbia University Center on Global
Energy Policy, Jason Bordoff, said that the meeting in Switzerland was virtually
a climate conference, such was the ubiquity of the issue. But it was not just
the presence of the Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, though she
was among the show-stealers at the event, eclipsing even US President Donald
Trump as a star of the entire WEF show.
From the publication pre-Davos of the WEF’s global risks report — which ranked
climate change as the number one issue among global thought leaders — to the
publication by consulting firm PwC of a very pessimistic survey of CEOs, also
rating climate as a serious challenge, through to the decision by leading global
investor BlackRock to divest from some fossil fuel investments, environmental
issues dominated the proceedings at Davos.
Despite President Trump’s dismissal of such people as “fortune tellers,” there
was a real momentum to do something tangible and practical toward meeting
climate change goals.
The announcement by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella that the company would be carbon
neutral by 2030 and carbon negative by 2050 was probably the most notable public
affirmation of this new thinking by business leaders.
An even more definitive commitment to environmental goals came from Saudi Aramco,
but went comparatively unremarked, probably because it was made at a small
private gathering rather than in the full glare of the Congress Hall.
At an invitation-only gathering of many of the leading lights of the energy
world, Aramco’s CEO Amin Nasser produced probably the strongest pledge to
environmental security of the entire Davos. “We are confident we can use our
technology to remove carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere,” he told
guests. Notice the word “remove,” not simply “reduce.” That is quite a pledge
from the biggest oil company in the world, which is regularly — if unfairly —
labeled as a major polluter despite having the best track record in the world on
‘clean’ crude and methane as measured by scientists.
Aramco believes it has the technology to get rid of environmentally-polluting
chemicals from the energy industry altogether. The event — in the imposing
Intercontinental Hotel — was a celebration of Aramco’s impressive technological
expertise, as well as the big investment it is continuing to make in energy
technology, most of it solely aimed at producing cleaner products from fossil
fuels.
That theme was reiterated by Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Salman, the energy minister
of Saudi Arabia, from the stage during a session on the Kingdom’s G20
priorities. He told delegates that the Kingdom was preparing a major initiative
on two of the most pressing aspects of the environmentally-concerned energy
business: Carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) and the future role of
hydrogen as an “green” fuel.
These two issues will be further discussed at a major International gathering in
Riyadh at the end of next month, when energy experts will gather to discuss the
concept of the “circular carbon economy” — in which CCUS and hydrogen play a key
role — that Aramco and the Kingdom have been promoting for some time. Expect
some dramatic revelations.
Whatever the Trump said, the rest of the world is convinced that climate change
is a clear and present danger. Aramco has taken that message on board, and is
devoting the resources of the biggest listed company in history toward meeting
the climate challenge. That is what I learned in Davos.
• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai. Twitter: @frankkanedubai
Cities at the forefront in climate crisis fight
Nidhal Guessoum/Arab News/January 29/2020
Last year was a strong and painful reminder of the ongoing and accelerating
climate change crisis. Indeed, 2019 ended up as the second-warmest year on
record; wildfires destroyed huge areas of the Amazon and Australian forests;
last July, European cities witnessed temperatures close to 50 degrees Celsius;
and many regions around the world experienced unprecedented floods.
Environmental activists and nongovernmental organizations redoubled their
efforts to press governments to implement more effective and stringent policies,
but this mostly led to sneers and dismissals, such as “prophets of doom,” or
“waste of time.” COP25 (the UN Climate Change Conference) that was held in
Madrid in December and the World Economic Forum (the yearly gathering in Davos,
Switzerland, of world leaders and intelligentsia) that was held just last week
both failed to make any progress on the climate crisis.In the meantime, however,
cities have stepped up their efforts to lessen the unfolding disaster.
First, a good dozen major cities have started to implement car-free or at least
car-restriction policies to reduce pollution and carbon dioxide production, not
to mention accidents, while improving air quality and decreasing greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, Madrid has banned older cars from its city center and
Paris has made the first Sunday of every month free of cars.
More ambitious are complete programs that have been set up by cities like
Copenhagen to become carbon-neutral by 2025 or so. Actually, the Danish capital
has been implementing a full plan for the past 15 years. It includes thousands
of square meters of solar panels, usage of renewable energy for the city’s
heating, reducing car transportation in the city by 25 percent or more (pushing
the public to use bikes and/or public transport), transforming buildings, and
more. So far 42 percent of carbon dioxide emissions have been cut, 66 percent of
all trips in the city are now done by zero-carbon or minimal-emission means, and
51 percent of heat and power is produced by renewable energies. All this,
observers insist, without upsetting the city’s economic growth.
