LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
September 12/2019
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/eliasnews19/english.september12.19.htm

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

Bible Quotations For today
Whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 23/16-22/:”‘Woe to you, blind guides, who say, “Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.” You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? And you say, “Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.” How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on September 11-12/2019
Lebanese Cabinet to Meet Thursday to Discuss Appointments
Report: Lebanese Figures Deplore Nasrallah’s Remarks
Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon Again Rally for Asylum in Canada
Hasan Discusses Prisons Conditions with Representatives of Donor States
Lebanon Shiites Mark Ashoura in Show of Anti-Israel Defiance
Hariri receives Kurdistan official
Berri meets Schneider, chairs 'Development and Liberation' bloc meeting
Army chief discusses with Schenker general situation
Bassil welcomes Schenker, invites Americans to invest in energy and oil
Teymour Jumblatt meets Bogdanov in Moscow
Boustani from Serail: No delay in implementation of electricity plan
Meeting at Serail tackles borders smuggling
Walid Jumblatt receives Minister of Environment in Clemenceau
Hezbollah condemns Netanyahu's declaration on Jordan Valley

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 11-12/2019
Trump Decided to Fire Bolton After He Opposed Easing Iran Sanctions, Report Says
Iran Rebuffs Talk of Trump-Rouhani Meeting after Bolton’s Departure
Rouhani Says US 'Warmongering' against Iran Will Fai
Zarif: Israel Will Fight to the Last American Soldier
Saudi Arabia calls for ‘deterrent measures’ against Iran’s nuclear violations
Iraqi Cleric Sadr Joins Supreme Leader at Iran Ceremony
Rocket fire hustling Netanyahu from Ashdod rally – Palestinian propaganda gift to Iran & Hizballah
Netanyahu Vows to Annex West Bank's Jordan Valley if Re-elected
Anger at Netanyahu's West Bank Annexation Pledge
Merkel Pledges to Work on Avoiding Syria Scenario in Libya
Russian Envoy Insists on Forming Syria’s Constitutional Committee in September
Qatar Crisis to Remain Until ‘Arab Quartet’ Demands Are Met, Shoukry Says
Libya: LNA Announces Death of 200 Members of Sarraj Forces in 3 Days
UN Report Warns of Near-Collapse of Palestinian Economy
Egypt Arrests 16 Brotherhood Members Planning Hostile Attacks

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 11-12/2019
Trump Decided to Fire Bolton After He Opposed Easing Iran Sanctions, Report Says/Haaretz/September 11/2019
Rocket fire hustling Netanyahu from Ashdod rally – Palestinian propaganda gift to Iran & Hizballah/DEBKAfile/September 11/2019
The Challenges Facing the New Saudi Oil Minister/Simon Henderson/The Washington Institute/September 12/2019
Why Egypt Does Not Want to Help Gaza/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/September 11/2019
Brexit and the Deficiencies of Parliament/Malcolm Lowe/Gatestone Institute/September 11/2019
Netanyahu revelations could be the smoking gun proving Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons program/Ron Ben-Yishai/Ynetnews/September 11/20
The politics of power, corruption and insatiable greed/Nahum Barnea/Ynetnews/September 11/20
Palestinians paying the price for their anti-Trump campaign/Ray Hanania/Arab News/September 11/2019
Annexation should frighten Israelis and Palestinians alike/Joseph Dana/Arab News/September 11/2019
How Will Palestinians Respond to Netanyahu’s Annexation Announcement/Ghaith al-Omari/The Washington Institute/September 11/2019
The North Korean-Israeli Shadow War/Jay Solomon/Tablet/September 11/2019

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News published on September 11-12/2019
Lebanese Cabinet to Meet Thursday to Discuss Appointments
Naharnet/September 11/2019
The Cabinet will convene in an ordinary session on Thursday at the Presidential Palace to discuss 29 items on the agenda mainly the controversial appointments in the judiciary.
The meeting will be chaired by President Michel Aoun and in the presence of Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Appointments in state positions has been a controversial issue mainly between the Lebanese Forces and its Christian rival, the Free Patriotic Movement. The Cabinet had appointed members of the Constitutional Council without taking into consideration the names suggested by the LF. The move triggered dismay, prompting the LF to submit a draft law that aims to regulate a mechanism for appointments to first-category and high ranking state positions away from “sectarian” considerations.

Report: Lebanese Figures Deplore Nasrallah’s Remarks
Naharnet/September 11/2019
The statements made by Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in a speech on Tuesday marking the last day of the Shiite Ashoura commemorations raised reprehensible reactions in Lebanon. The Saudi Asharq al-Awsat daily said that Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea urged President Michel Aoun to take Nasrallah’s remarks into consideration, mainly when he said that “Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei is our imam, leader, master and Hussein in this era. He is the leader of the axis of resistance and Iran is the heart and main center of the axis.”“Nasrallah has no national affiliation, but rather affirms full affiliation to the (Iranian) empire that does not recognize the homelands,”said MP and ex-minister Mohammed Abdul Hamid Baydoun in remarks he made to the newspaper. He added: “Lebanon is nothing in Nasrallah's dictionary, constitutional institutions and the presidencies are nothing but decoration, as long as foreign policy, security and defense are in his hands.” Baydoun also stated that Hizbullah is “one of the main causes of the economic collapse in Lebanon.” Referring to Nasrallah’s remarks about Khamenei, ex-MP Fares Soaid said: “Nothing in Lebanon’s constitution, nor in resolutions 1559 and 1701 mentions anything about “fighting under the flag of Khamenei.” Soaid urged the Lebanese “to peacefully confront the coup, as we faced the weapons of Syria with a peaceful uprising. Fighting under any banner other than Lebanon does not resemble us.”
Lokman Slim, a political activist and co-director at UMAM Documentation and Research and a Shiite opposed to Hizbullah said that Nasrallah “admits that he is occupying Lebanon in the name of Ali Khamenei, and that Lebanon is being held hostage by its leader. Faced with this reality, we cannot talk about sovereignty under an Iran occupied country.”Nasrallah said Hizbulah “rejects any war plans against the Iranian republic,” reiterating “our stance as part of the axis of resistance: we will not be neutral in the battle between right and wrong. This supposed war will be the end of Israel and the American hegemony and presence in the region.”

Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon Again Rally for Asylum in Canada
Associated Press/Naharnet/September 11/2019
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon rallied again on Wednesday in Beirut’s Martyr Square reiterating asylum request in the North American country of Canada. The protesters waved flags of Canada and the European Country asking to be granted asylum. Last week, many Palestinians also gathered outside the Canadian Embassy in Beirut. They lamented the deteriorating economic and living conditions in Lebanon, which is going through a severe economic crisis, and said they wanted a more dignified life. There are tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Lebanon. Most of them live in squalid camps with no access to public services, limited employment opportunities and no rights to ownership. The periodic protests outside the embassy on the coastal highway north of Beirut began a few weeks ago, after a crackdown on undocumented foreign labor by Lebanese authorities, triggering protests inside some of the 12 camps spread across the country and in Beirut. The protesters also decried what they say is widespread corruption at the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, or UNRWA. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency, known as UNRWA, is dealing with a budget crunch after an unprecedented loss of all funding from the United States, its largest donor.

Hasan Discusses Prisons Conditions with Representatives of Donor States
Naharnet/September 11/2019
Minister of Interior and Municipalities Raya el-Hasan held a meeting with ambassadors of the donor states and the representatives of international organizations who tackled the file of conditions in Lebanese prisons, the National News Agency reported on Wednesday.
NNA said the meeting was attended by UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Lebanon Philippe Lazzarini, Ambassadors of USA, European Union, Britain, Italy, Canada, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Japan. Representatives of international organizations such as the UNDP, WHO and UNICEF also attended. Hasan said the meeting aimed at explaining the situation in Lebanese prisons. "I have placed the issue of prisons among my top priorities ever since I assumed my post as Interior Minister. I am aware that this file is thorny and is being politicized," she said. "I want to set a roadmap to improve the condition in prisons in order to fulfill the minimum standards of human rights and to present a better image to the international community about the jails in Lebanon," she added. Accordingly, Hasan highlighted the importance of coordination between ministries and the representatives of the international organizations and donor states.

Lebanon Shiites Mark Ashoura in Show of Anti-Israel Defiance
Naharnet/September 11/201
Anti-Israeli chants rang through the streets of a Hizbullah bastion in the Lebanese capital's southern suburbs on Tuesday as thousands of black-clad Shiites commemorated the seventh-century killing of Prophet Mohammed's grandson. "We have taught Israel that our people are not weak," the men cried, beating their chests in unison, during an Ashoura commemoration marking the killing of Imam Hussein in battle by Caliph Yazid's forces. This year's ceremony comes shortly after a series of confrontations between Hizbullah and Israel, including an exchange of cross-border fire at the start of the month.
Standing behind the crowd, a black banner tied around his head, Mohammad Ali praised the September 1 Hizbullah missile attack on Israel that triggered the border flare-up. "For years, our families and our children have slept in bunkers because of the Israelis," said the 49-year-old.
"Now it is their turn to sleep in bunkers," he told AFP. "The era of defeat is over."
Message to Israel
From sunrise, thousands of men gathered in Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hizbullah bastion and target of an August 25 drone attack that the movement blamed on Israel. Some were crouched on the floor crying, tears streaming down their faces, as they listened to a recital of Hussein's death.
Others sat in prayer as the recital blasted from speakers, interrupted only by the sporadic weeping of the narrator. Some carried black flags at the ceremony which came one day after Hizbullah said it had downed and seized an Israeli drone as it flew across the Lebanese border. In the procession, thousands marched towards a main square, watched by Hizbullah forces deployed on rooftops and on sides of the road. In a televised speech broadcast live, Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said his movement would respond to any Israeli attack on Lebanon. "In the event of an attack on Lebanon, in any form whatsoever, there will be an adequate response to the aggression," Nasrallah warned. The cross-border fire on September 1 came a week after an Israeli strike killed two Hizbullah operatives in Syria as well as the drone attack in Beirut's southern suburbs. Standing behind a metal barricade on a sidewalk, Fawzi Fawaz said Tuesday's huge turnout sent a message to Israel. "These masses show Israel... the great power of the resistance," the 66-year old from south Lebanon said, Hizbullah's yellow banner wrapped around his neck.
Sacrifice
Nearby, dozens of black-clad young men were hunched on the floor, pictures of Hizbullah "martyrs" tied to their foreheads in yellow fabric. Another participant, Lokman Hakim, said the Shiite movement's battle against Israel drew inspiration from the original battle of Hussein. "Imam Hussein some 1500 years ago... rose up against injustice and persecution," the 22-year-old student said, with a picture of a Hizbullah fighter killed in Syria in 2013 on his forehead. According to Shiite belief, Hussein went knowingly to his death at the hands of Yazid's forces in what is now Iraq. The ideal of self-sacrifice is a key tenet of Shiite Islam to this day. Carrying yellow Hizbullah flags, fathers of the movement's fallen stood in line, some carrying portraits of their children who died fighting with Hizbullah in either Syria or south Lebanon. Yassin Hamad, a frail and elderly man, said he has lost two his sons -- one in a 2005 Hizbullah operation against Israel in southern Lebanon and the second in Syria in 2014. "I still have five sons and they are all on the same path" of resistance, he told AFP.

Hariri receives Kurdistan official
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
The President of the Council of Ministers Saad Hariri received this evening at the Grand Serail the Deputy Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Qubad Talabani, in the presence of former Minister Ghattas Khoury. Discussions focused on the situation in the region and the bilateral relations.

Berri meets Schneider, chairs 'Development and Liberation' bloc meeting
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
House Speaker Nabih Berri said on Wednesday that there was procrastination in the implementation of the agreements reached at the Baabda economic meeting. During his weekly "Wednesday gathering" with deputies at his Ain Tineh residence, Speaker Berri recalled that 22 articles were unanimously agreed during the Baabda economic meeting, criticizing the delay in the implementation of what was agreed upon. Berri noted that he asked the Minister of Finance to submit the draft state budget to the government on Wednesday, in respect of constitutional deadlines.
The House Speaker announced that he has set September 24 as the date for a legislative parliamentary session to discuss and approve several bills and project laws on its agenda. Berri also briefed his visiting lawmakers on the climate of his meeting with the US envoy, David Schenker, renewing his condemnation of the continuous economic blockade and pressures, illustrated in the targeting of the banking sector or the acts of piracy against the Lebanese in the four corners of the world. He reiterated Lebanon's commitment to the implementation of resolution 1701, deploring Israel's violation of this resolution by air, land and sea. On the other hand, Berri welcomed Deputy Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Minister of Economy Etienne Schneider, and an accompanying delegation. Talks reportedly touched on the bilateral relations and cooperation between Lebanon and Luxembourg at the various levels, notably in the economic and banking domains. Later, Berri chaired the meeting of the "Development and Liberation" parliamentary bloc.

Army chief discusses with Schenker general situation
NNA -Wed 11 Sep 2019
Army Commander General Joseph Aoun, on Wednesday welcomed at his Yarzeh office US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker, at the top of a delegation, in the presence of US Ambassador to Lebanon, Elizabeth Richard. Talks reportedly touched on the general situation in Lebanon and the broad region, in addition to relations of cooperation between the armies of both countries.

Bassil welcomes Schenker, invites Americans to invest in energy and oil
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil received Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker, accompanied by US Ambassador Elizabeth Richard. The meeting, which lasted about an hour, was followed by a closed session with Richard. The atmosphere of the meeting was more than excellent, as reported by the NNA field correspondent. Minister Bassil invited the Americans "to invest in the energy and oil sectors," and confirmed "Lebanon's adherence to resolution 1701 and to calm and stability in the South."
Bassil also underlined Lebanon's keenness on preserving the best relations with the United States, uttering appreciation to what it offers to the country at more than one level. Schenker, who listened to the Lebanese stance, stressed his country's keenness on calm and on abide by its initiative to demarcate the border.

Teymour Jumblatt meets Bogdanov in Moscow
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
"Democratic Gathering" leader MP Teymour Jumblatt, currently in Russia's Moscow, met with the Russian Presidential Special Envoy for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov. MP Jumblatt is accompanied by Industry Minister Wael Abu Faour and Dr Halim Abu Fakhreddine.

Boustani from Serail: No delay in implementation of electricity plan
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
The President of the Council of Ministers Saad Hariri chaired this afternoon at the Grand Serail a meeting of the ministerial committee tasked with studying the floating storage and regasification units file (FSRU). The meeting was attended by Deputy Prime Minister Ghassan Hasbani and Ministers Ali Hassan Khalil, Muhammad Fneish, Youssef Fenianos, Camille Abu Sleiman, Adel Afiouni and Nada Boustani. After the meeting, Boustani explained that "the committee responded to the questions of the ministers, and there will be another meeting. Until then,the committee will study the books of conditions that I prepared based on the partnership between the public and private sectors in the power plants of Zahrani and Selata. As for Deir Ammar, the negotiations on it are in final stages, and we will soon finish the contract to purchase energy, and in the coming hours we will announce the time of work start."
She pointed out that "all the talk about a delay in the implementation of the electricity plan is not true, as evidenced by the figures we publish periodically. The books of conditions of the new power plants in Zahrani and Selata are finished, and Deir Ammar will finish soon. All the targets that we included in the 2019 plan have been achieved and we will work on the 2020 goals. The citizens will see the difference in the tenders and the speed of their implementation, and the appointment of IDAL board of directors will be very soon." On the issue of tariffs, Boustani said that by the end of September, the World Bank will finalize a study on tariffs, and I will present it to the ministerial committee to take the necessary decision.

