Kabul airport reopens

Ariana Afghan Airlines resumed some flights in Afghanistan between Kabul and three major provincial cities on Saturday, the carrier said, after a technical team from Qatar reopened the capital's airport for aid and domestic services.

Flights between Kabul and the western city of Herat, Mazar-i Sharif in northern Afghanistan and Kandahar in the south have started, the airline said in a statement.

"Ariana Afghan Airlines is proud to resume its domestic flights," it said.

Earlier, Qatar's ambassador to Afghanistan said a technical team was able to reopen Kabul airport to receive aid, according to Qatar's Al Jazeera news channel.

The airport's runway has been repaired in cooperation with authorities in Afghanistan, the ambassador said, according to Al Jazeera, in a further small step towards a return to relative normality after the turmoil of the past three weeks.

Reopening the airport, a vital lifeline with both the outside world and across Afghanistan's mountainous territory has been a high priority for the Taliban as they seek to restore order after their lightning seizure of Kabul on 15^th August 2021.

Kabul airport had been closed since the end of the massive US-led airlift of its citizens, other Western nationals and Afghans who helped Western countries. The end of that evacuation of tens of thousands of people marked the withdrawal of the last US forces from Afghanistan after 20 years of war.

Thousands of people wanting to leave Afghanistan, fearful of life under Taliban rule, were left behind when the evacuation operation ended at the end of August.

The Taliban, the West's adversary in the two-decade war that followed the 11^th September 2001 attacks on the United States, have promised safe passage for those wanting to leave.

 

Bennett urged to meet Abbas at the earliest

I am inclined to refer to an editorial of The Jerusalem Post. It says, “A strong Palestine Authority (PA) is in Israel’s interest, Bennett needs to keep that in mind.” The concluding line also resolves the mystery why Israeli Defense Minister, Benny Gantz met Mahmoud Abbas, President Palestine Authority (PA) in Ramallah recently.

The newspaper writes, “The signals from Prime Minister Naftali Bennett that he has no plans to meet Abbas do not augur well. It is in Israel’s strategic interest that Bennett put politics aside and invite Abbas for talks as soon as possible, not only to establish a high-level dialogue to discuss issues of bilateral interest and provide hope for future peace negotiations but also – if necessary – to stand together to prevent war and violence.”

Bennett’s spokesman dismissed reports on Wednesday that the prime minister would attend a summit in Cairo with Abbas, Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah.

The London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat had reported that Bennett had been “disinvited” from what would have been a quadrilateral meeting in Egypt. The spokesman clarified that while Bennett is scheduled to travel soon to Cairo to meet Sisi, no date has been set yet for the meeting.

Abbas traveled to Cairo on Wednesday for the trilateral meeting with Sisi and King Abdullah. Palestinian official Azzam al-Ahmed said that the three Arab leaders would discuss coordinated positions ahead of Abbas’s address to the UN General Assembly later this month.

Contacts were also under way to hold an Arab summit to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he added.

The Cairo summit took place days after Defense Minister Benny Gantz met Abbas in Ramallah. It was the first high-level meeting between the sides in close to a decade, and Gantz promised that Israel would make a series of goodwill gestures to the PA, including a NIS 500 million loan.

The summit also came a week after Bennett had his first meeting with President Joe Biden in Washington, where he made clear that he had no intention of meeting with Abbas or engaging in peace negotiations on a future Palestinian state.

“There is no diplomatic process with the Palestinians, nor will there be one,” a source close to Bennett insisted after the Abbas-Gantz meeting, for which he had to give his approval.

This statement is unwise and offensive to the ears of the US and the international community. Why would an Israeli prime minister oppose a diplomatic process with the Palestinians?

Bennett does not have to support a Palestinian state, but there are other important issues to address for the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians.

For example, what if Hamas decides to launch a new war from Gaza? Shouldn’t the Israeli and Palestinian leaders establish a direct channel of communications, and join forces against any aggression that threatens people of these countries, peace and stability?

What if Hamas were to make a move to establish control over the West Bank, or to once again fan the flames of violence and unrest inside Israel or the West Bank, as it did in May during the last IDF operation in the Gaza Strip?

Wouldn’t it be beneficial for Israel’s prime minister to be able to talk directly to the leader of the Palestinian Authority?

The US has been the main broker for past Israeli-Palestinian talks, the last round of which came in 2014. But so far Biden has not shown any interest in kick-starting a new process.

In a Zoom talk to the Nizami Ganjavi International Center on Tuesday, PA Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh declared “Washington does not have a peace initiative at all.”

The new Israeli government, he said, “has no political platform and no initiative to end the conflict with us. It seems to me that all it cares for is to maintain the status quo, and all of us know that the status quo is unsustainable,” adding that this “political vacuum… is very dangerous.”

Shtayyeh concluded that the vacuum “needs to be filled with some initiative. The US does not have an initiative, Europe does not have an initiative, the Israelis have no idea how to end the conflict with us… and Arab countries are going in a totally different direction.”

Unfortunately, Shtayyeh is right. We urge the prime minister to pick up the phone and schedule a meeting with Abbas at his earliest convenience.

Escalating tension between Algeria and Morocco

On 24th August 2021, Algeria broke off its already minimal bilateral relations with Morocco, declaring this was due to the kingdom’s “hostile actions” and accusing it of involvement in the wildfires that struck the Kabylia region earlier that month. 

The heightened tension between the two countries brings into focus regional uncertainty and may spell the end of their limited collaboration in the energy sector.

The two countries have a long history of tense relations, behind which lie issues of political ideology, border demarcation, and competition for regional influence. Morocco and Algeria fought a short border war after the latter’s independence from France in the fall of 1963, and Algeria has long supported the Polisario Front in its struggle against Morocco for control of the Western Sahara.

The land border between the two countries has officially been closed since 1994; a decision Algeria made unilaterally following Moroccan accusations that the Algerian military was behind a terrorist attack in Marrakesh in 1994. The Moroccan leadership, including King Mohammed VI, has repeatedly called for re-opening the border, something Algerian leaders have consistently rejected. Still, the two countries have managed to find limited avenues for cooperation around a gas pipeline that transports Algerian gas through Morocco and on to Spain and other European markets, although the future of this arrangement is now in doubt.

