LCCC
ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
November 17/18
Compiled &
Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.november17.18.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English
news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
The message about the
cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved
it is the power of God.
First Letter to the Corinthians 01/18-25: "The message about the cross is
foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the
power of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.’ Where is the one who is wise?
Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish
the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not
know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our
proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks
desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and
foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser
than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength."
Titles For Latest LCCC
Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on
November 16-17/18
Hezbollah Is Ramping Up South of the
US/Clarion Project/November 15, 2018
Argentina Arrests 2 Nationals with Suspected Hezbollah Ties/Asharq
Al-Awsat/November 16/2018
Lebanon: Wait-and-See Approach over Sanctions on Tehran, Hezbollah/Beirut - Youssef
Diab/Asharq Al-Awsat
The Formation of a Lebanese Government Continues on Its Long and Grinding
Path/Michael Young/The National/November 16/18
‘America First’ Is a Risk to Lebanon and the Middle East/Jeremy Arbid/Executive
Magazine/November 16/18
Analysis/Putin's Interests in Syria and Lebanon Are Limiting Israel's Military
Options/Amos Harel/Haaretz/November 16/18
A Brief History of Fake News/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/November 16/18
First Muslim Women in US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel/Soeren
Kern/Gatestone Institute/November 16/18
Expectations on the Khashoggi Case/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al
Awsat/November 16/18
The EU’s Games of Chicken Are Coming Home to Roost/John
Authers/Bloomberg/November 16/18
Will Al-Sistani step in to break Iraq’s political deadlock/Talmiz Ahmad/Arab
News/November 16/18
Trump's Middle East Plan Dealt Another Blow With Israel Turmoil/David Wainer
and Nick Wadhams/Bloomberg/November 16/18
Titles For Latest
LCCC Lebanese Related News published on November 16-17/18
Hezbollah Is Ramping Up South of the US
Argentina Arrests 2 Nationals with Suspected Hezbollah Ties
Lebanon: Wait-and-See Approach over Sanctions on Tehran, Hezbollah
Lebanon: Officials Rush to Prevent Government ‘Implosion’
Army Rehearsals Blamed for Hours of Traffic Congestion in Beirut
Hariri and Jumblat Discuss Developments over Dinner
Qassem Says Ball in PM-Designate's Court, Ahmed Hariri Hits Back
Hariri: Saudi Ruling in Khashoggi Case in Right Direction
Geagea: Unacceptable to Exploit Khashoggi Murder to Besiege KSA
Report: No Imminent Solution as Cabinet Formation Drags Out
Jawad Hassan Nasrallah: Militant or Poet?
Catholic Council Says Politicians Seem Unwilling to Build a State
Perpetrators of 2008 Zahle Crime Sentenced to Death
Report: ‘Insufficient Funding’ Brings Wage Scale Back to Spotlight
The Formation of a Lebanese Government Continues on Its Long and Grinding Path
‘
Titles For Latest LCCC Bulletin For
Miscellaneous Reports And News published on November 16-17/18
Canada welcomes international community’s call
for Iran to meet human rights obligations
Jeffrey on US Objectives in Syria: Defeat ISIS, Get Iran Out
Russia-Turkey Efforts Intensify to Set Up Idlib Buffer Zone
IRGC Doubts Impact of Sanctions on its Regional Role
Israeli PM Takes over Defense Portfolio after Lieberman Quits
Abbas Sets the Stage for Reconciliation with Hamas
Netanyahu Battles to Save Weakened Ruling Coalition
US Envoy Warns Europe Against Non-dollar Iran Trade
Iraq to Exchange Food for Iranian Gas
Turkey Has More Evidence in Khashoggi Murder, Report Says
Saudis Push to End Khashoggi Crisis but Threat Lingers
U.S. Studying Turkey's Demands to Extradite Preacher
Yemeni Peace Talks May Happen Soon, Breakthrough in Hostage File
Rival Militias Violate Tripoli Ceasefire
CNN Reporter Returns to White House after Pass Reinstated
Latest Lebanese Related News published on November 16-17/18
Hezbollah Is Ramping Up South of the US
حزب الله يكثف وجوده في جنوب الولايات المتحدة
By Clarion Project/November 15, 2018
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/68977/hezbollah-is-ramping-up-south-of-the-us-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AB%D9%81-%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88/
https://clarionproject.org/hezbollah-is-ramp-up-south-of-the-us/
Iran’s terror proxy Hezbollah is ramping up south of the US border, as
witnessed by arrests of its operatives in Bolivia and Peru.
Information revealed by the State Department’s top counter terror official Nathan
Sales confirmed the increased presence of
In
Last year in
A House panel last spring heard testimony that
It is in these “cultural centers” that Hezbollah and the
Last October, then-attorney-general Jeff Sessions created a task force to
specifically zero in on Hezbollah after declaring the designated terror
organization one of the top five transnational threats to the
The State Department recently revealed
Hezbollah, named the world’s richest terror organization by Forbes, has an
annual income of $1.1 billion, making up the rest of its funds through drug
trafficking and money laundering, primarily in
Meanwhile, a trial began in
The prime defendant in the trial, Mohamad Noureddine, has been sanctioned by
the
The head of the network is suspected to be Mohammed Ammar, who was arrested in
Argentina Arrests 2 Nationals with Suspected Hezbollah Ties
الأرجنتين تعتقل اثنين من مواطنيها بتهمة نسج علاقة مع حزب الله
Asharq Al-Awsat/November 16/2018
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/68977/hezbollah-is-ramping-up-south-of-the-us-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AB%D9%81-%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88/
/Two Argentine citizens with suspected links to Lebanon's Hezbollah have been
arrested ahead of the G20 summit due to take place in Buenos Aires at the end
of the month, Argentina's security ministry said in a statement. The two men,
aged 23 and 25, were arrested on Thursday in a residence in the capital. Police
discovered a small arsenal that included a rifle, one shotgun and a number of
pistols, among other weapons. Police said they discovered evidence of travel
abroad "along with credentials in Arabic and an image of the Hezbollah
flag." Police did not specify the nature of the travel or credentials, and
did not say whether the men had intention of attacking the G20 event. Security
Minister Patricia Bullrich said security forces were on the lookout for any
suspicious activity ahead of the conference.
Lebanon: Wait-and-See Approach over Sanctions on Tehran,
Hezbollah
Beirut - Youssef Diab/Asharq Al-Awsat
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/68977/hezbollah-is-ramping-up-south-of-the-us-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AB%D9%81-%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88/
November 16/2018/The Lebanese have been cautiously monitoring the repercussions
of new US sanctions against Iran and Hezbollah, which have recently targeted
the narrow circle of the party’s leadership, including Jawad Nasrallah, the son
of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. Analysts voiced concern over
the state’s ability to limit the impact of the sanctions on the country’s
ailing economic and monetary situation, in the absence of a balanced government
capable of addressing the
“US sanctions on Iran and [Hezbollah] are applied in a progressive way, and
within multiple laws, but with one goal,” Qahwaji said, adding: “The US
administration is maintaining the policy of drying up the financial resources
of [Hezbollah] and Iran - the main financier of the party - and other
organizations listed by Washington on its terrorism list.”“The sanctions have
entered an upward spiral, and every day we will see new procedures and new
names that are on the list, and their effects are expected to start with Iran
over time, not within a day or two,” he noted, warning that Lebanon would be
harmed by these sanctions, “as long as there is no balanced government headed
by Saad Hariri, who is solely capable of easing the sanctions on Lebanon and
reducing the risk of economic collapse.”However, a parliamentary source who
participated in the meetings held by a Lebanese parliamentary delegation with
US administration officials, in order to spare the banking sector the
repercussions of the sanctions on Hezbollah, said in a statement to Asharq
Al-Awsat that the recent sanctions against leaders in the party were the
beginning of more escalatory steps. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the
sources said they did not believe that the formation of a government would
reduce the impact of sanctions. “The formation of the government might lead to
a counter-US reaction, especially if Hezbollah was given key portfolios such as
the Ministry of Health, which would increase the burden on the government,”
they noted. For his part, economic and financial expert Dr. Ghazi Wazneh, said
the new sanctions targeted individuals belonging to Hezbollah or close to the
party, but he stressed that sanctions would become more painful, if they
impacted educational, health and social institutions affiliated to the party,
because it would affect the staff and those benefiting from the services.
Lebanon: Officials Rush to Prevent Government ‘Implosion’
Beirut - Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al-Awsat/November 16/2018/Lebanon’s politicians
have been engaged in intense talks to resolve what is known as “the Sunni
obstacle” preventing the formation of the government. Hezbollah has pushed for
Sunni politicians allied to the group but opposed to Prime Minister-designate
Saad Hariri to be represented in the future cabinet. In a radio interview on
Thursday, Hezbollah MP Walid Sukkarieh reiterated the position of the
independent Sunni deputies and their right to be represented in the government,
adding that the prime minister-designate “has to find the most appropriate way
to proceed with the formation process.”Well-informed sources have stressed,
however, that the ongoing political efforts, especially those deployed by caretaker
Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, were no longer focused on finding a solution to
this obstacle, but rather to obtain guarantees that the new government would be
able to assume its duties without internal bickering. “The problem is no longer
about a portfolio or another; what is required today is guarantees from various
parties to avoid an implosion. If this goal is achieved, then all the
obstacles, including the Sunni representation problem, would wither away,” the
sources told Asharq Al-Awsat. They added that Bassil held several meetings with
the country’s religious authorities in this regard. The minister has recently
met with Grand Mufti Abdullatif Derian and held talks on Thursday with Maronite
Patriarch Beshara Rai.
