Remember Me



The Kerry factor


Yedioth Ahronoth and Israel Hayom lead their Thursday editions with comments by the CEO of mobile telephone giant Orange, who told a news conference in Cairo that his company would sever ties with Israel 'tomorrow morning,' if it would not be subjected to massive penalties by the government. Stephane Richard said Orange intends to withdraw its brand from Israel as soon as possible, but that the move would take time. 'I am ready to abandon this tomorrow morning but the point is that I want to secure the legal risk for the company. I want to terminate this, once again, but I don't want to expose Orange to a level of risk and of penalties that could be really sizable for the company.'

Orange holds a stake in Israeli mobile company Partner, which sells the global company's products and service in Israel. French human rights groups have been pushing their government, which has a 25 percent stake in Orange, and the company itself, to end the relationship over Partner’s activities in Israeli settlements.

Israel Hayom goes for a pun in its lead headline; saying that 'Orange is no longer a Partner,' while Yedioth Ahronoth reports that 'Orange CEO supports the boycott against Israel.' Based on these two headlines – which are not necessarily backed up by the facts of the story itself – Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett urged Israelis not to turn their backs on Partner, which, he said, was the victim in this case. 'Partner is a purely Israeli company with 3,500 employees here. All of the infrastructure, including towers, customer service, etc., belongs to it. The only relationship Partner has with world Orange is the licensing of its name.'

Even before the Orange CEO's comments, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked told MKs earlier Wednesday that, 'There is currently a large-scale campaign to delegitimize Israel, aimed against its existence as a Jewish nation. The aim of the campaign is not only to influence Israeli policy one way or another, but to demonize Israel, hurt its vital interests and its ability to defend itself, and eventually eliminate its existence as a Jewish and democratic state.'

Partner owner Haim Saban, for his part, hit back at Richard, saying that he is, 'proud to hold the controlling stake in Partner, which is an Israeli owned company that leases the Orange brand. Threats won't deter me and I will continue to work on behalf of Israel and lead the global struggle in support of Israel.'

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely sent a letter to Richard, urging him to take back his remarks regarding a boycott of Israel. 'I call on you to refrain from taking part in the industry of lies directed against Israel,' wrote Hotovely, adding, 'I am sure that these reports do not reflect the intentions of your company, and call on you to clarify the issue as soon as possible.'

Economy Minister Aryeh Deri also condemned Richard’s remarks, adding, 'One cannot force anything on Israel by way of boycotts and the only way is through dialogue and negotiations. I intend to contact the CEO of Partner Communications and the heads of the company and offer them any assistance to cope with the boycott intentions of Orange,' said Deri.

Haaretz leads with a report that IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot is planning a major reform to the role of the Military Rabbinate. Coincidentally or not, the report comes in the same week as a soldier was sentenced to 10 days in jail for sharing non-kosher sandwiches with his colleagues on an army base. According to Haaretz, Eisenkot plans to limit the Military Rabbinate's controls and its presence in the education of IDF units. Eisenkot says that he will instruct the military's manpower unit to reevaluate the division of responsibilities between the Military Rabbinate and the Education Corps.

None of the newspapers lead with the rocket attack on southern Israel on Wednesday night – the second such incident in the space of 10 days. Like the previous incident, this one appears to have been the work of organizations that are currently engaged in clashes with the ruling Hamas faction. This did not prevent the IDF from striking Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip in retaliation and it did not stop Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon from holding Hamas responsible.

'Even if the shooters last night were jihadist groups rebelling against Hamas by firing at us, we view Hamas as being responsible for everything that occurs in the territory of Gaza,' Ya'alon said in a statement on Thursday. Israel's patience towards this type of terrorism should not be tested, the defense minister cautioned, adding, 'We will not tolerate any attempts to harm our civilians or allow the return of a reality where rockets are trickling into the state.'

After Israeli warplanes struck three militant training camps in response to the rocket fire – aimed at Ashkelon and Netivot – Ya'alon said Israel 'will hit even stronger,' if necessary. 'Last summer proved that,' he said in reference to the 50-day July-August war that ended with an Egyptian-brokered truce in August. 'We will act decisively and firmly to ensure the security of the residents of the South and the citizens of Israel.'

