LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 27/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.november27.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things
Letter to the Philippians 03,17/21.04,01/:”Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation so that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on November 26-27/2019
U.N. Experts, Amnesty Decry Force, Violence against Lebanese Protesters
Saad Hariri rules himself out as next Lebanese prime minister
Hariri refuses to head new Lebanon government as tensions rise
Lebanon: Hariri Takes 'Decisive' Decision Not to Be PM
Hariri Announces He Doesn't Want to Head New Govt.
PM Candidate Khatib Says Ready to Form Govt. if 'Consensus' Reached
Report: ‘Shadow Government’ Could Be Formed to Speak for Protesters
Consultations to Name PM to be Held 'Thursday', Govt. Won't be 'Confrontational'
Confrontation between FPM, Kataeb Supporters in Bikfaya
FPM Supporters Scuffle with Protesters in Baabda as Baalbek Protest Site Attacked
10 Lebanese hurt in clashes between supporters of Aoun, Kateb
Protesters in Tyre Defiant Despite Attack
Report: Army Determined to Ban Road Blockages after Clashes
Jabaq Warns Health Sector at Threat over Dollar Shortage
Lebanese Businessman buys Nazi items; plans to donate to Jewish group
Lebanon Clashes Threaten to Crack Open Fault Lines

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on November 26-27/2019
US will keep sanctioning Iranian officials for rights abuses: Pompeo
Khamenei was Informed of Iran Guards’ Plot to Attack Saudi Arabia
Israeli army says two rockets fired from Gaza toward Israel
US, Israel Take Iran’s Threats Seriously
Gasoline Hike Affects Prices of Goods in Iran
Six Dead in 3 Blasts in Iraqi Capital
Six killed in three separate Baghdad explosions
Turkish ex-minister to launch rival political party by year-end
17 killed in car bomb in Turkey-controlled region of Syria: Ankara
20 Dead, Hundreds Hurt as Albania Searches for Earthquake Survivors
US Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley arrives in Iraq amid protests
Denmark withdraws passports from two foreign fighters
US House judiciary panel to hold first impeachment hearing on Dec. 4
Canada concerned by violent crackdown on Iranian protestors
Iran poised to strike US/Israeli targets. US forces gear up for action. USS Lincoln carrier enters the Gulf

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 26-27/2019
Analysis/In Lebanon, Hezbollah flexes in bid to sectarianize a non-partisan movement/James Haines-Young/The National/November 26/2019
Containing Hezbollah a long-term process/Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/November 26/2019
Hariri withdraws candidacy as parliamentary consultations set for Thursday/Georgi Azar/Annahar/November 26/2019
The sectarianization of Lebanon and smearing a revolution/Georgi Azar/Annahar/November 26/2019
Moral Leadership and the Lebanese Military/Aram Nerguizian/Carnegie MEC/November 26/2019
Is the Lebanese miracle dead?/Ishac Diwan/Annahar/November 26/2019
A reading in Lebanon’s current financial crisis/Mohammad Ibrahim Fheili/Annahar/November 26/2019
Student Protest Against Dollarisation of tuition fees/Fatima Dia/Annahar /November 26/2019
*But These 'Bad Guys' Are Our Children/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Alawsat/November 26/2019
Google’s Micro-Targeting Ban Won’t Improve Political Ads/Leonid Bershidsky/Bloomberg/November 26/2019
Analysis/U.S. and Israel Seek Assurances on Iran From Each Other, but for Very Different Reasons/Amos Harel/November 26/2019
Inside Iran’s plot to attack Saudi Arabia - analysis/Jerusalem Post & Reuters/ November 26/2019
Iran to Have Nuclear Bomb in a Few Months?/Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/November 26/2019
Islam and the West: Motives behind the False Narrative/Raymond Ibrahim/November 26/2019
A Meaningful Milestone in Sweden/Bruce Bawer/Gatestone Institute/November 26/2019
A Meaningful Milestone in Sweden/Bruce Bawer/Gatestone Institute/November 26/2019
Interference in foreign protests a dilemma for the West/Ellen R. Wald/Arab News/November 26/2019
Iran poised to strike US/Israeli targets. US forces gear up for action. USS Lincoln carrier enters the Gulf/DEBKAfile/November 26/2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on November 26-27/2019
U.N. Experts, Amnesty Decry Force, Violence against Lebanese Protesters
Agence France Presse/Associated Press/Naharnet/November 26/2019
Lebanon’s security forces have reportedly used “excessive force and failed to adequately protect protesters from violent attacks by others,” despite the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of the past month’s demonstrations across the country, U.N. human rights experts have said.
“The State is responsible under international law to protect peaceful protesters and ensure a safe and enabling environment for people to exercise their freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” said the experts. “Even where roadblocks are used as a means of protest, which may in rare cases warrant dispersal of protesters, only the minimum use of force necessary should be used and only if less intrusive and discriminatory means of managing the situation have failed,” they added. The experts held that “although the overall response by security forces appears to have been largely proportionate and responsible, actions by the authorities raise several areas of concern.”“Lebanon’s Internal Security Forces and the Lebanese Armed Forces have reportedly used live ammunition, rubber bullets and large quantities of tear gas to disperse protesters, and have at times hit, kicked and beaten protesters with batons while making arrests. Some protesters are alleged to have been ill-treated while being taken to police stations and some have been released bearing marks of abuse,” they said. The experts said Security forces have reportedly failed to intervene to protect peaceful protesters or arrest perpetrators on at least six occasions in Beirut, Bint Jbeil, Nabatieh and Tyre. “They have also reportedly attempted to stop protesters and journalists from filming their actions, including by force, arrest, or confiscating equipment,” the experts said. The Lebanese Red Cross and Lebanese Civil Defense reported treating 1,790 people for protest-related injuries, including at least six members of the security forces, between 17 to 30 October. The experts have written to the Lebanese authorities to register their concerns, and called on the Government to explain the measures it has taken to “ensure the use of force is exercised in compliance with international law; investigate allegations of excessive use of force and ill-treatment of protesters; and identify the measures it has taken to address the root causes of protests and longstanding socioeconomic grievances.”Meanwhile, international rights group Amnesty International has called on authorities to do more to protect protesters, warning that the attacks of the past two days "could well signal a dangerous escalation.""The past two days’ seemingly coordinated attacks could well signal a dangerous escalation. The authorities must act immediately to protect protesters and uphold the right to peaceful assembly," said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty’s Middle East research head. "The images of the men carrying flags of two of the political parties in government, Hizbullah and AMAL, armed with steel batons, knives and stones, chasing and beating protesters in alleyways, setting alight tents and destroying private property in the past two days are extremely worrying and warrant the authorities' firm and immediate action," Maalouf added.

Saad Hariri rules himself out as next Lebanese prime minister
The National/November 26/2019
Parties no closer to forming new administration weeks after government resigned in face of mass rallies
Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Tuesday again ruled himself out as Lebanon’s next head of government, as the month-long protest movement faced threats of violence.Mr Hariri resigned on October 29 during nationwide protests against Lebanon's ruling elite.
His decision ended a coalition government including the powerful, Iran-backed Hezbollah, which opposed his decision. Lebanon's main parties have since been locked in talks and unable to agree on a new government despite the worst economic crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war."I am sticking by the rule 'not me, rather someone else', to form a government that addresses the aspirations of the young men and women," Mr Hariri said. "I have full hope and confidence, after announcing this clear and decisive decision, that the president of the republic will immediately call the binding parliamentary consultations" to decide on a new prime minister.
Mr Hariri warned his former colleagues that “denial by political leadership is more dangerous than Lebanon's political and economic crisis".
President Michel Aoun has reportedly finally scheduled talks with political parties at Baabda Palace for Thursday, to begin consultations on a prime minister to form the next government. But with no names put forward who could calm anger on the streets and appease political parties, it is unclear if there will be a development that can avert the impending financial collapse.Throwing further doubt on the possible outcome of the talks, reports in Lebanese media said that Speaker Nabih Berri, leader of the Amal Movement, was no longer set on Mr Hariri’s return.
Mr Berri told told visitors that he supported no one in particular and that his priority was to find someone who would protect the country. Over Monday night, hundreds of Hezbollah and allied Amal Movement supporters took to the streets in mass convoys waving the parties’ flags.
Men shot into the air and one man fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the sky. The sudden development was reportedly sparked by the deaths of two people when their car hit metal barriers being used to block roads near Beirut.
Hussein and Jundi Chalhoub were killed when their car hit the debris, spun out of control, hit a concrete barrier and caught fire.
In Downtown Beirut, some protesters who have been camped out in the capital since October 17 fled but others arrived with steel bars and bats to defend themselves. Until now the protest movement has been largely peaceful, so the latest developments have caused concerns.
The UN Security Council on Monday called on "all actors to conduct intensive national dialogue and maintain the peaceful character of the protests by avoiding violence and respecting the right to peaceful assembly in protest".red is a dangerous path that could lead to confrontation and conflict #Lebanon
But on Tuesday, the Internal Security Forces intervened near the Presidential Palace to break up scuffles between supporters of Mr Aoun and protesters. More business groups and unions have backed a general strike, threatening to increase the protests' pressure on officials. The Lebanese Economic Bodies group, which includes industrialists and bankers, called for the closure of private institutions from Thursday to Saturday to push major parties to form a new government and avert further economic damage. "The political forces have not assumed their national responsibilities and have not shown the seriousness necessary to produce solutions to the current crisis," the group said. The Order of Nurses also threatened an open-ended strike, saying its members had not been paid and were overworked.Their demands echoed the main issues for many protesters – poor government services and underfunding by the state.

Hariri refuses to head new Lebanon government as tensions rise
Najia Houssari/November 26/2019
BEIRUT: Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Tuesday struck his name off a list of candidates to head a new Lebanese government. Hariri, who recently resigned as premier under pressure from protesters, said he refused “to be falsely held responsible for delaying the formation of the new government.”His sudden announcement will come as a blow to President Michel Aoun, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement, which together were pinning their hopes on having Hariri’s support to help establish a techno-political administration in the country. The former PM’s decision came as national protests throughout Lebanon against the political elite entered their 41st day and followed rioting in Beirut between anti-government demonstrators and Hezbollah and Amal supporters. Russia pledged its support for the Lebanese state during the current “delicate” period, while the UN Security Council called on “all actors to conduct intensive national dialogue.”In a statement, Hariri said he was “sticking to the rule ‘not me, but someone else’ to form a government that meets the aspirations of young men and women. The state of chronic denial seemed to use my positions and proposals of solutions as a pretext to continue its intransigence and maneuvers and its refusal to listen to the people’s voices and their rightful demands.”He reiterated his commitment to a government of technocrats to end “the severe economic crisis” gripping Lebanon and urged Aoun to “immediately call for binding parliamentary consultations, to designate a new prime minister to form a new government.”

Lebanon: Hariri Takes 'Decisive' Decision Not to Be PM
Beirut- Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 26 November, 2019
Lebanon's Saad al-Hariri said on Tuesday he did not want to be prime minister of a new government, calling his decision "decisive" and saying he was confident President Michel Aoun would convene consultations to designate someone else. Hariri resigned on Oct. 29 in the face of nationwide protests against Lebanon's ruling elite. His decision toppled a coalition government including the powerful, Iran-backed Shiite Muslim group Hezbollah, which opposed the decision. Since then, Lebanon's main parties have been locked in talks and unable to agree on a new government despite the worst economic crisis since the 1975-90 civil war. "I am sticking by the rule 'not me, rather someone else' to form a government that addresses the aspirations of the young men and women," Hariri, Lebanon's leading Sunni Muslim politician, said in a statement. "I have full hope and confidence, after announcing this clear and decisive decision, that the president of the republic....will immediately call the binding parliamentary consultations" to designate a new prime minister, he said. The prime minister must be a Sunni Muslim according to Lebanon's sectarian power-sharing system. Hariri said: "It is clear that what is more dangerous than the major national crisis and sharp economic crisis our country is passing through - and which is preventing us from dealing with these two intertwined crises - is the state of chronic denial being expressed on several occasions over the past few weeks."

Hariri Announces He Doesn't Want to Head New Govt.
Associated Press/Naharnet/Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 26/2019
Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri openly declared Tuesday that he is withdrawing his candidacy for the premiership. In response to the "irresponsible practices" of political leaders, Hariri said he felt compelled to make his intentions known. "I announce to the Lebanese people that I strongly adhere to the rule of 'not me, but someone else,'" he said in a written statement. Hariri did not name an alternative candidate, but said his decision aims to "open doors to a solution" to the political deadlock. He hoped President Michel Aoun would "immediately call for binding parliamentary consultations to appoint a new premier."Hariri also insisted that a new government made up of experts is needed to get Lebanon out of its crisis. The announcement comes nearly a month after he resigned amid ongoing protests as well as a severe economic and financial crisis. The nationwide anti-government protests erupted on October 17 and have since targeted corruption and mismanagement by the country's ruling elite. Hariri’s press office later issued a statement in response to reports on some news websites and social media accounts, which suggested that the caretaker PM “has proposed a number of premiership candidates.”“With all his due respect to all the reported names, PM Hariri’s choice will be announced in a statement following the call for the binding parliamentary consultations,” the office said. “Any other suggestions are mere attempts at dropping certain candidates or promoting others,” the office added.

PM Candidate Khatib Says Ready to Form Govt. if 'Consensus' Reached
Naharnet/November 26/2019
Samir Khatib, whose name emerged Tuesday as a strong candidate for the PM post, has announced that he is willing to form the new government should there be “consensus” on his nomination. “I’m ready to assume the mission of forming and leading a government and to serve the country amid these extraordinary circumstances and I will try to rescue the country should there be consensus on my nomination and if the various parties intend to rescue the country,” Khatib, the director general of the Khatib & Alami engineering firm, said in remarks to MTV. He added: “I have been contacted by the various parties in order to be tasked with forming the government seeing as I’m unbiased and noncontroversial and because I run a successful firm in which I succeeded thanks to my competence.”Khatib also noted that he is a “secular man,” adding that he has a "special personal relation" with caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Earlier in the day, Hariri had announced that he will not head the next government, a move he said aims to expedite the formation a new cabinet in the protest-hit country. Hariri had submitted his administration's resignation on October 29, bowing to popular pressure from a nationwide street movement demanding a complete government haul. Hariri did not name an alternative candidate, but said his decision aims to "open doors to a solution."He hoped President Michel Aoun would "immediately call for binding parliamentary consultations to appoint a new premier."
Presidential palace sources meanwhile told reporters that the consultations will likely be held on Thursday, although an official statement is yet to be released. Officials from the Free Patriotic Movement, the party founded by Aoun, have accused Hariri of delaying the process by refusing to accept any other candidate for the premiership, a charge Hariri has denied. The United States, Britain, France, the U.N., World Bank and credit rating agencies have all urged officials to streamline the process in the wake of a twin political and economic crisis gripping the country. A former finance minister, Mohammed Safadi, had been considered to replace Hariri but withdrew his bid after more protests. Aoun's powers include initiating the required parliamentary consultations to appoint a new premier. The president has said he was open to a government that would include technocrats and representatives of the popular movement, both key demands of the protesters. However, the demonstrators say they will reject any government that consists of representatives of the established parties.

Report: ‘Shadow Government’ Could Be Formed to Speak for Protesters
Naharnet/November 26/2019
Lebanon’s protesters are reportedly inclined to form a “revolutionary government” to manage the affairs of the popular movement if President Michel Aoun fails to initiate the binding parliamentary consultations by the end of this week, the Kuwaiti al-Anbaa daily reported on Tuesday.
Asked if the “revolutionary government” was meant to rebel against the constitutional authority, a senior source told the daily: “It is a shadow government, similar to the youth shadow government proposed by An-Nahar Editor-in-Chief Jebran Tueni before his assassination."
He said: “A decree was issued by the Cabinet in 2006 and two were formed between 2007 and 2008. It consisted of university students and people of competence. "A revolutionary shadow government will not have a president, and will be the mouthpiece of the movement to negotiate with the authorities and all parties,” added the source who refused to be named. Outgoing Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned on October 29, nearly two weeks into the unprecedented nationwide protests demanding the wholesale removal of a ruling elite seen as corrupt and incompetent. President Michel Aoun has said he will support the formation of a government including technocrats but he has not yet announced consultations over a new line-up.

