Euractiv - Bible Truth & Prophecy
Catching up – yet again! Don. 1
IS-ME:170216:(23-FEB-17):In Its Search for Security, Israel Keeps the Door Open to Its Neighbors 1
IS-MPA-ME-US:170216:(23-FEB-17):Seize the Moment – Build a New Regional Paradigm 2
IS-US:170212:(23-FEB-17):Israeli F-35 buy-back surpasses $1 billion 4
US-NATO:170215:(23-FEB-17):The U.S. Calculates the Costs of NATO 5
UKB-EU:170216:(23-FEB-17):Britain ‘not allowed’ a trade deal with each country, says EU 5
IS-US-MEPT-ME:170216:(23-FEB-17):Trump-Netanyahu meeting shatters ‘Palestine First’ regional peacemaking strategy 6
EGE-NATO:170218:(23-FEB-17):Germany stands firm on Nato spending as Europe defies Trump 7
LIB-UK-RU:170217:(23-FEB-17):Fallon warns Russia not to interfere in Libya 7
EGR-EU:170219:(23-FEB-17):‘From bad to worse’: Greece hurtles towards a final reckoning 8
BAL-RU-EU:170219:(23-FEB-17):The deadly plot to stop Montenegro embracing West 9
EFR:170220:(23-FEB-17):A Vote That Will Resonate Beyond France 11
IS-THE:170220:(23-FEB-17):Israeli report claims Hezbollah has obtained game changing weapons systems 13
US-IN:170220:(23-FEB-17):We would rather have trade than aid, says India’s commissioner 13
RUK-RU:170220:(23-FEB-17):A Blockade Brings Eastern Ukraine to a Slow Boil 13
IS-UN-US:170220:(23-FEB-17):US Ambassador to the UN comes out swinging on Israel bias 14
LIB-RU:170221:(23-FEB-17):Russia increases involvement in Libya by signing oil deal 15
LIB-RU:170221:(23-FEB-17):Rosneft, NOC agree to crude oil exploration cooperation 16
RUK-RU:170221:(23-FEB-17):A Blockade Brings Eastern Ukraine to a Slow Boil 16
IS-THE-MLE:170222:(23-FEB-17):Israel Air Force carried out airstrikes near Damascus overnight; Hezbollah claims IDF planted spy gear in southern Lebanon 17
TU-NATO-RU:170223:(23-FEB-17):NATO member Turkey to acquire Russian S-400 missiles 18
IS-UK:170223:(23-FEB-17):Call for interest: Israel 18
IS:170223:(23-FEB-17):Leviathan gas field developers approve $3.75 billion investment 18
RUK:170223:(23-FEB-17):Ukraine's Export Potential Faces Hurdles 18
EGR-EU:170221:(23-FEB-17):Bailout Is Back on Track 19
THA-TFA:170223:(23-FEB-17):Hamas and Fatah: In Transition but No Less Divided 20
IS-AU:170223:(23-FEB-17):Netanyahu hopes to triple Israel-Australia trade 21
EGE:170223:(23-FEB-17):Germany Leads Major Economy Growth in 2016 with a 1.9% Advance 21
UK-ME:170222:(23-FEB-17):Following its economic reach, U.K. expands its military presence in Persian Gulf 22
Catching up – yet again! Don.
IS-ME:170216:(23-FEB-17):In Its Search for Security, Israel Keeps the Door Open to Its Neighbors
Stratfor 16-Feb-17
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is paying a visit to Washington looking for clarification. Despite his long association with Donald Trump, and the overtures that Trump's election campaign made toward Israel, Netanyahu is still uncertain about many aspects of the new U.S. administration's policies toward the Middle East. The premier, who arrived Wednesday to a warm welcome from the White House, knows that despite the most generous of guarantees by Washington, the security of his nation depends as much on its pragmatic relationships with other Middle Eastern states as on the support of its longtime ally. It was Netanyahu's own reference to those relationships that prompts the more intriguing questions about the era to come in the Middle East.
Though he has not offered much clarity on his Middle East policy, Trump's public entreaty to Israel to "hold back on settlements for a little bit" suggests a more moderate stance on West Bank settlements than he outlined on the campaign trail. The White House also indicated that it would be stepping back for now from the responsibility of refereeing Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. But Trump still held out hope for a deal and stressed a willingness to back any peace agreement that both sides work out. In a departure from decades of U.S. policy, Trump even distanced himself from the two-state solution as a guiding tenet for negotiations.
But despite shifts in U.S. thinking on the issue of two states, the road ahead for Israeli-Palestinian relations will still be rocky in a deeply familiar way. Netanyahu, bound by the demands of a government coalition heavily weighted to the far right, made that overwhelmingly clear today when he said Israel's conditions for peace remain unchanged. By laying out familiar parameters at odds with Palestinian positions, Netanyahu set a foundation that will enable the Israelis to blame the Palestinians for the difficulties to come in future peace talks, echoes of past attempts and failures.
During the press conference, another change — at least since Netanyahu became prime minister — became clear: Israel expects Arab states to take a lead role in guaranteeing Palestinian participation in future peace talks and is open to cooperating on security issues. For the countries of the Middle East, Iran is becoming the target of increasing animosity, and the fight against extremist terrorist groups — the Islamic State chief among them — has pushed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the background of regional issues. In Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Israel looks less and less like the villain, opening avenues for coordination in the name of counterterrorism. There is a tacit recognition among those states that continuing to excoriate Israel is a pointless strategy since U.S. support has proved unwavering.
The acceptance of Israel's existence has enabled cautious and quiet but productive relationships to form between Israel and its neighbors over many years. One such neighbor is Turkey, a Sunni state with a burgeoning influence on Palestinian politics and a growing wariness of Iran. Their shared interests add up to a possible willingness by Ankara to help Israel manage Palestinian politics alongside the Arab states. Even without Iran hawk Michael Flynn as Trump's national security adviser, the stance of the U.S. administration will remain firmly anti-Iranian, further catalyzing the potential alignment among a broad set of Middle Eastern states.
Arab involvement in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, though minor in recent years, has not always been so. The 2002 Arab Peace Plan, which has since fallen by the wayside, was revived a couple of times by the Arab League, and the states all continue to maintain footholds in Palestinian politics. Their participation is essential to any plausible attempt to reach peace. States in the region including Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia serve critical roles in negotiations among Palestinian political parties in ways the United States never can. As a fresh attempt at holding Palestinian elections approaches, and as Hamas reshuffles its leadership, Israel will rely on its neighbors to share critical information and help shape internal Palestinian relationships.
These Middle Eastern states are key to assuring Israel's security in other ways, including tempering the ever-present threat of future offensives by Hamas and Hezbollah. In the restive Gaza Strip, it's not a question of if but when the next conflict between Hamas and Israel will occur. And in northern Israel, when the next fight with Hezbollah flares, it will pit Israel against a more experienced and capable adversary. Israel relies on Saudi Arabia and other Sunni powers to moderate Hezbollah's political and military reach in Lebanon. To combat Hamas, Israel looks to its security and intelligence accord with Egypt, which shares with Israel an enmity for Hamas that has snowballed over the years. Egypt also helps Israel control the unstable Sinai Peninsula, a base for the Islamic State and other extremist groups that pose a threat to both Egyptian and Israeli security.
Greater coordination with Israel in any respect poses greater risk for the governments of Middle Eastern states whose populations are conditioned to rhetoric blaming Zionist zeal for impinging on Palestinian and Arab rights and freedoms. Jordan, for example, must walk a fine line as it works to minimize unrest within its large Palestinian population while at the same time maintaining a functional economic and security relationship with Israel. Evidence of this was clear when Jordanian King Abdullah II warned the White House last week that a policy of allowing Israel unlimited West Bank settlements plus the swift move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem that Trump has championed would be sure to anger Palestinians, sparking unrest and perhaps even planting the seeds of another intifada. Jordan has navigated another precarious situation with its recent enactment of a natural gas deal with Israel. Although it significantly lowered utility costs for the average Jordanian, the agreement still prompted anti-Israel protests in the country. Popular animosity toward Israel is the same in the other Middle Eastern states, posing similar limits on greater cooperation.
The real test of the increased strength of the U.S.-Israeli accord is yet to come. When it does, it will simultaneously measure the dexterity of overall U.S. policy in the Middle East. When one of Israel's many security concerns inevitably turns into its next crisis, it will need, and can expect, U.S. backing. But Israel will also rely on its vibrant and functional relationships with the Middle Eastern bastions of power, like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to deal with the threats posed by Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. And Israel, deeply cognizant of the risks it faces and never fully trusting even its most steadfast supporters, knows that it rests safer amid a web of allies and alliances than it would relying on the United States alone.
Top of the Document
IS-MPA-ME-US:170216:(23-FEB-17):Seize the Moment – Build a New Regional Paradigm
Fathom 16-Feb-17
The two-state solution is the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet we need a new paradigm to reach it because the old ‘Bilateral Negotiations’ paradigm doesn’t work. On the other hand, for the first time in history there is an opportunity for a new regional deal that will generate cooperation between Israel and its new regional allies in order to create stability, limit Iran’s influence, fight radical Islam, rehabilitate the region’s economy and assure Israel’s security. The convergence of interests offers an opportunity to advance the two-state solution, but in a new way.
The old bilateral paradigm assumed that Israelis and Palestinians could negotiate and reach a permanent status agreement for the two-state solution, as if all they needed was to return to the negotiating table and show more seriousness. The recurring failures of the old ways require some fresh thinking – ‘one more heave’ won’t do. In this article I outline five myths and fundamental misconceptions of the ‘Old Bilateral Paradigm’ and set out the five components of the ‘New Regional Paradigm’.
Myth 1: The End Game
Old Bilateral Paradigm: The two-state solution should be the ultimate goal of the negotiations.
New Regional Paradigm: The ultimate goal should be a comprehensive ‘Package Deal’ that combines the two-state solution with a regional cooperation agreement.
The two-state solution is an unbalanced deal, which has proven hard to sell. It requires Israelis to make significant concessions, and in return gain very little from the Palestinians. The Palestinians will be busy building a weak state and trying to stabilise it while facing huge challenges of security and governance. The asymmetry between Israeli expectations and the Palestinians’ ability to deliver is a major risk. It is unrealistic for a demilitarised Palestinian state to be a guarantor of Israeli security against key strategic threats. Israeli security cooperation with Arab states could provide this. Moreover, the scope of economic cooperation required in the region goes far beyond Israeli-Palestinian economic development opportunities. Lastly, the fundamental Israeli demands for normalisation and recognition cannot be met by the Palestinians.
Therefore, for the price Israel needs to pay to achieve a two-state deal, it needs to gain a significantly better ‘product’. Consequently, the outcome of negotiations should be a four-legged deal – the Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution together with a regional agreement on security cooperation, a regional agreement on economic development, and a regional agreement on normalisation. Basically, the new ‘give and take’ formula for the final status end-game should be: Israel concedes to the Palestinians and is compensated by the Arab states.
Similarly, the Palestinians will have to make huge concessions for a two-state deal, particularly when it comes to their narrative of victimhood and their dream of the refugees (and their descendants) returning to their former homes. Their compensation for this should be via the Arab world in the currency of legitimacy and support – morally, financially and economically. In the eyes of the Palestinian leadership, the concessions they have already made and the risks they are facing vis-à-vis their people outweigh the benefits of a small-scale Palestinian state.
Here is an illustration of the asymmetry of Israeli and Palestinian compromises in comparison to the balance of a regional package deal. In short, the ultimate outcome should be a regional package deal which addresses Israeli and Palestinian concerns beyond just ‘two states’.
Myth 2: The Negotiation Architecture
Old Bilateral Paradigm: Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are the way forward.
New Regional Paradigm: Negotiations should include key Arab states – Egypt, Jordan, Saudi-Arabia and the UAE.
Israelis and Palestinians are unable to reach a deal when negotiating alone for a number of reasons outlined below. Therefore, the involvement of the key Arab states is vital in order to:
Find solutions to the core issues:
Jerusalem. In order to solve the issues of sovereignty,
custodianship and religious rights, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco must be involved;
Security. Ensuring security along borders – Jordan and Egypt need to be involved;
Palestinian Refugees. The Arab hosting countries as well Saudi Arabia, UAE and other Gulf states should be involved;
Legitimise the Palestinians’ concessions on Jerusalem and refugees by showing that it is part of a much greater deal between the entire Arab world (as outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative [API]);
Help both publics with public diplomacy and encouragement;
Offer Israel what it needs strategically in return for its concessions;
Take and share the responsibility to block spoilers – political or militant parties and terrorist organisations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood).
Myth 3: The Process
Old Bilateral Paradigm: A permanent status agreement will be achieved in one step, and until then the sides should work on the assumption that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’.
New Regional Paradigm: Negotiations should start with an agreed end-game framework, to be developed in steps, under the principle that ‘whatever is agreed should be implemented’.
