English LCCC Newsbulletin For
Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For December 17/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.december17.22.htm
News Bulletin Achieves
Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Bible Quotations For today
Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good;
love one another with mutual affection
Letter to the Romans 12/09-21: “Let love be genuine;
hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual
affection; outdo one another in showing honour. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in
spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in
prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those
who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not
be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the
sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably
with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God;
for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’No, ‘if your
enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to
drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’Do not be
overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese &
Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on December
16-17/2022/
Hezbollah assassinates in cold blood a UNIFIL soldier in southern
Lebanon/Elias Bejjani/December 16/2022
UN chief slams attack on UNIFIL as shooting videos emerge
UNIFIL urges swift probe into Irish peacekeeper's death
Mikati and army chief visit UNIFIL HQ after deadly incident
Mikati holds consultative meeting with 19 ministers
Najib Mikati promises justice for Irish UN peacekeeper killed in Lebanon
UN force in Lebanon urges swift probe into Irish peacekeeper's death
US Embassy urges accountability after attack on UNIFIL
LF says attack on UNIFIL highlights scourge of illegal arms proliferation
'Gas' explosion wounds eight in Beit Misk
UK 'grateful' for final verdict in murder case of Rebecca Dykes
Tel Aviv Accuses Tehran of 'Smuggling' Weapons, Experts to Proxies Using
Civilian Airline
Only a new political system can save Lebanon/Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/December
16, 2022
Lebanese Army Commander Joseph Aoun seen as a president-in-waiting after Doha
visit./Sami Moubayed/Gulf News/December 16, 2022
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on December
16-17/2022/
Tehran Blames Washington for its Ouster from UN Rights Body
At least 65 children killed for participating in demonstrations by the Iranian
regime
Prominent Iranian Cleric Urges Release of Protest Detainees
Iran: dissent by public figures has amplified the protest across the country –
and the world
Kremlin TV Stars Combust as Russians Admit War Is Aimless
Ukraine war: US Patriot missiles would comfort Kyiv and alarm Moscow
Ukraine defense minister rips Putin's 'meat grinder' tactics, says Russia is
failing because it's still a 'big Soviet army'
Netanyahu, set to return to office, eyes deal with KSA
Jordan vows to clamp down on rioting against high fuel prices
Moscow welcomes Turkiye's call for trilateral Syria diplomacy
Bomb attack in Turkiye targets police van, injuring 9
Titles For The
Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on December
16-17/2022/
Global Prospects: A German View/Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/December 16/2022
Iran, its Foreign Policy and Domestic Dilemmas/Fahid Suleiman al-Shoqiran//Asharq
Al Awsat/December 16/2022
The War for Eight Billion Minds/J.B. Shurk/Gatestone Institute/December 16, 2022
Why aren’t feminists here backing brave woman-led Iranians? We need to show
up/Melinda Henneberger/BeeSacramento Bee/December 16, 2022
Exclusive - Interview With Benjamin Netanyahu/The Netanyahu Doctrine: An
in-depth regional policy/Al Arabiya English/Published: 15 December ,2022
on December
16-17/2022/
Hezbollah assassinates in cold blood
a UNIFIL soldier in southern Lebanon
Elias Bejjani/December 16/2022
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/114102/elias-bejjani-hezbollah-assassinates-in-cold-blood-a-unifil-soldier-in-southern-lebanon/
The young and innocent UNIFIl, soldier, Pierre
Deny, 23 years old, from Newton County in north-west Ireland, is the latest
Hezbollah victim in southern Lebanon. The victim's car was ambushed by civilian
Hezbollah gunmen in the town of Al-Aqibiya near Sarafand. For camouflage and
deception, Hezbollah calls these terrorist" the people.. Also in the attack
Another soldier, (Shane Karni, aged 22) was seriously wounded.
We offer our heartfelt condolences to the family of the victim, to the Irish
government, to the friendly Irish people, to the UNIFIL forces, and we pray for
the quick recovery of the wounded soldiers
It is worth mentioning, that the terrorist armed Hezbollah, that occupies
Lebanon, is completely affiliated to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and
blindly carries out its orders.
Meanwhile, it has carried, and do carry out dozens of horrible criminal acts of
murder, assassination, smuggling, and money-laundering operations etc, inside
Lebanon and in many other countries all over the globe. So far it has escaped
accountability, in regards to all the crimes it committed because the Lebanese
judiciary did not investigate these crimes, due to the fact that it is
politicized, terrorized and under Hezbollah's mere hegemony.
In this context, the so called "people" by Hezbollah have attacked the UNIFIL
forces many times, and they have not been held accountable, because of the
influence, occupation and terrorism of Hezbollah, who is on the lists of
terrorism in dozens of countries.
It is a Must to change the rules of engagement related to the authorities of the
UNIFIL forces, operating in southern Lebanon. The UNIFIL needs to be put legally
under the seventh international clause, so that these peace keeping forces can
at least protect their soldiers, and deter Hezbollah’s blatant and brazen
attacks, otherwise the need for their presence is negated, as they are in their
current situation, hostages to Hezbollah, crippled, and unable to carry out it
tasks related to the implementation of UN Resolution No. 1701.
In analysis, and based on many previous similar Hezbollah bloody attacks on
UNIFIL forces operating in southern Lebanon, the main aim is often, Iranian
fiery messages to Western countries, the United Nations, and the European
countries. It is most likely, that yesterday's bloody message was related to the
stances of the European countries and USA, in regards to the stumbles the
nuclear deal is going through.
Definitely, the investigation into this new crime will not lead to any results,
as was the case with all the Hezbollah crimes. A good example is the Hezbollah's
explosion of the port of Beirut, and the obstruction of the investigation by
force and terrorism. Another example, is Hezbollah's assassination of Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri, where the assassins are seen by Hezbollah as saints, and
still on the run despite their conviction by the Special Court For Lebanon.
In conclusion, there will be no solutions in Lebanon, big or small, at any
level, and in any field, as long as the Persian and terrorist Hezbollah occupies
the country, controls its decision making process, and by force appointing its
officials and rulers.
The solution: Putting Lebanon under the seventh UN clause, declaring it a failed
and rogue country, and implementing by force all the UN resolutions (Armistice
Agreement, 1559, 1701, and 1680), otherwise the occupation will continue and
every thing will get worse.
UN chief slams attack on UNIFIL as shooting videos
emerge
Associated Press/Agence France Presse/16 December ,2022
U.N. chief Antonio Guterres has condemned the deadly attack on UNIFIL troops in
south Lebanon, as online videos showed a UNIFIL vehicle coming under a hail of
bullets in the area of the incident. Cell phone videos circulated online have
showed one of two UNIFIL vehicles speeding to leave the area while it was shot
at in the southern town of al-Aqbiyeh. Some residents were visible filming the
incident. Another video showed the vehicle had rolled over after crashing into
the aluminum shutters of a building, with a wounded peacekeeper on the ground
beside it. The incident left one Irish peacekeeper dead and three others
wounded. The 23-year-old peacekeeper died of a bullet to the head according to a
Lebanese judicial official. Al-Manar TV, run by Hezbollah, reported that a
UNIFIL vehicle had "run over" a group of residents who had gathered to watch the
World Cup semi-final match between Morocco and France. A Hezbollah spokesperson
contacted by The Associated Press declined to comment on peacekeeper's death
"until we have all the data." At the U.N. headquarters in New York ahead of a
U.N. Security Council meeting, Ireland's Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said
23-year-old Rooney was in one of the two armored vehicles left the Irish base
camp for Beirut, each with four personnel. "The vehicles, for whatever reason,
got separated, and then one of the vehicles was surrounded by what I can only
describe as a mob, who were very aggressive towards the vehicles," Coveney said.
"Shots were fired, and unfortunately, one of our personnel lost his life" and
three Irish soldiers were wounded. "We will demand the truth in relation to what
happened here," Coveney said, adding that he has spoken to Lebanese officials on
Thursday and received assurances about fill cooperation in the investigation.
He said Ireland has participated in UNIFIL for decades and its last fatality was
20 years ago. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said he was "deeply
saddened" by the peacekeeper's death, his spokesperson said. He called for a
"swift investigation by relevant authorities to determine the facts related to
the incident and the need for accountability." Confrontations between residents
in southern Lebanon and UNIFIL troops are not uncommon. In January, unknown
perpetrators attacked Irish peacekeepers in the southern town of Bint Jbeil,
vandalizing their vehicles and stealing items. The residents accused them of
taking photographs of residential homes, though the U.N. mission denied this.
UNIFIL was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern
Lebanon after a 1978 invasion. The U.N. expanded its mission following the 2006
war between Israel and Hezbollah, allowing peacekeepers to deploy along the
Lebanon-Israel border to help the Lebanese military extend its authority into
the country's south for the first time in decades.
That resolution also called for a full cessation of Israeli-Hezbollah
hostilities.
UNIFIL urges swift probe into Irish peacekeeper's death
Agence France Presse/16 December ,2022
The United Nations' peacekeeping force in south Lebanon on Friday urged Lebanese
authorities to ensure a "speedy" investigation into an Irish soldier's shooting
death near the southern town of al-Aqbiyeh. The peacekeeper's convoy came under
fire late Wednesday, the Irish military said, wounding three other members of
the U.N. force UNIFIL. UNIFIL spokesman Andrea Tenenti called it "a very serious
incident" and told reporters it was "important" for the Lebanese authorities to
bring the perpetrators to justice. "It is a crime against the international
community, against peacekeepers who are here... to maintain stability," he
added. It is the first death of a UNIFIL member in a violent incident in Lebanon
since January 2015, when a Spanish peacekeeper was killed during retaliatory
Israeli fire. "Peacekeepers are continuing with their activities and
patrolling," Tenenti said. UNIFIL was set up in 1978 to monitor the withdrawal
of Israeli forces after they invaded Lebanon under the excuse of a Palestinian
attack. Now with nearly 10,000 troops, the U.N. force acts as a buffer between
Israel and Lebanon, which remain technically at war. Israel withdrew from south
Lebanon in 2000 but fought a devastating 2006 war with the powerful Iran-backed
Hezbollah.UNIFIL was beefed up to oversee the ceasefire that ended that
conflict.
- Bullet to the head -
Witnesses said villagers in the al-Aqbiyeh area, a Hezbollah stronghold, blocked
the Irish peacekeepr's vehicle after it took a road along the Mediterranean
coast not normally used by the United Nations force. A Lebanese judicial source
told AFP that the peacekeeper was killed by a bullet to the head when seven
projectiles pierced the vehicle. The three others were injured when the vehicle
hit a pylon and overturned, the source added. Following a meeting in Naqoura
with the force's commander, Major General Aroldo Lazaro, Lebanon's caretaker PM
Najib Mikati said "the investigation continues in order to determine the
circumstances of the incident."The Lebanese premier said it was "important" to
prevent similar attacks, and promised "those who will be proven guilty will be
punished."A spokesman for Ireland's army told AFP that a specialist team was
expected in Lebanon on Saturday to launch an investigation of the attack. Over
the years there have been a number of incidents between Hezbollah supporters and
the U.N. force in border areas loyal to the armed group. Wafiq Safa, Hezbollah's
security chief, told Lebanon's LBCI television that the incident was
"unintentional" and called for investigators to be given time to establish the
facts. Relations between UNIFIL and communities in south Lebanon have "always
been very positive," the force's spokesman said on Friday. "The support of the
communities is paramount in order for us to implement our mandate."
Mikati and army chief visit UNIFIL HQ after deadly incident
Naharnet/16 December ,2022
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Army Commander General Joseph Aoun on
Friday visited the headquarters of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in
Naqoura to offer condolences over the death of an Irish peacekeeper in an
incident in the southern town of al-Aqbiya..Mikati and Aoun were welcomed by
UNIFIL chief Maj. Gen. Aroldo Lazaro, who discussed with them the incident’s
circumstances and the situation in the South, in addition to UNIFIL’s operations
and the activities it carries out in cooperation with the Lebanese Army.
Expressing “profound sadness” over the incident, Mikati promised that the
investigations will continue until its circumstances are unveiled. “It is
necessary to avoid a repetition of the incident in the future and I salute the
memory of the martyrs of these forces, whose blood was mixed with the blood of
the army and the southerners throughout the years,” Mikati added. “We express
our great appreciation of UNIFIL’s contribution to peace and stability in south
Lebanon and I’m here to express, once again, that the Lebanese people and I
personally deeply appreciate the work that you are doing,” the premier told the
UNIFIL force. Emphasizing that Lebanon is committed to the implementation of
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 and respects international resolutions,
Mikati called on the U.N. to compel Israel to fully implement the resolutions
and end its recurrent attacks on Lebanon and its violation of its sovereignty.
Mikati also said that “the environment in which the U.N. troops operate is a
good environment,” adding that the perpetrators will be penalized. General
Joseph Aoun for his part extended warm condolences to Lazaro and lauded “the
sacrifices of the members of UNIFIL, which is a strategic partner for the army
in preserving security and stability in the south,” adding that “coordination
and cooperation will continue.”
Mikati holds consultative meeting with 19 ministers
Naharnet/16 December ,2022
Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and nineteen caretaker ministers held a
“consultative meeting” Friday at the Grand Serail, the National News Agency
said, in the wake of the controversy over the latest caretaker cabinet session
which was boycotted by the Free Patriotic Movement ministers. The meeting was
attended by the caretaker ministers of foreign affairs, education, information,
justice, telecom, energy, sports, defense, displaced, social affairs, industry,
tourism, interior, culture, environment, labor, agriculture, public works and
economy. It was also attended by the director general of the Presidency and the
secretary general of the Council of Ministers. Deputy PM Saade al-Shami, Finance
Minister Youssef Khalil, Administrative Development Minister Najla Riachi and
Health Minister Firass Abiad did not attend the meeting. MTV meanwhile reported
that “without prior notice, media outlets were prevented from covering the
consultative meeting.” The meeting was attended by all the ministers who had
boycotted the December 5 cabinet session. Mikati and other parties had argued
that the Dec. 5 meeting had been necessary in order to approve urgent matters
including a decree related to cancer and dialysis patients. The FPM meanwhile
described the session as unnecessary, unconstitutional and an attack on the
president’s powers amid an ongoing presidential vacuum. MTV had reported
Thursday that the consultative ministerial meeting would discuss the issue of
“mending the governmental rift and finding solutions for the current disputes.”
The TV network added that the discussions would also tackle the issue of who is
entitled to “sign the decrees that were issued by the government in its December
5 session.”
Najib Mikati promises justice for Irish UN peacekeeper
killed in Lebanon
Nada Maucourant Atallah/The National/December 16/2022
Unifil peacekeeping force says it is working with Lebanese military to uncover
facts of deadly attack on convoy in Al Aqbieh
Lebanon is determined to uncover the circumstances that led to the killing of an
Irish UN peacekeeper, caretaker prime minister Najib Mikati said during a visit
to the headquarters of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) on Friday.
Private Sean Rooney, 23, was killed by a bullet to the head, and three others
were injured, when their convoy came under fire from unidentified assailants in
the southern village of Al Aqbieh on Wednesday as they were travelling to
Beirut. The three other injured soldiers are in hospital but in stable
condition, a Unifil representative said. “The necessary investigations are
ongoing to uncover the circumstances of the incident to avoid it from happening
again in the future," Mr Mikati said at the Unifil heaquarters in Naqoura, in
southern Lebanon. “Whoever is found guilty will be punished.” According to the
Irish defence forces, “a convoy of two armoured utility vehicles carrying eight
personnel travelling to Beirut came under small arms fire”. The vehicles were
“surrounded by a hostile mob”, Irish Minister for Defence Simon Coveney said.