Consultations to Name PM to be Held 'Thursday', Govt. Won't be 'Confrontational'
Naharnet/November 26/2019
The binding parliamentary consultations to name a new premier will be held on Thursday and the new government will not be a “confrontation government,” Baabda sources said on Tuesday. “We will seek to agree with caretaker PM Saad Hariri on an alternative candidate and we prefer this option, or else we will go to parliamentary consultations and we are holding talks over several candidates,” the sources told LBCI television. “The government will not be a confrontation government -- except against corruption and the economic and social crises. It will not be a confrontation government against PM Saad Hariri or against the international community and it will not be one-sided,” the sources added. “The government will be in charge of major files and it will be a salvation, reformist government,” the sources said. The remarks come shortly after Hariri issued a statement in which he openly announced that he does not want to head the new government. The Baabda sources did not express relief over Hariri’s statement but said they were still hoping that the caretaker PM “will facilitate the mission of finding a candidate to replace him.”As for the international community’s response to the formation of a government not led by Hariri, the sources said: “There is international consent on the formation of a techno-political government not led by Saad Hariri.”“Their main concern is Lebanon’s economic, security and political stability,” the sources added. The privately-owned Central News Agency meanwhile said that the engineer Samir Khatib, the director general of the Khatib & Alami engineering firm, could be nominated for the premiership. OTV meanwhile reported that contacts will be intensified over the next 36 hours to reach an agreement on a candidate. Prominent ministerial source meanwhile told MTV that “there is no agreement so far on a premiership candidate” and that Hariri's statement “increases the ambiguity of the situation.”The TV network also said that President Michel Aoun will not officially call for the consultations on Tuesday.

Confrontation between FPM, Kataeb Supporters in Bikfaya
Naharnet/November 26/2019
A confrontation erupted Tuesday evening between supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement and the Kataeb Party in the Northern Metn town of Bikfaya. The standoff started after a pro-FPM convoy comprised of dozens of cars arrived outside the residence of former president and Kataeb leader Amin Gemayel. Bikfaya residents and Kataeb supporters later blocked the town’s entrance to prevent the entry of the convoy, asking the FPM supporters to take the Dahr al-Sowwan-Baabdat road. Kataeb supporters later attacked the cars and pelted them with stones, wounding a female FPM supporter in the head.
Video footage showed a number of cars with smashed windows and supporters of the two parties chanting rival slogans. The army intervened quickly and separated between the two groups. The National News Agency meanwhile said that the army was negotiating with the two parties in order to end the standoff.
Bikfaya is a stronghold of Kataeb and the hometown of its founder Pierre Gemayel. Media reports said the FPM supporters accused ex-president Amin Gemayel of corruption in the files of the Dbaye marina and the Puma aircraft controversy.

FPM Supporters Scuffle with Protesters in Baabda as Baalbek Protest Site Attacked
Naharnet/November 26/2019
Supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement on Tuesday briefly scuffled with protesters near the presidential palace in Baabda, as backers of Hizbullah and the AMAL Movement attacked the main protest site in the eastern city of Baalbek. The civil society protesters in Baabda were led by groups from the Sabaa Party. The FPM supporters sought to prevent protesters from chanting against President Michel Aoun before the scuffles erupted. Security forces quickly intervened to contain the situation and the army has since reinforced its presence in the area. Elsewhere, Hizbullah and AMAL supporters attacked the protest site at the Khalil Mutran Square in Baalbek and vandalized the encampment. Tensions have surged across the country since Sunday night, when supporters of the two political parties attacked protesters in central Beirut. A deadly car crash near a protest roadblock on Jiye’s highway has aggravated the already high tensions.

10 Lebanese hurt in clashes between supporters of Aoun, Kateb
Staff writer, Al Arabiya English/Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Clashes erupted on Tuesday between supporters of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and supporters of the Kataeb Party in the town of Bikfaya, near the residence of former President Amine Gemayel, in Mount Lebanon. The clashes started when a convoy of President Michel Aoun’s Free Patriotic Movement supporters attempted to drive through the area which is historically known as a stronghold of the Gemayel family. According to local Lebanese media the Army intervened to push back local residents as the convoy of the FPM supporters was trying to drive through and supporters of the Kataeb started criticizing President Aoun. The Lebanese Red Cross reported that 10 people were injured in the clashes, five were transferred to a hospital for treatment. Lebanon’s Defense Minister Elias Bou Saab told a local Lebanese TV that the scuffle was unfortunate, and that Lebanese people should rely on the army. Earlier in the day, supporters of Shia groups Hezbollah and Amal attacked anti-government protesters in a public square in Baalbek city, east of Lebanon, destroying tents used as a gathering place by the protesters and chanting religious slogans. Also a convoy of cars carrying Hezbollah flag fired gun shots in the air which resulted in injuries to 15 people. Late on Monday night, clashes erupted between supporters of Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and Shia groups Hezbollah and Amal in Beirut late on Monday, state news agency NNA reported. The clashes marked the second consecutive night of violence linked to Lebanon’s political crisis, threatening to tip largely peaceful demonstrations directed at the country’s ruling elite in a more bloody direction.

Protesters in Tyre Defiant Despite Attack
Naharnet/November 26/2019
Protesters in the southern city of Tyre remained defiant on Tuesday and returned to their encampments smashed the day before by supporters of Hizbullah and AMAL Movement. Late on Tuesday, supporters of the two main Shiite groups torched the tents of demonstrators in al-Alam Square in the Shiite majority city of Tyre. Demonstrators demanding a complete government overhaul have stayed mobilised from north to south Lebanon since protests began on October 17. But a bitterly divided political class has yet to find a way forward.
Frustrated by the stalemate, protesters had called for roadblocks and a general strike on Monday, but an attack by Hizbullah and Amal supporters on Sunday night weakened the turnout. They also attacked demonstrators at a flyover near the Beirut’s main protest camp, and ravaged an encampment in Beirut’s Riad al-solh and Martyr Square tearing down tents and damaging storefronts in their most serious assault on protesters so far.

Report: Army Determined to Ban Road Blockages after Clashes
Naharnet/November 26/2019
Following Monday’s violence between Lebanese protesters and supporters of Hizbullah, the security and military forces are “determined” to ban road blockages in order to spare Lebanon from a “worst-case scenario,” al-Joumhouria daily reported on Tuesday.
A prominent security source disclosed that during recent security meetings, discussions have focused on this scenario considering it the “most dangerous because congestion will generate a blast and road blockages will end with clashes,” he told the daily. The violence began on Sunday when supporters of Hizbullah and AMAL Movement attacked protesters who had blocked a main Beirut thoroughfare known as the Ring Road — a move the protesters said was aimed at exerting pressure on politicians to form a new government after Prime Minister Saad Hariri offered his resignation Oct. 29.
“Security and military engagement will be different in the next stage, hitting with an iron fist will be the policy to adopt in the coming phase after we saw the street sliding off limits. The decision has been made to strictly ban road blockages from now on, and the military will be decisive in this regard,” affirmed the source who spoke on condition of anonymity. On Monday evening, Army troops and security forces quickly intervened after Hizbullah and AMAL supporters arrived at Beirut’s Martyrs Square on scooters and hurled insults and a few rocks at protesters who have an encampment in the area. Later on Monday, gunfire erupted in the Beirut area of Cola after convoys of motorcycles passed in the area. The convoys had roamed several streets in Beirut and its suburbs. Supporters of al-Mustaqbal Movement had earlier blocked the Qasqas road in Beirut after Hizbullah and AMAL supporters passed in the area on motorbikes and shouted slogans. MTV said gunshots were also fired in the air there. The army quickly intervened and deployed in the area.

Jabaq Warns Health Sector at Threat over Dollar Shortage
Agence France PresseNaharnet/November 26/2019
Caretaker Health Minister Jamil Jabaq on Tuesday urged the central bank to release U.S. dollars over a hard currency shortage limiting medical imports to the protest-hit country. "The sector is under serious threat," Jabaq, who is close to Hizbullah, told a news conference.
"A hospital without medical supplies cannot operate."The Lebanese pound has been pegged to the greenback at around 1,500 for two decades and the currencies are used interchangeably in daily life. But amid a deepening economic crisis, banks have gradually been reducing access to dollars in recent months, forcing importers to resort to money changers offering a higher exchange rate and sparking price hikes. On the open market, the dollar has been selling for 2,000 pounds. Jabak said the central bank was ready to supply medical equipment importers with only half the dollars they need at the official rate.
He urged the banking institution to provide all necessary dollars at this rate avoid hospitals raising their prices and patients footing the bill. "We hope all those concerned -- especially the central bank governor -- release these funds," he said. "I don't think the Lebanese people, with everything they are going through, can put up with their medical bills being increased." Importers warned on Sunday that the country's stock would only last weeks, as dialysis filters, heart valves and supplies for respirators had already started to run low. Lebanon has been gripped since October 17 by unprecedented anti-government protests over a wide variety of issues, including a crumbling economy. The government stepped down less than two weeks into the nationwide demonstrations, but a new cabinet has not been formed. Earlier this month, hospitals threatened to close to all but emergency patients for a day if the central bank did not release the key dollars for medical imports. Last month, before the protests, the central bank said it would facilitate access to dollars for importers of petroleum products, wheat and medicine. A group representing companies in the private sector have called for a general strike on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

Lebanese Businessman buys Nazi items; plans to donate to Jewish group
The Associated Press, Berlin/Monday, 25 November 2019
A Lebanese-born Swiss real estate mogul said on Monday that he had purchased Adolf Hitler’s top hat and other Nazi memorabilia from a German auction in order to keep them out of the hands of neo-Nazis, and has agreed to donate them to a Jewish group. Abdallah Chatila, a Lebanese Christian who has lived in Switzerland for decades, told The Associated Press he paid some 600,000 euros ($660,000) for the items at the Munich auction last week, intending to destroy them after reading of Jewish groups’ objections to the sale. “I wanted to make sure that these pieces wouldn’t fall into bad hands, to the wrong side of the story, so I decided to buy them,” he said in a telephone interview. Shortly before the auction, however, he decided it would be better to donate them to a Jewish organization, and got in touch with the Keren Hayesod-United Israel Appeal group. Chatila is never going to even see the items - which also include a silver-plated edition of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and a typewriter used by the dictator’s secretary - that will be sent directly to the group, he said. “I have no direct interest whatsoever, I just thought it was the right thing to do,” he said. Neither Keren Hayesod nor the Hermann Historica auction house responded to requests for comment. Keren Hayesod’s European director told France’s Le Point magazine, however, that while no final decision had been made on what to do with the items, they’d likely be sent to Israel’s Yad Vashem memorial which has a selection of Nazi artifacts. The European Jewish Association, which had led the campaign against the auction going ahead, applauded Chatila for stepping in. “Such a conscience, such an act of selfless generosity to do something that you feel strongly about is the equivalent of finding a precious diamond in an Everest of coal,” EJA chairman Rabbi Menachem Margolin wrote Chatila in a letter provided to the AP.“You have set an example for the world to follow when it comes to this macabre and sickening trade in Nazi trinkets.”

Lebanon Clashes Threaten to Crack Open Fault Lines
Associated Press/Naharnet/November 26/2019
Clashes between Lebanese protesters and supporters of Hizbullah group are putting Lebanon's military and security forces in a delicate position, threatening to crack open the country's dangerous fault lines amid a political deadlock.
For weeks, the Lebanese security forces have taken pains to protect anti-government protesters, in stark contrast to Iraq, where police have killed more than 340 people over the past month in a bloody response to similar protests.
The overnight violence — some of the worst since protests against the country's ruling elite began last month — gave a preview into a worst-case scenario for Lebanon's crisis, with the country's U.S.-trained military increasingly in the middle between pro- and anti-Hizbullah factions.
By attacking protesters Sunday night, Hizbullah sent a message that it is willing to use force to protect its political power. Confronting the powerful Iranian-backed Hizbullah, however, is out of the question for the military as doing so would wreck the neutral position it seeks to maintain and could split its ranks.
"The army is in a difficult position facing multiple challenges and moving cautiously between the lines," said Fadia Kiwan, professor of political science at Saint Joseph University in Beirut.
She said the military has sought to protect the protesters and freedom of expression but is increasingly grappling with how to deal with road closures and violence. The U.N. Security Council urged all actors in Lebanon on Monday to engage in "intensive national dialogue and to maintain the peaceful character of the protests" by respecting the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
Calling this "a very critical time for Lebanon," the U.N.'s most powerful body also commended Lebanon's armed forces and state security institutions for their role in protecting the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
Sunday night's clashes brought into full display the political and sectarian divisions that protesters have said they want to end.
"Shiite, Shiite, Shiite!" Hizbullah supporters waving the group's yellow flag shouted, taunting the protesters, many of them Christians. The protesters chanted back, "This is Lebanon, not Iran," and "Terrorist, terrorist, Hizbullah is a terrorist" — the first time they have used such a chant.
The violence began when supporters of Hizbullah and the other main Shiite faction, Amal, attacked protesters who had blocked a main Beirut thoroughfare known as the Ring Road — a move the protesters said was aimed at exerting pressure on politicians to form a new government after Prime Minister Saad Hariri offered his resignation Oct. 29.
Carrying clubs and metal rods, the Hizbullah followers arrived on scooters, chanting pro-Hizbullah slogans. They beat up several protesters. Both sides chanted insults, then threw stones at each other for hours.
Security forces stood between them but did little to stop the fighting. Finally, after several hours, they fired tear gas at both sides to disperse them. The road was eventually opened before daybreak Monday.
By that time, protesters' tents were destroyed in areas close to the Ring Road. The windshields of cars parked near Riad Solh Square and Martyrs Square — the central hubs of the protests — were smashed as were the windows of some shops. The nationwide protests have so far been overwhelmingly peaceful since they started Oct. 17. Politicians have failed to agree on a new Cabinet since Hariri's government resigned Oct. 29. Hizbullah and Amal insist Hariri form a new government made up of technocrats and politicians, but Hariri — echoing protester demands — says it must be made up only of experts who would focus on Lebanon's economic crisis.
As the deadlock drags on, tempers are rising.
"The situation is moving toward a dangerous phase because after 40 days of protests, people are beginning to get tired and frustrated and might resort to actions that are out of control," Kiwan said.
One person has been killed by security forces during the protests, while six have died in incidents related to the demonstrations. In the latest, a man and his sister-in-law burned to death Monday after their car hit a metal barricade erected by protesters on a highway linking Beirut with the country's south.
Hizbullah issued a blistering statement Monday condemning the road closure, painting the protests as a danger to the country. It called the deaths the result of "a militia attack carried out by groups of bandits who practice the ugliest methods of humiliation and terrorism against people."
In the increasingly tense atmosphere, "the role of the army is getting bigger," Kiwan said. The army is one of the few state institutions that enjoy wide support and respect among the public as it is seen as a unifying force in the deeply divided country. It has for the most part worked to defuse tensions and protect protesters, though on two occasions it allowed Hizbullah and Amal supporters to wreck tents at the main protest site in downtown Beirut.
Hisham Jaber, a retired Lebanese general who heads the Middle East Center for Studies and Political Research, said the army is in a "delicate" position and could not have done more than it did Sunday night.
The military is already at the center of a debate in U.S. policy-making circles. The Trump administration is now withholding more than $100 million in U.S. military assistance to Lebanon that has been approved by Congress, without providing an explanation for the hold.
That has raised concerns among some in the U.S. security community who see the aid — largely used to buy U.S.-made military equipment — as key to countering Iran's influence in Lebanon. Others, however, including pro-Israel lawmakers in Congress, have sought to defund the military, arguing it has been compromised by Hizbullah, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization.
U.S. administrations have long believed that a strong Lebanese army could be a counter to Hizbullah's weapons and could deprive the militants of the excuse to keep their arms.
The 70,000-strong force split along sectarian lines during Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war. Since then, it has largely succeeded in achieving a level of stability by maintaining a tough balancing act that includes coordinating with Hizbullah on security matters.
Jaber said it is impossible for the security forces to clash with Hizbullah because "this will lead to divisions within the army."
"Hizbullah is a main part of the Lebanese people," he said. "Getting the army into a battle with them would lead to pulling away part of the Lebanese army, and this could be followed by other groups splitting from the army."
"The Lebanese army is the pole of the tent. If the pole collapses, the whole country will collapse. It is the duty of the army to protect state institutions."

Analysis/In Lebanon, Hezbollah flexes in bid to sectarianize a non-partisan movement
James Haines-Young/The National/November 26/2019
The latest incursion from the Shiite party seeks to push the political narrative onto old ground A man fired hundreds of rounds into the air from a rifle as another stood in the middle of a street, took aim, and fired a rocket-propelled grenade into the sky.
Convoys of men on mopeds circled the Lebanese capital of Beirut, gunfire echoed through several neighbourhoods around the country and tents in the south were pulled down and set on fire. On Monday night, it seemed as though the gathering momentum of Lebanon’s month-long protest had finally hit the most worrying roadblock in its demand for a competent, non-sectarian government – Hezbollah and its arms. But protesters picked up the pieces on Tuesday and while the mood was more muted than it has been in recent days, it was far from defeated.
Since October 17, near-daily rallies have paralysed Lebanon, eventually forcing Prime Minister Saad Hariri to announce his resignation on October 29, collapsing government. Since then, politicians have been deadlocked and there remains no sign of a new administration – either one representing the political parties, as sought by many of parliament’s blocs, or the non-political leadership demanded by the streets.
In mid-October, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned that if he orders his supporters to mobilise they would not leave without results. His comments were both an attempt to belittle the mass rallies that have regularly gathered tens or hundreds of thousands in a country of just 4.5 million but also a warning that Hezbollah too could show the strength of its popular support.
While Monday’s actions – just the latest by Hezbollah and its allied Amal Movement – stopped short of a mass Hezbollah mobilisation, they are an attempt to sectarianize a broadly non-sectarian movement. Sami Nader, the Director of Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs in Beirut, told The National that the incident was not a counter-revolution but a way to reframe the protests in terms that Lebanese leaders have long used. “It’s like a systematic attempt to drag the revolution onto the sectarian turf because it’s obvious that a revolution that doesn’t carry any political slogan or any sectarian slogans was a huge challenge for them [Hezbollah and politicians] to deal with,” he said. For decades, before and after the 1975-1990 civil war, much of the political debate in Lebanon has been framed around confession and sect. Each party maintains support by playing the role of protectors of their respective faith.
“The current forces including Hezbollah [want to bend the] curve to where they can be masters of the game and play on the sectarian feeling that ‘we are threatened and we must defend the Shiite rights,’” Mr Nader said.But the current protests have rejected the well-trodden verse and are demanding a new Lebanon. Mr Nader said he was confident the latest incidents would not derail the movement. “This will boost the revolution, it will not back down,” he said. “Most of the people who are on the streets don’t have anything to lose and they are claiming their right.”Farah Merhi, an accountant in Beirut, had her car set ablaze in Monday night’s chaos. But on Tuesday, she took to social media to share a picture of herself smiling through the burned wreckage. “You burnt my car,” she wrote. “But you will never burn my smile… this too shall pass.”