Meeting at Serail tackles borders smuggling
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
The President of the Council of Ministers Saad Hariri chaired this afternoon at the Grand Serail a meeting that was attended by the Minister of Interior Raya al-Hassan, the Minister of Finance Ali Hassan Khalil, the Minister of Defense Elias Abu Saab, Army Commander General Joseph Aoun, the General Director of General Security Major General Abbas Ibrahim, the Director General of the Internal Security Forces Major General Imad Osman, the Director General of State Security Major General Tony Saliba, the Secretary General of the Higher Defense Council Major General Mahmoud al-Asmar, the President of the Supreme Council of Customs Brigadier General Asaad Tufaili, the Director General of Customs Badri Daher and a number of senior officers. Discussions tackled the issue of smuggling at the borders and measure no. 3.
After the meeting, Abu Saab said: "All the security services that were present today agreed that the number of illegal crossings that we have to work on is between 8 and 12. So we can no longer talk about 140 or 150 illegal crossings because this is misleading the public opinion and today the issue was resolved.
We also discussed the measures that should be taken at these crossings. There is work that must be done by the Ministry of Defense, the Army Command, the Ministry of Interior, the Information Division, the Ministry of Finance, the Customs and the General Security, because stopping smuggling is not limited to borders. The army's task, for example, is to close the borders, not to pursue the smugglers inside Lebanon, which is the duty of the customs. The positive thing that Prime Minister Hariri did today is to bring all the parties together, and we agreed to take joint action. It was also proposed to set up a center to collect information about the crossings, the materials being smuggled through them and the quantities, and determine their final destination, and here comes the role of the customs. The Minister of Interior stressed the necessity of pursuing these parties and fining them, and the Minister of Finance suggested to prosecute and arrest the people who have become known in this context. This joint action will lead to better results, knowing that smuggling takes place through legitimate crossings as well."
He added: "There was also a consensus that the vast majority of smuggled goods come through legitimate crossings. So these crossings must be addressed by controlling corruption, holding smugglers accountable and prosecuting smuggling companies, and citizens involved, whether they are security agencies or others. If the members of the security services are found to have assisted, informed or facilitated the smuggling operations, they will be prosecuted. The security services have unanimously decided to remove the cover from anyone in this matter." Abu Saab said: "Prime Minister Hariri stressed the need for cooperation among all of us, and the Director General of Customs pointed out that since three months, people have started to feel that there are more serious pursuits than before. 35 percent of the cigarettes consumed is smuggled through the sea, and everyone knows that the customs duty on cigarettes is high. This deprives the Treasury of big revenues. Smuggling exists all over the world and cannot be completely controlled, but we will take the necessary measures against it even on illegal roads. The army has requirements to do this task, it needs capabilities, equipment, and an increase in the number of soldiers on the borders and the Lebanese will see serious measures in this regard. We also discussed measure no. 3 and agreed to hold a meeting between the ministers of interior and defense and all leaders of the security services within the next two days. We will also meet again with Prime Minister Hariri next Monday and prepare a perception of measure no. 3, and this has nothing to do with the next budget. The Minister of Finance informed us that no new item related to measure n 3 was included in the new draft budget, but we are committed to take certain steps in this matter and today we confirmed it."

Walid Jumblatt receives Minister of Environment in Clemenceau
NNA - Wed 11 Sep 2019
Chairman of the Progressive Socialist Party Walid Jumblatt received at his residence in Clemenceau Environment Minister Fadi Jreissati, with whom he tackled the latest developments.

Hezbollah condemns Netanyahu's declaration on Jordan Valley
NNA -Wed 11 Sep 2019
Hezbollah condemned in a statement Israeli enemy's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement of his intention to Judaize the Jordan Valley and large areas of the West Bank, saying "this decision is an aggression against the Palestinian people who have the full right to resist any aggression on their land or the capabilities of their country."Hezbollah also indicated that this declaration comes following a series of Gulf positions in support of the enemy's entity which have granted it the right to assault the Arab peoples in Lebanon and Palestine. The statement added that the normalization steps and the Gulf endeavors to build alliances with the enemy, have provided an opportunity for Netanyahu to nibble more Arab lands, after his previous declarations of annexing Al Quds Al Sharif and large parts of the West Bank and the Golan. The Party also stressed that all Israeli judaic steps are null measures to be countered and thwarted by the Palestinian people, as they have thwarted the alleged "Deal of the Century." "Palestine as a whole is a right of the Palestinian people and this right will not change no matter what the enemy does," statement concluded.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 11-12/2019
Trump Decided to Fire Bolton After He Opposed Easing Iran Sanctions, Report Says
ترامب انهى خدمات بولتون لأن هذا الأخير رفض أن يتم تخفيض أو تقليل العقوبات على إيران لتسهيل لقاء ترامب روحاني
Haaretz/September 11/2019
Hoping to secure a meeting with Rohani, Trump discussed lessening the pressure on Iran and was supported by Mnuchin but countered by Bolton, according to a Bloomberg report
U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton was fired by President Donald Trump after he forcefully opposed easing sanctions on Iran as a move to secure talks with Iranian President Hassan Rohani later this month, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing three sources close to the matter. According to the report, Trump discussed the idea in an Oval Office meeting on Monday, and was supported by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin but opposed by Bolton. Several hours later, Trump decided to oust Bolton. "We'll see what happens," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about the possibility the United States would ease up on its "maximum pressure" campaign. On Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed that the Trump administration is willing to meet with Iranian leadership "with no preconditions" during the United Nations General Assembly, which will take place on the week of September 23. On Wednesday, Iran said that Tehran will not restart negotiations with the United States while sanctions against Iran remain in place, and that the ousting of Bolton will not make it reconsider its policy. Rohani reiterated his position to French President Emmanuel Macron in a phone call, according to Iranian state media. The United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement last year and imposed sanctions on Iran with the aim of halting its oil exports and forcing Tehran to negotiate a more sweeping "comprehensive deal." Iran has said it will negotiate only if Washington lifts the sanctions and in the meantime has begun breaching some of the deal's restrictions on its atomic activities, in what it calls a step-by-step, reversible response to the U.S. withdrawal and the failure of European countries to protect it from U.S.

Iran Rebuffs Talk of Trump-Rouhani Meeting after Bolton’s Departure
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday that Tehran would cut its commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal further if necessary, as the country rebuffed US talk of a possible meeting between Rouhani and President Donald Trump. "The United States should understand that militancy has no profit and must abandon its policy of maximum pressure on Iran ... Iran's commitments to the nuclear deal is proportional to other parties and we will take further steps if necessary," Rouhani said at a cabinet meeting in Tehran. Last year, the United States pulled out of the nuclear deal, under which Iran agreed to curbs on its atomic program in return for access to world trade. Washington has since imposed what the administration calls a policy of "maximum pressure", including sanctions aimed at halting all Iranian oil exports. Rouhani’s statement on Wednesday came as Tehran's United Nations envoy Majid Takhteravanchi said that the resignation of White House National Security Adviser John Bolton, a hawk on Iran, will not lead to talks between Washington and Tehran. Bolton’s departure from the Trump administration “will not push Iran to reconsider talking with the US," Takhteravanchi said. He added there was no room for talks with the United States while sanctions against Iran remain in place. "As long as the US government's economic terrorism and such cruel sanctions are imposed on the Iranian people, there is no room for negotiations," Takhteravanchi was quoted as saying. Two of Trump's top lieutenants on Tuesday indicated he was ready to meet the Iranian president without preconditions, after the US leader sacked Bolton. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stressed the United States would maintain its campaign of "maximum pressure" against Iran. The idea of a Trump-Rouhani meeting was floated last month by French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been spearheading European efforts to de-escalate tensions between Iran and the United States.

Rouhani Says US 'Warmongering' against Iran Will Fail
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/2019
President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday that the United States would fail with its "warmongering" and warned that Iran was ready to further reduce its nuclear commitments in response. "The Americans must understand that bellicosity and warmongering don't work in their favour. Both... must be abandoned," Rouhani told a meeting of his cabinet in remarks aired on state television. "The enemy imposed 'maximum pressure' on us. Our response is to resist and confront this." Arch-foes Tehran and Washington have been at loggerheads since May last year when US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from a 2015 nuclear deal and began reimposing crippling sanctions. Iran has riposted by scaling back its nuclear commitments in response to the US withdrawal from the deal, which gave it the promise of relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its atomic programme. In his remarks on Wednesday, Rouhani said Iran was ready to comply with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action only if the Americans did so too. "We have said many times that our policy... is one of peaceful (nuclear) technology, and that our approach in the JCPOA is commitment for commitment," he said. "We have taken the third step... If it is essential and necessary in the future, we will take other steps," he added. Iran said on Saturday it was firing up advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium at a faster rate -- its third step in reducing its commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal. It had already hit back twice before with countermeasures in retaliation for the US withdrawal from the accord. On July 1, it said it had increased its stockpile of enriched uranium to beyond the 300-kilogram maximum set by the deal.A week later, it announced it had exceeded a 3.67-percent cap on the purity of its uranium stocks.

Zarif: Israel Will Fight to the Last American Soldier
London- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has warned US President Donald Trump that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s motto was: “fight to the last American soldier.”Zarif’s comments come as an attempt to influence the American public after Israel has accused the Iranians of developing nuclear weapons in a secret site with military dimensions. In a tweet on Tuesday, Zarif tagged US President Donald Trump, saying, “Did you know that Netanyahu was also instrumental in pushing the US into the Afghanistan quagmire? The same one that you now cannot get out of?”
“His (Netanyahu) motto since 1986: Fight to the last American soldier,” the top Iranian diplomat added. More so, Zarif accused Netanyahu of seeking a "pretext for war" after him claiming that Iran had destroyed a secret site for nuclear military activities after realizing it was exposed to Israel.
A few hours before Zarif’s tweet, Netanyahu said Tehran was working to develop nuclear weapons at a secret site in Abadeh, but that Tehran destroyed the facility after learning it had been exposed. "In this site, Iran conducted experiments to develop nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks, showing an aerial picture of several small buildings, including their coordinates, that he said were taken at the Abadeh facility late in June 2019. "When Iran realized that we uncovered the site, here's what they did," he said, showing a picture he said was from a month later in which the buildings no longer appeared. "They destroyed the site. They just wiped it out." Zarif, for his part, published a video about Netanyahu in 2002 during a US Congress grilling in which he gave assurances that the invasion of Iraq would have positive results for the region. A Reuters report on Monday revealed that samples taken by the UN nuclear watchdog at what Israel’s prime minister called a “secret atomic warehouse” in Tehran showed traces of uranium that Iran has yet to explain. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating the particles’ origin and has asked Iran to explain the traces. But Tehran has not done so, according to the diplomats, stoking tensions between Washington and Tehran. US sanctions have slashed Iranian oil sales and Iran has responded by breaching its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

Saudi Arabia calls for ‘deterrent measures’ against Iran’s nuclear violations
Arab News/September 11/2019
LONDON: Saudi Arabia on Wednesday called on the international community to take deterrent measures against Iran’s violations of the nuclear agreement. Prince Abdullah bin Khalid bin Sultan, the Kingdom’s ambassador to Austria and permanent representative to the United Nations and international organizations in Vienna, said Iran’s breaches confirm the agreement’s shortcomings. Speaking during an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna, he stressed the need for a comprehensive international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program to prevent Tehran from "acquiring nuclear weapons by any means." He said the agreement would also reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and ensure international peace and security.  Prince Abdullah said the agreement should include a specific, rigorous and permanent inspection mechanism for all sites, including military positions, with a mechanism to re-impose sanctions quickly and effectively in the event that Iran violates the agreement. His comments come after the IAEA urged Iran to be more cooperative over its request for information on its nuclear activities. The meeting is also overshadowed by European efforts to salvage the current agreement between Iran and international powers after the US withdrew last year. On Sunday, IAEA inspectors confirmed that Iran has installed more advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium as Tehran further withdraws from its commitments to the 2015 deal. Prince Abdullah said Iran did not "harness the economic return" after the sanctions were lifted when the deal was signed. "Nor did it develop domestically or improve the conditions of the Iranian people, but rather continued to provoke internal unrest in neighboring countries and destabilize the region's security and stability and its continued aggressive behavior over the past 40 years emphasizes Iran's intentions in the region," he said. He added "this is confirmed by recent IAEA reports, including Iran's breaches of the nuclear deal."Prince Abdullah expressed appreciation to the IAEA for their efforts in verifying and monitoring Iran's activities with professionalism and high transparency.

Iraqi Cleric Sadr Joins Supreme Leader at Iran Ceremony
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/201
Powerful Iraqi cleric Moqtada Sadr joined Iran's supreme leader during a rare visit to Tehran to mark the Shiite holy day of Ashura, state media reported Wednesday. The office of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued pictures of Sadr flanked by Khamenei on one side, and the commander of the elite Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Qasem Soleimani, on the other. Iran's judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi also attended the ceremony, which commemorates the death of Prophet Mohammed's grandson Hussein at the Battle of Karbala, in modern-day Iraq.
Sadr's surprise visit comes at a time of deep political divisions among Iraq's Shiite factions, and as Baghdad tries to walk a tightrope between its two main allies, Tehran and Washington. Tehran has close but complicated ties with Baghdad, with significant influence among its Shiite political groups.
The two countries fought a bloody war from 1980 to 1988 and Iran's influence in Iraq grew after the US-led invasion of Iraq toppled veteran dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003. In 2014, Iran sent Soleimani and "miliary advisers" to Iraq to help it in the fight against the Islamic State group, and Soleimani continues to play a key role as a powerbroker in Iraq during times of turbulence. Sadr himself is a populist cleric, political figure and former militia leader whose bloc emerged as the biggest in the Iraqi parliament after May 2018 elections. But he refused to align with the pro-Iran camp to form a government, visited Tehran's regional rival Saudi Arabia and has criticised pro-Iran paramilitary groups in Iraq -- sparking contradictory analysis of the current visit. Some observers suspected Sadr had been "summoned" to Tehran after statements challenging Iran and its Iraqi allies in the Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force. The Iraqi cleric recently launched a Twitter campaign against the more hardline elements of the Hashed and even took aim at the Iraqi government, saying Iraq was becoming a "rogue" state. Others said it might indicate a vote of confidence in him by Iran's top leadership over the Hashed's political arm, the Fatah alliance.
Many noted it was strange to see Sadr outside Iraq on Ashura, a holy day during which millions of pilgrims travel to Karbala. On Tuesday, a stampede broke out among pilgrims visiting the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala that left 31 people dead and more than 100 wounded.

Rocket fire hustling Netanyahu from Ashdod rally – Palestinian propaganda gift to Iran & Hizballah
DEBKAfile/September 11/2019
Israeli air strikes against 15 Hamas targets in Gaza overnight Tuesday, Sept. 10 did not rub out the scenes of prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Blue-White opposition leader Gaby Ashkenazi being whisked away from their election rallies in Ashdod and Ashkelon under rocket fire from Gaza. The Palestinian attack was accurately timed to cut short the two campaign speeches just as they began and depict the crowds in panicky flight, pointing to precise advance intelligence. Netanyahu returned to the stage a few minutes later, but the damage was done. The Palestinian terrorist organizations in Gaza knew where, when and who would be staging these pre-election events. They did not aim to kill anyone this time, only achieve a striking propaganda coup against Israel’s top security figures. They also moved with unusual speed. In past instances, Palestinian rockets were usually aimed first at near targets before escalating in the next round to the cities further away from the Gaza Strip. This time, Ashdod and Ashkelon were targeted directly before the usual preamble. The Gaza terrorist groups followed the pattern of swift reprisal set by their allies, Iran and Hizballah, in Syria on Monday, Sept. 9, when the Shiite Imam Hossein militia fired two rockets at the IDF Hermon positions on the orders of their Al Qods officers, hours after an air strike in Iraq. All these violent groups are pulling together, under Tehran’s baton, for a major effort to bring the Netanyahu government low and destroy voter confidence in the prime minister as guardian of national security in time for the Sept. 17 general election, The collective tactic for toppling the Likud prime minister was set forth, as DEBKAfile first revealed, at a secret summit in Beirut on Aug. 23 attended by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Hossein Salami, Al Qods chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Hizballah’s Hassan Nasrallah.Their strategy won a major propaganda coup for Tehran, Hizballah and Gaza on Tuesday night, when video clips beamed far and wide depicted security guards bundling Netanyahu off the Ashdod platform to the sound of wailing rocket alerts and an audience fleeing in all directions.
Israeli aircraft later struck some 15 Hamas terror targets in the northern and central Gaza Strip, including weapons workshops, several locations in the organization’s naval compound and a terror tunnel, in response to rockets fired from Gaza earlier.
In that response, however, Israel continued to pull its punches, still holding back on a major counter-offensive six days before the national election.