Unifil said on Thursday that the details of what occurred were “sparse and
conflicting” and it was co-ordinating an investigation with the Lebanese Armed
Forces to determine exactly what happened. "The peacekeepers took a wrong turn
and they got detached from the rest of the convoy," Unifil spokesman Andrea
Tenenti said. "As the investigation is ongoing we cannot further comment on the
circumstances surrounding the incident." He said the Lebanese authorities were
co-ordinating with Unifil and were taking the issue "very seriously". "This is
an international crime: we are calling for a swift investigation to bring the
perpetrators to justice," he said. "But we do not have a timeline to finalise
the report: the priority for now is to gather information". Hezbollah, an
Iran-backed militia and a prominent political party that has a major presence in
Al Aqbieh and in many parts of the country, on Thursday denied its involvement
in the killing of the soldier. More than 300 soldiers serving with Unifil have
lost their lives since its mandate started in 1978 to maintain peace after the
withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. The last incident was in
2007, when six international peacekeepers were hit by a bomb blast in southern
Lebanon. But this is the first attack of this kind, according to Mr Tenenti.
“Unifil usually has a good relationship with the locals despite sporadic
incidents: this an unprecedented event," he said.
UN force in Lebanon urges swift probe into Irish
peacekeeper's death
Naqura (Lebanon) (AFP) /December 16/2022
The United Nations' peacekeeping force in Lebanon on Friday urged Beirut to
ensure a "speedy" investigation into an Irish soldier's shooting death in the
country's south this week. The convoy of the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon (UNIFIL) came under fire late Wednesday near the village of Al-Aqbiya,
the Irish military said, wounding three other personnel. UNIFIL acts as a buffer
between Lebanon and Israel, neighbours which remain technically at war. The
force operates near the border, while Lebanon's south is a stronghold of
Iran-backed group Hezbollah. Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and army
chief Joseph Aoun visited the UNIFIL headquarters in the border town of Naqura,
denouncing the attack that claimed private Sean Rooney's life. Force spokesman
Andrea Tenenti called it "a very serious incident" and told reporters it was
"important" for the Lebanese authorities to bring the perpetrators to
justice."It is a crime against the international community, against peacekeepers
who are here... to maintain stability," he added. It is the first death of a
UNIFIL member in a violent incident in Lebanon since January 2015, when a
Spanish peacekeeper was killed by Israeli fire. "Peacekeepers are continuing
with their activities and patrolling," Tenenti added. The flags of the force and
its member countries were flying at half mast at the UNIFIL base, an AFP
correspondent said, while one critically wounded soldier was still in intensive
care. UNIFIL was set up in 1978 to monitor the withdrawal of Israeli forces
after they invaded Lebanon in reprisal for a Palestinian attack. Israel withdrew
from south Lebanon in 2000 but fought a devastating 2006 war with Hezbollah and
its allies.UNIFIL was beefed up to oversee the ceasefire that ended the 2006
conflict, and now counts nearly 10,000 troops.
Bullet to the head
Witnesses said villagers in the Al-Aqbiya area blocked Rooney's vehicle after it
took a road along the Mediterranean coast not normally used by the United
Nations force. Al-Aqbiya is just outside UNIFIL's area of operations, the force
said. A Lebanese judicial source told AFP that the peacekeeper was killed by a
bullet to the head when seven projectiles pierced the vehicle. The soldier was
hit through his seat from behind, while the three others were hurt when the
vehicle hit a pylon and overturned, the source added. Following a meeting in
Naqura on Friday with UNIFIL commander Major General Aroldo Lazaro Saenz,
premier Mikati said "the investigation continues in order to determine the
circumstances of the incident". Mikati said it was "important" to prevent
similar attacks, and promised "those who will be proven guilty will be
punished". A spokesman for Ireland's army told AFP a specialist team was
expected in Lebanon on Saturday to examine the circumstances of Wednesday's
attack. Over the years, there have been a number of incidents between Hezbollah
supporters and the UN force in border areas loyal to the armed group, but rarely
have such incidents escalated. Wafic Safa, Hezbollah's security chief, told
Lebanon's LBCI television on Thursday that the incident was "unintentional" and
called for investigators to be given time to establish the facts. He urged for
the group not to be "dragged into" the incident. Relations between UNIFIL and
communities in south Lebanon have always been "very positive", the force's
spokesman Tenenti said Friday. "The support of the communities is paramount in
order for us to implement our mandate," he added.
US Embassy urges accountability after attack on UNIFIL
Naharnet/16 December ,2022
The United States “condemns in the strongest terms the violent attack on UNIFIL
peacekeepers yesterday (Wednesday evening) that left one Irish servicemember
dead and three wounded,” the U.S. Embassy in Beirut said. “Violence against
peacekeepers is unconscionable, puts Lebanese civilians at risk, and jeopardizes
stability in southern Lebanon,” the Embassy added in a statement, sending
Washington’s “heartfelt condolences to the family, friends, and colleagues of
the peacekeeper who died” and hoping for the speedy recovery of those wounded.
Moreover, the Embassy called upon the Lebanese government to “urgently
investigate this attack, hold those responsible accountable, and prevent such
attacks from occurring in the future.”“We continue to urge the Lebanese
government to facilitate full cooperation with UNIFIL, including facilitating
UNIFIL movements into and out of its area of operations, with or without
accompanying Lebanese security services, in accordance with UNSCR 1701,” the
Embassy added.
LF says attack on UNIFIL highlights scourge of illegal arms
proliferation
Naharnet/16 December ,2022
The Lebanese Forces on Friday strongly condemned the deadly attack on a UNIFIL
convoy in south Lebanon, urging the Lebanese government to “carry out a
transparent and swift probe and bring the aggressor killers to justice.”“The
armed attack on a UNIFIL vehicle is a dangerous indication that confirms what’s
already confirmed regarding the proliferation of arms outside Lebanese
legitimacy,” the LF said in a statement. It added that the incident was a
“blatant violation of U.N. resolution 1701, which contradicts with Lebanon’s
higher strategic interests and harms the state’s sovereignty and general
stability.”
“The presence of the UNIFIL forces is a national need that requires applause and
keenness on their role, not firing at them and addressing political and security
messages through attacking them,” the LF said. “Based on this, we call on the
Lebanese government and the legitimate security forces to be strict in the
process of extending sovereignty and to be keen on preventing the spread of the
scourge of illegitimacy and militia chaos,” the party added.
'Gas' explosion wounds eight in Beit Misk
Naharnet/16 December ,2022
An explosion, reportedly caused by a gas leak, wounded eight people on Friday in
the Northern Metn town of Beit Misk and badly damaged a residential building.
The Civil Defense said its crews managed to rescue a woman and her son from
beneath the rubble, rushing them to hospital. First aid was also offered on the
spot to six foreign workers who were present near the building. The Civil
Defense noted that the blast ripped through a residential apartment on the
ground floor of the five-story building. Al-Jadeed TV meanwhile reported that
the building is supplied with gas through pipelines connected to a tank.
UK 'grateful' for final verdict in murder case of Rebecca
Dykes
Naharnet /16 December ,2022
Lebanon’s Court of Cassation has rejected an appeal by Tariq Houshieh and
affirmed his guilt for “the brutal murder in 2017 of our dear colleague Rebecca
‘Becky’ Dykes,” the British Embassy in Beirut said on Friday. “We are grateful
to all of those who have contributed to the final resolution of this case after
many months of delay,” the Embassy said in a statement. “The British Embassy in
Beirut, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and her family and
friends, are committed to continuing to honor her legacy, including through
efforts to combat the scourge of violence against women and girls, and to
promote community cohesion and stability,” the Embassy added. It also hoped this
verdict will “bring some closure for Becky’s family, for the many around the
world who loved Becky, and for all those whose lives she touched through her
humanitarian work in Lebanon and elsewhere.”Dykes, a British diplomat, worked
for the UK Department for International Development in Beirut. On December 16,
2017 she was found murdered after being strangled and raped by Houshieh, an Uber
driver whom she rode with from a bar in Gemmayze. Her body was found dumped on
the Metn Express Highway several kilometers away.
Tel Aviv Accuses Tehran of 'Smuggling' Weapons, Experts
to Proxies Using Civilian Airline
Tel Aviv - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 16 December, 2022
An Israeli report published Thursday claimed that it uncovered a new means used
by Iran to smuggle weapons into Syria and Lebanon, through the private airline
Mahan Air. The report said that this discovery came within the framework of
Israel’s campaign to thwart the new Iranian smuggling route through Beirut, and
its threats to bomb the airport. The report, key parts of which were published
by Haaretz, focuses on a study conducted by the Alma Center, which specializes
in security research on the northern front in Israel and is headed by Sarit
Zehavi, a retired Israeli military intelligence officer.
It claimed that it “monitored the activity” of the private Iranian airline,
Mahan Air, which operates flights from Iran to several destinations, including
Syria, Lebanon, Türkiye, Eastern European countries and others, and that it
transported weapons and sensitive equipment to Hezbollah. According to the
report, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) was purchasing airline tickets
from Mahan Air for civilian passengers and cargo, which included weapons and
equipment for building weapons and missiles. It added that the Alma Center was
able to monitor the names of 63 pilots in Mahan Air, who could be involved in
efforts to smuggle weapons to Syria and Lebanon last year. “The company serves
the IRGC as a civilian platform for smuggling weapons via their Special Unit
190. This unit is in charge of transferring Iranian weapons throughout the
Middle East,” the report claimed. The Alma center published details about people
“involved” in this operation, and pointed to the Mahan Air general manager, who
was a former officer in the IRGC and a close friend of IRGC Commander Qassem
Soleimani, before his assassination. The report also mentioned the name of Reda
Hashem Safieddine, the son of a cleric and head of the Executive Council of
Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the nephew of Abdullah Safieddine, the representative
of Hezbollah in Iran.
Only a new political system can save Lebanon
Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/December 16, 2022
Lebanon’s politicians have become obsolete. As chaos and economic depression
envelop the country, the country’s parliament has failed for the 10th time to
elect a new president. Moreover, the Lebanese people also appear to have
forgotten that the current prime minister is only a caretaker. Yet again a void
has been created within Lebanese institutional roles.
However, this vacuum, which has been predicted since the last parliamentary
elections, has not changed the daily lives of Lebanese. They continue to suffer
with or without the presidency being filled. The only constant is the
Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri. This position was not filled by a caretaker.
There is no doubt that Hezbollah, Iran’s armed proxy, is creating these vacuums
and blocking attempts to solve the issue. This aligns with the Iranian approach
of dangling political opportunities in front of Western countries, such as
France, making everyone forget that filling this void with political leaders
aligned with Tehran will be anything but a win for Lebanon. Quite the opposite,
it will be another step toward broader domination by the Tehran regime, one that
would serve its purposes, while giving the West the appearance of a diplomatic
victory.
The truth needs to be told loud and clear. Lebanon is under occupation by the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the country’s politicians are all but
redundant. This occupation, an extension of Iran’s infiltration of the Assad
regime, has been empowered by Lebanon’s confessional power structure. The
delicate balance and consensus needed between political rivals invites conflict,
raw deal-making and corruption. Corruption is not only an official being bribed
for an illegal service, but starts with the destruction of values that make a
state sovereign.
There is no place for the Iranian theocracy in Lebanon. No matter how hard
Tehran tries, the Lebanese will reject it.
Today, there is growing concern that international powers, such as France and
the US, are looking to push forward an Iranian solution in Lebanon simply
because it is the easiest way to move forward. This approach stems from the
supposedly pragmatic view that Hezbollah controls the country and any attempts
to change the situation will lead to violence. However, claims that the group is
entrenched within the social and political fabric of the country are a lie.
Hezbollah is a parasite clinging to Lebanon. And, so, legitimizing it would
allow only for a shallow “headline victory.”
It would also please the Iranian regime, which would be legitimized regionally
in a time when it is being challenged domestically. No one believes that
Hezbollah could split from the regime simply because it is a part of it.
Recalling its role in Syria and Iraq will help to end any confusion. So why
impose this type of occupation on Lebanese when the same is rejected for
Ukrainians? There is no place for the Iranian theocracy in Lebanon. No matter
how hard Tehran tries, the Lebanese will reject it.
Iran and its proxy will not be able to impose their will on all Lebanese. Today,
the Shiite community is in the same situation as all the others, yet it suffers
even more under the oppression of Hezbollah. The community is the cornerstone
when it comes to returning Lebanon to stability and freeing the country of
Iranian oppression. Yet, they are locked in and prisoners of the political
calculation that as a community without Hezbollah they might lose power and
representation. This applies to every other community, no matter how weak. They
seek to preserve what they have in status. And so, better the devil you know
applies to all. This is why there is a need for a popular movement for change.
This change, although essential, cannot only be about a new political system.
Indeed, calling for decentralization or federalism is not a solution, but only a
conduit to preserve the country. Lebanese need to claim their country and build
on strong values that can empower its citizens and, finally, bring stability and
happiness. Unfortunately, every time the Lebanese dream, it becomes a nightmare
with Hezbollah. Yet, despite this, they need to prepare for a better future and
begin building it, no matter how futile this exercise might seem today. Stranger
things have happened.
The reality is that with this disappearing state, obsolete politicians, and
despite Hezbollah’s ruthless violence and centralized power, the country is
already drifting toward decentralization when, in fact, federalism brings a
better solution. The Lebanese instinct for survival is pushing for more real
power at a community level. One thing is certain: even if the state dies or is
completely hijacked, Lebanese communities will adapt, keep on living, and even
find ways to thrive. Action for change is needed now — before it is too late.
This is exactly why France and the US, which ultimately wish the best for the
Lebanese, should not be duped by the Iranian regime. If they want to support
Lebanon, they should avoid putting their efforts into bringing about a consensus
to elect an obsolete president or name a prime minister. Instead, they should
call for an international conference to begin building a new political system
for the country. That would support a clear plan toward a new constitution
guaranteeing the same rights and duties to all, and freeing them from the
Iranian regime’s hegemony. Lebanese need to fight for this formula.
*Khaled Abou Zahr is CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the
editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.
Lebanese Army Commander Joseph Aoun seen as a
president-in-waiting after Doha visit.
Sami Moubayed/Gulf News/December 16, 2022
It’s been almost 2 months since Aoun’s term ended, but Lebanon is still without
president
Beirut: Lebanese Army Commander Joseph Aoun was in Qatar, raising speculation in
Beirut that an Arab initiative is in the works to make him president. On
December 10, Joseph Aoun landed in Doha for an official visit, technically
framed to discuss military cooperation between Qatar and Lebanon.
In light of the presidential vacuum in Beirut, the timing of the visit has
raised eyebrows, given that Aoun is on the shortlist of names earmarked to
replace ex-president Michel Aoun, whose term ended on 31 October 2022. Joseph
Aoun was first raised by commander of the Lebanese Forces Samir Gagegea back in
July 2022, who suggested that he would make a fine successor to Michel Aoun.
It’s been almost two months since Michel Aoun’s term expired, and despite nine
voting sessions held since then in parliament since then, lawmakers have been
unable to agree on a successor, leaving the presidential seat at Baabda Palace
vacant.
Frangieh versus Bassil
Two names have been making the rounds, although neither has officially nominated
himself for the job. One is Michel Aoun’s son-in-law Gibran Bassil, a
US-sanctioned former foreign minister who heads the Free Patriotic Movement
(FPM). Second is Suleiman Frangieh, scion of a historic Maronite dynasty whose
grandfather and namesake had been president of Lebanon at the start of the
country’s civil war, back in 1975. Both Frangieh and Bassil are allies of
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who nevertheless prefers seeing the former as
Lebanon’s next president. His condition for president is someone who “protects”
the arms of Hezbollah, something that Frangieh has pledged to do since first
being nominated for the job back in 2016.