Containing Hezbollah a long-term process
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib/Arab News/November 26/2019
Jeffrey Feltman, the former US ambassador to Lebanon last week testified before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and International Terrorism on the prospects for Lebanon. (AFP)
Jeffrey Feltman, the former US ambassador to Lebanon and John C. Whitehead visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, last week testified before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and International Terrorism on the prospects for Lebanon. He explicitly said that the current demonstrations coincide with the US interest, as the protests target the entire political configuration, including US archenemy Hezbollah.
Feltman’s testimony rendered Hezbollah nervous, especially when he compared the situation to 2005. Following the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, mass demonstrations erupted against the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Feltman said that, if it were not for the US and French position, then the Syrians would not have left Lebanon and they would have repressed the demonstrations brutally. Hence the US should take a firm stand and support the Lebanese protesters who are demanding “kellun yaani kellun” — meaning they want to get rid of the entire political elite, including Hezbollah. Of course, the US should support the Lebanese people; however, it should be realistic in its expectations. Feltman missed one difference in his comparison: Hezbollah is indigenous, Bashar Assad’s forces were not. Hezbollah will not disappear or leave like Assad’s forces did in 2005. At best, it can be contained.
However, in order to be contained, Hezbollah should be offered a proper exit. A graceful exit would minimize the “resistance’s” aversion to the organic changes the country is witnessing and prevent Lebanon from descending into violence. While Feltman rightly signaled that fewer and fewer Lebanese listen to Nasrallah and that he is losing his grip on the Shiite population, it is important to note that he still has an audience. There is no guarantee that the Shiite Lebanese will abandon Hezbollah if early elections are held. The US should not forget that Hezbollah has — for more than 30 years — been providing services to the Shiite population that the Lebanese state has not, from education to health care and job opportunities. Feltman said that Hezbollah’s resistance narrative is faltering and, if it attacks the protesters as it did in 2008, the pretext will totally “evaporate.”
However, a confrontation with Israel can revive the resistance narrative. Such a confrontation would definitely not be in Lebanon or the US’ interest. Hence Hezbollah should not get desperate to the point where it would venture into a war that would lead to the destruction of the country. This was the scenario in 2005, which led to Tel Aviv’s war on Lebanon in 2006. When fingers started to be pointed at Hezbollah following the murder of Hariri and the group felt cornered, war with Israel offered the proper distraction. It has been getting stronger ever since then.
In the absence of real, in-depth reforms, the country is going to crash and no one is going to bail out the current configuration.
Today, Hezbollah is opposed to a government of technocrats. It is scared to lose the current understanding through which it is allowed to operate freely. Pro-Hezbollah Member of Parliament Jamil Al-Sayyed said in September: “You have your corruption and we have our arms. There is a quid pro quo in the current political system where Hezbollah accepts and gives cover for other factions’ corruption and they turn a blind eye to its arsenal. Every ministerial statement affirms an almost sacred trilogy: “Army, people, resistance.” A government of technocrats might not preserve this balance. This is why we see Nasrallah clinging on to people like Saad Hariri and Gebran Bassil. The devil you know is better than the one you don’t. But, in the absence of real, in-depth reforms, the country is going to crash and no one is going to bail out the current configuration, which has lost the trust of the Lebanese people and the international community. In this respect, Hezbollah might be willing to negotiate and accept a technocrat government if it is offered some face-saving measures.
Feltman has a deep understanding of the Lebanese case and said clearly that the calls in Washington to push the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to confront Hezbollah are counterproductive. A confrontation between Hezbollah and the LAF would lead to civil war and the chaos created by such a conflict would favor Iran and Sunni extremists. However, Feltman did not elaborate further. Not pressuring the LAF to disarm Hezbollah by force is not enough to prevent an internal conflict in Lebanon. Hezbollah needs a face-saving exit, otherwise it might fight back — something it has done in the past.
The American ambassador has an overly optimistic view of the situation. He thinks that early electoral elections would strip Hezbollah of the political partners that give it a multiplier effect. However, if elections were held today, the results would not be substantially different for the simple reason that the protesters do not have a structure or enough maturity to present viable alternatives. Early elections might even “reaffirm” Hezbollah’s legitimacy. Containing Hezbollah is a long-term process.
In this respect, the US should be realistic and pragmatic. Washington’s objective should be to support the Lebanese people’s desire to have a clean government of technocrats that enjoys transparency, provides basic services and conducts reforms. In such an environment, Hezbollah’s narrative would not be popular, nor would its services be needed. As Feltman stated, the US should think long term.
• 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.

Hariri withdraws candidacy as parliamentary consultations set for Thursday
Georgi Azar/Annahar/November 26/2019
Saad Hariri resigned on October 29 in the wake of a popular uprising against the ruling elite, which has governed over Lebanon for the past 30 years. BEIRUT: Caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri has taken himself out of the running to head the next government, urging President Michel Aoun to begin parliamentary consultations to appoint a new premier. Hariri accused his rivals of being in a "state of chronic denial" and refusing to acknowledge the dire economic threats facing Lebanon. "It is clear that what's more dangerous than the severe economic crisis Lebanon is going through is the state of chronic denial that has been expressed on many occasions over the past weeks," Hariri said in a statement issued Tuesday.
Hariri announced that he is steadfast in "the belief centered around not me, but someone else," in reference to reports that he was hindering the formation of the Cabinet. The embattled prime minister had faced severe opposition to form a Cabinet comprised solely of independent technocrats, which he says is the "only solution moving forward to the severe economic crisis."Hariri resigned on October 29 in the wake of a popular uprising against the ruling elite, which has governed over Lebanon for the past 30 years. Sources also told Annahar that Aoun will kick off binding parliamentary consultations on Thursday, maintaining that any government will be tasked solely with tackling the many ailments currently facing Lebanon.  The Cabinet will include both technocrats and political figures, the sources said, signaling that Hariri's approval of the future premier is still being sought. The Free Patriotic Movement, along with their Shiite allies Hezbollah, have rejected the formation of a completely independent government, seeking instead a "techno-political" Cabinet. Sources say Hezbollah's tight grip on the Cabinet and its determination to be included stems from fear of a potential isolation and a scheme to remove its military arsenal.

The sectarianization of Lebanon and smearing a revolution
Georgi Azar/Annahar/November 26/2019
Hezbollah and Amal supporters, as we have become accustomed to seeing, are front and center in these latest clashes.
BEIRUT: For 40 days, Lebanese from all walks of life have demonstrated a sense of responsibility rarely witnessed in today’s hypersensitive world. They have risked their own freedom to achieve freedom for all, putting aside differences that had divided them for so long. Religion, sect and class had become second fiddle, paving the way for a clear set of demands: a government by the people, for the people. 40 days later and our elected parliamentarians and president have yet to appoint to a new Prime Minister. A number of theories for the delay have been presented, yet it begs the question as to whether this signals a consorted effort by some to pit Lebanese against one another in a bid to buy time. After 40 days of peaceful civil disobedience, Lebanon has now been dragged to the cusp of civil strife, bordering the outbreak of war.Hezbollah and Amal supporters, as we have become accustomed to seeing, are front and center in these latest clashes. They have attacked peaceful demonstrators in Beirut and Sour, destroying both public and private properties while flexing their militia-like muscles.
The lawlessness that has swiped over parts of the country is astoundingly conspicuous and eye-opening. The army and various law enforcement, which have been swift to arrest peaceful demonstrators for far less egregious crimes, have shown an extreme reluctance to address the issue.
No arrests have been made and no official has condemned the violence exhibited by these Hezbollah and Amal affiliates. Instead, Amal leader Nabih Berri placed the blame at the feet of the peaceful protestors, warning of the dangers of roadblocks. These men could even be heard chanting for a rerun of the May 7, 2008 armed clashes which resulted in 12 deaths and brought Lebanon to the brink of war. Chants of "Shia, Shia, Shia," echoed through Beirut's cross-sectarian neighborhoods as hundreds of thugs descended on their trademark minibikes. They had seemingly taken offense to the Ring Bridge being closed Sunday night and yet lashed out at nearby residents’ belongings. Cars were destroyed and set on fire. Windows bashed and threats spray-painted on walls. Hours later, protesters’ tents in Sour were trashed and burned. The resistance, for all its previous glory, is being sullied and its reputation dragged through the mud.An armed scuffle also broke out between Hezbollah and Future Movement supporters in the Cola neighborhood of Beirut, holding a mirror to the broader Shia-Sunni struggle in the region. Hezbollah, which now finds itself backed into a corner as popular support and foreign funding wanes, is seemingly resorting to scare tactics. Wise Lebanese should be wary of falling into the trap, as history is filled with plots that have highjacked a peaceful political revolution. The intervention of these tribal-minded aggressors in what had been a nonviolent revolution will surely add a combustible new dimension to the uprising in Lebanon. It is our duty, and that of the armed forces, to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.

Moral Leadership and the Lebanese Military
Aram Nerguizian/Carnegie MEC/November 26/2019
After more than a month of protests targeting Lebanon’s sectarian postwar political order, pressure has increased on the Lebanese armed forces to maintain internal stability and civil peace. To that end, the military and its leadership have avoided engaging in major public statements or press appearances, preserving the institution’s neutrality and avoiding the politicization of the armed forces. However, both the protest movement and the sectarian political elites they oppose continue to struggle with deciphering the military’s intentions, priorities, and objectives.
The protest movement remains uncertain about the role of the military as protests enter their sixth week. Social media is littered with protestors’ comments that range from praise for the military’s efforts to uphold civil peace to acrimony over the absence or heavy-handedness of military personnel. Discussions with protest organizers often contrast the deployment in force of elite units to clear roadblocks, at times by force, and a far less aggressive posture by units when Hezbollah and Amal supporters recently destroyed the protestors’ encampments in Beirut’s central district.
In discussions, Lebanon’s sectarian political leaders show growing frustration with the military’s perceived inability or unwillingness to bring the protest movement to heel. Partisans of the predominantly Christian Lebanese Forces and Kataeb parties, which claim to support the protests, point to the vigorous lifting of roadblocks in the Metn district as proof that the military is not “on their side.” Protestors in the country’s predominantly Sunni north increasingly accuse the military of being “Aounists”—a reference to the officers promoted under President Michel Aoun when he was still commander of the armed forces. By contrast, there are persistent tensions between the leadership of the Free Patriotic Movement and the military, and the former are aghast at how the armed forces have sought to negotiate and mitigate road closures.
Meanwhile, Lebanon’s principal Shi‘a factions, Hezbollah and Amal, are increasingly interpreting the actions of the Lebanese military as complicit with the pro-Western March 14 forces, going so far as to insinuate that the military and military intelligence are siding with the protest movement.
If the military is to counteract such accusations, it must address three challenges: first, it must proactively articulate strategic guidelines to clarify its intent; second, it must adopt modern best practices tied to strategic communication; and third, it must actively track and correct instances where individual military personnel or units act out of step with the guidelines set by headquarters.
For the military to clarify its strategic and tactical objectives is arguably the most critical challenge. Early on, the military tried to make plain its mission priorities: protecting the public and key government institutions and standing for and with the protestors. However, this did little to articulate for the public at large what those priorities meant in the real world. Discussions with Lebanese military officials indicate that the military’s strategic objective is simply to buy time and maintain civil peace long enough to allow for a suitable political settlement to be found to the country’s political crisis. Allowing protests in Beirut and Tripoli to go on unabated falls under those objectives. By contrast, lifting roadblocks are meant to be limited timebound tactical actions that seek to accommodate the demands of Lebanon’s caretaker government. Contrary to the assumptions of some in the protest movement and the political class, they are not a strategic effort to deal a death blow to one manifestation of the protest movement.
The next challenge is addressing the military’s inability thus far to communicate this nuance to the public. The military’s Orientation Directorate is tasked with public engagement, the posting of official bulletins, and keeping the public informed on non-sensitive military affairs. However, the directorate has largely failed to adapt quickly or decisively enough to the realities of this age of social networks, citizen journalism, and alternative and fake news. Like other militaries around the world, the Lebanese military will have to rapidly adapt its existing public diplomacy capabilities to proactively and persistently engage, educate, and react to the public at large.
In the longer term, this may mean establishing a new communications directorate (a “J-9” in military parlance). However, in the short term it can mean dusting off and expanding on the strategic communication lessons learned during the 2017 Fajr al-Jurud campaign against the Islamic State and tasking a timebound strategic communications cell until the military can adapt structurally.
If the military can address its intent and how to signal it, the next challenge will be to strictly ensure that all units adhere to that intent in practice. The military will have to pay close attention to how it deploys units with varying levels of experience with public order actions in support of stabilization operations, while also working to show the public that it is acting fairly and consistently across Lebanon. This means carefully calibrating how the military uses its regular and elite units at roadblocks and in places such as Beirut’s central district to reassure protesters and deter potential aggressive elements on either side of Lebanon’s sectarian political dividing lines.
No less important are the perceived actions of non-combat units such as the Directorate of Military Intelligence, which have regular and recurring contact with both protesters and political factions on the ground. Establishing and maintaining uniformity across the force in terms of actions and intent become even more important as telltale signs of fatigue, stress, and lapses of judgment become increasingly apparent after more than a month of protests.
On November 17, the army commander, General Joseph Aoun, publicly restated the military’s objectives and priorities, emphasizing both the protestors’ right to freedom of assembly and the tactical imperative of keeping major roads open. This first major public statement went in the right direction to try and educate the public about what the military was doing and why. Whether such public engagement was enough, or succeeded in communicating with a youth-driven protest movement, was debatable. However, the military must adapt accordingly. Be that as it may, the address communicated a fundamental belief that the Lebanese military was not, as one officer put it, a “hope killer.”
As the crisis persists and more Lebanese look to the armed forces for leadership, addressing intent, signaling it, and then ensuring it is uniform will be critical. And none of this can be accomplished by a military merely reacting to events. It must seize the initiative. The military must work to ensure it is not increasingly perceived as “the military of the regime,” as one officer put it. It must also strive to remain “the military of the nation.”To that end, how the Lebanese military engages with and channels the demands of the protest movement as well as the needs of the country’s leading sectarian forces will determine whether it can stake out a position for itself allowing it to control the moral high ground.