Army Rehearsals Blamed
for Hours of Traffic Congestion in
Naharnet/November 16/18/Commuters got stranded in their cars for long hours on
Friday morning when several streets to the capital
Hariri and Jumblat Discuss Developments over Dinner
Naharnet/November 16/18/Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri had dinner Friday
evening with the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party ex-MP Walid Jumblat
and MP Wael Abu Faour at a
Qassem Says Ball in
PM-Designate's Court, Ahmed Hariri Hits Back
Naharnet/November 16/18/Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem insisted
Friday that the ball is in the court of Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri
regarding the formation of the new government. “As for us in Hizbullah, we have
offered all facilitations to form the Lebanese government and from the very
first day we stated our demands, which were not complicated, and the
PM-designate accepted the demand to represent the party with three ministers,”
Qassem said. “Today the decision is in the hand of the PM-designate, because
the problem is coming from him and the solution lies with him. He can resolve
the situation by honoring the rule that he has laid out on representing each
party according to its results in the parliamentary elections. He can represent
the independent Sunnis of the Consultative Gathering with one minister and the
problem would be resolved,” Hizbullah number two added.
“We have nothing more to offer. If we want to complete the cabinet line-up to
form a national unity cabinet, PM-designate Saad Hariri is the only one who can
resolve this issue. If he takes a decision today, the government will be
formed, and if he takes a decision in a week, the government will be formed.
This matter is his responsibility and he bears the full responsibility in this
country,” Qassem went on to say. Al-Mustaqbal Movement Secretary-General Ahmed
Hariri snapped back at Qassem. “The remarks of Hizbullah’s deputy
secretary-general contradict with the truth and facts, seeing as everyone knows
that the government line-up has been ready since two weeks and it only needs
the names of Hizbullah’s ministers,” Hariri said. “If it presents the names of
its three ministers today, it would be formed today, and if it does so in a
week, it will be formed after a week, and it bears the full responsibility of
delay,” the Mustaqbal official added. “The problem lies with Hizbullah and the
solution lies with the PM-designate, according to his powers and the
constitutional rules,” he went on to say. The government was on the verge of formation
on October 29 after the Lebanese Forces accepted the portfolios that were
assigned to it but a last-minute hurdle over the representation of
pro-Hizbullah Sunni MPs surfaced. Hizbullah has insisted that the six Sunni MPs
should be given a seat in the government, refraining from providing Hariri with
the names of its own ministers in a bid to press him. Free Patriotic Movement
chief MP Jebran Bassil is meanwhile trying to convince the rival parties to
accept a settlement based on naming a “consensus” Sunni minister.
Hariri: Saudi Ruling in
Khashoggi Case in Right Direction
Naharnet/November 16/18/Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri hailed the Saudi
Arabian decision regarding the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. “The
Saudi judiciary’s decision to hold the accused in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi
is a decision in the right direction in order to establish the principles of
justice, and to block the attempts at politicization and the campaigns against
the Kingdom,” said Hariri via Twitter. Saudi Arabia on Thursday called for the
death penalty against five people accused of murdering the journalist inside
the kingdom's Istanbul consulate, but absolved Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
of any blame. Riyadh prosecutors announced indictments against 11 people and
said a total of 21 individuals were in custody in connection with the killing.
Khashoggi, who lived in the United States and wrote for The Washington Post and
other international media, was killed and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in
Istanbul, Turkey on October 2.
Geagea: Unacceptable to
Exploit Khashoggi Murder to Besiege KSA
Naharnet/November 16/18/Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea on Friday condemned
the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi but said the murder should not
be exploited to “besiege” Saudi Arabia. “The killing of Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashoggi in that fashion was a brutal act that is unacceptable at all levels.
But taking advantage of this murder for goals and objectives unrelated to the
crime in a bid to besiege the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is condemned and
rejected,” Geagea said in a statement. “It is deplorable when a crime with the
magnitude of journalist Khashoggi’s murder is exploited to undermine the role
that KSA has been playing, especially over the past few years,” the LF leader
added. “Had it not been for KSA’s support for a lot of Arab countries and many
rightful Arab causes, perhaps the entire face of the Middle East region would
have changed,” Geagea went on to say. He also called “those keen on fighting
crime in the world” to “help the judiciary in everything it is doing to unveil
all circumstances of this ugly crime” instead of “using it as an excuse to
reach goals and objectives that have nothing to do with Jamal Khashoggi, the
crime, public freedoms or any other matter.”Prime Minister-designate Saad
Hariri had issued a similar statement earlier in the day. On Thursday, the
Saudi judiciary exonerated the country's powerful crown prince of involvement
in the murder as death-penalty charges were announced against five men. Riyadh
prosecutors announced indictments against 11 people and said a total of 21
individuals were in custody in connection with the killing, which outraged
Saudi allies and placed massive pressure on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to
come clean about the murder. Khashoggi, who lived in the United States and
wrote for The Washington Post and other international media, was killed and
dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2. The murder
was carried out by a team of Saudis who travelled to Istanbul for that purpose,
according to Turkish and U.S. assessments, and was allegedly directed and led
by close aides of the prince. The Saudi prosecutor, in the country's newest
account of what happened, said agents were dispatched to Istanbul to bring
Khashoggi home "by means of persuasion" but ended up killing him with
"a large amount of a drug resulting in an overdose."The Saudi
prosecutor did not name any of those indicted in the murder. But U.S. sanctions
announced Thursday included two top aides of Prince Mohammed, Saud Al-Qahtani
and Maher Mutreb, and Mohammed Alotaibi, who was the consul general in the
Istanbul consulate when Khashoggi was murdered.
Report: No Imminent
Solution as Cabinet Formation Drags Out
Naharnet/November 16/18/The gridlock of forming Lebanon’s government may
“prolong further” shall political parties adamantly adhere to their positions,
al-Joumhouria daily reported on Friday. A senior source who spoke on condition
of anonymity, said in remarks to the daily that “solutions must be found, the
country can not wait any longer. If (political) positions keep on escalating, I
fear that the formation will be delayed further. We cannot estimate the
magnitude of repercussions as a result.”Meanwhile, a prominent ministerial
source said: “Despite the efforts being made by caretaker Foreign Minister
Jebran Bassil, the adamant positions of parties indicate that the gap is still
large between them.”Bassil has met with several officials lately in a bid to
convince the rival parties to accept a settlement based on naming a “consensus”
Sunni minister. The government was on the verge of formation on October 29
after the Lebanese Forces accepted the portfolios that were assigned to it but
a last-minute hurdle over the representation of pro-Hizbullah Sunni MPs
surfaced. Hizbullah has insisted that the six Sunni MPs should be given a seat
in the government, refraining from providing PM-designate Saad Hariri with the
names of its own ministers in a bid to press him. Hariri was designated to form
a government on May 24, but the disagreement between parties over quotas and
ministerial shares have so far delayed his mission.
Jawad Hassan Nasrallah: Militant or Poet?
Associated Press/Naharnet/November 16/18/The son of Hizbullah’s leader
designated by the U.S. State Department this week as a "global
terrorist" is a poet and music lover who is said to move around without
security and whose role within the group is shrouded in secrecy. Jawad
Nasrallah, the 37-year-old father of four, is the second eldest son of Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah who has been at the helm of the Iran-backed group since 1992.
In its designation on Tuesday, the State Department described him as "the
rising star of Hizbullah," saying he has recruited people to carry out
attacks against Israel in the West Bank, and in January 2016 tried to activate
a suicide bombing and shooting cell based there.The sanctions freeze any assets
that those designated may have under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibit Americans
from doing business with them. The action followed the Trump administration's
decision this month to re-impose oil and banking sanctions on Iran over its
financing of militant groups like Hizbullah, its military engagement in Syria
and its nuclear program. In May, the U.S. and some of its Arab allies,
including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, imposed sanctions
on 10 top Hizbullah officials including its leader Nasrallah, his deputy Naim Qassem
and top officials Hashem Safieddine, Ibrahim Amin al-Sayyed, Hussein Khalil and
Mohammed Yazbek. People who know Jawad Nasrallah, however, disputed the State
Department's description of his role within Hizbullah, with one resident of
Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hizbullah stronghold, saying Nasrallah is not even
a senior official within the group. The man with close links to the group, who
met the young Nasrallah on several occasions, described him as a modest man,
adding it is almost impossible to believe that he is the son of the group's
leader. "He moves around without security and visits shops to buy stuff or
to eat," the man said. "People respect him because he is a humble
person and the son of Sayyed Nasrallah," he said, speaking on condition of
anonymity because he was speaking about matters related to the group's
security. He said Jawad is religiously moderate, unlike some other members of
the group, and likes to listen to music.