City mayors and councils around the world have realized that, while they cannot
solve the climate change problem on their own, they can do a lot. Indeed, 55
percent of humanity today lives in cities and, by 2050, this will increase to 70
percent. Roughly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions come from cities.
Amazingly, with programs such as Copenhagen’s, 90 percent of urban emissions
could be cut, greatly helping the world achieve the goals of the major COP21
Paris conference, where a plan was put in motion to keep the global temperature
increase to less than 2 C.
But besides constraints on inner-city transportation and heating/cooling by
renewable energies, what could and should cities be doing to help address the
problem? First, they can impose new regulations that make buildings (new ones
and, where possible, old ones) greener, such as using solar panels as
extensively as possible, and being more energy efficient. A number of cities
around the world have started such programs — 800 buildings in Mexico City, to
give just one example. Secondly, some cities are applying new standards for the
materials that are used everywhere — in airports, vehicles, pavements, parks,
stadiums, railroads, etc. — to both improve energy efficiency and minimize the
production of greenhouse gases.
Yet cities are limited in what they can achieve. Green energy can only become a
reality if governments build large solar plants, wind turbines, and nuclear
reactors that bring in zero-carbon energy. And that is a major strategic program
that governments need to adopt and implement.
A word about nuclear energy in this regard. After Chernobyl (34 years ago) and
Fukushima (nine years ago), atomic energy acquired a very bad reputation and
countries like Germany decided to phase it out. The public widely perceives it
as dangerous, even though the only deaths in Fukushima were due to the
earthquake and the tsunami, not the reactor accident. In Chernobyl, it’s a more
complicated story, but much less gloomy than people tend to think.
City mayors and councils around the world have realized that, while they cannot
solve the climate change problem on their own, they can do a lot.
Still, even if one believes that current reactors are not safe, there are
important, revolutionary works that are ushering in new, very safe reactors.
And, most importantly, nuclear reactors (today’s and tomorrow’s) are essentially
carbon-free. Bill Gates, who has invested in a research program to develop such
safe reactors (which automatically shutdown upon any sudden problem), has said:
“Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change.”
I should note that the UAE’s nuclear program is nearing fruition, with the first
unit slated to reach full power this year. We will undoubtedly be discussing
this nuclear path in the years to come.
Whether nuclear reactors will play an important role in the reduction of global
warming, only the future will tell. But, either way, cities and governments will
need to implement new solutions and citizens will have to adopt new ways of
living in the world if we want our lives and those of our children not to be
hellish in the future.
*Nidhal Guessoum is a professor of physics and astronomy at the American
University of Sharjah, UAE. Twitter: @NidhalGuessoum
UK faces foreign policy dilemmas as Brexit reality hits
Alistair Burt/Arab News/January 29/2020
Whether you loved or loathed it, millions of UK citizens are — to borrow a
phrase from Frank Sinatra — about to face the final curtain of our time in the
EU. After years, decades even, of argument, the intensity of the referendum
campaign and the madness of the parliamentary process that followed, the UK will
finally leave the EU on Friday. We will begin to find out the answers to a
hundred different questions, all beginning with, “When we leave the EU, what
will happen about…?”
High upon this agenda is the question about the UK’s foreign policy: To what
extent will it be different after we leave? It reminds us of the famous 1962
challenge — before we joined the European Community — of US Secretary of State
Dean Acheson, who said: “Great Britain has lost an empire, but not yet found a
role.” Many, like me, believed that in the EU we had found that role, bringing
our diplomatic reach, together with our existing positions in the UN, NATO and
the Commonwealth, to play a leading role in world affairs while anchored
securely with our closest neighbors. But that is not to be, so Acheson’s
challenge echoes again.
The UK’s friends and critics alike are watching anxiously. Dire predictions are
being made. Will we swing decisively toward the US, terrified of potential trade
repercussions if we do not slavishly follow Washington? Or, as the reality of
leaving the EU bites, will we stay close to EU foreign policy positions, defying
the US, to ensure frictionless trade continues?