There is too much risk in entering the negotiation room with a focus on reaching a permanent status agreement in one step. On the other hand, negotiations built around a series of incremental steps, such as the Oslo process, can be derailed because the process gives the spoilers enough room and time to prepare their sabotage. Moreover, the Palestinians will reject any attempt to reach an interim agreement as they will be suspicious that any such interim agreement will ultimately become permanent; and Israelis will find it too difficult to bet on an ‘all or nothing’ approach because the closer the sides get to the final agreement, the more likely the Palestinians will raise new demands, thus trying to improve their position through pressure at the last moment.
The alternative paradigm involves quietly negotiating the Terms of Reference (TOR) for an end-game ‘regional package deal,’ articulating the principles of its four legs mentioned above. The TOR should reflect the concepts presented by the API, and should also reflect Israeli interests and concerns. Then, the parties would build transitional agreements which will allow them to negotiate steps and implement whatever is agreed in order to change reality on the ground, ensure gradual state-building and creating viability for a Palestinian state. And whenever Israel makes progress vis-à-vis the Palestinians, it will trigger positive steps by the Arab states that promote progress towards normalisation.
The new process described above also offers a new opportunity for the leaders to gain public support by proving to their people that even during the negotiations they are able to obtain tangible benefits for their people. For Israelis, the gradual steps towards normalisation are key – practically and psychologically. For Palestinians, the very existence of a political horizon together with changes on the ground is vital. And for the Arab states, the ability to show their people that the cooperation with Israel impacts the progress towards solving the Palestinian issue is hugely important.
Myth 4: Third Party Actors
Old Bilateral Paradigm: The US assumed the role of (sole) mediator.
New Regional Paradigm: Responsibility lies with regional leaders; mediators should act as conveners and enablers.
The ‘shuttling US Secretary of State’ model should not repeat itself. The US is not alone on the ground (Russia is now intimately involved in the region). Regional parties need to take more responsibility upon themselves. Mediators should become enablers for a regionally-led process. The Egyptian president and the Israeli prime minister should prepare the groundwork for a regional platform that hosts Israel, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE. US-Russian cooperation should help encourage the regional leaders to take the necessary steps and launch negotiations. In fact, the regional package deal must be seen as part of a ‘grand bargain’ agreed between Russia and the US in order to build stability in the region and in adjacent areas.
Myth 5: The Value of Pressure on Israel
Old Bilateral Paradigm: International actors must use pressure on Israel in order to obtain more Israeli concessions to achieve progress in the right direction.
New Regional Paradigm: International pressure will do the opposite, so avoid it.
Whenever bilateral negotiations fail, many in the international community call for more international pressure on Israel, in the form of UN resolutions, final status parameters, or the Boycott, Divestments, Sanctions movement (BDS). The dominant narrative blames Israel for any failure and is based on the false assumption that pressurising Israel will bring it back to the table. There are several flaws in this analysis and attitude. First, Israel should not be solely blamed for the recent negotiation failures (Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas did not respond to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008; he did not respond to then US Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014). Second, international pressure will only incentivise Palestinians not to compromise, because it feeds their belief that they can gain greater concessions from Israel through pressure rather than via the negotiation table.
Israel is fiercely averse to negotiating under pressure. The recent UN Security Council resolution (2334) actually strengthened that sentiment among Israelis. Any such attempt to impose parameters or ‘punish’ Israel will be counter-productive.
Instead, the international community should start apportioning blame more fairly, and understand that rather than airing their frustration, they must offer constructive ideas and encouragement to all parties (Israelis, Palestinians and the Arabs) to build a different approach.
Conclusion: An opportunity to rethink
The new US administration could use the opportunity to re-engineer the paradigm. It cannot go back to the old way of trying to achieve the two-state solution and expect better results. Instead of the old paradigm, the US could drive a new one, based on the following elements:
The end goal should be a regional package deal that comprises the two-state solution as well as regional security cooperation, regional economic cooperation and regional normalisation agreements.
Negotiations should be conducted in parallel between Israel and the PA and Israel and the key Arab states.
Negotiations will be based on TOR of the end game, reflecting the spirit of the API and Israeli interests.
While the end-game package is negotiated, it should be reached in a series of phased and transitional agreements.
The guiding principle should be that everything that has been agreed and can be implemented should be implemented.
The process should be regionally led and internationally supported with the US, Russia and the EU playing a role of conveners and enablers.
There should be no international pressure on Israel since this de-incentivises the parties.
Old habits die hard, but the new American administration has an opportunity to rethink many of the assumptions that have accompanied the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for many years, but which have now lost their relevance. Instead, the US administration must seize the moment to encourage regional leaders to make progress and so serve their shared interests.
Top of the Document
IS-US:170212:(23-FEB-17):Israeli F-35 buy-back surpasses $1 billion
12-Feb-17
Israel’s Defense Ministry announced Sunday that completed industrial cooperation or buy-back contracts with Lockheed Martin on the F-35 program surpassed the $1 billion benchmark since Israel signed its first contract in 2010 for an initial 19 fighters.
According to Avi Dadon, MoD’s deputy director of purchasing, Israeli firms entered into $258 million worth of new contracts during 2016, a 33 percent surge from the previous year.
“The scope of industrial cooperation between [Lockheed Martin] and Israeli industries, just in the past year, illustrates the big, raw potential of this deal to the Israeli economy,” Dadon said.
Key Israeli suppliers to Lockheed Martin for the year that just closed include Elbit Systems, which together with Rockwell Collins expanded their production contract for sensor-fuzed helmets by $206 million; and Israel Aerospace Industries, which received a $26 million follow-on contract for wing sets.
Two other Elbit subsidiaries – Cyclone and Tadiran – also scored orders exceeding $20 million last year for structural components and radio amplifiers respectively.
Dadon noted that several Lockheed Martin contracts were extended to small firms in northern Israel to support industries near the “line of confrontation” along the border with Lebanon.
He said the Ministry aimed to work in the coming year “to further deepen” industrial cooperation associated with Israel’s F-35 program.
Israel is now negotiating its third contract for another 17 F-35A fighters, which will bring the Israel Air Force’s inventory to 50.
In an interview late last year, Jack Crisler, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for F-35 business development, said Israeli technology was benefiting not only those planes destined for the Israel Air Force, but in many cases, all partner and customer nations of the fifth-generation fighter.
Top of the Document
US-NATO:170215:(23-FEB-17):The U.S. Calculates the Costs of NATO
Media Center, Image
February 15, 2017 | 21:25 GMT Print
The U.S. Calculates the Costs of NATO
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said Feb. 15 that the United States may moderate its commitment to NATO unless all of its member states boost their defense spending. The statement came after Mattis met with defense ministers from other NATO countries in Brussels. This is not the first time that the United States has urged other members to spend more to maintain the alliance's defenses. After all, few countries actually reach the 2 percent of GDP threshold for defense spending prescribed by NATO. The United States itself meets the target as do Greece, the United Kingdom, Poland and Estonia.
The renewed U.S. call for members to reach spending targets is one that should be taken seriously considering the assertive posture of the new administration on an array of issues.
President Donald Trump has already called for cuts in funding to international organizations and has referred to NATO as an obsolete bloc.
Mattis is not alone in supporting higher defense budgets across Europe. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said during the Feb. 15 meeting in Brussels that all partners agree that defense spending needs to be increased. British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, however, took a step back from calling on countries to immediately reach the 2 percent spending requirement. Instead, he floated the idea of annual increases in national defense budgets so members can demonstrate good faith to the organization without having to meet the burden of higher spending all at once.
It is unclear whether these gradual actions will be enough to satisfy the United States and prevent Washington from reviewing its commitment to NATO. Still, based on Mattis's serious — but not unreasonable — statements, it may be enough to placate Washington's frustrations with NATO.
Top of the Document
UKB-EU:170216:(23-FEB-17):Britain ‘not allowed’ a trade deal with each country, says EU
Daily Telegraph 16-Feb-17
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker pledges to block one-to-one agreements after Brexit
EUROPE last night vowed to stop Britain from making separate trade deals with member states.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President – bête noire of Brexiteers – said the European Commission was in charge of negotiating trade agreements and would not allow countries to strike separate deals.
He said: “We should not allow the Brits to pursue trade deals now with others because they are not allowed to do so.”
But Mr Juncker, who announced yesterday that he will not stand for a second term as president, also admitted he fears Britain may succeed in dividing the European Union’s 27 remaining members by making promises to them during Brexit negotiations.
Mr Juncker – who will still be in charge during the negotiations – told Deutschlandfunk radio: “The other EU 27 don’t know it yet, but the Brits know very well how they can tackle this. They could promise country A this, country B that and country C something else and the end game is that there is not a united European front.”
Mr Juncker added that with Britain set to trigger Article 50 to begin negotiating its withdrawal from the EU and the election of Donald Trump as US president, it was imperative the EU stick together.
“Now everyone is saying in relation to Trump and Brexit, ‘Now is Europe’s big chance. Now is the time to close ranks and march together,’ ” Mr Juncker said. “I wish it will be like this, but will it happen?”
Nigel Farage, the former leader of Ukip, rejected Mr Juncker’s threats. He said: “I think Mr Juncker for the first time is in a very weak position. Up until now the line from the Commission and Parliament is, ‘We will utterly unite and make life very difficult for the UK’.
“I sense there one or two cracks began to show and I also think we are beginning to see industries in member states who need the UK market badly, putting pressure on, so I see it as a great hope for the UK.”
Mr Juncker said one area where the remaining 27 could improve cooperation was defence. Britain and France are the only EU countries with nuclear arsenals.
The former Luxembourg prime minister became president in 2014 with the support of 26 out of 28 EU governments. Britain was opposed to his election, as he was a long-standing advocate of deeper EU integration.
He could have chosen to seek a renewal of his presidency in 2019.
Eurosceptic Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, said: “It is a thoroughly good idea that he doesn’t stand again. In my opinion he has been a very divisive force.”
Top of the Document
IS-US-MEPT-ME:170216:(23-FEB-17):Trump-Netanyahu meeting shatters ‘Palestine First’ regional peacemaking strategy
, 16-Feb-17
The morning after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first official meeting with President Donald Trump, multiple headlines proclaimed Feb. 16 that the two-state solution—whereby an independent, sovereign Palestinian state would be created alongside the state of Israel within agreed and final borders—was, if not quite dead, fast approaching death's door.
I want to suggest that those who interpret the outcome of the Trump-Bibi meeting in that manner should dig a little deeper. There is something of a revolution in thinking and approach going on, and what's being overturned is what you might call the "Palestine First" strategy of regional peacemaking. But that doesn't have to mean that a solution involving Palestinian sovereignty has been extinguished.
The idea of "Palestine First" was rooted in the mid 1960s, just before the Six-Day War, when Yasser Arafat and his comrades in the Fatah movement took over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—until that point, the PLO had been an instrument of the Arab League. By asserting Palestinian independence from Arab collective decision-making, Arafat set the stage for a violent struggle against Israel in the name of Palestinian "return" and full sovereignty from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.
The "Palestine First" strategy, which dates back to when Yasser Arafat gained control of the PLO in the mid-60s, is now rightly being re-thought, according to Cohen.
It took thousands of deaths and several bitter wars for Arafat to realize that his armed struggle was doomed to failure. In 1990, the "Palestine First" strategy took a heavy blow when Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime in Iraq invaded Kuwait—an intra-Arab dispute suddenly toppled the Palestinian issue in the hierarchy of Arab priorities. Following the First Gulf War, Israel's representatives met face to face with the Arab states and the PLO in Madrid, launching a lengthy, inconclusive peace process.
In parallel, however, the "Palestine First" strategy was resurrected when the Norwegian government opened a secret channel between the Israelis and the PLO, resulting in the 1994 Gaza–Jericho Agreement—a follow-up treaty to the 1993 Oslo Accords—which created the Palestinian Authority (PA) and was designed to set the Palestinians on the road to full statehood. More than 20 years and one brutal civil war later, the Palestinians are still ruled by a divided leadership and not a unified state.
That period includes, of course, the eight years in which President Barack Obama was in office. In marked contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama elevated the Palestinian issue to the center of Middle East politics, further antagonizing Israel by rehabilitating Iran, which explicitly seeks the elimination of the Jewish state, as an international actor through the 2015 nuclear deal. But neither Obama nor Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry could deliver on Palestinian statehood, and the Palestinian leadership embarked on an international campaign to seek unilateral recognition of their independence in various United Nations and international agencies.
That embittered and failed strategy, which saw Palestinian representatives verbally assaulting the historical and religious connections of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and the land of Israel, is the principal memory of the Obama years when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian dimension of the region's multiple conflicts. It didn't deliver for anybody, and served only to deepen Israeli fears of Palestinian eliminationism, as evidenced on a minute-by-minute basis in Palestinian school textbooks, on Palestinian TV and across the internet.
This is the environment that Trump walked into when he became president. Were Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) or Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), or Hillary Clinton, in the White House, I'd wager that they would all conclude—as Trump has, in the language that makes the most sense to him—that the current version of the "Palestine First" playbook should be tossed aside. “I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one that both parties like. I can live with either one,” Trump said Feb. 15.