Netanyahu Vows to Annex West Bank's Jordan Valley if Re-elected
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/201
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a deeply controversial pledge on Tuesday to annex the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank if re-elected in September 17 polls. Palestinians immediately reacted by saying Netanyahu was destroying any hopes for peace, while his electoral opponents accused him of a cynical play for right-wing nationalist votes with polls only a week away. In his televised speech, the prime minister also reiterated his intention to annex Israeli settlements in the wider West Bank if re-elected.
But he said he would do that in coordination with US President Donald Trump, whose long-awaited peace plan is expected to be unveiled sometime after the vote. Those moves could effectively kill any remaining hopes for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, long the focus of international diplomacy. "There is one place where we can apply Israeli sovereignty immediately after the elections," Netanyahu said during the address that included a map of the Jordan Valley on an easel next to him. "If I receive from you, citizens of Israel, a clear mandate to do so ... today I announce my intention to apply with the formation of the next government Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea." Senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi said Netanyahu was "not only destroying the two-state solution, he is destroying all chances of peace".She called it "worse than apartheid".
'Great opportunity'
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the annexation would be "manifestly illegal" and called on the international community to act. Jordan's Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi warned the move would "push the whole region towards violence" and risks "killing off the entire peace process".
In Turkey, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu slammed Netanyahu's pledge as "racist". "The election promise of Netanyahu, who is giving all kind of illegal, unlawful and aggressive messages before the election, is a racist apartheid state," Cavusoglu wrote on his official Twitter account in both English and Turkish. Saudi Arabia condemned it as a "dangerous escalation against the Palestinian people" and called for an emergency meeting of foreign ministers from the 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the official Saudi Press Agency said, citing the royal court. The Jordan Valley accounts for around one-third of the West Bank and Israeli right-wing politicians have long viewed the strategic area as a part of the territory they would never retreat from, seeing it as the country's eastern border.
Israeli settlements are located in what is known as Area C of the West Bank, which accounts for some 60 percent of the territory, including the vast majority of the Jordan Valley. Netanyahu said his annexation plans would not include Palestinian cities, such as the Jordan Valley's Jericho, though it would be encircled by Israeli territory.
The premier said Trump's peace parameters "will place before us a great challenge and also a great opportunity." "This is a historic, one-time opportunity to apply Israeli sovereignty on our settlements... and other places of importance to our security, our heritage and our future." Trump has thrown US support overwhelmingly in favour of Israel since taking office, including by recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital and cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinians. Ahead of April elections, Trump recognised Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, seized from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War.
'Empty promise'
Netanyahu along with his right-wing and religious allies won a majority of seats in April polls, but he failed to form a coalition and opted for an unprecedented second election in five months. He is again facing a difficult challenge from ex-military chief Benny Gantz and his centrist Blue and White alliance.
Gantz, who has in the past spoken of keeping the Jordan Valley under Israel's control forever, said "I have no doubt that this will be yet another empty promise because there is nothing behind it". Right-wing nationalist votes will be key to Netanyahu's efforts to continue his reign as Israel's longest-serving prime minister. "We understand that the prime minister has said that (annexation) is the carrot of Trump's plan, the question that remains is what is the stick, what will we have to give?" asked former justice minister Ayelet Shaked, who heads a union of far-right parties. Netanyahu is also facing a potential indictment for corruption pending a hearing scheduled for early October.Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War in a move never recognised by the international community. Its settlements there are considered illegal under international law and major stumbling blocks to peace as they are built on land the Palestinian see as part of their future state. Israel says the Jordan Valley is vital to its security.

Anger at Netanyahu's West Bank Annexation Pledge
Agence France Presse/Naharnet/September 11/201
Arab and Muslim countries Wednesday led a wave of outcry after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to annex a key part of the occupied West Bank if re-elected. Netanyahu's controversial pledge involves extending Israel's sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea which account for one-third of the West Bank if he wins next week's elections. It would not include however annexing any Palestinian cities such as Jericho. The pre-election promise late Tuesday drew immediate condemnation from Arab powerhouses with many warning of disastrous consequences for the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "The announcement constitutes a dangerous development and a new Israeli aggression," Arab foreign ministers said after an Arab League meeting in Cairo. They also warned in a statement of "the ramifications of these dangerous, illegal and irresponsible" moves saying it would "undermine the chances of progress in the peace process".  Jordanian and Palestinian officials said any such measure risks "killing off" and "destroying" the entire peace process, which has failed to make any progress for years. Damascus "strongly condemned" Netanyahu's vow, with a Syrian foreign ministry source telling the state news agency SANA that it was an "expansionist" plan which would be a "flagrant violation" of international treaties. Israel occupied the West Bank in the 1967 Six-Day War in a move never recognised by the international community. It also seized -- and later annexed -- part of the Golan Heights from Syria, and the two countries remain technically at war.
'Racist' move
Saudi Arabia flagged the announcement as a "dangerous escalation", calling for an "emergency meeting" of the foreign ministers of the 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Beyond the Arab world, Turkey slammed Netanyahu pledge as "racist". It would "defend (the) rights and interests of our Palestinian brothers and sisters till the end," said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. The United Nations remonstrated that Netanyahu's plan would have no "international legal effect." Meanwhile, the European Union said the pledge undermines any prospects for peace.
"The policy of settlement construction and expansion... is illegal under international law and its continuation, and actions taken in this context, undermine the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace," an EU spokesperson said in a statement. When announcing his pledge, Israeli prime minister said he would take the step in coordination with his ally, US President Donald Trump. But by Wednesday morning there had still been no official US reaction to Netanyahu's latest statements. Israel has enjoyed a strong US support under the Trump administration which in a highly controversial move overturned decades of US policy to recognise the holy city of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state in 2017. Earlier in 2019, Trump also declared Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which Israel seized Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War, along with the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
More than 600,000 Israeli Jewish settlers now live in the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem, among three million Palestinians. Arab and Muslim leaders have unanimously decried the US moves backing Netanyahu's policies, but done little to challenge them. They have instead insisted on achieving a two-state solution and establishing a Palestinian state based on the borders of 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has been tasked with hammering out a peace plan to resolve the bitter Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The plan's economic aspects were unveiled at a Bahrain conference in June, floating the prospect of pumping some $50 billion worth of investment into a stagnant Palestinian economy. It failed however to address key Palestinian demands such as the establishment of their own independent state. It remains unclear when Kushner's full plan will be rolled out with the Israeli elections looming on September 17.

Merkel Pledges to Work on Avoiding Syria Scenario in Libya
Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
Germany will do its part to avoid a proxy war in Libya, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday, warning that the situation in the country risked destabilizing the whole of Africa. "In Libya, a situation is developing that can take on similar dimensions to what we have seen in Syria .. and it's imperative we do everything we can to make sure this does not escalate into a proxy war and Germany will play its part," Merkel told the Bundestag lower house, according to Reuters.
"The whole of the African region will be destabilized if Libya is not stabilized," she added. Libya has been wracked by chaos since the 2011 uprising in which its longtime leader Moamer Gaddafi was killed. In April, Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army launched an operation to liberate the capital, Tripoli, from forces loyal to the head of the Government of National Accord, Fayez al-Sarraj. The UN special envoy to Libya, Ghassan Salame, warned last week that without action by the Security Council, the conflict could escalate.

Russian Envoy Insists on Forming Syria’s Constitutional Committee in September
Moscow - Raed Jabr/Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
Moscow hopes the formation of the Syrian Constitutional Committee will be completed by the end of September, announced Mikhail Bogdanov, the Russian president's special envoy for the Middle East and African countries and Deputy Foreign Minister. Bogdanov said that Moscow discussed with a number of foreign ministers, including the Turkish FM, the committee’s formation. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed confidence that forming the committee will be completed soon, noting that the disagreements were on a “name or two” in the third list that the UN should have submitted.
Lavrov noted that Russia was surprised that the formation of the 150-member committee would be disrupted because of differences on one or two names. Meanwhile, Moscow announced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will arrive in Sochi on Thursday to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Last week, Kremlin Aide Yuri Ushakov said Netanyahu’s visit to Russia could take place very soon. The visit is most likely to be held in Sochi, he said. Russian and Israeli media sources agreed that the discussions will address security coordination in Syria, especially against the backdrop of warnings recently reported by Russian media, regarding Israel's failure to comply with previous understandings in informing Moscow of the details of military operations in Syrian airspace. Netanyahu affirmed that he intends to discuss the Iranian presence in Syria, an issue present on the agenda of all Russian-Israeli meetings. Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry denied reports that Russian aircraft violated the ceasefire by attacking the Idlib de-escalation zone. “Since the beginning of the cessation of fire regime on August 31 in the Idlib de-escalation zone, Russian Aerospace Forces and Syrian Air Force aircraft have not performed any combat missions to hit targets on the ground,” the Ministry said. The statement comes after Reuters citing several sources that Russian planes had carried out two raids in the strategic Jabal al-Akrad mountain range near the western Latakia coast.

Qatar Crisis to Remain Until ‘Arab Quartet’ Demands Are Met, Shoukry Says
Khartoum/Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said Qatar hasn’t shown any actual interaction or interest to resolve its crisis with the four boycotting countries. He affirmed that his country, along with Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain will stick to their position ion this crisis if Doha doesn’t implement their demands.
Shoukry told Asharq al-Awsat after his recent visit to the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, that Emir of Kuwait Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad has a special status due to his quest for Arab reunification. However, the FM noted that the four states’ stance is clear and calls of implementing the 13 demands, none of which has been implemented by Qatar so far. “There are harmful policies that affect our peoples’ potentials, and we reject them.” Therefore, “no change in our position will be seen until Qatar shows its real interest in implementing these demands and stops interfering in other countries’ affairs.”He praised his first visit to Sudan after the new government formation, saying that the “Egyptian-Sudanese relations are of a special nature, which surpasses all other relations of common destiny, brotherhood, unity of purpose and affinity.”Shoukry pointed to the bilateral keenness, even at the popular level, and especially after the changes that have taken place in Sudan. “We look forward to further communication, interaction and cooperation with the current government in all fields, and this was confirmed by the visit to Khartoum.” The visit was made to congratulate the new government and emphasize the joint work by both sides, “and we look forward to new horizons that satisfy aspirations of the two friendly peoples.” Shoukry also pointed out that his country was always “supportive to the Sudanese people and has interacted with all parties to motivate them to reach a point of consensus and work on their country’s security and stability and the protection of its institutions.”The new Sudan can overcome all challenges “due to its cooperation with its Arab and African brothers and the activation of multiple mechanisms in various fields, which will bring tangible results.”Regarding the Egyptian-Sudanese disputes, Shoukry said the Egyptian policy has been stable since the previous ruling era, which was endorsed and implemented by President Abdel Fattah El Sisi. This policy is based on containing any differences in points of views, not intervening in other states’ affairs, and forging areas of cooperation and close association between the two peoples, he explained.

Libya: LNA Announces Death of 200 Members of Sarraj Forces in 3 Days
Cairo- Khalid Mahmoud/Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
The Commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA), Khalifa Haftar, asserted that operations in the capital, Tripoli, will continue until it is freed from militias, meanwhile, his forces announced they killed over 200 pro-Government of National Accord (GNA) armed militants in recent clashes.
Recently, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) warned against the misrepresentation of statements of the Special Representative of Secretary-General (SRSG) Ghassan Salame in the French newspaper, Liberation. The newspaper published an interview with Salame in which he said Haftar put conditions for possible withdrawal from Tripoli and had required significant state positions. The SRSG also considered Haftar’s attack an insult at him personally and at the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, because the outbreak of the war coincided with his visit to Tripoli in early April.
Haftar’s spokesman Major-General Ahmed al-Mismari said LNA’s war is against terrorists, militias, and outlaws, asserting it is not politically motivated, neither is it for resources or influence. “Our mission is to uproot terrorism, ensure that life returns to normal in Libya and enable Libyans to freely vote for constitution and electing leaders and representatives,” Mismari said. For his part, GNA chief, Fayez al-Sarraj, reiterated the situation in the south falls within the priorities of his government. Speaking during his meeting with a delegation from the southern region of Libya, Sarraj asserted the government would harness all available resources to solve all issues in municipal facilities. Meanwhile, LNA’s Military Media Division said its forces were able to achieve what it called a “great victory” over the past two days, after targeting 38 elements of Sarraj’s militias affiliated with terrorist groups, in addition to the destruction of seven vehicles. The Division noted in the statement that this forced the enemy to retreat, as part of the ongoing operations to force the enemy away from residential neighborhoods to unpopulated areas. The Media Center of the Army's Dignity Operations Room announced that more than 200 militants were killed during three days of military operations, during airstrikes and clashes. Al-Nawasi militias, loyal to GNA, announced in a statement the death of 28 of its members, which the Center considered a clear message that any militia that insists on the war and does not heed the army’s warnings will face the same fate.

UN Report Warns of Near-Collapse of Palestinian Economy
Ramallah - Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
The reasons behind the near-collapse of the Palestinian economy are the tightening grip of occupation, the suffocation of Gaza’s local economy, a 6 percent drop in donor support between 2017 and 2018, deterioration of the security situation, and the lack of confidence as a result of bleak political horizons, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) warned in its report. In 2018 and early 2019, the Palestinian economy stagnated, per capita income further fell by 1.7 percent, unemployment increased, poverty deepened, and the environmental toll of occupation rose in the occupied Palestinian territory (Gaza and the West Bank including East Jerusalem). About one in three Palestinians in the labor market is unemployed. In Gaza, the unemployment rate is above 50 percent while the poverty level has reached 53 percent, even though most of the people classified as poor receive aid from the government and international organizations. Gaza is increasingly becoming unlivable under the severe and worsening socioeconomic conditions. In 2018, its local economy contracted by 7 percent, leading to a 10 percent decline in its per capita income.Even though all sectors of the economy are constrained by occupation, agriculture and manufacturing are disproportionately impacted and the ensuing massive trade deficit adversely affects economic growth.
Between 1994 and 2018, the share of manufacturing in the economy shrunk from 20 percent to 11 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), whereas the share of agriculture and fishing dropped from over 12 percent to less than a paltry 3 percent, the report said. The viability and competitiveness of Palestinian producers are undermined by the multilayered system of physical and administrative restrictions deployed by the occupying power. In the West Bank alone, 705 permanent physical obstacles restrict the movement of Palestinian workers and goods. They include checkpoints, gates, earth mounds, roadblocks, and trenches. In addition, the economy is further weakened by the Israeli ban on the import of a long list of “dual-use” essential technological and intermediate goods as well as other critical production inputs (“dual-use” goods are civilian ones deemed, by Israel, to have potential military applications). The report noted that occupation isolates the Palestinian people from international markets, compelling them into overwhelming trade and economic dependence on Israel, which accounts for 80 percent of Palestinian exports and supplies 58 percent of its imports. The UNCTAD report suggested that occupation has prevented the Palestinian people from developing their oil and natural gas resources in Gaza and the West Bank. Consequently, the estimated accumulated losses are worth billions of dollars and the associated opportunity cost of forgone development is staggering. The longer this situation persists, the higher this cost will be and the total economic cost of occupation borne by the Palestinian people will continue to rise.
Multiple fiscal shocks precipitate steeper economic decline, warned UNCTAD. In addition to the unprecedented deterioration in socioeconomic conditions, in July 2018, Israel passed a law mandating deduction, from Palestinian fiscal revenues, of an amount equivalent to the payments made by the Palestinian government to families of Palestinian martyrs and prisoners in Israeli jails. Subsequently, in 2019, Israel deducted $11.5 million per month (equivalent to $138 million annually) from Palestinian clearance revenues. The Palestinian government responded by refusing to accept anything less than the full amount due to it in fiscal revenue. The fiscal faceoff deprives the Palestinian government of 65 percent of its revenue (15 percent of GDP). Deprived of two-thirds of its tax revenue, the Palestinian government coped by implementing painful cuts to social assistance to the neediest and paying public employees only 50 percent of their salaries. This fiscal shock will further amplify the already large negative impact of declining donor support on output, employment and socioeconomic conditions. If this fiscal standoff persists, it may well push the economy into recession and instigate the collapse of Palestinian finances, the report warned.