The IDF said 'hits were confirmed' in the predawn attack that left infrastructure damaged but no casualties.


FOR THE WANT OF A NAIL: Writing in Israel Hayom, Zalman Shoval says that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's bicycle accident could have far-reaching implications for the Iranian nuclear deal.

"Will U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's broken femur change reality when it comes to the Iranian nuclear threat? The top U.S. diplomat took a tumble from his bicycle last week, when he decided to enjoy a break from the intensive talks he was holding with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. He was airlifted back to the United States and underwent surgery in a Boston hospital. During their last meeting, on Saturday, the two leaders failed to hammer out the final details of the nuclear agreement and decided to reconvene the next day. But Kerry's accident meant that they never did.

Even before the U.S. secretary of state's accident, it seemed unlikely that a deal would be reached by the end-of-June deadline. Now, however, it seems almost certain that the deadline will be missed, since the negotiations have stalled over the fundamental issues that will determine whether a deal is even possible: Iran's willingness or otherwise to allow international inspectors to visit its military installations and what kind of system will be put in place to ensure that sanctions are re-imposed if Iran violates the agreement. As usual, the Iranians have managed to lead the West on a merry dance, by promising all kinds of concession – most of them imaginary – on issues that are not central to the nuclear issue. They have taken full advantage of the support they are getting from Russia and from China – and the burning desire of the Obama Administration to reach an agreement.

The Iranians were so certain that they would manage to get their way and that they would succeed in duping the six world powers that, in a speech last week, President Hassan Rowhani told his people how well off they were going to be as soon as sanctions are lifted. At the same time, a senior member of the Iranian delegation to the talks told reporters that his country would never allow foreign inspectors to visit its military sites.

Kerry played a central role in international efforts to broker a deal with Iran. But he also spent much of his time trying to convince the United States' European allies – especially France – to take a less arduous position and to be more flexible in its demands of Tehran. Kerry was planning a series of meetings with European leaders to discuss the matter. Following his bicycle accident, however, these meetings have been cancelled. This does not mean, of course, that there is zero chance of reaching a final agreement by the end of June. But, the absence of one of the key Western figures in the negotiations – at such a critical juncture in the process – will surely have an impact on progress.

Last week, two important editorials were published in the United States, which addressed the Iranian issue. The first was written by Ray Takeyh, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who explained that the deal being offered to Iran will strengthen the ayatollahs' grip on power and will make it more extreme. The second article, written by several former U.S. officials, claimed that, since the Iranian leadership views the United States as its sworn enemy, it cannot be a partner in the battle against ISIS, as Washington hopes. According to the proverb, for the want of a nail the kingdom was lost. Is it possible that, for the want of a little caution on John Kerry's part, the Iranian nuclear deal will also be lost?"



A POINTLESS CABINET: Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Alex Fishman says that Binyamin Netanyahu's security cabinet is a pointless body, since its members are clueless about security matters and, in any case, the prime minister and the defense minister make all the decisions.

"It is not entirely clear to me why otherwise intelligent people – like ministers in the government, for example – clamber over each other to get a seat in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's security cabinet. True, being a member of the inner circle comes with a certain cache, grants access to the state's most closely guarded secrets and provides a rare insight into the abilities of our Special Forces. In practice, however, the security cabinet is no more than a political debate club with no teeth.

The security cabinet, which is supposed to approve and monitor the performance of the defense establishment on such vital issues as training, intelligence and extraordinary operations, has never done any of this properly and does not have the tools to do so today. This is true of security cabinets in which there were several ministers with military backgrounds – such as the 2006 cabinet, which was roundly criticized by the Winograd Committee for its failures during the Second Lebanon War – and it is certainly true of the security cabinet formed last month by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, which looks more like the anemic list of members of a housing committee.