Lately, tensions between Algeria and Morocco reached a level unseen in past, though an all-out military confrontation remains unlikely. Both governments have increased their military presence along the border, and while the prospects of armed conflict remain low, the growing tension provides each enough fodder to distract from more serious domestic issues. Indeed, the biggest challenge for Algeria’s military leadership has remained how to convince an inwardly focused population that Morocco is a greater threat to their well-being than internal economic, political, and security challenges.

The Algerian military and ruling elite’s dislike and suspicion of Morocco runs deep and goes back to the border conflict of the 1960s and Cold War-era ideological tensions. Old Algerian fears of Rabat’s designs for a “Greater Morocco” are no longer realistic — if they ever were — but nonetheless hawkish views of Morocco and concerns over its expansionist plans persist among Algeria’s military top brass. Morocco’s growing ambitions to increase its regional political and economic influence therefore remain alarming to some in Algeria’s military.

Recent domestic, regional, and global events have added to this ongoing suspicion and tension between the two neighbors. The US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara dealt a blow to Algerian efforts to keep Morocco isolated on the issue. Although the conflict is by no means resolved, US recognition is a major win for Morocco — and therefore, in this zero-sum game, a loss for the Polisario.

Algeria is also extremely wary of growing Moroccan-Israeli cooperation. The two countries normalized relations as part of the deal struck with the Trump administration that granted Morocco US recognition over its Western Sahara claims. Algeria remains a staunch ideological supporter of the Palestinian cause, and was extremely critical of Morocco’s decision to normalize relations.

Adding to Algeria’s outrage, Morocco’s alleged involvement in the Pegasus spyware scandal prompted condemnations and accusations of spying on Algerian officials and top military brass. Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra’s fiery back and forth with Morocco’s ambassador to the UN, Omar Hilal, in July regarding the Western Sahara further amplified tensions. In response to Lamamra’s reaffirmation of Algeria’s support for self-determination, Hilal, as he has provocatively done before, called on Algeria to adopt the same support for self-determination for its own long-restive Kabylia region.

Despite their sharp jabs against Algeria, the Moroccan leadership blames Algeria for the escalation and interprets it as a way for the Algerian leadership to save face while shunning King Mohammed VI’s recent calls for the reopening of the border and improved relations.

In August, as wildfires swept through the Kabylia region, Morocco offered Algeria two of its firefighting Canadair aircraft. Algeria, despite having no firefighting fleet of its own, rejected the offer.

As tensions escalate, one of the key uncertainties with broader implications is the future of the Maghreb-Europe Gas (MEG) pipeline that began operations in November 1996 to export gas to the Spanish and Portuguese markets. The pipeline crosses through Morocco and in return Morocco receives 7% of the gas transported, which it uses for domestic consumption. The agreement has weathered previous diplomatic crises. However, this time, its future is more uncertain.

In addition to the MEG pipeline, Algeria also currently exports through Medgaz, an underwater pipeline that bypasses Morocco and is under expansion to handle higher flows. MEG pushes through 13.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Algerian gas yearly, while Medgaz has capacity for 8 bcm a year. Medgaz has announced plans to boost its export capacity to 10 bcm a year, but the expansion will not be operational until the end of the year at the earliest. The MEG transit agreement between the two states is up for renewal in October.

For Morocco, if the deal falls through, this would deprive it of a key source of energy. Gas accounts for 10% of its domestic energy consumption, and the loss of access to Algerian gas would particularly impact two power plants located in northern Morocco — south of Tangier and south of Jerrada respectively — both of which rely on imported gas.

Over the past couple of years, with the pipeline agreement coming up for renewal, Morocco has signaled its intention to strike a more advantageous deal with Algeria, bolstered by the fact that the full ownership of the pipeline will pass from the Spanish company Naturgy to the Moroccan government as of 1st November 2021. Morocco wants to boost its own access to gas as an important energy source, despite ongoing domestic efforts to diversify its energy mix and increase the share of renewables.

If the two countries fail to reach an agreement, Morocco could face energy shortages that it might struggle to make up in the short to medium term, while Algeria would deprive itself of an important income source. For their part, Spain and Portugal would likewise have to make up energy shortages from a different supplier. If Morocco and Algeria take a hard-nosed approach, Algeria could deprive Morocco of a key bargaining chip, but it would be at the expense of its own domestic economic considerations.

Algeria cannot afford to lose this access, particularly considering the crippling economic losses the country has faced in recent years. Although Morocco has promised to keep the pipeline open, it could risk being seen as blocking access to gas for European markets. Coming on top of its recent woes with European partners over migration, spying allegations, the Western Sahara, and the upcoming European ruling on the fisheries agreement, this could seriously damage Morocco’s ties with the EU.

As the three partners — Algeria, Morocco, and Spain — continue negotiations on this agreement that they all need, geopolitical considerations are not to be overlooked. Algeria is growing more anxious to reassert itself as a regional power following two years of turmoil at home and a longer-standing retrenchment from regional affairs.

Cutting ties with Morocco, even at the risk of potentially jeopardizing its critical energy exports, is about drawing a line in the sand, a total unwillingness to allow Morocco any leverage, as well as an effort to draw the attention of domestic audiences away from problems at home and rally against an external enemy.

For Morocco, these old conflicts and tensions that it wishes to leave behind create a challenge to its domestic and foreign ambitions. They stand as a reminder that the country is vulnerable, and that its regional and local stability are not to be taken for granted — something Algeria is keen to emphasize as it seeks to restore its wider regional role.

 

Baradar to lead new Afghan government

According to Reuters report, Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is likely to lead a new Afghan government. One of the primary concerns is; can Taliban govern a country facing economic meltdown, a humanitarian disaster and threats to security and stability from rival groups.

Baradar, who heads the Taliban's political office, will be joined by Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob, the son of late Taliban co-founder Mullah Omar, and Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, in senior positions in the government.

"All the top leaders have arrived in Kabul, where preparations are in final stages to announce the new government," a Taliban official told Reuters.

Haibatullah Akhundzada, the Taliban's supreme religious leader, will focus on religious matters and governance within the framework of Islam, another Taliban source said.