“Palestine First” never meant that the Palestinians should rank at the top of the Middle East's myriad national and religious struggles. It meant acknowledging that the absence of full Palestinian sovereignty, and the unfulfilled demand for the "return" of all the Arab refugees of the 1948 war and their descendants, lay at the heart of the region's ills. It is that assumption that was so dramatically exploded by the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu.
The Middle East has gone through several extraordinary transformations in the last 20 years, whose cumulative effect has been to question whether the current state system in the region can even survive. Nobody can seriously make the argument that creating a Palestinian state in this context would be a boon for peace, neither with Israel nor more broadly. Nobody—save, perhaps, for a racist—could argue that the Palestinian birthrate poses a greater threat to Israel's existence than does Iran and its Hezbollah ally in Syria and Lebanon. Nobody can make the moral or strategic case that resolving the question of Palestinian independence is of greater import than, say, that of Kurdish independence, or the profound lack of religious freedom, or the crying need to generate economic and educational opportunities for the youth of the Arab world.
The regional approach to peacemaking outlined by Trump and Netanyahu, grounded in a partnership between Israel and the Sunni Arab states, is foremost a recognition that there are grave problems that run across the borders created in the aftermath of World War I. If Israel is to achieve peace with the Palestinians, and if the Palestinians are to finally turn their Authority into something resembling a functional, accountable state, then those Arab states that are yet to make their own peace with Israel have to lead the way. Doing so will finally unravel the illusion that, just by existing, Israel is the source of the region's crisis. Should that moment arrive, I hope that everyone—Arabs and Jews alike—will find it liberating.
Top of the Document
EGE-NATO:170218:(23-FEB-17):Germany stands firm on Nato spending as Europe defies Trump
Daily Telegraph 18-Feb-17
EUROPEAN leaders have hit back at Donald Trump’s ultimatum that they increase defence spending or risk America scaling back its commitment to transatlantic protection.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said her country would not accelerate plans to increase its military budget by 2024 despite America’s demand this week that countries increase spending by the end of the year.
The president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, also said countries must not cave in to American demands.
James Mattis, the US defence secretary, warned Nato this week that a new “political reality” after the election of Donald Trump meant it was no longer possible for allies to shirk their share of the defence burden.
Unless nations began spending more, he said Washington could “moderate” its commitment to them.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Mr Mattis, a retired US marine general, said yesterday that Europe now faced a “threat on multiple fronts as the arc of instability builds on Nato’s periphery and beyond”.
But Mr Juncker said he was “very much against” Europe allowing itself to be forced into an increase in defence spending. He added: “I don’t like our American friends narrowing down this concept of security to the military.” Germany would lose its budget surplus if it increased defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP from 1.22 per cent, he said.
Mr Juncker went on: “If you look at what Europe is doing in defence, plus development aid, plus humanitarian aid, the comparison with the United States looks rather different. Modern politics cannot just be about raising defence spending.”
Nato guidelines call for all members of the collective defence alliance to spend 2 per cent of GDP on military budgets. But in reality only five do – America, Britain, Greece, Estonia and Poland – while some, including Italy and Spain, spend half that.
Mrs Merkel said Germany would stick to its long-term commitment to raise defence spending by the middle of the next decade. “Germany is conscious of its responsibility” to spend more on arms, she said, but added that other issues are also important for global security.
Mrs Merkel said that Germany had increased defence spending by 8 per cent in this year’s budget over last year. She continued: “We must do more here, no question, but the matters of development aid and crisis prevention are also important.”
Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said Mr Mattis had been “uncompromising” in his message to European leaders to “step up”.
Meanwhile, Germany’s defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, acknowledged that her country would in future be unable to step back and rely on American protection. She said: “From the German point of view, our traditional reflex of relying above all on our American friends’ vigour and ducking away when things really get tight … will no longer be enough.”
But she also had a message for Mr Trump, warning the president that he could not put European allies on an equal footing with an aggressive Russia. “Our American friends know well that their tone on Europe and Nato has a direct influence on the cohesion of our continent,” she said. “A stable European Union is just as much in the American interest as a united Nato.
“There cannot be a policy of equidistance to allies and to those who openly question our values, our borders and international law.”
Top of the Document
LIB-UK-RU:170217:(23-FEB-17):Fallon warns Russia not to interfere in Libya
Daily Telegraph 17-Feb-17
THE Defence Secretary has warned Russia against interfering in Libya, as Britain and its Nato allies consider sending more aid to help the fragmented country rebuild its armed forces.
Sir Michael Fallon said Russia was “testing” the military alliance with overtures to a Libyan strongman in competition with the UN-backed Tripoli government.
“We don’t need the bear sticking his paws in,” he said as defence and foreign ministers gathered at the Munich Security Conference.
The Tripoli government led by Fayez Seraj this week called on the military alliance for help to rebuild its forces, which were shattered by the Western campaign to oust Col Muammar Gaddafi followed by six years of instability.
But the country is split between rival militia, with Khalifa Haftar overseeing an alliance of armed groups around the eastern port of Benghazi and shunning the government in the capital.
Last month, Haftar visited the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov as it finished its tour of the Mediterranean. On board he held a video conference call with Russia’s defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, where the pair discussed the fight against “terrorist groups”. Sir Michael claimed the conference call had been largely symbolic but added: “Putin is testing the West, he’s testing the alliance. At any point where he sees weakness, he pushes home.”
He said: “We continue to urge the Seraj government to reach out to the east. It’s important that that government does reflect the strengths of the east and equally Field Marshal Hafter needs to reflect the interests of Misrata and Tripoli over in the West.”
Nato has offered support to the Tripoli-based government, but a prior request for help last May was seen as too broad. Stabilising the country is seen as critical to stemming the tide of migrants and refugees using the country as a departure point for sailing to Europe.
Top of the Document
EGR-EU:170219:(23-FEB-17):‘From bad to worse’: Greece hurtles towards a final reckoning
Guardian 19-Feb-17
Dimitris Costopoulos stood, worry beads in hand, under brilliant blue skies in front of the Greek parliament. Wearing freshly pressed trousers, polished shoes and a smart winter jacket – “my Sunday best” – he had risen at 5am to get on the bus that would take him to Athens 200 miles away and to the great sandstone edifice on Syntagma Square. By his own admission, protests were not his thing.
At 71, the farmer rarely ventures from Proastio, his village on the fertile plains of Thessaly. “But everything is going wrong,” he lamented on Tuesday, his voice hoarse after hours of chanting anti-government slogans.
“Before there was an order to things, you could build a house, educate your children, spoil your grandchildren. Now the cost of everything has gone up and with taxes you can barely afford to survive. Once I’ve paid for fuel, fertilisers and grains, there is really nothing left.”
Costopoulos is Greece’s Everyman; the human voice in a debt crisis that refuses to go away. Eight years after it first erupted, the drama shows every sign of reigniting, only this time in a new dark age of Trumpian politics, post-Brexit Europe, terror attacks and rise of the populist far right.
“I grow wheat,” said Costopoulos, holding out his wizened hands. “I am not in the building behind me. I don’t make decisions. Honestly, I can’t understand why things are going from bad to worse, why this just can’t be solved.”
As Greece hurtles towards another full-blown confrontation with the creditors keeping it afloat, and as tensions over stalled bailout negotiations mount, it is a question many are asking.
The country’s epic struggle to avert bankruptcy should have been settled when Athens received €110bn in aid – the biggest financial rescue programme in global history – from the EU and International Monetary Fund in May 2010. Instead, three bailouts later, it is still wrangling over the terms of the latest €86bn emergency loan package, with lenders also at loggerheads and diplomats no longer talking of a can, but rather a bomb, being kicked down the road. Default looms if a €7.4bn debt repayment – money owed mostly to the European Central Bank – is not honoured in July.
Amid the uncertainty, volatility has returned to the markets. So, too, has fear, with an estimated €2.2bn being withdrawn from banks by panic-stricken depositors since the beginning of the year. With talk of Greece’s exit from the euro being heard again, farmers, trade unions and other sectors enraged by the eviscerating effects of austerity have once more come out in protest.
From his seventh-floor office on Mitropoleos, Makis Balaouras, an MP with the governing Syriza party, has a good view of the goings-on in Syntagma. Demonstrations – what the former trade unionist calls “the movement” – are a fine thing. “I wish people were out there mobilising more,” he sighed. “Protests are in our ideological and political DNA. They are important, they send a message.”
This is the irony of Syriza, the leftwing party catapulted to power on a ticket to “tear up” the hated bailout accords widely blamed for extraordinary levels of Greek unemployment, poverty and emigration. Two years into office it has instead overseen the most punishing austerity measures to date, slashing public-sector salaries and pensions, cutting services, agreeing to the biggest privatisation programme in European history and raising taxes on everything from cars to beer – all of which has been the price of the loans that have kept default at bay and Greece in the euro.
In the maelstrom the economy has improved, with Athens achieving a noticeable primary surplus last year, but the social crisis has intensified.
For men like Balaouras, who suffered appalling torture for his leftwing beliefs at the hands of the 1967-74 colonels’ regime, the policies have been galling. With the IMF and EU arguing over the country’s ability to reach tough fiscal targets when the current bailout expires in August next year, the demand for €3.6bn of more measures has left many in Syriza reeling. Without upfront legislation on the reforms, creditors say, they cannot conclude a compliance review on which the next tranche of bailout aid hangs.
“We had an agreement,” insisted Balaouras, looking despondently down at his desert boots. “We kept to our side of the deal, but the lenders haven’t kept to their side because now they are asking for more. We want the review to end. We want to go forward. This situation is in the interests of no one. But to get there we have to have an honourable compromise. Without that there will be a clash.”
It had been hoped that an agreement would be struck on Monday at what had been billed as a high-stakes meeting of euro area finance ministers. On Friday, EU officials announced that the deadline had been all but missed because there had been little convergence between the two sides.
With the Netherlands holding general elections next month, and France and Germany also heading to the polls in May and September, fears of the dispute becoming increasingly politicised have added to its complexity. Highlighting those concerns, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, attempted to end the rift that has emerged between eurozone lenders and the IMF over the fund’s insistence that Greece can only begin to recover if its €320bn debt pile is reduced substantially.
In talks with Christine Lagarde, the Washington-based IMF’s managing director, Merkel agreed to discuss the issue during a further meeting between the two women to be held on Wednesday. The IMF has steadfastly refused to sign up to the latest bailout, arguing that Greek debt is not only unmanageable but on a trajectory to become explosive by 2030. Berlin, the biggest contributor of the €250bn Greece has so far received, says it will be unable to disburse further funds without the IMF on board.
The assumption is that the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, will cave in, just as he did when the country came closest yet to leaving the euro at the height of the crisis in the summer of 2015. But the 41-year-old leader, like Syriza, has been pummelled in the polls. Persuading disaffected backbenchers to support more measures, and then selling them to a populace exhausted by repeated rounds of austerity, will be extremely difficult. Disappointment has increasingly given way to the death of hope – a sentiment reinforced by the realisation that Cyprus and other bailed-out countries, by contrast, are no longer under international supervision.
In his city centre office, the former finance minister Evangelos Venizelos pondered where Greece’s predicament was now. “[We are] at the same point we were several years ago,” he joked. “The only difference is that anti-European sentiment is growing. What was once a very friendly country towards Europe is becoming increasingly less so, and with that comes a lot of danger, a lot of risk.”
When historians look back they, too, may conclude that Greece has expended a great deal of energy not moving forward at all.
The arc of crisis that has swept the country – coursing like a cancer through its body politic, devastating its public health system, shattering lives – has been an exercise in the absurd. The feat of pulling off the greatest fiscal adjustment in modern times has spawned a slump longer and deeper than the Great Depression, with the Greek economy shrinking more than 25% since the crisis began.
Even if the latest impasse is broken and a deal is reached with creditors soon, few believe that in a country of weak governance and institutions it will be easy to enforce. Political turbulence will almost certainly beckon; the prospect of “Grexit” will grow.
“Grexit is the last thing we want, but we may arrive at a point of serious dilemmas,” said Venizelos. “Whatever deal is reached will be very difficult to implement, but that notwithstanding, it is not the memoranda [the bailout accords] that caused the crisis. The crisis was born in Greece long before.”
Like every crisis government before it, Tsipras’s administration is acutely aware that salvation will come only when Greece can return to the markets and raise funds. What happens in the weeks ahead could determine if that is likely to happen at all.
Back in Syntagma, Costopoulos the good-natured farmer ponders what lies ahead. Like every Greek, he stands to be deeply affected. “All I know is that we are all being pushed,” he said, searching for the right words. “Pushed in the direction of somewhere very explosive, somewhere we do not want to be.”
Top of the Document
BAL-RU-EU:170219:(23-FEB-17):The deadly plot to stop Montenegro embracing West
Sunday Telegraph 19-Feb-17
Russian intelligence officers believed to have directed gang to assassinate Balkan state’s prime minister and derail its progress toward joining Nato and the EU
EVEN by the standards of Balkan intrigue, the conspiracy that Mirko Velimirovic revealed to Montenegrin police days before the country’s parliamentary elections seemed outlandish – and deadly.