Fruitless effort
Last May Nasrallah brought the two men together at a Ramadan iftar, trying to
talk Bassil into dropping his candidacy in favour of Frangieh — an effort that
proved fruitless. Bassil’s cooperation on electing a president is vital, given
that he commands a parliamentary bloc of 21 MPs. Electing a president requires
two things: consent of the prime minister and a majority vote of 65 MPs in
Parliament. The Lebanese Forces (LF) of Samir Gagegea, another Christian
heavyweight, has refused to endorse either of the two candidates, accusing them
of being too close to Hezbollah. Instead, he has nominated instead MP Michel
Mouawwad, the son of a former president assassinated during the final stages of
the Lebanese Civil War. Although he has no political party behind him, Mouawwad
has been receiving anywhere between 36-44 votes in every of the nine voting
sessions in parliament, still not enough to make him president. For very
different reasons, Hezbollah and the FPM have been voting with blank papers.
Hezbollah wants Frangieh as president while the FPM insists that their only
choice for president is Gibran Bassil.
The Joseph Aoun option
Given the gridlock, many have started to seriously consider Joseph Aoun as
president, given that he is a professional soldier, unaffiliated with any of the
warring political parties. Born in 1964, Aoun hails from the village of Al
Ayshieh in the Jezzine District. Although carrying the same family name, he is
unrelated to President Michel Aoun who appointed him army commander in 2017.
The Qatari role
His December visit to Doha triggered widespread media attention in Lebanon and
beyond, as many speculated whether the Qataris were grooming him for the vacant
presidential seat. Back in June 2022, Qatar had pledged $60 million USD to
support the bankrupt Lebanese Army under Aoun. Doha had also played a similar
mediating role back in 2008, orchestrating a political agreement to end a
seven-month presidential vacuum in Lebanon, which concluded with the election of
Michel Suleiman — another army commander — as president.
Obstacles and hurdles
But electing a president requires more than just regional consensus. In addition
to a 65-vote majority in parliament, Aoun’s candidacy would need a one-time
constitutional amendment. According to the current Lebanese charter, an officer
needs to resign from the armed forces before nominating himself for a civilian
job like the presidency, which Aoun is yet to do. Additionally, he would need a
minimum lapse period of three months before submitting his candidacy. The
Maronite Patriarch Beshara Al Rai is opposed to the one-time constitutional
amendment, clearly unenthusiastic about yet another officer-turned-president,
given its troubled relationship with Michel Aoun. Support of the Maronite Church
is vital, since by norm, the presidency has been held by a Maronite Christian
since 1943. Also opposing the constitutional amendment is Gibran Bassil and his
Free Patriotic Movement. Speaking in a television interview on 11 December,
Bassil said: “The equation that its either Suleiman Frangieh (for president) or
Joseph Aoun is unacceptable.” This was the first time since Aoun’s name surfaced
in June that Gibran Bassil has spoken publicly about the army commander’s
candidacy for president. Saudi Arabia remains officially neutral on the vacant
Lebanese presidency, but it is an open secret that they would like to see a
president who is free from Hezbollah control, explaining why they would prefer
Joseph Aoun to either Suleiman Frangieh or Gibran Bassil. According to sources
who spoke to Gulf News, Aoun is planning to visit Riyadh by next January. Tehran
is unhappy with Aoun’s candidacy, however, and so is Hezbollah whose leaders
cannot overcome the fact that his name was first put forth by none other than
their arch-enemy, Samir Gagegea.
If Joseph Aoun makes it to the presidency, he would be the fifth general to
become president of Lebanon after Fouad Shihab (1958-1964), Emille Lahhoud
(1998-2007), Michel Suleiman (2008-2014), and Michel Aoun (2016-2022).
The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on December
16-17/2022
Tehran Blames Washington for its Ouster from UN Rights Body
Tehran - New York - Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 16
December, 2022
Iran sharply criticized the US a day after it was voted out from a UN commission
on women's rights for its suppression of demonstrations since the death of Mahsa
Amini in September. The death of Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman, in the
custody of Iran's notorious morality police had triggered a massive wave of
protests. The vote to expel Iran from the commission, proposed by the US, passed
with a 29-8 vote and 16 abstentions. The 45 members of the United Nations
Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) are elected by the Economic and Social
Council for four-year terms. Wednesday’s vote removed Iran for the remainder of
its 2022-2026 term. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Nasser Kanaani on
Thursday said that Iran’s removal from the panel is driven by bias and is an
attempt “to impose unilateral political demands, and ignore election procedures
in international institutions,” according to the official IRNA agency in Tehran.
Kanaani strongly condemned the US’ extensive campaign to expel Iran from the
UNCSW, which is concerned exclusively with the promotion of gender equality and
the empowerment of women. Iran became a member of the commission last April.
Kanaani said that the “US-led non-consensus resolution,” violated the UN charter
and set a dangerous precedent for the international organization. While Russia
and China, Iran’s allies, opposed the vote, a simple majority was sufficient to
adopt the resolution proposed by the US. Tehran accused Washington of “exerting
pressure” on countries before the vote. The voted resolution states that the
Iranian authorities constantly undermine and increasingly suppress human rights
of women and girls. This includes the right to freedom of expression. Iran often
undermines human rights of women with the use of excessive force. The head of
Iran's high council for human rights, Kazem Gharibabadi, said the motive of the
US for supporting the resolution was to protect its own interests. The US “only
pursues its inhumane and anti-human rights interests and goals” by issuing
“false and hypocritical statements and comments” against Iran, he said in a
Twitter post.
At least 65 children killed for participating in
demonstrations by the Iranian regime
Arab News/December 16, 2022
LONDON: At least 65 children between the ages of 2 and 17 have been killed in a
“brutal crackdown” since protests erupted against the Iranian regime over 90
days ago, an opposition group has said. “Three months have passed since the
beginning of the Iranian people’s uprising against the mullahs’ regime,” said
the National Council of Resistance of Iran. “According to the reports by the
People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran from inside the country, more than 700
people have been murdered and thousands injured by repressive forces and more
than 30,000 people arrested and subjected to the most brutal torture.” A report
issued by the NCRI’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which is based on information
from the PMOI network, revealed the name and age of each victim, as well as the
city in which they were killed. It found that 13 of the victims were girls and
52 were boys, while five victims were under 10 years old, and 60 were between 10
and 17 years old. The report also said that the victims were from 33 cities
across Iran, with the largest number of child victims reported in Zahedan, the
capital of Sistan and Baluchistan Province, which registered 15 deaths in the
southeast, followed by nine in Tehran and four in Piranshahr, in Kurdistan
Province. “Most of these children were killed by gunshots, but some of them,
including Sarina Ismailzadeh, Nika Shakrami, Mohammad Hossein Kamandalo, and
Maedeh Hashemi, were killed by baton blows to their heads and other vital areas,
or by severe beatings by the security forces,” the reports said. “Some were
injured due to severe blows and injuries and died after some time. One example
is Armika Ghaem Maghami, who was in a coma fighting for her life for 10 days
before finally succumbing to her injuries,” it added. “It should be emphasized
that this report only includes confirmed cases and that the actual number of
child victims is certainly higher, with some families being afraid to reveal
victims’ names due to continuous threats by the regime.”
The report also said that the Iranian regime has denied any involvement in the
children’s deaths but added that “the fact that children have been brutally
victimized by the regime’s repression is also evident in protesters’ slogans,
which include chants of ‘We don’t want a child-killing regime.’”Amnesty
International said 26 people faced possible execution after the Islamic Republic
hanged two people who were arrested over the protests that erupted after the
death in police custody of young Kurdish-Iranian woman Mahsa Amini on Sept. 16.
The unrest, in which demonstrators from all walks of life have called for the
fall of Iran’s ruling theocracy, poses one of the biggest challenges to Iran
since its 1979 revolution. “At least 26 people are at great risk of execution in
connection with nationwide protests after Iranian authorities arbitrarily
executed two individuals following grossly unfair sham trials in a bid to instil
fear among the public and end protests,” Amnesty International said in a
statement. “The time has come for the international community to stand with the
people of Iran, to accept their will, and to recognize their right to resist and
defend themselves,” the NCRI said. It urged countries to close the Iranian
embassies, designate the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group in order to
hold the regime accountable and to put an end to their impunity, refer the
regime’s crimes to the UN Security Council and take steps toward expelling it
from the UN.
Prominent Iranian Cleric Urges Release of Protest
Detainees
Asharq Al-Awsat/Friday, 16 December, 2022
A prominent dissident Sunni Muslim cleric urged Iranian authorities on Friday to
free thousands of detained protesters and stop executions as the three-month-old
unrest churned on with street marches in a restive southeastern province.
Amnesty International said 26 people faced possible execution after Tehran
hanged two people arrested over the protests that erupted after the death in
police custody of young Kurdish Iranian woman Mahsa Amini on Sept. 16. The
unrest, in which demonstrators from all walks of life have called for the fall
of Iran's ruling theocracy, poses one of the biggest challenges to the Shiite
-ruled republic since its 1979 revolution. "At least 26 people are at
great risk of execution in connection with nationwide protests after Iranian
authorities arbitrarily executed two individuals following grossly unfair sham
trials in a bid to instill fear among the public and end protests," Amnesty
International said in a statement. "Of the 26, at least 11 are sentenced to
death and 15 are charged with capital offenses and awaiting or undergoing
trials," it said. Molavi Abdolhamid, an outspoken Sunni cleric, criticized
the death sentences, according to his website. "We compassionately recommend
that you release the recent prisoners who were detained during these protests
and not treat them harshly. Most of them are young and very young. Free the
young men and women," Molavi Abdolhamid said. "Don't charge them with (capital
offenses), and if they are, they should not be sentenced to death and put to
death," the cleric said in a Friday prayers sermon. After the sermon,
demonstrators took to the streets of Zahedan, capital of impoverished
Sistan-Baluchistan province in the southeast. "This nation wants freedom, it
wants a prosperous country!" they chanted, in videos posted on social media.
Reuters could not immediately verify the footage. In continued unrest in other
parts of Iran, unidentified attackers damaged a mosque in western Lorestan
province early on Friday by throwing petrol bombs, state media reported.
According to the activist HRANA news agency, 495 protesters have been killed as
of Thursday, including 68 minors. Sixty-two members of the security forces have
also been killed. It said more than 18,400 are estimated to have been arrested.
On Wednesday, Iran was ousted from a United Nations women's group for policies
contrary to the rights of women and girls, a move proposed by the United States
over Tehran's violent crackdown on protests often led by women.
Iran: dissent by public figures has amplified the
protest across the country – and the world
Roja Fazaeli/The Conversation/December 16, 2022
Iran’s Islamic Republic continues to violently suppress ongoing pro-democracy
protests, which broke out in September in response to the killing of a young
woman who had been arrested for not wearing a proper head covering. According to
the NGO Iran Human Rights at least 458 protesters have been killed, including 63
children. Death sentences have been issued to at least 11 people. Mohsen Shekari,
a 22 year old Tehran café worker, was executed on December 8 after being found
guilty of charges of using a weapon with intent to kill and “enmity against
God”. Amnesty International called it “a grossly unfair sham trial” with no due
process. Majidreza Rahnavard was publicly hanged on December 12. He was alleged
to have killed two members of the paramilitary Basij force. Human rights
advocates have resolutely condemned the execution, which took place only 23 days
after his arrest, as being based on a forced confession. Similarly to Shekari,
Rahnavard faced an unfair trial that was fast-tracked and lacked clear due
process. At least 18,000 people have been detained during the current protests.
There are some fears of mass executions, raising the spectre of the notorious
1988 mass executions of Iranian political prisoners. The current Iranian
president, Ebrahim Raisi, was one of the judiciary officials who oversaw the
1988 executions. The Islamic Republic shows no sign of relaxing its stranglehold
over the country. Yet the broad-based protests have spanned various ethnic and
religious communities, as well as across economic classes and geographic
regions. The protesters have challenged limits on freedom of expression and
civil liberties and have been strongly supported by Iran’s actors, musicians and
athletes who have been among those arrested, imprisoned and tortured. This
public dissent by well known public figures has had amplifying effects across
Iran and internationally.
Celebrity stances
Rappers Toomaj Salehi and Saman Yasin were arrested in October for online
performances in support of the protesters. Toomaj Salehi articulated his
criticism with the following lyrics:
Someone’s crime was dancing with her hair in the wind. Someone’s crime was that
he or she was brave and criticised…44 years of your government is the year of
failure. Shervin Hajipour’s song Baraye (Because of…) has also become part of
the protest soundscape reaching far beyond Iran. Baraye has been covered by
various international artists, including Coldplay in a performance with Iranian
actor Golshifteh Farahani. In the world of film, Taraneh Alidoosti,
award-winning Iranian actor, published a photo of herself without a headscarf,
holding a sign with the protest slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom”. The photo was
published on Alidoosti’s Instagram account, which has a following of eight
million people. Other Iranian actors have engaged in similar acts of dissent.
Rakhshan Bani Etemad, the renowned Iranian director, posted a video of herself
without a headscarf on social media in which she spoke out against the regime’s
violence, and particularly lamented the death of nine-year-old Kian Pirfalak,
who was killed when regime security forces opened fire on the car in which he
was a passenger.
A group of prominent members of Iran’s theatre arts community also issued a
statement on Instagram in which they announced that they “will not participate
in or watch performances where women were subjected to compulsory hijab”.
The Committee to Follow Up on the Situation of Arrested Artists, a
nongovernmental effort dedicated to tracking the arrest and detention of
artists, says at least 150 figures from cinema and stage “have been summoned,
arrested, accused, banned from leaving the country or persecuted” since the
start of the protests. Sports personalities and national sports teams have also
had significant public reach during the protests. Elnaz Rekabi competed in an
international sport climbing competition in South Korea without wearing a
headscarf. She was welcomed home by crowds at the airport in a show of support.
But she was later forced to make a public statement disowning the act and
explaining it as an accident. It has since been reported that she has been
placed under house arrest. It was also reported that her family home was
demolished by government officials.
Similarly, Iranian archer, Parmida Ghasemi, removed her headscarf in Iran only
to be forced to recant and apologise for the action. Fasiha Radmanesh, who won
bronze at an international Muay Thai martial arts competition in Turkey,
accepted her medal at the awards ceremony having written out “Zan, Zendegi,
Azadi” (Woman, Life, Freedom) in black ink across her forehead and cheeks.
A number of Iranian sports teams, including the men’s national beach football
team, men’s national basketball team, men’s national sitting vollyball team, and
men’s national water polo team, have refused to sing the national anthem as a
show of solidarity with protesters.
The men’s national football team initially followed suit in their first match of
the 2022 FIFA World Cup. In their match against England the team stood silent
when the anthem was played. They had previously faced fierce criticism for
meeting with Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi before departing for Qatar.
However, it was reported that after the game they were summoned to meet with the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and that the families of team members
were threatened with imprisonment and torture. They sang the anthem at
subsequent games.
The head of the Political and Ideological Office of the Commander in Chief of
the Armed Forces, Ali Saeedi Shahroudi, has called for stricter state control
over the behaviour of musicians, actors and sports stars. The protests continue.