"He is not a big official with the party. I never heard that he has a
security or military post," the man said. Another person familiar with the
group also cast doubt on the "rising star" narrative or that he was a
high-ranking member of the group. Hizbullah declined a request by The
Associated Press to comment on the State Department action. The group generally
dismisses sanctions imposed on Hizbullah members as ineffective and part of
psychological propaganda against the group. The Israeli Foreign Ministry also
declined comment, while a Palestinian senior security official said Hizbullah
stopped its activity in the West Bank and Gaza after the second intifada, or
uprising, which ended in 2005. Although his rank and role within the group have
remained ambiguous, the round-faced Nasrallah is not the reclusive type, as
senior Hizbullah commanders tend to be. He has appeared publicly on numerous
occasions, including at book signing events in 2007, when he published a
collection of poems called "Resistance Letters." The book focuses on
the role of poetry in resistance with poems that glorify those who died
fighting Israel, including his elder brother, Hadi, who died while fighting
Israel in south Lebanon in 1997.
In one poem called "Shukran," or "Thank you," he writes:
"From the heart, thank you to the most beautiful father, thank you for
being my inspiration, my father and my commander." In an interview with a
local TV station in that same year, Jawad refused to give details about his
role within the group, only saying that he dedicated his life to the
resistance. He said he likes music and movies, including comedy films, history
and documentary movies. He was active on Twitter for a while, before his
account was suspended. The Trump administration has ramped up pressure on Iran
and Hizbullah since withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal last year. On
Tuesday, the Department of Treasury also announced it was imposing sanctions on
four Hizbullah operatives who were said to have provided financial, material
and technological support to Hizbullah in Iraq.
Catholic Council Says
Politicians Seem Unwilling to Build a State
Kataeb.org/Friday 16th November 2018/The Council of Catholic Patriarchs and
Bishops on Friday called on officials to facilitate the formation of a new
government, saying that their ongoing disagreements show that they are
unwilling to establish a real State. “Politicians seem to be unwilling to build
a state of law and social justice because it would go against their leverage
and personal interests; they seem careless towards the people's suffering,” the
council said in the closing statement of its 52nd session held in Bkirki. “The
fathers consider that the absence of mutual trust and national unity, the
dominance of personal interests and foreign meddling are the reasons behind the
government formation deadlock,” the council stated. The council also discussed
the deteriorating economic situation and the difficult living conditions that
the Lebanese are experiencing, adding that the absence of a government, that
would address these issues, is no longer tolerable. "We urge all the
concerned political parties to contribute to the swift formation of a
government, and to rise above their interests and stances for the sake of the
country and the citizens. The Council hailed the reconciliation meeting that
was held earlier this week in Bkirki between Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea
and Marada leader Sleiman Frangieh, hoping that it lead to a broader
rapprochement between all the Lebanese. “The fathers expressed joy over the
reconciliation between Geagea and Frangieh and hoped that it would expand to
include all the bickering political factions,” the statement noted.
Perpetrators of 2008 Zahle Crime Sentenced to Death
Kataeb.org/Friday 16th November 2018/The Judicial Council on Friday issued its
final verdict in the murder case of Kataeb partisans Nasri Marouni and Salim
Assi, sentencing the perpetrators to death in absentia. The Judicial Council
also ruled that criminal prosecution against Edward Al-Zouki would be stopped,
sentencing him to only six months in prison. Another suspect, Nicholas Homsy,
has been acquitted. On April 20, 2008, Marouni and Assi were shot dead by
Joseph Al-Zouki and Tohme Al-Zouki during the opening of the Kataeb's center in
Zahle's Hosh Al-Zaraaneh. Following the verdict session, former MP Elie Marouni,
brother of one of the two victims, thanked the Judicial Council for speeding up
the trial process, calling on security forces to bring the assailants to
justice. "Today, we, as a Kataeb party and a family, are turning a painful
legal page," he said. "We hope that the verdict would be implemented,
or else impunity and chaos will prevail." The former lawmaker pointed out
that testimonies and confessions made in this case indicated that the killers
had contacted late MP Elias Skaff shortly after the murder. Marouni, however,
stressed opennness to any positive step that the Popular Bloc head Myriam Skaff
might do to help end this case, saying that he will be awaiting the latter's
initiative regarding this issue.
Report: ‘Insufficient
Funding’ Brings Wage Scale Back to Spotlight
Naharnet/November 16/18/The wage scale for civil servants and armed forces is
back to the spotlight amid reports alleging it could be “cancelled” due to
“inaccurate cost estimations, and failed methods of funding,” al-Joumhouria
daily reported on Friday. The daily said that estimated revenues to fund the
scale came much lower than expected. However, canceling the scale could restore
tension to the street, amid warnings voiced by Head of Lebanon's General Labor
Union Beshara al-Asmar. In remarks he made on Thursday, al-Asmar threatened of
“an immediate strike in the public sector, public institutions and the Lebanese
University.”However, according to a legal source, the legal effects of such a
decision can’t be underestimated because the scale has legally become an
acquired right of employees, “employees can prosecute the State shall these
rights get nullified,” he said. Public sector employees assert that “the scale
is not responsible for the accumulation of public debt and the danger of collapse.”The
Parliament passed in July, 2017 the public sector’s wage scale hike bill
although the parliamentary blocs were divided over the resources to fund it.
The Formation of a Lebanese Government Continues on Its Long and Grinding Path
Michael Young/The National/November 16/18
Lebanon’s government formation process is in jeopardy following a speech on
Saturday by Hezbollah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. In it, he doubled
down on his condition that the new cabinet include what he called an “independent
Sunni” minister. This minister, he added, had to come out of Prime
Minister-designate Saad Hariri’s ministerial share, not anyone else’s.
On Tuesday, Mr Hariri accused Hezbollah of seeking to block the government’s
formation and affirmed that the party could not dictate to him whom to include
in it. If Hezbollah was so adamant about an independent Sunni, he added, then
it should name him from its own quota. Mr Hariri admitted he had no solution to
the impasse, suggesting the ball was in Hezbollah’s court because,
constitutionally, only the prime minister-designate and the president can form
a government.
The last-minute condition, which came as Mr Hariri was preparing to finalise
his cabinet line-up, appeared to be part of a broader effort by Hezbollah to
humiliate the prime minister-designate and whittle away at the cabinet shares
of the major parties who had made up the March 14 alliance opposed to Syria's
regime. March 14 was formed after the assassination of former prime minister
Rafiq Hariri in 2005, when popular demonstrations led to a Syrian military
withdrawal from Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s move followed the party’s successful military campaign in Syria.
Having helped consolidate the regime of Bashar Al Assad, the party has sought
to cash in on this politically at home, primarily by marginalizing those
Lebanese political forces hostile to the Assad regime and Iran. While Hezbollah
and its allies did relatively well in the parliamentary elections in May, the
party has overstated its margin of victory to build more momentum against its
political foes.
Hezbollah is pushing hard because it realises that the regional context is
rapidly changing, and it wants to consolidate its gains as soon as possible.
For one thing, recent US sanctions against Iran have constituted a challenge to
the Iranian leadership, and the party wants to show that it holds strong cards
of its own.
In wanting to be seen as capable of imposing its writ in Lebanon, Hezbollah
intends to send a message that that it holds the country hostage. Ironically,
Israel and its acolytes have echoed this idea, suggesting that Hezbollah and
Lebanon are one, meaning there is no viable Lebanese opposition to Hezbollah.
By taking such a line, Israel only helps ensure that it becomes a reality,
playing into the party’s hands.
Equally important to Hezbollah is that its domination of the government sends a
message to Russia and Turkey that their accord over Syria should not be
interpreted as meaning that Iran has a secondary role in the Levant. Mr Hariri
suggested recently that he would not deal with the Assad regime in the future,
because as he put it, Syria was controlled by Russia. Therefore, it was
preferable to talk to Moscow. This cannot have gone down well with Hezbollah,
because Mr Hariri hinted that he may seek to use Russia to navigate between
Iran and Syria.
That is why, while Hezbollah may not openly oppose Russia, it does want to
underscore that its political rivals in Lebanon would be mistaken to regard
Moscow as a potential counterweight to Syria and Iran. There is a growing
perception that Tehran has overreached in the region and no longer has the
financial means to pay for its expansionism. Iran’s manoeuvres in Lebanon, Iraq
and Yemen, and that of its allies, are aimed at disproving such an assertion.
A third aim of Hezbollah is to be seen as a cross-sectarian actor, after years
of sectarian behaviour in Syria, by insisting on an independent Sunni minister
and maintaining its alliance with the Christian Free Patriotic Movement. But
when the party set as a condition that Mr Hariri take on an independent Sunni
in the cabinet, and the prime minister-designate refused, to Hezbollah’s
displeasure the president of Lebanon, Michel Aoun, sided with him.
In the meantime, Gebran Bassil − the leader of the Free Patriotic
Movement, of which Mr Aoun is the founder − began a mediation effort to
find a compromise. He held talks with Mr Nasrallah, which newspaper reports
said were tense, because Hezbollah was angry with Mr Aoun’s decision to back Mr
Hariri. Mr Bassil is trying to push for a solution, whereby a consensus Sunni
candidate acceptable to Mr Hariri would be named − one who would come out
of Mr Aoun’s ministerial quota, in exchange for which Mr Hariri would name a
Christian minister.