Egypt Arrests 16 Brotherhood Members Planning Hostile Attacks
Cairo- Asharq Al-Awsat/Wednesday, 11 September, 2019
The Egyptian Interior Ministry announced it arrested 16 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, accusing them of plotting to smuggle foreign currencies outside the country and provide Brotherhood members residing in Egypt with financial support to carry out hostile attacks. Egyptian authorities have accused the Brotherhood of inciting violence in the country after the ouster of former President Mohamed Morsi in July 2013. The Brotherhood is already considered an outlawed group in Egypt and was included on the country’s list of terror organizations in 2014. Hundreds of leaders and members of the group, led by Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie, are on trial for charges mostly linked to terrorist operations or plots, many of which have been sentenced to death and imprisonment. The Ministry issued a statement saying the outlawed fugitive Brotherhood members in Turkey set a new plan aiming to harm Egypt's national security and jeopardize the country's stability. The statement added that the plot also prepares for hostile attacks against police, armed forces, and vital installations intending to spread chaos inside the country, aiming to return to the political scene. The plot is based on creating three secret networks: smuggling foreign currencies outside the country, smuggling wanted Brotherhood members to European countries via Turkey and providing Brotherhood members residing in Egypt with financial support to carry out a series of hostile attacks, based on the information published by the ministry.
The statement noted that this was done in cooperation with a number of companies owned by Brotherhood elements inside Egypt which are used as a cover to finance their activities. The Ministry identified the Turkey-based Brotherhood elements involved in the preparation of the scheme: Yasser Mohamed Helmy al-Zanaty, Mahmoud Hussein Ahmed Hussein, Ayman Ahmed Abdel Ghany Hassanein, and Medhat Ahmed Mahmoud al-Haddad. The security forces found in the acquisition of the 16 defendants arrested amounts of local and foreign currencies, passports, and documents containing the plot.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 11-12/2019
The Challenges Facing the New Saudi Oil Minister
Simon Henderson/The Washington Institute/September 12/2019
Riyadh’s hopes of raising money through a partial sell-off of Saudi Aramco depend on the price of oil, which failed to rise sufficiently under the previous minister.
The dismissal of Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih on September 7 was the final blow in his rapid loss of power and influence, a process that lasted just nine days. On September 2, he was removed as chairman of the national oil company Saudi Aramco, only three days after his Ministry of Energy, Industry, and Mineral Resources was split in two, with a new minister appointed to the industry and mineral portfolios.
The changes had been expected for several months, though perhaps not in such humiliating fashion. Alongside media reports that he was using Aramco executive jets for ministry purposes, Falih was said to have doubts about the company’s planned initial public offering. Most crucially, he failed to deliver on oil prices, which have stubbornly sat below $60 per barrel at a time when the kingdom’s budget is still based on $80-plus. Although announced in the name of King Salman, the changes are no doubt the work of his thirty-four-year-old son Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman (MbS), who effectively controls the kingdom and is said to be very disappointed that legal complications prevented the Aramco IPO from happening last year. He is now keen on seeing it through in 2020 or 2021.
The new oil minister is Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, a half-brother of MbS. He is twenty-five years older than his new boss and is not believed to have a close relationship with him, but he has worked in the ministry for most of his life and is regarded as very competent. In fact, he will be the first royal to head the energy ministry; previously, the assumption had been that princes lacked the technical competence for the position and were difficult to sack if they underperformed.
Abdulaziz’s main task will be to handle the politics of the OPEC cartel and deal with other major oil exporters such as Russia. Apart from meeting his younger brother’s expectations, he will also need to work with new Aramco chief and close MbS associate Yasir al-Rumayyan, a former banker with limited oil sector experience. Moreover, his appointment comes against the backdrop of Vision 2030, the crown prince’s signature policy initiative for developing the kingdom’s economy and reducing its reliance on huge oil reserves. The initiative contains a fundamental contradiction: in order to fund the supposed transformation away from oil, the government will need to focus more on oil in the short term. Additionally, the planned Aramco IPO essentially argues that investing in Saudi oil is a good long-term bet.
Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world is trying to turn away from hydrocarbons; the United States, the kingdom’s oldest ally, has become energy independent, at least by some definitions. Even current regional tensions with Iran have failed to boost oil prices to the degree they might have in the past. Despite these trends, the changes of the past two weeks clearly represent the crown prince’s latest attempt to square the circle of moving his country toward an economic future that matches the social changes he has been introducing. The energy and diplomatic worlds will be watching to see what happens next.
*Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at The Washington Institute.