Taliban seizing Kabul on 15th August, after sweeping across most of the country, have faced resistance in the Panjshir Valley, where there have been reports of heavy fighting and casualties.

Several thousand fighters of regional militias and remnants of the government's armed forces have massed in the rugged valley under the leadership of Ahmad Massoud, son of former Mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud.

While Taliban have spoken of their desire to form a consensus government, there are forecast that the interim government would be formed solely by Taliban members.

It would comprise 25 ministries, with a consultative council, or shura, of 12 Muslim scholars, the source added.

Also being planned within six to eight months is a loya jirga, or grand assembly, bringing together elders and representatives across Afghan society to discuss a constitution and the structure of the future government, the source said.

Western powers say they are prepared to engage with the Taliban and send humanitarian aid, but that formal recognition of the government and broader economic assistance will depend on action - not just promises - to safeguard human rights.

The United States, European Union and others have cast doubt on the movement's assurances. Many Afghans, especially women and those with connections to the former government or Western coalition forces, now fear for their security and even lives.

The European Union is ready to engage with Taliban but the Islamist group must respect human rights, including those of women, and not let Afghanistan again become a base for terrorism, the EU foreign policy chief said on Friday.

The US administration has no plans to release billions in Afghan gold, investments and foreign currency reserves parked in the United States that it froze after the Taliban's takeover.

Who is providing arsenal to National Resistance Front?

After weeks of fruitless negotiations between Taliban’s political leadership and senior leaders of National Resistance Front in Panjshir, Taliban launched a multi-pronged attack on Panjshir Valley beginning 31st August 2021. 

Taliban began assault on Panjshir immediately after the US military pulled out of Kabul airport and ended efforts to evacuate American citizens and Afghan allies.

According to conventional media reports, National Resistance Front has mostly successfully warded off Taliban by virtue of easily defending positions in the mountainous region, inflicting heavy casualties on Taliban.

Prior to Taliban incursions, the nascent resistance claimed it controlled four districts in Baghlan and Parwan provinces outside of the Panjshir Valley. These districts provided a cushion for the anti-Taliban militia to gather Afghan security forces who did not surrender to Taliban.

However, Taliban recaptured the crucial district of Dih Saleh in eastern Baghlan province, which granted the group access to the Khawak Pass that leads into the heart of Panjshir. Along with Khawak, Taliban sent militants to the southern gate of the Panjshir Valley at the town of Gulbahar, and Anjuman, a critical pass in the north in Badakhshan province. Despite its numerical superiority, Taliban was not able to break the defensive lines of the resistance forces. 

In the south, Taliban massed forces in the district of Jabul-Saraj in Parwan in hopes of overrunning the National Resistance Front’s defenses in Gulbahar. Intense fighting waged for two days, as reports emerged of Taliban militants advancing past the initial defensive positions into Shotul district in Panjshir. On social media, pro-Taliban accounts continued circulating videos claiming that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’s forces had taken control of Shotul. However, neither Taliban officials nor their more credible social media supporters have posted similar information, indicating that the claims are false. The Taliban does appear to have controlled the pass for a period of time.

The reports indicate that the NRF was able to expel the Taliban from Shotul as fighting continued further south near Gulbahar. National Resistance Front spokesman Fahim Dashty corroborated those reports, stating “the Taliban has spread rumors that they have entered parts of Panjshir. These are psychological operation (PsyOp) and propaganda. We assure full control over all the entrances of Panjshir. [The] Taliban have made multiple attempts to enter Shotul from Jabul-Saraj, and failed each time.” 

On the western border of Panjshir, Taliban used the Khawak Pass to probe the NRF’s defenses. According to National Resistance Front officials, the initial attack was repelled easily, but Taliban continued sending forces. Pro Taliban sources posted videos of Taliban vehicles and soldiers climbing the Khawak Pass to enter the Panjshir Valley in order to divide the resistance forces down the middle and overwhelm the weakened units. While the numbers could not be independently confirmed, pro-resistance reporters noted that 40 Taliban fighters were killed within the first 24 hours of fighting near the pass. Additionally, video from an ambush site in the Khawak Pass has gone viral, depicting resistance commandos decimating Taliban fighters on the road below.

That video gave credence to the resistance claim of staving off the Taliban assault in the Khawak Pass, as the terrain granted a sizable advantage to the defenders of the valley. The most recent reports suggested that pro-resistance fighters from Andarab have retaken the Khawak Pass, halting further Taliban incursions, although that information could not be independently verified. 

In the northeast, the Taliban also attempted to enter the Panjshir Valley through the Anjuman Pass near Badakhshan. Given the lack of reporting on clashes in the northeast, it is likely that this was not a main line of effort for the Taliban and that the resistance forces were able to easily defend the pass from the assault. A former Afghan National Army commando reported that the Anjuman Pass is heavily guarded by elite units who have inflicted heavy casualties on any Taliban fighters who attempted to enter the valley.  

Furthermore, reports emerged of Taliban employing Al Qaeda and foreign fighters to attack in Panjshir. Originally, that claim was propagated by Massoud’s forces in Panjshir. However, videos surfaced of militants speaking Arabic and Persian – among other languages on their way to the Khawak Pass in Baghlan. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the successful NRF ambush at Khawak, militia leaders are claiming that they eliminated both Taliban and Al Qaeda units.

While the Taliban do have advantages in both manpower and firepower, Panjshir’s terrain provides the National Resistance Front with easily defendable positions, enabling the resistance to continue to withstand the Taliban onslaught. As a result, the National Resistance Front has thus far been successful in maintaining the territorial integrity of Panjshir and resisting incursions by the Taliban.

As fighting continues, the lack of declarations of victory by the Taliban and its supporters on social media would indicate that the resistance has the upper hand, at least temporarily.  

A tribute to Angela Merkel of Germany

Angela Merkel will leave office as one of modern Germany’s longest-serving leaders and a global heavyweight diplomatic. She leaves behind a legacy defined by her management of a succession of crises that shook a fragile Europe rather than any grand visions for her own country.