Whatever the solution, it is unlikely that Mr Hariri will bend to Hezbollah’s
will. Unless a compromise is found, he will withdraw from forming a government,
which may even be what Hezbollah wants. In his remarks on Tuesday, Mr Hariri
observed that Hezbollah’s blocking of the government was “bigger” than its
insistence on an independent Sunni. He couldn’t have been more correct. The
party sees the future Lebanese government as having regional implications, at a
bad time for Iran.
‘America First’ Is a Risk to Lebanon and the Middle East
Jeremy Arbid/Executive Magazine/November
16/18
Last month marked the 35th anniversary of the deadliest attack against US
forces since World War II: the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut on
October 23, 1983 that killed over three hundred people, including 241 US
military personnel. The official US line now is that elements of what would
later become Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, were responsible for the
attack—although all three parties continue to deny involvement. During an event
marking the anniversary, US President Donald Trump, with his customary love of
theatrical moments, signed new legislation targeting Hezbollah. The first
response from Lebanon was defiant.
For a long time the United States has pitted itself against Iran and, by
extension, Hezbollah. Since the Islamic Revolution at the end of the 1970s in
Iran and, later, Hezbollah’s inception during the Lebanese Civil War, the
Americans have hunted the two in a remarkably consistent way. This has not
changed under President Trump; American strategy, however, has shifted. It has
been influenced by a fundamental repositioning of US policy vis-a-vis the
entire world—a mindset most commonly referred to as “America First.” The Trump
administration has been more aggressive in removing itself from or
renegotiating existing treaties, and seems content with exercising a much more
risk-friendly foreign policy. To understand how this new policy of Trumpism has
affected Hezbollah, Lebanon, or Iran, looking at the realities on the ground is
somewhat pointless. To understand these changes, one should instead examine
Trump’s version of reality. This is not a new phenomena when regarding the
foreign policy of America, but under Trump it has become particularly acute.
Trumpism writ large
The Trump paradigm, which is not an openly declared policy, is that the US will
do what it likes and what suits it, with little regard to how it impacts other
nations—allies included. This has had huge global implications. How many
treaties has Trump made redundant, or at least announced his intention to
scrap? In less than two years Trump has, for example, exited a landmark
international climate change agreement, unilaterally walked away from the Iran
nuclear deal, and, most recently, indicated he would junk an arms control
agreement with Russia. Every foreign policy decision under Trump’s direction is
a wild card.
Trump’s targeting of Hezbollah comes as part of a shift in America’s Middle
East strategy to more closely reflect the policy goals of Israel and, to a
lesser extent, Saudi Arabia—both hellbent on countering Iranian influence
across the region. So far, Trump’s administration has sought to counter the
group by targeting its financiers. This is not a radical departure from the
previous administration, but it seems that Obama during his second term was
less interested in pursuing Hezbollah and more amenable to working with the
group’s patron, Iran.
In 2008, at the outset of the Obama administration, the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) launched a law enforcement campaign, code-named Project
Cassandra, to disrupt Hezbollah’s alleged global drug trafficking and money
laundering network. Following its investigation into Hezbollah’s sources of
funding, the DEA alleged that the group reaped $1 billion per year laundering
money from drug proceeds.
Near the end of Obama’s first term, drawing on evidence from the DEA
investigation, the US Treasury blacklisted local financial institution the
Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB). According to the original indictment issued in
the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court, LCB was involved
in a tri-continental money laundering operation that stretched from South
America to North America and West Africa. A money exchange entity in a West
African country that was a subsidiary of LCB was accused of channeling the
proceeds, but the money came mostly from manipulation of the used car market,
including pre-owned vehicle dealerships in the US, with smaller amounts coming
from Latin America. Allegedly, LCB was also involved in the financing of
Hezbollah activity, but the actual affiliation of LCB was never visible, above
the level of individual branch managers having some connections to the group.
There was never a smoking gun linking bank executives to Hezbollah, and, in
2013, LCB’s board and all shareholders agreed to a settlement of over $100
million on the condition of no admission of guilt.
That year, discussions began in earnest between the Obama administration and
its counterparts on the UN Security Council, plus Germany and the EU, that
ultimately led to negotiations on an Iran nuclear deal framework. In pursuit of
a drawdown of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, the Obama administration began
quietly withdrawing support for Project Cassandra, a Politico investigation
published last December reported. The Politico investigation concluded that the
Obama administration sidelined the operation because it feared DEA
investigations and Treasury actions would jeopardize negotiations with Iran.
Ramping up sanctions
It was only 15 months ago, in August 2017, that Lebanon’s prime minister, Saad
Hariri, stood on the White House lawn as Trump declared a forthcoming answer to
the “menace” of Hezbollah. At the time, we did not know what Trump had in
store.
In May, Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, in part on
the implied notion that Iran was using the country’s economic recovery from
sanctions relief to fund Hezbollah. The Americans see Iran’s support for
Hezbollah as a destabilizing force, in both a political and security sense,
away from the interests of the US and its allies in the region. The Iranians
see Hezbollah as a useful tool extending Persian political influence and its
interpretation of Shiite Islam, Waliyat al-faqih, serving as a resistance and
counter to Israel and, in recent years, securing mutual interests in Syria.
In August, the US reapplied a first phase of sanctions, and in early November
reimposed a second phase of sanctions targeting key Iranian trading and energy
activities, namely the nation’s petroleum exports. The US is targeting Iran’s
economy to alter its political influence and military behavior in the region,
and to temper Iranian financial support to Hezbollah.
Back in 2015, after the Iran deal was concluded, Congress passed a law—the
“Hizballah International Financing Prevention Act” (HIFPA)—meant to kneecap the
group financially and isolate it from the banking system worldwide. The
legislation may have been driven more by America’s political environment rather
than regulatory need, Executive reported in 2016, placating conservatives and
war hawks in the Congress enraged by the agreement with Iran. It is, however,
unclear what practical effect that law had in cutting Hezbollah off from the
international financial system. HIFPA required the Obama administration to
report to Congress on Hezbollah’s alleged narcotics trafficking and alleged
transnational criminal activities, but if that was done the reports were never
made public. Amendments to HIFPA had been rumored to be in the works since
mid-2017, as Executive reported, and finally, at the end of October, as
America’s renewed clampdown on Iran was set to begin, Trump signed new
legislation amending HIFPA, the “Hizballah International Financing Prevention
Amendments Act of 2017” (HIFPAA).
Congruently, throughout 2018, the US Treasury has sanctioned nearly 40
individuals and entities, “pursuant to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions
Regulations.” In October, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) named Hezbollah as
one of the “transnational organized crime threats” to the United States,
alongside four Central American cartels. The DOJ move comes nearly 10 months
after it formed the Hezbollah Financing and Narcoterrorism Team, tasked with
“investigating individuals and networks providing support to Hezbollah, and
pursuing prosecutions,” according to a DOJ statement. The statement also added
that the new DOJ unit will work to “restrict the flow of money to foreign
terrorist organizations as well as disrupt violent international drug trafficking
operations.”Through sanctions and the law enforcement actions, it seems a case
is being built that could lead to indictments in US courts of Hezbollah
officials and entities, or their affiliates. As of yet, we do not know how
strictly the US will pursue Hezbollah on these fronts, how widely the US will
cast its net, or whether there will be collateral damage. But what is clear so
far is that the Trump administration is coming hard for Hezbollah, and this
pursuit will likely intensify.
Diplomacy no more
The main difference between the Obama and the Trump administration in all this
is that the former was pursuing Hezbollah while easing off its patron, Iran,
while the latter is going full throttle after both. Under Obama, the US pursued
a diplomatic solution to the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon, whereas now
the US is seemingly on a path toward military confrontation with Iran and its
allies—if Iran does not change course in its regional influence campaign. At
the moment, Iranians—and arguably the world at large—are content to wait out
Trump. We do not know what impact the reapplication of sanctions on Iran will
have on economies in the region, nor what will happen to the price of oil. If
the Iranian oil supply to the market is disrupted, it could cause price shocks
and keep the cost per barrel high. These dynamics will start to emerge toward
the end of the year, in time for the next OPEC/Non-OPEC meeting, in December.
We also do not know what these American actions mean for Iran’s patronage of
Hezbollah, and the country’s regional ambitions. Neither do we know Trump’s
endgame—assuming he has one—if Iran and its allies do not capitulate to
American demands.
How all of this will affect Lebanon remains to be seen. We know that past
experience with US law enforcement and Treasury sanctions forced the closure of
LCB in 2011, and when the HIFPA legislation was implemented in 2016, a local
bank was bombed. That summer, Lebanon’s central bank had ordered commercial
banks to comply with the US law. After they did, the head office of Blom Bank,
one of Lebanon’s largest banks, was targeted. There was no claim of
responsibility for the bombing and local law enforcement did not publicly
reveal the results of an investigation into the event, if one was even conducted.