Is the Lebanese miracle dead?
Ishac Diwan/Annahar/November 26/2019
The revolutionaries in the street aspire to build their country rather than be forced to leave it. They believe that it is way below its potential and that they can do much better with their collective energy and skills.
Our economic and political elites want us to believe that once we get through the rough spot of the moment, it should be possible to revive the Lebanese Miracle economy. A more sober diagnostic is that the ongoing financial difficulties do not reflect a passing liquidity problem, but, instead, the sure signs of the bankruptcy of the post-civil-war model. These signs preceded the October 17 revolution and were actually its driver. How to transition to a new model, without killing the patient, should now be our central concern.
Exports of goods and services in the past few years have been annually around $5 billion, and imports around $20 billion. The difference – which Lebanon needs to pay for all its imports - has been financed by external inflows of capital, largely into the country's banks, at the tune of 20% of GDP on average over the past two decades. Lebanon has become dependent on capital inflows like rentier-countries depend on oil sales, and like a heart depends on blood flow.
But depositors count on their bank to invest their assets prudently. Instead, our banks have invested massively in public debt, and this ended up being a bad investment, as it is now clear that the economy will be unable to outgrow its debt burden. The Central Bank adopted a Ponzi-like scheme to attract more capital, but this too has run out of steam. New inflows into the system have now dried up - worse, bank depositors are looking for the exits.
To continue with the medical metaphor, the sudden stop of capital inflows resembles a heart attack. To repair Lebanon's heart, it will be necessary to remove the fat blocking the arteries - in effect, to clean up the banks' balance sheets so they become solvent again, which will require the recapitalization of banks and the much-dreaded haircut on deposits.
To keep heart attacks from recurring, there is also a need to stop producing so much fat, in other words, to normalize Lebanon's metabolism. The recurrent external deficits reflect an excess of spending over income. Not only the state, but also the business sector, and many households have been spending more than they earn, year after year. The country needs to consume less of its income and work harder. For consumption to rise over time, the country will need to invest its savings more judiciously.
This requires, in turn, that Lebanon rebuild its productive capacities like a healthy body needs to build up solid muscles. Economic growth is now close to zero. This was partly due to external reasons. Tourism and exports were hit by political instability, and remittances are down with the region-wide fall in oil revenues. But instead of working harder to face the challenging environment, the old model has atrophied our muscles. The artificial rise in wealth has pushed up real wages, making foreign goods cheaper. Displaced from the tradable sectors, more youths had to seek employment abroad. Corruption and poor infrastructure have further increased the cost of doing business. To grow again, Lebanon's productive muscles need to be rebuilt.
But there can be no healthy body in the absence of a well-functioning brain - a Polity where decisions about the country's future are made. The massive capital inflows have distorted the country's governance system. The borrowing spree has deepened inequality, producing an economic elite that earns high return on its capital without having to take risks and innovate, because of the high-interest rates policy. It has also allowed a sectarian political elite to get entrenched by building its legitimacy on patronage and clientelism, rather than on performance.
The large rents that the political elites drew by milking the public sector, and an increasingly cronystic private sector, have allowed for the formation of an overgrown ruling coalition. This may have delivered some political stability in the midst of a chaotic region. But the coalition has been too unwieldy to be able to even collect garbage or provide electricity effectively, let alone to address the long-term national challenges facing the economy. Now that the regional chaos is subsiding, it is high time to come back to a more competitive political system where ruling parties are disciplined by an active opposition.
To move forward effectively, it is essential that we first convince ourselves that the old model cannot be fixed. Its core functions have broken down. The banking sector will not be able to attract large external deposits anymore. Oil prices will not recover their earlier peaks. GCC jobs will not be as plentiful as in the past, and assistance from oil producers will be scarcer. The international community will not offer support if the system is not fixed. But more importantly, the public itself has now irreversibly rejected the old model. The street is denouncing loudly its sectarianism and corruption, its weak state, and its artificial economy.
The revolutionaries in the street aspire to build their country rather than be forced to leave it. They believe that it is way below its potential and that they can do much better with their collective energy and skills. They want a state that serves society and business. They want performance to replace corruption, and meritocracy to replace connections. In addition to tourism and finance, they aspire to build a vibrant high-tech industry, an environmentally conscious agriculture, a cultural production powerhouse, and to connect in more synergetic ways with their successful diaspora. They want social justice, not rising inequality.
What is increasingly clear, however, is that the Lebanese will inherit a country in near ruin - over-indebted, with an inefficient state, a weak banking sector, and an economy that no longer allows for the importation of even the basic necessities. The birth of the Third Republic will be painful, but revolutionaries rarely inherit a well-functioning country.
The magnitude of the needed transition is similar to what Greece went through recently, and the danger along the current path resembles the present situation in Venezuela. It might take a decade before a full recovery is achieved if the full battery of reforms that are by now well known are implemented successfully. In the immediate future, the remaining reserves at the Central Bank need to be carefully rationed to protect the import of basic necessities until exports pick up. To smooth the transition, Lebanon also needs all the external help it can get.
In the coming months, not only will private wealth go down as balance sheet losses are distributed, but incomes will also have to fall to constrain imports, and wages to increase exports. The main challenge will be to build up enough social cohesion to avoid getting locked in a destructive distributive fight. The real Lebanese miracle will come to life when the country, starting from a lower-income base, will get solidly onto a rising path that can increasingly fulfill its newly rediscovered creative potential.
*Ishac Diwan is a professor of economics at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris.

A reading in Lebanon’s current financial crisis
Mohammad Ibrahim Fheili/Annahar/November 26/2019
Everyone who benefited from the imperfections of recent months and years must contribute to the rescue efforts.
The struggle to prevent a total collapse continues, and the crisis lingers. A key policy mistake, which led to the current financial crisis in Lebanon, is that corrective and preventive actions were not taken sooner. There is a need for collective effort by the management of Banks operating in Lebanon, their clients, and the Central Bank to rectify the situation. There is a collective responsibility here due to the failure to act in due time.
At least until now, the current financial crisis is neither a crisis of default nor total insolvency; instead, it’s that of liquidity! In recent months, banks confronted nagging demands:
● To secure resources to absorb losses incurred from deteriorating loan quality; since 2015, banks have been aggressively expensing their income to allocate provisions for loan loss reserves
● To extend credit to struggling local businesses trying to survive the steep economic downturn
● To refrain from paying dividends (including the current year 2019) and to retain the profits as instructed by the Central Bank of Lebanon.
● To meet the panic-driven depositors’ demand for withdrawals, be it in cash or transfers outside of Lebanon. Banks have been meeting clients’ demands in full, provided it’s in checks (not in cash) of the same currency, and transfers outside Lebanon are excluded except when it’s for humanitarian needs – to cover child support living outside Lebanon, the imports of pharmaceutical products, wheat, and oil, just to name a few.
At the root cause of this crisis we find:
a) Commercial banks paid more attention to the growth and health of their uses of funds (i.e., assets – loans, holding of government securities, deposits at the Central Bank, and deposits at other financial institutions mostly correspondent banks) and setting aside enough provisions to absorb any anticipated losses from deteriorations in the quality of their assets, excluding government securities.
b) Liquidity Concerns didn’t get the much-needed attention from the board of directors, nor did chief risk officers make a proper assessment of it through stress testing plausible scenarios considering the state of the economy, the political chaos, and the fate of the uses of funds.
c) In the situation as of late 2017, banks:
I. used all they were permitted to use, in regulation, out of their required reserves (i.e. technically used up their deposit cushion) to fund their appetite to extend housing and other types of subsidized loans;
II. noticeably reduced their holding of excess reserves and locked this excess liquidity in deposits at the central bank (BDL), which, in turn, used it to bail out an ailing fiscal government rendering the asset of the bank illiquid;
III. favored investing their available liquidity with the troubled Central government over investing it with the private sector. Under the circumstances, both are non-liquid forms of usage of funds.
To add insult to injury, the Central Bank of Lebanon used most of its available liquidity to finance the mounting government deficits and helped in meeting the hard-to-satisfy spending appetite of the corrupt members of the government.
To sum up, banks concentrated the majority of their uses of funds in relatively non-liquid assets; and the central bank deployed a significant portion of its available funds with the central government. Consequently, the financial community watched helplessly the emerging of the worst version of a liquidity crisis to date.However, the crisis didn’t hit all financial institutions evenly. The severity of the crisis had to do with each financial institution’s appetite for risk-taking behavior. As bad as it is, this is not the end of life in banking as we know it. The crisis is still manageable; rescue efforts remain possible; and complete recovery is, given time, possible.
The focus now should be on preserving the integrity and stability of the entire financial community in Lebanon and refrain from treating individual financial institutions as endangered species and in need of protection at any cost. Those who polluted the banking sector with their bad decisions and un-satiated risk-taking behavior must pay. Losing one, two, three or even more financial institutions is manageable – I dare say somewhat desirable! Institutions that stand strong and survive the crisis will be able to absorb losses and safeguard all depositors in failing institutions from any potential loss.
Everyone who benefited from the imperfections of recent months and years must contribute to the rescue efforts.
Who are they?
▪ Politicians who never had to worry about responsible government spending. Today is the time to wise up and act responsibly!
▪ Depositors who enjoyed the excessively high-interest rates on their deposits combined with unrestricted access to their deposit funds be it in time and/or demand deposits. It is time to change these rules of engagement!
▪ Borrowers, households and business owners, who exploited the subsidized loanable fund market, and uncontrollably expanded their credit obligations to include exposures to banks and to shadow banks. Now is the time for abstinence!
▪ Banks that enjoyed loose regulatory enforcement and, to a greater extent, a laissez-faire banking landscape. It has been obvious that banks have been chaperoned, not regulated as they should be, by the Central Bank of Lebanon. It’s time for some whipping! The Central Bank of Lebanon needs to stop being so accommodating and to hold banks accountable for non-compliance with financial regulations. The regulator is a whip, not a chaperone!
Major efforts have been undertaken by commercial banks to protect, not to control, depositors’ funds, and to delay or completely avoid a total collapse by introducing some controls:
● Withdrawals of deposited funds outside the banking system.
● Changing the currency denomination of deposit balances from Lebanese Pound to US Dollars.
● The transfer of funds outside Lebanon.
These are controls, with well-defined boundaries, and don’t qualify as capital controls because they are not legislated; they are set and implemented at the discretion of the management of each individual bank based on its own demand for and availability of liquidity; they are circumstantial and easily revoked. Restrictions on capital flows, on the other hand, should they prove necessary, perpetuate external imbalances, and undermine trust.
Any policy measure that undermines the credibility of these controls runs the risk of triggering a depositor runs. On the other hand, rumors about a haircut inflict harm and create fear; it’s unlikely to happen! However, if it happens, it’s unlikely for it to target small depositors.
*Mohammad Ibrahim Fheili is a risk & capacity building expert.

Student Protest Against Dollarisation of tuition fees
Fatima Dia/Annahar /November 26/2019
Students carried a banner in front of college hall, saying “We will not pay the price,” referring tot he politicians’ mistake which led to the current economic state of the country.
BEIRUT: Students at the American University of Beirut gathered in front of College Hall on the Beirut campus, in protest against the policy of dollarisation of tuition fees, today, on Nov. 26.
This policy means students are not allowed to pay their tuition with Lebanese Pounds, only with dollars. The main issue with this restriction lies in the fluctuating exchange rate between the Lebanese pound and the American dollar— the country is in the mid of an economic crisis, where the national debt of Lebanon is at $91.97 billion US in 2019, according to a study on statica.com.
Students carried a banner in front of college hall, saying “We will not pay the price,” referring tot he politicians’ mistake which led to the current economic state of the country.
It’s bad, that’s a common consensus, especially now, in this crumbling economy where everything is uncertain,” said AUB student Karine Ballout. “Personally, my parents are struggling to pay tuition, because their salaries are in lira [Lebanese Pounds], our bank accounts are in lira.”
Hassan Chehaitly, another AUB student, expressed discontent in the fact that the university is asking for dollars, when people are unable to even withdraw from banks and ATMs. Chehaitly described the situation as having become “theft, and a bourgeoisie.”
Students were not the only ones present in the protest, with staff and faculty present in support of the students’ demands. AUB professor from the faculty of Agriculture, Jad Chaaban, said it was unfair of the university to price the tuition in a foreign currency, specially when there’s a huge risk on that currency.
“The university should let students on Lebanese soil pay in Lebanese pounds,” he added. “It’s only fair to the students and their parents, who actually make most of their income in Lebanese pounds.”
Haitham Khoury, another professor, at the Olayan School of Business, echoed Chaaban’s sentiment, adding that they’re supportive out of a “sense of justice and what’s right.” Khoury added that the way to have access to the cross section of the Lebanese society, is by removing the dollarisation policy— and protesting the way the students were, “is the way to do it.”
The protests against dollarisation were not confined to the AUB campus; Lebanese American University students showed solidarity at their own campus with chants and banners. In addition to solidarity, the students do not want LAU to take the same measures.
“It’s our right to pay with our national currency,” said Lea Fakih. “And what’s going to happen when the price of the [Lebanese pound] drops with the inflation that’s happening in the country, is that people are not going to afford to study at LAU or AUB, because of the conversion rate. We can’t afford to do that.”According to the protesting students, another key issue that arises with the dollarisation of tuition fee is a direction of inaccessibility and non-inclusivity in both AUB and LAU.
“[AUB] is already less accessible and less inclusive, you live in such a privileged environment here, and when you get out into the world you see it’s completely different, and with the dollarisation it’s also making it harder on people with financial aid,” said ballout.
In addition to the increased classification of the environment in these universities, students claim it is not their responsibility to pay the price, echoing the message from the banner held during the protest.
“It’s not our responsibility to pay the price of the economic problems of the country,” said Fakih. “It’s becoming more inaccessible and more non-inclusive, and they’re basically forcing us to pay the price of the economic deterioration that was caused by the politicians who we do not identify with. They have robbed us, and completely benefited from this. A lot of people won’t be able to graduate, myself included.”
Annahar contacted AUB regarding the student-led protest, but received no response.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on November 26-27/2019
US will keep sanctioning Iranian officials for rights abuses: Pompeo
Reuters, Washington/Tuesday, 26 November 2019
The United States will keep sanctioning Iranian officials responsible for human rights abuses, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday, saying the United States had received nearly 20,000 messages from Iranians about such abuses.“We have received to date nearly 20,000 messages, videos, pictures, notes of the regime’s abuses ... and hope they will continue to be sent to us,” he told reporters.“We will continue to sanction Iranian officials who are responsible for these human rights abuses,” said Pompeo. In a related development, Iran has frozen the assets of “key” Iran International staff for the news channel’s coverage of the recent anti-government protests in the country, the Iranian judiciary’s news agency Mizan reported on Tuesday. Launched in 2017, Iran International is a London-based, Persian-language news channel.Mizan accused Iran International of planning terrorist attacks, attempting to overthrow the regime, and encouraging “thugs” to destroy public property.

Khamenei was Informed of Iran Guards’ Plot to Attack Saudi Arabia
Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 26 November, 2019
Reuters revealed on Monday new details over Iran’s involvement in the attack against Saudi Aramco oil facilities in September. Four months before a swarm of drones and missiles crippled the world’s biggest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia, Iranian security officials gathered at a heavily fortified compound in Tehran. The group included the top echelons of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite branch of the Iranian military whose portfolio includes missile development and covert operations. The main topic that day in May: How to punish the United States for pulling out of a landmark nuclear treaty and re-imposing economic sanctions on Iran, moves that have hit Tehran hard. With Major General Hossein Salami, leader of the Revolutionary Guards, looking on, a senior commander took the floor. “It is time to take out our swords and teach them a lesson,” the commander said, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Hard-liners in the meeting talked of attacking high-value targets, including American military bases.
Yet, what ultimately emerged was a plan that stopped short of direct confrontation that could trigger a devastating US response. Iran opted instead to target oil installations in the Gulf, specifically Saudi Arabia, a proposal discussed by top Iranian military officials in that May meeting and at least four that followed. This account, described to Reuters by three officials familiar with the meetings and a fourth close to Iran’s decision making, is the first to describe the role of Iran’s leaders in plotting the September 14 attack on Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-controlled oil company.
These people said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei approved the operation, but with strict conditions: Iranian forces must avoid hitting any civilians or Americans. Saudi Arabia, the US, Germany, France and Britain held Iran responsible for the attack. Iran has denied the accusations.
Alireza Miryousefi, spokesman for the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York, rejected the version of events the four people described to Reuters. He said Iran played no part in the strikes, that no meetings of senior security officials took place to discuss such an operation, and that Khamenei did not authorize any attack. “No, no, no, no, no, and no,” Miryousefi said to detailed questions from Reuters on the alleged gatherings and Khamenei’s purported role. The US Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon declined to comment. A senior Trump administration official did not directly comment on Reuters’ findings but said Tehran’s “behavior and its decades-long history of destructive attacks and support for terrorism are why Iran’s economy is in shambles.”The assault prompted US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to accuse Iran of an “act of war.” In the aftermath, Tehran was hit with additional US sanctions. The United States also launched cyber-attacks against Iran, US officials told Reuters.
Scouring targets
The plan by Iranian military leaders to strike Saudi oil installations developed over several months, according to the official close to Iran’s decision making.
“Details were discussed thoroughly in at least five meetings and the final go ahead was given” by early September, the official said. All of those meetings took place at a secure location inside the southern Tehran compound, three of the officials told Reuters. They said Khamenei attended one of the gatherings at his residence, which is also inside that complex. Other attendees at some of those meetings included Khamenei’s top military advisor, Yahya Rahim-Safavi, and a deputy of Qasem Soleimani, who heads the Revolutionary Guards’ foreign military and clandestine operations, the three officials said. Among the possible targets initially discussed were a seaport in Saudi Arabia, the official close to Iran’s decision making said. The person would not provide additional details. Those ideas were ultimately dismissed over concerns about mass casualties that could provoke fierce retaliation by the United States and embolden Israel, potentially pushing the region into war, the four people said. The official close to Iran’s decision making said the group settled on the plan to attack Saudi Arabia’s oil installations because it could grab big headlines, inflict economic pain on an adversary and still deliver a strong message to Washington. “Agreement on Aramco was almost reached unanimously,” the official said. “The idea was to display Iran’s deep access and military capabilities.”
Circuitous paths
The attack was the worst on Middle East oil facilities since Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi strongman, torched Kuwait’s oil fields during the 1991 Gulf crisis. US Senator Martha McSally, an Air Force combat veteran and Republican lawmaker who was briefed by US and Saudi officials, and who visited Aramco’s Abqaiq facility days after the attack, said the perpetrators knew precisely where to strike to create as much damage as possible. “It showed somebody who had a sophisticated understanding of facility operations like theirs, instead of just hitting things off of satellite photos,” she told Reuters. The drones and missiles, she added, “came from Iranian soil, from an Iranian base.” A Middle East source, who was briefed by a country investigating the attack, said the launch site was the Ahvaz air base in southwest Iran. That account matched those of three US officials and two other people who spoke to Reuters: a Western intelligence official and a Western source based in the Middle East. Rather than fly directly from Iran to Saudi Arabia over the Gulf, the missiles and drones took different, circuitous paths to the oil installations, part of Iran’s effort to mask its involvement, the people said. Some of the craft flew over Iraq and Kuwait before landing in Saudi Arabia, according to the Western intelligence source, who said that trajectory provided Iran with plausible deniability. “That wouldn’t have been the case if missiles and drones had been seen or heard flying into Saudi Arabia over the Gulf from a south flight path” from Iran, the person said. Revolutionary Guards commanders briefed Khamenei on the successful operation hours after the attack, according to the official close to the country’s decision making.
Sizing up Trump
The Revolutionary Guards and other branches of the Iranian military all ultimately report to Khamenei. The supreme leader has been defiant in response to Trump’s abandonment last year of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly called the Iran nuclear deal. That 2015 accord with five permanent members of the US Security Council – the United States, Russia, France, China and the United Kingdom – as well as Germany, removed billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran’s curbing its nuclear program. Trump’s demand for a better deal has seen Iran launch a two-pronged strategy to win relief from sweeping sanctions reimposed by the United States, penalties that have crippled its oil exports and all but shut it out of the international banking system. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has signaled a willingness to meet with American officials on condition that all sanctions be lifted. Simultaneously, Iran is flaunting its military and technical prowess. In recent months, Iran has shot down a US surveillance drone and seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel through which about a fifth of the world’s oil moves. And it has announced it has amassed stockpiles of enriched uranium in violation of the UN agreement, part of its vow to restart its nuclear program. The Aramco attacks were an escalation that came as Trump had been pursuing his long-stated goal of extricating American forces from the Middle East. Just days after announcing an abrupt pullout of US troops in northern Syria, the Trump administration on October 11 said it would send fighter jets, missile-defense weaponry and 2,800 more troops to Saudi Arabia to bolster the kingdom’s defenses. “Do not strike another sovereign state, do not threaten American interests, American forces, or we will respond,” US Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned Tehran during a press briefing. The senior Trump administration official disputed the suggestion that Iran’s operation has strengthened its hand in working out a deal for sanctions relief from the United States. “Iran knows exactly what it needs to do to see sanctions lifted,” the official said. The administration has said Iran must end support for terrorist groups in the Middle East and submit to tougher terms that would permanently snuff its nuclear ambitions. Iran has said it has no ties to terrorist groups. In one of the final meetings held ahead of the Saudi oil attack, another Revolutionary Guards commander was already looking ahead, according to the official close to Iran’s decision making who was briefed on that gathering. “Start planning for the next one,” the commander told senior security officials.

