Remember Me



61 at midnight


With the deadline for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to present his new government to President Reuven Rivlin fast approaching, Israeli newspapers lead their Wednesday editions with what Israel Hayom calls 'last-minute wrangling.' Shas, Kulanu and United Torah Judaism are already on board. Netanyahu's attention is now focused on Habayit Hayehudi, which – with eight seats in the Knesset – would take his coalition up to 61 members in the 120-member parliament.

But Habayit Hayehudi leader is playing hardball, according to the lead story in all the papers. Having already been told that he will not get the position of foreign minister, Naftali Bennett has agreed to make do with the education post. But he's also demanding that party member Ayelet Shaked be appointed justice minister. According to reports on Wednesday morning, Likud officials say that he's likely to get his way. Shaked has spearheaded the right's attempts to curb judicial activism, and the left has been expressing its distress in recent days over the possibility she will become justice minister.

'We are likely to accept Habayit Hayehudi's appeal for the justice portfolio,' one senior Likud official told Haaretz. 'Bennett extorted us, and in this case, it seems his extortion will work for him. But extortion comes at a price, and Bennett will have to pay dearly in the future.'

'It seems Netanyahu has managed to consolidate a coalition of 61 Knesset seats and he can inform the president of such.' he added. 'What's going to happen after that? Will the Zionist Union join? A decision has still not been made about that.'

In other news, the Internet news sites report on another alleged Israeli airstrike on a missile stockpile in Sudan. A London-based Arabic news outlet reported early Wednesday that officials and residents of the Sudanese city of Omdurman said foreign warplanes struck a military installation nearby late Tuesday night. A Sudanese army spokesperson denied that any Sudanese facilities had been struck, confirming only that anti-aircraft fire had been directed against an object in the sky.

Witnesses in Omdurman said they saw and heard large explosions at a military site near the city, which sits across the Nile River from the capital Khartoum, the Al-Araby al-Jadeed news outlet reported. Witnesses told the paper they thought the planes had come from Israel, which has been fingered for airstrikes in Sudan in the recent past. Early unconfirmed reports of the strike indicated the jets may have targeted a missile depot holding arms destined for Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The Israel Defense Forces did not immediately respond to the reports, Army Radio reported. According to the report, Sudanese forces fired anti-aircraft weapons at the planes. A Sudanese official told al-Araby al-Jadeed that the explosions were the result of airstrikes from a 'foreign entity.' But, a spokesman for the Sudanese military told Sky News in Arabic that there had been no attack identified. He said anti-aircraft fire had been shot at something in the sky resembling a missile or jet.

Finally, Ynet reports that the Israeli government announced Wednesday that it has cancelled its plan to sell drones to Ukraine. Senior officials said that the decision occurred after a telephone conversation between Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin.


BENNETT'S BLUNDER: Writing in Israel Hayom, Mati Tuchfeld warns Naftali Bennett that if he pushes Binyamin Netanyahu too hard, he could discover that the prime minister prefers to establish a less right-wing government with Isaac Herzog instead.

"Anyone who is keeping close tabs on the never-ending saga of coalition negotiations will find it hard to understand the disconnect between the people and the politicians. The election ended weeks ago – it was so long ago that we've almost forgotten it even happened – but instead of getting down to work and carrying out the reforms they promised, the politicians are still preoccupied with themselves and with grabbing more and more titles and portfolios. They will use up every minute that the law allows them to.

After every election campaign – and this has been true for decades – someone will kick up a stink about the bloated government, the number of ministers and other officials. But no one has been complaining about the latest phenomenon, in which party leaders demand at least three ministries and in which every minister feels underprivileged if he or she isn't in charge of at least two budget-rich offices.

Habayit Hayehudi leaders and members are disgruntled over the outcome of the coalition negotiations. But the leaders and the rank-and-file members have very different reasons to feel discriminated against. Naftali Bennett is extremely agitated by the fact that he has been forced to give up his dream of becoming foreign minister and, instead, will have to make do with the education position. Even when he tried to tell us that education minister is the position he always wanted, very few people believed him.

