Is Bennett being trapped by non-state actors?

On last Sunday it appeared that Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had just erased a 54-year policy banning Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount. Had Bennett actually made such a policy change, it likely would have started a religious war between Jews and Muslims, due to vehement opposition to Jewish prayer at the site. 

Domestically it would have collapsed his coalition and set Israel hurtling back into another election cycle.

It’s a move that could have severed Israel’s ties with its neighbor Jordan and complicated relations between Amman and Washington on the eve of US President Joe Biden’s first meeting there with King Abdullah the next day, particularly given that the Hashemite Kingdom has a special custodial relationship to the Temple Mount.

At issue was a line in a tweet sent out by the Prime Minister’s Office in the aftermath of clashes at the Temple Mount, also known to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif.

Initially it looked like a simple message, letting the public know that Bennett had spoken “with Public Security Minister Bar Lev and Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Shabtai and thanked them for managing the events on the Temple Mount with responsibility and consideration.”

This could have been termed the most innocuous statement in the world, the Prime Minister’s Office added that this was done “while maintaining freedom of worship for Jews on the Mount.”

The Prime Minister’s Office continued the Twitter thread, stating that Bennett had emphasized that “freedom of worship on the Temple Mount will be fully preserved for Muslims as well, who will soon be marking the fast of the Day of Arafah and the Eid al-Adha.”

Not exactly the type of notice one issues when setting a policy change. Except that a policy – known as the status quo – worked out in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967 between Israel and the Wakf Islamic religious trust allows members of all faiths to visit the site, while banning anyone but Muslims from praying there. Jews in particular are expected to pray at the nearby Western Wall.

Bennett backtracked, with his spokesman Matan Sidi clarifying that there was no change to the status quo. Sidi’s words appeared to extinguish potential sparks, but the timing could not have been worse.

US airstrikes in Afghanistan

During this past week, the US military launched several airstrikes in support of Afghan government forces fighting Taliban, including in the strategically important province of Kandahar. It must be kept in mind that at present United States has no airbases in Pakistan or Central Asian countries.

These strikes demonstrate the US intentions to continue supporting Afghan forces with combat aircraft based outside the country, at least until the scheduled conclusion of the US military withdrawal by 31st August 2021.

The US has a variety of combat aircraft based in the Middle East within range of Afghanistan, including warplanes aboard an aircraft carrier in the region and fighters and bombers in the Persian Gulf area.

These are the first known US airstrikes in Afghanistan since Gen. Scott Miller, the top US commander in the country, relinquished his command and left the country. The authority to launch airstrikes against the Taliban has since been in the hands of Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, who oversees US military involvement in the greater Middle East.

The United States conducted a total of more than four airstrikes in support of Afghan forces. At least two of the strikes were to destroy military equipment, including an artillery piece and a vehicle that the Taliban had taken from Afghan forces. The Afghans requested those strikes, as well as those targeting Taliban fighting positions, including at least one strike in the southern province of Kandahar.

At a Pentagon news conference Wednesday, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Taliban now control about half of the 419 district centers in Afghanistan, and while they have yet to capture any of the country’s 34 provincial capitals, they are pressuring about half of them. As the Taliban seize more territory, the Afghan security forces are consolidating their positions to protect key population centers, including Kabul, he said.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that after 31st August the main focus will be on countering threats to the US homeland from extremist groups inside Afghanistan. He added that the administration will provide financial and other kinds of support to Afghan defense forces, even with no combat troops or strike aircraft based there.

 

Can joining Quad help India fight Himalayan war against China?

The ambiguity over officially announcing China as its adversary, the lack of overlap between the geographies or the issues of its members with China, and the military disadvantages before a well-prepared Chinese puts a question mark over Indian inclusion in the Quad.

India has maintained that it perceives the Quad as not aimed against anyone, “denied it is an Asian NATO”, stressed on broader issues from vaccine collaboration, to resilient supply chains, and framed its language that avoids irking China. But the belated adoption of broader goals such as climate change and vaccines in the 12th March Quad Leaders’ Summit, to make it more acceptable to other countries, suggested that the target is Beijing.

Only India and Japan have territorial disputes and are geographically close with China, while the US and Australia’s opposition stems from Great Power contest, China’s socio-political system and policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The only tangible dispute Australia has with China was the trade war where the latter’s tariffs cost Australia US$3 billion ‑ themselves in response to Australia backing a global inquiry into the COVID-19 origins in April 2020.

While India’s territorial disputes with China are in the Himalayas, Japan contests the Senkaku Islands (or Diaoyu in Chinese) in the East China Sea. Thus, the lack of a contiguous land or maritime geography with China does not allow a ‘united front’ per se — like Egypt and Sudan against Ethiopia, or Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean against Turkey. Moreover, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on 22nd April refused intervening in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan itself, while clarifying 17th April joint statement with Biden in the Japanese Parliament.