Why Egypt Does Not Want to Help Gaza
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/September 11/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14859/egypt-gaza-help
Israel's goodwill gestures, however, have so far failed to deter Hamas and other Palestinian groups from repeatedly violating the ceasefire understandings.
Israel is prepared to do whatever is required to help the Palestinians in return for a cessation of terrorist attacks against Israel. Meanwhile, the Egyptians themselves offer nothing but broken promises regarding the crisis in the Gaza Strip. Egyptian policy, it appears, is based on the assumption that the Gaza Strip is – and must remain – solely the problem of Israel.
Why do Egyptians have to travel all the way to Israel to discuss supplying the Gaza Strip with food, medicine and fuel (through Israel) when Egypt can easily do so through its shared border with the Gaza Strip? The world seems to have forgotten that the Gaza Strip has a shared border not only with Israel, but with Egypt as well.
Egypt's shifting and sometimes contradictory policy toward the Gaza Strip seems to have one goal: to divert attention from Cairo's responsibility for the ongoing plight of its Palestinian neighbors.
Here is what Egypt and the Arab states should be telling Israel: "Thank you for all that you have done so far to help the people of the Gaza Strip. However, these are our Arab brothers. Therefore, it seems fair that we step in and assume this burden."
The world seems to have forgotten that the Gaza Strip has a shared border not only with Israel, but with Egypt as well. The Rafah border crossing (on the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt) is the main exit point for most Palestinians. This border crossing, however, has been essentially closed since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. It is only opened every few days or weeks to allow a trickle of Palestinians to come or go to the Gaza Strip.
Egypt has resumed its mediation efforts to prevent an all-out military confrontation between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Earlier this week, senior officials from Egypt's General Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat) who visited the Gaza Strip reportedly relayed to Hamas leaders a message from Israel: it promised to "ease restrictions" on the Palestinians in return for a cessation of anti-Israel terrorist attacks.
According to some reports, the promised Israeli measures include, among other things, increasing electricity and fuel supplies and facilitating the entry of merchandise into the Gaza Strip. Since the beginning of the year, Israel has indeed taken a number of measures to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The measures, which included the expansion of the fishing zone and the delivery of Qatari cash grants to the Gaza Strip, came in the context of ceasefire understandings reached between Israel and Hamas under the auspices of Egypt, the United Nations and Qatar.
Israel's goodwill gestures, however, have so far failed to deter Hamas and other Palestinian groups from repeatedly violating the ceasefire understandings. Shortly before the Egyptian intelligence officials arrived in the Gaza Strip, another rocket was fired toward Israel, causing a brush fire near the city of Sderot. Two women were treated for shock after the rocket strike.
It is important to note that the Egyptian intelligence officials -- who have visited the Gaza Strip several times in the past few months -- often discuss with Hamas leaders the particulars of the Hamas regime's demands for Israel to help the Palestinians. Generally left aside, however, is what Egypt, which has a shared border with the Gaza Strip, might do to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians.
Egyptian officials always carry encouraging messages from Israel to Hamas: Israel is prepared to do whatever is required to help the Palestinians in return for a cessation of terrorist attacks against Israel. Meanwhile, the Egyptians themselves offer nothing but broken promises regarding the crisis in the Gaza Strip. Egyptian policy is, it appears, based on the assumption that the Gaza Strip is – and must remain – solely the problem of Israel.
Why do Egyptians have to travel all the way to Israel to discuss supplying the Gaza Strip with food, medicine and fuel (through Israel) when Egypt can easily do so through its shared border with the Gaza Strip? The world seems to have forgotten that the Gaza Strip has a shared border not only with Israel, but with Egypt as well.
The Rafah border crossing (on the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt) is the main exit point for most Palestinians. This border crossing, however, has been essentially closed since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007. It is only opened every few days or weeks to allow a trickle of Palestinians to come or go to the Gaza Strip.
According to Gisha, an Israeli organization that strives to protect Palestinian freedom of movement, particularly residents of the Gaza Strip, Egypt generally allows movement of Palestinians into its territory in accordance with restricted criteria: only to those with referrals for medical treatment at Egyptian hospitals, students with visas to study in Egypt or third countries, and holders of foreign residency or foreign passports.
The organization pointed out that since mid-May 2018, the Rafah border crossing has been open about five days per week for movement in both directions. "This is the longest period of time the crossing has been opened consecutively in about five years," it said.
Palestinians say that 2017 was the worst year of all at the Rafah border crossing. In that entire year, the Egyptians opened the border for only 29 days. In 2016, the border was open for a total of 41 days, while in 2015 it was open only for 32 days.
The Egyptians, to justify the closure of their shared border with the Gaza Strip, have cited security concerns -- as if the same problem did not apply to Israel. At one point, the Egyptians said they suspected that Muslim terrorists operating against the Egyptian army in the Sinai Peninsula were collaborating with Palestinian terror groups in the Gaza Strip.
The Egyptians have also cited the continued dispute between Hamas in the Gaza Strip near Egypt and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank near Jordan -- on the other side of Israel -- as another reason for the harsh travel restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. When Hamas was democratically elected to rule the Gaza Strip in 2006, one of its first acts was to oust the PA from there, sometimes by throwing men from the top floors of high-rise buildings. The PA fled. Abbas is still unable to visit his house in Gaza City.
Earlier this year, the PA withdrew its staff from the Rafah crossing to protest another Hamas crackdown: on its men stationed at the crossing there. The PA was able temporarily to come back to the border crossing after an Egyptian-sponsored "reconciliation" agreement with Hamas that did not last long.
The PA accused Hamas of "arresting and abusing" its employees and obstructing "the work of our crew." The PA's move effectively shut the border crossing, but it was reopened a week later, apparently after Hamas and the Egyptian authorities reached another understanding.
Since January, when the PA finally pulled its staff totally out of the Rafah crossing, the Palestinian side of the terminal has been under the exclusive control of Hamas. Yet, since then, the presence of Hamas has not stopped Egypt from keeping the border open only intermittently. So much for Egypt's claim that the border crossing cannot be reopened so long as Hamas and the PA continue their apparently endless war.
If Egypt is able to administer the Rafah crossing together with Hamas, as is the situation now, why can't the Egyptians work out their own deal with Hamas to use the border crossing to ease the suffering of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip?
Gaza's main problems include soaring unemployment, shortage of fuel and electricity supplies, as well as high taxes imposed by the Hamas regime. Many Palestinians, particularly young people, want to leave the Gaza Strip to search for work in Europe and other countries. Most Palestinians do not seem to be interested in settling in Egypt, where they have little chance of finding work. They just want the Egyptians to allow them to use the Rafah border crossing to travel to third countries.
Why are the Egyptians mediating between Israel and Hamas about the problems of the Gaza Strip when they can be easily doing that with just the Hamas leaders? Why can't Egypt and Hamas tell Israel: "We do not need your help anymore. We can solve the problems of the Gaza Strip through our own border crossing."
If Egypt has its own reasons for not helping the Gaza Strip, that is one thing. But why is Egypt preventing other Arabs and the rest of the world from entering the Gaza Strip to help the Palestinians by providing them, for example, with food, medicine and fuel.
If the Egyptians are so afraid of Hamas, as they say, because of its ties to terrorist groups in their Sinai Peninsula, why do they keep sending senior Egyptian intelligence officials to the Gaza Strip to negotiate with Hamas? If Hamas poses such a threat to Egypt's national security, why does Egypt keep inviting Hamas leaders to Cairo every few weeks for discussions with senior Egyptian intelligence officials?
Is it possible that the Egyptians are engaged in a policy of appeasement toward Hamas because they are afraid of Hamas? Or do they want Hamas and the Gaza Strip's two million Palestinians to remain just Israel's problem? Or, for some Egyptians, is keeping Gaza in isolation big business?
Something seems strange when, on the one hand, you accuse Hamas of aiding terrorist groups on Egyptian territory, while on the other your senior intelligence officials are consorting with Hamas leaders every few weeks.
Egypt's shifting and sometimes contradictory policy toward the Gaza Strip seems to have one goal: to divert attention from Cairo's responsibility for the ongoing plight of its Palestinian neighbors.
Like most Arab states, Egypt evidently wants the world to continue holding Israel alone responsible for the economic and humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. The Arab states' excuse that they do not want to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip because of Hamas is baseless. The Arabs were not exactly helping the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip before Hamas violently took it over from the PA and forced the PA out.
If the Arabs were serious about helping to solve the problems of the Gaza Strip, they could have done so a long time ago -- and without Israel's help. All they need to do is go to Egypt and demand that it permanently re-open its border with the Gaza Strip and remove all restrictions so that they and others could come in and help. Arabs could, for example, help solve the problem of unemployment and poverty by investing in economic projects and infrastructure; they could also offer Palestinians who want to leave the Gaza Strip jobs in Arab countries. There are, in the Gaza Strip, many university graduates who are not involved with Hamas or other terrorist groups. The Egyptians and Arabs could check their credentials before allowing them in to make sure that they were not terrorists.
The Arab countries, however, are not interested in helping the Gaza Strip. As far as they are concerned, the Palestinians are "our dear and beloved brothers" so long as they stay far away from the Arab countries and remain a headache just for Israel.
Here is what Egypt and the Arab states should be telling Israel: "Thank you for all that you have done so far to help the people of the Gaza Strip. However, these are our Arab brothers. Therefore, it seems fair that we step in and assume this burden." If Egypt or any other Muslim country or leader is imagined in this scenario, it appears in reality unlikely to play out.
*Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Brexit and the Deficiencies of Parliament
Malcolm Lowe/Gatestone Institute/September 11/2019
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14849/brexit-parliament
What has characterized the last year of UK politics is that individual MPs in the various parties have begun to seek the same freedom of action as US Members of Congress. So far, however, they are both fearful of suffering the same fate as the 21 banned by Johnson and remain inexperienced in the exercise of such freedom.
Johnson now has two alternatives. One is to reinstate the 21. His defenders claim that this would encourage similar defections in the future. The other alternative is to stick to his unpopular decision and risk being dismissed himself by his party. Either way, the unwitting heritage of Johnson may include the end of the tyrannical powers of the UK PM.
The Bank of England in its latest report estimates that the consequences of no-deal on October 31 will be less dire than it thought a year ago, but dire they will be: GDP will shrink by 5.5%, inflation will rise from 2% to over 5%, unemployment will "surge to 7% rather than 7.5%, up from a current 45-year low of 3.8%." In short, a very healthy economy will turn into a problematic economy. The most worrying problem, however, is that the Bank is engaged in guesswork about an event without precedent. If things turn out much better or much worse than estimated, nobody should be surprised that the Bank got it wrong.
It is remarkable that the UK Parliament has spent almost a year of debates about the Brexit deal agreed by Theresa May's government and the European Union. Indeed, about one small detail of that deal. We shall briefly describe what that detail is before explaining that the inordinate resulting delay reflects deep and longstanding dysfunction in the whole parliamentary system of the UK.
The deal consisted of two documents, the Withdrawal Agreement (WA, 585 pages) and the Framework for the Future Relationship (FFR, 26 pages). Most of the WA consists of regulations obviously needed for winding up UK participation in EU institutions, settling mutual debts, safeguarding the interests of UK citizens resident in the EU and vice versa, and the like. Even Boris Johnson regards all that as basically good and necessary.
The bone of contention is rather the so-called "Backstop" or (properly) the "Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland." This is a set of procedures designed to preserve the current "soft border" between the two parts of Ireland until the Protocol can be replaced via the negotiations that will turn the FFR from a shortlist of intentions into a permanent relationship between the UK and the EU. At 174 pages, it is nearly a third of the WA. Yet the real contention is just about Article 20 of the Protocol – a mere page and a half out of a total of over 600 pages.
Article 2 of the Protocol asserts that "The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours to conclude, by 31 December 2020, an agreement which supersedes this Protocol in whole or in part." But Article 20, which specifies how the regime of the Protocol will end, assigns no time limit to the life of the Protocol; it merely stipulates that the Protocol will cease to apply when the EU and the UK jointly agree that it is no longer needed. Critics rightly pointed out that the Protocol could just live on forever, or at least that it could be abused by the EU to extract favourable terms from the UK in the FFR. The only way that the UK could conceivably escape from the regime of the Protocol without the consent of the EU would be via the provisions for arbitration of disputes in Articles 170ff. of the main body of the WA. But the arbitration would be tedious and its outcome uncertain.
Your Choice of Parliamentary Systems
In European countries, the usual system of parliamentary elections is qualified proportional representation. Often parties get no seats if their vote falls below some set percentage of all voters: the threshold is 1% in the Netherlands, 3% in Greece and 5% in Germany. Sometimes the party winning the most votes is given a bonus of extra seats in the parliament. Party discipline is strict. Someone who votes against the party line is readily kicked out of the party, but this need not be the end of a political life. Instead, if a number of parliamentarians are dissatisfied with the party line, they can break away and have a realistic chance of returning to parliament as a new party. New public issues may lead to the collapse of a government and the formation of a new coalition. Thus the system has built-in flexibility.
There have basically been only the same two parties in the United States since the Civil War, largely due to the "first-past-the-post" electoral system: one seat is available in each constituency and whoever gets the most votes, even if it is a minority of the total votes, wins the seat. This makes it difficult for a new party to build up strength. Nonetheless, the system is flexible because party discipline is loose, voluntary rather than imposed. Voting against the party line need incur no penalty. Cross-part coalitions form in Congress to support or oppose proposed legislation. Also, the primaries system allows an individual to become the party's candidate regardless of what party functionaries want. Donald Trump is a striking example.
The UK is an exception to both Europe and the US: the electoral system is first-past-the post, but for nearly a century party disciple has been severe. UK PM Boris Johnson has just dismissed 21 Conservative MPs who voted with the opposition, including some who held high ministerial offices under Theresa May or her predecessors, and the local party organizations are dutifully picking new candidates to replace them in an imminent election. In the US nothing could prevent them from competing in primaries and in Europe they would have a fair chance of forming the nucleus of a new party and returning to parliament, but in the UK their careers are seen as finished.
Since the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party as the second largest party in the 1920s, Liberal voters have been grossly – indeed grotesquely – underrepresented in the House of Commons. The reason is that in many constituencies either Labour or the Conservatives always get the largest number of votes, whereas Liberal voters are more widely but more thinly distributed across the UK. In 1983, for example, Labour won 209 seats with 27.6% of the votes, whereas the Liberals (running in an alliance with Labour defectors) won only 23 seats with 25.4%. A comparable phenomenon: in the general election of 2015, the Scottish National Party won 56 out of 59 Scottish seats in the House of Commons with exactly 50.0% of votes in Scotland.
The result of all this, for many decades now, is that Prime Ministers of the UK have enjoyed far greater powers than the US President. They could not merely appoint and dismiss ministers at will but mostly enjoyed an automatic majority in the House of Commons for whatever they wanted. The PM risked dismissal only in a general election or if the whole party rose up to replace him or her. Until 2011, however, the PM could call a general election at will, reducing that danger.
Instructive in this regard is a passage from Aristotle's Politics III.14.[1] After describing two kinds of monarchy, he continues by defining "a third which existed in ancient Hellas" as follows:
"This may be defined generally as an elective tyranny, which, like the barbarian monarchy, is legal, but differs from it in not being hereditary. Sometimes the office was held for life, sometimes for a term of years, or until certain duties had been fulfilled."
The judges in the biblical Book of Judges and the Roman dictator are ancient examples of respectively the lifelong and time-limited variants of the elected tyrant. Examples from modern times are the Pope and the UK PM. But there are more points to be learned from Aristotle. One point is his distinction between the formal constitution and the – maybe unnoticed – real constitution (Politics IV.5). For instance, Athens was the ancient democracy par excellence, yet Pericles was virtually a monarch – albeit a constitutional one – during the long years in which he was automatically re-elected chief of the ten generals. (He never belonged to the Council of Archons, formally the highest body in the state, and where he would have been allowed to hold office for no more than two years in a lifetime.) So the UK is commonly described as a democracy, but effectively it has had a long series of limited-term monarchs who just happen to be called "Prime Minister."
Other points are that many constitutions are a mixture of monarchy, oligarchy and democracy and that, from the viewpoint of Aristotle and other ancient writers, most modern "democracies" are rather oligarchies, a small group of people running a country, since the dominant roles in the constitution are exercised by oligarchies. The basic point here is that, from the ancient viewpoint, a democracy is a state in which the people do not merely choose their rulers but are empowered to determine government policies, such as at the monthly meetings of the demos (the assembly of all adult male citizens) in Athens. The Archons of the current year would present their suggestions for steps to be taken, but any citizen could rise up to propose an amendment to be voted upon. The only modern state that comes close to this is Switzerland, where referenda can be called so easily that the government (also at the canton level) is obliged to take account of current popular opinion before adopting any matters of policy.
Elsewhere than in Switzerland, what is typical is that at a general election you are offered a choice between the parties that want to rule you for the next so many years. Since each political party is typically ruled by a small oligarchy of leading members, this kind of constitution is not particularly democratic, from the ancient viewpoint, but rather a form of "competitive oligarchy." Note, too, that even if the parties set out policies in a manifesto, they are at perfect liberty to disregard those proposals once they are in office.
There are also cases where local oligarchies band together on occasion to form a "super-oligarchy." Consider Washington, DC, where the president, his cabinet and advisors and the Congress – including both parties – amount to hardly a thousand individuals who collectively rule over three hundred million. The Athenian demos, by contrast, numbered in the tens of thousands out of a total population of well under a million. (Modern commentators who complain that the demos excluded women and slaves have not understood that its membership was based on the obligation to bear arms. Women and slaves were free of that obligation and would be treated as non-combatants by an enemy army.)
Remember also the immense sums of money that US politicians have to spend during an election, and it is clear that few citizens indeed have the means to do so. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, you can hardly participate in ruling your country without belonging to the rich few. Astronaut John Glenn learned this to his regret when, after losing his campaign to become the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1984, he "carried $3 million in campaign debt for over 20 years before receiving a reprieve from the Federal Election Commission."
Another super-oligarchy is the ruling cliques that run the European Union. After each election to the European Parliament, the parties get together and decide: one party will appoint the President of the European Parliament, another the President of the European Commission, and so on. Political opponents they may be, but they share an oligarchic interest in dividing the spoils.
The biggest super-oligarchy of all, however, is the so-called "international community." The name suggests a worldwide community of millions or billions, but its "citizens" consist of the leading politicians, journalists, professors and other miscellaneous individuals in the world, or maybe merely in the largest and richest countries: not such a large number.
Returning to the UK case, the PM may be an elected tyrant, but often he rests upon the backing of an oligarchy with very clear interests of its own. Today's UK has become an extreme such case: Jeremy Corbyn rests upon the Momentum organization, which has penetrated positions of power in the Labour Party, while Boris Johnson is the protagonist of the so-called European Research Group (ERG), which makes up between a quarter and a third of the Conservatives in the House of Commons, but is more popular in party branches. Also, Labour is mainly financed, and decisions at its conferences are largely determined, by an oligarchy of trade union bosses.
What then has characterized the last year of UK politics is that individual MPs in the various parties have begun to seek the same freedom of action as US Members of Congress. So far, however, they are both fearful of suffering the same fate as the 21 banned by Johnson and remain inexperienced in the exercise of such freedom. One result is that they find it easier to band together against what they do not want, such as a no-deal Brexit, than to formulate a detailed proposal of what they do want instead. We shall now survey, from those perspectives, the last year of Brexit deliberations in the House of Commons.
A Year Mainly Wasted
Explained above was that the contention over Brexit comes down to Article 20 of the Protocol. Moreover, as we pointed out in December and January, there was a simple way to amend Article 20 and end the problem. It would be to stipulate that the Protocol should operate until the end of 2020 and thereafter be renewable annually by mutual consent of the UK and EU. The preservation of a soft border in Ireland, it is generally recognized, is as much a UK as an EU interest and commitment. So, provided that the negotiations on the FFR were making progress and proceeding in good faith, renewals of the Protocol would be a mere formality. We were even able to formulate, using the jargon of the WA, the exact form of wording required.
Strangely, nobody else seems to have even considered such a solution. Certainly, no specific rewording of Article 20 was suggested by any of the many participants in the long debates in the House of Commons. This was partly because the EU negotiators, led by Michel Barnier, haughtily and contemptuously told their UK counterparts that not a word could be changed in the WA. And partly because for too long Theresa May was acting more as an envoy from the EU to the UK Parliament than as the reverse.
Instead, UK parliamentarians engaged in futile exercises. Either they proposed alternative arrangements for maintaining a soft border, although it was ridiculous to try to change 174 pages instead of a page and a half, given Barnier's arrogant stance. Or they speculated about a "Canada-style" or a "Norway-style" approach, without perceiving that such proposals pertained to the FFR and not at all to the WA.
Eventually, Theresa May – an undoubtedly honest and diligent character but a slow learner – realized that she had to start pressing the EU to address the evident defect of the Protocol. The result was that the leaders of the remaining 27 EU countries at their summit on March 11 gave legally-binding assurances that the application of the Protocol would genuinely be temporary.
This should have been enough to get the WA through Parliament, but the ERG of Conservative MPs continued to oppose it, although the opposition was eventually whittled down to about 25 "Spartans." It was then realized that the WA could now pass the House of Commons if the Spartans were offset by Labour MPs who favoured it in principle, of which there was a considerable number.
Yet the subsequent negotiations between representatives of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party came to nothing because the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn insisted that the price must be a radical rewriting of the FFR. This demand eventually scuttled the prolonged negotiations.
In the meantime, Theresa May has been replaced by Boris Johnson, who boasted that he would go to Brussels and use the threat of a no-deal Brexit to force the EU to cancel the Protocol in its entirety. This, although the EU quickly dismissed his threats and there has been, from the beginning, an evident majority in the Commons against no-deal. Moreover, the Attorney General, who has been involved in the wording of the WA from the beginning, reportedly warned Johnson that his proposal to delete the Protocol in its entirety "was a 'complete fantasy' and would put the UK on course for a No Deal split from Brussels."
Right now, Johnson has no majority to pass anything in the Commons, let alone on Brexit. Johnson's Brexit strategy has been frustrated by those 21 Conservatives who voted with Labour to take away the threat of no-deal. And nearly half of the time has been wasted during which the Protocol was supposed to be rendered unnecessary by further negotiations on the FFR.
The vanity of Johnson's boasts was shown on September 4, a very bad day for him. It began with a disastrous Prime Minister's Questions (PMQ), in which he lost the argument – indeed showed his lack of arguments – by hurling ridiculous epithets at Corbyn ("chlorinated chicken," "great big girl's blouse"), using a four-letter word, and violating the best-known convention of the House by addressing Corbyn by name instead of as "my right honourable friend." That may sound trivial, but for a PM to be so slapdash at PMQ undermines confidence that he can be anything other than slapdash in weightier matters. Second, the House next passed a law to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Indeed, the law expressly orders the PM to go to Brussels and request a further deferral of the Brexit date, destroying his promise to achieve Brexit by October 31. (The law even spells out the exact wording of the written request that the PM must take with him, reducing him to a postman.) Third ignominy: his request for a new general election also failed, since the opposition insisted that he must first go cap in hand to obtain an extension of Brexit – then there can be an election.
The next day, Johnson earned fresh criticism from no less than John Apter, the national chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales. Johnson was invited to give a speech about his initiative to increase police numbers, while standing in front of an array of new police recruits. When journalists then asked him questions about Brexit, the right thing to do would have been to decline to answer or to utter a brief platitude about hoping for a good outcome. Instead, he thoughtlessly used the occasion to deliver a harangue against Corbyn. Apter said that he was "surprised" that the recruits had been used "for a political speech," adding:
"I am sure that on reflection all concerned will agree that this was the wrong decision and it is disappointing that the focus has been taken away from the recruitment of 20,000 officers."
Johnson's summary execution of the 21 has also deeply upset fellow Conservatives. Sajid Javid, who as Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most senior member of Johnson's cabinet, quickly begged him to reconsider, as did many when Johnson was invited to a meeting of the 1922 Committee (the informal association of all backbench Conservative MPs). In a collective letter from the "One Nation" group (the moderate counterpart of the ERG), over a hundred Conservative MPs demanded the reinstatement of the 21:
"We are now calling on the Prime Minister to reinstate the party whip to our valued, principled and dedicated colleagues. The PM's decision to remove the party whip from these MPs is wrong in principle and bad practical politics! It's time to unite, not divide!"
That MPs should collectively use such peremptory language in addressing a PM from their own party may be without precedent. To add to Johnson's woes, his brother Jo(seph), whom he had appointed a minister, has resigned, claiming that "In recent weeks I've been torn between family loyalty and the national interest."Johnson now has two alternatives. One is to reinstate the 21. His defenders claim that this would encourage similar defections in the future. If that means permitting senior and long-serving party members (one of them is the "Father of the House," Kenneth Clarke, an MP since 1970) to dissent occasionally on matters where they discern a great danger, we think that it is even desirable. The other alternative is to stick to his unpopular decision and risk being dismissed himself by his party. Either way, the unwitting heritage of Johnson may include the end of the tyrannical powers of the UK PM.
What Is No-Deal Actually About?
In closing, we shall note what the controversy over a no-deal Brexit is about, since the UK media report it in misleading ways and with arcane terminology. For instance, the popular press continues to label as "Remainers" those MPs who are known to have voted "Remain" in the referendum of 2016. In the case of Labour and Conservative MPs, with very few exceptions, the MPs concerned are now committed to leaving the EU, just not without a deal. Only the Liberals and the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists are still committed to overturning the result of the referendum.
First, some facts. It is acknowledged by all that if the UK leaves the EU on October 31 without a deal that redefines the trade and other relations between the two, it will deal a blow to industry in them both and cause inconvenience (to say the least) to the citizens of both. Johnson and his supporters claim that the UK can ride out the blow with ease, his opponents deny that vehemently. Various problems have been identified and the institutions of both the UK and the EU have made preparations for them, but especially smaller businesses remain confused and unready.
The Bank of England in its latest report estimates that the consequences of no-deal on October 31 will be less dire than it thought a year ago, but dire they will be: GDP will shrink by 5.5%, inflation will rise from 2% to over 5%, unemployment will "surge to 7% rather than 7.5%, up from a current 45-year low of 3.8%." In short, a very healthy economy will turn into a problematic economy.
The Bank thinks that the "improvement" over a year ago is due largely to the time made available for preparations and that there will be a further "improvement" if the departure is postponed until January 31, as the newly passed law demands. The most worrying problem, however, is that the Bank is engaged in guesswork about an event without precedent. If things turn out much better or much worse than estimated, nobody should be surprised that the Bank got it wrong.
Second, some figures. The most recent public opinion poll is being quoted selectively by one and all in favour of one's own position. But the most revealing details, we think, are these:
"Asked to choose between two options – a No Deal Brexit and Mr Corbyn entering Downing Street – voters chose the former by 52 per cent to 31 per cent. However, when asked whether they were in favour of a No Deal exit, just 22 per cent said it was their preferred outcome. Some 37 per cent said they wanted to remain in the EU, compared to 32 per cent saying Britain should leave without a deal. Overall, however, a separate question found the voters opted 53 per cent for Remain and 47 per cent for Leave."
The headline of the article quoted, however, selects from those figures merely "most want No-Deal rather than Jeremy Corbyn, poll shows." We find that grossly misleading, but unfortunately it is typical of how issues are being reported. People very definitely do not want no-deal, they are just even more afraid of a government led by Corbyn. Moreover, this dilemma has been found in previous polls, yet much reporting lets you think that the people are unworried about no-deal.
As for the information indicating that a second referendum would today end in a victory for "Remain," overturning the result in 2016, it is nothing new. A long series of polls conducted from 2016 until today shows that for almost all of that time "Remain" had a lead over "Leave," albeit by fluctuating percentages and with large numbers of "Don't know/undecided."
Thus MP Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative leader, is utterly wrong in his claim that "This is about Parliament versus the people. Boris Johnson is on the side of the people, who voted to leave the EU." Both Parliament and the people are perplexed and evenly divided, and the perplexity of each matches the perplexity of the other.
Malcolm Lowe is a Welsh scholar specialized in Greek Philosophy, the New Testament and Christian-Jewish Relations.
[1] The discussion of Aristotle in this section and its application to modern situations is based on my article in the Welsh philosophical journal Efrydiau Athronyddol 63 (2000), 64-95, entitled "Crefydd a Democratiaeth," ("Religion and Democracy"). Anyone who knows Welsh can now read the article online. If anyone wants and has the means to publish an English translation, I would consider preparing one.
© 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.