Soon after walking off the street last October and demanding to speak to the police chief, the former policeman began to outline a plot that, if true, risked sending Montenegro into chaos months before it was due to join Nato.
There is no doubt that it was financed and organised from different sources or different parts of Russian intelligence
The 45-year-old told officials he had been hired to buy weapons and rent a hideout for a gang of Serbian nationalists who were to launch a bloody attack on the Parliament.
The resulting massacre by the gang, which boasted of powerful backing from abroad, could tip the country into civil war and derail any hopes of the country entering the Western fold.
Days after Velimirovic’s disclosure, as the world was absorbed in the US presidential election, news that around 20 Serbian nationalists had been arrested, and an attempted coup in Montenegro foiled, attracted little attention elsewhere.
Yet senior Whitehall and Nato sources have now told The Sunday Telegraph that not only did the foiled plot appear to have been genuine, but it was directed by Russian intelligence officers with backing from Moscow.
The attempted coup would have killed the pro-West prime minister, Milo Djukanovic, and replaced him with a pro-Russian government, after years of warnings from the Kremlin that Montenegro should not join Nato.
The plot is seen as one of the latest aggressive attempts by Russia to undermine the West and was hatched at the same time Moscow was accused of trying to sway the US elections.
The tiny Balkan nation of Montenegro, with a population of only 600,000, has been determined in recent years to join the West and by this summer it is expected to become the 29th member of Nato. Membership of the European Union is expected to follow early next decade.
But the movement towards Nato has provoked anger in Moscow. The Kremlin sees itself hemmed in by an expansionist Nato and had hoped to secure itself access to Montenegro’s Adriatic port of Bar. Montenegro’s accession to the military alliance would be the final piece in a puzzle seeing Nato members stretching across the northern Mediterranean, from Portugal to Syria. Russia’s leaders also see no reason why a Slavic country sharing its Orthodox religion should cosy up to the West.
The country’s largest opposition bloc, the Democratic Front, has campaigned vehemently against joining the military alliance, capitalising on Serb resentment at civilian casualties from Nato’s 1999 Kosovo campaign.
The Democratic Front is believed to have received millions of dollars in backing from Russia and last year ran a slick and costly campaign during Montenegro’s parliamentary elections.
IT WAS against this backdrop that Russia is alleged to have backed a plot led by two intelligence officers to recruit a band of Serbian nationalists and provoke the violent overthrow of the government.
In the three months since the coup was foiled – in which Prime Minister Djukanovic has been replaced by his former deputy Dusko Markovic – testimony from Velimirovic and another plotter-turned-prosecution witness, Aleksandar Sindjelic, have revealed the planning behind the conspiracy.
Almost on a daily basis some of the opposition politicians are trying to get financial support for making problems here
Montenegrin officials have also called on their Nato intelligence allies, including Britain and America, for hi-tech assistance to help crack encrypted calls and emails.
Milivoje Katnic, the special prosecutor tasked with bringing the culprits to justice, has avoided alleging Russian state involvement, but senior Whitehall sources said they believed the plot was carried out with the knowledge and blessing of Moscow.
Predrag Boskovic, the country’s defence minister, told The Sunday Telegraph: “There is no doubt that it was financed and organised from different sources or different parts of Russian intelligence, together with some Montenegrin opposition parties, but also under the strong influence of some radicals from Serbia and Russia.”
Sources familiar with the investigation said the plot began months before the election, with the arrival in neighbouring Serbia of two Russians, Eduard Shirokov and Vladimir Popov.
The two men, who are now wanted by Interpol, were both officers with the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service, and arrived in the Balkans with access to large sums of money and sophisticated, encrypted mobile phones. The man they allegedly appointed to do the groundwork for the plot was Sindjelic, a veteran anti-Western activist from Serbia.
The former convict had fought with Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine, had links to Serbian nationalist groups and had in the past boasted to associates of his ties with the Russian defence ministry.
Sindjelic has reportedly testified he was drawn into the plot by “two nationalists from Russia” he had met while in eastern Ukraine.
Sindjelic in turn approached Velimirovic to organise the logistics. He gave him €30,000 (£25,657) to buy 50 rifles and three boxes of ammunition. He was also told to rent a house in the capital, Podgorica, and liaise with a man codenamed Nikola, who turned out to be Bratislav Dikic, a former head of Serbia’s elite Gendarmerie anti-terrorist police unit.
Sindjelic and Velimirovic later told the Montenegrin prosecutor that the plotting was conducted on three encrypted phones believed to have been delivered by Shirakov and Popov.
During his trial, where he received a suspended sentence for cooperating, Velimirovic said he had one of the special phones, which had two pre-programmed numbers on speed dial. One was for Sindjelic and he was told not to use the other. When he did, by accident, he claimed it was answered by a Russian. Other members of the gang are alleged to have included Nemanja Ristic, another Serb nationalist and Right-wing agitator, who had fought in Ukraine. Ristic was allegedly involved in recruiting a team in Serbia to travel to Montenegro for the coup.
DAYS before election day, the Democratic Front had said it would hold a rally outside the parliament building as the results were announced on the evening of Oct 16.
According to the special prosecutor, the conspirators would infiltrate the rally and as Democratic Front leaders took the stage, they would storm the parliament to hold a sit-in. But at the same time, other plotters dressed in police uniforms would then open fire on the crowd. The bogus police would wear blue ribbons on their shoulders so they could be told apart.
The prosecutor said early inquiries found the gang wanted to seize Mr Djukanovic, but detectives later found “evidence that the plan was not only to deprive of liberty, but also to deprive of life the then prime minister”.
With days to go, Velimirovic says he had second thoughts about being involved in such a bloody plan. He told his trial he had two choices; to give the money back, or go to the authorities.
He told the judge: “I should be given Montenegro’s highest honours, not be standing trial. I’ve saved your people… saved your country.” With an informant in the plot, Montenegrin police let events proceed until the eve of the election, then arrested more than 20 people in the country, while Serbian authorities held others over the border.
Adding to the suspicion the plot was coordinated in Russia, Nikolai Patrushev, a former director of the Russian FSB, the successor organisation to the KGB, flew to Belgrade within days of the coup being foiled. Mr Patrushev, now secretary of Russia’s security council, reportedly made the visit to smooth over any scandal and Montenegrin authorities believe Shirokov and Popov flew back to Moscow with him. Ristic, who is wanted for extradition from Serbia for his role in the plot, was in December pictured standing next to the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, during an official visit to Belgrade.
The plotters now face charges of criminal association, attempted terrorism and “preparing acts against the constitutional order and safety of Montenegro by way of enticement”.
But despite his Nato allies’ belief Moscow was behind the attempt, the special prosecutor has been clear not to implicate the Russian government.
His office said the organisers were “two Russian nationals, for who an international wanted notice has been issued by the Interpol”, but stressed it had “never mentioned” official involvement of Russia.
The Kremlin has said it categorically denies “a possibility of official involvement into arranging any illegal actions”, while the Democratic Front says the “fake plot” was a ruse to discredit them and sway voters.
Andrija Mandic, leader of the party, risks being dragged into the trial himself after his driver was arrested on suspicion of having ferried one of the Russians around.
Mr Mandic told The Telegraph: “The biggest proof [that the coup was fake] is that the state prosecutor does not have any proof.” Despite Mr Mandic’s protestations, Mr Boskovic, the defence minister, says he doubts the country has seen the end of Russian attempts to keep it from Nato.
He said: “Almost on a daily basis some of the opposition politicians are in Moscow, or in Chechnya, or in other parts of Russia, trying to get financial support, trying to get some other support for making problems here. They would like to show Montenegro is incapable of being a stable country. I am pretty sure we are in the last phase of our accession so that will be one more defeat for Russia here.”
Top of the Document
EFR:170220:(23-FEB-17):A Vote That Will Resonate Beyond France
Stratfor 20-Feb-17
Forecast
A low-growth economy, social tensions and popular discontent with traditional political parties will influence presidential and parliamentary elections in France between April and June.
A government led by the moderates would seek to further deregulate the French economy and modify labor legislation, but progress on those areas would probably be modest.
Even if an extremist party fails to win the presidency in 2017, the rise of far-right and far-left forces in France will continue to threaten the continuity of the eurozone.
Analysis
The eurozone could soon face a test of survival. The currency union's fate could hinge on the results of the presidential election in France, the eurozone's second-largest economy. French voters head to the polls in the two-round presidential election on April 23 and May 7, and a victory by National Front candidate Marine Le Pen would almost certainly bring about the end of the eurozone. Legislative elections will follow on June 11 and June 18. Inroads made in both elections by political forces that resist globalization and want to stop the process of European integration will have far-reaching effects on France and the eurozone.
France's economy will be a centerpiece election issue. The once-solid growth rate of its gross domestic product, which averaged 2.2 percent annually from 1995 to 2004, slowed to an anemic 0.7 percent from 2005 to 2014. There was some improvement in 2016, but its 1.2 percent growth still lagged the 1.7 percent eurozone average, and things do not look much better for 2017, with a projected growth rate of 1.6 percent. Unemployment among active job seekers in France has surpassed 9 percent every year since 2009, exceeding the EU average for the past three years. About one in every four jobs in France is provided by the public sector, leading to high taxes and public debt levels. Furthermore, France's complex labor regulations and generous employment benefits often inhibit job creation.
French economic prospects look dim. Being a eurozone member puts France in an economic straitjacket, preventing Paris from manipulating its currency to boost competitiveness. Its share of world exports has contracted since the start of the century. The European Commission recently warned that private consumption, one of the main drivers of the French economy, will probably fall as its citizens' purchasing power is eaten away by higher global fuel prices.
Social tensions will also influence political developments in France. Migrants, who represent about 10 percent of the country's population, are a source of frequent political and social friction. Over time, immigrant enclaves, consisting primarily of people from Muslim countries in North Africa, have formed in France's cities. These areas are often the epicenter of riots and crime — sometimes sources of radicalization.
Many French people feel that the migrant influx threatens their national identity, traditions and even their security. The fact that some perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks in France and Belgium were French nationals of Arab descent has inflamed social tensions. This is why millions of voters support politicians who promise to restrict immigration. Critics in migrant communities, on the other hand, point to French social and political systems that make it difficult for second- and even third-generation immigrants to integrate into French society.
Low economic growth and simmering social tensions feed a growing discontent with traditional political parties whose continued hold on power is a function of France's electoral system. In that system, both the president and members of parliament are appointed after two rounds of voting that ultimately narrow the choices to two candidates. The system was designed to prevent candidates from extremist parties, which have existed in France for decades, from winning the presidency or significant numbers of parliamentary seats. During the past decade, two political forces, the conservatives and the Socialists, have dominated French politics. But at a time when social discontent is high, outsiders are threatening the status quo.
Introducing the Candidates
Migration and security will be important topics during the presidential campaign, but there is little difference in the proposals the candidates offer. Most of the contenders are promising to increase spending on security and national defense, enhance the powers of security forces and introduce more restrictive immigration laws. The main ideological differences among the candidates show up in their economic proposals. Centrist and center-right candidates will focus on the need to deregulate and liberalize the French economy, while nationalist and left-wing candidates will propose an increase in protectionism and public spending.
Current polls project that nationalist candidate Marine Le Pen of the National Front party would capture about a quarter of the vote in the first round of the presidential election. The National Front's main proposal is to hold a referendum on France's exit from the eurozone. According to Le Pen, a return to the franc would enable France to regain competitiveness and increase its exports. She also plans to introduce a 3 percent tariff on imports and impose a 10 percent tax on the salaries of all foreign workers, including citizens of other EU states. These proposals go against the principles of the European Union's single market, an area where people, goods, services and capital move freely.
Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron, who is polling at about 20 percent, is pushing a business-friendly agenda. He has promised to reduce regulation in the French economy and liberalize labor rules, including a pledge to eliminate France's 35-hour workweek for young workers. He has also proposed decreasing work-related taxes and raising the retirement age. Although Macron served as minister for economy and finance under outgoing President Francois Hollande, he presents himself as an outsider to mainstream politics.
Republican Party candidate Francois Fillon has put deregulation, and especially labor reform, at the center of his economic agenda. He has promised to scrap the 35-hour workweek, reduce the number of workers in the public sector, raise the retirement age, cap unemployment benefits and cut public spending (except for areas such as defense). A recent scandal affecting Fillon and his family has damaged his popularity.
The field is trailed by Socialist Party candidate Benoit Hamon (polling at about 15 percent), who has promised to introduce a universal income of 750 euros (about $800) per month and reduce working hours, and Jean-Luc Melenchon (just over 10 percent), who wants to repeal the labor legislation introduced by the outgoing administration and raise wages in the public and private sectors. Hamon has expressed interest in a joint candidacy with Melenchon, believing that their electoral programs have some similarities. Melenchon, however, remains skeptical.