Hezbollah might assume important ministerial positions in Lebanon’s next
government, namely the portfolio of the Ministry of Public Health. Suggestions
that a Hezbollah-run health ministry would jeopardize foreign funding to the
ministry’s programs is the next game of who will blink first. By now we know it
is not beyond Trump to manipulate American soft power at multilateral
institutions, in diplomatic or financial form, to get what he’s after, and in
truth those were carrots long before Trump was elected. But what will happen if
America’s implicit threat is ignored—either by Lebanon, Hezbollah, or Iran—is
an unknown, as the world at large continues to react to this wild card
president.
Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published on November 16-17/18
Analysis/Putin's Interests in Syria and Lebanon Are Limiting Israel's Military
Options
عاموس هاريل من الهآررتس: أهتمامات بوتين بلبنان وسوريا تضع حدوداً وضوابط على خيارات إيرائيل العسكرية
Amos Harel/Haaretz/November 16/18
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/68973/amos-harel-haaretz-putins-interests-in-syria-and-lebanon-are-limiting-israels-military-options-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B3-%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%84-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A2/
Playing chess with Hezbollah is one
thing. Trying to figure out what Putin wants, in Syria and perhaps also in
Lebanon, even as Hezbollah is trying to manufacture weapons there, is a
completely different challenge.
One reason for Israel’s exceptional caution in dealing with Hamas in the Gaza
Strip is its growing concern over the northern front. Though it may sound like
a threadbare excuse, this seems to be one of the considerations driving Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to decide, time after time, to try to reach a cease-fire
in Gaza.
The problem Israel faces in the north, in a nutshell, is the real danger that
its operational window of opportunity is closing. In recent years, Israel has
exploited the upheaval in the Arab world to expand its offensive activity, most
of which is secret.
Via hundreds of airstrikes and special operations, the army and the
intelligence agencies have worked to distance the danger of another war and
reduce the enemy’s operational capabilities in the event that war does break
out.
In Syria and Lebanon, the campaign initially focused on preventing Iran from
smuggling advanced weaponry to Hezbollah. But over the last year or so, a new
mission has been added – preventing Iran’s military entrenchment in Syria. This
peaked with a flurry of incidents between the Israel Defense Forces and Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards last winter and spring.
But the stabilization of the Assad regime in Syria is gradually changing the
situation. Whether Russia is truly still angry over the downing of a Russian
spy plane (by Syrian anti-aircraft fire) during an Israeli airstrike two months
ago or is just exploiting it to dictate new strategic rules in the north, the
result is the same.
Israel hasn’t completely halted airstrikes in Syria; two have been reported
since the plane was downed. But it’s clear that Russia is making things
tougher.
Even this week’s hasty meeting between Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir
Putin on the sidelines of an international conference in Paris, which was
finally arranged after much Israeli effort, evidently hasn’t resolved the
crisis. Putin said Thursday that he wasn’t planning another meeting with
Netanyahu anytime soon.
Russia has made it clear to Israel in many ways that the status quo ante is
gone. The air force’s energetic activity was disrupting their main project —
restoring the Assad regime’s control over most of Syria and signing long-term
contracts with Syrian President Bashar Assad that will protect Moscow’s
security and economic interests in the country.
The change is evident in the more aggressive tone on the hot line connecting
Israel Air Force headquarters to the Russian base in Khmeimim, in northwest
Syria, whose purpose is to prevent aerial incidents between Israel and Russia.
It’s also evident in the confrontational attitude of Russian planes and
anti-aircraft batteries in Syria.
A problem may also be developing in Lebanon. In his address to the United
Nations General Assembly in September, Netanyahu warned of efforts by Iran and
Hezbollah to set up missile production facilities in the Beirut area. Given the
problems its smuggling operations had encountered, the Revolutionary Guards’
Quds force apparently decided it had to shorten the distance between the
manufacturer and the customer by moving its efforts to improve the accuracy of
Hezbollah’s rockets to Lebanon.
Netanyahu’s speech did its job. In the three days between that speech and the
tour of Beirut the Lebanese government conducted for diplomats to rebut it,
someone worked hard to get rid of the evidence. But over the long run, Iran
seems unlikely to abandon this effort.
What’s even more worrying is that Putin has recently displayed increased
interest in events in Lebanon. In the worst-case scenario, the defensive
umbrella — both real and symbolic — that Russia has spread over northwest Syria
would be expanded to Lebanon, further complicating Israel’s calculus.
Even now, at least according to Arab media reports, Israel hasn’t conducted an
airstrike in Lebanon since February 2014, when the IAF, apparently pursuing an
arms convoy that had crossed the border from Syria, bombed a target in Janta, a
few hundred meters to the Lebanese side of the Lebanon-Syria border.
Hezbollah, which was willing to pretend the spit was rain as long as its
convoys were being bombed on the Syrian side, immediately responded with a
series of attacks by Druze residents of the Syrian Golan Heights. The cell’s
commander, Lebanese terrorist Samir Kuntar, and his successor, Hezbollah’s
Jihad Mughniyeh, were both subsequently killed in attacks attributed to Israel.
Since then, Israel has confined its attacks to Syria. But playing chess with
Hezbollah is one thing. Trying to figure out what Putin wants, in Syria and
perhaps also in Lebanon, even as Hezbollah is trying to manufacture weapons
there, is a challenge of a completely different order of magnitude. Netanyahu
was presumably hinting at this problem, among others, when he spoke about
security considerations that he can’t share with the public, at the memorial
for Paula Ben-Gurion earlier this week.
A Brief History of Fake News
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/November 16/18
A penchant for claiming credit for almost everything is already established as
a trait of President Donald Trump’s public persona. America’s surprisingly
robust economy, the biggest tax cut in US history, naming two Supreme Court
judges in the first term, and increasing, in a midterm election, the
incumbent’s majority in the Senate for the first time in 105 years are some of
the events for which Trump takes credit. One may quibble about all that but
none could flatly reject Trump’s claim of credit. One issue on which something
more than quibbling may be in order is Trump’s claim of being the first to
discover fake news. For fake news dates back to the very origins of the human
story. Wasn’t the claim of the tempter that partaking of the forbidden fruit
shall have only beneficial consequences a piece of fake news?
The more regular human history is full of fake news. In 522 BC after the death
of Persian Emperor Cambyses, a group of power-hunters led by Darius spread the
fake news that the man who had succeeded Cambyses was not his brother and
rightful heir Bardia but a usurper. The group then staged a putsch, killed the
“fake Bardia” and gave the crown to its own chief Darius.
A bigger piece of fake news came in the shape of the yarn woven around
Alexander the Great, the invincible conqueror. He is supposed to have lived to
the ripe old age of 33.
In just 10 years, the Macedonian is supposed to have conquered almost all of
the then known world from the Balkans Peninsula to Russia to the Indian Ocean
and from North Africa to the Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia and China. That
involves a distance of around 40,000 kilometers, allez-retour, which means he
would have been traveling quite a bit. And, yet, he is supposed to have built
20 cities named after himself, taken four wives (long before Islam) and
“disappeared” for an unknown length of time looking for the fountain of eternal
youth.
That there is no contemporaneous account of those marvelous deeds has persuaded
some historians to doubt the existence of such a character which first appeared
in Greek and Latin literature in 160 AD, that is to say, centuries after the
claimed events.
During the Abbasid caliphate, based in Baghdad, the fake news was spread by
professional raconteurs known as “qas’ in Arabic, hence the proverb “al-qas la
yahub al-qas” (ranconteur doesn’t like raconteur!). Under the Caliph Wathiq,
Baghdad counted more than 100 “qas” some of whom made fortunes spreading the
fake news for rich and powerful patrons.
Russian history is full of fake tsars, collectively known as pseudo-Dimitrius
who appeared during the "time of troubles”
to claim the crown. They used the media of their time, largely consisting of
priests preaching in churches and traveling merchants. Often the result was a
popular revolt or civil war.
At times, the fake news could help bring peace. In the 15th century Spain and
Portugal, ruled by two cousins, were often at war. Peace was established when
the Portuguese king granted a reportedly rich Mediterranean island to his
Spanish cousin. It didn’t matter that such an island didn’t exist and that the
map presented to the Spanish was one of Serendip, now known as Ceylon in the
Indian Ocean. The Spanish potentate could claim victory and have a parade.
More recently, the fake news was used to promote the French Revolution of 1789.
Revolutionary leaders claimed that the Bastille prison was full of “heroic
fighters for the people.” But when the building was captured it contained only
seven prisoners, all of them ordinary criminals.
The revolutionaries spread many fake news items against Queen Marie Antoinette,
including the one about her necklace which later inspired Alexander Duma
swashbuckling yarns.
When the tide turned fake news was used against leaders of the revolution.
Robespierre, the most radical of revolutionary leaders, was accused of having
married the daughter of Louis XVIth in secret as the first step to claiming the
crown. As a reward, he got the guillotine.
The tsarist secret service, Okhrana, perfected fake news into an art. Its
masterpiece was the so-called Protocols of the Elders of Zion which has served
in many conspiracy theories for over a century.
In 1879 the Prussian Chancellor Bismarck used a doctored version of a
conversation between his King and the French Ambassador over the Spanish royal
succession in order to provoke the French into a war. The fake version came in
the form of the notorious “Ems telegram”. The French took the bait and lost the
war along with Alsace and Lorraine provinces. In Britain, the so-called
Zinoviev Letter, named after the then leader of the Comintern, remains an
example of fake news. It was published by the Daily Mail just four days before
the 1924 election to foment anxiety that Communists, controlled by Moscow, were
plotting to seize power through the Labour Party if it won a majority in the
House of Commons.