In 16 years at the helm of Europe’s biggest economy, Merkel did end military conscription, set Germany on course for a future without nuclear and fossil-fueled power, enabled the legalization of same-sex marriage and introduced a national minimum wage and benefits encouraging fathers to look after young children, among other things.

But a senior ally recently summed up what many view as her main service as an anchor of stability in stormy times. He told Merkel: “You protected our country well.”

“All the major crossroads you had to navigate ... we never mapped out in any election program — they came overnight and you had to govern well,” Bavarian governor Markus Soeder said.

Merkel passed her first test in 2008, pledging at the height of the global financial crisis that Germans’ savings were safe. Over the following years, she was a leading figure in the effort to save the euro currency from the debt crisis that engulfed several members, agreeing to bailouts but insisting on painful spending cuts.

In 2015, Merkel was the face of a welcoming approach to migrants as people fleeing conflicts in Syria and elsewhere trekked across the Balkans. She allowed in hundreds of thousands and insisted that “we will manage” the influx, but ran into resistance both at home and among European partners.

And in the twilight of her career — she announced in 2018 that she wouldn’t seek a fifth term — she led a COVID-19 response that saw Germany fare better than some of its peers.

On the international stage, Merkel insisted on seeking compromises and pursuing a multilateral approach to the world’s problems through years of turbulence that saw the U.S. drift apart from European allies under President Donald Trump and Britain leave the European Union.

“I think Ms. Merkel’s most important legacy is simply that, in such a time of worldwide crises, she provided for stability,” said Ralph Bollmann, a biographer of Merkel and a journalist with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung newspaper.

There was “a constant succession of crises that were really existential threats and raised questions over the world order we are used to, and her achievement is that she led Germany, Europe and perhaps to some extent the world fairly safely through that, for all that you can criticize details,” Bollmann said.

Before winning the top job in 2005, he noted, Merkel campaigned as “a chancellor of change, who wanted to make Germany more modern,” seeking deeper economic reforms and a more socially liberal approach than her center-right party had previously taken.

But she ditched much of her economic agenda after almost blowing a huge poll lead by turning off voters with talk of far-reaching reforms, instead embracing what she called an approach of “many small steps.” Along with a pragmatic willingness to jettison conservative orthodoxy such as conscription when opportune, it enabled her to dominate the center ground of German politics.

Crises consumed so much energy that “not much time was left to deal with other issues,” Bollmann said. There is plenty of unfinished business: Merkel has conceded that “the lack of digitization in our society” is a problem, ranging from notoriously patchy cell phone reception to many health offices using faxes to transmit data during the pandemic.

Merkel’s political longevity is already historic. Among democratic Germany’s post-World War II leaders, she lags only Helmut Kohl, who led the country to reunification during his 1982-98 tenure. She could overtake even him if she is still in office on Dec. 17. That’s feasible if parties are slow to form a new government after the Sept. 26 election.

Merkel, 67, insists that others must judge her record. Still, she highlighted a few achievements at a rare campaign appearance last month, starting with the reduction of the number of unemployed in Germany from over 5 million in 2005 to under 2.6 million now.

Predecessor Gerhard Schroeder, whose welfare-state trims and economic reforms were beginning to kick in when he left office, arguably deserves part of the credit.

Merkel also inherited a plan to exit nuclear power from Schroeder, but abruptly accelerated it following the meltdowns at Japan’s Fukushima plant in 2011. More recently, she set in motion Germany’s exit from coal-fueled power.

The chancellor pointed to progress on renewable energy, saying its share of the German energy mix has risen from 10% to well over 40%. Merkel was often referred to as the “climate chancellor” in her early years, but also has drawn criticism for moving too slowly; her government this year moved forward the date for reducing German greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero” to 2045, after the country’s top court ruled that previous plans place too much of the burden on young people.

Merkel praised her government’s drive to improve Germany’s public finances, which enabled it to stop running up new debt from 2014 until the coronavirus pandemic pushed it into huge rescue packages. Opponents argue that it skimped on necessary investments in infrastructure.

“I could talk about how we saved the euro,” she said, adding that “our principle of combining the affected countries’ own responsibility with solidarity was exactly the right method to give the euro a future.” Merkel’s austerity-heavy approach was resented deeply in parts of Europe and controversial among economists, but allowed her to overcome reluctance at home to bail out strugglers.

Whatever the ultimate verdict, Merkel can celebrate a unique end to her tenure; she is set to become the first German chancellor to leave power when she chooses.

 

Fatah-Hamas rift deepens

Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s visit on Sunday to Ramallah termed a sign of improved relations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

However, this visit has dampened hope of resolving the dispute between the PA and its archrival, Hamas. In fact, the meeting between Gantz and PA President Mahmoud Abbas has exacerbated tensions between the two Palestinian factions.

Hamas was one of the first Palestinian groups to strongly condemn the visit by the “Zionist minister of war” to Ramallah. A number of Hamas officials accused Abbas of “stabbing the Palestinians in the back” and “betraying the blood of the Palestinian martyrs.”

A Palestinian official dismissed the charges as “idiotic” and accused Hamas of working to serve the agenda of “foreign powers” in the region, an apparent reference to Iran and Qatar. The serious accusations mean the split between the PA-ruled West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip is likely to continue, at least as long as Abbas is in power.

The rivalry between Abbas’s Fatah faction and Hamas reached its peak in 2007 when the Islamist movement violently seized control of the Gaza Strip after removing the PA from power.

Abbas has never forgiven Hamas for the humiliation. Worse, he is convinced that Hamas was behind a plot to assassinate him in the Gaza Strip.

Over the past 14 years, several attempts by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to achieve reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas have failed.

Last year, Fatah and Hamas seemed close to burying the hatchet when they announced they had reached an agreement, under the auspices of Egypt, to hold long-overdue elections for the PA presidency and parliament, as well as the PLO’s legislative body, the Palestinian National Council.

But Abbas’s decision in April to call off the elections again put Fatah and Hamas on a collision course. Since Abbas’s announcement, tensions between the two groups have been intensifying.

After the 11-day Israel-Hamas war in May, strains between the two sides further escalated, especially in light of the mass pro-Hamas demonstrations that swept many parts of the West Bank.