French candidates also have different views on foreign policy. Le Pen has been extremely critical of the European Union and would like to see France leave the bloc to restore full national sovereignty. Fillon supports France's EU membership but has said Paris should repatriate some powers from the central institutions in Brussels. Macron holds a more federalist view of the European Union and has supported plans such as the introduction of a common budget for the eurozone. On trade, Le Pen, Hamon and Melenchon are critical of free trade agreements, while Macron has defended the EU free trade agreement with Canada. Fillon has remained vague on the issue.
Russia is an equally divisive topic. The National Front is ideologically close to the Kremlin and has demanded that the European Union lift sanctions on Moscow. Fillon has warned against isolating Russia and also favors lifting the sanctions. Macron, however, has accused Russia of interfering with his campaign by hacking his website and planting false stories about him in the Russian media. He is in favor of keeping sanctions against Moscow in place. The EU sanctions on Russia are set to expire on July 31, right after the French elections. Extending them would require a unanimous vote by the bloc's 28 members. Italy, Austria and Hungary have all spoken against sanctions in the past, and without French support, Germany will have a hard time persuading the rest of the European Union to support an extension.
The Scenarios
Polls suggest that the National Front could reach the second round of the presidential election, where any rival would defeat it. But France's borrowing costs have slightly risen in recent weeks, showing that financial markets are not fully reassured by the polls. A victory by the National Front would probably set in motion a series of events that could result in the dissolution of the eurozone. The mere announcement of a referendum on France's eurozone membership would create panic across the currency area and force savers and governments to start taking pre-emptive measures, such as transferring money to safer banks in Northern Europe. Even if it failed to honor the promise of putting eurozone membership to a referendum, a government led by the National Front would likely introduce protectionist measures that would disrupt the European Union's free movement of goods, services, capital and people.
A victory by moderates would also create domestic and foreign challenges for the new French government. Many of the economic liberalization measures proposed by Macron and Fillon likely would lead to protests and strikes, forcing them to tone down their policies or abandon them altogether. Social and political pressure forced Hollande and his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, to abandon many of their electoral promises. They ended up focusing their terms on a handful of key reforms (pensions in Sarkozy's case and the labor market in Hollande's case).
A moderate French government would probably selectively challenge the European Union. A big part of the fight would focus on fiscal policies. Though most candidates have promised to keep France's deficit under control, they have also promised to demand more flexibility from Brussels in the enforcement of deficit limits in the European Union. The European Union recently warned that France's deficit is on course to reach 3.1 percent of GDP in 2018, exceeding the EU limit of 3 percent. No matter who wins the election, this will probably be a source of friction between Paris and Brussels.
France will continue to be interested in greater military and security cooperation in the European Union, especially after the Brexit deprives the bloc of one of its military stalwarts. The moderates are also interested in protecting France's political and economic alliance with Germany. But the nature of this alliance will depend on the party that wins the election. A conservative government would push for a repatriation of some powers from Brussels, while a centrist or center-left government would demand more risk-sharing mechanisms and more EU investment in member states. Both kinds of EU reform open the door to disagreements with Germany.
In the coming years, France's moderates will continue to face competition from populist and nationalist forces from the right and the left. Just as the National Front is likely to reach the second round of this year's presidential election, a far-left party could do the same in a future contest. Although diverging on many issues, they hold similar ideas when it comes to promoting protectionist measures and opposing globalization and the European Union. With French economic growth expected to remain modest, parties on both extremes will continue to flirt with access to power. This will present one of the most significant existential threats to the eurozone in its current form.
Top of the Document
IS-THE:170220:(23-FEB-17):Israeli report claims Hezbollah has obtained game changing weapons systems
BICOM (Britain Israel Communication & Research Centre 20-Feb-17
Israel has reportedly passed a warning to Hezbollah of a harsh Israeli response to any attack after reports that the group has obtained advanced weapons systems that intensify the threat presented by Hezbollah to Israel.
The warning is thought to have been passed to the terrorist group via an unnamed Arab emissary, who spoke to the London-based Lebanese newspaper Al-Hayat on Sunday.
Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman reported in Yediot Ahronoth that according to “very good sources” Hezbollah is believed to have obtained up to eight Yakhont shore-to-sea missiles, which he describes as an “equilibrium-breaking” weapon.
The Russian anti-ship Yakhont missile is considered to be the best of its kind in the world. Even the most advanced missile interception systems are unable to effectively intercept and destroy it. Israeli analysts believe that, with Yakhont missiles, Hezbollah could threaten Israeli military and civilian shipping as well as Israeli oil and gas rigs in the Mediterranean Sea and even the American Sixth Fleet.
Bergman’s report states that the information about Hezbollah’s acquisition was discussed among several Western intelligence officials at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend.
In December 2016 Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman said: “Israel has several red lines that it is not prepared to cross, including the smuggling of sophisticated or chemical weapons to Hezbollah.”
Israel has invested extensive efforts in trying to prevent weapons transfers to Hezbollah. Israel has confirmed carrying out several attacks on these weapons transfers since the beginning of the Syrian civil war.
Top of the Document
US-IN:170220:(23-FEB-17):We would rather have trade than aid, says India’s commissioner
Daily Telegraph 20-Feb-17
INDIA did not ask Britain for hundreds of millions of pounds in foreign aid and does not need the money, the country’s High Commissioner to the UK has said.
Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha said that while India is “grateful” for foreign aid, the money will not make a “huge difference” to the country’s rapidly expanding economy.
Conservative MPs have long expressed their anger at Britain’s aid contributions to India, pointing out that the country has its own space programme.
The UK sent India £279 million in aid in 2014 and there are plans to give India a further £130 million in “technical assistance” by 2018.
Mr Sinha said: “While we don’t want to prejudge British aid that has been given, or will be given, easier access to British markets, easier movement of people and the transfer of technology are more important.
“We are grateful for any assistance we received in the past or will get in the future. But if it suddenly stopped would it make a huge difference? No. Did anyone in the government of India ask for assistance? No.
“India has developed over the last 70 years in ways unimaginable to my parents’ generation.
“In the 1960s and 1970s we required a lot of assistance. We were importing food grains. Now we’re exporting.”
Mr Sinha said that the “sky’s the limit” for trade between Britain and India after Brexit. “We have a shared history and very much in common.
“We have a very vibrant Indian diaspora of 1.5 million British citizens or dual origins who live here and contribute very meaningfully – 1.8 per cent of the population contributes around six per cent of UK GDP.
“We are very proud of this. India and the UK share a history, a strong foundation.”
The High Commissioner’s remarks came amid reports that Downing Street officials and senior cabinet ministers believe part of the £12 billion a year aid budget should be diverted to Poland and the Baltic states in order to get them on side during Brexit talks.
One of the Prime Minister’s closest aides reportedly said that the plan would help reduce the “exit bill” the UK is expected to have to pay for leaving the EU. However, it was claimed that officials at the Department for International Development (DfID) had declared the plan illegal.
“It’s just not true that we can’t spend this money in eastern Europe,” a senior source told The Sunday Times.
“DfID doesn’t like tanks on its lawn. They think they’re the only department that should be spending any aid money. But there are people round the Cabinet table who think this money could be used better to promote British interests.”
A DfID source labelled the report a “concocted row”, adding: “It’s not happening.”
Top of the Document
RUK-RU:170220:(23-FEB-17):A Blockade Brings Eastern Ukraine to a Slow Boil
Stratfor 20-Feb-17
Analysis
Summary
An informal blockade of goods flowing out of rebel-controlled territories in the Ukrainian region of Donbas entered its third week on Feb. 21. Activists and opposition lawmakers are particularly focused on stopping shipments of anthracite coal produced in the region — an effort aimed, at least in part, at gaining favor with nationalist voters elsewhere in Ukraine. The threat of coal shortages has alarmed the government in Kiev, which has instituted emergency measures to forestall widespread blackouts. Activists will likely agree to end the blockade before the situation reaches that point, but Donbas will remain tense as conditions for violence ripen along the front lines.
Analysis
The blockade was initiated in late January by a group of around 100 activists consisting largely of veterans of the conflict in Donbas and opposition lawmakers, most notably from the right-wing Samopomich party. The activists have targeted several railway lines that are used to ship anthracite coal produced in the breakaway territories of Donetsk and Luhansk to thermal-electric plants elsewhere in Ukraine.
Anthracite coal is a key input for Ukrainian thermal power plants that supply electricity for households and industries alike. All of Ukraine's anthracite mines — the majority of which are owned by Rinat Akhmetov, an influential eastern Ukrainian oligarch who is unpopular with groups like Samopomich — are located in Donbas, particularly in territories now controlled by separatists. In fact, some 9 million of the 24 million tons of coal that Ukrainian power stations require annually comes from rebel-held areas.
Preventing Political Backlash
The activists argue that trade with the rebel territories is inappropriate given the ongoing conflict. They have also condemned what they describe as rampant smuggling taking place across the line of contact. But their motives are largely political. Samopomich, for example, is attempting to appeal to groups of voters — including in western Ukraine, where nationalism runs highest — who feel that Ukraine's leadership is profiting from the conflict through its trade with Donbas.
As a result, the blockade has been criticized not only by the rebel leadership but also by the Ukrainian government. Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman has said that the stoppage is creating a shortage of anthracite coal for Ukrainian thermal power plants, putting the supply of electricity to consumers across the country at risk. On Feb. 20, Groysman called for an urgent settlement to the matter. So far, the activists have shrugged off such pressure, saying the blockade is needed to end Ukraine’s energy dependence on the breakaway territories, along with trade and the inflow of contraband.
Ukraine’s ability to cope with the blockade is limited. On Feb. 14, Ukrainian Minister of Energy and Coal Ihor Nasalik said the country had around 842,000 tons of anthracite coal in reserves, while average daily consumption of the resource is 30,000 tons. This equates to enough supplies to keep power-generating systems operational for around 33 more days at normal rates of consumption. On Feb. 15, the Ukrainian government enacted a monthlong provisional state of emergency that came into force two days later limiting the use of coal supplies for energy generation and encouraging alternatives such as nuclear power. Ukrainian state energy firm Ukrenergo has guaranteed the stable operation of the national energy system, without power blackouts, until at least March 15.
To mitigate political blowback, the government is moving to pre-empt any potential blackouts and firmly place the blame on Samopomich. It is quite possible that the blockade could be settled through compromise legislation that labels the rebel territories as “Russian occupied" as a symbolic gesture to the protesters. Because the blockade is also being criticized by the United States, the European Union and ambassadors of G7 countries, the party will be under pressure on several fronts to agree to a deal. In fact, blockade activists and the Ukrainian government reportedly exchanged proposals on Feb. 21 related to lifting the blockade. So, the threat of significant blackouts and a long-term blockade is not very serious yet.
The Fighting Continues
Nevertheless, the situation in Donbas is precarious, since a cease-fire agreement reached last week at the Munich Security Conference shows no signs of holding. Fighting along the eastern Ukrainian line of contact initially escalated on Jan. 29, but a localized cease-fire on Feb. 4 briefly led to a decline in fighting. The truce allowed for some repairs to local infrastructure to take place in Avdiivka, a town outside of Donetsk that is home to an important coke factory. Over the past week, however — coinciding with the negotiations in Munich — the number of attacks on Ukrainian government positions and the number of people wounded and killed have returned to the levels seen prior to the cease-fire.
Reports also indicate that large numbers of fresh fighters continue to arrive in Donetsk, as well as heavy equipment such as tanks and Grad multiple rocket launcher systems. Moreover, when fighting first escalated in late January, Ukrainian forces advanced to new positions around Avdiivka, inside the no man’s land between them and separatist forces. The infusion of fighters and equipment — now in closer proximity to one another — increases the odds of skirmishes and sustained back-and-forth artillery fire. However, there is nothing yet to suggest that a larger offensive that would fundamentally reshape the front line is in the making.
Top of the Document
IS-UN-US:170220:(23-FEB-17):US Ambassador to the UN comes out swinging on Israel bias
Jerusalem Post 20-Feb-17
Haley’s courage and moral vision come to the UN at a time when Israel’s standing in the world is changing.
US Ambassador to the UN Haley discusses anti-Israel bias
In her first press briefing, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley came out swinging.
After sharing with reporters impressions from her first Security Council meeting on Middle East issues (“it was a bit strange”), Haley vowed that the US would no longer turn a blind eye to the UN’s outrageous bias against the Jewish state.
“We will not repeat the mistake of [Security Council] Resolution 2334 [which castigated Israel for settlement building], instead we will push for action on the real threats in the Middle East.”
Haley mentioned Hezbollah’s illegal buildup of rockets in Lebanon, the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists, strategies for defeating ISIS, and holding Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
None of these issues was raised at the meeting, Haley noted, yet the council did find the time to castigate Israel.
Throughout her short comment, the former governor of South Carolina articulated her criticisms respectfully, never once deviating from polite Southern etiquette.
Many of us in Israel gave up hope for change at the UN long ago. A lot of water has passed down the Jordan River since the UN voted in 1947 in favor of the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state.
Under Soviet influence and with the help of dozens of autocratic regimes in Africa, South America and the Middle East that are eligible to vote, the UN passed the 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution. It is the venue for the ludicrously named Human Rights Council, a body that gives special honors to moral luminaries such as Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Syria while issuing more condemnations against Israel than against all other countries in the world combined.