Netanyahu revelations could be the smoking gun proving Iran's ongoing nuclear weapons program
رون بن يشاي يديعوت أحرونوت: قد يكون كشف نتنياهو عن موقع نووي جديد في إيران هو تأكيداً على استمرار النظام فيها بأنشطتهه النووية الفاعلة
Ron Ben-Yishai/Ynetnews/September 11/20
Analysis: If Israel's assertions about the Abadeh installation's true purpose were verified, they would be the smoking gun that would finally prove Iran is developing a nuclear weapon in complete violation of the treaties it had signed
Ron Ben-Yishai|Published: 09.10.19 , 10:05
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's bomb shell revelation Monday of another Iranian nuclear site that was operational as late as three months ago is big news aimed at the international community. Even so, Israel's intelligence services will have to provide more information proving Iran had, or had at least planned to develop nuclear weapons at the Abadeh installation. Satellite images of the installation before and after it was uncovered by Israel will not be sufficient to sway EU leaders or the Russians and Chinese, who are signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. It will not even be enough to convince the Trump administration.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will not examine Israel's claims based on aerial photography alone. The Iranians will - as always - deny the claims and the IAEA inspectors will need more information in order to proceed. But if more proof is supplied, IAEA inspectors will be able to launch an investigation that may prove embarrassing for Iran, because it will show they have not only violated the nuclear deal (aka the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), but also the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Netanyahu's revelations are grave because of Iran's consistent claims that their uranium enrichment is for civilian purposes while denying it is developing nuclear weapons.
The IAEA and the signatories of the JCPOA had accepted this claim in order to get Iran to sign an agreement that will stop it from enriching uranium and plutonium (needed for the production of nuclear bombs), had agreed to restrict the agreement to "possible military applications" of the Iranian nuclear program.
If Israel's assertions about the Abadeh installation's true purpose were verified, they would be the smoking gun that would finally prove Iran is developing a nuclear weapon in complete violation of the treaties it has signed. Israel had provided proof in the past that such weapons were being developed, and even showed Iran's plans to produce a nuclear warhead for its missiles, but that referred to the period ending in 2005. Netanyahu's revelations would show Iran is consistently violating both the 2015 deal and the non-proliferation agreement.
Past experience has shown Israeli claims have not changed the position of the European signatories or Russia and China.
If IAEA inspectors do decide to use their prerogative to hold a surprise inspection of the Abadeh site it may find radioactive residue similar to that found in the "carpet factory" in Turquzabad, which Israel referred them to in December of last year. Revealing the existence of the installation in Abadeh is a risky move on the part of the prime minister, because if his claims are not validated, it could be used to portray him as propagating fake news at a time when the presidents of the United States and Iran are reportedly set to begin talks. Israel's findings were given to both American Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson during Netanyahu's meetings in London last week.
This could be seen as an Israeli effort to hamper any possible negotiation talks between Donald Trump and Hassan Rouhani, who could be meeting as soon as the end of this month at the UN General Assembly. If the American president persists in his intentions to start negotiations with the Iranians, the new revelations may be the proof Netanyahu needs to show Trump that Tehran has been lying all along and that the current administration should not make the same mistakes Barack Obama made by letting the ayatollahs lead him on. Another reason for Monday's announcement revealing the Abadeh site is Israel's desire to prevent the Europeans and disrupt the Chinese from helping Iran overcome U.S. imposed sanctions that have been hard felt in Tehran. If Iran has been lying and continues to lie while violating agreements it had signed, the EU would have to take steps to punish the Islamic Republic.
There is no doubt that the Israeli elections, just one week away, played a part in Netanyahu's decision to announce his governments' intelligence findings. The prime minister has an internal challenge to change the conversation to Iran and away from the daily leaks from interrogations into his corrupt behavior.
One can only hope that intelligence was not used to further Netanyahu's re-election chances, as his political rivals have claimed.

The politics of power, corruption and insatiable greed
ناحوم بارنيا/يديعوت أحرونوت: سياسة القوة والفساد والجشع التام
Nahum Barnea/Ynetnews/September 11/20
Opinion: The wife of the prime minister of the State of Israel should be thrilled with the endless positive coverage provided by Miriam Adelson and her billionaire casino mogul husband, but it seems that it is never enough - and the benefactors have no one to blame but themselves
Sara Netanyahu is the kind of person to be given an inch and expect a mile. In that respect, at least, she is far more honest than some of her detractors. This aspect of her character was on full display this week when Channel 12 journalist Guy Peleg presented tidbits from the various corruption investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his family.  In her testimony to police, Miriam Adelson, the wife of Sheldon Adelson and co-owner of the pro-Netanyahu Israel Hayom daily, said that the prime minister and his wife made frequent demands about the coverage they received in the newspaper. Sometimes Sara's picture was not big enough or flattering enough, or in the wrong place and not prominent enough.
Sometimes a positive news item about the couple was cut short or pushed further down the page, on its way to be printed. And sometimes milady hinted she would be happy to receive an expensive piece of jewelry from her billionaire friend. Adelson lamented to investigators that she could not take the screaming. At times, she told them, she just put the phone down on the floor and away from her ear. She was still able to hear what Mrs. Netanyahu was saying. "Saraleh" she would tell her, " I have a casino license. I cannot give the wife of an elected official any gifts."This testimony exposes Mr. and Mrs. Netanyahu in all their whims: Their obsession with press coverage, their impossible demands, their insatiable appetite for gifts, the screaming. All of them familiar to the public from Case 1000, which involves alleged receipt of illicit gifts from wealthy benefactors.
Peleg, a qualified journalist, was keen to reveal the narrative. That is his job.
One woman slinging mud at another makes for good headlines, it makes the viewers roll their eyes and feel good about themselves. Especially when one of the women is immensely rich and the other immensely powerful. I saw this clash of characters a little differently. An American Jewish billionaire by the name of Sheldon Adelson, who owns many casinos in many countries, decided to get involved in Israeli politics. He had a vision, an agenda and deep pockets, and 12 years ago, he and his wife founded a free daily newspaper to be distributed all over Israel. The couple saw Netanyahu as the right person to carry out their vision, their political agenda, and embraced him whole heartedly.
The free paper was seen for what it was, a platform for the Adelsons' campaign to promote the Netanyahu personality cult and a loud crusade against his opponents. It was never a newspaper. Not every rag printed with a crossword puzzle and Sudoku can be mistaken as such. It was an election gift for Netanyahu. Hundreds of millions of shekels were invested by the Adelsons in the Netanyahus. Anyone else given such an opportunity would say thank you, but not Sara Netanyahu. To the wife of the prime minister of the State of Israel, the people who work for her must be totally committed to serving her. Be they Sheldon Adelson, the caretaker at the official residence or her office manager - they are all the same in her eyes. At least she in consistent, I suppose.
From the beginning, the Adelsons published stories about the Netanyahus that were meant only to flatter them, so it is hardly surprising that this is what they expect all the time.Why shouldn't Mrs. Netanyahu expect to receive editorial discretion? Why should she not expect her demands to fire a journalist be met by Mrs. Adelson? Israel Hayom has not transformed into a bona fide newspaper even if its owner is on the receiving end of Sara Netanyahu's ear-shattering ire.

Palestinians paying the price for their anti-Trump campaign
Ray Hanania/Arab News/September 11/2019
Israel has carefully crafted the threat of Iran and its nuclear weapons into a wedge to drive between the sacred issue of Palestine and the Arab world, which is in near total disarray.
Iran is a regional threat, the primary enabler of Hezbollah — which has proven itself to be a powerful force in confronting Israel’s militarism — and the instigator of violence in Syria, building an alliance with Russia.
It could become a nuclear threat, but then what is the difference between Iran having nuclear weapons and Israel having nuclear weapons? Is there any doubt that Israel would use its massive nuclear arsenal to destroy any Arab country that seeks to confront its militancy and regional aggression?
Israel has wavered between taking action and resorting to rhetoric against Iran, largely based on the strong or weak support it has received from the US, which has turned a blind eye to Israel’s atrocities while exaggerating the crimes of Iran. The more America supports Israel, the more militant it is toward Iran.
Israel was angered when former President Barack Obama negotiated a treaty that gave Iran a path to moderate its relations with the West, while still building a nuclear energy base. That is one reason why Israel is close to President Donald Trump, who leans toward bluster in driving US foreign policy.
Trump wants to make peace with North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un, but has been rebuffed almost embarrassingly by Pyongyang’s wavering. And he pumped up Israel’s expectations by suggesting that he would attack Iran.
But, this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Trump would not rule out face-to-face meetings with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who Israel and Trump have vilified repeatedly. The news sent shock waves through Israel, just as voters prepared to go to the polls to clean up the mess following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failed attempt to create a government following the April elections.
No one can predict Trump’s mercurial strategy, although you can predict that he tends to favor the dramatic in everything he does. This has helped him ride the unruly waves of nearly three years in office.
Donald Trump understands politics in a way that the Palestinians do not. It is a relative business, not one of principles.
But Trump’s actions have consequences, and they do create opportunities.
The most important opportunity falls in the laps of the Palestinians, who seem to follow a historical routine of constantly failing to take advantage of such strategic opportunities. So far, the Palestinian leadership seems to be relishing the ongoing turmoil in its own mire, which basically means that they find contentment in the face of their ongoing suffering, oppression and tragedy.
But it does not have to be that way. The Palestinians can develop a clear and clever strategy to exploit the wedges that Trump seems unable to avoid.
Prior to becoming president, Trump was very close to the Palestinian-American community and often featured Palestinian businessmen, including Farouk Shami, the Houston multimillionaire who owns a nationwide hair-care company, on his reality TV shows.
But, when Trump was elected, the Palestinians set aside their own interests and went against Trump, making it a certainty that he would be pushed deeper into Israel’s back pocket. Why Palestinians think Obama was better for them than Trump could ever have been is beyond rational analysis. Although Obama’s rhetoric embraced empathy for the Palestinian plight, his actions solidified Israel’s policies of settler expansion and even militarism against numerous Palestinian targets in Gaza and the West Bank.
Trump understands politics in a way the Palestinians do not. It is a relative business, not one of principles. Politicians lie and exaggerate, and they break promises all the time. Some of the best American politicians have done that. And yet, many times, they end up doing the right thing. This odd behavior is driven by constituencies, alliances and self-preservation. Had the Palestinians not attacked Trump and instead tried to work with him, he might have responded with open doors and possibly moderated his assimilation into Israel’s expansionist agenda. Many of Trump’s actions, such as terminating US funding to the Palestinians, might have been prevented.
Palestinians could focus on encouraging eligible Palestinian voters in Israel, who make up nearly 20 percent of the population, to create some shock waves of their own by increasing their turnout to as close to 100 percent as possible. The Israelis clearly fear that possibility — they have pushed for laws to suppress the Palestinian vote, such as the recently defeated attempt to install cameras in polling stations — more than the Palestinians recognize the potential that a huge tu
The de-escalation of the anti-Iran rhetoric from the Trump administration, as symbolized by Pompeo’s recent remarks, might also send a signal to the Arab world that trading Palestine’s freedom for the suppression of Iran is a bad strategy and a bad deal.
This is not about Iran, but rather about politics. Unfortunately, the Arabs have been good at reading the tea leaves but terrible when it comes to manipulating the politics.
*Ray Hanania is an award-winning former Chicago City Hall political reporter and columnist. He can be reached on his personal website at www.Hanania.com. Twitter: @RayHanania

Annexation should frighten Israelis and Palestinians alike
Joseph Dana/Arab News/September 11/2019
If you had not been paying attention, it would be easy to overlook just how critical the upcoming Israeli general election is for the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It could decide whether Israel maintains the status quo of its occupation of the West Bank or takes bold, if deeply unwise, steps to annex the entirety of the territory. Indeed, it could plunge Israelis and Palestinians alike into a dangerous maelstrom of uncertainty.
Before we unpack the specific threads, we must consider the two ends of the Israeli political spectrum, namely the “control” camp and the annexation camp.
Since 1967, the occupation has been all about control of the Palestinians. Instead of extending full rights through either the creation of a Palestinian state or the annexation of Palestinian land into Israel, military planners, from the outset, crafted an elaborate system of control. Most tangibly, there is the physical separation of Palestinian towns and cities from each other by roads and checkpoints. This road network has enabled Israelis to build settlements within easy reach of major Israeli population centers in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. In turn, the settlements have transformed into cheap bedroom communities for Israelis with jobs in the center of the country. The separation barrier, completed last decade, is a towering monument to the Israeli control strategy.
At the same time, Israeli society engaged in an incredible demonstration of cognitive dissonance with its commitment to peace negotiations and a two-state solution. Every Israeli who has stepped foot in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, either as a civilian or as a solider, understands perfectly well that a viable two-state solution is a geographic fantasy. Too many resources have been poured into the occupation to allow for an equitable division of the land into two states; to allow a free Palestine to take over infrastructure that is intrinsically linked on an operational level to Israel. But the notion that land could be exchanged for peace, and the fantasy that Israel was negotiating in good faith for the creation of two states, allowed
Israelis to escape the psychological burden that comes from being responsible for keeping millions of people under military occupation.
The occupation is now a well-oiled machine. Israel has perfected the art of control through military presence and technological prowess. The economy is strong and many Israelis are content to focus on domestic matters, as if the Palestinian issue was the least of their concerns.
But there is one problem: Donald Trump.
Annexation in the West Bank, should it happen, would unravel decades of Israeli military planning in that region and the Gaza Strip.
While the control camp has long defined mainstream Israeli politics, with left and right-wing governments alike responsible for entrenching the occupation, there have been loud calls for annexation in recent years. Although there were discussions early in the occupation about annexing the West Bank, they were quickly dismissed by military planners. Annexation at that stage in Israel’s history would have created insurmountable demographic challenges, they argued. And, for the most part, they won. Until now.
The settlement project expanded in the 1970s and 1980s. But it has only been in recent years that right-wing politicians have begun to use annexation as an election platform. They just did not realize what kind of Pandora’s box they opened.
With the election of Trump in the US, annexation proponents may have found their ultimate partner. Trump’s ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has been laying the diplomatic groundwork for annexation with statements essentially providing American support to any effort. While annexation for Israeli politicians is mostly a means toward power, for Trump and his administration it is actually seen as a real end goal.
And therein lies a huge problem for Israeli society. Annexation, should it happen, would unravel decades of Israeli military planning in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that was designed to control Palestinians without having to extend them citizenship. In addition, Israeli society is woefully unprepared for annexation. Would full rights be extended to Palestinians in the West Bank the day after annexation? If not, how would Israel deflect the apartheid label? And, if West Bank Palestinians were to become Israelis, what about the demographic impact of millions of non-Jews being incorporated into the Jewish state? In no uncertain terms, annexation would be the end of Israel as it is today and lead to an existential crisis at every level of the state.
The control camp and annexation camp are battling for the mainstream vote. Benny Gantz, the former Israeli military general and chief rival of Benjamin Netanyahu, represents the control camp, and his party has been running ads warning about the annexation threat.
Netanyahu, for his part, is attempting to appease both sides — overtly to one faction and implicitly to the other. In the last two weeks, he visited major settlements and promised that his government would extend “Jewish sovereignty” to the West Bank. The term is essentially meaningless, but highlights the growing passion for annexation in the Israeli electorate. Of course, Netanyahu has been on the political landscape long enough to understand the grave dangers that annexation creates for Israel. Therefore, he has also quietly acknowledged that he would not go through with any concrete plans if he wins.
All the machinations notwithstanding, it is clear that the annexation camp is getting stronger, and that it could markedly shift the status quo in the next election cycle. Considering the fact that Palestinians already live under military occupation, any shift in the intolerable current situation might actually be welcomed. The problem is, the absolutely uncharted uncertainty that annexation would usher in should frighten everyone, Israelis and Palestinians alike.
*Joseph Dana, based between South Africa and the Middle East, is editor in chief of emerge85, a lab that explores change in emerging markets and its global impact. Copyright: Syndication Bureau

How Will Palestinians Respond to Netanyahu’s Annexation Announcement?
Ghaith al-Omari/The Washington Institute/September 11/2019
Abbas will likely use it to rally the Arab League and UN against the Trump administration’s peace plan, and his success will depend on Washington’s own reaction going forward.
On September 10, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared that he would annex the Jordan Valley if he wins this month’s do-over election. While the announcement’s actual implementation and long-term implications will depend on a variety of factors, the short-term consequences are clear: it will create a political environment among the Palestinian public that demands a strong reaction from their leaders. This domestic pressure may compel Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas to react in a way he does not wish to, though it will also give him diplomatic ammunition to garner international support for his contrary positions toward Israel and the United States.
Indeed, the announcement represents both a strategic challenge and a tactical opportunity from the PA’s perspective. Strategically, the rationale behind the PA’s very existence—the diplomatic pursuit of a two-state solution within the framework of the Oslo Accords—has been steadily losing domestic support. Earlier this week, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated, “This is not a time for negotiations, recognition, or peace,” and PA officials may soon feel the need to express similar sentiments. Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization have issued several rulings in recent months calling on the PA to formally disengage from Israel and the Oslo process, and while these demands are largely symbolic, they have created mounting pressure on Abbas to implement at least some of them. Netanyahu’s announcement will only increase this pressure; Abbas has already warned that any steps toward annexing the Jordan Valley would spell “the end of all signed agreements with Israel.”
Over the past few years, Abbas adopted a balancing strategy that centered on embracing defiant diplomacy (particularly at the UN) and suspending some peripheral Oslo provisions while still maintaining the core security and economic components laid out in the accords. As his options gradually diminished, however, he was sometimes forced to make financial and security decisions that threatened to destabilize the PA. In July 2017, for example, he briefly suspended security cooperation with Israel in response to clashes at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. More recently, he felt politically compelled to reject further transfers of the tax revenue that Israel collects on behalf of the PA, a move that plunged the West Bank into a financial crisis (though both parties are finding ways to at least partially circumvent this decision).
Netanyahu’s annexation bid will make this balancing strategy even more precarious. On the one hand, the domestic imperative to respond immediately may spur Abbas to issue strong threats regarding the announcement in order to rally public support around his leadership. On the other hand, the pressure to activate PLO/Fatah rulings and terminate certain aspects of security cooperation with Israel will increase. Although Abbas will try to avoid taking that step (perhaps couching it as a future threat instead), he might find himself short on softer alternatives.
In any case, the most immediate PA reaction will be diplomatic, with Abbas no doubt moving quickly to leverage wide international rejection of Netanyahu’s announcement. This likely entails calling for an Arab League meeting that reiterates support for traditional Palestinian positions ahead of the upcoming UN General Assembly sessions—an invitation that would be difficult for any Arab state to refuse. Indeed, according to BBC Monitoring, Saudi Arabia has already requested that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation hold an “urgent” meeting of foreign ministers to discuss the issue and develop an action plan. The peak of this diplomacy will take place this month in New York, where Abbas will center his UN appearance on creating a wider international alliance against annexation. Such a message would fall on receptive ears, including in Europe, where commitment to a two-state solution and opposition to unilateral annexation remains strong.
In addition, the PA will seek to identify Netanyahu’s announcement with the Trump administration’s still-unreleased peace plan. In that case, Abbas would try to lock Arab and possibly European states into preemptively rejecting any plan that endorses Netanyahu’s position. By securing such a commitment in advance, the PA hopes to isolate Washington on this issue and increase the chances of the U.S. plan falling flat.
The chances of that strategy succeeding will depend on Washington’s reaction to Netanyahu’s announcement. The administration’s position thus far—stating that U.S. policy remains unchanged, and deferring the issue to the eventual release of its peace plan—might create sufficient distance from the annexation announcement to avoid serious fallout. But for this approach to be effective in securing the necessary room for diplomatic maneuver, officials will need to publicly expand on the administration’s position, exert message discipline, and actively reach out to key Arab and European states. Failure to do so would allow the PA to define the narrative and, perhaps, sink the U.S. peace plan before it ever sets sail. The other alternative—issuing statements that signal American endorsement of Netanyahu’s proposals—would give the PA even more leverage, all but ensuring its success in building a preemptive alliance against the peace plan.
*Ghaith al-Omari is a senior fellow at The Washington Institute.