Several Palestinians who participated in the demonstrations were arrested or beaten by Palestinian security officers in the West Bank. Additionally, Fatah and Hamas have been unable to reach agreement on who would be responsible for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the war.

The honeymoon between Fatah and Hamas was credited to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former US president Donald Trump. Last year, Fatah and Hamas even reached agreement to work together to topple Trump’s plan for Middle East peace, also known as the “Deal of the Century,” and Netanyahu’s “schemes” against the Palestinians.

Netanyahu and Trump managed, where some Arab leaders had failed, to unite the Palestinian rival parties.

Things have since changed, however, and neither Netanyahu nor Trump is in power. The absence of the two men from the political scene and the change of government in Jerusalem and Washington paved the way for the restoration of relations between the PA and Israel and the US.

Abbas has reached the conclusion that he has more to gain from dealing with the new governments in Israel and the US than from making peace with Hamas. The Biden administration has resumed financial aid to the Palestinians and is talking about the need to strengthen the PA, and this is precisely what Abbas wants to hear.

Similarly, the new Israeli government has already changed its attitude toward Abbas and the PA. At the behest of the Biden administration, the government has announced a series of gestures to strengthen the Palestinian economy and improve the living conditions of the Palestinians.

The Israeli measures could help Abbas and the PA leadership in the short term. But in the long term, the gestures are not going to change the hearts and minds of most Palestinians toward Israel. Nor will these gestures assist Abbas in regaining credibility among his own constituents.

Gantz traveled to Ramallah with one mission, to strengthen the PA and its leaders. The visit could also be seen as a bear hug for the 85-year-old Abbas. It is no wonder that the PA leadership refused to publish any photos of the meeting. Abbas is well aware that a photo op with the “Zionist minister of war” would cause great damage by making him appear as a “subcontractor” for the Israeli security establishment.

Abbas has long been facing sharp criticism because of his support for security coordination between the PA and Israeli security forces in the West Bank. About six years ago, Abbas drew strong condemnation from many Palestinians when he was quoted as telling a group of Israelis he considered security coordination to be “sacred.”

Abbas’s political enemies, including Hamas, are now exploiting the Gantz-Abbas meeting to incite against the PA leadership. Their main argument is that Abbas has chosen to align himself with the Israelis and Americans instead of working to reunite the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and end his conflict with Hamas.

Last week, a document leaked to Palestinian media revealed that Abbas had made it clear he will not allow Hamas to join any Palestinian unity government unless the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip accepts all international resolutions pertaining to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

This means Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist and accept the two-state solution as a precondition for joining any Palestinian government – a demand that has been vehemently and repeatedly rejected by Hamas officials. The leaked document set off a war of words between Fatah and Hamas, with each accusing the other of foiling efforts to achieve national unity.

For now, Abbas and the PA leadership appear satisfied with the policies and measures of the Biden administration and the Israeli government. A senior PA official on Tuesday praised the recent agreements with Israel, especially family reunifications and financial matters, as a significant achievement.

Earlier, Palestinian officials said they were satisfied with the new approach of the Biden administration, namely to strengthen the PA.

The three men running the PA – Abbas, Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh and General Intelligence chief Majed Faraj – are all known for their hostility toward Hamas. They have decided the Palestinians are better off dealing with the Biden administration and the government of Naftali Bennett than joining forces with Hamas.

No need to blame Bennett, whatever he got is Irony of fate

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett failed to stand up to pressure from US President Joe Biden on the Iranian issue, opposition representative Tzachi Hanegbi (Likud) said Tuesday in a special session of the Knesset during its summer recess.

Hanegbi, who is one of the longest-serving MKs, recounted the history of Israeli prime ministers resisting pressure from US presidents, from Menachem Begin to Benjamin Netanyahu. He said Bennett had failed to follow in their footsteps, but he should have learned from Netanyahu’s controversial 2015 speech to Congress on the Iran deal, which Hanegbi attended.

“It wasn’t easy or comfortable for them, but our prime ministers are not elected to receive compliments in the White House,” Hanegbi said. “Bennett collapsed when he should have said, “Mr. President, I respect your view that the Iran deal should be resumed, but we will not be obligated by the agreement, and we will not let Iran gain the power to wipe us off the map. We don’t need permission to defend ourselves.” That is what was not said in the White House, and because it

Religious Services Minister Matan Kahana (Yamina), a close confidant of Bennett, responded on his behalf that the government had inherited the situation with Iran from Netanyahu and was not party to the Iran deal.

“Israel reserves the right to decide for itself on the Iran issue,” he said. “On the Iranian issue, the opposition should give its support and not make it a tool for politics.”

Defense Minister Benny Gantz had asked on Monday to speak on the government’s behalf but was turned down by Bennett’s associates, who were angry at him for meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Opposition MKs mocked Bennett for sending the religious services minister to speak on Iran instead of the defense minister.

“I guess on the Iran issue, like other security matters, all we can do is pray, so they sent us the religious services minister to deal with that,” Religious Zionist Party MK Simcha Rothman said.

Bennett’s associates and right-wing ministers in the government continued to criticize Gantz on Tuesday for the meeting with Abbas. Gantz’s No. 2 in his Blue and White Party, Aliyah and Integration Minister Pnina Tamano-Shata, defended him.

“The cowards criticizing Defense Minister Gantz are narrow-minded politicians who are jealous of his leadership,” she told Army Radio. “They are jealous because he has earned the public’s trust on security issues and the fight against coronavirus.”

Ten lessons from the lost US war in Afghanistan

I feel privileged in sharing an article by Andrew Korybko. He has rightly concluded everything that went wrong was entirely foreseeable and many even warned about what was happening but their concerns were dismissed. 

The truth finally came out and now everyone knows that the entire war was built upon a mountain of lies and easily avoidable mistakes. The US reputation is ruined and it's no longer regarded as a superpower.