Kremlin TV Stars Combust as Russians Admit War Is
Aimless
Julia Davis/The Daily Beast/December 16, 2022
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to stall—along with the Kremlin
propaganda blitz meant to convince the Russians that supporting the war is their
sacred duty. Pro-Kremlin propagandists unanimously agree that Vladimir Putin’s
war is here for the long haul, but bristle at the fact that no one seems to know
the end goal of the so-called “special operation.”During Wednesday’s broadcast
of NTV’s show Meeting Place, hosts Andrey Norkin and Ivan Trushkin spearheaded a
discussion about the effectiveness of homegrown propaganda, complaining about
the lack of views and comments on “patriotic” promo reels urging the youth to
rush for the front lines. One guest, Russian rapper Ptakha, whose real name is
David Nuriev, didn’t beat around the bush. “As far as the youth is concerned,
honestly speaking, I communicate with a lot of them and very few understand what
we’re doing there, because they [Ukrainians] didn’t cross our borders. Very few
understand,” he said. “Trying to ride the wave of the Soviet ideology, claiming
that we’re fighting Germans, is also very questionable.”Trushkin asked: “Can you
produce a clip explaining what we’re doing there, in a language that’s easy to
understand?” Ptakha replied: “I don’t quite understand it myself.” Norkin
angrily retorted: “I categorically reject what you’re saying right now, young
man. Let’s stop butting heads over here.” Undeterred, Ptakha continued to speak
and said the Wagner Group of mercenaries are at war solely “to make money,” and
that the rest of Russian troops don’t understand Moscow’s aims. As the guests
piled on, loudly arguing with the inconvenient assessment, Norkin shut Ptakha
down: “I don’t want to offend you or insult you, but you are very certain that
you’re right, despite your lack of basis. You want us to explain all of this to
you, but we aren’t going to do that. This is not the point of today’s program.”
Putin Cronies Resort to Begging on Live TV Over War Failures
During Monday’s airing of The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, the eponymous
propagandist complained about the “generation gap,” stating that mainly men of
his own age are fighting in Ukraine, while younger Russians aren’t eager to
march into battle.
In Solovyov’s Wednesday broadcast, the topics of propaganda and the widespread
lack of understanding as to Russia’s long-ranging goals was likewise front and
center. Andrey Sidorov, deputy dean of world politics at the Moscow State
University, predicted that the West will intensify its information offensive
against Russia during the spring of 2024—targeting the presidential election.
“Russia’s destruction is the main goal of the West, they openly admit that,” he
said. With notable irritation, Sidorov pointed out: “When the government does
not identify clear goals, it’s very difficult to fulfill your oath... so what is
our goal?” He complained about the lack of clarity on how much of Ukraine Russia
intends to occupy, expressing his hope that the final aim includes all of the
Ukrainian territory. During Tuesday’s broadcast of the show Time Will Tell,
State Duma member Alexander Kazakov likewise argued that Russia should take all
of Ukraine: “We need all of it—everything!”State media’s desperation to control
the narrative of the war is palpable, with propagandists seemingly competing for
the most outrageous theory on what would happen if Russia loses the war. Head of
RT Margarita Simonyan previously alleged that the Russians would end up in
Western concentration camps or be turned into mindless “yahoos,” while Professor
Dmitry Evstafiev predicted that they would be caged and displayed alongside
animals at the zoo.
‘Crapped Himself’: Putin’s Men Melt Down in Raging Fight Over War
“What will happen if the West is allowed to build the kind of a world it wants
to create? What kind of world will it be? Can a normal person live in this
world?,” political scientist Sergey Mikheyev lamented on Solovyov’s show.
“Humans will turn into non-humans... humanity as a whole will be eradicated...
What is ahead of us is the forced replacement of people with robots and
robotization of the people… If we don’t confront the West, utter horror will
follow, it will be a catastrophe.”In an apparent effort to strengthen Russia’s
ideological standing and eliminate foreign influence, Vitaly Tretyakov, dean of
Moscow State University’s School of Television, pushed for Russia’s liberals to
be forced into publicly denouncing their written criticism of the Soviet Union.
He called for the Russian Academy of Sciences to arrange for these public
denouncements and threw in another proposal: “Maybe we should burn these books!”
Mikheyev eagerly chimed in: “Together with their authors!”
Ukraine war: US Patriot missiles would comfort Kyiv and alarm
Moscow
Chris Partridge - BBC weapons analyst/December 16, 2022
Rumours have been swirling these past few weeks that Ukraine will get advanced
US-built Patriot defence missile systems to try to counter Russian missile and
drone attacks. Since the start of the war in February, many Western air defences
have been sent in - from man-portable Stinger shoulder-launched missiles,
through to an advanced heat-seeking surface-to-air missile. All provide a
comprehensive level of protection against different threats. Patriots are
another step on that same path - and one which will antagonise Moscow. They're
not a silver bullet, but they are extremely capable, effective and expensive.
One Patriot missile costs around $3m - three times the cost of a missile in a
NASAMS (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System). Patriots were used
against Iraq's Russian-made Scud missiles during the first Gulf War and have
been continuously developed since by Raytheon Technologies. They come in
batteries that include a command centre, a radar station to detect incoming
threats - and launchers. Ranges to target reportedly vary between 40km to 160km,
depending on the type of missile used. And they are what's termed "point defence"
systems: generally designed to defend particular areas such as cities or
important infrastructures - in other words high-value assets. No US or other
Nato troops can operate these systems inside Ukraine, so like other Western
weapons Ukrainian forces will have to be trained to use them - and that training
has to take place outside of their country. If such a deployment happens soon,
such training is likely to already be well under way. Officially, nothing has
been announced by the US. Earlier this week, Washington wouldn't say if they
would be deployed, but perhaps, more pertinently, didn't say that they wouldn't.
"I don't have any announcements to make today regarding any new security
assistance packages. As always we will continue to remain committed to providing
Ukraine with the key capability that it needs to defend its nation,"
Pentagon Press Secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder said tonight. On Thursday,
Moscow called any plans to deploy Patriots "a provocation" and a further
expansion of the United States' military involvement in Ukraine. Russia
indicated that such missiles would become what it called "legitimate targets"
for missile strikes, something that has been said before in this war. Precisely
what overall effect Patriot systems will have is difficult to say. They will
certainly provide an additional layer of protection, but their size and expense
means that few units will be able to be sent. What is clear is that Ukraine's
ageing, Russian-built Surface-to-Air Missile systems are gradually being
replaced by modern western SAMs, and that is something that will provide comfort
for Kyiv but alarm for Moscow.
Ukraine defense minister rips Putin's 'meat grinder'
tactics, says Russia is failing because it's still a 'big Soviet army'
Sophia Ankel/Business Insider/December 16, 2022
Russia is preparing for a new offensive in 2023, Ukraine's minister of defence
told The Guardian.
Oleksii Reznikov said Ukraine is prepared to fight back because of its
well-trained soldiers.
He said Putin's "meat grinder tactics" were failing, calling his troops a "big
Soviet army."Ukraine's minister of defense tore apart Russian President Vladimir
Putin's war tactics, saying that his troops are failing because they're still a
"big Soviet army." Oleksii Reznikov discussed the topic in an interview with The
Guardian published Thursday, saying that sheer numbers had proved less of an
advantage than Russia expected. He predicted that vast numbers of drafted
Russians were being prepared for a new offensive in early 2023, but said his
forces would be ready. Reznikov cited Ukraine's nimble, hybrid tactics as the
reason it could match even a larger and better-funded military like Russia's. He
also said well-trained troops, and new weapons from Western allies would help.
"If it was meat grinder against meat grinder, we would lose," he said in the
interview. "It was a mistake to perceive us as a small Soviet army [that] will
fight a big Soviet army. Certainly, a big Soviet army would win and a small
Soviet army would lose but we are not a Soviet army." Russia's main tactic has
involved throwing as many people into battle in the hope they would overwhelm
the smaller Ukrainian force, experts told Newsweek. Military analysts have noted
that Russia's top-down, hierarchical military system makes it difficult for
soldiers to adapt or take the initiative on the battlefield. By contrast,
Ukraine pushed to reform its ex-Soviet military to follow a more Western model
where lower-level officers can make decisions and innovate. An April profile
from Politico of Ukraine's top general, Valeriy Zaluzhnyy, described how NATO
countries helped reform the Ukrainian forces in the years before the war. "The
Ukrainians are able to stay nimble," a US defense official Politico, meaning
they "can better adapt and react with initiative in a way that it could not
before."A spokesperson for Russia's Ministry of Defense did not immediately
respond to Insider's request for comment.
Netanyahu, set to return to office, eyes deal with KSA
Associated Press/December 16, 2022
Israel's designated prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has vowed to seek full
diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia once he takes office, claiming that doing
so would also promote peace with the Palestinians.
Netanyahu also said he would be open to restarting behind-the-scenes peace talks
with the Palestinians. The comments, made in a rare interview with an Arab news
outlet, the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel, appeared to be aimed at easing
concerns over the far-right makeup of the government that Netanyahu is forming.
He has already reached a series of coalition agreements with hard-liners
who favor tougher action against Palestinian militants, increased settlement
construction in the occupied West Bank and vehemently reject the idea of an
independent Palestinian state. Netanyahu told the
channel that he will set overall policies. "I will
govern and I will lead," he said. "The other parties are joining me. I'm not
joining them." Netanyahu said he hoped to expand the
Abraham Accords — a set of normalization agreements reached with four Arab
countries in 2020 — by reaching a similar deal with Saudi Arabia.
"It will be a quantum leap for an overall peace between Israel and the Arab
world," he said. "It will change our region in ways that are unimaginable. And I
think it will facilitate, ultimately, a Palestinian-Israel peace. I believe in
that. I intend to pursue it."
"Of course, it's up to the leadership of Saudi Arabia if they want to partake in
this effort," he added. "I certainly hope they would."Israel has long had
behind-the-scenes contacts with Saudi Arabia — based on their shared animosity
to Iran. But the Saudis have said full diplomatic relations will only come once
an independent Palestinian state is established on territories Israel occupied
in the 1967 Mideast war. Netanyahu said he would seek peace with the
Palestinians, perhaps through discreet negotiations. But he refused to endorse a
two-state solution, calling instead for "a fresh view" and creative thinking. He
also expressed support for an arrangement proposed by the Trump administration
that was adamantly rejected by the Palestinians.
"I think we need to talk about it," he said. "Maybe talk discreetly.""I believe
in open covenants, secretly arrived at or discreetly arrived at," he said.
During Netanyahu's previous 12-year stint as prime minister, which ended last
year, peace talks ground to a halt. The Palestinians
seek the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip – territories captured by
Israel in the 1967 war – for a future state. The international community views a
two-state solution as the only realistic way to resolve the century-old
conflict. Netanyahu gave few specifics on his vision
of peace, but made clear that it would fall short of Palestinian demands.
"I would say that the Palestinians should have in a final settlement all
the powers to govern themselves, but none of the powers to threaten the survival
and existence of the state of Israel," he said.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' office declined to comment on Netanyahu's
remarks. Netanyahu and a group of far-right and
ultra-Orthodox religious parties captured a majority of seats in Israel's
parliament in Nov. 1 elections, positioning them to establish a new government.
Netanyahu has reached a series of coalition deals, but still has not
finalized an agreement. He has until Dec. 21 to form a government.
Jordan vows to clamp down on rioting against high
fuel prices
Reuters/16 December ,2022
Jordan will apply tough steps and redeploy more anti-riot police against
demonstrators who protest violently, Interior Minister Mazen Farrayeh said on
Friday. Jordanians staged sit-ins on Friday and activists called for more
protests over fuel price rises that have added to a cost-of-living squeeze, a
day after riots in a southern city left one police officer dead, witnesses and
security sources said. The authorities said the policeman was killed on Thursday
night by a gunshot fired by an unidentified individual when armed officers
entered a neighborhood of Maan to quell riots. Youths had attacked government
property in the city, witnesses said. anti-riot police against demonstrators who
protest violently. “We have seen a large jump in violent acts,” Farrayeh said in
a news conference. “After what happened, there will be tougher security measures
to reinforce the security forces in the areas that witness such acts.”
Overnight, riot police chased scores of youths throwing stones in Amman, Zarqa,
Irbid and other cities where Farrayeh said rioters torched public property,
vandalized state buildings and burned tires that closed major highways across
the kingdom. The government has promised to examine truck strikers’ demands but
says it has already paid more than 500 million dinars ($700 million) to cap fuel
prices this year and cannot do much more if it wants to avoid breaching an
International Monetary Fund deal.
Moscow welcomes Turkiye's call for trilateral Syria
diplomacy
Meneske Tokyay/Arab News/December 16, 2022
Experts noted that the move might be linked with Turkiye’s domestic politics,
especially with regard to managing the issue of refugees ahead of the
approaching elections. Moscow has welcomed Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's proposal to establish a three-way mechanism for diplomacy between
Turkey, Russia and Syria. Erdogan has brought the new proposal to the table to
open a diplomatic channel with Damascus. Turkish state-run broadcaster TRT cited
Erdogan as telling reporters during his flight back from Turkmenistan that he
offered to initiate a series of meetings between Turkiye, Russia and Syria to
reconsider strained ties with Damascus. “As of now, we want to take a step as a
Syria-Turkiye-Russia trio. First our intelligence agencies, then defense
ministers, and then foreign ministers of the parties could meet. After their
meetings, we as the leaders may come together,” Erdogan was quoted as saying.
Erdogan added that he offered this plan to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who
viewed it “positively.”
In September, Reuters reported that Hakan Fidan, head of Turkiye’s National
Intelligence Organization, had met several times in Damascus with his
counterpart, Syrian National Security Bureau Chairman Ali Mamlouk. Experts noted
that the move might be linked with Turkiye’s domestic politics, especially with
regard to managing the issue of refugees ahead of the approaching elections, as
Erdogan’s main focus has shifted from ousting the Assad regime to curbing
advances of Kurdish militants along Turkish borders with Syria. Erdogan and
Syrian President Bashar Assad have not had contact since the outbreak of the
Syrian civil war in 2011, as Ankara supported Syrian opposition forces fighting
Damascus. “For Assad, this is all good news. Normalization with Turkiye would be
a major watershed moment in the conflict, even if it won’t suffice to end it or
address all the problems faced by his regime,” Aron Lund, fellow with Century
International, told Arab News.If Damascus and Ankara can get back on speaking
terms, Lund thinks that they would still have a lot to disagree on — not least
Turkiye’s troop presence in Syria.
“But they would also have the opportunity to address common problems, one of
which is the role of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and the US troops
in northeastern Syria,” he said.
Lund also emphasized that it is just a proposal and not a done deal. “It takes
two to tango — or three in this case, with Russia. Assad will be able to shape
the terms of this process, too, and I’ll be interested to see what the Syrian
response will be. The Syrian regime is typically very stubborn about these
things, and Assad realizes, of course, that he would be boosting Erdogan’s
reelection chances,” he said.
“I don’t think Assad will want to squander the opportunity,” Lund added. Erdogan
“is likely to stay in power one way or the other, and once the elections are
over, he may not have the same strong incentive to cozy up to Assad. Still,
though, judging by past behavior, I would not be surprised at all if Assad
starts to play hardball and stalls the process to extract concessions,” said
Lund. On its side, Russia, Assad’s main backer, has been pushing for
reconciliation between Ankara and Damascus for a couple of months. In September,
Mikhail Bogdanov, the Russian president’s deputy foreign minister and special
envoy to the Middle East and Africa, said that Moscow is willing to organize a
meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad and Turkish Foreign
Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. Following Erdogan’s offer, Bogdanov was quoted by RIA
news agency as saying that Moscow reacted positively to the idea of the Turkish
president holding a meeting between the leaders of Turkiye, Syria and Russia.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin was in Turkiye last week to
discuss Syria-related developments, while Putin held a phone call with Erdogan
on Sunday when the Turkish president asked for a 30-km security corridor on
Turkiye’s southern border, in line with the 2019 agreement between Turkiye and
Russia. Under the 2019 deal, Russia guaranteed to establish a buffer zone
between the Turkish border and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG,
which would be controlled by the Syrian army and Russian military police. The
agreement, however, was not fully implemented. Following a deadly bomb attack in
Istanbul that killed six and injured 81, Turkiye carried out an aerial operation
against the YPG in northern Syria and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, in
northern Iraq on Nov. 20. Erdogan also pledged a ground operation into northern
Syria “at the most convenient time” to build a security strip.