Israeli army says two rockets fired from Gaza toward Israel
AFP, Jerusalem/Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Militants in the Gaza Strip fired two rockets at Israel on Tuesday, one of which was intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile system, the Israeli army said. Sirens sounded around the Israeli town of Sderot, close to the border with the Palestinian enclave. “Two (rocket) launches were identified from territory in the Gaza Strip toward Israeli territory,” the Israeli army said in a statement, adding that one of the projectiles was intercepted. It did not say what happened to the second rocket. The latest rocket fire comes after a brief flare-up between Israel and Hamas-ruled territory ended just under two weeks ago. On November 12, Israeli fire killed a top Islamic Jihad commander, sparking immediate retaliatory rocket fire from the group, which is allied to Hamas. The Israeli military said around 450 rockets were fired at its territory in that episode and air defenses intercepted dozens of them. After two days of clashes which killed 34 Palestinians and no Israelis, a ceasefire began on November 14.

US, Israel Take Iran’s Threats Seriously
Tel Aviv - Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 26 November, 2019
Military sources in Tel Aviv confirmed that the US Army General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Israeli Army Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, were taking seriously the threats made by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commander, Hossein Salami about annihilating four countries. The sources said that Salami’s remarks “came in a timely manner, where Israel and the United States are conducting detailed research on Iran’s aggression.”Although the intelligence sources do not rule out that Tehran’s goal is to divert the attention of the Iranian people from protesting in the streets over their economic distress, they saw that there was “a leadership mired in extremism and arrogance in the Iranian regime.”The sources did not rule out that the latter would engage in a war “adventure” to show “that whoever takes to the streets in these emergency conditions is a traitor to the homeland and the revolution.” Milley landed in Tel Aviv on Sunday, on his first visit to Israel after taking office. An Israeli army spokesman said the visit reflected the “depth of cooperation between the Israeli army and the US military, and the importance of this cooperation for the stability of the region.”Milley will spend several days in Israel. On Monday, he conducted a tour with his Israeli counterpart on various military sites and weapon factories and held a series of talks with the military Intelligence service. He was briefed on the Israeli challenges and the Iranian plans to dominate the region from Yemen through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Naftali Bennett, made a surprise security tour at military sites in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. In remarks, Netanyahu stressed that Iran was mainlining its policy of aggression against Israel, adding that his country would take all necessary measures to prevent it from entrenching itself in the region.

Gasoline Hike Affects Prices of Goods in Iran
London - Asharq Al-Awsat/Tuesday, 26 November, 2019
With popular protests rocking the streets against an increase in fuel prices, Iranian lawmakers are discussing the implications of the decision to up prices of goods. After the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the cleric-led country has been suffering an ailing economic crisis. Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said that some government companies have increased the price of their products by a 50 to 25 percent rate despite government promises to fight any upsurge in prices of goods following the spike in fuel rates. Meanwhile, IRNA reported a substantial sudden rise in the price of tomato in various parts of the country after the government increased the price of gasoline. According to IRNA, most of the rise in the price of commodities during the past 10 days are attributed to the rise in transportation cost. The agency said this explains the unusual rise in the price of fruits and vegetables between 30 to 50 percent. IRNA’s assertion goes against officials' attempts to reassure Iranians that prices will go unaffected by the sudden decision to increase fuel and gasoline prices.Larijani said at an open session on Monday that he has received reports about rising prices in the market, and called on executive authorities to control the prices. Previously, Gholamreza Hassanpour, Chairman of the Market Basij told Mehr news agency that 500,000 Basij militia have been assigned to control the prices in the markets. He particularly insisted that the government should determine the taxi fares as soon as possible as the cost of transportation affects almost everyone. Reza Rahmani, who heads Iran’s Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade in the government of President Hassan Rouhani, said on Monday that a price hike for diesel, a fuel widely used in Iran’s road transportation system will have major implications that affect the prices of basic goods.
Inflation in Iran was already above 40 percent when the gasoline price hike went into effect. The country’s currency has declined fourfold in two years and US sanctions have cut off oil exports, which was the biggest source of hard-currency revenue for the government.

Six Dead in 3 Blasts in Iraqi Capital
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 26/2019
Six people were killed in near-simultaneous explosions across various Baghdad neighborhoods late Tuesday, medics and a security source said, amid deadly anti-government protests in Iraq's capital and its restive south. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the three blasts, two of which were caused by explosives-laden motorcycles and the third by a roadside bomb, the medics and security source told AFP.

Six killed in three separate Baghdad explosions
Reuters, Bahghdad/Tuesday, 26 November 2019
At least six people were killed and 15 wounded in Baghdad in three separate explosions on Tuesday, Iraqi security and medical sources said. Three people were killed and five wounded in the capital’s northern Shaab district when a motorcycle exploded, the sources said. A second motorcycle exploded in the southwestern Bayaa district, killing two and wounding six. An improvised explosive device went off in the eastern Baladiyat district, killing one person and wounding four. There was no immediate claim of responsibility but ISIS militants are known to make similar attacks in Baghdad and other provinces. Iraq declared victory over the militants in late 2017 after pushing them out of all territory they held in the country. They have since reverted to hit-and-run insurgency tactics aimed at destabilizing the government.
The explosions did not appear to be related to mass anti-government protests that erupted last month.

Turkish ex-minister to launch rival political party by year-end
AFP, Istanbul/Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Turkey’s former economy minister Ali Babacan, who left the ruling party of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in July, said on Tuesday he is seeking to launch his new political party by the end of the year. A founding member of Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP), Babacan resigned last summer over “deep differences”, saying that Turkey was in need of a new vision. He was seen as a reliable figure for Turkey’s economic stability as economy minister from 2002 and 2007, and went on to serve as foreign minister and deputy prime minister. “The calendar (for a new party) is the end of the year,” the 52-year-old politician told Haberturk television on Tuesday. He said his new party, which did not yet have a name, would appeal to a wide cross-section of the population. “It will be a mainstream political movement,” he said.Turkish media has long speculated that former president Abdullah Gul, co-founder of the AKP, could be part of Babacan’s new party. Babacan said he shared “similar concerns” with Gul and their vision for the future of Turkey overlapped, but he made clear that Gul would not be in his movement. “He is supporting us from outside, with his knowledge and experience... but we are making the final decisions,” Babacan said. Asked if former AKP ministers including ex-justice minister Sadullah Ergin would be in his new party, Babacan said he was working “very closely” with them, but added that the party would not be dominated by ex-AKP figures.
Former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu is also planning to set up a new political party after he fell out with Erdogan’s AKP. Babacan said Davutoglu had offered to join forces with him but he did not accept. The splits from the AKP began after the party lost the control of Turkey’s biggest cities Istanbul and Ankara in the March local elections.

17 killed in car bomb in Turkey-controlled region of Syria: Ankara
AFP, Istanbul/Tuesday, 26 November 2019
A car bomb killed at least 17 people and wounded 20 others in the Turkish-controlled region of northern Syria on Tuesday, Turkey’s defense ministry said. The attack took place in the Tal Halaf village west of the city of Ras al-Ayn, which is now controlled by the Turkish military after its offensive in October, the ministry said on its official Twitter account, blaming Syrian Kurdish fighters. On Monday a Turkish security source said that Turkey is fully abiding by the agreements it reached with Russia and the United States regarding northeast Syria and is not resuming its military offensive, a security source said on Monday. Ankara reached separate agreements with Moscow and Washington last month to remove the Kurdish-led YPG militia from a swathe of land in northeast Syria bordering Turkey, which in return stopped its military offensive against the militia.

20 Dead, Hundreds Hurt as Albania Searches for Earthquake Survivors
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/November 26/2019
Albanian rescuers scoured rubble into the night on Tuesday in search of survivors trapped in buildings toppled by the strongest earthquake in decades, with at least 20 lives lost and hundreds of people injured. Tormented families watched with trepidation as soldiers, police and emergency workers sifted through the debris of shredded apartment blocks and hotels in towns near Albania's northwest Adriatic coast, close to the epicenter of the 6.4 magnitude earthquake that hit the country before dawn. By evening the toll was 20 dead, according to the defense ministry. Most were pulled from wreckage in the coastal city of Durres and Thumane, a town north of the capital Tirana. In neighboring Kurbin a man in his fifties died after jumping from his building in panic. Another perished in a car accident after the earthquake tore open parts of the road, the ministry said. Some 42 people have been rescued alive in efforts that continued after the sun went down with headlamps and spotlights. Earlier in Thumane, locals watching emergency workers comb over a collapsed building shouted the names of their loved ones still inside: "Mira!", "Ariela!", "Selvije!". Dulejman Kolaveri, a man in his 50s in Thumane, told AFP he feared his 70-year-old mother and six-year-old niece were trapped inside the five-story apartment, because they lived on the top floor. "I don't know if they are dead or alive. I'm afraid of their fate... only God knows," he said with trembling hands. There were also brief bursts of joy during the day as rescuers delicately extracted survivors. One, a thin middle-aged man covered in a film of grey dust, was seen being carried out of the rubble on a stretcher in Thumane. In Durres, onlookers cheered "Bravo!" as a team rescued a young man from the wreckage of a toppled seaside hotel in a two-hour operation.
Night in the stadium
Afraid to return home after a series of powerful aftershocks, hundreds of people in Durres took shelter in tents set up in the city's football stadium. The health ministry said that more than 600 people have received first aid for injuries, mostly minor. Some 300 soldiers and 1,900 police were sent to Durres and Thumane to assist with the rescue efforts, according to authorities. Aid also poured in from around Europe, with teams from Italy, Greece and Romania among those deployed to help. Albania is known for its chaotic urban planning, particularly in popular tourist spots along the coast, where illegal construction is rife. Tuesday's quake was the strongest to hit the Durres region since 1926, seismologist Rrapo Ormeni told local television. Albanian authorities described it as the most powerful quake in the last 20-30 years.It struck at 3:54 am local time (0254 GMT), with an epicenter 34 kilometers (about 20 miles) northwest of Tirana, according to the European-Mediterranean Seismological Center. In Tirana, panicked residents ran out onto the streets and huddled together after the quake hit.Several powerful aftershocks followed, including one of 5.3 magnitude.
Felt across the Balkans
The tremors were felt across the Balkans, from Sarajevo to Belgrade and the northern Serbian city of Novi Sad almost 700 kilometers away, according to reports in local media and on social networks. The Balkan peninsula lies near the fault line of two large tectonic plates -- the African and Eurasian -- and earthquakes are frequent. The movements of the small Adriatic micro-plate also produces earthquakes, according to Kresimir Kuk from the Croatian seismological institute. The most devastating quake in recent times hit North Macedonia's capital Skopje in July 1963, killing around a thousand people and destroying some 80 percent of the city.

US Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley arrives in Iraq amid protests
 Baghdad, Reuters/Tuesday, 26 November 2019
The top US general, Mark Milley, arrived in Iraq on Tuesday amid a spate of anti-government protests in the Middle East and questions about how they could impact Iranian influence in the region. Anti-government protests in Iraq erupted in early October and have grown into the largest demonstrations since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Lebanon has faced five weeks of anti-government protests, fueled by anger at corruption among the sectarian politicians. As the governments in Iraq and Lebanon struggle with huge waves of popular protest, powerful factions loyal to Iran are pushing to quash political upheaval that challenges Tehran’s entrenched influence in both countries. There are more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq supporting local forces, though Iraq has rejected any long-term presence of additional US forces that crossed its border during an American drawdown from northern Syria.
There are concerns Iran could lash out militarily against US allies in the region to deflect from pressure being built up by protests within Iran. Iran’s clerical rulers have blamed “thugs” linked to exiles and foreign foes - the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia - for stirring up unrest that has led to some of the worst violence in the country in a decade. US-Iran tensions have risen after Sept. 14 strikes on Saudi oil facilities, following attacks on tankers in Gulf waters. Washington has blamed the attacks on Iran, a charge Tehran denies. “Iran is aggressive in the region against their neighboring states, both overtly and covertly,” Army General Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters this week. “So will they continue to do that in the future? I don’t know. I would like to say no, but it is certainly possible that they will,” he added.
Burden sharing
Milley, who is in the Middle East for the first time since taking the chairman job in September, is meeting with allies in the region. He met with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Monday.The United States has deployed about 3,000 additional military forces to Saudi Arabia in recent months to bolster Saudi defenses, including an air expeditionary wing and air defense personnel. US and Saudi Arabian officials are negotiating burden-sharing arrangements for the American troops in the kingdom, officials said. Riyadh could help pay for things like upgrades to a major air base, fuel and other logistics.
US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said last month that Saudi Arabia had agreed to help underwrite the deployment to the kingdom, something Trump has repeatedly called for.

Denmark withdraws passports from two foreign fighters
The Associated Press/Copenhagen/Tuesday, 26 November 2019T
Denmark’s government has withdrawn the Danish passports of two men who joined ISIS - the first such cases since a new law was passed last month. Denmark's immigration minister, Mattias Tesfaye, said Tuesday his ministry is looking into a total of four cases “where two have had their citizenship withdrawn.”The lawyer for one of the men - a 25-year-old man with dual Turkish citizenship who is wanted by Denmark - said she learned about the decision Monday and informed her client, whose location is not known. Mette Grith Stage told Danish media she would bring the ruling before Danish courts. The man reportedly joined the group in September 2013. He cannot be identified due to a court order. No information was given about the second man. On Oct. 24, Danish lawmakers voted in favor of a law allowing the withdrawal of Danish citizenship from foreign fighters with dual citizenship without courts being asked.

US House judiciary panel to hold first impeachment hearing on Dec. 4
Reuters, Washington/Tuesday, 26 November 2019
The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing in the impeachment of President Donald Trump on December 4, with legal experts as witnesses, a Democratic aide said. The aide declined comment on whether the Judiciary Committee expected it would have a report on the Intelligence Committee-led investigation into the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine before the hearing. Last Thursday, top White House officials and six Republican senators met to discuss strategy for a possible Senate impeachment trial. One Senate GOP aide said participants expressed more interest in voting as soon as they have 51 votes to acquit Trump than in setting a specific timetable.