Tens of thousands of lives were lost and over US$2 trillion were wasted only for the situation to revert back to how it was almost exactly twenty years ago. Now it is the time for the decision-makers, strategists, media, and civil society to somberly find out what went wrong and to plan nothing like this ever happens again. Here are the ten lessons to be learned:

Legitimate anti-terrorist actions mustn't be exploited for ulterior motives

The US attacked Afghanistan on the pretext that it had the right to militarily respond against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in self-defense after it concluded that the terrorist group's leader there was responsible for planning the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but its greatest mistake was exploiting this as the pretext to engage in so-called “nation-building”. 

Nation-building will never succeed

It's impossible to sustainably support the cause of so-called “nation-building” whereby a foreign country aggressively imposes its completely different way of life onto a targeted state's inhabitants who historically organized their society on the basis of other morals, ethics, principles, and values. 

Local allies must be held to account

After regrettably getting caught up in the Afghan quagmire, America had the responsibility to hold its allies there to account instead of letting them steal from their people, enrich themselves from the drug trade and other forms of organized crime, and carry out extrajudicial killings on the pretext of targeting the Taliban.

International coalition doesn't have impunity

America and its international coalition allies arrogantly thought that they could commit crimes against the Afghan people with impunity, but that was impossible since the rest of the world inevitably found out about their killings and other such unsavory acts even if justice isn't yet served to the culprits. 

Winning hearts and minds is more important than winning territory

Strategically speaking, the war was lost shortly after it began once the US and its allies started abusing the Afghan people in terrible ways and therefore turned their hearts and minds towards the Taliban, which therefore made it impossible for the government to hold its ground despite being backed by the US military. 

Western mainstream media always lies

The dramatic developments of the past two weeks during the Taliban's lightning-fast conquest of the country shattered the countless lies spread by the Western mainstream media about the true state of affairs there, proving that they can't ever be trusted about anything, whether it's Afghanistan, China, or whatever else. 

Inevitable military withdrawals must be carried out responsibly

The US inevitable withdrawal wasn't carried out responsibly since America should have ensured that it didn't leave any military equipment behind, established tripwires for deterring Taliban attacks until it already left the country, and compelled former President Ghani to politically compromise towards a transitional government. 

Political proxies sometimes defy their patrons

Part of the problem with the US withdrawal was that its political proxy, former President Ghani, refused to make any meaningful compromises towards a transitional government that could have facilitated a smoother transfer of power and prevented America from being humiliated even more than it already was in recent days. 

Local allies must be rescued during the withdrawal

The US shamefully abandoned tens of thousands of its Afghan allies who fear for their futures after their American-backed government just fell, which shows how unreliable the US is as an ally that it would leave its local allies to fend for themselves under such uncertain conditions instead of letting them relocate to America.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and regular contributor to several online journals. He is a member of the expert council for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Predictions at the People’s Friendship University of Russia. He has published various works in the field of Hybrid Wars, including “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach to Regime Change” and “The Law of Hybrid War: Eastern Hemisphere”.

Longest war in the history of United States comes to an end

The longest war in the history of United States has come to an end with the departure of the last American military flight out of Afghanistan almost 20 years after troops first landed in the country. American planes took off from the Kabul airport shortly before midnight local time, US Central Command head Marine Corps Gen. Frank McKenzie told reporters on Tuesday.

The last C-17 left the Hamid Karzai International Airport clearing Afghanistan's airspace just under the Biden administration’s 31st August 2021 deadline to remove all US forces from the country, McKenzie said.

"I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of the mission to evacuate American citizens, third-country nationals and vulnerable Afghans," McKenzie said.

"Every single US service member is now out of Afghanistan," he later added.

The Pentagon later released a photo of the last American soldier to board the flight, identifying him as Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue.

McKenzie could not say how many people were aboard the aircraft or where it was headed, as it was still in flight, but he confirmed that 82nd Airborne Division head Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue and Ambassador Ross Wilson were on board and “were in fact the last people to stand on the ground, step on the airplane.”

The flight also carried the last remaining US troops and the core diplomatic staff of the US Embassy in Kabul.

But there are still several hundred Americans in Afghanistan who were unable to reach the airport, along with thousands of Afghans who assisted the US military during the war effort.

McKenzie said no American civilians were on the last five flights to leave.

“We maintained the ability to bring them in up until immediately before departure, but we were not able to bring any Americans out. That activity ended probably about 12 hours before our exit. ...  None of them made it to the airport,” he added. 

But he maintained that even if the Biden administration had extended the deadline, “we wouldn’t have gotten everybody out that we wanted to get out and there still would’ve been people who would’ve been disappointed with that. It’s a tough situation.”

McKenzie also said the United States will continue the diplomatic evacuation mission to recover those Americans and vulnerable Afghans.

“I want to emphasize again that simply because we have left that doesn’t mean the opportunities for both Americans that are in Afghanistan who want to leave and Afghans who want to leave. They will not be denied that opportunity,” McKenzie added.

McKenzie also said the United States will continue the diplomatic evacuation mission to recover those Americans and vulnerable Afghans.

“While the military evacuation is complete, the diplomatic mission to ensure additional US citizens and eligible Afghans who want to leave continues,” he said.

“Tonight's withdrawal signifies both the end of the military component of the evacuation but also the end of the nearly 20-year mission that began in Afghanistan shortly after 11th September 2001. It was a mission that brought Osama bin Laden to a just end, along with many of his al Qaeda co-conspirators," McKenzie added.

"And it was not a cheap mission. The cost was 2,461 US service members and civilians killed and more than 20,000 who were injured. Sadly, that includes 13 service members who were killed last week by an ISIS-K suicide bomber. We honor their sacrifice today as we remember their heroic accomplishments,” he said.

McKenzie said the final days of the withdrawal, beginning from 1th August 2021, was the “largest non-combatant evacuation” in the US military’s history.

In those 18 days, American forces evacuated 79,000 civilians from the airport, including 6,000 Americans and more than 73,000 Special Immigrant Visa holders, consular staff, at-risk Afghans and their families, McKenzie said. Since the end of July, more than 123,000 civilians have been evacuated.

McKenzie laid out the final hours US troops were in the country, noting that the military destroyed or removed remaining equipment.

Forces kept a counter rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM) system in place “up until the very last minute” to protect against any rocket attacks before they “demilitarized those systems so that they’ll never be used again.”

In addition, troops made unusable up to 70 Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, 27 Humvees and 73 aircraft.