But, Francesco Siccardi, senior program manager and senior research analyst at
Carnegie Europe, thinks that for Ankara, normalization with Assad is not an
alternative to a ground operation in northern Syria. “The link between these two
policies is Ankara’s interest to undo Kurdish gains in Northern Syria — an
objective that it shares with Damascus, too,” he told Arab News. According to
Siccardi, everything Ankara does is calculated to maximize Erdogan’s chances for
reelection. In this sense, dialogue with Damascus strips the opposition of a key
talking point, since they are proposing to do the same,” he said. “It also
allows President Erdogan to present his concrete work toward a solution to the
issue of Syrian refugees in Turkiye. And lastly, it puts the security and
terrorism issues at the center of the political debate. This approach has
benefitted the incumbent president in the past,” Siccardi added. Turkiye hosts
3.7 million Syrian refugees, the largest refugee population in the world. But
the country’s ongoing economic crisis has further fueled anti-Syrian refugee
sentiment, pushing several opposition parties to call for forced deportations of
Syrians, blaming them for the economic problems of Turkiye.
In the meantime, the trio offer came at a time when Josep Borrell, EU foreign
policy chief, criticized Turkiye over its ties with Russia and urged Ankara to
join the EU’s sanctions against Moscow.
Prof. Emre Ersen, an expert on Turkiye-Russia relations from Marmara University,
thinks that if the two governments finally decide to come together, this could
be regarded as a significant achievement for Russian diplomacy, particularly at
a time when Moscow is becoming more isolated in the international arena due to
the ongoing war in Ukraine. Yet, Ersen noted a number of thorny issues that need
to be resolved between Ankara and Damascus in order for this diplomatic process
to be successful. “Turkiye still continues to support the rebel groups in Syria,
which is a major problem for the Assad regime,” he said. “Damascus is also
highly critical of the Turkish military presence in Syria as well as the Turkish
army’s cross-border military operations against the Syrian-Kurdish YPG militia.
Against this background, the rapprochement process will most likely be quite
gradual,” he added.
Bomb attack in Turkiye targets police van, injuring 9
AP/December 16, 2022
ANKARA: A remote-controlled bomb exploded on a highway in Turkiye as an armored
police van carrying officers drove past on Friday, injuring all nine occupants,
government officials said. Five people were detained in connection with the
attack, which occurred near the predominantly Kurdish-populated city of
Diyarbakir in southeast Turkiye, Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu said. The bomb
was placed inside a parked vehicle near a market selling livestock, according to
the Diyarbakir governor’s office. Eight police officers and a civilian were
taken to hospitals as a precaution but have since been discharged, Soylu said.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack but Soylu
suggested it could be the work of Kurdish militants, saying the brother of one
of the suspects was killed in clashes against them. Kurdish militants have been
behind similar attacks in the region in the past. Islamic and leftist extremists
have also carried out bombings in the country. Last month, a bomb blast in a
bustling pedestrian street in Istanbul left six people dead, including two
children. More than 80 others were wounded. Turkiye blamed the attack on the
outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, as well as Syrian Kurdish groups
affiliated with it, and launched a series of air and artillery strikes against
Kurdish militia forces in northern Syria. The Kurdish militant groups denied
involvement in the Istanbul attack.The PKK has fought an armed insurgency in
Turkiye since 1984. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people since
then. The group is listed as a terrorist organization by Turkiye, the United
States and the European Union.
The Latest LCCC English analysis &
editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on December
16-17/2022/
Global Prospects: A German View
Amir Taheri/Asharq Al Awsat/December 16/2022
Is the world order heading for a tectonic shift? And, if yes, what will that
shift be like?
These are the questions that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz poses in an article
for the American magazine Foreign Affairs, published almost immediately after
his lightning visit to China. The word that Scholz uses to describe the shift is
“Zeitenwende” or “game-changer”, but the tone of the article is more in tune
with Europessimism of the kind expressed by French President Emmanuel Macron,
reflecting the current Zeitgeist or “spirit of the time” in Western democracies.
Scholz speaks of a “multipolar” world order but does not say where his imaginary
poles are located. He then proceeds to depict what could only be described as a
one-and-a-half pole system in which the one pole is constituted by the United
States as “the decisive power of the 21st century” with the European Union and
the “Anglo-Saxon” world, that is to say, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand, plus Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in tandem. Together they
represent “liberal democratic capitalism.” The remaining half a pole is The
People’s Republic of China which Scholz regards as a successful example of
“autocratic capitalism”.
Scholz’s analysis ends up as a new version of the “West and the rest” in which
Russia represents “Kleptocratic capitalism” with the remaining 150 or so other
nations spread across the globe representing a new version of the Third World
where the three kinds of capitalism mentioned will compete for business,
security interests and political influence.
Scholz’s analysis includes a number of encouraging points.
First, he admits that successive chancellors, including at least one from his
own Social Democratic Party (SPD), were wrong to make Germany so dependent on
Russia for energy. He also distances himself from the European left’s
anti-military and NATO-bashing narrative to emphasize the crucial role of the
alliance in ensuring security and preventing a “new Cold War”. More importantly,
perhaps, he calls for correcting the mistakes of globalization. What he fails or
decides not to mention is the need to acknowledge the return of the nation-state
as the key force capable of correcting those mistakes.
What he calls “liberal democratic capitalist” nations need to consider is a
massive program of re-industrialization, a task that would require them to
understand that something more than the profit margin is needed to ensure their
freedom, prosperity, and security.
Because a certain gang of Germans gave nationalism a bad name in the last
century one must not forget that in a world of diversity, the nation-state is
the most workable model of socio-political and economic organization.
A world of nation-states does not mean “each one for him”, all the time,
pursuing narrow and selfish “national interests”. Groupings of nation-states
such as NATO or the European Union would be based on the common interests of all
member nations with their right of opt-out or veto on certain issues preserved,
something that Scholz wants the EU to abolish.
While warning of a looming Cold War, Scholz seems all at sea when it comes to
the hot war going on in the heart of Europe in Ukraine. He offers no road map
toward ending that war, giving the impression that signing cheques and
delivering “defensive weapons” to Volodymyr Zelensky remain the only options.
Fomenting angst shouldn’t divert attention from the real problems that the
“liberal democratic capitalist” nations are facing today.
The dramatic upsurge of inflation after almost three decades of relative price
stability couldn’t be blamed solely on energy prices. The claim that inflation
reflects a shortage of supply is designed to discredit Milton Friedman’s
monetarist theories.
Today, however, energy production, including oil and natural gas, is at a
record-high level. A shortage of supplies of certain agricultural goods may be
partly due to the war in Ukraine while Covid-19 has also affected industrial
production in China.
However, the real force that pushes inflation upwards may be the decision by
“liberal democratic capitalist” governments to print money on a no-tomorrow
basis. Even if Scholz, being a Social Democrat, cannot appear as a Chicago Boy,
he might at least consider the possibility that the current inflationary spiral
may be due to a combination of supply shortages of farming and industrial goods
and increases in money supply, both in the EU and the US.
Scholz may also wish to reconsider his thinly disguised dismissive reference to
“the others”, that is to say, the small, medium, and big nations that together
form the majority of the United Nations. There, again, treating the world as a
family of nation-states might help with each family member capable of making an
important, sometimes decisive, contribution to global peace and welfare.
In other words, shibboleths such as “liberal democracy” or “autocratic
capitalism” may be useful analytical tools for policymakers but need not divide
the world along ideological lines. In a world of nation-states, difference need
not be regarded as opposition let alone hostility. The good news is that Scholz
seems to be ditching the last remaining illusions of the German center-left
constituency, completing the work started in Bad Godesberg at the height of the
old Cold War. Also, the good news is that the chancellor distances himself, ever
so gingerly, from the federalist project of some of the founders of the European
Union in its earlier version as the Common Market.
Unlike Macron who preaches “the end of abundance”, Scholz keeps his pessimism
within a perimeter of political realism; and that, too, is good news.
Reminding Europeans that there is no peace without security and no security
without a measure of self-sufficiency in strategic domains is a timely
contribution to the current debate about the future of democracy in an
increasingly complex world.
I remember a luncheon with Angela Merkel, Scholz’s predecessor as German
Chancellor, in which she informed the guests, only half-jokingly, that she spent
half her time and energy keeping her two-party coalition together. With a
three-party coalition, Scholz has an even tougher time attending to global
challenges. Whether or not Scholz succeeds in keeping his ramshackle coalition
together, let alone claiming a leadership position in the European Union remains
to be seen. Right now, however, he is touching the right chords.
*Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from
1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications,
published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987
Iran, its Foreign Policy and Domestic Dilemmas
Fahid Suleiman al-Shoqiran//Asharq Al Awsat/December 16/2022
It seems that the Iranian regime is delighted that the people of the world are
distracted by the World Cup. Mass protests have shaken the regime, which had not
been expecting them. It is all because Iran is a theocracy that terrorizes its
people in the name of religion. They flog women in the streets and torture them
to death for not wearing a headscarf. Al Mesbar Studies and Research Center have
published an insightful book on the subject entitled: Iran and Foreign Policy:
Betrayal of the Inside.
The center explains that Iran and Foreign Policy: Betrayal of the Inside aims to
help us better understand the regional strategies that the “Islamic Republic”
has pursued through its various political, military, economic and sectarian
proxies, which it has been accumulating since the Mullahs came to power after
the Shah was overthrown. The book explains that in its sphere of influence, Iran
has been fighting on several fronts in pursuit of its so-called national
interests.
The regime took advantage of some Shiite groups in several Arab states, who
fight for it under the pretext that they “suffer injustice.” These transnational
local and regional proxy militias have been used to undermine stability in the
countries they are based in. Tehran’s pursuit of “regional power” status in this
unstable part of the world has cost it dearly, not only internationally but also
domestically. Indeed, it has expanded the opposition bloc within the country,
which decries the wealth and energy wasted on growing the country’s regional
influence. The “protest movement” that emerged towards the end of 2017 is the
clearest proof that economic conditions are dire, especially once we account for
the country’s high unemployment and poverty rates, which were the primary
grievances of the protesters.
I will go over some of the most prominent insights in the book. Diaa Nasser, an
Iranian researcher who studies the country, sought to look into the changes that
could bring down the regime from the inside, as well as the reasons for these
changes, their outcomes, and their ramifications. He unpacks the theoretical
underpinnings of Iran’s regional interventions, their tactics, and their costs.
He also discusses reactions within Iran and what sparked the protests, answering
the question: “Who are the protesters?”
He believes that Iran’s foreign policy, in the Middle East and beyond, has cost
the people heavily. In a world with modern communication technology and
international news networks, which make information accessible to all and
prevent any state from monopolizing control over what their people know, the
Iranian people asked themselves: “Why should we spend our wealth on the
government’s foreign adventures? Why should these misguided policies devalue our
currency, impoverish our people, and expand the wealth gap between the country’s
different social classes?”
He also points to the county’s rabid corruption, in which officials in the
government, banks, and the funds owned by the state or the IRGC, are implicated,
as well as the monopoly of the IRGC’s development and construction company
Khatam al-Anbiya, as reasons for the frustration of the Iranian people with the
ruling clique. This clique has led Iran’s youths to their deaths in Syria, and
they are obliterating the financial capital of the Iranian people, impoverishing
them and pushing the whole world to pity them. It violates their most human
rights and freedoms, using religion and doctrine to further its political end,
alienating youths, who do not trust its religious ideology.
To conclude, the Iranian regime is getting a taste of its own medicine after
having given it to the people of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. True, bringing
down the regime is not possible, but it is vulnerable to shake-ups that change
it fundamentally.
The War for Eight Billion Minds
J.B. Shurk/Gatestone Institute/December 16, 2022
This is a new kind of war against civilians for control of their minds.
Governments are relying increasingly on controlling public "narratives" and
vilifying dissent.
[F]or all the harms their actions have caused, governments have issued no
apologies for enforcing such life-altering policies while silencing critics. It
is as if "narrative engineers" have adopted an official position that they are
incapable of being wrong.
The more nervous about the future policymakers are, the more committed they seem
to enforcing a standard "narrative" they can control.
In an age when information has never been more easily accessible, the world is
awash in lies.
A citizen either accepts Hunter Biden's "laptop from hell" as "Russian
disinformation," or that person is labeled a "Russian sympathizer." Daring to
say otherwise could get one banned from social media, professionally sanctioned,
or even fired from a job. Except none of these established "narratives" has
proved true.
In each case, the "narrative" proved to be either misleading propaganda or an
outright lie. Yet they were created and sustained by online communication
platforms that pushed the lies and excluded the truths.
As global events increasingly threaten Western stability, governments have
demonstrated no inclination to entertain a diversity of viewpoints or
discussions along the way. Instead, the more serious the issue, the more
committed to a single, overarching "narrative" they seem to become.
This war for eight billion minds means that citizens must be more vigilant than
ever in processing and evaluating what they see and read. Whether they like it
or not, they are under attack at all times from those who seek to manipulate and
control them. As in the last century, we are surrounded by totalitarian
propaganda routinely disguised as "the truth."
This is a new kind of war against civilians for control of their minds.
Governments are relying increasingly on controlling public "narratives" and
vilifying dissent. (Image source: iStock)
The heavy perils we face today include centralized governments micromanaging
society, the growing prospect of global war, the growing prospect of forced
surrender, and the replacement of reasoned debate and free speech with
state-sanctioned "narratives" and censorship: totalitarian governance seems not
far behind. This is a new kind of war against civilians for control of their
minds.
The torrents engulfing us appear to be potentially catastrophic. In a few short
years, the world has endured the COVID-19 pandemic, forced government lockdowns,
extreme economic volatility, commodity shortages, and the World Economic Forum's
attempts to exploit this cascade of crises as an excuse to usher in a structural
"Great Reset" in which global food and energy consumption can be strictly
regulated according to the "climate change" goals of an unelected cabal.
Governments are relying increasingly on controlling public "narratives" and
vilifying dissent.
While health bureaucrats and politicians claimed to be "following the science,"
mandatory compliance with unilateral rule-making precluded reasoned, good-faith
debate. The predictable result: the lethal consequences of the Wuhan Virus were
exacerbated by the lethal consequences of misguided public policies imposed to
fight the virus. Students whose schools were shuttered now suffer the lifelong
effects of learning loss. Patients whose timely diagnoses and preventative care
were forestalled now suffer the debilitating outcomes of untreated disease.
Small businesses unable to endure prolonged closures are gone for good. Middle
class savings once reserved for unexpected "rainy day" funds or children's
future educations have dried up. Credit card debt is on the rise, while more and
more people struggle to survive on less. The "safety nets" of government welfare
programs have ballooned to leave nation states more indebted than ever but have
also proved too perforated with leaky holes (often draining needed resources
straight into the bank accounts of corporate campaign donors, interest group
lobbyists, and foreign hackers) to keep society's most vulnerable afloat.
Governments' justifications for reckless fiscal, monetary, and credit policies
during short-term emergencies have weakened nations' prospects for long-term
solvency and the likelihood that they will be capable of preserving stable
currencies. Still, for all the harms their actions have caused, governments have
issued no apologies for enforcing such life-altering policies while silencing
critics. It is as if "narrative engineers" have adopted an official position
that they are incapable of being wrong.
Geopolitical conflict is wrenching the post-WWII international order apart.