Canada concerned by violent crackdown on Iranian protestors
November 26, 2019 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada
Global Affairs Canada today issued the following statement regarding protests in Iran:
“Canada is deeply concerned by the violent crackdown on protestors by Iranian security forces, which has resulted in mass arrests and the deaths of demonstrators. We condemn the threats made by Iranian officials and the deliberate use of excessive force by Iranian security forces, including the reported use of live ammunition to disperse protestors. We urge authorities to exercise restraint.
“We call on the Iranian authorities to immediately lift all restrictions on the Internet and mobile services and to ensure that all those arrested have access to fair legal process and procedures.
“Iran must ensure that its people enjoy the rights and freedoms they deserve. Canada supports the Iranian people who are exercising these rights, including the freedom of expression and assembly.”

Iran poised to strike US/Israeli targets. US forces gear up for action. USS Lincoln carrier enters the Gulf
DEBKAfile/November 26/2019
The US and Iran ramped up their preparations for direct military engagement on Monday, Nov. 25: A top Iranian general’s threatened to destroy the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Force moved into position opposite central Iran’s coastline..
Addressing a mass pro-government rally in Tehran, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards chief, Gen. Hossein Salami, shouted, while burning US and Israeli flags, “We have shown restraint… we have shown patience towards the hostile moves of America, the Zionist region and Saudi Arabia against the Islamic Republic Iran,” said Salami. “If you cross our red lines, we will destroy you. If Iran decides to respond, the enemy will not have security anywhere. Our patience has a limit.”DEBKAfile’s military sources find the clue to Iran’s next move in his assertion that its patience has a limit. It indicates that while up until now Tehran hesitated to set a date for its next strike on an American or an Israeli target – or both – Iran has now finally decided to go forward. Aware that this strike may come at any moment, CENTCOM chief, Gen. Kenneth McKenzie predicted on Saturday that Iran will probably launch another attack in the Middle East. He was speaking at a regional security conference at Manama, Bahrain, and noted that, despite the American troop build-up in the region, Tehran had not hesitated to attack Saudi oil fields on Sept. 14.
Iran’s leaders were also spurred toward military action by the return of the USS Lincoln carrier strike force to the Gulf for the first time since May, when the vessel moved into the Arabian Sea. Large-scale US marine, navy and air might aboard the Lincoln are now in position opposite Iran’s shores.
They also took note of the arrival in Israel of Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff, and his quiet talks with Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi. Their joint statement – “The two generals discussed operational questions and regional developments” – was interpreted in Tehran as meaning that the US and Israel had finalized coordinated plans for joint military operations against the Islamic Republic.
Since last week, Israel has been on high war alert for Iran’s potential payback for its wide-ranging air strike on Al Qods positions near and south of Damascus on Nov. 20. It is estimated in Israel and the US that multiple Iranian personnel were killed. They did not expect Tehran to let this go without responding.
The coming issue of DEBKA Weekly (for subscribers), out on Friday, Nov. 29, offers a sweeping, detailed survey of US, Israeli and Iranian preparations for their impending military showdown. If you are not yet a subscriber, click here.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on November 26-27/2019
But These 'Bad Guys' Are Our Children
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Alawsat/November 26/2019
Adel Abdul Mahdi woke up early. It is not unusual for the ruler of Iraq to have sleeping difficulties. The second half of his seventies is not the season for a long, restful sleep. He feels unfortunate. He waited to become prime minister. But his desire was fulfilled at a thorny timing. His predecessors left him with a heritage of problems enough to overthrow more than one government. As the tug of war between Washington and Tehran intensified, he became convinced that he was a prime minister on the earthquake line. The calamities of the homeland converged with those of the outside to pave the way for a disaster.
He reads again the statement of the ministry of defense on his desk. The ministry denied that it had imported gas bombs that smashed the heads of demonstrators and killed them, and blamed “third parties”. How difficult it is for the prime minister to read a statement of this kind issued by his government’s defense minister.
Abdel Mahdi cannot dispose of the fate of the young men killed by this type of tear gas. The statement itself raises embarrassing questions: who imported these deadly bombs? Who used them? And who is this “third party” that the government fears to name so as not to say to arrest?
He is really unfortunate. If the current protests were launched from Anbar or the rubble of Mosul, they could have been blamed on ISIS and the Takfiris. But they are taking place in Najaf, Karbala, Basra, and Diwaniya, in Shiite strongholds, as well as in Baghdad. Demonstrators are demanding him to root out corruption and recover looted funds. They demand him to undertake a suicide mission. He has another concern. Protesters in Shiite cities burned pictures of Iranian symbols. They also condemned the flow of Iranian goods to compete with Iraqi products. Abdul Mahdi wonders cautiously in his office: Has Iran went too far in the management of Iraqi affairs? Is it true that he “must choose between the Sistani and Suleimani roads”, as some are whispering? What a difficult choice!
Did the post-Saddam regime grow old prematurely? He is looking for answers. He thinks about the complete split with these young people, who do not spare their lives, despite the warnings of the Authority and the threats of the “mobilization forces” and the practices of the “third party”.
He closes his eyes and says to himself: “We cannot deny that they are our children…”In Beirut, Michel Aoun woke up early. He almost feels unlucky. He desperately waited for the presidency for a long time but reached it only in thorny times. It required expensive alliances and costly reconciliation. He could not tame all these contradictions. When the calamities of the homeland met the blows of the American-Iranian tensions, the scent of the disaster emerged. He did not predict the storm. The behavior of some of those residing under his wing threatens to turn it into a tornado.
The president, who was thought to be the savior, is now watching the fast decline towards bankruptcy.
It is unfair to hold him alone responsible for this massive collapse, but he is the president and cannot disavow much of the responsibility. People will forget the names of many and keep in mind that the disaster came during his tenure.
Was the communication between the 80-year-old president and the boys crowded in the squares completely disconnected? It is a generation that uses another dictionary. It is not concerned with his famous expression: “Great people of Lebanon.”
They don’t stop at the battles of Souk al-Gharb. They don’t want to read the story of his exile and the circumstances of his return. It is a different generation that is obsessed with the future and does not care about the past.
It is a young, cross-sectarian storm. No one believes that it was made by Feltman or at the instigation of Jumblatt or Geagea. It is the storm against poverty, unemployment, and corruption. There is no point in calling them bad guys and saboteurs, these are ultimately our children.
In Tehran, Hassan Rouhani woke up early. Reports say that calm has returned to more than 100 cities, which have witnessed waves of protests. The storm receded. The regime is not threatened. It is smiling. These boys do not know the big difference between the Iranian regime and the regimes that fell on the beat of shouts in the squares.
He says to himself: If the spiritual leader did not allow the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Damascus, would he allow the regime to fall in Tehran? There are questions that he cannot address to the public or to the spiritual leader.
The regime is not under threat, but why, 40 years after its establishment, it needs these dead corpses to silence people whenever their anger overflows into the streets?
Did the revolution really grow old? Why do these young men read from a dictionary that does not resemble its dictionary and is almost its opposite? It is a generation that is no longer provoked by the expression, “Death to America” or the photos of Americans captured in their country’s embassy in Tehran. It is a generation that does not seem interested in this long engagement with the “Great Satan.”
The regime is not threatened, but its distancing from the new generation is deepening as if it is fleeing forward. A generation that speaks of poverty, corruption, unemployment, human rights, the environment, and freedoms… A generation that wants to engage in technological revolutions and open windows in the global village…It is a generation of youth, who don’t recognize the red lines that their parents have been convinced of or surrendered to. Youth who read in other books and who give credibility to their smartphones, not to those who advise or threaten them. Rouhani knows that the spiritual leader is blaming the “bad guys” who rode the wave of protests. But he secretly says that these wicked are our children.
There is a new generation everywhere. Young men and women, whose smartphones and communication means have sharpened their dreams, imagination, demands, and passion.
They don’t like our books. They don’t acknowledge our fears. They don’t respect the red lines, don’t fear tyranny, and don’t accept to live in a corrupt and rotten state. But these “bad guys” are our children.

Google’s Micro-Targeting Ban Won’t Improve Political Ads
Leonid Bershidsky/Bloomberg/November 26/2019
Google says it will limit the targeting of political ads to make it harder to sneak misinformation to impressionable voters. That puts the company ahead of the pack when it comes to making the political business of big internet platforms look less threatening. But the efficiency of political micro-targeting is questionable, and Google is responding to a moral panic rather than any real danger to democracy.
Since the 2016 US presidential election, the public has become aware of techniques that allow advertisers to aim their messages at narrow groups of people, sliced not just by place of residence, age, and sex, but also by consumer and political preferences, browsing histories, voting records and other kinds of personal data. This culminated in the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, when news reports showed that the UK-based micro-targeting firm had improperly harvested lots of private user data from Facebook. The platforms were on the spot to do something.
Twitter has banned political ads entirely, but then it didn’t sell many, anyway, serving instead as a free platform for political messages. In an op-ed in the Washington Post following Twitter’s announcement, Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the US Federal Election Commission, called for an end to political micro-targeting instead of an ad ban. “It is easy to single out susceptible groups and direct political misinformation to them with little accountability, because the public at large never sees the ad,” she argued.
That was a controversial proposal. Writing in the same newspaper, Chris Wilson, who had been responsible for digital strategy in Senator Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign (which was the first in that election to hire Cambridge Analytica), countered that micro-targeting has helped increase voter turnout and drive down advertising costs for campaigns. His suggestion was to make the targeting more transparent.
Google, however, found it more expedient to go along with Weintraub’s proposal than to fight an uphill battle using Wilson’s arguments. In a blog post on Wednesday, the company said it would no longer let advertisers target messages “based on public voter records and general political affiliations (left-leaning, right-leaning, and independent).” Only basic targeting by age, gender, and postal code would be allowed.
This, is course, is no more than Russian trolls would have required in 2016 — as Wilson pointed out in his Washington Post op-ed. Their propaganda campaign was largely geographically targeted.
There’s still no proof that micro-targeting is more effective than other forms of advertising. Academic work on the subject has tended to be rather theoretical, while experimental evidence is scarce. In a paper published this year, German researcher Lennart Krotzek concluded after an experiment matching ads to personality profiles that “candidate messages are more effective in improving a voter’s feeling toward a candidate when the messages are congruent with the voter’s personality profile, but they do not result in a higher propensity to vote for the advertised candidate.”
Internet platforms have done little to further the study of political targeting.
Google offers a transparency report on political ads placed on its various properties — search pages, YouTube, the sites of media partners. It says that the biggest US advertiser in the last 12 months is the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, which has spent $8.5 million. The report discloses that the pro-Trump group has targeted its most recent ads at all people older than 18 throughout the US, but offers no clues as to whether any more precise targeting was used. That’s the case with the rest of the advertisers, too.
Facebook’s transparency report is just as opaque when it comes to the precise targeting of ads by voters’ interests and political leanings.
It’s easier for Google than for Facebook to abandon precise targeting, because one of its key strengths is being able to link ads to search words. That’s a form of rather precise targeting not affected by Google’s policy change. Slicing and dicing the audience is at the heart of Facebook’s offering to advertisers, so it’s understandably hesitant to disable the feature, thought it, too, has been mulling some targeting curbs.
But Facebook doesn’t have to make the sacrifice. It would make more sense to reveal exactly how each political ad is targeted — and to cooperate with researchers interested in evaluating the ads’ efficiency. Facebook has the means to deliver messages from such researchers to the target audiences, which would help them recruit subjects for experiments. Google should have done the same instead of introducing drastic curbs that probably won’t do much to raise the level of political discourse, anyway. Policymakers need data, not hype, to make informed decisions on how to regulate modern advertising.

Analysis/U.S. and Israel Seek Assurances on Iran From Each Other, but for Very Different Reasons
Amos Harel/November 26/2019
عاموس هاريل/هآرتس: إسرائيل وأميركا يسعيان للحصول على تطمينات حول إيران ولكن لأسباب مختلفة لكل منهما
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/80890/%d8%b9%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b3-%d9%87%d8%a7%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%87%d8%a2%d8%b1%d8%aa%d8%b3-%d8%a5%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a6%d9%8a%d9%84-%d9%88%d8%a3%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%83%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%b3%d8%b9/
With Netanyahu's legal woes and a new defense minister looking to score political points, Israel's security establishment has one responsible adult
Israel has hosted a series of senior defense officials in recent weeks, climaxing in Sunday’s visit by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, who was hosted by Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi.
Both countries took care to stress that ties between their respective defense establishments are particularly close. But two other considerations that aren’t talked about publicly are also apparently motivating this aerial convoy of senior American officials. Both have to do with calming fears – Israel’s fear of American abandonment and America’s fear of unilateral Israeli action.
The Israeli fear stems from the Trump administration’s recent moves: It has refrained from responding to Iranian attacks in the Gulf, including one that did serious damage to Saudi oil facilities, another that downed an expensive American drone, and has withdrawn American soldiers from the Kurdish regions of northeast Syria, opening the way for a Turkish ground invasion. Israel is scared by America’s apparent desire to quit the region, which leaves Iran with more room to maneuver.
The Americans, in contrast, are apparently worried about decisions Israel might make in the future. Senior Israeli officials speak ceaselessly about the dangers posed by Iran’s efforts to entrench itself militarily in southern Syria, smuggle advanced weaponry to Hezbollah and bolster its presence in Iraq and Yemen. Increased military friction between Israel and Iran plus its satellites could drag the Americans into a regional war, which, judging by his public statements, U.S. President Donald Trump doesn’t want.
This is somewhat reminiscent of the series of senior Pentagon officials who visited Israel in the summer of 2011 and again the following summer. At both junctures, as we later discovered, Israel was considering attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak favored such an attack; the American generals were sent to take the pulse of their Israeli counterparts who opposed it.
As far as we know, no such attack is currently on the agenda, since Iran is still committed in principle to its nuclear deal with five major powers (the sixth, America, quit the deal in May 2018), and its recent violations of the deal haven’t yet crossed the line that Israel deems intolerable.
Nevertheless, Israeli officials’ recent statements about Iran have been unusually aggressive.
On Sunday, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Naftali Bennett toured the Syrian and Lebanese borders. Netanyahu announced that Israel would work to thwart arms smuggling from Iran to Syria and block its efforts “to turn Iraq and Yemen into bases for launching missiles.” Bennett added that Iranian forces in Syria “have nothing to look for here.”
Monday, at the official memorial ceremony for soldiers who died in the 1956 Sinai war, Bennett said, “it’s clear to our enemies that we’ll respond to any attempt to prevent us from living. Our response will be very precise and very painful. I’m aiming these remarks not only at those who threaten our lives on the southern front, but also at those in the north.”
Senior Israeli officials have also referred to the domestic woes the Iranian regime is facing – a massive wave of protests in Iraq and Lebanon that has taken on an anti-Iranian flavor, and last week’s violent protests in Iran in response to a hike in gas prices. The warnings about possible Iranian moves against Israel aren’t a false alarm. But it’s impossible to completely separate Israeli officials’ considerations from the domestic situation, primarily the decision to indict Netanyahu and the impasse in efforts to form a government
For years, Netanyahu was justly praised for showing responsibility and restraint in employing military force, especially his stubborn refusal to bow to populist pressure for another pointless war in the Gaza Strip. On the northern front, too, he generally acted with finesse which prevented a full-scale clash with Iran.
But he has had one documented slip: A week before September’s election, Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit had to intervene (with the army’s encouragement) to stop him from an operation in Gaza that could have forced a postponement of the election, and which he planned to launch without vetting it with the security cabinet.
A person who in recent years was in the know about the “campaign between the wars,” the IDF’s operations beyond Israel’s borders, was asked last week about how much the continued conflict between Iran and Israel depended on actions taken by the latter. The answer was: “20 to 80,” in other words Israel is the one who will dictate to a great extent how things develop. This situation will require all the oversight bodies – the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, attorney general, the media – to be on heightened alert. And mostly, it places particular responsibility on Kochavi, who testified after the recent targeted killing in Gaza that all the decisions were made in a business-like manner and were not influenced by political considerations.
Given the circumstances in which Netanyahu is preoccupied with his own personal fate and the new defense minister needs to take advantage of the relatively short time he has at his disposal to make himself stand out politically, all eyes are on Kochavi. He pushed to take an aggressive line in the recent operations in Gaza and Syria, and he is now the responsible adult. In addition, a number of other senior defense officials are identified more with Netanyahu than Kochavi is, or are examining the events mostly from the tactical viewpoint, which emphasizes the need for continuing with counter-operations. The previous IDF chief of staff, Gadi Eisenkot, demonstrated an especially strong backbone – sometimes it seemed as If he was almost roaring for battle with the politicians. Now Kochavi is facing, against his will, a similar test.
The military cannot be completely protected against the political considerations that preoccupy the establishment. The General Staff is not a monastery and its generals are well aware of what is going on in the country. But the commanders of the division that Bennett and Netanyahu visited on Sunday, and the pilots who undertake their night-time missions, must be certain that the security decisions about life or death matters are made for the right reasons. Given Netanyahu’s apocalyptic mood, reflected in the last few days in the vicious attacks against prosecutors and the police, the doubts about his decision-making have been growing.
At the beginning of the decade, the defense establishment was rocked by the Harpaz affair, which was mainly an unrestrained conflict between then chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, and Barak. Netanyahu, as prime minister, showed zero interest in the affair. He suddenly remembered it only in the course of the last year when Ashkenazi entered political life and Mendelblit – who as Military Advocate General was almost court martialed for criminally delaying the handling of a forged document – began to be perceived, as far as Netanyahu was concerned, as a real threat. During this period, the question came up of how the military could preserve its moral and professional compass, while the defense leadership wallowed in mudslinging. This question is now even more resounding when the prime minister is in trouble and the security crisis can ruin all the politicians’ plans.