India is not likely to join Quad members to collectively confront China in the South China Sea, as China can be expected to retaliate with severe backlash in Ladakh. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is already limiting the disengagement only to the Pangong Tso, with the standoff becoming a year old.

Beijing initiated the standoff because of India’s rising military dalliance with the US and tacitly joining former US President Donald Trump’s COVID-19-origin charge in early 2020. China perceived it as a threat to its sovereignty and India and US exploiting its vulnerability. Moreover, India’s reconciliatory statements at the beginning of the standoff reflected an unwillingness to go to war.

Giving up the Kailash Range plateau that had stunned the Chinese, has also left India with little military options. Add to it its obsolete military equipment and structure, India can only fight a defensive war. In the South China Sea against the US Navy that is stretched thin, the Chinese have a home advantage.

In the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) knows it faces the ‘away’ disadvantage and, therefore, will not challenge the Quad or India.

Retired US Navy Admiral Dennis Blair also discredits the ‘String of Pearls’ theory, saying it is “not possible for any navy to encircle a country (like India) with a few ports.” Since international law would permit India to strike regions it faces attacks from, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Pakistan will not host Chinese military facilities aimed at India.

A China policy independent of the US geopolitical rivalries that objectively addresses Indian issues with Beijing and avoids the destabilization that Washington’s military alliances effect would inspire a positive response from China. Moreover, banking on military alliances against China would harm the current government’s muscular, nationalistic image.

Remembering King Abdullah I of Jordan

The year 2021 marks 70 years of assassination of King Abdullah I of Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He was assassinated on the Temple Mount, while visiting Jerusalem to meet Israeli officials amid his efforts to reach a settlement with Israel. 

Abdullah was assassinated at the age of 69 as he was exiting al-Aqsa Mosque after Friday prayers with his grandson Hussein.

The assassin, Mustafa Shukri Ashshu, was associated with Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, who sparked riots against Jews in Mandatory Palestine and was close with Adolf Hitler during World War II. Those associated with the Mufti were often termed "bitter enemies" of Abdullah, as the Mufti supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, which Abdullah seemed to have thwarted by annexing the West Bank, according to a Guardian article from the day after the assassination.

A few days before the assassination, Riad al Sohl, the first prime minister of Lebanon, was also assassinated in Jordan. Ali Razmara, Prime Minister of Iran, and Abdul Hamid Zanganeh, former Education Minister of Iran, were also assassinated in the months before Abdullah's assassination. The assassinations were seen as a sign of increasing instability in the region.

Abullah was succeeded by his son Talal, who was forced to abdicate about a year later due to mental illness. Talal was succeeded by Hussein, who ruled until 1999, when he was succeeded by the current king of Jordan, Abdullah II.

King Abdullah I was known for his efforts to reach at least some form of peace with Israel, although he was assassinated 43 years before a peace treaty between the two nations was finally signed.

Abdullah met with Reuven Shiloah, the first Mossad director, and Golda Meir in a number of discussions from 1949 to 1950. The king made extensive efforts to get other Jordanian officials to support reaching a settlement with Israel, but faced intense opposition from both officials and the Jordanian and Palestinian public.

Abdullah had been set to meet with Shiloah and diplomat Moshe Sasson in Jerusalem the day after he was assassinated, according to Avi Shalim, an Israeli-British historian.

In Lion of Jordan, Shalim's biography of Abdullah's grandson, Hussein, Abdullah is quoted as having told Sasson "I want to make peace with Israel not because I have become a Zionist or care for Israel’s welfare but because it is in the interest of my people. I am convinced that if we do not make peace with you, there will be another war, and another war, and another war, and another war, and we shall lose all these wars. Hence it is the supreme interest of the Arab nation to make peace with you"

Elias Sasson, Moshe's father, wrote shortly after Abdullah's assassination: "King Abdullah was the only Arab statesman who showed an understanding for our national renewal, a sincere desire to come to a settlement with us, and a realistic attitude to most of our demands and arguments... We as well as some of the Arabs and foreigners are going to feel for a long time to come his absence, and to regret more than a little his removal from our midst," according to Shalim's biography.

By the time of his assassination, Israeli officials had largely lost hope that Abdullah's efforts would ever lead to an actual peace due to continuing opposition by Arab and Jordanian officials.

At the time of his assassination, a newsreel by the British Pathé News described Abdullah as "the one man who might have brought peace to the Middle East."