Habayit Hayehudi voters, meanwhile, are primarily angry that their party has ceded exclusive control of the Religious Affairs Ministry and the rabbinical courts to Shas. Their anger is directed at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Bennett is using that anger to justify his latest efforts to get more ministerial postings out of the negotiations. But the truth is that it was Bennett himself who gave away the Religious Affairs Ministry and the rabbinical courts. The coalition agreement between Likud and Shas was shown to the Habayit Hayehudi chairman at least 24 hours before it was signed – but he did not respond.

It is still not clear what the situation will look like when Netanyahu's deadline for forming a new coalition ends at midnight tonight, although the general consensus is that the prime minister will be able to inform President Reuven Rivlin that he has formed a new government. After Avigdor Lieberman's great betrayal of right-wing voters two days ago, Bennett must surely know that he will be playing a dangerous game if he follows a similar path. Lieberman's supporters are not the same as Bennett's supporters. Those who voted for Habayit Hayehudi, unaware perhaps of what is happening behind closed doors in the coalition negotiations, are angry with Netanyahu – but to translate that anger into a move that would overthrow a right-wing government would be a serious error of judgment. After all, no one on the right has forgotten how the Shamir government was booted out of office by right-wing parties protesting at his participation in the Madrid peace conference – and how the subsequent election paved the way for the Rabin government, which went on to sign the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. If Netanyahu is prevented from forming a new government, it will almost certainly spell the end of Bennett's political career as well.

Even if Bennett wins this disconnected game of 'who will blink first' and even if he gets the honors that he feels he deserves, he could soon find out that it was a pyrrhic victory. Likud voters want a right-wing government to be installed. But if they feel that the prime minister they voted into power has been the victim of political extortion even before his government has been formed, they will give him the green light to replace Bennett with Isaac Herzog and his Zionist Union party at the first opportunity. All the signs are that Herzog is sitting at home next to the telephone, just waiting for Netanyahu to call."



FIVE QUESTIONS: Writing in Maariv, Amos Gilboa has five questions about U.S. President Barack Obama's policy regarding Iran and the Middle East in general – and concludes that he wants the Islamic Republic to be the United States main ally in the region.

"There are five questions that I would like to pose, in an effort to understand what is behind U.S. President Barack Obama's Middle East policy in general and his handling of the Iranian nuclear issue in particular.

Question 1: From the outset, Obama's stated goal was to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He believed that doing so would encourage stability across the region and would allow Israel to form a strategic alliance with 'moderate' Arab countries – mainly Saudi Arabia – against the Iranian threat.

The obvious and simple question is: What prevented the Obama Administration from forming exactly that kind of anti-Iranian coalition without Israel? Why did he need Israel to be involved? Why have we not witnessed any concerted American effort to create such an alliance? Why, instead of focusing on Iran, has Washington been so obsessed by Israeli construction in the Har Homa neighborhood of Jerusalem?

Question 2: In the summer of 2009, Iran held a presidential election, which saw Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reelected. The reelection of the hard-line leader sparked mass protests on the streets of Tehran, in what was popularly known as the 'Green Revolution.' The repressive ayatollah regime was under threat and the West's hope of regime change in the Islamic Republic looked like it was coming true. The ayatollahs, however, brutally put down the embryonic revolution. The protestors on the streets of Tehran, like many other people in the West, looked to the Obama Administration – the symbol of liberalism – to come out firmly in favor of the protestors. But Obama remained silent, the protestors were massacred and the 'Green Revolution' was crushed. Why did Obama not speak out?

Question 3: It is in Iran's national interests to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria; he is a vital channel for Iran's sphere of influence and for Hizbollah, its ally in Lebanon. And yet, in the summer of 2013, Obama refused to launch a military operation against Syria, even though Assad and his regime had been using chemical weapons to attack their own people. Instead, Obama agreed to a Russian proposal to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons. In exchange, Assad remained in power, the United States stopped demanding his unconditional resignation and he was given the green light to continue massacring his own people with chemical and conventional weapons. Given Obama's propensity to weep bitterly over every child killed in Gaza, why did Obama act in this way?