While America's and the European Union's "climate change" policies have already
inflated the costs of energy, food and much else, Russia's invasion of Ukraine
has only added to ordinary Europeans' financial pain and jeopardizes the
continent's security more broadly. China's territorial ambitions threaten peace
in Taiwan, Japan, across Southeast Asia and beyond. The United States' efforts
to enlarge NATO's European membership, while expanding its mission objectives
into the Indo-Pacific, all but ensure that the U.S., China and Russia remain on
a collision course.
Policymakers cannot help seeing parallels to the quickly falling geopolitical
dominoes that ushered in WWI and WWII over the course of a few fateful weeks.
They cannot help looking at the unsustainable accumulation of government debt
around the world and the avalanche of investment derivatives balancing
unsteadily upon fragile currencies unmoored from any real value in gold or
silver and fearing the risks of a severe depression. They cannot help seeing
Russian revanchism and Chinese territorial expansion as signs that the Great
Powers have set course down a dangerous path. The more nervous about the future
policymakers are, the more committed they seem to enforcing a standard
"narrative" they can control.
It was the detonation of two nuclear warheads over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of
course, that brought combat in the Pacific Theater to a close and ended WWII
with an exclamation point.
Now we stand on a new kind of battlefield. Just as with nuclear weapons,
civilians have nowhere to hide from this war's effects. Weapons systems are
spread out across the Internet, deployed on mobile phones and active on every
computer chip, tracking, sharing, and pushing digital information throughout the
world. Instead of explosives and bullets, we have competing "narratives"
whizzing past. The breadth of the campaign to control what information we see,
how we process that information, and ultimately what we think and say makes even
the most effective psychological operations of the past look antiquated and
rudimentary. Whereas "mutually assured destruction" has so far succeeded as a
deterrent against nuclear war, the tantalizing opportunities for governments to
use programs of mass digital surveillance and communication to spread lies,
manipulate opinion, and affect human behavior have created a kind of mutually
assured dystopia, "where people lead dehumanized, fearful lives."
In the 1930s, Adolf Hitler spoke with boisterous energy and theatrical
gesticulation before tens of thousands of stormtroopers, Hitler Youth, and Nazi
Party faithful. Today, the dictator's raised stage has been replaced with
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and anywhere else a pop-up online audience
can be found. The visual stimuli that enthralled Hitler's crowds are now
reproduced with the release of pleasure-causing endorphins rushing to the brain
after every "politically correct" online statement is "rewarded" with approval
from strangers providing instant fame. Online "influencers" have become the
goose-stepping middlemen for campaigns of mass propaganda that touch more humans
in a day than a decade of Hitler's speeches. In an age when information has
never been more easily accessible, the world is awash in lies.
Instead of encouraging public debate and rational argument, governments push the
constant drumbeat of the "narrative" above all else. A citizen either obediently
accepts the government's vast and intrusive COVID-19 rules, or that person is
labeled a "COVID denier." A citizen either obediently accepts the government's
vast and intrusive "climate change" rules, or that person is labeled a "climate
denier." A citizen either accepts Hunter Biden's "laptop from hell" as "Russian
disinformation", or that person is labeled a "Russian sympathizer." Daring to
say otherwise could get one banned from social media, professionally sanctioned,
or even fired from a job. Except none of these established "narratives" has
proved true.
In hindsight, it is clear that lockdowns unleashed more health, educational and
economic problems than they solved. As Europe faces an expanding energy crisis
that leaves its populations vulnerable to the cold, it is clear that "climate
change" policies can kill those they are purportedly meant to protect. And as
Elon Musk's recent release of internal Twitter communications proves, Hunter
Biden's laptop was not only real news censored from the public during a
presidential election. Political speech was also censored through the
collaborative efforts of the FBI and more than 50 intelligence community agents
in violation of the First Amendment. In each case, the "narrative" proved to be
either misleading propaganda or an outright lie. Yet they were created and
sustained by online communication platforms that pushed the lies and excluded
the truths.
As global events increasingly threaten Western stability, governments have
demonstrated no inclination to entertain a diversity of viewpoints or
discussions along the way. Instead, the more serious the issue, the more
committed to a single, overarching "narrative" they seem to become. Dissent is
despised. Reasoned argument is lampooned. A citizen is expected to blithely
accept government-approved messaging disseminated online, or risk the wrath of
the technocracy.
This war for eight billion minds means that citizens must be more vigilant than
ever in processing and evaluating what they see and read. Whether they like it
or not, they are under attack at all times from those who seek to manipulate and
control them. As in the last century, we are surrounded by totalitarian
propaganda routinely disguised as "the truth." In this century, though, the
reach and scale of mass indoctrination seems endlessly expanding.
*JB Shurk writes about politics and society.
© 2022 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.
Why aren’t feminists here backing brave woman-led
Iranians? We need to show up
Melinda Henneberger/BeeSacramento Bee/December 16, 2022
You probably know about Mahsa Amini, the 22-year-old Iranian woman who died in
the custody of the morality police in mid-September after being arrested for
wearing her headscarf the wrong way.
Since then, the increasingly brutal crackdowns on those involved in the massive
protests that Amini’s death have set off really do show, as a U.S. State
Department spokesman said recently, that Iranian officials fear their own
people. And they are right to, because history says that it’s the people who
will prevail.
Every time I see my friend Behnaz here in Sacramento, I ask what she’s hearing
from her family back in Iran. And every time, what she’s hearing is worse.
Opinion
This last time, though, what she said bothered my conscience: “You know what’s
sad? No Americans ever come to our rallies.”
Iranian-Americans were part of #MeToo, she said, and protested the murder of
George Floyd right alongside everyone else. “But now our young people are being
killed for standing up for their human rights, and where is everybody?”
This situation could not be more serious; Behnaz does not even want me to use
her last name out of fear for her family’s safety. Yet “where are the feminists”
who you’d have thought would have been first to support the woman-led movement
set off by Amini’s murder?
All I could say in response was that I knew one feminist who would show up at
their next rally. And sure enough, a Bee photographer and I seemed to be the
only non-Iranians at a vigil at the State Capitol on Wednesday night.
The community, particularly upset at the news of the recent executions of two
young men, and with reason to believe that many more may be coming soon, had
decided to spend 48 hours in front of the statehouse, mourning the dead and
crying out for action. Our action.
Yet not one of the state California lawmakers and other officials invited to
stop by did.
Doing so could have been more than an act of courtesy. In some European
countries, including Germany and Sweden, lawmakers have unofficially “adopted”
an incarcerated activist, bringing international attention to that person’s
story in the hope that this spotlight might save his or her life.
Letters begging our lawmakers to follow their example have so far gone
unanswered, activists said.
Everyone I met at the candlelight vigil, held in front of a noose and photos of
Amini and of the recently executed young people, told me that what’s happening
across their country is not just about headscarves, but about human rights.
Police are “stealing the bodies of the dead and burying them overnight,” said
Talieh Ghane, an architect who recently cut her Iranian passport into little
pieces.
“I’m an atheist, but according to their religion, they’re not supposed to bury
people at night. And the families of these youth” killed for standing up for
their rights are being pressured to “just tell the press your children committed
suicide or had cancer. Now the parliament that is supposed to be protecting
people has voted in favor of executing all ‘warriors against God.’ ”
Yet instead of reacting in fear, she said, “the difference is now,” for the
first time in 43 years, “we know it’s the end” of the revolution that began in
1979, and of the repression that’s gone on ever since.
As of November 29, the Iranian Human Rights group said Iranian security forces
had killed at least 488 protesters, including 50 children, and had arrested some
14,000 since September.
On Monday, the regime announced that it had hanged 23-year-old protestor
Majidreza Rahnavard in public. Rahnavard had been tortured, denied legal counsel
and, based on a coerced confession, found guilty of killing two paramilitary
members in a secret trial.
Rahnavard was dangled from a construction crane, lifted into the air and left
kicking at the air as he slowly asphyxiated for all to see.
Instead of hiding their inhumanity and lack of due process, they advertised it.
The pro-regime Mizan news agency proudly published a montage of gory images of
the young man’s execution in Mashhad.
Last week, the regime also hanged Mohsen Shekari, who after blocking a Tehran
street with a guardrail to protect protesters, was found guilty of wounding a
member of the militia. In doing so, officials said, he was “waging war against
God.”
A video of what was supposed to be Shekari’s confession showed that his face had
been bruised. And in a final bit of cruel theater, his family was then sent from
cemetery to cemetery looking for his body.
With Iran supporting Russia by supplying drones to Putin to use in Ukraine,
dictators are sticking together, said Ghane, and people who love freedom need to
do likewise.
“We have hope,” she said, “but we need help.”
Another activist said that earlier in the day, she had knocked on every door of
every member of the California assembly, and talked to many staff members,
hoping to interest someone in coming down to the vigil to have a bowl of Persian
Ash Reshteh and at least learn about what some European lawmakers are doing to
help.
“Not one person showed up,” she said.
You can change that, because in this country, unlike hers, politicians do care
what constituents think. “I moved here because I wanted to be free as a woman,”
said 24-year-old Mahi Mokhtari, whose 22-year-old “lovely brother” was fatally
shot by police in 2011, “just for walking down the street.”
“I’m here to be his voice,” she said, crying, “but we all have to do something.”
In this country, doing something would not require the bravery of those being
killed for standing up for their most basic rights. But do let your lawmakers
know that their solidarity with these courageous young people would be
appreciated. The next protest in this area will be held at 6199 Sunrise
Boulevard in Citrus Heights at 11:30 on Sunday, Dec. 18.
Exclusive - Interview With Benjamin Netanyahu
The Netanyahu Doctrine: An in-depth regional policy
Al Arabiya English/Published: 15 December ,2022
Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to become the Prime Minister of Israel for the
third time. He has until December 21 to form a government before taking office.
In a wide-ranging interview with a group of print and television journalists at
Al Arabiya, Mr. Netanyahu discussed Israel’s relations with Arab states, the US
alliance structure in the Middle East, unrest in Iran, Israel’s new hard-right
government, the future of the US-brokered maritime border agreement with
Lebanon, and the Russia-Ukraine war.
Mr. Netanyahu reiterated the paramount importance of normalization with Saudi
Arabia, which would be a “quantum leap” toward ending the Arab-Israeli conflict
that “would change our region in ways that are unimaginable.” Saudi officials
have consistently maintained that no normalization can happen without a
Palestinian state.
Mr. Netanyahu indicated a willingness to explore a wide variety of peace options
behind closed doors, stating “I believe in open covenants, secretly arrived at
or discretely arrived at.”
Responding to questions about how the racist tenor of remarks by some of his
coalition partners might affect relations with Arab states, Mr. Netanyahu stated
that “The other parties are joining me, I’m not joining them.”
Mr. Netanyahu said that he would not repudiate the US-brokered maritime
agreement with Lebanon, but denied that it was a peace agreement, adding that he
saw “an enormous difference between the solid agreements between like-minded
states and the so-called agreements with Iran and its proxies that are usually
violated even before they're signed.”
The transcript of the interview as it appears below has been lightly edited for
clarity, including the removal of repeated phrases and clauses, without altering
the meaning of anyone’s remarks.
Mohammed Khalid Alyahya
AA: Your father was a noted historian who taught at Cornell. What did you learn
from him? How has your understanding of history, and growing up in the United
States, shaped your understanding of Israel and of the region?
BN: Well, I think my time in the United States obviously made me appreciate the
important role of the United States in protecting the peace and stability of the
world. And I view that alliance with the United States as particularly
important. I can also say that I think one of my main goals would be to speak
with my friend of 40 years, President Biden. And I’m going to tell him that I
think that there is a need for a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to its
traditional allies in the Middle East. Israel, of course, is there and we’ve had
a solid, unbreakable relationship. But I think that the alliance, the
traditional alliance with Saudi Arabia and other countries, has to be
reaffirmed. There should not be periodic swings, or even wild swings in this
relationship, because I think that the alliance between America’s allies and
with America is the anchor of stability in our region. I think it requires
periodic reaffirmation and I’m to speak to President Biden about it.
AA: About the cabinet formation that stirred a lot of controversy. In light of
the commitments you have made to your allies on the extreme right, including
handing them broad powers in the West Bank, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz
says that he expects a collapse of the security situation in the West Bank that
would extend to the Gaza Strip. What's your take on that?
BN: Well, first of all, I disagree with the premise of your questions. I didn’t
hand over great powers in Judea-Samaria, the West Bank, not at all. In fact, all
the decisions will be made by me and the defense minister, and that’s actually
in the coalition agreement. So there’s a lot of misinformation about that.
I think my record speaks for itself; the last decade in which I led Israel was
the safest decade in Israel’s history. But not only safe and secure for
Israelis, also safe and secure for the Palestinians. Because there’s been the
least loss of life on both sides and that’s not accidental. It’s because of a
policy of security that I’ve led, which has actually resulted in more peace and
economic possibilities. And by the way, in the year that I left government and
the outgoing government was in power, things changed immediately. We had an
eruption of violence like we had not seen since 2008, a year before I returned
to office.
My policy is one of stability, peace, prosperity and security for Israelis and
Palestinians alike. I think that [this] record not only speaks for itself, it
also speaks for the future. I will govern and I will lead, and I will navigate
this government. The other parties are joining me, I’m not joining them.
Remember Likud is one-half of this coalition. The other parties are, some of
them are 1/4, 1/5 the size of the Likud. They’re joining us; they will follow my
policy.
AA: Your partnership with the far-right parties has stirred concerns at home and
abroad. How do you expect our countries to deal with a government whose leading
members portray Arabs as enemies, sometimes in terms that are overtly racist?
BN: Well, first of all, a lot of them have also changed and moderated their
views, principally because with the assumption of power comes responsibility.
And as you approach power, you become more responsible.
But again, here’s my record: I have led successive governments, some of them
with parties to my right. And during those years, I actually invested in the
Arab communities in Israel more than any of the previous governments combined.
Investments where investments should go -- in education and infrastructure, in
transportation, and the quality of life, in governance.
Because a lot of them are complaining about the eruption of crime that makes
their life hell. So I’ve invested in that too. I opened 11 police stations in
Arab communities in Israel in the decade between 2010 and 2020 at the request of
the community. [Do] you know, how many we had before? One. So I increased it by
tenfold, both for security, for the ability for youngsters.
I want every young Arab boy or Arab girl in Israel to have the same
opportunities to partake in the remarkable success story that is Israel. And
therefore I’ve encouraged that, and will continue to encourage that.
AA: But what about the settlement, the new settlement about to [be established]
in the West Bank that will further undermine the two-state solution. Mahmoud
Abbas told al-Arabiya two days ago that this could lead to armed resistance, and
he can't stop it anymore.
BN: Well, I think he [Mahmoud Abbas] keeps on saying that. But in fact, the
reason we’ve not had an Israeli-Palestinian peace is because the Palestinians
have refused to do, and I think tragically their leadership for the last century
has refused to do, what is finally happening in the rest of the Arab world. And
that is to recognize that the State of Israel is here to stay.
I think coming to a solution with the Palestinians will require out-of-the-box
thinking, will require new thinking. The reason we got the historic Abraham
accords is that we got out of this mode that Mahmoud Abbas wants to stay in, and
that is to, you know, to mount the same lines, to go through the same rabbit
holes, not to seek new ways. In fact, it’s when we started thinking about things
in a new way that we broke the cycle of paralysis that paralyzed [attempts at]
peace for a quarter of a century.
Now, I think paradoxically – I don’t think it’s paradoxical, but other people do
– that as we expand the number of countries that make peace with us, it actually
helps bring about at the end a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
Everybody said “No, first you have to solve the Palestinian problem, otherwise,
you won’t get peace with the Arab world.” I said it may be the other way around.
It may be that as you expand the peace with the Arab states, you’ll be able to
actually get to the peace with the Palestinians and I firmly believe that.