Back to Iran, the fake news was used to promote the fable about a CIA operative
named Kermit Roosevelt overthrowing Dr. Muhammad Mussadeq’s government in a
1953 coup by spending $18,000, the cheapest regime change in history.
In her memoirs, Tahia Kazem, the widow of Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser
recalls a trip to Yugoslavia when her husband was informed that the CIA plotted
to capture him at sea on his way back home. That fake news was concocted by the
Soviets and spread through Muhammad Hassanein Heikal, then Nasser’s media
aides. The aim was to have Nasser flown to Moscow and thence to Cairo, casting
the USSR as the protector. Fake news does not always have political or
religious aims. It could also be used to make a fast buck. In 1977 a Belgian
company persuaded French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing that it had
developed an aircraft that could discover oilfields by simply sniffing them.
The Frenchman swallowed the wallop and coughed out 800 million francs, enabling
the fakers to disappear substantially richer.
Want more? Well, go and fetch popcorn and lemonade to watch more of this
three-ring circus that is politics.
First Muslim Women in
US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/November 16/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13308/ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib
"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help
them see the evil doings of Israel." — Ilhan Omar, in a tweet, November
2012.
"When a politician singles out Jewish allies as 'evil,' but ignores every
brutal theocratic regime in the area, it's certainly noteworthy...." —
David Harsanyi, New York Post.
"With many Jews expressing distaste for an 'illiberal' Israel, it's little
surprise that the bulk of American Jewry isn't overly bothered about the
election of Socialists who are unsympathetic to the Jewish state or consider
Zionism to be racist." — Commentator Jonathan Tobin.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (pictured) and Rashida Harbi Tlaib will be the first two
Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. During her campaign, Omar
criticized anti-Israel boycotts. Less than a week after being elected, however,
Omar admitted that she supports the boycotts.
Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be
the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media
coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of
their Muslim identity and personal history.
Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel.
Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters —
especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel.
After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are
committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.
America's first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to
oppose Israel's right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott,
divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly
opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish
a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution
— an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time,
replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.
Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim
elected to Congress) in Minnesota's 5th congressional district, came to the
United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin
Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s.
In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag,
Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting,
"As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to
Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah." She continued:
"I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many
firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress.
The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress.
And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress."
Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbing report
that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well
as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an "apartheid
regime," and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated:
"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them
see the evil doings of Israel."
After the tweets came to light, Omar met with members of her congressional
district's large Jewish population to address concerns over her position on
Israel, as reported by Minneapolis's Star Tribune. During a Democratic Party
candidates' forum at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park on August 6 — one week
before Omar defeated four other candidates in the party's primary — Omar
publicly criticized the anti-Israel BDS movement. In front of an audience of
more than a thousand people, Omar said she supported a two-state solution to
the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the BDS movement aimed at pressuring
Israel was not helpful in trying to achieve that goal.
Pressed by moderator Mary Lahammer to specify "exactly where you stand on
that," Omar replied that the BDS movement was "counteractive"
because it stopped both sides from coming together for "a conversation
about how that's going to be possible."
Less than a week after being elected, however, Omar admitted that she supports
the BDS movement. On November 11, Omar's office told the website MuslimGirl.com
that she favors BDS against Israel:
"Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make
sure people's right to support it isn't criminalized. She does however, have
reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting
solution."
On November 12, Omar told TC Jewfolk, a website catering to the Jewish
community in the Twin Cities, that her position on the BDS movement "has
always been the same" and pointed to her vote as a state lawmaker against
House bill HF 400, which prohibits the state from doing business with companies
or organizations that boycott Israel. In a recent interview with the Star
Tribune, Omar characterized the controversy over her tweets about Israel as an
effort to "stigmatize and shame me into saying something other than what I
believed."
In a July 8, 2018 interview with ABC News, for a segment entitled,
"Progressive Democrats Increasingly Criticize Israel, and Could Reap
Political Rewards," Omar defended her tweets. She said the accusations of
anti-Semitism "are without merit" and "rooted in bigotry toward
a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe."
On September 22, Omar was the keynote speaker in Minneapolis at a fundraiser
focused on providing monetary support for Palestinians in Gaza, which is ruled
by Hamas. The US Department of State has officially designated Hamas a
terrorist group. After the event, Omar tweeted: "It was such an honor to
attend the 'Dear Gaza' fundraiser ... I know Palestinians are resilient people,
hateful protesters nor unjust occupation will dim their spirit."
Writing in the New York Post, political commentator David Harsanyi noted that
Omar's rhetoric had anti-Semitic undertones:
"Now, it isn't inherently anti-Semitic to be critical of Israeli political
leadership or policies. The Democratic Party antagonism toward the Jewish state
has been well-established over the past decade. But Omar used a well-worn
anti-Semitic trope about the preternatural ability of a nefarious Jewish cabal
to deceive the world...."Omar had a chance to retract, or at least refine,
her statement. Instead, she doubled down ... blaming Jewish Islamophobia for
the backlash....
"To accuse the only democratic state in the Middle East, which grants more
liberal rights to its Muslim citizens than any Arab nation, of being an
'apartheid regime' is, on an intellectual level, grossly disingenuous or
incredibly ignorant. And when a politician singles out Jewish allies as 'evil,'
but ignores every brutal theocratic regime in the area, it's certainly
noteworthy....
"Omar's defenders will claim she's anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish.
'Anti-Zionism' has been the preferred justification for Jew-hatred in
institutions of education and within progressive activism for a long time. Now
it's coming for politics. Democrats can either allow it to be normalized, or
they can remain silent."
In Michigan, meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants,
won a largely uncontested race for the open seat in state's heavily Democratic
13th congressional district.
In Tlaib's acceptance speech, delivered with a Palestinian flag, she credited
her victory to the Palestinian cause. "A lot of my strength comes from
being Palestinian," she said.
Like Omar, Tlaib has changed her positions on key issues in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During her race for the Democratic nomination in
the state primary, Tlaib actively "sought out the support and received the
endorsement of J Street." J Street is a left-leaning organization that is
highly critical of the Israel government, and through "JStreetPAC,"
it also allocates financial support to those who back J Street's policies.
J Street endorsed Tlaib "based on her support for two states" with
the JStreetPAC website claiming that she "believes that the U.S. should be
directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution.
Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian
Authority."
After her primary win on August 7, however, Tlaib radically shifted her
positions on Israel, so much so that Haaretz suggested that she pulled a
"bait-and-switch."
In an August 14 interview with In These Times magazine, Tlaib was asked whether
she supported a one-state or two-state solution. She replied:
"One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work....
This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn't work."
Tlaib also declared her opposition to US aid for Israel, as well as her support
for the BDS movement. When asked why she accepted money from J Street, Tlaib
said that the organization endorsed her because of her "personal
story," not her policy "stances."
In an August 13 interview with Britain's Channel 4, Tlaib revealed that she
subscribes to the specious concept of intersectionality, which posits that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fundamentally a dispute between "white
supremacists" and "people of color."
When Tlaib was asked about her position on Israel, she replied, "I grew up
in Detroit where every single corner of the district is a reminder of the civil
rights movement."
When Tlaib was asked whether, once in Congress, she would vote to cut aid to
Israel, she replied: "Absolutely. For me, US aid should be leverage."
On August 17, J Street withdrew its endorsement of Tlaib's candidacy. J Street
noted:
"After closely consulting with Rashida Tlaib's campaign to clarify her
most current views on various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we
have come to the unfortunate conclusion that a significant divergence in
perspectives requires JStreetPAC to withdraw our endorsement of her candidacy.
"While we have long championed the value of a wide range of voices in
discussion of the conflict and related issues, we cannot endorse candidates who
conclude that they can no longer publicly express unequivocal support for a
two-state solution and other core principles to which our organization is
dedicated."Commentator Jonathan Tobin noted that many American Jews seemed
indifferent to victories by these anti-Israel Democrats: "The base of the
Democratic Party has been profoundly influenced by intersectional arguments
that, like Tlaib's slurs, view the Palestinian war on Israel as akin to the
struggle for civil rights in the United States...."For most [American
Jews], Israel is, at best, just one among many issues they care about. At the
moment, that means most American Jews are far more interested in evicting US
President Donald Trump from the White House or expressing solidarity with
illegal immigrants than about threats to Israel... "With many Jews
expressing distaste for an 'illiberal' Israel, it's little surprise that the
bulk of American Jewry isn't overly bothered about the election of Socialists
who are unsympathetic to the Jewish state or consider Zionism to be
racist."
*Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
© 2018 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.
Expectations on the
Khashoggi Case
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/November 16/18
The murder of Jamal Khashoggi is a complicated case from different angles. It’s
a political crime that happened amid very strange circumstances from a country
that’s not known for practicing violence against rivals. Khashoggi was not
known as a figure who is dangerous to national security as he worked as a
government spokesperson and with its media for 30 years. The crime was carried
out on a territory that’s “unfriendly” due to the political dispute and
regional bias within the Turkey-Qatar framework against Saudi Arabia.