The North Korean-Israeli Shadow War
Jay Solomon/Tablet/September 11/2019
Whenever nuclear weapons technology appears in the hands of Israel’s enemies, Pyongyang is usually involved.
It was largely by chance that Israel scored one of its greatest ever intelligence coups in 2007. At the time, Mossad was running surveillance on the director general of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission, a pudgy, bespectacled bureaucrat named Ibrahim Othman. Othman was visiting Vienna that winter to attend meetings of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Mossad sought to learn more about his secretive activities. The Israelis hacked the Syrian’s personal computer after he left his hotel for meetings in the Austrian capital.
The Israeli government was shocked by what Mossad found on Othman’s laptop. A trove of downloaded photos detailed a box-like building being constructed on the Euphrates River in eastern Syria. Israeli and American spy satellites had detected the mysterious structure during earlier scans of Syria, but derived no special significance to it. Othman’s photos, however, revealed the building, located near a Syrian trading town called Al Kibar, to be a virtual replica of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear reactor, a plutonium-producing facility that the U.S. viewed as a virtual bomb-making factory. The facility had no real civilian applications. The Israelis’ concern about the North Korea link was only amplified by a photo Othman stored on his laptop. It showed him standing arm-in-arm with an Asian man whom the Mossad identified as Chon Chibu, a North Korean nuclear scientist who worked at the Yongbyon facility. Chon had previously taken part in disarmament talks with the U.S. and other world powers.
While the discovery of the Al Kibar nuclear reactor sparked panic among Israeli and U.S. officials, the fact that North Korea appeared to be taking an active role in providing lethal weapons expertise to one of Israel’s enemies could not have come as a surprise. In fact, while North Korea is not often thought of in the ranks of Israel’s enemies or, for that matter, as a player in Middle Eastern affairs, the so-called Hermit Kingdom in Pyongyang has been actively bolstering states hostile to Israel, and facilitating attacks on the Jewish state, since the 1960s. Despite occasional attempts to broker a truce between the two nations, the Israeli-North Korean relationship has been defined for decades by covert hostility and proxy conflict—a shadow war between the two nations. The pattern continues through the present day in North Korea’s alliance with Iran and Syria.
Back in 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made it clear to Washington that his government wouldn’t accept Syrian President Bashar Assad developing the capacity to make nuclear weapons. It went against the so-called Begin Doctrine, which held that no Israeli government could allow its regional enemies to possess weapons of mass destruction. This mantra guided Israel’s 1981 attack on the Osirak reactor in Iraq. But concern in Israel was heightened in 2007 by the fact that its intelligence showed the Al Kibar facility was about to go “hot,” meaning uranium fuel would be fed into the reactor. At that point, an Israeli attack risked spreading radioactive contamination across Syria and Iraq, which would fuel wide-spread condemnation of the Jewish state.
The George W. Bush administration, meanwhile, faced its own quandary. The U.S. was fighting a growing insurgency in Iraq after overthrowing strongman Saddam Hussein under the faulty pretext that Baghdad was developing weapons of mass destruction. U.S. officials questioned whether Washington could engage in military operations against another Arab state, particularly under the guise of stanching the spread of WMD. U.S. intelligence officials were also struggling to find out how they could have missed Assad’s nascent reactor, while Washington hyped the presence of a nonexistent weapons program in Iraq.
Both Israel and the U.S. doubled down in the spring and summer of 2007 to make sure their assessment of Al Kibar was correct. Israel covertly sent commandos into eastern Syria to obtain soil samples from around the facility on the Euphrates. The tests showed positive results for the man-made uranium particles needed for a nuclear program. The Bush administration, meanwhile, scrubbed its intelligence on the movement of North Korean diplomats and trading companies into Syria in the preceding years.
The U.S. eventually found the involvement of a troublesome player on the international stage: a company called Namchongang Trading Corp., which was headed by a senior North Korean official named Yun Ho Jin. The U.N. and U.S. sanctioned Yun for being one of Pyongyang’s worst nuclear proliferators. A former North Korean diplomat at the IAEA in Vienna, Yun had used Namchongang in the late 1990s to secretly procure aluminum tubes for his government’s nuclear program from engineering companies in Germany. Yun was seen as a master of using front companies and international smuggling networks to fool rival intelligence agencies. The U.S. believed Yun and his father-in-law, a high-ranking North Korean military officer, played a role in transferring military capabilities to Pakistan, Libya and Myanmar, and including, in some cases, nuclear technologies or materials.
Mysteries, however, still abounded about Al Kibar. Both the Israelis and Americans were stumped in trying to find the supporting structures inside Syria needed for a nuclear weapons program. These included a reprocessing facility to harvest the weapons grade plutonium from the reactor and the engineering sites required to convert the fissile material into the metal spheres for a bomb. The U.S. and Israel also questioned who was financing the construction, given Assad’s depleted finances. One theory was that Iran was paying for its close ally’s reactor as a way of owning a satellite nuclear program away from the prying eyes of Western intelligence.
The bombing of Al Kibar in 2007 didn’t deter North Korea from continuing to proliferate sophisticated weapon systems to Israel’s enemies, and even, in some cases, its friends in the Middle East. Indeed, concern in Israel over North Korea has only grown in the 12 years since the attack on Syria. Pyongyang’s young leader, Kim Jong Un, has dramatically increased his country’s military capabilities since Donald Trump took office in 2017. The North has tested ballistic missiles that, once perfected, could hit the western U.S., American intelligence officials believe. North Korea has also increased the yield of its nuclear weapons, moving toward what Kim’s government says will be a hydrogen bomb capability. Israel’s security officials say that North Korea’s past actions suggest Kim would have no qualms transferring these capabilities to Israel’s Mideast enemies, particularly for the right price.
Concern is now mounting in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that the Trump administration’s current diplomatic overtures toward North Korea, which are aimed at dismantling its nuclear weapons arsenal, will fail as previous U.S.-led efforts have. Israel could then be forced to again consider taking military action to prevent Pyongyang from distributing its supply of increasingly sophisticated weapons into the Mideast, say current and former Israeli officials.
“Americans have made statements that the U.S. would deal with the issue of North Korean missiles, which they never did,” said Eytan Bentsur, a former deputy director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, who held secret negotiations with North Korea in the early 1990s. “Israel doesn’t have the same timetable in dealing with North Korean threats. “It’s more immediate.”
North Korea and Israel, though separated by two oceans and 5,000 miles, have been engaged in low-intensity conflict and high-stakes spy games for more than five decades. For the Jewish state, Pyongyang has presented a remote, yet existential, threat due to its repeated transfer of nuclear and missile technologies to Israel’s sworn enemies in the Middle East. For North Korea, confronting Israel emerged in the 1960s as a central plank in its campaign to fight Western imperialism and U.S.-backed governments. North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung, aggressively supported the Palestinian cause, funding and training Arab militants who targeted Israel in terrorist attacks in the 1970s.
And yet despite this enmity, North Korea and Israel have also secretly engaged in intermittent diplomacy in recent decades to try and safeguard their national security, at times behind Washington’s back. Israel, on at least two occasions, discussed with North Korean diplomats ways to essentially buy off Pyongyang’s missile exports to the Mideast. The North viewed Israel as a potential economic partner in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, and a conduit to better relations with the U.S. On both occasions, however, the diplomacy died, in part, because of Israel’s inability to act independently from Washington. Some Israeli diplomats have grumbled that their country’s dependence on the U.S. failed to protect them from North Korea’s growing military capabilities and Pyongyang’s exports of sophisticated military technologies to their enemies.
North Korea’s strategic threat to Israel goes back to the late 1960s when Kim Il Sung moved to directly insert his military and intelligence services into the Arab-Israeli conflict. Kim, who called Israel an “imperialist satellite” on the Mediterranean, backed Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and Syrian strongman Hafez al-Assad in their campaigns to reclaim Arab lands lost in the 1967 Six-Day War and push back against Western influence in the Mideast. Pyongyang also staunchly supported Palestinian and left-wing terrorist groups who staged a string of attacks against Israeli targets, both in the Mideast and Europe, during the 1960s and ‘70s.
In 1972 North Korea trained and financed operatives from the Japanese Red Army, a radical Marxist organization, who attacked Israel’s Lod Airport, killing 26 people and injuring 80 more. The plot played out like a spy novel. The Japanese militants trained with members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or PFLP, in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. The PFLP’s commander, George Habash, had traveled to Pyongyang two years earlier to receive guidance from intelligence officials there. The North Koreans paired the PFLP with the Japanese Red Army to help the Palestinians evade Israeli intelligence that was fixated on tracking Arab terrorist threats, according to court documents tied to the Lod case. The North Koreans also provided financing and overall guidance for the plot.
The Japanese terrorists in 1972 successfully breached Israeli airport security in ways the Palestinian-Arabs probably couldn’t. The attack quickly deteriorated into a bloodbath. The three Japanese terrorists had sneaked Czech-made machine guns into the airport by hiding them in violin cases. They shot indiscriminately inside the arrival hall and threw grenades. Most of those murdered were Christian pilgrims visiting the Holy Land from Puerto Rico. Two of the Japanese attackers were killed during the shootout. But a third member of the Japanese Red Army, Kozo Okamoto, survived. He spent decades in an Israeli prison before his release, when he returned to Lebanon as part of a prisoner swap.
The fallout from the attack has echoed for decades. In 2010, the families of the Puerto Rican victims successfully sued North Korea in a U.S. court for masterminding the attack, winning a $378 million settlement. North Korea never paid.
Pyongyang’s military forces moved to directly enter the Arab-Israeli wars in 1973. At the time, Egypt was severing its military ties with the Soviet Union, even as Cairo was gearing up for a surprise attack on Israel. President Anwar Sadat’s expulsion of the Soviet military advisers imperiled Egypt’s ability to operate sophisticated air defenses deployed by Moscow. The Egyptian Air Force was almost totally made up of Russian MiG-21s.
Into this breach stepped the North Koreans. Sadat and his army chief, Hosni Mubarak, were impressed by North Korean military capabilities, which were repeatedly on display against South Korea and their U.S. backers. Just a few years earlier, Pyongyang had seized the Pueblo, an American Navy intelligence vessel that had strayed into North Korean waters. North Korea, as a member of the Soviet axis, also understood how to operate all of Egypt’s Soviet-sourced military equipment, including the air defenses and MiG-21s.
In June 1973, Sadat formally invited North Korean military advisers to Egypt. According to Chinese press reports, Pyongyang sent nearly 1,500 personnel to help the Egyptians run their Soviet-made surface-to-air missile systems as war with Israel appeared imminent. Pyongyang camouflaged its soldiers as day laborers to avoid detection by the prying eyes of the U.S., Israeli, and South Korean intelligence services. The British researcher Adrian Chan-Wyles translated these Chinese press reports. Pyongyang also sent a North Korean Air Force mission that included 20 experienced combat pilots who had flown sorties against U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula.
As the Yom Kippur War commenced, Israeli military personnel described clashes with North Korean fighters over the Sinai. In October 1973, Israeli Air Force Commander Gen. Benjamin Peled told a press conference that Israeli jets shot down two North Korean-piloted MiGs in dogfights.
North Korean pilots also flew with the Syrian Air Force. In the months after the Yom Kippur War formally ended, Israel’s military intelligence still picked up chatter between Syrian jets who were flying intermittent missions against the Jewish state to secure Damascus’ borders. The communications perplexed Israeli analysts, as some of the combatants weren’t speaking Arabic. Rather, they conversed in a language clearly not native to the Middle East or the Syrian Arab Republic.
Israeli officers scrambled to gain clarity on the provenance of these mysterious fighter pilots and sent the intercepts to the Pentagon for analysis. The answer they received back from Washington stunned them. They were North Koreans, the Americans said, embedded with the Syrian military. “My initial response was amazement that the North Koreans were there,” Colonel (Ret.) Pesach Malovany, a former Israeli intelligence officer who analyzed the signal intercepts 45 years ago, told me in Tel Aviv. “Our conflict clearly had more than just regional implications.”
Following Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 that toppled the U.S.-backed shah and installed the theocratic Khomenist regime, North Korea allied itself with the country that would become Israel’s chief regional rival. Kim Il Sung was attracted to the staunch anti-American, anti-imperialist line staked by Tehran’s new Islamist rulers. He quickly deepened diplomatic and economic relations with Iran and sought to expand Pyongyang’s military operations in the Middle East.
When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, a U.S.-led arms embargo made it virtually impossible for Tehran’s new government to secure arms to repel Saddam Hussein’s forces. Kim Il Sung ordered his military to aid the Islamic Republic. North Korean defectors interviewed by this author in Seoul over the past decade said they were dispatched to Iran throughout the 1980s to fortify Iran’s defenses. One senior defector who worked in Pyongyang’s munitions industries said he was sent to Iran by North Korea’s Second Economic Committee with the task of constructing missile batteries on the Iranian island of Kish to help Tehran better control the movement of enemy ships through the Straits of Hormuz.
The defector said his main interlocutor was Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The former hydromechanic says camaraderie developed between his 100-man team and the guard, despite their differences in culture and language. He chuckled at how his hard-drinking North Korean team found it challenging to unwind in a country that had banned alcohol. “The Iranians always remember that it was us who came to their defenses when the rest of the world isolated them,” said the defector, in describing why Iranian-North Korean relations flourished and endured.
The North Korean-Iranian military alliance continued to advance even after the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988. It was at this time that the two countries began close cooperation in developing strategic missile systems. This capability allowed Iran to target its Arab adversaries, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But it would also eventually allow Tehran to target Israel, which Iran’s Islamist leaders viewed as a “cancer” in their region. Yet in the early 1990s, North Korea was facing existential crises on multiple fronts. The collapse of the Soviet Union was drying up Moscow’s financial support for Pyongyang, while also robbing the North of its key export markets in the global communist bloc. Since the end of the Korean War in the 1950s, North Korea had at times outpaced South Korea as a producer of industrial goods. But that dynamic dramatically reversed itself as Seoul emerged as a world leader in the production of electronics, ships and automobiles.
North Korea’s founder, Kim Il Sung was in his 80s at the time and suffered from heart problems that would eventually claim his life. There was great uncertainty in Pyongyang about his chosen successor, eldest son Kim Jong Il, and his ability to lead the country at such a challenging time. The younger Kim had a reputation of being a womanizer and drunkard who preferred making movies to statecraft.
It was in this context of instability at the top that North Korea, in 1992, made a covert overture to Israel. The North was seeking ways to address its economic malaise and viewed the Jewish state as a potential partner in rehabilitating its industry. The North’s leaders also may have believed that Israel, and its powerful political lobby in the U.S., could be a conduit for better ties with the U.S. at a time when Pyongyang’s alliance with Moscow was in question.
The North’s initial outreach to the Israelis came in September 1992 through a Korean American businessman. The businessman contacted the Israelis through a relative of Eytan Bentsur, the deputy director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, who was visiting Washington at the time for negotiations with the Palestinians. An initial meeting was set up in the diamond district of mid-Manhattan. Pyongyang’s initial request was simple: It sought a $30 million Israeli investment in a gold mine destroyed by the U.S. Air Force during the Korean War, as well as technical assistance to rehabilitate it. Successful cooperation on this project in central Unsan Province, the North hoped, could open up other paths for economic cooperation between the two countries.
Bentsur said in interviews that he was intrigued by the offer because of Israel’s growing concern about North Korea transferring ballistic missile technology to its regional adversaries. A strengthened relationship, he argued, could potentially stanch the flow of this weaponry and relieve what was emerging as the existential threat posed by the missiles systems of Iran, Syria, and Libya to Israel. A better relationship with Pyongyang, Bentsur argued, would also be in the interest of Washington, which still had tens of thousands of soldiers stationed on the Korean Peninsula to face down the North Korean threat. “The USSR was being dismantled. And starvation was taking root in North Korea,” Bentsur told me at a coffee shop in Tel Aviv. “They were looking for help.”