The UNHRC’s agenda item 7 dictates that Israel’s purported human rights violations must be raised and discussed every single time the UNHRC convenes.
In 2016 the General Assembly adopted 18 resolutions against Israel and the Security Council adopted 12 Israel- specific resolutions, “more than those focused on Syria, North Korea, Iran and South Sudan put together,” as Samantha Power, Haley’s predecessor, noted in her speech in defense of the US’s inexplicable abstention on resolution 2334.
Now with the rise of what The New York Sun referred to in an editorial as “Haley’s Comet,” there is new-found optimism that an institution thought to be irredeemably and incorrigibly slanted against Israel can be salvaged for the benefit of all mankind.
It will not be easy.
Haley related how the US sought unsuccessfully to get the Security Council to condemn a Palestinian terrorist attack in which a terrorist driver attempted to run over innocent Israelis and stab them. She said the council’s decision to block a statement of condemnation was “shameful.”
But Haley has no intention of giving up, and her indefatigable optimism that change is possible could be contagious. Maybe the UN really will abandon its obsession with Israel and begin living up to its true calling of mitigating conflicts and championing human rights. Before Haley’s arrival there was little reason for hope.
Attitudes toward Israel are changing with or without the UN. The Jewish state has succeeded in fostering new diplomatic relations, including with Muslim countries in Africa and Asia. And Iran’s increasingly bellicose behavior has brought Israeli interests in line with those of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. As Haley noted, Israel is recognized as a beacon of stability in a region overcome with turmoil. Its technological innovations and entrepreneurial spirit have made Israel a world leader in fields such as cyber security and water security.
Haley’s courage and moral vision come to the UN at a time when Israel’s standing in the world is changing. We are confident her first press conference is the opening salvo in a winning battle to end the UN’s bias against Israel.
Top of the Document
LIB-RU:170221:(23-FEB-17):Russia increases involvement in Libya by signing oil deal
The Guardian 21-Feb-17
Libyan national oil corporation says contract with Rosneft to redevelop oilfields lays groundwork for further investment
Russia has significantly boosted its involvement in Libya by signing a potentially major contract to help redevelop Libyan oilfields.
The head of the Libyan national oil corporation (NOC) signed a cooperation agreement with Rosneft, the Russian oil giant, which NOC said on Tuesday “lays the groundwork for investment by Rosneft in Libya’s oil sector”.
“The agreement envisages the establishment of a joint working committee of the two partners to evaluate opportunities in a variety of sectors, including exploration and production,” an NOC statement said.
Russia had extensive investments in Libya before the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and is eager to recover as many of them as possible in a country still plagued by violent conflict but keen to boost oil production with the help of foreign companies.
In recent months Vladimir Putin has become increasingly embroiled in the country as western-backed efforts to end the long-running political impasse have failed to soothe disagreements between factions in the east and the UN-recognised government of national accord (GNA) in Tripoli.
Russia is increasingly seen as a key player in persuading Khalifa Haftar, the head of the self-styled Libyan National Army based in the east of the country, to compromise over a future role in a new consensus government. Haftar’s forces control most of Libya’s oil resources.
Efforts to secure a new political future for Libya have stalled after the failure of an Egyptian-led process, which saw Haftar travel to Cairo but refuse to meet the leader of the GNA, Fayez al-Sarraj.
Despite the snub, Sarraj has agreed to changes in the composition of his government but, in a sign of the country’s fragility, he survived an assassination attempt on Monday in Tripoli along with two of his senior aides.
Haftar has sought Moscow’s help to battle Islamic State, but European diplomats fear he could join what has been described as Putin’s axis of secular authoritarians in the Middle East alongside the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi.
Libya is one of a handful of Opec members who have been spared the need to reduce crude oil production in the first half of this year. Opec and 11 independent oil producers have agreed to cut output by a total of 1.2m barrels per day. However, Iran, Nigeria and Libya were permitted not to cap and even to increase oil production due to their complicated political environments.
Italy’s Eni and France’s Total are working in Libya and Schlumberger , the world’s largest oilfield services company, resumed operations in the country about three months ago.
Mustafa Sanalla, the chairman of NOC, one of the few functioning, bipartisan technocratic bodies in Libya, signed the agreement with the Rosneft chairman, Igor Sechin.
“We need the assistance and investment of major international oil companies to reach our production goals and stabilise our economy,” said Sanalla. “This agreement with Russia’s largest oil company lays the foundations for us jointly to identify areas of cooperation. Working with NOC, Rosneft and Russia can play an important and constructive role in Libya.”
Top of the Document
LIB-RU:170221:(23-FEB-17):Rosneft, NOC agree to crude oil exploration cooperation
Financial Times 21-Feb-17
Libya’s state oil company has signed a preliminary agreement with Russia’s Rosneft for investment into its energy sector as the struggling north African nation seeks $20bn to boost crude output.
The preliminary agreement was signed on Tuesday in London by Mustafa Sanalla, the chairman of Libya’s National Oil Co, and Rosneft chairman Igor Sechin on the sidelines of the International Petroleum Week conference.
“The commitment shown by Rosneft and the presence of a company of this size in Libya will help stability after so many years of conflict,” Mr Sanalla told the Financial Times of Rosneft’s plan to expand into Libya for the first time. “I hope to see other international oil companies return.”
Rosneft’s accord with NOC comes as Russia tries to gain a larger grip on oil supplies in the Mediterranean and extend its influence in the Middle East and north Africa more broadly. The NOC agreement was announced alongside a separate deal to pre-finance crude exports from Kurdistan, making Rosneft the first major oil company to do so with the semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq. Rosneft recently acquired a stake in the Zohr gasfield in Egypt.
Mr Sanalla said Libya’s energy sector, the lifeblood of the country’s economy, needs $20bn in investment to reach an oil production target of 2.1m barrels a day by 2022. NOC and Rosneft also signed a crude oil offtake agreement, under which the Russian company will be a taker of future Libyan output.
Before the 2011 revolution that toppled the country’s longstanding dictator Muammer Gaddafi, Libya’s output was above 1.6m b/d. It then collapsed to a fraction of this level as conflict took hold and international oil companies halted operations. In the following years protests and blockades have proved obstacles to a return to full output, while a collapse in the oil price further shrunk NOC revenues.
However, in recent months the reopening of three major ports and a pipeline has helped Libya’s supplies improve, with production recovering to around 700,000 b/d.
Alongside funds from local lenders, Mr Sanalla is also seeking financing from international oil companies, which he hopes will revive the energy sector that has been hard hit by years of civil war, unrest and hundreds of billions of dollars of lost revenues. Libya is also in talks with OMV, ENI and Total, said Mr Sanalla.
The initial agreement would “lay the groundwork” for a more detailed contract within the next month, Mr Sanalla added. Exploration, production, technology and training for engineers are areas where Libya seeks investment.
One of the two Opec members exempted from a global supply cut deal, Libya hopes output will rise to 1.2m b/d by the end of the year. But output gains are dependent on investment as well as repairs to energy infrastructure.
Ongoing conflict between political factions based in Tripoli and the east of the country also threatens to hold back the oil industry’s recovery. Both sides have battled for control over the country’s natural resources.
The forces of eastern-based military commander Khalifa Haftar have only recently co-ordinated with the NOC in Tripoli following attempts last year by factions loyal to him to sell oil independently. General Haftar has sought help from Moscow in fighting Islamic State militants in the country.
Top of the Document
RUK-RU:170221:(23-FEB-17):A Blockade Brings Eastern Ukraine to a Slow Boil
Stratfor 21-Feb-17
Analysis
Summary
An informal blockade of goods flowing out of rebel-controlled territories in the Ukrainian region of Donbas entered its third week on Feb. 21. Activists and opposition lawmakers are particularly focused on stopping shipments of anthracite coal produced in the region — an effort aimed, at least in part, at gaining favor with nationalist voters elsewhere in Ukraine. The threat of coal shortages has alarmed the government in Kiev, which has instituted emergency measures to forestall widespread blackouts. Activists will likely agree to end the blockade before the situation reaches that point, but Donbas will remain tense as conditions for violence ripen along the front lines.
Analysis
The blockade was initiated in late January by a group of around 100 activists consisting largely of veterans of the conflict in Donbas and opposition lawmakers, most notably from the right-wing Samopomich party. The activists have targeted several railway lines that are used to ship anthracite coal produced in the breakaway territories of Donetsk and Luhansk to thermal-electric plants elsewhere in Ukraine.
Anthracite coal is a key input for Ukrainian thermal power plants that supply electricity for households and industries alike. All of Ukraine's anthracite mines — the majority of which are owned by Rinat Akhmetov, an influential eastern Ukrainian oligarch who is unpopular with groups like Samopomich — are located in Donbas, particularly in territories now controlled by separatists. In fact, some 9 million of the 24 million tons of coal that Ukrainian power stations require annually comes from rebel-held areas.
Preventing Political Backlash
The activists argue that trade with the rebel territories is inappropriate given the ongoing conflict. They have also condemned what they describe as rampant smuggling taking place across the line of contact. But their motives are largely political. Samopomich, for example, is attempting to appeal to groups of voters — including in western Ukraine, where nationalism runs highest — who feel that Ukraine's leadership is profiting from the conflict through its trade with Donbas.
As a result, the blockade has been criticized not only by the rebel leadership but also by the Ukrainian government. Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman has said that the stoppage is creating a shortage of anthracite coal for Ukrainian thermal power plants, putting the supply of electricity to consumers across the country at risk. On Feb. 20, Groysman called for an urgent settlement to the matter. So far, the activists have shrugged off such pressure, saying the blockade is needed to end Ukraine’s energy dependence on the breakaway territories, along with trade and the inflow of contraband.
Ukraine’s ability to cope with the blockade is limited. On Feb. 14, Ukrainian Minister of Energy and Coal Ihor Nasalik said the country had around 842,000 tons of anthracite coal in reserves, while average daily consumption of the resource is 30,000 tons. This equates to enough supplies to keep power-generating systems operational for around 33 more days at normal rates of consumption. On Feb. 15, the Ukrainian government enacted a monthlong provisional state of emergency that came into force two days later limiting the use of coal supplies for energy generation and encouraging alternatives such as nuclear power. Ukrainian state energy firm Ukrenergo has guaranteed the stable operation of the national energy system, without power blackouts, until at least March 15.
To mitigate political blowback, the government is moving to pre-empt any potential blackouts and firmly place the blame on Samopomich. It is quite possible that the blockade could be settled through compromise legislation that labels the rebel territories as “Russian occupied" as a symbolic gesture to the protesters. Because the blockade is also being criticized by the United States, the European Union and ambassadors of G7 countries, the party will be under pressure on several fronts to agree to a deal. In fact, blockade activists and the Ukrainian government reportedly exchanged proposals on Feb. 21 related to lifting the blockade. So, the threat of significant blackouts and a long-term blockade is not very serious yet.
The Fighting Continues
Nevertheless, the situation in Donbas is precarious, since a cease-fire agreement reached last week at the Munich Security Conference shows no signs of holding. Fighting along the eastern Ukrainian line of contact initially escalated on Jan. 29, but a localized cease-fire on Feb. 4 briefly led to a decline in fighting. The truce allowed for some repairs to local infrastructure to take place in Avdiivka, a town outside of Donetsk that is home to an important coke factory. Over the past week, however — coinciding with the negotiations in Munich — the number of attacks on Ukrainian government positions and the number of people wounded and killed have returned to the levels seen prior to the cease-fire.
Reports also indicate that large numbers of fresh fighters continue to arrive in Donetsk, as well as heavy equipment such as tanks and Grad multiple rocket launcher systems. Moreover, when fighting first escalated in late January, Ukrainian forces advanced to new positions around Avdiivka, inside the no man’s land between them and separatist forces. The infusion of fighters and equipment — now in closer proximity to one another — increases the odds of skirmishes and sustained back-and-forth artillery fire. However, there is nothing yet to suggest that a larger offensive that would fundamentally reshape the front line is in the making.
Top of the Document
IS-THE-MLE:170222:(23-FEB-17):Israel Air Force carried out airstrikes near Damascus overnight; Hezbollah claims IDF planted spy gear in southern Lebanon
News from Israel 22-Feb-17
Airstrikes reportedly targeted weapons convoy en route to Hezbollah & Syrian Army post; Mixed reports claim strikes carried out in Syria and in Lebanon; Hezbollah claims IDF planted spy gear in southern Lebanon Wednesday
The Israel Air Force carried out airstrikes northeast of Damascus overnight reportedly targeting a Hezbollah weapons convoy, Hezbollah additionally claiming that the IDF planted spyware devices in southern Lebanon.
According to mixed reports from Lebanese media, the airstrikes were carried out from Lebanese airspace between 3:00-4:00 am on targets in the Qalamoun Mountains, reports claiming Syrian Army positions and Syrian weapons convoys en route to Hezbollah in Al-Qutayfah were targeted.
The Syrian Army post targeted was that of the 155th Battalion reportedly, the battalion known for weapons transfers to Hezbollah in the past.