But I will say this, I think we face a possibility of not merely an expansion of
the peace; I think we can have a new peace initiative that will form a quantum
leap for the achievement for the resolution of both the Arab-Israeli conflict
and ultimately, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And of course, I’m referring
to what could be a truly remarkable historic peace with Saudi Arabia.
Mind you, I’m committed to deepening and strengthening the remarkable Abraham
Accords that we’ve had with our neighbors, but I think the peace with Saudi
Arabia will serve two purposes. It will be a quantum leap for an overall peace
between Israel and the Arab world. It will change our region in ways that are
unimaginable. And I think it will facilitate, ultimately, a Palestinian-Israeli
peace. I believe in that. I intend to pursue it.
Of course, it’s up to the to the leadership of Saudi Arabia if they want to
partake in this effort. I certainly hope they would.
AA: Speaking in Abu Dhabi, the Saudi foreign minister recently reaffirmed Saudi
Arabia’s commitment to seeing a Palestinian state as a precondition to
normalization. And Saudi officials have been saying time and again, they have
predicted a fruitful and collectively beneficial relationship with Israel that
would come after a two-state solution, after the Palestinian achievement of
statehood.
What do you anticipate for Israeli-Saudi relations, given those constraints? Is
normalization on the horizon? Would you meaningfully compromise on the
Palestinian issue? Is there a plan after you become prime minister?
BN: There have been many ideas. I think the last initiative of President Trump
actually put forth very innovative ideas that could help achieve or end the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. I think we can end the
Arab-Israeli conflict and achieve peace with the Palestinians. We just have to
be creative about it. And we have to not dig in our heels because if you dig in
your heels, you get stuck in the old groove.
I think part of the remarkable thing that has happened in the last few years,
with the Abraham Accords, showed that if we get out of this groove, then amazing
things can happen. And I think that amazing things can happen not only for
Israelis and Arabs, but for Israelis and Palestinian-Arabs as well. I look
forward to having the opportunity to discuss this with the Arab leaders and with
the Palestinians themselves.
AA: Are you willing to accept the Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for
negotiations? What concrete steps are you willing to take, or are you willing to
take any concrete steps, in resolving the Palestinian issue in order to create
this larger peace in the Arab world that you mentioned?
BN: Well, first of all, I have taken concrete steps under my administration,
contrary to the public image. For example, it was under my government, not the
previous left-led government, that we reduced dramatically the number of
security checkpoints, we increased the number of passages that enabled 150,000
Palestinians from the territories to come and work every day. And you know I
never shut that down even during periods of tension and terror. I said “no, they
have to be able to earn a living, be able to care for their families, be able to
move around.” I’ve encouraged investments, joint ventures, in high-tech between
Israeli entrepreneurs and Palestinian entrepreneurs, the building of a
Palestinian city, Rawabi, and other things. These are practical things that I
say.
But I’m not here to tell you that an economic peace is a substitute for
political peace. I believe that the reason we’ve not had a political peace, we
couldn’t move forward, is because the Palestinian leadership still refuses to
accept the right of the State of Israel to exist. That remains the problem. If
you keep looking at other places, you’re not going to find a solution. I hope
that [this] will change.
I think that the growing circle of peace between Israel and Arab states and the
quantum leaps that we can have in a peace with Saudi Arabia will also convince
the Palestinians, the Palestinian leadership, because I think quite a few of the
Palestinian people already are there to adopt a different attitude towards
accepting the State of Israel. And once that happens, then many things can
happen. I think we should move forward creatively. We should have talks about
it.
Look, the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 was an indication that there is a
willingness, in those days, to think about how to get out of the straitjacket
and to get to a comprehensive peace. I think things have changed, things have
moved. But the need to have this kind of new thinking is important. And again,
if we stick to the old grooves, we’ll be stuck in the old groove. If we think
about new ways, then I think the sky’s the limit. And I mean that; it’s
limitless actually.
AA: Do you consider the Arab Peace Initiative as a blueprint for negotiations,
just as a starting point?
BN: I think it’s an indication of a desire to end the conflict in all its terms.
But I think 20 years later, you know, we need to have a fresh view. And I’m not
going say what it is. I think we need to talk about it. Maybe talk discreetly.
You know, I’m sort of a champion of a slight twist in what Woodrow Wilson said
in the Versailles Peace Conference. He said he believed in open covenants,
openly arrived at. I believe in open covenants, secretly arrived at or
discreetly arrived at. There we will have to have discussions about all the
questions that you asked today and see how we can advance this. If you try to
sort it out in advance you get stuck. That’s what happens.
In Israel, we say “climb the tree.” Everybody climbs on their own tree and says,
“I’m here, and I’m not climbing down and no matter how many ladders you give
me.” I’m stuck in my tree, the other guy is stuck in his tree, and we just shout
at each other across tree trunks and we never get to a meeting of the minds or
an actual meeting on the ground. I think we have to take a different position.
All these things need to be discussed discreetly, responsibly and, within the
confines of closed meetings, openly. And once we get an agreement, then we can
come out.
I don’t need the public fanfare, I don’t need it. You know, if you come to an
agreement, it will be publicized. If you don’t come to an agreement, nothing
happens. I think we can come to amazing agreements.
AA: Israel recently signed a US-Iranian-backed maritime deal with Lebanon, which
you said was illegal. What exactly is wrong with the agreement? Why do you
oppose it? And as prime minister will you repudiate that agreement, or do you
intend to challenge it in court? There have been many statements saying that
it's unconstitutional.
BN: Yeah. I think it contravened a longstanding tradition of bringing agreements
that change Israel's territorial claims or territorial possessions or even
economic claims. You bring it to the Knesset. I brought the Abraham Accords to
the Knesset. By the way, I didn't have to, but I thought it was right on such an
important matter to have our parliament decide on it. And I think they should
have done it here too. I said that I'll look into it, [and] that I'll find ways,
if there are bad things in it or incorrect things in it, or harmful things in
it, to correct it in a responsible way.
I don't necessarily go tearing documents up, and I don't think that's going to
be the case. I'll do what I can to protect Israeli economic and security
interests within the policy that I talk about. And I think I've shown that I
know how to do that responsibly, without adventurism and without wild
statements. I'm too experienced for that.
AA: Does Israel intend to sign any more US-sponsored agreements with Iran-backed
neighbors and Iran-backed agreements in Syria, for example? And do such rumors
reflect the wishes of the current US administration, which pushed Israel
extremely hard to sign the Lebanon Maritime Agreement?
BN: Well, it's been signed. I mean, it hasn't been approved, but it's been
signed. You mean other agreements? I don't know. I'll look into it.
Look, my concern is that the revenues that come out of the sea that I think
heavily favored Lebanon, do not favor Lebanon. They favor Hezbollah. And
Hezbollah has not been a force for peace. So you may just be funding Hezbollah's
military arsenal that could be used not only against Israel, but against many
others in the Middle East. You have to think about that very carefully. But that
is already done. As I said, I'll see what I can do to moderate any damage or to
secure Israel's economic and security interests.
But as far as new agreements, well, this time we'll be negotiating it. And, you
know, I'm a fair but tough negotiator, and we'll see what is brought before us.
I don't rule out things, but I always negotiate based on what I believe is
Israel's interest. I don't only look at Israel's interest because any
negotiation always involves the other side. But the first thing that I look at:
Is Israel's security going to be hurt? Are Israel's national interests going to
be impeded? And within these parameters, we can proceed. We'll see. I don't want
to commit before I know what they're suggesting.
AA: Mr. Prime Minister, are you willing to extend that or look at an agreement
on the land border between Israel and Lebanon?
BN: Continual negotiations are there, and there have been border adjustments, by
the way, on both sides, over the years. They have been tactical, and I don't
think there is a major claim for a major shift, not a serious one.
The instability under the Lebanese-Israeli border was not based on this or that
claim that the border has to move a kilometer here or a kilometer there. The
instability was that this border was taken over on the Lebanese side by
Hezbollah that calls for the eradication of Israel, [and that has] flooded south
Lebanon with tens of thousands of rockets, 10,000 of which were fired into
Israel. That's what's causing the instability.
And Hezbollah doesn't say, well, we're doing all this because we think we should
have 500 more meters on and this or that part of the border. They say: 'We're
doing all this because Israel shouldn't exist.' That's the problem.
I don't know what is being told in the Arab world, but that's the reality.
Hezbollah is a force against peace, a force against stability, a force against
the existence of my country and in my opinion, a force backed by Iran against
the security and stability of many countries. And that's what we've had to deal
with on the Lebanese border.
I wish we had a real border dispute between us and Lebanon. If there are any
such disputes, they're trivial and minor compared to the real problem, which
I've just discussed.
AA: If we take a step back geopolitically, do you see these US-backed agreements
with countries that are backed by Iran, like Lebanon and Syria, or other
countries where Iranian militias proliferate, as part of the framework of
“regional balance” or regional “integration,” to use the language of the US
administration.
In other words, is there a different purpose between US-sponsored agreements
with countries that are backed by Iran on one hand, and the agreements between
Israel and Gulf states also known as the Abraham Accords, are they all just part
of making peace? Or are there in fact two different kinds of agreements that
support two very different potential regional security architectures: one
centered around the US relationship with Iran, and the second centered around
Israel's relationships in the Gulf?
BN: I think the agreements that we make with like-minded states, traditional
allies of the United States, and now, I think sharing common interests to block
Iranian aggression, are powerful agreements and they actually have substance to
them and they have weight. You can see immediately the flourishing in economic
relations. Right now, after the Abraham Accords, we have billions of dollars,
billions of dollars shaping up every year in joint ventures. We have
people-to-people meetings, hundreds of thousands of Israelis visiting the Gulf
states, Gulf states’ citizens visiting Israel. It's amazing. These are solid.
Why is that? Because there is a meeting of the minds. We both recognize each
other's existence, each other's right to exist. The benefits that accrue to our
population from cooperation and the desire to have our peoples move into the
future with progress, with prosperity, and with security. It really is
miraculous. That's what we can do with countries that share our vision of a
truly new Middle East.
The problem with Iran and its proxies is that they have a completely different
vision. They want to stop this progress. They want to dominate the Middle East,
if not conquer it outright. They openly say they want to annihilate Israel. So,
you know, obviously you may have a tactical agreement on the agenda on the
Lebanese maritime question, but you can't really make it.
What kind of an agreement would I make with Iran? The method of our
decapitation? How we commit suicide? How we allow them to have a nuclear arsenal
that will threaten all of us? That's not an agreement.
So yes, I think there is a quantum, an enormous difference between the solid
agreements between like-minded states and the so-called agreements with Iran and
its proxies that are usually violated even before they're signed.
AA: Yeah, but surely the maritime agreement between Lebanon and Israel,
essentially between Hezbollah and Israel, is an Iranian endorsed agreement? Now,
whether it's in Israel's interest is besides the point of whether it is an
Iranian-backed agreement.
BN: Look, there are ceasefire agreements between rivals and enemies, and they
hold as long as the common interest to hold them keeps on. But that's different
from peace.
I draw a distinction between tactical agreements or ceasefire agreements, or
agreements that temporarily, or in a limited fashion, serve otherwise warring
parties and the establishment of a broad peace agreement. That's so different.
Can we have a peace agreement with Iran? No, because Iran says there shouldn't
be an Israel. They also say maybe not as forcefully, publicly, but they also say
you shouldn't have many of the other countries in the Middle East, they should
be subjugated as Iran's, basically as Iran's minions. They use their proxies in
Syria, they use their proxies in Yemen, they use their proxies in Lebanon to
affect such a policy, not merely against Israel, but against other Arab
countries.
So, you know, who cares what they say? Look at what they do. Who cares what they
sign? It doesn't mean anything. They sign and they violate, they cheat as fast
as they sign. And you certainly shouldn't make agreements with them that are bad
if they keep the agreement, which is what I think the JCPOA was. It was a
horrible agreement because it allowed Iran basically with international
approval, to develop a nuclear and basically an atomic arsenal paved with gold,
with hundreds of billions of dollars of sanction relief. Where does the sanction
relief go? Does it go to building hospitals in Tehran and Iran's cities? Does it
go to solving the water problem there? It goes for the expansion of terrorism
and aggression throughout the Middle East. So I'm very clear-eyed about that.
By the way, I think I have to tell you, I think that beyond public statements, I
think the leaders of most of the Arab countries, and certainly the leading Arab
countries are absolutely clear-eyed about this threat of Iranian aggression. And
I, for one, do not fall into the trap of saying that if I sign an agreement with
the ayatollahs, they're going to keep it. They're going to violate it if they
can. They'll keep it only if it allows them to advance towards a capability of
much greater aggression in a very short time.
AA: Speaking of the JCPOA, Washington is clearly still keen to strike a deal
with Iran despite Iran's clear weakness and despite Israeli warnings of Iran's
determination to pursue its nuclear ambition independent of any international
restriction. You have always been a vocal critic of the JCPOA, obviously. What
is your plan...?
BN: Well, you're quite right. You're quite right. I have been a vocal critic of
it. First of all, look at what is happening in Iran itself. The Iranian people
are asking themselves are they better off today than they were 40 years ago when
the revolution took place? You know, just look at their GDP per capita. It's
basically, you know, a few thousand dollars. It hasn't moved. In Saudi Arabia,
it more than doubled. In Israel, [it] more than doubled. Okay. Because we invest
in our people. We invest in our citizens. But the ayatollah's regime is just
investing in radicalism and terrorism and aggression.
So, number one, the Iranian people are not well off, and the JCPOA would give
hundreds of billions of dollars to this aggressive regime, which they will use,
again, not for the Iranian people, but for their aggressive plans to take over
the Middle East and beyond that. So I think that's one criticism that I've had.
The second [is] it doesn't stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear arsenal because
under the JCPOA, if it's resumed today, within 3 to 4 years, Iran would have
unlimited enrichment, uranium enrichment capacity under an international
approval, under a P5+1 and the great powers that would approve it, thereby
basically saying to Iran: 'All you have to do is postpone the manufacture of
these bombs, these nuclear bombs for two years, and you can be a nuclear
threshold state with our approval. That's crazy. That's folly.
But today, I sense a change – not only in Israel, obviously, and in our region,
but I sense a change in Washington. And I think given what has happened in Iran,
given the extraordinary courage of the Iranian men and these extraordinary
Iranian women, I think there's been a change and a lot of people now across the
board in many lands say: 'You really cannot go back to the JCPOA and we have to
do everything in our power to stop Iran from having a nuclear arsenal.'
So the answer to your question in one sentence: I'm committed to do whatever I
can do to prevent Iran from having a nuclear arsenal. I naturally won't itemize
that here, but that's a firm commitment that I've made to myself and to the
people of Israel.
AA: Even without the consent of Washington?
BN: Sorry?
AA: Even without the consent of Washington to pursue more aggression towards
Iran?
BN: Not aggression. I want to protect ourselves against Iran's aggression, and
against a regime that openly calls for the annihilation of my country. That's
obvious, but the answer to your question is yes. With or without an agreement.
AA: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Would you mind if I just stick with the Iran
situation right now? You just lightly touched on the protests that were
happening there. Do you think the Iranian regime in the present moment is strong
enough to withstand the current unrest, or do you believe that it's weak enough
to fall? What comes after? And in that situation, how would Israel react?
BN: I don't think anyone has an answer to that question. It's a very important
question. But I think that if you look at what is happening now, since 1979,
nothing like this has happened. I mean, initially people thought well, it's you
know, it's like the green revolution, but it's not. It's stronger. Initially,
they said it was only limited to the universities. No, it's not. It's stronger.
They said it's only limited to, you know, a few urban areas. No, it's stronger.