Question 4: In its handling of the Iranian nuclear crisis, the Obama Administration displayed three main policy traits: it was more hesitant than the European Union in imposing crippling sanctions; it was genuinely afraid that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear facilities and invested all its time and energy in trying to prevent that from happening; and it demonstrably refused to create any credible threat of American military action against Iran, preferring instead merely to reiterate, time after time, that 'all the options are on the table.' Why?

Question 5: In March 2013, the Obama Administration began a series of top secret meetings with officials from the Ahmadinejad government, some five months before the allegedly moderate Hassan Rowhani was elected. The meetings were concealed from all of the United States' allies, including Israel. Why?

The answers to all the above questions are, of course, complex and varied. But there is one possible answer that needs to be examined: that the Obama Administration's strategic goal is to promote Iran – the fastest-growing regional power – to a central position in the Middle East, in the hope that this would encourage stability and would allow the United States to focus on its new strategic goal – China. If this is true, then it has countless ramifications, but one stands out: the United States' obsessive pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran is the main tool that the Obama Administration is using to turn Iran into its key Middle Eastern ally."



HERE WE GO AGAIN: Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Eitan Haber says that, if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can only put together a coalition of 61 lawmakers, it's only a matter of time before we are asked to go back to the polls.

"If Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ends up with a narrow, 61-member government, Israeli citizens would be justified in recalibrating their course and starting to prepare for the next election. It will only be a matter of months before they are once again asked to go to the polls. And if that happens, Netanyahu will have to use all of his considerable political acumen and acrobatics to remain in office.

Make no mistake about it: there have been governments in Israel that have been based on the slenderest of parliamentary majority, yet have managed to do great things. The second Menachem Begin government, for example, only had the support of 61 Knesset members – yet still had the audacity of spirit to launch the first Lebanon War. Ariel Sharon only managed to pass his disengagement plan with the help of the Labor Party and the second part of the Oslo Accords only became official government policy by two votes. So is there a chance that Netanyahu will follow in the footsteps of Begin, Sharon or Rabin? But Netanyahu is no Begin, Sharon or (especially) Rabin. He's Bibi, for better and for worse.

More significantly, however, times have changed. What has happened in Israeli politics of late to make governing the country so hard and what is it that will force us (or give us the opportunity, depending on one's point of view) to hold fresh elections? With all due respect to democratic life here – and I have every respect – it seems that the brunt of blame can be placed at the feet of the various political parties' primaries. What was once a symbol of the democratic process has become an axe that is chopping up Israeli democracy.

Allow me to explain. The key to success in Israeli politics today is name recognition. Success in primaries is based first and foremost on how famous the candidate is. A candidate could be a war hero, a great statesman or a stand-out figure from any walk of life, but if the public doesn't know his name, he won't get elected. Every candidate knows this to be true: in internal primaries, party members often vote for the most well-known candidate. That is why political hopefuls are willing to do almost anything they can to ensure that their name is mentioned as much as possible.

The first person to recognize this change in the nature of Israeli politics was Binyamin Netanyahu, who first came to public attention because his surname is associated intuitively by Israelis with the raid on Entebbe (where Netanyahu's brother, Yoni, lost his life). Even today, many Israeli erroneously believe that Yoni Netanyahu was the commander of that operation, thanks to the prime minister's constant referencing of his late brother. In fact, Dan Shomron was the commander of that daring operation. By the time the next Likud primary comes around, Oren Hazan will be the most recognized name in Israeli politics. He can thank his lucky stars that the media went crazy when it discovered that his last job was manager of a casino in Bulgaria and that his father – former MK Yehiel Hazan – was infamous for being caught on camera voting in place of an absent colleague on a key piece of economic legislation. That may be ridiculous and almost funny – but it's the truth.

When politicians place well in internal primaries, they automatically think that they have achieved success by themselves and that they don't owe anyone anything. Every bastard's a king, after all. Therefore, MKs today allow themselves to do things that their predecessors would never do: they ignore higher-ranking decision makers and do whatever they want – both as individuals and as a collective. There is no better way to draw up a list of candidates for a party's slate than primaries, but it's worth remembering that primaries got us into this mess in the first place. I know many people who have no problem with this, but Israeli citizens are paying the price."