There were also reports that the airstrikes also hit a target in Lebanon with no details given. Hezbollah denied any attacks were carried out in Lebanon or even in Syria on Wednesday morning, claiming, however, that the IDF planted spy devices in southern Lebanon in the Qurum a-Shiqui region.
The terrorist organization claimed that they found cameras powered by solar transmitters on Wednesday morning and that the IDF infiltrated into Lebanon and planted the devices.
Residents in Syria and in the town of Al Katif reported explosions, with no reports of injuries. Residents of the Lebanese town of Nahla also reported hearing explosions.
As with all almost all covert Israeli operations in Syria, the IDF refused to comment on the airstrikes.
Israel reportedly last carried out airstrikes in Syria on January 13th of this year, the IAF thwarting a weapons transfer to Hezbollah from a military airport west of Damascus. Syrian media reported that that airstrikes killed a Syrian military officer and left several others dead.
The Syrian Army responded to the attacks, warning Israel that “The Syrian army command and armed forces warn the Israeli enemy of the repercussions of this blatant attack and stresses it will continue its war on terrorism,” warning that it would “amputate the arms of the perpetrators”.
In December, Israel carried out airstrikes in Syria, thwarting an attempted transfer of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. In a rare confirmation of the attacks, Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman confirmed the attacks. He stated at the time, “We will not allow any harm to come to the Israeli public; we will not allow anyone to undermine Israel’s sovereignty; and we will not allow the smuggling of sophisticated weapons or chemical weapons from Syria to Lebanon and to Hezbollah. One very important thing that everyone has to understand, is that Israel makes its own decisions, freely, within the scope of the policy, and there are no other limitations or circumstances to consider.”
Top of the Document
TU-NATO-RU:170223:(23-FEB-17):NATO member Turkey to acquire Russian S-400 missiles
DEBKAfile 23-Feb-17
Turkish Defense Minister Fikri Isik announced Wednesday that his country will acquire Russian S-400 "Triumf" surface-to-air missiles for Turkey's air defense system. Isik rejected opposition by officials from other NATO member states and said that he realizes that if Turkey acquires the system it will not be able to continue sharing military intelligence with NATO. The S-400 Triumf, one of the most advanced systems of its kind, is intended to shoot down any aircraft or ballistic missiles within a range of 400 kilometers. It can identify 80 targets when fully deployed. DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources report that there are concerns in the West that Russia will plant a secret code in the system that will provide Moscow with remote control and prevent any use of the S-400 against Russian planes or missiles.
Top of the Document
IS-UK:170223:(23-FEB-17):Call for interest: Israel
MaritimeUK 23-Feb-17 [Intrigued by this. Don.]
Are you aware of any maritime business or trade opportunities in Israel?
The UK Government have asked Maritime UK for details of potential maritime business and trade opportunities in Israel.
There is a potential Ministerial visit planned, and the Government is interested in including maritime within any programme.
If you have any awareness of opportunities, please get in touch with the SecretariaT.
.
Top of the Document
IS:170223:(23-FEB-17):Leviathan gas field developers approve $3.75 billion investment
Reuters 23-Feb-17
Developers of the Leviathan natural gas field have approved a $3.75 billion investment (FID) in the first phase of the largest energy project in Israel's history, they said on Thursday.
The reservoir, located 100 km (62 miles) west of Haifa, was discovered in December 2010. Its $3.75 billion budget follows $1 billion that has already been invested in exploration, appraisal and planning activities.
According to a development plan approved by the government in 2016, the project will be completed in less than three years and gas will be available to the Israeli market by the end of 2019.
Texas-based Noble Energy owns 39.7 percent of Leviathan, while Delek Drilling and Avner Oil Exploration, subsidiaries of Israel's Delek Group, each hold 22.7 percent. Israel's Ratio Oil holds 15 percent.
Ratio shares were up 2 percent in afternoon trade in Tel Aviv, while Delek Drilling and Avner were 1 percent higher.
The first stage of work will involve drilling four production wells at an average depth of around 5 km below sea level. These will produce about 12 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas annually, which will double the volume of gas available to the Israeli market.
"This is a day of good tidings for the economy and people of Israel. This move will provide gas to Israel and promote cooperation with countries in the region," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Twitter.
Top of the Document
RUK:170223:(23-FEB-17):Ukraine's Export Potential Faces Hurdles
Natural Gas World 23-Feb-17
Ukraine's reserves ought to make it a considerable gas exporter but the political will has so far been missing, the bureaucracy is painfully slow and changes to the tax regime have deterred investors, delegates at the IP Week conference in London heard February 22.
"A 55% royalty and selling only to [state monopoly] Naftogaz won't work. Nobody will invest," the CEO of independent JKX, Tom Reed, said. The rate has come down now but it is still unstable and still uncompetitive, he said.
While Ukraine's current production of 20bn m³/yr has barely changed since the break-up of the Soviet Union, before the discovery of Yamal reserves in western Siberia it was much higher and can be revived. The government is looking at annual output of no more than 27bn m³, but this could go up to 40bn m³/yr, Reed said, based on seismic analysis done on Ukrainian data in the US. This though would require US-style industrial hydraulic fracturing with shorter stages and proppants.
This would allow it to meet its 30bn m³/yr of domestic demand and export 10bn m³/yr. Instead, last year Ukraine imported just over 8bn m³, none of it contractually from Russia.
One of its licence areas, Rudenkivske, has 2.8 trillion ft³ of gas in place, he said; using US technology, the recovery factor would rise from under 2% today to between 25% and 50%; the lower end of that would mean over 600bn ft³ output, generating $3bn of revenue; "and this is not unique for Ukraine," he said.
The company still has some legal issues to sort out with Kiev, he said, but the aim is to "put it all behind us. There are a few details to tidy up" and then the company "will be ready for Rudenkivske." There may have been a lot of struggles but there is also a lot of money to be made, he said.
Reed has held the post for almost exactly a year; the previous board was voted out in a cash-free coup by Russian and Ukrainian business interests. Since then, the company's offices in Kiev and Poltava have been raided by police, which JKX regards as harassment.
After the latest raid on January 24, it said it "supports the intention of the government of Ukraine as expressed by Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman on 23 January, 'to declare war on everyone who hampers entrepreneurs creating new jobs and the government leading the country out of absolute poverty.'".
JKX has had setbacks in the courts too, pressing claims it inherited from the old management. It is pursuing repayment of excessive rental payments but in early February an international court rejected its claim for $168mn, awarding it just $11.8mn plus costs of $300,000, while finding that Kiev was in breach of some elements of a UK-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty.
In a statement February 7, Reed said the company "will continue to defend its position in the Ukrainian courts in all outstanding cases. At the same time, the company intends to begin a dialogue with the government of Ukraine in order to satisfy the terms of the award and reach a mutually beneficial outcome. We will call on the Ukrainian government to secure support in creating an environment in which JKX can execute its recently finalised field development plans, invest in gas production and assist Ukraine to achieve energy independence.”
JKX also has upstream positions in Hungary and Russia.
Top of the Document
EGR-EU:170221:(23-FEB-17):Bailout Is Back on Track
Stratfor 21-Feb-17
Editor's Note: Financial, political and social uncertainty has forced Greece's ruling Syriza party to cut a deal with the European Union — despite its campaign promises against it — to keep the economy afloat. Additional measures will generate more political discord, if not violence, throughout the country. The influx of migrants has only aggravated the problem. Below is a routinely updated chronicle of the most recent developments. The following piece provides updates to this crisis in real time.
Feb. 23: Berlin, IMF Near Agreement on Greek Bailout
Germany and the International Monetary Fund are moving closer to an agreement on the Greek bailout. On Feb. 22, after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, IMF chief Christine Lagarde said that Athens needs to focus on tax and pension reforms. Most notable, she said Greece does not need a debt write-down, but rather a debt restructuring. According to Lagarde, this could be discussed toward the end of the bailout program in mid-2018.
The IMF's position is not entirely new. In the past, the institution has suggested that a moratorium be placed on Greek debt repayments until 2040. It has also proposed that Greece's debt maturities be extended into the 2080s and that the debt be given fixed interest rates. But the institution has maintained that it could not join the bailout until there was a program in place to make Athens' debt sustainable. Lagarde's apparent willingness to delay such discussions until next year suggests that the IMF may join the current program without an immediate plan on Greek debt in place. That said, the IMF will probably continue insisting on the need to introduce structural reforms in Greece.
This timeline fits Germany's interests. Berlin promised the German parliament that the IMF would be involved in the Greek program. But Germany holds general elections in September, and Berlin does not want to make any significant debt concessions to Greece before the vote. At the same time, Merkel probably wants to avoid an escalation of the Greek crisis during the electoral campaign, which suggests that Berlin is also interested in a temporary agreement with Athens.
Lagarde's statements came after the Greek government and its lenders agreed on Feb. 20 to allow inspectors from the creditors to return to Athens to continue their evaluation of the bailout program. In recent days, the European Union and the IMF also appear to have reached an understanding on Greece's fiscal targets.
But while these developments broke the impasse between Greece and the creditors, there are still significant hurdles to overcome. In the coming weeks, Athens has to introduce controversial reforms on taxes, pensions and labor legislation. The creditors, in turn, have yet to decide when and how Greece will receive fresh bailout funds. Greece does not face significant debt repayments until July, which means that both parties still have time to work through such complications.
The recent change in tone in the negotiations between Greece, the EU institutions, Germany, and the IMF, has put the bailout program back on track. But with politically tough reforms still ahead for Athens, there will be ample opportunities for a return of friction and uncertainty.
Feb. 21: Bailout Is Back on Track
On Feb. 20, Greece and its creditors reached an agreement that will allow representatives from the lenders to return to Athens and continue their review of the Greek bailout program. The compromise was made possible by Greece's promise to introduce economic reforms that would enter force after the rescue program finishes in mid-2018.
While the Feb. 20 deal puts the Greek bailout largely back on track, several issues remain unaddressed. First, no agreement was reached on when and how Greece will receive the next tranche of its bailout money. This is not an urgent issue, because Greece's next big debt repayment — around 6 billion euros ($6.3 billion) — is not due until July. But the creditors will demand that Athens complete a list of reforms in areas such as taxation, pensions and labor before receiving any fresh funds.
A more urgent unresolved issue is the role of the International Monetary Fund in the Greek bailout. Germany and other EU members want the IMF to participate in the rescue, but the institution has so far refused to join, arguing that the fiscal targets included among the conditions for the bailout are not viable. More important, the IMF believes that Athens should be granted debt relief — a concession that the German government will consider unacceptable during the run up to its general elections in September.
In recent weeks, German officials have held several conversations with IMF representatives: German Chancellor Angela Merkel will meet with IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde in Berlin on Feb. 22, demonstrating that the negotiations have reached the highest political levels. German media recently reported that the IMF would provide some 5 billion euros to the Greek bailout. If confirmed, this would be a smaller contribution than originally planned, but it would be enough to comply with the promise made to the German parliament that the IMF would participate in the Greek rescue. However, the IMF will probably make involvement contingent on Berlin vowing to consider some form of debt relief in the future.
Meanwhile, Athens will have to find a way to sell this agreement to the Greek public, as well as to its parliament. In recent weeks, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras' administration said it would not accept additional austerity measures. After the Feb. 20 agreement was announced, Athens modified its rhetoric to say that the new measures would be "fiscally neutral," promising that spending cuts would be offset by tax reductions. So far, Tsipras has managed to keep dissent inside the ruling Syriza party within tolerable limits. But in the coming weeks, he will have to once again convince lawmakers to approve controversial economic reforms.
Top of the Document
THA-TFA:170223:(23-FEB-17):Hamas and Fatah: In Transition but No Less Divided
Stratfor 23-Feb-17
Forecast
Hamas and Fatah's efforts to consolidate their leadership will not be enough to push them toward unity.
As Israel encourages more settlement activity on the West Bank, emboldened by the new U.S. administration's support, the risk of an escalation of conflict in the area will grow.
Relations between Hamas and Egypt will continue to improve as Cairo turns to the party for help in advancing its own security.
Analysis
The rivalry between Fatah and Hamas, the Palestinian Authority's two main political parties, is a fierce one. But despite their intractable differences, the two organizations have a lot of similarities. Fatah and Hamas face common pressures, for instance, not only from their support bases in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but also from regional powers such as Turkey and Egypt. Over the past few months, they have both undertaken leadership transitions to prepare for hard days ahead, restructuring their chains of command by installing younger leaders in prominent positions. And now that Israel has the unequivocal support of the new U.S. administration, the parties have more incentive than ever to band together to advance the Palestinian cause. Nonetheless, their common concerns will not bring Hamas and Fatah any closer together, nor will they bring the region any closer to peace.