I very much doubt that anyone in Israel has more knowledge about the country's transportation infrastructure than Yisrael Katz, but the moment that he accepted the position of intelligence minister, he shot himself in the foot. In order to make his voice heard in the security cabinet without making a fool of himself, Katz will have to spend at least four hours every day reading briefings from the Shin Bet, the Mossad, Military Intelligence and other intelligence-gathering organizations. Dan Meridor, who is far more suited to serve as intelligence minister – spent entire days meeting with representatives of these bodies in order to study the issues. Where will Katz find the time and energy to read endless intelligence material? I doubt that he has the tools to discern when he is getting full cooperation from these bodies and when they are merely stringing him along. Moreover, he will never see the truly top secret information – which is for the prime minister's eyes only.

Another member of the security cabinet is the minister for strategic affairs – which is another of the empty positions in the fourth Netanyahu government. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who used to serve as strategic affairs minister, discovered how pointless that job is when his views were ignored during the Mavi Marmara affair. Gilad Erdan, who fought tooth and nail to get that job, hopes to contribute to Israel's campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, alongside the much-overlooked job of reforming the police force. But there's a minor problem here: the three bodies which deal with Iran – the Mossad, the Atomic Energy Agency and the Foreign Ministry – all answer to Netanyahu. It seems highly unlikely that Erdan, with all due respect, will be the leading voice in the security cabinet on all matters related to the Islamic Republic.

Katz and Erdan are just two examples of the professional weakness of the current security cabinet, which is bloated with honorific ministers. Even the body which is supposed to compensate for the lack of professional knowledge on the part of ministers – the National Security Council – is under the prime minister's auspices, so it's Netanyahu who decides what the ministers are told, when the security cabinet is convened and how often. The fact that Netanyahu decided to give Yoav Gallant – the only general in the government apart from Ya'alon – observer status in the security cabinet would seem to prove that the prime minister does not view it as a professional body that should be listened to in times of crisis. So who needs a security cabinet? In any case, prime ministers always surround themselves with a smaller, more intimate team, which prepares decisions for the security cabinet and the government to approve.

Of the dozen members (and observers) in the security cabinet, one can count the ministers who have actual experience in security matters on less than the fingers of one hand. And so, even in 2015, Israel's security matters will be managed and overseen by the prime minister, the defense minister and the chief of staff – just as they were during the Second Lebanon War. The Winograd Committee recommended that, at least in times of national crisis, the prime minister be obligated to convene his security cabinet. But who ever listens to the recommendations of committees?"



THE HONEYMOON'S OVER: Writing on the Walla! website, Avi Issacharoff says that the best-laid plans of Hamas and Israel – to maintain the relative quiet of the past 12 months – may be disrupted by various Salafi groups in the Gaza Strip.

"In the early hours of Thursday morning, the Israeli government published a statement in which it reiterated that it holds Hamas responsible for the rocket fire against southern Israel a few hours earlier. This announcement may, at first glance, appear to be dramatic, but the truth is that it is totally devoid of content. Not only is Hamas not responsible for the attacks, the Israeli government is keen for Hamas to remain in control of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli response to the rockets – the traditional response of bombing empty Hamas facilities – unsurprisingly ended without injuries. Hamas is also aware of the ritual: rockets are fired at Israel, Hamas evacuates its facilities, Israel bombs them – and everyone returns to their routine until the next time.

Unnamed Israeli defense officials – who suddenly fancied themselves as Palestinian affairs experts – explained to local reporters that the background to the rocket attack was tensions between Hamas and various Salafi groups in Gaza. Residents of the Gaza envelope insist that they will not be held hostage by the battles between Hamas and the Salafi organizations – but this is the reality of the situation. That is what happened last week, too, when a spat between two senior commanders from Islamic Jihad led to a rocket being fired at Be'er Tuvia. And this appears to be the case with the most recent attack.

Following the killing of one of the leaders of a Salafi group by Hamas' security forces, they threatened to retaliate within 48 hours. At first, it appeared that the response would come in the shape of an attack on one of Hamas' positions, but it now appears that the Salafis opted to respond by firing rockets at Israel. Even the heads of jihadi groupings understand that one of Hamas' key goals at the current time is to maintain the relative quiet with Israel.

Ironically, Israel in recent months has been the main lifeline for the Hamas regime in the Strip. Moreover, the Jewish state is virtually the only regional and global player keen on keeping Hamas in power. The volume of goods entering Gaza from Israel is constantly on the rise. IDF Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Major General Yoav Mordechai also recently approved the transfer of dual-use materials into the Strip, even though some of these materials can be used to produce weapons. Mordechai was operating under the assumption that terrorist activities will decrease as the humanitarian situation in Gaza improves.