Inside Iran’s plot to attack Saudi Arabia - analysis
Reuters 26/2019
Following America's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, Iran commander says: “It is time to take out our swords and teach them a lesson.”
Four months before a swarm of drones and missiles crippled the world’s biggest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia, Iranian security officials gathered at a heavily fortified compound in Tehran.
The group included the top echelons of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite branch of the Iranian military whose portfolio includes missile development and covert operations.
The main topic that day in May: How to punish the United States for pulling out of a landmark nuclear treaty and re-imposing economic sanctions on Iran, moves that have hit the Islamic Republic hard.
With Major General Hossein Salami, leader of the Revolutionary Guards, looking on, a senior commander took the floor.
“It is time to take out our swords and teach them a lesson,” the commander said, according to four people familiar with the meeting.
Hard-liners in the meeting talked of attacking high-value targets, including American military bases.
Yet, what ultimately emerged was a plan that stopped short of direct confrontation that could trigger a devastating U.S. response. Iran opted instead to target oil installations of America’s ally, Saudi Arabia, a proposal discussed by top Iranian military officials in that May meeting and at least four that followed.
This account, described to Reuters by three officials familiar with the meetings and a fourth close to Iran’s decision making, is the first to describe the role of Iran's leaders in plotting the Sept. 14 attack on Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's state-controlled oil company.
These people said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei approved the operation, but with strict conditions: Iranian forces must avoid hitting any civilians or Americans.
Reuters was unable to confirm their version of events with Iran’s leadership. A Revolutionary Guards spokesman declined to comment. Tehran has steadfastly denied involvement.
Alireza Miryousefi, spokesman for the Iranian Mission to the United Nations in New York, rejected the version of events the four people described to Reuters. He said Iran played no part in the strikes, that no meetings of senior security officials took place to discuss such an operation, and that Khamenei did not authorize any attack.
“No, no, no, no, no, and no,” Miryousefi said to detailed questions from Reuters on the alleged gatherings and Khamenei’s purported role.
The Saudi government communications office did not respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon declined to comment. A senior Trump administration official did not directly comment on Reuters’ findings but said Tehran’s “behavior and its decades-long history of destructive attacks and support for terrorism are why Iran’s economy is in shambles.”
Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi rebels, at the center of a civil war against Saudi-backed forces, claimed responsibility for the assault on Saudi oil facilities. That declaration was rebuffed by U.S. and Saudi officials, who said the sophistication of the offensive pointed to Iran.
Saudi Arabia was a strategic target.
The kingdom is Iran’s principal regional rival and a petroleum giant whose production is crucial to the world economy. It is an important U.S. security partner. But its war on Yemen, which has killed thousands of civilians, and the brutal murder of Washington-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents last year, have strained its relations with U.S. lawmakers. There was no groundswell of support in Congress for military intervention to aid the Saudis after the attack.
The 17-minute strike on two Aramco installations by 18 drones and three low-flying missiles revealed the vulnerability of the Saudi oil company, despite billions spent by the kingdom on security. Fires erupted at the company’s Khurais oil installation and at the Abqaiq oil processing facility, the world’s largest.
The attack temporarily halved Saudi Arabia’s oil production and knocked out 5% of the world’s oil supply. Global crude prices spiked.
The assault prompted U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to accuse Iran of an "act of war." In the aftermath, Tehran was hit with additional U.S. sanctions. The United States also launched cyber attacks against Iran, U.S. officials told Reuters.
SCOURING TARGETS
The plan by Iranian military leaders to strike Saudi oil installations developed over several months, according to the official close to Iran’s decision making.
“Details were discussed thoroughly in at least five meetings and the final go ahead was given” by early September, the official said.
All of those meetings took place at a secure location inside the southern Tehran compound, three of the officials told Reuters. They said Khamenei, the supreme leader, attended one of the gatherings at his residence, which is also inside that complex.
Other attendees at some of those meetings included Khamenei’s top military advisor, Yahya Rahim-Safavi, and a deputy of Qasem Soleimani, who heads the Revolutionary Guards’ foreign military and clandestine operations, the three officials said. Rahim-Safavi could not be reached for comment.
Among the possible targets initially discussed were a seaport in Saudi Arabia, an airport and U.S. military bases, the official close to Iran’s decision making said. The person would not provide additional details.
Those ideas were ultimately dismissed over concerns about mass casualties that could provoke fierce retaliation by the United States and embolden Israel, potentially pushing the region into war, the four people said.
The official close to Iran’s decision making said the group settled on the plan to attack Saudi Arabia’s oil installations because it could grab big headlines, inflict economic pain on an adversary and still deliver a strong message to Washington.
“Agreement on Aramco was almost reached unanimously,” the official said. “The idea was to display Iran's deep access and military capabilities.”
The attack was the worst on Middle East oil facilities since Saddam Hussein, the late Iraqi strongman, torched Kuwait’s oil fields during the 1991 Gulf crisis.
U.S. Senator Martha McSally, an Air Force combat veteran and Republican lawmaker who was briefed by U.S. and Saudi officials, and who visited Aramco's Abqaiq facility days after the attack, said the perpetrators knew precisely where to strike to create as much damage as possible.
“It showed somebody who had a sophisticated understanding of facility operations like theirs, instead of just hitting things off of satellite photos,” she told Reuters. The drones and missiles, she added, “came from Iranian soil, from an Iranian base.”
A Middle East source, who was briefed by a country investigating the attack, said the launch site was the Ahvaz air base in southwest Iran. That account matched those of three U.S. officials and two other people who spoke to Reuters: a Western intelligence official and a Western source based in the Middle East.
Rather than fly directly from Iran to Saudi Arabia over the Gulf, the missiles and drones took different, circuitous paths to the oil installations, part of Iran’s effort to mask its involvement, the people said.
Some of the craft flew over Iraq and Kuwait before landing in Saudi Arabia, according to the Western intelligence source, who said that trajectory provided Iran with plausible deniability.
"That wouldn’t have been the case if missiles and drones had been seen or heard flying into Saudi Arabia over the Gulf from a south flight path” from Iran, the person said.
Revolutionary Guards commanders briefed the supreme leader on the successful operation hours after the attack, according to the official close to the country’s decision making.
Images of fires raging at the Saudi facilities were broadcast worldwide. The country’s stock market swooned. Global oil prices initially surged 20%. Officials at Saudi Aramco gathered in what was referred to internally as the “emergency management room” at the company’s headquarters.
One of the officials who spoke with Reuters said Tehran was delighted with the outcome of the operation: Iran had landed a painful blow on Saudi Arabia and thumbed its nose at the United States.
SIZING UP TRUMP
The Revolutionary Guards and other branches of the Iranian military all ultimately report to Khamenei. The supreme leader has been defiant in response to Trump’s abandonment last year of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly called the Iran nuclear deal.
That 2015 accord with five permanent members of the U.S. Security Council – the United States, Russia, France, China and the United Kingdom – as well as Germany, removed billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran’s curbing its nuclear program.
Trump’s demand for a better deal has seen Iran launch a two-pronged strategy to win relief from sweeping sanctions reimposed by the United States, penalties that have crippled its oil exports and all but shut it out of the international banking system.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has signaled a willingness to meet with American officials on condition that all sanctions be lifted. Simultaneously, Iran is flaunting its military and technical prowess.
In recent months, Iran has shot down a U.S. surveillance drone and seized a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel through which about a fifth of the world's oil moves. And it has announced it has amassed stockpiles of enriched uranium in violation of the U.N agreement, part of its vow to restart its nuclear program.
The Aramco attacks were an escalation that came as Trump had been pursuing his long-stated goal of extricating American forces from the Middle East. Just days after announcing an abrupt pullout of U.S. troops in northern Syria, the Trump administration on Oct. 11 said it would send fighter jets, missile-defense weaponry and 2,800 more troops to Saudi Arabia to bolster the kingdom’s defenses.
"Do not strike another sovereign state, do not threaten American interests, American forces, or we will respond," U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper warned Tehran during a press briefing.
Still, Iran appears to have calculated that the Trump administration would not risk an all-out assault that could destabilize the region in the service of protecting Saudi oil, said Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit working to end global conflict.
In Iran, “hard-liners have come to believe that Trump is a Twitter tiger,” Vaez said. “As such there is little diplomatic or military cost associated with pushing back.”
The senior Trump administration official disputed the suggestion that Iran’s operation has strengthened its hand in working out a deal for sanctions relief from the United States.
“Iran knows exactly what it needs to do to see sanctions lifted,” the official said.
The administration has said Iran must end support for terrorist groups in the Middle East and submit to tougher terms that would permanently snuff its nuclear ambitions. Iran has said it has no ties to terrorist groups.
Whether Tehran accedes to U.S. demands remains to be seen.
In one of the final meetings held ahead of the Saudi oil attack, another Revolutionary Guards commander was already looking ahead, according to the official close to Iran’s decision making who was briefed on that gathering.
"Rest assured Allah almighty will be with us,” the commander told senior security officials. “Start planning for the next one."

Iran to Have Nuclear Bomb in a Few Months?
د. مجيد رافيزادا/كيتستون: ستمتلك إيران القنبلة النووية خلال أشهر قليلة
Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/November 26/2019
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/80888/%d8%af-%d9%85%d8%ac%d9%8a%d8%af-%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%b2%d8%a7%d8%af%d8%a7-%d9%83%d9%8a%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%88%d9%86-%d8%b3%d8%aa%d9%85%d8%aa%d9%84%d9%83-%d8%a5%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%86-%d8%a7/
This marks a dangerous phase in Iran's nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster.
Although Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its sites. The IAEA is also not allowed to inspect or monitor Iran's military sites where nuclear activities are most likely being carried out.
That is why, before it is too late, which it is fast becoming, it is incumbent on the US and the international community to take seriously Iran's nuclear advances and urgently address its rush to obtain nuclear weapons.
This marks a dangerous phase in Iran's nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster. Pictured: The Natanz nuclear enrichment facility in Iran.
The Iranian government is shortening its nuclear breakout time -- the amount of time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear weapon. Tehran has accomplished this through several steps in the last few months.
Iran's government first increased its enriched uranium stockpile beyond the 300 kilogram limit; it enriched uranium to levels beyond the cap of 3.67 percent, and then activated 20 IR-4 and 20 IR-6 advanced centrifuges. The Iranian leaders even boasted that their government is now exploring new uranium enrichment programs and producing centrifuges.
Most recently, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared that Iran has an adequate supply of 20% enriched uranium., "Right now we have enough 20% uranium," he told the Iranian Students News Agency, ISNA, "but we can produce more as needed". He added that the country is resuming uranium enrichment at a far higher level at the Fordow nuclear facility -- an underground uranium enrichment facility which is reportedly located on one of bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC­­) -- injecting uranium gas into centrifuges, and operating 60 IR-6 advanced centrifuges.
This marks a dangerous phase in Iran's nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster.
Iran's nuclear breakout time in 2015 was estimated at less than one year. Tehran has advanced its nuclear program since then. In an interview with Iran's state-owned Channel 2, Salehi admitted that the "nuclear deal" initiated by then-US President Barack Obama not only failed to restrict Iran's nuclear program; it actually helped Iran to advance its nuclear program through the flow of funds thanks to the lifting of sanctions. "If we have to go back and withdraw from the nuclear deal," he stated, "we certainly do not go back to where we were before ... We will be standing in a much, much higher position."
Although Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its sites. The IAEA is also not allowed to inspect or monitor Iran's military sites, where nuclear activities are most likely being carried out.
Among the many concessions that the Obama administration granted to the Iranian government, one was accepting the Iranian leaders' demand that military sites would be out of the IAEA's reach. Because of this surrender, at various high-profile sites such as the Parchin military complex, located southeast of Tehran, the regime has been free to engage in nuclear activities without the risk of inspection.
The Iranian leaders keep claiming that their nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. This claim is bogus. If the Islamic Republic is advancing its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, why has Tehran repeatedly failed to report its nuclear facilities, including those at Natanz and Arak, to the IAEA?
Also, why does the Iranian government keep refusing to answer the IAEA's questions regarding a secret nuclear facility, reportedly located in the suburbs of Tehran? Two nonpartisan organizations based in Washington -- the Institute for Science and International Security and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- last year released a detailed report on Iran's clandestine nuclear activities at this site.
In addition, why did the Iranian government place an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system at the Fordow underground nuclear site after the 2015 nuclear agreement? Finally, why does the Iranian regime never adequately address reports about its efforts to obtain illegal nuclear technology and equipment? Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, revealed in its annual report for 2016 that the Iranian government had pursued a "clandestine" path to obtain illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level."
The truth is that, from the perspective of the ruling clerics of Iran, obtaining nuclear weapons is a must to help Tehran advance its hegemonic ambitions to dominate the region. Also, by having nuclear weapons, the Iranian government can more powerfully support terror groups and proxies to destabilize the region without being concerned that the West might strike Iranian military targets.
Most of all, in the view of the ruling clerics, having nuclear weapons can ensure the survival of their theocratic, anti-American and anti-Semitic establishment.
That is why, before it is too late, which it is fast becoming, it is incumbent on the US and the international community to take seriously Iran's nuclear advances and urgently address its rush to obtain nuclear weapons.
*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
*Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Islam and the West: Motives behind the False Narrative
الإسلام والغرب: الدوافع وراء السرديات الكاذبة
Raymond Ibrahim/November 26/2019 
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/80885/%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%85%d9%88%d9%86%d8%af-%d8%a5%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%87%d9%8a%d9%85-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a5%d8%b3%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85-%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%ba%d8%b1%d8%a8-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%af%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%81/
Any honest and objective appraisal of Islam’s historic jihad on the Christian world must be eye-opening, to say the very least. In the first century of its existence (between 632-732) Islam permanently conquered, Arabized, and Islamized nearly three-quarters of the post-Roman Christian world, thereby permanently severing it. Europe came to be known as “the West” because it was literally the remaining and westernmost appendage of Christendom not to be swallowed up by Islam.
For roughly a millennium thereafter, Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Tatars—all of whom called and saw themselves as Muslims—launched raid after raid, all justified and lauded as jihads, into virtually every corner of Europe. They reached as far as Iceland and provoked the U.S. into its first war as a nation. The devastation was indescribable; some regions in Europe, particularly in Spain and the Balkans, remain inhabitable due to the incessant raiding. Some 15 million Europeans were enslaved during this perennial jihad and, according to contemporary records, treated horrifically.
In short, “if we … ask ourselves how and when the modern notion of Europe and the European identity was born,” writes historian Franco Cardini, “we realize the extent to which Islam was a factor (albeit a negative one) in its creation. Repeated Muslim aggression against Europe between the seventh to eighth centuries, then between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries … was a ‘violent midwife’ to Europe.”
Here the inevitable question arises: How could such a long, well-documented history of unmitigated Islamic aggression that had immense repercussions on the development of Western civilization now be presented as the antithesis of reality?
The answer revolves around a number of modern philosophies—from the Enlightenment to moral/cultural relativism—that have each contributed to an all-pervasive “Narrative” concerning the historic relationship between Islam and the West. In presenting the West as aggressor and Islam as victim—hence the latter’s ongoing “grievance”-based animosity—this history is as entrenched as it is the reverse of reality.
To understand this, one must first understand that, despite its many manifestations, permutations, and emphases over the centuries, the Narrative’s unspoken driving force has largely been the same: to demonize and thus justify a break away from Europe’s traditional heritage, religion, identity, and mores. If this sounds farfetched, consider: whereas by any objective standard the West is responsible for practically every boon taken for granted today—from scientific, technological, economic and medicinal advances, to the abolition of slavery and anti-discrimination laws—today no people of any race or civilization despise their heritage except Western people. Clearly something is amiss.
Or consider how leftists/liberals/progressives who forever whine against any vestige of Western traditionalism, habitually make common cause with Islam—despite the latter’s truly oppressive qualities. Thus feminists denounce the Western “patriarchy”—but say nothing against the Muslim treatment of women as chattel; homosexuals denounce Christian bakeries—but say nothing against the Muslim execution of homosexuals; multiculturalists denounce Christians who refuse to suppress their faith to accommodate the religious sensibilities of Muslim minorities—but say nothing against the entrenched and open Muslim persecution of Christians.
The reason for these discrepancies is simple: “The enemy [Islam] of my enemy [Christianity] is my friend.”
From here, how and why such a formally well-known history of Muslim aggression against Europe was not merely suppressed but reversed should start making sense: of all non-European, non-Christian peoples, only Muslims lived alongside and interacted with (that is, constantly encroached and warred on) Europe for over a millennium; this made Muslims the only people—the only foil—that could be used to support the Narrative’s argument against premodern Europe. But first an intellectually satisfying way of casting Muslims as victims not conquerors was needed.
Enter literary professor Edward Said’s 1978 book, Orientalism. Its central thesis is that the Orientalists—the Europeans who began the academic study of the East centuries ago—were not writing objectively about Muslims and their history, but rather intentionally slandering and stereotyping them in order to justify dominating them during the colonial era.
This made perfect sense—but only because the postmodern Western mind had already been primed for it. For if, as Marxist Materialism teaches, ideas/religions have no influence on history (and thus, economic want, not “jihad,” caused Muslims to expand); if, as Relativism and its spawn Multiculturalism teach, there are no absolute truths, religious or otherwise (and thus no culture or civilization is “better” than another); if, as pop psychology teaches, violent and negative behavior is always a product of societal injustices (and thus the more Muslims behave violently, the more that only proves they are frustrated victims)—then what does one make of the aforementioned centuries of European writings that uniformly depict Muslims as ideologically driven by violence and lust?
Simple: dismiss them all as bigoted and hypocritical lies by nefarious Christians and Europeans intent on demonizing a superior, more tolerant faith and civilization. Thus a whole new academic approach to Islam—stripped of all historic writings not conforming to the Narrative—was born. History would no longer shape ideas and attitudes; rather, preexisting ideas and attitudes—wishful thinking—would shape history.
Bernard Lewis, himself a target of Edward Said’s Orientalism, summarized this new approach—or “pseudo history”—well:
According to a currently fashionable epistemological view, absolute truth is either nonexistent or unattainable. Therefore, truth doesn’t matter; facts don’t matter. All discourse is a manifestation of a power relationship, and all knowledge is slanted. Therefore, accuracy doesn’t matter; evidence doesn’t matter. All that matters is the attitude—the motives and purposes—of the user of knowledge, and this may simply be claimed for oneself or imputed to another. In imputing motives, the irrelevance of truth, facts, evidence, and even plausibility is a great help. The mere assertion suffices” (Islam and the West, 115).
Orientalism’s success lay less in anything intrinsic to it—American classicist Bruce Thornton characterizes it as an “incoherent amalgam of dubious postmodern theory, sentimental Third Worldism, glaring historical errors, and Western guilt”—and more because it fit the West’s prevailing zeitgeist (which, of course, thrives on “dubious postmodern theory, sentimental Third Worldism, glaring historical errors, and Western guilt”).
Nor does the Narrative predominate today because people are well read or pay attention to academe; as French historian Marc Ferro demonstrated in his Cinema and History (1988), the overwhelming majority of Western people’s knowledge of history comes from movies. And almost any major film dealing with premodern Europeans and Muslims—Robin Hood (1991), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), etc.—contrasts hypocritical, intolerant, and fanatical Christians with sophisticated, advanced, and tolerant Muslims. Commenting on such films back in 1997, Lewis wrote, “The misrepresentation of the past in the cinema is probably the most fertile and effective source of such misinformation at the present time…”
Twenty years later the Narrative has only metastasized and infected all aspects of public life, including politics and so-called “mainstream news.” Meanwhile, social and other media giants—YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter—increasingly censor material that contradicts the Narrative.
Such is how a previously well-known history was turned upside down and used to weaken the West—the greatest sin of which is ever again to think or behave like its “awful” ancestors did concerning Islam.
For more on the true history between Islam and the West, see the author’s recent Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West — a book that CAIR and its Islamist allies did everything they could to prevent the U.S. Army War College from learning about.