I don’t believe either is likely. Look at what is staying the same. We remain a
permanent member of the UN Security Council, in NATO and a leader of the
Commonwealth. Our friends in the Middle East and North Africa were not much
affected directly by our EU membership. Our geography does not change. Europe
contains our closest neighbors, and trade inevitably follows such closeness. For
security and protection, our cooperation with our neighbors and Washington
remains vital. And the broad liberal values system that has kept us in step with
the US and the EU for decades is unlikely to be altered radically.
So my first instinct is to query what, if anything, needs to change. We are not
going to find a home in some of the wilder fancies suggested, such as in a
Commonwealth or Anglosphere foreign policy, as their interests are not as
London-centric as some nostalgically imagine. It should be recalled that we
already possess our own independent foreign policy. Contrary to the claims of
some UK Brexiteers, we have always been a sovereign and independent country
within the EU and our foreign policy has not been tied to it. Of course, we have
sought common positions where we could, and it has been one of the aims of our
foreign policy to seek to do so. As a minister of state, Paris and Berlin were
on my speed dial for whenever a crisis was brewing. But we have not always been
on the same page, as chapters of recent Middle East history remind us.
Accordingly, the pressure of being between the US and Europe on issues is also
not new.
But if the pressures are not new, there is every indication that they will
become more acute. It would be naive to think that, in hard trade negotiations
involving billions in currency and millions of jobs and potential votes,
countries will not use every bit of muscle they have to get the best deal.
Slights one way or another will be noted. The UK faces early challenges. Huawei
looms large with the US, as does Iran policy, adding to an asymmetric trade
negotiation. The EU seems less likely to demand UK compliance with a foreign
policy where differences have occurred from time to time, although it might not
be in a position to offer much by way of regulatory concession in return for
EU-supportive UK positions on the Iran nuclear deal or Jerusalem and the Middle
East peace process.
While Huawei plays big in the US, it may also be pretty significant in China,
which is a growing market for UK foodstuffs.
Some challenges will come from those less mentioned, but with enormous markets
compared to the UK’s 65 million. India hears contradictory noises from the UK —
from Indian or Pakistani diaspora representatives — over Kashmir, for example.
It may have visa demands too. While Huawei plays big in the US, it may also be
pretty significant in China, which is a growing market for UK foodstuffs.
For Boris Johnson, traps abound, and, after the Champagne is cleared away, the
aftermath will require sober consideration. But so far, in the run-up to Brexit,
when it might have been equally valid to consider every foreign position
potentially commercially hazardous in the light of the referendum result, UK
policy has remained largely untouched, robust and as independent as a difficult
world allows it to be. It would be good for the world, and for “Global Britain,”
if it remains so.
*Alistair Burt is a former UK Member of Parliament who has twice held
ministerial positions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office — as Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State from 2010 to 2013 and as Minister of State for the
Middle East from 2017 to 2019. Twitter: @AlistairBurtUK
Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan will not bring peace
– the US and Israel know this
Jonathan Cook/The Nationa/January 29/2020
The proposal deliberately includes a host of unrealisable preconditions before
what remains of Palestine can be recognised
Much of Donald Trump’s long-trailed “deal of the century” came as no surprise.
Over the past 18 months, Israeli officials had leaked many of its details. The
so-called “Vision for Peace” unveiled on Tuesday simply confirmed that the US
government has publicly adopted the long-running consensus in Israel: that it is
entitled to keep permanently the swaths of territory it seized illegally over
the past half-century that deny the Palestinians any hope of a state.
The White House has discarded the traditional US pose as an “honest broker”
between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinian leaders were not invited to the
ceremony, and would not have come had they been. This was a deal designed in Tel
Aviv more than in Washington – and its point was to ensure there would be no
Palestinian partner.
Importantly for Israel, it will get Washington’s permission to annex all of its
illegal settlements, now littered across the West Bank, as well as the vast
agricultural basin of the Jordan Valley. Israel will continue to have military
control over the entire West Bank.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced his intention to bring just such
an annexation plan before his cabinet as soon as possible. It will doubtless
provide the central plank in his efforts to win a hotly contested general
election due on March 2.