REFUGEE CRISIS: Writing on News 1 website, Yoni Ben-Menachem describes how Palestinian officials have been engaged in dialogue with Hizbollah, Syria and Lebanon over the fate of Palestinian refugees in those countries.

"The PLO is extremely worried by events in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria, where ISIS appears to have taken control. A Palestinian delegation, headed by the chairman of the organization's Executive Committee Dr. Zakaria al-Agha, left the West Bank for Syria on Monday. The delegation met with Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad and with representative of the various Palestinian factions in the country.

The meeting dealt with how best to get ISIS fighters out of the Yarmouk refugee camp and how to get food and other supplies in. The discussions between the Palestinian delegation and representatives of the Syrian regime came after Arab sources reported last week that President Bashar al-Assad was furious with the Palestinian Authority for launching a rescue mission to free two Swedish hostages who were held by the al-Nusra front on Syrian soil – without first informing Damascus of its intentions.

One of the Palestinians' main concerns is that ISIS or similar jihadi groups will use the precedent of the Yarmouk refugee camp to try and take control of Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon – especially the Ein al-Hilweh camp near Sidon.

According to a report in the Rai-alyoum newspaper on May 3, senior Palestinian officials have been negotiating with Hizbollah over how best to prevent violence on the part of radical jihadi elements, who might use any kind of disturbance to overrun Palestinian refugee camps inside Lebanon. These elements hope to take advantage of the tensions between the Lebanese government and Hizbollah in order to advance their goals. Sources close to the radical Salafi organization Jund al-Sham recently kidnapped and killed a Hizbollah member close to the Ein al-Hilweh camp in the hope of provoking a response inside the camp itself.

In the dialogue between the Palestinian Authority and Hizbollah, it was agreed to implement several measures designed to reign in radical Islamic groups within Lebanon; it was also decided that the two parties would set up a joint committee. The PLO committed itself to not interfere in any way in domestic Lebanese affairs.

Among those Lebanese officials involved in the talks with the Palestinians was General Abbas Ibrahim, the director of the country's General Directorate of General Security, who has met several times with Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas in Jordan and was a key player in efforts to broker a rapprochement between Abbas and his main domestic rival, Mahmoud Dahlan – who has recently increased in influence within the Palestinian refugee population of Lebanon.

The PLO's policy, which was ratified in a vote on the organization's Executive Committee, is not to take any stand or support any side in the domestic battles between jihadi organizations and regime forces in Lebanon and Syria. The PLO doesn't have the military wherewithal to get involved in any significant way in these clashes and it is petrified that they will repeat past patterns of behavior that butchered Palestinian refugees. The PLO is not involved in the bloody battles between Sunni and Shiite forces in Syria or Lebanon, but – given that it is aware of the dangers facing Palestinian refugees in both those countries, it has been forced to cooperate with Hizbollah and the Lebanese government."



WITHIN ZIONIST UNION, WITHOUT ZIONIST UNION: Writing in Haaretz, Ravit Hecht urges Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog not to come to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's rescue by agreeing to join a unity government with him.

"Likudniks and supporters of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu should apologize to the media, to Zionist Union campaigners and to the beleaguered Israeli actress Anat Waxman: The right’s 'anyone but Bibi' campaign is far more effective.

The hatred within Likud and the loathing in Habayit Hayehudi, which had not previously yielded practical measures, have been joined by Avigdor Lieberman’s stunning maneuver (no wonder one of Yisrael Beiteinu’s coalition demands was chess instruction in schools), which raveled Netanyahu’s government in the making. Netanyahu has descended from being the election’s clear victor to having a fragile right-wing government whose premature death seems nearly inevitable.

Lieberman seems to be going for the jackpot — that is, Bibi’s head. Moshe Kahlon, who everyone is lionizing now in order to destroy with equal fervor later, declared after his friend’s dramatic announcement that 'a government with 61 Knesset members is a bad government. ... I personally, after having signed the [coalition] agreement, am a little constrained.' Bridegrooms who feel 'a little constrained' the day before their wedding are generally 'much freer' and somewhere else a few months later.