A Meaningful Milestone in Sweden?
Bruce Bawer/Gatestone Institute/November 26/2019
Conditions in Sweden have deteriorated so drastically -- with everything from child care to elder care being deprived of funds that are instead being used to feed, clothe and house refugees, faux refugees, and other foreign freeloaders -- that many Norwegians worry, with good reason, about a massive spillover of social chaos, poverty and crime from a country with which it shares a thousand-mile-long border.
One is reminded, of course, of the indefensible way in which British authorities handled -- or refused to handle -- decades of child-rape cases in Rotherham, Rochdale and other cities throughout Britain. But in Sweden -- whose distinctive history of ideological conformity and self-image as a "moral superpower"... the readiness to deny unpleasant realities is even more widespread and deep-seated than in the U.K. and other Western European countries.
It was the Social Democrats and Moderates that created Sweden's current crisis and allowed it to endure and worsen and be considered beyond criticism....
The Sweden Democrats' triumph, then, may well be at once a genuine milestone in the advance of Swedish democracy and individualism and a mere turn in the road to ultimate cultural displacement.
If recent poll numbers that show the Sweden Democrats to be the most popular party should translate into an equally impressive victory in the next general election, it will amount to an earthquake in Swedish politics. Pictured: Jimmie Åkesson (left), leader of the Sweden Democrats, speaks at a campaign rally on September 7, 2018 in Nykoping, Sweden.
When I moved to Norway twenty years ago, a term I encountered often was "American conditions" (amerikanske tilstander). It was always used disparagingly. It referred to such things as urban sprawl, strip malls, inner-city gangs, school shootings and private health care. After Barack Obama became president, I heard the term far less frequently -- in Norway, after all, you cannot get too rough on a country with a black president, especially a president to whom you have given the Nobel Peace Prize.
Today, even though Trump-bashing -- in Norway as in the U.S. -- is the media's favorite sport, the term does not seem to have come back into widespread use, which perhaps has something to do with the fact that the U.S., among other things, now has the world's strongest economy and staggeringly enviable employment figures. Meanwhile, there is another term that has become increasingly common in Norway: "Swedish conditions" (svenske tilstander). It really took off about two years ago, when Sylvi Listhaug, Norway's then Minister of Immigration and Integration, used it after visiting some of Sweden's worst Muslim enclaves -- a reaction that outraged politicians and journalists on both sides of the border.
Although recently there has been good news from Sweden -- which I will get to shortly -- let it be said, at the outset, that the term "Swedish conditions," when used in Norway, has exclusively negative connotations. While "American conditions" covers a wide range of purported sins, however, "Swedish conditions" means basically one thing, or rather one set of intimately related things: admitting masses of unvetted immigrants from a very different culture into your country, encouraging them to settle in monocultural, autocratic enclaves that become no-go zones, allowing them to sit home collecting generous welfare benefits instead of learning the local language and finding jobs, and punishing even their most brutal crimes with a slap on the wrist -- all the while continuing to repeat the mantra that their culture has enriched Sweden and to ignore the glaring reality that Sweden is undergoing a long-term conquest as well as what one Norwegian observer has called "an inferno of violence."
Norway is burdened by these problems, too, but not to the extent that Sweden is. After all, Sweden has the second-highest proportion of Muslims in Europe -- an estimated 8.1% to France's estimated 8.8% -- and has the continent's highest rate of population growth through immigration. Since the 1970s, when it was the fourth-richest country in the world per capita and when virtually all of its inhabitants still saw Sweden as folkhemmet, or "the people's home," where everyone would take care of everyone else, conditions in Sweden have deteriorated drastically. Everything from child care to elder care is being deprived of funds that are instead being used to feed, clothe and house refugees, faux refugees, and other foreign freeloaders. Many Norwegians worry, with good reason, about a massive spillover of social chaos, poverty and crime from a country with which it shares a thousand-mile-long border. "Sweden," read a recent headline at the website of Oslo-based Human Rights Service, "is a threat to Norway."
Nor is it just Norwegians who are concerned: Denmark does not share a land border with Sweden, but is connected to it by the Øresund Bridge between Copenhagen and the notoriously immigrant-heavy, crime-ridden Swedish city of Malmö. Both Denmark and Sweden are EU members, which generally has meant no border checks, but as of November 12, Denmark -- which has tried to be at least somewhat more cautious in its approach to immigration and integration than its Scandinavian neighbors -- has instituted border controls on the Øresund Bridge and on ferries arriving from Sweden.
To be sure, the cultural, political, academic, and media bigwigs in both Norway and Denmark tend, even now, to express admiration for Sweden's immigration and integration policies, which they profess to regard as models of multiculturalism at its noblest. Audun Lysbakken, the head of Norway's Socialist Left Party, has praised Sweden as "a light in Europe" for pursuing its frankly suicidal immigration policies.
Sweden's own elites talk about their country in similarly glowing terms. In January of this year, a writer for the Swedish daily Aftonbladet mocked Norway's Prime Minister Erna Solberg for suggesting in her traditional New Year's speech that Norwegians should have more children -- a sensible proposal in a country, and continent, where the natives reproduce at a level considerably below the replacement rate.
In response, Kjetil Rolness, one of the few major authors in Norway to challenge the politically correct consensus, pointed out that, of course, native-born Swedes, who have an average of 1.67 children per household (and the figure is surely far lower among ethnic Swedes), prefer foreign refugees to Swedish babies. The Aftonbladet commentary, Rolness argued, provided a perfect example of the "wishful thinking," "virtue signaling," and "nearly pathological denial" of reality that characterizes official Swedish thinking about immigration and integration. Indeed, this year Sweden actually decided to increase the rate of immigration through so-called "family reunification."
In her recent book Sweden's Dark Soul: The Unraveling of a Utopia, the Swedish journalist Kajsa Norman provided a vivid portrait of Swedish elites' chillingly out-of-touch attitudes toward the calamitous consequences of their immigration and integration policies. Writing about the refusal of police officials and mainstream journalists to deal responsibly with the mass sexual assaults by immigrant youths at a summer festival for teenagers, Norman notes that among these and other people in positions of influence, "sympathy for the refugees trumps sympathy for the girls."
One is reminded, of course, of the indefensible way in which British authorities handled -- or refused to handle -- decades of child-rape cases in Rotherham, Rochdale and other cities throughout Britain. But in Sweden -- whose distinctive history of ideological conformity and self-image as a "moral superpower" Norman writes about illuminatingly -- the readiness to deny unpleasant realities is even more widespread and deep-seated than in the U.K. and other Western European countries. Nobody in Sweden needed to be told what to think or to do about the assaults at the youth festival: "In Sweden," Norman observes, "everyone knows so well what the accepted position on any given issue is; what others are thinking and how they will deviate from that."
Elsewhere in the Western world, ordinary working men and women -- people whose well-being had long been ignored in the corridors of power -- have in recent years made their dissatisfaction known: Brexit; Donald Trump; France's Yellow Vests; the rise of so-called "populist" parties in Italy, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. The relative passivity of the Swedish masses, with their herd instinct and reflexive trust in authorities -- was often commented upon and puzzled over, given that their nation is perhaps in more urgent and immediate trouble than any other in Europe. But no more.
Which brings us, finally, to the good news I mentioned up front. In recent years, after a prolonged period in the wilderness, during which the political and media establishment routinely talked about them as if they were just this side of Nazis, the Sweden Democrats (SD), the only party in the nation that takes a practical position on its wayward immigration and integration policies, have been steadily gaining support. They did not win any seats in the Riksdag, the national parliament, until 2010; by 2014 they had become Sweden's third-largest party in parliament. Now, according to poll results released this month, SD is Sweden's most popular party, dislodging the Social Democrats from a pinnacle of predominance that they have occupied without a break for a century.
If these poll numbers should translate into an equally impressive victory in the next general election, it will amount to an earthquake in Swedish politics. But meanwhile, the Scandinavian elites continue to smear the Sweden Democrats. In an editorial about the sensational rise in support for the party, Norway's largest daily, VG, commented that while SD "describes what is wrong in [Swedish] society," it doesn't have a good answer to those problems; the task facing the two main establishment parties, the Social Democrats and Moderates, asserted VG's editors, is to "convince the voters that they have far better and more responsible solutions to Sweden's challenges than the Sweden Democrats' simple populism."
Poppycock: it was the Social Democrats and Moderates that created Sweden's current crisis and allowed it to endure and worsen and be considered beyond criticism; and if "simple populism" means, for a change, letting the people think for themselves and then actually listening to them, then by all means let there finally be a taste of real populism in the country that claims to be the people's home. Truly drastic, though humane and sensible, action of the proper kind may well put off a total catastrophe for a few years. One fears, however, that the Swedes have waited too long to stand up for themselves and that it is -- alas -- already far too late to forestall Sweden's transformation into a sharia state. The Sweden Democrats' triumph, then, may well be at once a genuine milestone in the advance of Swedish democracy and individualism and a mere turn in the road to ultimate cultural displacement.
*Bruce Bawer is the author of the new novel The Alhambra (Swamp Fox Editions). His book While Europe Slept (2006) was a New York Times bestseller and National Book Critics Circle Award finalist. His other books include A Place at the Table (1993), Stealing Jesus (1997), Surrender (2009), and The Victims' Revolution (2012). A native New Yorker, he has lived in Europe since 1998.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Interference in foreign protests a dilemma for the West
Ellen R. Wald/Arab News/November 26/2019
The year 2019 has been one of protests and political unrest worldwide. Events in Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, France, Venezuela and Bolivia are just the most prominent examples. It seems like there may be a larger phenomenon and moment of change occurring, with freedom-loving people around the globe rooting for democratic and liberal political progress. However, we must remember that, while sudden transformations do happen, they cannot be predicted.
Only one of those countries — France — has a fully democratic system. Bolivia’s protests this autumn have revolved around suspicions of massive corruption in elections. Because the other countries do not have legitimate elections that can effect serious change, protest is the best way for the citizens to make a difference — short of revolution, of course.
Still, protest has a poor track record of success. Authorities do not readily relinquish power; they hold onto it as long as they can. As a result, we cannot know if any given protest will result in concessions from the existing government or even a change in government. Furthermore, even if there is a change in leadership, we do not know if the new government would be any more liberal or just. These days, we often seem to consume news and commentary for a look at the future, because we are all so impatient. Nevertheless, there is no way to effectively predict the outcome of any of these political demonstrations.
The 1979 revolution in Iran is the best example of a major political change that surprised the rest of the world. Ten months into the protests of the late 1970s that would ultimately topple the shah and lead to the current Iranian regime, US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told President Jimmy Carter that Iran “is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation.” He said: “There is dissatisfaction with the shah’s tight control of the political process, but this does not at present threaten the government.” Clearly, Brzezinski and the US intelligence apparatus were wrong. The revolutionary Iranian government has now controlled that country for almost 41 years.
Similarly, most of the supposed experts did not foresee the fall of the Soviet Union, which finally came in the summer of 1991. The US and Soviet Union were chief adversaries at the time and the collapse of the communist empire was a primary concern of the Washington government. Yet the US leadership did not foresee — or was not even prepared for — the event it had sought for 46 years.
It is up to freedom-loving people and nations to support whichever protests align with their beliefs.
Even the State Department’s own telling of the history of this event highlights the lack of foresight of the US leadership at the time. “Conditions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union changed rapidly. (Mikhail) Gorbachev’s decision to loosen the Soviet yoke on the countries of Eastern Europe created an independent, democratic momentum that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and then the overthrow of communist rule throughout Eastern Europe. While (President George H.W.) Bush supported these independence movements, US policy was reactive.”
If we do not know which protests will succeed and which governments will fall, it is up to freedom-loving people and nations to support whichever protests align with their beliefs. Capitalist countries will support the opposition in Venezuela. Those who oppose authoritarianism will support the activists in Hong Kong. Those who oppose cross-border interference and colonialism should support the Iraqis who have taken to the streets. There is no underlying ideology behind all of this year’s protests, but there is an underlying goal: Change.
With the exception of the French “Yellow Vest” protesters, these groups are seeking change in the only way available to them — and there is something noble in that. Communities should have the opportunity to choose their own government and the policies that impact their lives. When voting does not exist or has little consequence, protest can be necessary.
Much of the world watched Iranians with sympathy during the Green Movement protests in 2009, and yet no one really seemed to do anything overt to help. Ten years later, there is still debate over whether US President Barack Obama was wise to refrain from interfering or even offering verbal support. The logic was that Iran would have used US involvement as a reason to further attack the protesters. This can be disputed, but it is true that oppressive regimes will often use the support of other countries against demonstrators. For instance, China has already accused the Hong Kong protesters of receiving aid from both the US and the UK in an effort to portray the protests as foreign interference rather than a homegrown struggle for freedom.
However well-intentioned this stance might seem, it is not always the best choice. In fact, some of Obama’s advisers, such as Dennis Ross and Hillary Clinton, later regretted not offering material or rhetorical assistance to the Green Movement. We don’t know what the outcome would have been if the US had helped at that time, but Clinton and Ross were right to second guess their own actions. Authoritarian regimes will use anything to attack their opposition, but we shouldn’t let that prevent us from advocating for what is right.
• Ellen R. Wald, Ph.D. is a historian and author of “Saudi, Inc.” She is the president of Transversal Consulting and also teaches Middle East history and policy at Jacksonville University. Twitter: @EnergzdEconomy