What’s noticeable is that the Saudi public prosecutor’s story that was built on
the interrogations of those accused matched most of the Turkish leaks but not
all of them. The final conclusion is that the team had traveled to Istanbul to
meet with Khashoggi in the consulate to convince him to return and in case he
rejects to do so, he’d be returned by force, i.e. he'd be kidnapped. Perhaps
this explains the large number of participants, as all secret security
operations require a large logistical team.
An example is the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who is well-known for
smuggling arms to the Hamas Movement. The operation required sending a large
team of Israelis who entered Dubai as tourists via different airlines, stayed
in distant hotels, took up fake names, and used fake passports and anonymous
phone numbers. The team which carried out the Khashoggi murder went to Turkey
collectively and clearly, and some of them were known by the Turkish security.
They entered using their real passports and went to the Saudi consulate which
strengthens the story that the main goal was to return him alive, although he
was killed after their efforts failed.
The general prosecution’s story is based on investigations, and when the trial
is held later we hope to hear the testimonies directly from the accused.
The investigation has fulfilled what is expected from it. What was revealed
yesterday during the press conference of the general prosecution’s spokesperson
was rich in details and included more than the Turkish leaks. Despite this, we
already know that Turkey and Qatar, which both have a political dispute with
Saudi Arabia, will not stop exploiting the case. Therefore, we must
differentiate between two crimes. The first one is the assassination of Jamal
Khashoggi, may he rest in peace, and the second one is the organized attack
against a state like the Saudi Kingdom. I do not want to say what others have
said; that murdering Khashoggi is one crime and more than half a million were
deliberately killed in Syria and no one was punished for their murder and for
other similar crimes in the region’s countries. Murder is murder as the Quran
warned us: “Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in
the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” However, we must reject
Qatar’s campaign in politicizing the crime for more dangerous purposes as the
attempt to destabilize the Saudi Kingdom, as a government and a country, has
been a purpose and a systematic approach that preceded the assassination by a
long time. All those who followed up on the developments of the crisis can
sense there is a bad intention to use the Khashoggi murder. I’ll note a
comparison that shows the intentions of both parties.
After the failed coup in Turkey two years ago, Ankara insisted on some of the
region’s governments to hand over some figures it accused of belonging to the
opposition. At the time, these figures were in fact handed over by Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait. However, when Turkey hosted a number of Saudi extremist activists,
Ankara refused Riyadh’s request to hand them over or to at least prevent them
from carrying out hostile practices that were actually funded by Qatar. This
explains the depth of the problem between governments and the overlapping of
countries’ higher interests and how a man’s tragedy can transform into an
abhorrent game.
The EU’s Games of
Chicken Are Coming Home to Roost
John Authers/Bloomberg/November 16/18
The classic movie “Rebel Without A Cause” starring James Dean provided a great
model for negotiations. In one memorable scene, Dean’s character and a rival
raced their car toward a cliff in a sort of competition to see who was braver.
The winner was the last to swerve; the loser swerved first, and therefore was a
“chicken.” But to win, one had to face the risk of disaster. In the movie, our
hero survives, while his rival gets his sleeve caught in the door and he is
unable to escape or swerve in time. His car plunges over the cliff.
The European Union is playing a game of chicken with two of its biggest and most
powerful members: the UK and Italy. The UK, which has voted to leave the EU, is
trying hard to negotiate a deal to leave and playing very tough. If it fails,
there is a real risk of an exit without a compromise, which would suddenly
entail needing to renegotiate 759 treaties with 168 different countries.
This game of chicken involves not only the UK and the EU, but also multiple
factions within the UK. Ministers have resigned from Prime Minister Theresa
May’s cabinet both because they wanted a tougher approach to leaving, as was
the case with former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, and also because they
opposed the entire undertaking and wanted the whole matter put to a referendum,
as led Jo Johnson, Boris’ younger brother.
The problem the competing parties face is that virtually any option that seems
viable at this point would be demonstrably worse than the status quo,
surrendering the U.K.’s vote within the EU while still being subject to at
least some of its rules. But the leaders of both the government and the
opposition have ruled out putting the whole matter to another referendum. Thus,
without an agreement on any one proposal, a “no-deal” exit, or Brexit, becomes
likely.
It is possible that the dangers of a “no-deal” exit are being overstated. There
are concerns over whether jets could even leave Heathrow airport, while plans
are in motion to stockpile medicine and food ahead of what could become much
longer supply bottlenecks. The fact that it is possible to question how bad a
“no-deal” would be (Brexit supporters accurately assert that the U.K. got on
fine for centuries on its own before joining the EU) greatly increases the risk
that nobody swerves, and the U.K. goes over the cliff.
Then there is Italy. It has set a budget that involves a far greater deficit
and far greater fiscal expansion than is permitted under the 1991 Maastricht
Treaty that set the terms for countries to join the euro. Last month, the EU
formally rejected the budget. This seems necessary. Without maintaining
discipline, other countries will follow Italy’s lead and the euro will lose all
credibility. After the force that the EU applied to minnows such as Portugal,
Greece and Cyprus to adopt extreme austerity in return for avoiding a departure
form the euro, it would seem that there is little choice but to force Italy
into a new budget.
But the Italian government does not see it that way. And the EU has a problem
because the bond market is not helping. As judged by the spread of Italian
sovereign bond yields over comparable German bunds, bond traders regarded the
alarming election result in Italy with total complacency. Yields shot up in
late May as it suddenly became apparent that the right-populist Lega and
left-populist Five-Star movement might be able to work together to the detriment
of bond traders. They shot up again as the confrontation with the EU took
shape, but they have been stable for several weeks now.
Yield spreads at these levels are difficult for Italy, but survivable. The
government has previously said the spread should not go through 4 percentage
points. It remains safely below that level, appearing to embolden Italy. Matteo
Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister, told reporters on Monday, “The budget
doesn’t change because the EU sends us letters.”Italy is also aided by the
stock and the currency markets. The euro is falling, making it harder for the
EU to risk an all-out confrontation. And bank stocks are in serious trouble,
again making it harder to take action against Italy.
Of the two games of chicken, the disaster scenario in the case of Italy would
be much worse than with UK. It would mean the dissolution of the euro, an event
for which there is no precedent, and would affect every economy in the world.
It is hard to see how a “no-deal” Brexit for a country that is not part of the
euro could be as bad as this, beyond British shores.
But the chances of a plunge over the side of a cliff is far greater for the UK
than for Italy. The EU is highly unlikely to swerve in its game with the UK.
Italy is a different matter.
US stocks suffered another brutal sell-off Monday. There were plenty of reasons
for the decline, but this leg of the correction looks like a fundamentally
driven attempt to address the overvaluation of the “FAANG” group stocks (the
acronym Facebook, Amazon.com, Apple, Netflix and Google), and a new affection
for under-appreciated and less cyclical defensive stocks. As I commented last
month when Procter & Gamble enjoyed its best day in years, when people get
excited about sales of toothpaste and toilet-cleaner, it tends to suggest
something rather bad about their sentiment toward the market broadly. Now my
Bloomberg News colleague Luke Kawa has taken the exercise a step further by
comparing P&G’s valuation via its price-to-earnings multiple with that of
the tech-heavy Nasdaq-100. At this point, investors are prepared to pay more
for the predictable earnings growth in basic consumer products than they will
pay for all the growth potential in Apple, Amazon.com and the other stalwarts
of the Nasdaq. This is an unusual state of affairs. As the chart shows, the gap
between P&G’s valuation and that of the Nasdaq grew extreme earlier this
year, and it is unusual for investors to pay a premium for P&G for any
length of time. So we can see that this has been an extreme rotation within the
market. After Monday’s latest downdraft, it also looks as though the time to
buy is either or rapidly approaching. P&G, very unusually, was the best
performer in the S&P 500 in terms of index points, accounting for 0.19
extra point. Unfortunately, Apple’s decline accounted for a reduction of 5.11
S&P 500 index points. Investors are enthusiastically hunting the stocks
that have been caught on the other side of the “FAANG trade” and invested in
companies that had sold off too much on concern that Amazon.com and the others
would eat away their profits. We are now seeing a full-blown reaction.
For another illustration, try this one: the combined market cap of Amazon.com
and Apple had briefly exceeded that of the entire S&P 500 Consumer Staples
sector, including 32 companies headed by P&G, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and
Walmart.
Looked at this way, regrettably, the message is that the selling has further to
go. The rise of the biggest internet players on this basis looks like an
aberration, and needs to be corrected further. The way this sell-off follows
evidence of problems for iPhone sales and pain for Apple’s biggest suppliers
strengthens the evidence that this latest leg of the downturn has more of a
basis in fundamentals than those that preceded it. Investors are taking a hard
look at exactly what evidence there is for the FAANG’s growth potential, rather
belatedly, and adjusting prices accordingly. How long will that process last?
It depends where the evidence takes us.
Will Al-Sistani step in to break Iraq’s political deadlock?
Talmiz Ahmad/Arab News/November 16/18
Iraq’s new Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi took the oath of office last month
along with 14 ministers of a Cabinet that needs 22 members. This marked the
culmination of a month-long process of political uncertainty, turbulence and
deal-making since he was named prime minister by newly appointed President
Barham Salih.