At a special press conference organized by the Qatari envoy to Gaza, Mohammed al-Emadi, the diplomat praised the Israeli official for allowing the entry of the materials into the Strip. Perhaps the Qatari diplomat’s enthusiasm can be seen in the context of a Palestinian request to establish a gas pipeline between Israel and Gaza, which will include the construction of a special station on the Israeli side aimed at increasing power supply to plants in the Strip. Less than a year after the latest war between the two sides, the Israel-Hamas relationship is blossoming. Too bad the Salafi organizations are trying to put a damper on the occasion.

In this light, it is also hard to not take into account recent claims made by Palestinian Authority officials. These officials state repeatedly that Israel is engaged in talks with Hamas over a long-term ceasefire, while neglecting negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA has cited specific Israeli officials, serving and retired, whose names have not been cleared for publication, allegedly managing direct talks with Hamas. These negotiations are focused on the return of the remains of missing Israeli soldiers, but also on reaching a long-term truce agreement.

The truth is that, in practice, such an agreement is already in place. For the time being, Hamas is trying unsuccessfully to maintain the calm, while Israel remains faithful to the principle of 'quiet will be met with quiet,' and has provided quite a few economic benefits to help Hamas consolidate its rule over the Strip.

In the meantime, residents of southern Israel cannot expect real quiet. A fight between two clans or rival factions will often end in rocket fire at the Israelis. The Israeli responses, mostly due to public opinion, will probably become more severe with time, as will the attacks from the Strip. And so, with baby steps, Hamas and Israel approach the next round of violence."



FULL-TIME JOB: Writing in Maariv, Lilac Sigan has five pieces of advice for Gilad Erdan, who is the government's point man in the campaign against the BDS movement.

"Gilad Erdan is a talented politician, but, in addition to the slew of jobs he has accepted in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's new government, he has also agreed to moonlight in a very important job: he's government's point man when it comes to thwarting boycotts against Israel. If he wants to succeed, there are some measures that he has to implement.

1-Reining in the ministers. Much has already been said and written about Yisrael Katz's lack of diplomatic acumen. So with all due respect to the ministers' freedom to write what they want on their Facebook pages, if Israel wants to defeat the BDS movement, Erdan will have to impose some kind of discipline on his cabinet colleagues. He will need the help of the prime minister to do so. One populist status update on Facebook could do untold damage to Israel's hasbara efforts.

2-Recognize that the campaign is being waged inside Israel, too. Many Israeli leftists are unaware of the ramifications of the position they are taking, since one of the uglier phenomena of recent years is the cynical use that the anti-Zionist camp makes of left-wing views. Erdan needs to spend time talking to leaders of the sane left, to convince them not to allow their perfectly legitimate views to be hijacked by the radical left. It is easy to show moderate people that one-sided pressure against Israel does not bring peace closer, but distances it. The only outcome of one-sided pressure is that hatred for Israel has surpassed even hatred for ISIS – and anti-Semitism is on the rise.

3-Speak with one clear and focused voice. Miri Regev is spearheading a campaign against the cultural boycott, Tzipi Hotovely believes that she can convince the international community that Israel is right by using passages from the bible and there are so many plans and programs in the pipeline that no one knows what is really going on. Israel is already in a position of inferiority compared to the well-organized anti-Zionist campaign that has been formed over the past decade. And the international media is not exactly on our side. Not only do comments like those uttered by Hotovely harm Israel's image, as long as we are not all on the same page, we are simply wasting huge amounts of time, energy and money.

4-Create an informative website for Israelis. Many Israelis want to play some role in protecting their country's image, in light of the disinformation being spread by anti-Zionists, but they don't have a clue where to even start. An Internet site and an increased presence on social media will be a hit with Israelis, if it provides answers to the lies, makes the facts readily available and tells surfers where they can go to put their new-found knowledge to the good of the country.