The ultra-Orthodox parties are satisfied, their loyalty assured, and despite its last-minute muscle-flexing Habayit Hayehudi has little choice. It’s a captive audience, like its left-wing twin, Meretz. Where would it go if it were to trip up Netanyahu now? But Likud, Habayit Hayehudi and the ultra-Orthodox do not a coalition make.

It is therefore ironic that the only one who can save Netanyahu from the nightmare of a 61-member coalition is Isaac Herzog, who will presumably be called at some point to rescue Bibi from the predators of his own political bloc. Zionist Union voters could find themselves turned into Netanyahu’s safety net. Some, who champion the influencing from within doctrine that was so successful when Ehud Barak joined Netanyahu’s government in 2009, might even rejoice.

Given the silence of both Herzog and Labor MK Shelly Yachimovich on the ethical and political issues surrounding the coalition talks — from the efforts to weaken the Supreme Court to giving the World Zionist Organization’s settlement division to Uri Ariel, from meddling in the media to the protests by Ethiopian Israelis — it would be naïve to ask them to open an ideological front against Netanyahu. They want to be ministers, and their party’s DNA does not genuinely oppose the occupation, with its injustices and frequent rounds of violence.

Still, the current task of the Labor Party’s leaders is to bring Netanyahu’s rule to an end. That is the mandate they were given by their voters from across the center-left spectrum. Any other action would be a betrayal of that mission.

A narrow right-wing government, with its aggressive legislative initiatives, is a frightening prospect. Losing power and influence — in the courts, in academia, in the media — is also a frightening prospect. But a narrow right-wing government is inevitable, first of all because that is what the democratic will of the people has demanded. Disappointed Likud voters voted for Kahlon after he promised that he would not join a coalition that is dependent on the Arab parties, while Kahanism fell just short of getting enough votes to return to the Knesset in the form of the Yachad party. Second, because the peace camp, even if it is in the minority, must rebuild itself — mainly by regaining its pride and self-confidence and developing a clear foundation of principles.

It is inconceivable that a person for whom 'leftist' and 'treason' are companion words should benefit from the whitewashing services of left-wing voters. It is inconceivable that a person who claimed to be an alternative to government by Netanyahu and the right should destroy that alternative just a few months later. After all, if Netanyahu’s well-known core values are so acceptable to Labor that it would consider joining his coalition, then why not just merge with Likud instead of insisting on being a more polite and less popular version of that party?"



SAY IT AIN’T SO, BIBI: Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Gil Troy says that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's concessions violate the Likud’s constitution calling for creating conditions for a flourishing free economy.

"All the electoral chaos seems about to produce a flimsy 61-vote coalition, with the average Israeli taxpayer the biggest loser, again. Say it ain’t so Bibi, say it ain’t so. Can you imagine just how opportunistic you must seem when Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman emerges as the man of principle? Are you really so desperate to stay in power that you needed to auction off Israel’s future? What kind of a nationalist are you? What kind of a Zionist? Clearly, I am not as smart as our prime minister.

I do not understand how someone who calls himself a Zionist can promise hundreds of millions of shekels for ultra-Orthodox education which is proudly, flamboyantly, often crudely anti-Zionist. I do not understand how someone who calls himself a nationalist can abandon the progress his last government made in demanding all Israeli schoolchildren learn core curriculum subjects such as modern Hebrew, English, math and science – where in the Torah is knowledge banned? I do not understand how someone who calls himself a security hawk can mortgage Israel’s future just to stay in office, producing more draft-dodgers and job-shirkers, inducing some Israelis to take from the state not contribute to it. Last time I sang it, 'Hatikva' culminated with the line 'to be a free people in our land.' I thought our Zionist anthem championed independence not dependence, educating for competence not incompetence in the modern world.

Binyamin Netanyahu’s surrenders violate the Likud’s constitution calling for creating conditions for a flourishing free economy. Depriving children of basic skills mocks those goals. The Likud’s forefather, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, would be disgusted and disappointed.