The Trump deal also approves Israel’s existing annexation of East Jerusalem. The
Palestinians will be expected to pretend that a West Bank village outside the
city is their capital of “Al Quds”. There are incendiary indications that Israel
will be allowed to forcibly divide the Al Aqsa mosque compound, as has occurred
in Hebron. Further, the Trump administration appears to be considering giving a
green light to the Israeli right’s long-held hopes of redrawing the current
borders in such a way as to transfer potentially hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians currently living in Israel as citizens into the West Bank. That
would almost certainly amount to a war crime.
The plan envisages no right of return, and it seems the Arab world will be
expected to foot the bill for compensating millions of Palestinian refugees.
A US map handed out on Tuesday showed Palestinian enclaves connected by a warren
of bridges and tunnels, including one between the West Bank and Gaza. The only
leavening accorded to the Palestinians are US pledges to strengthen their
economy. Given the Palestinians’ parlous finances after decades of resource
theft by Israel, that is not much of a promise. All of this has been dressed up
as a “realistic two-state” solution, offering the Palestinians nearly 70 per
cent of the occupied territories – which in turn comprise 22 per cent of their
original homeland. Put another way, the Palestinians are being required to
accept a state on 15 per cent of historic Palestine after Israel has seized all
the best agricultural land and the water sources.
Like all one-time deals, this patchwork “state” – lacking an army, and where
Israel controls its security, borders the shore and airspace – has an expiry
date. It needs to be accepted within four years. Otherwise, Israel will have a
free hand to start plundering yet more Palestinian territory. But the truth is
that neither Israel nor the US expects or wants the Palestinians to play ball.
That is why the plan includes – as well as annexation of the settlements – a
host of unrealisable preconditions before what remains of Palestine can be
recognised: the Palestinian factions must disarm, with Hamas dismantled; the
Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas must strip the families of political
prisoners of their stipends; and the Palestinian territories must be reinvented
as the Middle East’s Switzerland, a flourishing democracy and open society, all
while under Israeli occupation.
Instead, the Trump plan kills the charade that the 26-year-old Oslo process
aimed for anything other than Palestinian capitulation. It fully aligns the US
with Israeli efforts – pursued by all its main political parties over many
decades – to lay the groundwork for permanent apartheid in the occupied
territories.
Mr Trump invited both Mr Netanyahu, Israel’s caretaker prime minister, and his
chief political rival, former general Benny Gantz, for the launch. Both were
keen to express their unbridled support. Between them, they represent
four-fifths of Israel’s parliament. The chief battleground in the March election
will be which one can claim to be better placed to implement the plan and
thereby deal a death blow to Palestinian dreams of statehood.
On the Israeli right, there were voices of dissent. Settler groups described the
plan as “far from perfect” – a view almost certainly shared privately by Mr
Netanyahu. Israel’s extreme right objects to any talk of Palestinian statehood,
however illusory. Nonetheless, Mr Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition will
happily seize the goodies offered by the Trump administration. Meanwhile the
plan’s inevitable rejection by the Palestinian leadership will serve down the
road as justification for Israel to grab yet more land.
There are other, more immediate bonuses from the “deal of the century”.
By allowing Israel to keep its ill-gotten gains from its 1967 conquest of
Palestinian territories, Washington has officially endorsed one of the modern
era’s great colonial aggressions. Mr Trump benefits personally, too. This will
provide a distraction from his impeachment hearings as well as offering a potent
bribe to his Israel-obsessed evangelical base and major funders such as US
casino magnate Sheldon Adelson in the run-up to a presidential election.
And the US president is coming to the aid of a useful political ally. Mr
Netanyahu hopes this boost from the White House will propel his
ultra-nationalist coalition into power in March, and cow the Israeli courts as
they weigh criminal charges against him. How he plans to extract personal gains
from the Trump plan were evident on Tuesday. He scolded Israel’s
attorney-general over the filing of the corruption indictments, claiming a
“historic moment” for the state of Israel was being endangered.
Meanwhile, Mr Abbas greeted the plan with “a thousand nos”. Mr Trump has left
him completely exposed. Either the PA abandons its security contractor role on
behalf of Israel and dissolves itself, or it carries on as before but now
explicitly deprived of the illusion that statehood is being pursued. Mr Abbas
will try to cling on, hoping that Mr Trump is ousted in this year’s election and
a new US administration reverts to the pretence of advancing the long-expired
Oslo peace process. But if Mr Trump wins, the PA’s difficulties will rapidly
mount.
No one, least of all the Trump administration, believes that this plan will lead
to peace.
*Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist in Nazareth