Abdul Mahdi’s accession to high office is fortuitous. The country’s former oil
and finance minister and vice president did not participate in the national
elections in May. He explained in a Facebook post that month that he could not
be prime minister as his vision and goals would never obtain political support.
His program included making state institutions effective and free from
political interference, controlling the country’s militia, and combating
ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions.
This vision resonated with Muqtada Al-Sadr, whose Sairoon alliance romped home
with the highest number of seats in Parliament, but who wanted to see a
government of technocrats, not politicians. As the complex process of coalition
development came to an end in late September, with Al-Sadr aligning with the
No. 2 grouping, the Fatah alliance headed by Hadi Al-Amiri of the Iran-backed
Popular Mobilization Units militia, he identified Abdul Mahdi as the
appropriate leader of the next government.
It is now apparent that Al-Sadr and Al-Amiri do not share the same views on
government formation. Al-Sadr rejects the old “quota” system of allotting
ministerial portfolios to political groups — a veritable division of national
spoils — while Al-Amiri wishes to see rewards for groups like his own that have
made great efforts to combat Daesh. His focus is on the interior and defense
portfolios.
His all-too-infrequent interventions in the political space have had
extraordinary implications for a nation that is groaning under the twin
scourges of conflict and corruption.
This divide has prevented Abdul Mahdi from obtaining parliamentary approval for
eight ministers, including the interior, defense and justice ministers. The two
competing alliances, though ostensibly on the same side, vetoed each other’s
nominees in a destructive zero-sum endeavor. However, the prime minister was
able to get ministers for foreign affairs, oil and finance, and is retaining
with himself the interior and defense portfolios. There are threats of
impeachment against some ministers for past misdemeanors.
Fifteen years since the end of the Saddam Hussein regime, the country is
experiencing nationwide civil conflict, deepening ethnic and sectarian divides,
and widespread destruction of infrastructure and governmental institutions.
People are witnessing the near-total collapse of civic services, including the
supply of drinking water and electricity, continued violence from extremist
elements, and pervasive corruption on the part of politicians they elected to
provide governance.
This popular rage was exhibited through agitations in southern Iraq in
September, which finally persuaded the normally apolitical Grand Ayatollah Ali
Al-Sistani to break his silence and demand that the next government meet the
people’s requirements.
But not much has changed on the ground. Reports from Basra, which provides the
bulk of Iraq’s oil revenues, suggest that popular anger remains unassuaged, but
the people now see no advantage in street protests. They are watching with deep
cynicism the calls for public demonstrations from their elected
representatives, who are upset that no one from Basra is in the new Cabinet.
Besides the politicians from Basra, those representing the Turkmen and Kurds
are displaying both greed and disunity. The former are upset that ministerships
have not gone to their community, while the Kurds continue with their
century-old divide between the Barzani and Talabani clans. The former, much
diminished after the fiasco relating to the “independence referendum” last
year, is upset that its candidate for president was not successful and that
victory went to the candidate from the Talabani side in Sulaymaniyah. Issues
between Baghdad and Irbil remain unaddressed.
The national security situation also remains parlous, with daily reports of
bombings by Daesh elements even a year after they had been comprehensively
defeated. This violence reflects the feeble character of the official security
forces, since effective power remains with the numerous militia that have not
been disbanded or disarmed. They remain a lethal and fractious presence and are
often accused of targeting their opponents on a sectarian basis. There are
widespread concerns that Iraq could see the revival of earlier conflicts with
extremist elements.
The divided national edifice is also constantly buffeted by the rival claims on
the government in Iraq from Iran and the US. Though Iran was able to obtain the
government of its choice in Baghdad, the US has made life difficult for Iraq by
insisting on enforcing sanctions on Tehran: A blow to Iraq’s crucial energy and
trade ties with its neighbor. While Iraq’s leaders have publicly accepted US
demands, most observers believe this is just lip service since the ties between
Iraq and Iran are too deep and mutually important to be abandoned at the behest
of Washington.
Amid the grim scenario that is Iraq’s reality, all eyes are once again turning
to Al-Sistani. His all-too-infrequent interventions in the political space have
had extraordinary implications for a nation that is groaning under the twin
scourges of conflict and corruption. Can he wave his wand and save his people?
No one else seems available.
• Talmiz Ahmad is an author and former Indian diplomat who holds the Ram Sathe
Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune,
India.
Trump's Middle East
Plan Dealt Another Blow With Israel Turmoil
David Wainer and Nick Wadhams/Bloomberg/November 16/18
Israel’s political turmoil isn’t just a problem for Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu: It’s the latest blow to President Donald Trump’s hopes to unveil a
grand Middle East peace plan his son-in-law has spent almost two years on.
Netanyahu’s coalition now holds a bare majority of 61 of 120 parliamentary
seats after his political rival, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman, pulled his
faction out of the government Wednesday. If other parties leave the coalition
-- and some are already threatening to do just that -- Israel could head into
elections this winter even as Netanyahu is facing corruption probes in three
different cases.
Israeli officials already had been urging the Trump administration not to
release its proposal too close to the elections, afraid that a plan demanding
concessions from Israel would hurt Netanyahu’s chances when hard-liners already
accuse him of being too soft on Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that
rules the Gaza Strip.
After moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing the city as Israel’s
capital, Trump said in August that the Palestinians will “get something very
good” in his plan because it’s now “their turn.”
Regardless of how the U.S. proposal is pitched, there will be “some things in
the plan the Israelis won’t like, so the key is how to make sure that they are
OK with the general tenor of the plan,” said Dennis Ross, a former U.S. Mideast
peace negotiator. Ross predicted that if elections in Israel come in the
winter, the Trump administration may wait to make sure Netanyahu is re-elected
before presenting the U.S. proposal.
Yet even before the latest developments, Trump was showing increasing
frustration that the Israeli leader -- with whom he’s forged a close personal bond
-- wasn’t doing more to help the plan overseen by son-in-law Jared Kushner come
to fruition, according to two people familiar with the matter. Trump complained
in recent meetings that Netanyahu hasn’t been “flexible” or “forward-leaning”
enough on the plan, one of the people said.
White House officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Some analysts, including Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East
Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, say there’s now a chance the
plan will never see the light of day. Support in the Arab world, as well as
Israel, is essential to the plan’s success. Recent tensions between the U.S.
and Saudi Arabia, which would be expected to play a key role in financially
supporting the peace plan, haven’t helped the proposal’s prospects either.
Given the political turmoil in Israel, the government’s flexibility on
sensitive topics such as Jerusalem or Palestinian refugees will be very
limited, particularly since Netanyahu may have to defend his right flank from a
challenge by Liberman or other more conservative leaders like the Jewish Home
party’s Naftali Bennett.
Those rivals have accused Netanyahu of being too moderate on the Palestinian
issue. Liberman resigned on Wednesday after the security cabinet on Tuesday
agreed to a truce halting a two-day flare-up of fighting in Gaza. He called it
a “capitulation to terrorism.”
“I suspect that the prime minister has probably” told the Americans, “‘Don’t
present the plan before elections because with this government I have little
flexibility,”’ Ross said. “‘With this government, you’ll turn it into political
football. After the election I’ll be able to broaden my government.’ ”
Netanyahu’s office didn’t respond to several requests for comment. The prime
minister met Thursday with mayors of towns near the Gaza border who are angry
that he didn’t strike Hamas harder. His finance and interior ministers have
urged the prime minister to call early elections.
Publicly, the Trump-Netanyahu relationship has been one of the strongest in
recent history. Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has handed Netanyahu
key victories without demanding anything in return.
The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the move of the American
embassy broke with decades of U.S. practice. Then, Trump quit the Iran nuclear
deal negotiated during the Obama administration, which Netanyahu opposed from
the start, and he’s led an international campaign to pressure Tehran by
reimposing sanctions.
‘Ultimate Deal’
At the same time, Trump has expressed eagerness to do what no president before
him has managed to pull off -- the “ultimate deal” of Middle East peace,
drafted by his Jewish son-in-law. At a meeting with Netanyahu in September at
the United Nations, the U.S. president said he would like to release the plan
in “two to three to four months, something like that.”
But Trump’s decision on Jerusalem essentially ended Palestinian participation
in U.S. talks. Palestinians have long sought to make east Jerusalem their
capital. While Trump administration officials maintained that they weren’t
precluding any final decision on the city, preemptively recognizing the holy
city as Israel’s capital drew international condemnation. He’s since gone
further, slashing aid to Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Authority.
After decades of the U.S. publicly saying it wanted to be an honest broker in
the Israel-Palestinian crisis, part of the problem for Netanyahu is that
Trump’s policies have been perceived to be so pro-Israel that any plan viewed
as conciliatory toward the Palestinians could disappoint the prime minister’s
political base. Israelis have grown accustomed to Trump backing them at every
turn.
To avoid damaging relations with the Trump administration, Netanyahu would need
to give a “qualified yes” to any plan that’s announced, saying he’s open to
negotiations with some reservations, according to Sachs of Brookings.
“Trump has been so much in Netanyahu’s corner that every deviation toward the
mean will sound like an ominous move from the Trump administration,” Sachs
said.