Something very significant is happening in Iran. And it reflects the weakness of
the regime that unlike, for example, Israel or unlike Saudi Arabia or other
countries or the Gulf, the other Gulf states, they have not done anything for
their people.
I mean, why are the people protesting? They're protesting because they want
basic life, you know. You know, Iran suffers from this unbelievable shortage of
water. What have they done for it? Nothing. Well, you have to drink to live, to
buy food at a reasonable price to live. You have to have basic income to live.
You have to have basic infrastructure to live. And Iran has done nothing on
that.
So I think that, you know, ultimately these pressures accumulate. And rather
than adopt a policy of creative reform, which I think is happening, for example,
in Saudi Arabia, they haven't done that, haven't moved an inch. They haven’t
moved a nanometer. You know, they’re just stuck and they don't care for their
people. They don't work for their people. They work for a radical ideology that
is bad for Iranians, bad for Arabs, bad for Israelis, bad for Americans and
everyone else in between. So I think that [this] realization [which] has now
crystallized across so many sectors of Iranian society creates a new situation.
How far does it go? Does it bring about the collapse or fundamental change in
the regime or the replacement of this regime? I think it's too early to say, but
I think we have to recognize that something very important is happening.
AA: Mr. Prime Minister, in the beginning of this interview, you mentioned that
you'd like to see reaffirmation from Washington to its allies in the Middle
East, to its traditional allies in the Middle East. In your recent
autobiography, you portrayed Barack Obama as an optimist. That's what you called
him.
What strategic vision do you think Obama had for the Middle East? Also, what
place does Israel and Saudi Arabia have in that vision, Obama's vision, which is
still being followed by Obama’s staffers, who staff the Biden Administration as
well? And how would you describe the results of that vision so far, whether it
be in Israel and Lebanon and Syria and Yemen or elsewhere.
BN: Well, I think President Obama, whom I respected but disagreed with, believed
that Iran was the key to stabilizing the Middle East. And he thought that if he
would make a deal with the ayatollahs, it would pacify the entire Middle East.
He believed that the JCPOA, which he signed, would change Iran's behavior in the
Middle East. It would make Iran join the family of nations.
I think it disregarded the ideological thrust of this radical, radical regime,
its plans, its raison d'etre, which is to dominate the Middle East and frankly,
dominate good portions of the world with awesome power. I think he didn't see
that.
So when the JCPOA was signed, I argued this in Congress in 2015, I said, “well,
you know, It won't bring Iran into the family of nations. It will let Iran out
of the tiger’s cage to devour one nation after the other.” And that's what
happened.
Did they pursue peace in Yemen? Did they pursue peace in Iraq? Did they pursue
peace in Lebanon or in Gaza where they have their proxies and so many other
places? And the answer is, of course not. They did the exact opposite. So I
think on this, we had a difference of view with President Obama. And I think
everybody can judge who was right and who was wrong.
I think that on this, many Arab leaders, including Gulf leaders and certainly
the leadership of Saudi Arabia, see very clearly what the true nature of Iran's
policies are, the true nature of its regime. Now, you know, I can also tell you
that from day one, Iran also cheated on the nuclear accord. But I think it goes
well beyond that. I think it's a question of how do you see the Middle East?
I saw it was not the right policy for the United States to seek an accommodation
with such an aggressive regime in Tehran. Instead, it should bolster the
traditional allies of America, beginning with Israel and Saudi Arabia, against
Iranian aggression, and to develop our own societies, our own countries in every
way, in security and in technology and in civilian life and so on. That was my
vision.
Now you ask, where is America's policy? Are they going to go back to the JCPOA
and give Iran this free course paved with gold to a nuclear arsenal?
Well, a year and a half ago before the protests in Iran, I would say they were
certainly trying to do that. But I think there is a re-thinking in Washington. I
don't think I'm quite convinced. I haven't had obviously talks yet with the
administration, but I will soon. From the initial contacts that we have, I think
there's a rethinking of that. And I'm glad there is.
I'd like that rethinking to go back to the reaffirmation of the traditional
alliances in the Middle East. I think that's good. I think it's good for our
countries. Those are good for America and good for peace.
AA: Everybody's saying now that Iran is a threshold nuclear power. In other
words, it is just a few months away from being a nuclear power. You have been
talking about it for 20 years, but Israel never took action, direct military
kinetic action against it. And now people are saying it's too late.
Do you agree with that? I mean, is it too late to be able to stop a threshold
nuclear power from becoming a nuclear power?
BN: No, it's not. And also, we did take a lot of actions which I don't itemize
in my recently published autobiography, except one: The raid that our people did
on the Iran's Secret Atomic Archive. And we brought back a lot of valuable
information out of this archive. But I can tell you this, I think, and our
former chief of staff, who's now a political opponent of mine, said during the
recent elections, he said that because of the actions that the Israeli
government under me took, we set back the Iranian program 7 to 10 years.
Did we stop it? No. But can we stop it militarily and in other ways? The answer
is, I believe yes. And we're certainly not going to let them just plunge ahead.
Now, if you ask how can you stop such a problem, I won't go into the operational
or technical details. But I will say that unless you're able to have a credible
military option against rogue states that are trying to arm themselves with
nuclear weapons, you won't stop them.
We stopped Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons with a credible
military action. We stopped Syria from developing nuclear weapons with a
credible military action. The United States stopped Gadhafi's Libya from
developing nuclear weapons with a credible threat of military action.
North Korea had signed all the agreements, including the NPT Non-proliferation
Treaty. There were signatories to it for 17 years. That didn't mean anything.
There was no credible military threat. And therefore, they're now a nuclear
power. And half of Asia is quaking with fear.
Iran has been stopped or delayed by actions that again, I won't detail. But if
you're not committed to taking the necessary action against Iran, then they will
have a nuclear arsenal with deadly consequences for all of us and horrible
consequences for their own people.
I think the answer – I don't think, I know – the answer to your question is, we
have the means and we have the will. And if necessary, we'll do whatever is
necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear arsenal
AA: Even without the United States?
BN: Absolutely the actions that we took so far, and I'm not saying which ones we
did, we did without the US. We didn't do it with US approval because the US
probably would disapprove. I mean, they were for many years going on with the
assumption that they have to broker or reach a deal with Iran. And if we told
them what it is, every operation, what we were about to take, you know, they
would say “we oppose it,” in which case would be a direct conflict. Why do that?
Just make you make your move. And secondly, it might leak. And if it leaks in
The Washington Post, in The New York Times, then the Iranians would have
forewarning, and our action would be nullified in advance.
So we've taken a lot of steps. We made a lot of operations that have rolled back
Iran. But did we stop it? No. Are we committed to stopping it from achieving
their goals? Yes. We'll do everything in my power to achieve that goal.
AA: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. We have a question on Ukraine right now. Mr.
Prime Minister, regarding the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, President Zelenskyy
recently said that there'll be no peace with Russia before Ukraine reclaims
Crimea and Donbas. What side are you on in the Ukraine war, specifically as it
pertains to Iran's involvement? Will your government show intelligence for
example with the Ukrainian governments about Iranian drones or the weapons? And
do you plan to supply the defensive weapons to Ukraine that President Zelenskyy
has asked for?
BN: Well, the recent supply of Iranian killer drones to Russia that are being
used in the war with Ukraine is disturbing for two reasons. One, the human costs
involved and two, this partnership [which] is troubling. I can tell you that our
relationship with Russia obviously involved Iran, but paradoxically in a
different way, because Iran was trying to use Syria, our northern border, as a
staging ground for another Hezbollah-like front to open against Israel.
And they wanted to bring in a proxy army of about 80,000 people commanded by
Iranian generals, stock it with missiles and other deadly weapons to be used
against Israel. My policy was to prevent that, and we prevented it by, frankly,
by taking air action. Bombing these installations and these forces from the air.
And, of course, we were able to prevent that.
But that requires continual effort. And that effort involves Israeli pilots
flying in the skies of Lebanon - sorry, the skies of Syria - and they're in
spitting distance from Russian pilots. Now, I remember when I was a young
soldier almost half a century ago on the banks of the Suez Canal, we were
shooting down Russian planes from the sky and with their anti-ground [and]
anti-air batteries, they shot down our planes from the sky.
The last thing we want to do is have a military conflict between Russia and
Israel. We don't want it. I'm sure the Russians didn't want it. So we actually,
under my policy of actively preventing Iran from basing itself militarily in
Syria, we reached an understanding with Russia that preserved Israel's freedom
of action on this important front. I'd like to continue to have that, but I'm
also aware of the fact that we are being asked to supply defensive weapons to
Ukraine.
I was asked about that and I said, look, I'll look into this question as soon as
I get into office. I'm still not there. I'm still involved in the least pleasant
activity of politics, which is coalition forming. I don't wish it on anyone. I'm
actually taking a break right now and talking to you while this is happening.
Once I form the government, God willing, I hope it'll happen in a few days. Then
I'll sit down with our people, learn from our intelligence people what's
happening, make a reasoned assessment, and then come back with an answer to your
question.
AA: Mr. Prime Minister, there have been these strange rumors sporadically
popping up in Washington and elsewhere that there's a possibility of
normalization between Israel and Syria and President Assad, there was pressure
that was coming from one direction to the other. My question is, is there any
credence to these rumors? Are they at least a reflection of some conversations
going on? And is that a change to Israel's policy vis a vis Syria?
BN: Not that I know of.
AA: Fair enough. In June, Tom Friedman of The New York Times said that President
Joe Biden might be the last pro-Israel Democratic president because the base of
the Democratic Party is moving against it. Would you agree with that? [Does] the
high degree of aggressive partisanship in Washington these days mean that, in
practice, regional states are dealing as much with the US political parties as
they are with the American state itself?
BN: You know, I disagree with that, because I've heard these prognostications
time and time again. First of all, about me when I took office -- I would be the
warmonger. And of course, the opposite has happened, my ten years in the prime
minister's office, more than any other prime minister in Israel have bought the
safest decades for Arabs and Israelis alike.
Second, they said there’ll never be any more peace treaties, and that happened
as well. Then they said that when I challenged President Obama in Congress and
the JCPOA, it had caused an irreparable rupture of support among Democrats for
Israel. Well, Gallup has a tracking poll, and they measured the support among
Republicans and Democrats, the American people, as a whole.
Each year they ask the same question, you know, where does your sympathy lie?
With Israel? And lo and behold, before the speech and after the speech, the
differences, it went up by about 10 percent. It went up. Didn't go down among
Democrats. Okay.
What you see over time is this that support for Israel among Democrats is fairly
high, but it's stable. You know, it's about 50 percent, something like that.
Support among the Republicans has skyrocketed. It's very high. So there's a
myopia because you think the Democrats are abandoning Israel. They're not. It's
just that the Republicans have moved to a very strong Israeli position across
the American political spectrum. Democrats, independents and Republicans. There
is very strong and consistent support of the state of Israel.
This is not true of a part of the Democratic Party that has moved sharply to the
left, you know, and it's moved in some cases to a radical position and often
against the wishes of a broad, broad constituency in the public. And I think
that adjusts itself because, you know, I think people want to seize the center
and every political movement, no matter how polarized it is, ultimately, you
know, you govern by seeking to get the bulk of the people behind you.
So I don't think that that basic attitude towards Israel is going to change.
It's changing among the chattering classes. It's changing on the campuses. I
don't deny that. But I think that in many ways it's a lot firmer and a lot more
stable across the American public, both Democrats, independents and Republicans
and independents alike. It's more stable. But this is not the first time that
op-eds in The New York Times have been wrong.
AA: Prime Minister. Getting back to the Palestine question now, beyond the
Abraham Accords and beyond political tactics, because Palestinian leaders have
really recognized Israel every which way possible --
BN: I disagree.
AA: Yeah, well, beyond that, shall we say, you are still stuck with 7 million
Palestinians between the river and the sea. Given the dramatic power imbalance
in Israel’s favor, you are not a reluctant bride that will be brought to the
wedding. You are going to have to be the initiator. I mean, a final settlement
is going to have to be driven by Israel, really.
Do you see yourself as a General de Gaulle? You use the words “out of the box”
and “creative,” which seems to be what is needed now. Do you see yourself as a
potential historical leader like General de Gaulle, who could come out with that
out of the box and creative approach? For example, do you see the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan with its respected monarchy and mature government
infrastructure, as able to play a role in in a final settlement of this
perennial issue?
BN: Well, first of all, our relations with Jordan are critically important. And
I think the stability, prosperity and security of Jordan as it is, is an Israeli
interest. We may have our disagreements periodically [and] that happens and even
in the best of families. But I think the importance, the integrity of Jordan is
important. And, for example, Hezbollah and Iran try to topple that regime
periodically and bring in hostile forces.
As far as General de Gaulle, General de Gaulle had a relatively easy problem.
You know why? Because Algeria was not five miles from Paris.
AA: I mean, in the metaphorical sense, as a historical leader.
BN: But this leads to my answer to you, I think [that] to have a solution, you
have to be realistic about its nature. And I think people have not been
realistic about its nature. And here's the principle that would guide me. I
would say that the Palestinians should have in a final settlement all the powers
to govern themselves, but none of the powers to threaten the survival and
existence of the state of Israel.
And this requires a balance. It's not an either-or proposition. It's not
zero-one. There is a balance in there. So far, we've not been able to get beyond
first base because the Palestinians, as we all think, you know, I don't think
they said publicly to you maybe, but I've seen it, you know, I've seen it
public[ly] and I've seen it privately, they really have to shake off the fantasy
that Israel will disappear, that somehow, you know, we'll make a tactical
agreement with Israel, get the high ground over Tel Aviv, and eventually drive
the Israelis out.
AA: Assume that they've given that up --
BN: That's a big assumption.
AA: Is there a road map you would envision, that would be enthusiastically
adopted by you.
BN: Yes, there are a few. Well, take a look, for example, at the at the peace
initiative of President Trump. It's not that I didn't have reservations. I did.
It's not that I didn't expect the Palestinians to have reservations about it as
well. But I think it offers interesting solutions to how do you have this
coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians in such a tiny area between the
river and the sea?
It actually has some interesting new ideas, like looking at transportational
continuity instead of territorial continuity, things of that nature. You can
look at it. I don't think people have actually read it. But are there
possibilities for ending this conflict? I think there are.
But realistically, I think that the Palestinians will come around to genuinely
making their peace with the existence of an Israeli state as we add other
countries, and the most important country in the Arab world, we make a quantum
leap that will, I think, solidify peace and sort of convince people, hey, it's
over. Israel's here to stay. Now, let's make our peace with it.
AA: Mr. Prime Minister, we have another quick question [about] Lebanon: After
the Israeli leaks that Iran is smuggling weapons through the Beirut airport to
Hezbollah, to what extent is the airport now subject to Israeli strikes?
BN: I really couldn't say. I mean, you know, there was a rule in Israel that
follows the rule of the United States over there. They say one president at a
time. And in Israel, it's one prime minister at a time. So I'll be briefed on
this question. But in general, I'd say that without the scaffolding of Iranian
support militarily, political, financial, the whole structure of Hezbollah
collapses, [and] there is no Hezbollah rule in Lebanon. And that's who is ruling
in Lebanon, Hezbollah. Let's be open about that. But without Iranian support,
they'd collapse overnight. And the same is true of other Iran's other proxies.
They need Iran's support.
How do we prevent the smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah or for that matter, to
Hamas? Well, there are many ways to do it. There are many ways in which my
governments did it. But I can't tell you what is happening in recent months.
I'll be able to at least know that within a few weeks, I hope, once I form the
government.
AA: Thank you very much, Mr. Prime Minister. Thank you for all the time you've
given us. Have an excellent day.
BN: Thank you and good luck to you, and good luck to Saudi Arabia.