5-Don't emulate the bad guys. It would be a terrible mistake to believe that the only way to counter the lies of the anti-Zionists is to emulate them and to play as dirty as they do. The correct way to deal with those who have dedicated themselves to 'proving' that Israel is an apartheid state and so on, is to make sure that we remain the good guys. The campaign of delegitimization, which seeks to argue that Israel is a cruel occupying force, is bolstered by any signs of aggression from members of the Israeli government. The anti-BDS campaign, as well as Israel's diplomatic activity, must be conducted in a reasonable manner. It needs to present evidence of the Palestinian leadership's incitement and violence and to prove that the anti-Zionist campaign is full of lies and half-truths – and that it serves the interests of Hamas' terror and Fateh's rejectionism. Indeed, I would say that it is time for Israel to stop responding. The best campaign Israel can mount is not reactive, but proactive. It must reflect exactly the opposite of what we are being accused of.

I truly wish Erdan the best of luck. As long as Israel is not initiating anything on the diplomatic front, however, he will have his work cut out for him. Erdan has many job titles in this government, and he cannot afford to take any of them for granted. Countering the BDS movement is a job for a professional – and it's a full-time position."



NO EXCUSES: Writing in Haaretz, Israel Harel says that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has got what he wanted – a right-wing government with no internal opposition – so he no longer has any excuses for his failures.

"Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu no longer has adversarial ministers in his cabinet like Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni. If this time he goes out of his way to be energetic, focused and treat others well, his government could last a long time. No longer can he blame his failures on others, as he usually does. The space for excuses has grown smaller.

Netanyahu’s personality is the source of most of his failings. He is jealous of the success of his partners (although as prime minister he could praise them, because any credit to them is a credit to him); he burns bridges instead of building them; he stirs conflicts instead of preventing them; he pits sectors against each other instead of bringing them together and keeping things calm. If not for these traits of his, the previous government would have lived out its term. What’s more, Netanyahu would have achieved many of his aspirations and won what he longs for so much: broad recognition, not just sectoral, as a national leader of historic proportions.

Despite these shortcomings, if this time he manages to overcome his weaknesses and do what he is supposed to do – efficiently and closely manage the work of the ministers – Israel might enjoy a government that implements its platform, especially in the realms of society, welfare and the economy, with which the coalition parties went to the voters. Other than the issue of the coalition’s size, 61 MKs, it’s hard to recall a government that had a better starting point than this one. Despite the disproportionate mournfulness over 'how bad' this is, the real situation, in most areas, is not bad at all, certainly not relative to what is happening now in the world, including the developed one.

Zionist Union leader MK Isaac Herzog did not fail because of a 'weak' election campaign and Netanyahu did not win because of his strong points this time either. The retreat from national Zionist values among those who called themselves the 'Zionist camp' is what led to the stinging result, this time as well, like the previous times. In a film about Herzog’s conduct during the campaign he was shown to be worthy as a national leader. If Netanyahu were blessed with even some of the character traits that Herzog has (and which Herzog’s own camp held against him), he would be the ideal leader.

Because of these characteristics of Herzog’s, and despite the policies Zionist Union presented, the party garnered 24 seats. To the best of my knowledge, quite a few traditional voters of the national camp, who had become fed up with Netanyahu’s hedonistic personality, voted for Zionist Union. The collective Israeli character, despite the significant changes it has undergone, still appreciates honesty, modesty, humility, personal example and making do with little. If Likud had a leader with Herzog’s traits and a classically Likud political ideology, Zionist Union would have ended up, as in previous elections, with 13 to 15 seats.

Right-wingers who voted for Herzog assumed that if he won, he would not make territorial concessions. Not because he doesn’t want to, but because there is no one to concede territory to. The Palestinians do not want peace; they want the Jewish state to disappear. Better that the moderate left – which knows this deep down – reach this conclusion and have the courage (in the past, when the Palestinians deceived the left’s leaders, it did not have the courage), and say so out loud. This could also soften the international position toward Israel.

The leftist camp is paying the price, and will continue to, of its inability to admit the serious diplomatic and security errors it made over the decades. Until it admits the error of its ways – and it will not – the rule of national camp is in no danger. When this camp has worthy leadership that will determinedly and consistently execute a clear national policy, it can strengthen its rule – and with a much larger majority than it has now – for many years to come."