Jabotinsky believed in sticking to principle not succumbing to blackmail. At what point does holding onto power for its own sake become pointless? Doesn’t Binyamin Netanyahu hope to leave a legacy beyond mere longevity? And why won’t he stand by the important reforms he implemented in 2003? Back then, Israel was overtaxing and under-incentivizing too many citizens, bribing them to procreate, discouraging them from working. Netanyahu’s cutbacks helped trigger Israel’s economic miracle then, what will his cave-ins accomplish now? I am not angry at the United Torah Judaism negotiators.

True, they secured so many goodies the ultra-Orthodox weekly Mishpacha ran a headline proclaiming: 'The Famine Has Ended.' But just as it is hypocritical to label left-wing protests 'democratic' but ultra-Orthodox ones 'undemocratic,' give the Haredi bosses their due. They did what Israel’s malfunctioning coalition system and what the current prime minister masquerading as Chicago ward heeler encourage them to do. As New York’s corrupt nineteenth-century Tammany Hall pol George Washington Plunkitt boasted: 'I’ve seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.'

In fairness, let’s also acknowledge how correct Netanyahu has been regarding Iran. If Netanyahu’s domestic capitulation is craven and costly, U.S. President Barack Obama’s 'not on my watch' international submission to Iran is delusional and dangerous. The Lausanne aftermath has demoralized proud Americans and worried Westerners who understand that American power maintains international stability.

The Iranian insults to America are piling up like headless corpses at an Islamic State rally: continuing the 'death to America' rhetoric, exporting violence to Yemen and Syria, escalating the genocidal threats against Israel, seizing a civilian ship of another American ally, the Marshall Islands.

Netanyahu’s appeasement puts added pressure on Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett if he becomes education minister. The Haredi sellout constrains everyone else financially and contradicts Habayit Hayehudi's founding principles, too. His party’s vision statement endorses nurturing a 'Jewish-Zionist identity' among 'all the state’s children,' teaching about 'Herzl and the founders of Zionism, David Ben-Gurion and the leaders of the nation.'

The pressure is on Moshe Kahlon too. Kahlon vowed that his party, Kulanu, would keep Netanyahu centered and protect the average taxpayer. The base of 'Kulanu' – all of us – is tired of being mugged. Hijacking current government funding to bankroll freeloaders and train even more to expect handouts is counterproductive. Turning the budgeting process into a political auction is exactly the kind of bad-government practice Kahlon’s good-government promises pledged to end. Kahlon and his party members should beware. If they start weak, they will become another impotent minor party.

Our politicians should address the Ethiopian crisis as a Zionist crisis too. Let’s redirect the haredim’s billion-shekel ransom toward these hard-working, taxpaying, army-serving patriots. The Ethiopian rescue is one of the great Zionist adventures of recent times – we should make their successful adjustment one of the great Israeli success stories of all time.

And watching the IDF’s heroics in Nepal, one wonders, how can one security establishment – the army – be so good and a second security establishment – the police – so jinxed? Did any coalition partners demand a thorough police reform, weeding out sexual harassers and removing racists? Will the new government effectively target organized crime and disorganized but rampant home burglaries, two of Israel’s biggest policing challenges today? If the search for Cabinet-issued Volvos trumped those issues in Bibi’s bazaar, shame on all our leaders.

My Zionist critique ends with a Zionist reaffirmation. My current anger will not sour me on our state or our mission. Just as I can support Netanyahu regarding Iran – and other matters – while criticizing him when necessary, I can distinguish between my current, immediate, completely justified anger at this coalition sellout and my ongoing, deep commitment to Israel and the Zionist enterprise. I don’t see any Americans, Left or Right, abandoning the America of Baltimore and Ferguson, no matter how angry they might be. We should not abandon Israel – while reminding our country and ourselves about the core Zionist mission to create the model Jewish Democratic state at least some of the coalition partners, and most of Israel’s citizens, desire. Let’s build it together, in hope not despair, in optimism not cynicism."




Copyright: Mideast Mirror.

This email is intended for the recipient only.

Access to this message by any other person is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely upon this email.

The materials available through Mideast Mirror are the property of Alef Publishing Ltd or its licensors, are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws.

Mideast Mirror - Alef Publishing Ltd.

Tel: 020 7052 96 00

Fax: 020 7052 96 09


Editorial and Enquiries:

Tel: ++ 44 773 4426 113

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.