McKenzie said the Taliban were “very pragmatic and very businesslike” during the withdrawal and that Donahue spoke to the Taliban commander before leaving to coordinate “but there was no discussion” of turning over the airfield. 

 

Israeli Defense Minister meets Palestinian President

According to an Associated Press report, Israeli Defense Minister held talks with Palestinian President in Ramallah, the first high-level meeting between the two sides in years. 

The meeting between Benny Gantz and Mahmoud Abbas signaled a possible shift of direction after the near-complete breakdown of communication between Abbas and Israeli leaders in recent years.

It came two days after President Joe Biden urged Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett during a White House meeting to take steps toward improving the lives of Palestinians.

Gantz’s office said he told Abbas that Israel will take new measures to strengthen the Palestinian economy. It said they also discussed security issues and agreed to remain in touch. It was believed to be the highest level public meeting between the sides since 2014.

A Palestinian official said Gantz and Abbas discussed possible steps toward improving the atmosphere. He said this included Palestinian demands for a halt in Israeli military operations in Palestinian areas of the occupied West Bank, allowing unification of families with relatives inside Israel and allowing more Palestinian workers into Israel. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the late-night meeting.

Bennett is a hard-liner who opposes Palestinian independence, as do key partners in his diverse, ruling coalition. But Bennett has said he supports building up the Palestinian economy and expanding autonomy for Palestinians. He also is interested in bolstering Abbas in his rivalry with the ruling Hama  in Gaza.

While Biden supports a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, his administration is focused on interim confidence-building measures. Israel’s former Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, pursued a hard-line policy toward the Palestinians, backed by former President Donald Trump.

The Trump administration took a number of steps, including moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to contested Jerusalem. Abbas halted most contacts with the US and Israel in return.

Netanyahu had repeatedly claimed Abbas was not a reliable partner for negotiating a peace deal, a portrayal dismissed by Netanyahu critics as a pretext for avoiding making concessions.

Hussein Sheikh, a top Abbas aide, confirmed the meeting in a statement on Twitter. It took place on Sunday night in Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where Abbas maintains his headquarters.

Iran announces new regional policy

From the beginning, the new Iranian government of Ayatollah Seyed Ebrahim Raisi made it clear that change in the executive branch would bring about a shift in foreign policy. 

The new Iranian foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, indicated how this shift would play out under Ayatollah Raisi.

In his speech at the Baghdad summit, Abdollahian reiterated what his predecessor often underlined in such regional platforms that Iran wants closer cooperation with the countries of the region, especially Iran’s neighbors. 

But at the same time, he was keen to let it be known that this cooperation should be done in a new spirit, one that would respect the legitimate interests of Iran and refrain from pursuing a zero-sum game. In addition, the top Iranian diplomat made it clear that no one should seek to change the balance of power in the region by relying on outside forces. 

Underlining Iran’s support for the Iraqi efforts to create areas for cooperation and interaction among the countries of the region, Abdollahian noted, “Our region has all the religious, cultural and civilizational characteristics as well as material and spiritual capacities for regional cooperation and convergence, but unfortunately, due to foreign interventions and the dominance of security-oriented ideas, it has many problems, including war, instability and insecurity.”

In pointing to a foreign role in the region, the Iranian foreign minister put the focus on the main thrust of the Baghdad summit. The Iraqi government put much energy and effort into holding this summit to bring closer the views of stakeholders of a region suffering from political divergence and polarization. 

The Iraqis portrayed the summit as a unique platform to foster intra-regional cooperation and partnership. From their point of view, bringing together officials from rival countries would make Iraq more secure and spare it the prospect of being collateral damage for regional rivalry. 

In addition, the Iraqi government was eager to convey the message that they want, and are able, to work with all countries of the region regardless of their political standing.
 
Iran welcomed the Iraqi efforts and underlined the need to strengthen regional security through dialogue among the players in the region. “What we need today more than ever before is "sustainable regional security" with the participation of regional countries. Regional security will materialize depending on the use of economic resources to build a coalition for peace and development,” Abdollahian told the summit. 

He added, “The Islamic Republic of Iran expresses its support for the Iraqi government and people and its internal decisions including the withdrawal of foreign troops and holding early elections, and it welcomes Iraq’s constructive role in promoting a culture of dialogue and regional cooperation. Iran considers cooperation within the region as the basis for establishing stability and peace in this way. The Islamic Republic of Iran, emphasizing the important role of other countries in the region, declares its readiness to advance these goals.”

At the end of his speech, the top Iranian diplomat underlined that Iran is adopting a new approach toward the region under Ayatollah Raisi, who has reiterated more than once that Iran’s foreign policy should focus on regional cooperation particularly in economic arenas.

Abdollahian pointed to this new pivot and said, “With great pleasure, I declare, at the inauguration of Iran’s new government that our foreign policy, being ‘balanced, active and smart’, emphasizes the priority of relations with neighbors and other countries in the region, and we warmly shake hands with all neighboring and regional nations.”

Whether this new approach would lead to the normalization of ties with regional heavyweights such as Saudi Arabia remains to be seen. But it seems that there is still a long road ahead until relations are fully normalized. 

Two things happened at the Baghdad summit that dampened hopes for closer regional cooperation. First, Syria was not invited to the summit despite being a major neighbor of Iraq. Some press reports suggested the exclusion of Syria was due to foreign pressure on the Iraqi government. 

Iran objected to this exclusion both before and during the summit. “We believe that Syria, as one of Iraq’s important neighboring countries, should have been invited to this meeting, too,” said Abdollahian before leaving Tehran for Baghdad.

During the summit, Abdollahian once again alluded to Syria’s absence. “I would like to emphasize the role and support of regional nations in stabilizing and resorting security to Iraq including the friendly and brotherly country of the Syrian Arab Republic. I would like to express regret that Syria is not attending this summit,” he said. 

Second, there were no reports of a meeting between Abdollahian and his Saudi Arabian counterpart Faisal bin Farhan in Baghdad. This is while many important meetings were held on the sidelines of the summit. One such meeting was between the Emir of Qatar and the president of Egypt. Another meeting was between the Emir and the governor of Dubai, who also met with Abdollahian.