OBAMA AND NETANYAHU CAN STILL COOPERATE: Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Amos Yadlin says that since the Israeli prime minister and the U.S. president share the same ultimate strategic goal – denying nuclear weapons to the ayatollahs in Tehran – they should be able to find enough common ground to work together.

"Israel’s prime minister and U.S. President Barack Obama share the same ultimate strategic goal – denying nuclear weapons to the ayatollahs in Tehran. The president has repeatedly made this point clear, as has Binyamin Netanyahu.

They drastically differ, however, in their assessments of the deal taking shape with Iran. They hold very different assumptions regarding Iran’s reaction to the deal and behavior in the years to come. These divergences are rooted in fundamental differences in how the two men perceive the world, and as the president himself put it, different political traditions and different orientations: A 'politics of hope vs. politics of fear,' Optimism vs. experienced, risk-averse pessimism. This divergence corresponds with major differences in how vulnerable each country is to a potential Iranian threat, and between their respective lessons from history.

Netanyahu’s prediction is that once an agreement is signed Iran will hide, cheat and lie. It will wait patiently for the best opportunity to break out to a bomb, and do so through the many holes in the agreement. Obama’s belief is that once a diplomatic breakthrough is made, a positive cascade reminiscent of Nixon’s 'Opening to China' will occur.

The two men should both agree, however, that personal disagreements should not stand in the way of where both countries agree and share a vital interest. The responsibility is ultimately theirs to find a way to bridge their differences and build together a strategy that will prepare the partnership for scenarios where neither of their predictions comes true.

President Obama as the leader of the larger, stronger state in the alliance, and as the force behind the Iran outreach effort, should initiate an unequivocal, public appeal for Netanyahu’s participation in a well-prepared summit before the June deadline arrives. He should present a strategy for how a bomb will be denied to Iran should his hopeful predictions not come to pass. He should explain how exactly America will counter any of the possible negative scenarios Netanyahu describes. In order to gain the trust of Israelis, that explanation will have to be water-tight and convincing, covering the ability to 'snap back' biting sanctions; the credible ability to act militarily to prevent an Iranian breakout; and the commitment to continue to counter Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony via a 'dual track' strategy, even after the agreement.

The prime minister would be wise to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the agreement’s actual weak spots. It wasn’t the agreement that brought Iran to the nuclear threshold – it has been treading that threshold for years, and the agreement doesn’t allow Iran to build a bomb, not now and not 20 years from now. However, the prime minister is right in pointing out how problematic is the signing of an agreement that legitimizes Iranian enrichment of uranium, undermining former United Nations Security Council decisions. President Obama conceded in his NPR interview that the agreement does little by way of preventing Iran from reaching 'zero breakout' time a decade on.

Netanyahu should call off the offensive against the White House and reach the summit with clear, constructive propositions on how to improve the deal based on the principles presented by Vice President Joe Biden in his April 30 speech at the Washington Institute (cutoff of fissile material; phased sanctions relief; one-year breakout; and verifiable assurances of a peaceful program).

An outcome of the summit should be a bilateral 'side agreement' that includes written understandings and a security compensation package to mitigate the risks stemming from the agreement. There should also be mention of what both countries do if the prime minister’s pessimistic assumptions indeed prove well-founded.

That level of intimacy and coordination will bear dividends with regard to other shared interests in the Middle East. The trudging campaign against Islamic State, the collapse of Syria, Libya and Yemen, a possible UNSC vote against Israel, the prospect of further rounds of fighting with Hizbollah and with Hamas in Gaza, or the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel – all issues that correspond with the most difficult, challenging question of Iran’s role in the Middle East.

America and Israel do not have the privilege of sparring and squabbling when faced with a common adversary that is engaged in a systematic effort to go nuclear. Iran’s striving for hegemony and involvement in nefarious activities are causing instability throughout the Middle East, affecting the lives of millions. Iran’s actions must be countered by an effective, long-term strategy. History will not be forgiving to leaders who, due to lack of personal chemistry and the will to engage with one another, fail to produce one for their peoples."




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.