Changing With the Times
The strain on Hamas, the primary political party in the Palestinian Gaza Strip, is heavy and multifaceted. The rise of competing Salafist organizations, as well as the Islamic State, in Gaza has made it harder for Hamas to sustain its recruitment levels and legitimacy. At the same time, the party's militant arm has been losing access to crucial supply lines. The Sinai Peninsula's Islamic State affiliate has set up a blockade against Hamas in retaliation for the party's refusal to work with the extremist group. To make matters worse, Egypt and Turkey — two of Hamas' most important sources of supplies — have cracked down on its smuggling operations and militancy in an effort to maintain stable relations with Israel. (Cairo also hopes the crackdown will help alleviate the security problems plaguing the Sinai Peninsula.) Now Hamas is at their mercy — and Israel's — for basic supplies. The party has turned to Iran, which has historically provided Hamas arms and other material assistance, to fill in the gaps. But it is unclear whether Tehran has managed to furnish weapons and materiel to Hamas given the close eye that Egypt — and, of course, Israel — has been keeping on the group.
In the West Bank, meanwhile, Fatah has also been under mounting domestic and external pressure. Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas seems to have overstayed his welcome in power, having ruled long past his legal term limit to the growing dismay of many Palestinian voters. Outside the West Bank, regional powers such as Jordan, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have been pushing Abbas to leave his office to a younger leader such as Mohammed Dahlan. Dahlan is a controversial figure, but he has popular appeal in the Palestinian Authority and possesses considerable connections in the region. What's more, Dahlan, who lives in Abu Dhabi, has demonstrated a willingness to listen to the Palestinian Authority's Arab allies. At the latest party congress in December, however, Abbas sidestepped him and the other candidates that Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan had championed and instead named loyalists, including his own sons, to Fatah's leadership positions. Abbas likewise had a hand in sidelining Marwan Barghouti, who remains a popular politician in the West Bank despite currently serving a term in Israeli prison. If Fatah's leaders keep defying their Arab allies, and if Abbas continues to micromanage his succession, the party could lose legitimacy among voters. The aging Palestinian president may learn this lesson the hard way during the next elections, slated for May.
Abbas' intransigence notwithstanding, Hamas and Fatah have each introduced changes in their leadership to maintain legitimacy and relevance among their constituents. In February, Hamas installed a new deputy leader, Yahya Sinwar, thereby setting the stage for the incumbent deputy to eventually take over as head of the entire organization. Similarly, Fatah elected its first party vice president, Mahmoud al-Aloul. The shake-up was part of the party's efforts to prepare for the next security crisis in the West Bank, which appears all the more inevitable and imminent as Israeli settlements in the area proliferate.
Poor Prospects for Peace
The leadership transitions in Hamas and Fatah will do little to keep another incident with Israel at bay. In fact, they will only increase the risk of conflict. Hamas' new leader, Sinwar, hardened after years spent in Israeli prisons, is more militant than his successor was and hardly heralds a turn to moderation or reform for the party. Furthermore, since Israel's government has stronger support from the United States than ever, its leaders on the far right feel emboldened to move ahead with their assertive settlement policy (despite the U.S. administration's ambivalence on the issue). In the process, they could lay the groundwork for a third intifada. Palestinians in the West Bank typically lack access to heavy weapons or bombmaking supplies, but they could always resort to knife and vehicular attacks.
To mitigate the risk of another escalation, Israel and the United States have proposed calling on the region's Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, to use their sway in the Palestinian Authority to improve the prospects for a new round of peace negotiations. Their failed efforts to persuade Abbas to step down, however, bode ill for that initiative. In their past attempts to usher Palestinian leaders to the negotiating table, these countries have never managed to overcome the differences that divide the Palestinian camp. That discord enables Israel to claim that the Palestinian Authority is not a reliable negotiating partner, preventing any meaningful progress in talks. A fresh attempt at peace talks would be no different. Though Hamas and Fatah reached an agreement in January to try to build a unity government and hold a long-overdue joint council meeting, the parties are still at odds over a host of issues. Before they can make an earnest attempt to reconcile, both parties must overcome their internal problems.
In light of the perpetual danger of escalation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, other countries in the region will do their part to try to keep the peace, however tenuous. Egypt could play a central role in this effort. The country is important to Hamas, and its influence with the party has grown over the past two years. Egypt, meanwhile, depends on Hamas to help contain the growing threat of militancy on the Sinai Peninsula from extremist groups such as the Islamic State. In fact, the rise of the Islamic State has brought Egypt, Hamas and Israel together to fight their common enemy, more or less as allies. Workable relations with Hamas will also help Egypt manage its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. (Cairo suspects that Hamas has links with that group's violent offshoots.) Egypt's relationship with Hamas puts it in an ideal position to circumvent a potential conflict with Israel, or at least moderate one before it gets out of hand. Egypt did that in 2014, settling a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. In the years since, its ties with Hamas have improved significantly. Turkey, another important backer for Hamas, is also poised to intercede if needed.
The prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority depends as much on the competing political groups in Gaza and the West Bank as it depends on Israel's internal dynamics. Unless Fatah and Hamas can manage their leadership transitions while maintaining the support of their constituents, peace negotiations will continue to fail before they even begin. But for now, the leaders of both parties are focused on their political survival.
Top of the Document
IS-AU:170223:(23-FEB-17):Netanyahu hopes to triple Israel-Australia trade
Associated Press 23-Feb-17
'Our trade is $1 billion. It should be at least double or triple that,' the Israeli prime minister tells his Australian counterpart Malcolm Turnbull during visit to Sydney; the two governments signed cooperation agreements on technological innovation and air services.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that he hoped to triple bilateral trade with Australia as the countries forge closer technology and aviation ties.
Bilateral trade is currently worth about $1 billion a year, with Israel sending less than one percent of its exports Down Under and Australian products accounting for just 0.3 percent of Israel's imports.
"Our trade is $1 billion. It should be at least double or triple that," Netanyahu said as he sat for talks with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Australian government ministers in Sydney.
"I'd like to encourage the Australian and Israeli companies to increase in trade," he said.
"If I did the schlep, they should do it too," he added, referring to the 14,200-kilometer (8,800-mile) journey between Sydney and Tel Aviv.
His comments came after he and Turnbull oversaw the signing of agreements for more cooperation between Israel and Australia on technological innovation and air services during the second day of his four-day visit.
Netanyahu visited Sydney Jewish school Moriah College, where he was mobbed by cheering primary students, while his wife Sara earlier shared morning tea with Lucy Turnbull at Jesse's kosher bakery.
While Netanyahu has enjoyed a warm welcome from Turnbull and Sydney's Jewish community, Palestinian supporters will rally in downtown Sydney on Thursday night to protest Israel's settlement expansion in the West Bank.
The Australian National Imams Council also released a statement accusing Israel of committing brutalities against Palestinians and urged Turnbull to demand Israel end its "illegal settlement" and respect the rights of the Palestinians.
Top of the Document
EGE:170223:(23-FEB-17):Germany Leads Major Economy Growth in 2016 with a 1.9% Advance
MSN. 23-Feb-17
Germany's economy expanded at the fastest pace in five years in 2016, according to data published Thursday, as a weaker euro helped lift exports and domestic demand boosted growth to the strongest level of any advanced nation in the world.
Europe's biggest economy grew 0.4% in the final three months of last year, the country's official statistics office Destatis said Thursday, taking the full year advance to 1.9%, the strongest pace of growth since 2011. Domestic demand added 0.9% to the quarterly reading, Destatis said, while exports grew 1.8% from the same period last year and imports were up 3.1%.
A revision from the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics earlier this week, which trimmed full-year growth for the British economy to 1.8%, means that Germany was the fastest-growing advanced economy in the world.
Data published Wednesday also indicates that the Germany economy has kept its sound footing into the start of this year, as a key indicator of business confidence matched the highest level four years.
The Ifo Institute's benchmark Business Climate Index was measured at 111.0 in February -- matching a four-year high -- and well ahead of the 109.6 reading forecast by analysts and up from a 109.8 reading in January. The Institute's survey of current conditions for the 7,000 company executives remained steady at 116.9 points against a forecast of 116.7 while the index of expectations for the next six months improved to 104.0 from 103.2 in the previous month.
The figures follow data released Tuesday that showed European private sector economic activity surged to its fastest pace in nearly six years as factories in Germany fulled job creation and France's service sector boomed.
IHS Markit Economics' composite reading of Eurozone growth rose to 56.0 in February, up from 54.4 in January and the highest reading since April 2011. Readings above 50 generally indicated economic growth. Markit's measure of manufacturing activity rose to 57.2, another 70-month high (up from 56.1 in January) while the pace of activity in the services sector jumped to 55.6 from a previous reading of 53.7.
The figures indicate first quarter GDP growth of around 0.6%, Markit said, noting that job creation in the services sector rose to its strongest pace in more than nine and a half years and manufacturing headcount surged to a six-year high. Exports also grew the most since April 2011 "due to the combination of rising demand and the weaker euro", Markit said.
Top of the Document
UK-ME:170222:(23-FEB-17):Following its economic reach, U.K. expands its military presence in Persian Gulf
Star Tribune 22-Feb-17 [Int. uses the term merchants to describe the British! Don]
Britain is looking to make weapons sales and other deals in the Persian Gulf to balance its separation from the E.U.
JUFAIR NAVAL BASE, BAHRAIN – The scenario for naval exercises carried out off the Iranian coast earlier this month was thinly disguised. "Redland and Grunland are regional rivals," read the brief, code apparently for Saudi Arabia and Iran.
"Relations have recently degraded with aggressive rhetoric coming from both sides." Leading the way through the Strait of Hormuz was HMS Ocean, the Royal Navy's flagship until its two new aircraft carriers enter service. American and French warships sailed close behind.
Forty-five years after a withdrawal that the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, describes as mistaken, Britain is back in the gulf. The union flag flutters over the new Juffair naval base in Bahrain. More military installations are sprouting in Dubai and Oman. Bahrain's rulers have covered their island in posters lauding "200 years of friendship and peace" with Britain. So copious are Gulf investments in London that Britain's capital is the "eighth emirate," said Johnson.
Brexit has given added impetus to Britain's renewed interest in the region. Just as it ended colonial rule of the gulf on the eve of its accession in 1973 to the European Economic Community, so now Britain is wooing old partners with a succession of visits. British forces will redeploy to Oman after they pull out of Germany in 2019. Merchants offering everything from weapons to sand for golf bunkers have made the gulf Britain's largest export market after the E.U. and America. London fund managers play on jitters over gulf stability to attract locals' wealth. Such landmarks as the Shard, the Olympic Village and Harrods — all Qatari-owned — are testaments to their success. Even City Hall, the seat of London's mayor, belongs to Kuwait.
Britain's pretensions can seem overblown. Behind the hype, the Juffair base amounts to little more than a pier inside the sprawling base of America's Fifth Fleet. Britain's flotilla of seven warships in the gulf looks puny next to America's 40, complete with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with decks the area of three football fields.
On his last visit to Bahrain as defense secretary, Ash Carter seemed to scoff at suggestions that Britain might replace a wary America. "There aren't any good alternatives," he said.
That said, potentates who bridled at the restrictions the Obama administration placed on arms exports find Britain's government less persnickety. It licenses arms exports to all gulf regimes and supports their forces of law and order (in 2015 a stink about a contract between Britain's justice ministry and the Saudi prison service led to the deal's cancellation). BAE Systems, an arms manufacturer, is one of Saudi Arabia's largest private-sector employers. Activists have gone to court in Britain to challenge the legality of over $4.1 billion of arms sales to Saudi Arabia since the onset of its Yemen war in March 2015.
With Iran across the water, many gulf leaders seem happy to pay for British protection. Indeed, many trained at Britain's military college, Sandhurst, before Britain backed their succession. Oman's sultan, Qaboos bin Said al-Said, served with the Scottish Rifles in Germany.
But Britain also risks making enemies. Oman-watchers in London fear for their relationship (and the defense contracts) when the ailing sultan dies.
"Money plowed into arms deals should be spent internally. The security challenges the gulf faces are internal, not external," said an Omani official. Britain's role as protector of Bahrain's king infuriates the island's suppressed Shias. "Of all the main Western embassies, only Britain keeps its distance," said a Shia elder. Abu Taqi, the father of a stone-thrower who was shot dead, curses Britain for befriending Bahrain's rulers.
Top of the Document
-----------------------
Milestones Snippets
17-23 Feb 2017
8
8
1a
To subscribe/unsubscribe email snippets@ Your name, country and ecclesia are helpful! for books, creation DVD’s, Prophecy Days details etc. Bro Don Pearce. Rugby UK.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- euractiv bible truth prophecy
- euractiv in depth bible study videos
- russia wikileaks
- com
- stc 2015 draft general report on russia military modernization
- headlines in partnership with prophecy update
- asdfasdfasdfasf european commission
- kaliningrad in the russian security debate
- 162 dscfc 16 e rev 1 fin nato and the future of naval power
Related searches
- bible prophecy timeline chart
- revelation prophecy chart printable
- revelation prophecy chart
- the revelation prophecy chart pdf
- revelation bible prophecy chart
- false prophecy in the bible
- what is truth bible study
- latest prophecy on donald trump
- latest prophecy on president trump
- prophecy on trump re election
- donald trump in bible prophecy 2020
- latest trump prophecy for 2020