US strikes vehicle loaded with explosives heading towards Kabul airport

A drone strike by the US on Sunday targeted a vehicle in Kabul loaded with explosives that officials said posed an imminent threat to the airport amid the final days of a massive military evacuation effort of Americans and allies from Afghanistan.

US Navy Capt. Bill Urban said in a statement that the airstrike eliminated "an imminent ISIS-K threat” to the Hamid Karzai International Airport, referring to the Islamic State faction in Afghanistan.

Urban called the strike an act of “self-defense” and said military officials were still assessing the possibility of any civilian casualties. 

“We are confident we successfully hit the target,” Urban said. “Significant secondary explosions from the vehicle indicated the presence of a substantial amount of explosive material.”

The Associated Press reported earlier Sunday that "multiple suicide bombers" had been targeted in a vehicle that was headed to the airport.

It was the second US military strike in Afghanistan since a suicide bomber killed 13 US service members and dozens of Afghans on Thursday at an airport gate, which officials blamed on ISIS-K.

On Saturday, officials said two ISIS-K members were killed in a US airstrike in the Nangarhar province.

A rocket attack that killed a child was also reported early Sunday in a neighborhood northwest of the airport, according to an Afghan police chief.

 

Takeaways from Wilson Center Seminar

The withdrawal of US and coalition forces from Afghanistan, the rapid deterioration of the Afghan government and military, and the return of the Taliban will have profound implications for the future of South Asia. 

At Wilson Center in the latest event in its “Afghanistan: Hindsight Up Front” initiative participants discuss the future of the region with leading journalists, former diplomats, and thought leaders from India and Pakistan. Following are selected quotes:

David Hale

"I’d like to comment first on Afghanistan. Our leverage remains real…it’s limited. The Taliban, in my opinion, do not crave international legitimacy so much that they will compromise on their core principles or change their true colors. Their statements, the ones that we're hearing now, are to be expected, while their behavior, which we're seeing now, demonstrates that they've not really changed since 2001. And when they say governance will be guided by Sharia, they mean their version of the Sharia, which will make Saudi Arabia look a lot like the city of San Francisco."

"We must apply pressure, even if chances of it altering behavior are limited. We can build a coalition that will take the measures we have already taken, and more. I am speaking of freezing assets, stopping cash transfers, withholding diplomatic recognition, continuing UN sanctions, while of course communicating to the Taliban, how to ease these pressures, which would be on their part, suppressing ISIS and Al Qaeda, protecting human rights and humanitarian access, and allowing the processing of refugees, among other goals."

Maleeha Lohdi

"While there is no daylight between various members of the international community on what the expectation is of the Taliban. If you look at the Security Council statement, if you look at the OIC communiqué, you look at the Human Rights Council statement of two days ago. They all say the same thing, so do not underestimate the power of collective opinion, this is extremely important. I also think it's unprecedented. Never have I seen—I've served at the UN for five years—never have I seen so much solidarity, in terms of expectations. So, I don't think it would be correct to say that the Russians and the Chinese want something else, and the Americans everybody wants, top of the agenda, as David Hale says, top of the agenda for everyone, is combating terrorism, there is no question about that."

Nandan Unnikrishnan

"A stable Afghanistan, under Taliban rule—oppressive or not, I'm not getting into that—would distinctly increase China's role in the region. China's BRI would definitely then move ahead and Central Asia, West Asia, and of course, parts of South Asia, would come under increasing influence of the Chinese. From an Indian perspective, given our current relationship with China, it is not necessarily the best scenario. But, at the same time, as I said, it is probably better than the second scenario, where Afghanistan is unstable. I think Ambassador Lodhi has very eloquently described what happens to the region, not only us, but even, let's say, Central Asia and other areas….It is a danger, not just to Pakistan, it's a danger for everyone."

Huma Yusuf

"No, I think this does get at the point that I was trying to make right at the outset, which is that, I think a lot of this, this myth of Pakistan’s leverage, or so-called, control, or puppet mastery of the Taliban, this is outdated and inaccurate and is certainly not rooted in what's to come. A lot of that will have to do with the dispensation that does emerge in Afghanistan and the level of control that a Taliban-led regime based in Kabul would have over the rest of the country, and on the sort of numerous militant groups that are operating in that area, and the fact that, we know that there will never be that kind of neat, centralized control, and we also know that, as activities happen and fingers are pointed here and there, that all groups will constantly try and refer to this idea of plausible deniability, that actually what I see emerging is a scenario where there is more potential for two sovereign states, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to find themselves at odds, and so there's this notion that Pakistan will be the leverage, Pakistan will speak to the Taliban, on behalf of the rest of the world, I just think that that's an outdated notion."

Venkateswaran Lokanathan

"The other question that I think requires a fair deal of deliberation is whether the US will accept a more proactive role for Russia and China in Afghanistan and the region moving forward. Russia has already started playing a more active role in neighboring Central Asia. President Putin has expressed concerns over the spillover of radical Islam into the region. Simultaneously, the presence of certain groups like the ETIM, which is sympathetic to the UYGHER cause in Xinjiang, also raises concern for China, and hence China is also now becoming more actively involved.  It has already begun diplomatic engagement with Taliban, and President Xi, and President Putin, have also agreed to cooperate with developments in Afghanistan, and more importantly against foreign interference. "

Mark Green

"In 2020, Congress created a blue-ribbon panel of experts called the Afghanistan Study Group. Its purpose was to create new recommendations on Afghanistan for policymakers. I was a member of that study group. Our final report called “A Pathway for Peace,” concluded that the best American approach for Afghanistan, required a new overarching regional strategy. The report stated that Afghanistan lies in the middle of a region beset with rivalries and low levels of trust. It saw the potential for a fragile, but real regional consensus, behind a stable and neutral Afghanistan, that is neither a haven for terrorists, nor a fiefdom of the Taliban. We found that a stable Afghanistan would create the potential for regional economic cooperation that could benefit all countries in the region. But we also warned that an unstable Afghanistan risks destabilizing the region, to continue trade and illicit drugs, the attraction of extremist ideologies, and the possible exacerbation of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed powers."