Bentsur proceeded in 1992 and 1993 to hold a series of negotiations with North Korea, both in Beijing and Pyongyang. The diplomat included experts in mining and minerals from Israeli universities to study the feasibility of rehabilitating the North Korean mine. And the Israelis started to broach the idea of Pyongyang’s missile exports during the discussions. Bentsur said his team made clear to their interlocutors that any economic assistance from Israel would have to include Pyongyang ceasing its Mideast weapons trade. North Korea sought a larger fund of $1 billion for investments in the country.
In a November 1992 visit, Bentsur was put up at a state guesthouse where the chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, once stayed. “We were kept in fantastic luxury,” Bentsur said of his sleeping in the same room as the Arab revolutionary. As the talks progressed from solely focusing on the mine to greater economic engagement, North Korea specifically stated that it expected to be compensated financially for ceasing its missile sales to the Mideast. Pyongyang estimated that it earned hundreds of millions of dollars from the trade per year.
Ultimately, Bentsur and his team believed they had the parameters of an agreement with the North. Israel would help with the mine, establish the $1 billion fund and seek ways to address North Korea’s energy shortages. Pyongyang, in turn, would cease its missile exports to Israel’s enemies. “North Korea was ready to let Israel open a diplomatic mission. They wanted Peres to visit Pyongyang,” Bentsur told me, referring to Israel’s then foreign minister, Shimon Peres. “They agreed to let Israelis monitor their ports.”
But the deal never took hold. Unbeknownst to Bentsur, the North Koreans had pursued a separate channel of diplomacy with Israel through Mossad, the country’s famed spy service. Mossad’s deputy director at the time, Ephraim Halevy, was concurrently holding negotiations with Pyongyang focused on a 10-year plan for energy assistance. The two men traveled separately to Pyongyang in November of 1992 for discussions. And they were surprised to find one another on the same flight back from North Korea to China on Pyongyang’s state airline, Air Koryo. The North had purposefully kept the two men in the dark about the twin diplomatic channels.
Halevy didn’t share Bentsur’s optimism about engaging with North Korea. The British-born spy thought the North Koreans were trying to manipulate Israel by using economic trade as a way to diminish the U.S.’ leverage over its historic enemy. Halevy informed the Central Intelligence Agency about the secret talks and got word from Washington that the Clinton administration didn’t support the initiative. Foreign Minister Peres would get the same message from his American counterpart, Warren Christopher, in early 1993. “We couldn’t step into North Korea on our own without any recourse to how it would play in Washington,” Halevy told me in Tel Aviv. “We weren’t a player in Asia.”
Just months later, an international crisis erupted when United Nations nuclear inspectors discovered that North Korea had been diverting plutonium from its Yongbyon reactor, potentially for weapons use. The Clinton administration entered into negotiations with Kim Il Sung’s regime, and the two sides eventually reached a deal not dissimilar to the one Bentsur and Halevy pursued. The U.S. agreed to provide energy assistance to North Korea, in the form of oil shipments and light water reactors, in return for North Korea shuttering the Yongbyon facility. But the deal, known as the Agreed Framework, never addressed North Korea’s missile exports to the Middle East. And Pyongyang would continue to conduct covert nuclear work behind the backs of the U.S. and U.N. Indeed, North Korea would ultimately master two technologies for building nuclear bombs: One involved harvesting the plutonium produced by the Yongbyon reactor; the second used centrifuge machines to produce weapons-grade uranium.
In 1999, Israeli diplomats secretly entertained another offer from North Korea to cease its missile exports. This time, the North reached out to the Jewish state through diplomats based in Stockholm. Pyongyang said it would charge Israel $1 billion to cease exporting its more advanced missile systems to Syria and Iran. Israel responded that it couldn’t make such cash payments to the North behind the back of the Americans.
Despite these encounters with North Korea, Israeli officials say they never had particularly great intelligence on the country’s global activities. Pyongyang was largely viewed as an American problem, regardless of the threat the Kim regime posed to vital Israeli security interests. Still, rumors swirled in South Korea at times that Mossad was active in running sabotage operations against the North. In the spring of 2004, a massive explosion struck a North Korean train that was transiting near the Chinese border, killing more than 50 people. Some news reports in Asia alleged that Syrian military personnel were among the dead. This stoked speculation that Israeli spies targeted the train to block Pyongyang’s missile exports. I was unable to confirm such an operation took place, despite extensive reporting trips to Seoul and Israel.
The North Korean-built nuclear reactor in Syria posed a threat that Israel could not ignore even after President Bush decided in the summer of 2007 against using America’s military to destroy the facility. The inability of U.S. intelligence to answer the outstanding questions about Syria’s nuclear capacity was one important reason for Bush. But he also told his aides that he couldn’t risk another regional Mideast war in the waning months of his second term. He suggested to Olmert that the U.S. report Syria to the IAEA for violating international nonproliferation statutes and try to remove Damascus’ threat diplomatically. The Bush administration was concurrently pursuing talks with North Korea aimed at dismantling its growing nuclear weapons arsenal. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice believed a strike on Al Kibar could disrupt that process.
Olmert accepted Bush’s rationale, but made clear Israel was preparing to act alone. His aides believed any diplomatic track involving the IAEA would result in a prolonged negotiation that risked legitimizing Syria’s nuclear program. They had watched a similar dynamic play out after Iran was caught secretly building nuclear sites in 2002.
On the evening of Sept. 5, 2007, eight Israeli aircraft secretly took off from two air force bases in the Negev desert and flew north over the Mediterranean and then east into Turkish air space before entering Syria. The jets completely destroyed the Al Kibar facility before returning safely to Israel. Olmert placed a blackout on the Israeli media reporting on the attack. President Assad also kept quiet, embarrassed by the strike’s exposure of his country’s slack air defenses. Only North Korea publicly condemned the operation. U.S. officials said a number of North Korean workers died during the bombing of Al Kibar.
Many Israeli and American officials, however, remain concerned about the lessons learned from the episode. Olmert was relieved that Assad didn’t respond militarily to the strike and potentially stoke a regional war. But neither Syria nor North Korea ever paid any real diplomatic or financial cost for their blatant acts of nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the Bush administration continued its pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Pyongyang and removed the North from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 2008. Even then, Bush never got the disarmament pact he sought. North Korea backed out of the talks in the waning months of his presidency and proceeded to dramatically increase its production of atomic bombs and long-range missiles. Syria and North Korea, meanwhile, always denied they’d cooperated to build the reactor on the Euphrates River.
The lesson for North Korea was that it could proliferate, in the Middle East and elsewhere, and get away with it. “I believe our approach towards North Korea at the end of Bush’s term set an incredibly dangerous precedent,” said Elliott Abrams, Bush’s top Mideast advisor at the White House who took part in the discussions on Al Kibar. “We’re paying for it now.”
In Syria, North Korea has rushed to help President Assad win the brutal civil war waged since 2011. While Russia, Iran, and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah have been Assad’s biggest allies in the brutal conflict, North Korea has also been fused into the Syrian dictator’s war machine, according to U.S., U.N., and Arab officials.
Production of the chemical weapons Assad has used to gas thousands of Syrians is one key role North Korea has played in the civil war. U.N. inspectors detailed in a confidential report last year how North Korean trading companies smuggled tons of industrial equipment into Syria to build a new chemical weapons facility in collaboration with Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center. The SSRC oversees Assad’s chemical weapons production. These shipments were tracked by several U.N. member states and included acid-resistant tiles, stainless steel pipes, and other materials associated with chemical weapons production. The U.N., in the report, identified 40 previously undisclosed North Korean shipments to the SSRC from 2012 to 2017.
The U.N. also detailed North Korea’s deployment of its engineers at Syrian military bases active in the civil war. These personnel helped Damascus manage its chemical weapons and missile plants at bases in Hama, Adra, and Barzah, according to the U.N. Soldiers from Iran’s elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard, and Hezbollah have also been active in these areas and targeted by dozens of Israeli airstrikes during the war. Israel is concerned that the IRGC and Hezbollah are seeking to establish permanent bases inside Syria to launch cross-border attacks into the Jewish state. This raises the possibility that Israel may again be attacking North Korean personnel inside Syria, as it reportedly did at Al Kibar in 2007.
Syria has lauded North Korea for its military alliance and diplomatic support. In 2015, the Assad regime inaugurated Kim Il Sung Park in a Damascus suburb. It sits adjacent to a 1-kilometer street also named after North Korea’s founder. The ceremony was held to mark the anniversary of the establishment of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party. Kim Il Sung was an “historic ruler and leader, famous for his struggle to liberate and build his country,” Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mikdad said at the ceremony, according to Syrian state media. “For this reason, he deserves to be honored in Syria.”
Egypt has also continued to be a buyer of North Korean weapons in recent years, despite Cairo’s military alliance with the U.S. and diplomatic relations with Israel. These arms purchases have stoked tensions between the Trump administration and the Egyptian government. The U.S. has been trying to starve Pyongyang of its revenues from military sales in a so far unsuccessful bid to force Kim Jong Un to give up his nuclear arsenal. The Trump administration withheld nearly $300 million in military aid from Egypt in 2017 in order to force President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi’s government to cut off these transactions.
Egypt’s purchasing of North Korean weapons speaks to the depths of the relationship Cairo and Pyongyang forged back in the 1950s, according to U.S. and Arab officials. It also illustrates how Pyongyang has transformed itself into a major supplier of low-cost guns, munitions, and missiles to developing countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Pyongyang mastered the use of sophisticated front companies, smuggling routes, and false flagged vessels to work around U.S. and U.N. sanctions.
The U.S. was alarmed in the summer of 2016 when a Cambodian flagged merchant ship, the Jie Shun, left from the North Korean port of Haeju for the Suez Canal. The ship contained a 23-man North Korean crew and cargo shrouded under heavy tarps. Egyptian authorities eventually boarded the vessel before it transited the canal, after being tipped off by U.S. intelligence agencies who were concerned about the nature of cargo. Under the tarp, the Egyptians found coal that sat atop 30,000 North Korean rocket-propelled grenades. A U.N. report concluded that the Jie Shun marked the largest seizure of North Korean munitions since international sanctions were enacted against Pyongyang in the 1950s. The weapons were valued at $23 million.
No country in the Middle East has had deeper cooperation with Pyongyang in missile development than Iran, according to U.S. and Israeli officials. Tehran’s nuclear program is by far the most advanced in the region, besides Israel’s, and the best positioned to benefit from North Korea’s technological advances.
U.S. and South Korean intelligence have been tracking the movements of Iranian and North Korean military officers and scientists between their countries in recent years. One South Korean official said they’ve documented hundreds of North Koreans traveling to Tehran using a range of real and forged passports. Many transited into Tehran on flights that originated from Qatar’s international airport.
The Obama administration announced in 2016 that American intelligence agencies found that Iranian technicians from Tehran’s defense industry decamped in North Korea to jointly develop an 80-ton rocket booster for ballistic missiles. Pyongyang’s Korea Mining Development Trading Corp. also was caught shipping key components for liquid propellant ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles to Iran. This included valves, electronics, and measuring equipment.
The West’s concern about North Korean-Iranian military collaboration spiked on Sept. 22, 2017, during the Revolutionary Guard’s annual Sacred Defense Week. The event includes a parade that commemorates the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians died repelling Saddam Hussein’s forces from their country. Banners hung at the event included the mantras, “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” written in three languages.
Transported down a major Tehran thoroughfare that day was a new medium-range, Iranian ballistic missile, called the Khorramshahr after the Iranian city where a crucial battle of the Iran-Iraq War took place. The missile is estimated to have a flight range of between 2,000 and 3,500 kilometers, depending upon the weight of its payload. At this distance, Tehran could target Israel, the Persian Gulf and a number of countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
American and Israeli intelligence officials who analyzed photos of the Khorramshahr quickly noticed its similarities in size, construction and flight dimensions to a North Korean missile called the Hwasong-10, or Musudan. Pyongyang developed the Musudan by reengineering missile technologies it acquired from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. North Korea is believed to have sold the missile technologies for the Musudan to Iran in recent decades. But both countries have had difficulties mastering its physics and engineering, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.
Despite faltering progress in deploying the Musudan, “there is, nonetheless, no doubt that the Khorramshahr missile constitutes a potential threat to Europe,” wrote Uzi Rubin, a renowned missile expert at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. “If and when Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will not be complicated to fit a lighter weight nuclear warhead on the Khorramshahr and thereby threaten Berlin, Brussels, Paris and Rome.”
North Korea’s and Iran’s missile programs complement each other in a number of important ways, say Israeli intelligence analysts who track them. Pyongyang has a better mastery of the electronics used in the navigation systems of the projectiles, while Tehran is seen as having a better grasp of the solid-fuel propellants used to ignite them.
In recent months, Israeli analysts have theorized that North Korea and Iran may be sequencing their tests. They note, for example, that North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile, called the Hwasong-14, on July 4 of 2017. The Iranians then tested a space-launch vehicle, called the Simorgh, just a few weeks later on July 27. The rockets share a number of important properties. “Is it coincidental? Maybe. But it seems like they’re learning from each other,” said an Israeli intelligence analyst in Jerusalem. “It seems to be a two-way street.”
To date, Israeli, American, and IAEA officials say they haven’t seen hard evidence that North Korea and Iran are directly sharing nuclear technologies or materials, in ways similar to how Pyongyang transferred them to Syria and Libya. But the regular exchanges of Iranian and North Korean defense officials and scientists are being heavily scrutinized.
North Korea and Iran signed a formal scientific cooperation agreement in the fall of 2012 when Pyongyang’s No. 2 political leader, Kim Yong Nam, visited Tehran. The pact doesn’t specify nuclear collaboration, but its language is eerily similar to one Pyongyang signed with Syria in 2002, just months before the construction of the Al Kibar reactor is believed to have started. The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran at the time, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, attended the signing of the agreement. And it called for the establishment of joint laboratories, exchanges of North Korean and Iranian scientists, and technology transfers in the areas of energy and information technology.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran and North Korea have common enemies since the arrogant powers can’t bear independent governments,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Kim Yong Nam during his visit, according to the official Fars news agency.
American and Israeli intelligence officials say they’ve seen evidence that Iranian military officers and technicians have attended some of the six nuclear tests Pyongyang has conducted since 2006. They say they’ve also seen them attending North Korean military parades and missile tests. A particular focus has been placed on a 2013 North Korean test that’s believed to have involved a uranium bomb. Iranian opposition groups have said the putative father of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a Revolutionary Guard General named Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was in attendance. American and Israeli intelligence officials say they haven’t ruled out this possibility.
“Are they cooperating in the nuclear field? That’s an open question,” concluded an Israeli intelligence analyst.
*Jay Solomon is an adjunct fellow at The Washington Institute and former chief foreign affairs correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. This story originally appeared in Tablet magazine, at tabletmag.com, and is reprinted with permission.