Winston Churchill expressed deep regret after hearing of Abdullah's assassination, saying "I deeply regret the murder of this wise and faithful Arab ruler, who never deserted the cause of Britain and held out the hand of reconciliation to Israel," according to The Guardian.

Fervent protests in Indian Parliament over spyware scandal

There was lot of huge and cry in the Indian Parliament on Tuesday as opposition lawmakers accused government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi of using military-grade spyware to monitor political opponents, journalists and activists. 

The session was disrupted repeatedly as opposition lawmakers shouted slogans against Modi government and demanded an investigation into how the spyware, known as Pegasus, was used in India.

“This is a national security threat,” an opposition Congress party official, Kapil Sibal, said at a news conference.

The protests came after an investigation by a global media consortium was published on Sunday. Based on leaked targeting data, the findings provided evidence that the spyware from Israel-based NSO Group, the world’s most infamous hacker-for-hire company, was used to allegedly infiltrate devices belonging to a range of targets, including journalists, activists and political opponents in 50 countries.

In India, the list of potential surveillance targets included senior Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi, at least 40 journalists, a veteran election strategist critical of Modi and a top virologist, according to the investigation.

Newly appointed Information Technology Minister, Ashwani Vaishnaw dismissed the allegations on Monday, calling them “highly sensational,” “over the top,” and “an attempt to malign the Indian democracy.”

Minutes after his statement in Parliament, India’s independent The Wire website ‑ part of the media consortium ‑ revealed that his name also appeared on the list as a potential surveillance target in 2017. He was not a member of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party at that time.

NSO Group has said it only sells its spyware to “vetted government agencies” for use against terrorists and major criminals. The Indian government has so far dodged questions over whether it is a client of the group.

A list of more than 50,000 cell phone numbers was obtained by the Paris-based journalism nonprofit Forbidden Stories and the human rights group Amnesty International, which was then shared with 16 news organizations.

Journalists were able to identify more than 1,000 individuals in 50 countries who were allegedly selected by NSO clients for potential surveillance, including 300 verified Indian numbers, The Wire reported.

In India, the investigation fueled a slew of angry reactions from officials.

Home Minister Amit Shah called the investigation an attempt to “derail India’s development trajectory through their conspiracies” and said it was “timed to cause disruptions in Parliament.”

The former IT minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said there was “not a shred of evidence linking Indian government or the BJP” to the allegations. Prasad called it an international plot to defame India.

Rights groups say the findings bolster accusations that not just autocratic regimes but also democratic governments, including India, have used the spyware for political ends.

It has also intensified concerns of a democratic backsliding and erosion of civil liberties under Modi. Recently, the Washington-based Freedom House downgraded India, the world’s most populous democracy, from “free” to “partly free.”

Rahul Gandhi, the most influential Indian name revealed so far, was Modi’s main challenger in the 2014 and 2019 general elections. Two of his phone numbers used between mid-2018 and mid-2019, in the runup to the election, appear on the list.

Gandhi no longer has the devices so it was not possible to analyze them to determine if they had been hacked, The Wire reported. They also found at least nine numbers of people in Gandhi’s circle.

The list also included Gangandeep Kang, a top virologist, Prashant Kishor, a longtime political strategist who helped Modi to power in 2014 but is now one of his strongest opponents, and Ashok Lavasa, a former top official in India’s Election Commission.

Phone numbers of a Supreme Court staffer who accused the former Chief Justice, Ranjan Gogoi, of sexual harassment in 2019, also appeared in the data just days after she recorded her allegations. Gogoi was later cleared of the allegations, which he had denied.

US occupation has caused enormous damage to Afghanistan, says Ali Akbar Velayati

Ali Akbar Velayati, Secretary General of the World Assembly on Islamic Awakening, on Monday expressed regret at the enormous damage caused by the US military invasion of Afghanistan. He reiterated Iran’s commitment to supporting the Afghan nation on the path of peace, security, and development.

Addressing a virtual conference on Afghanistan hosted by the World Assembly of Islamic Awakening, Velayati warned that despite the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the Americans were still maliciously trying to create divisions among Afghans.

He also commended the Afghan people for their courageous struggles with the Western and Eastern occupiers and invaders over the past decades.

Afghans fought the invading Soviet Army in the 1980s, forcing the Kremlin to leave the country in disgrace. After the 11^th September 2001, the United States also invaded Afghanistan and also leaving the after 20 years shamefully. 

Addressing the conference entitled “Afghanistan, Sustainable Peace, and Security”, the veteran politician noted that the United States occupied Afghanistan for 20 years by deploying thousands of soldiers and spending billions of dollars, resulting in severe damage and significant disasters in Afghanistan.

Despite the initial delusion, the United States is humiliatingly withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, although it is still trying to destroy what is left in Afghanistan, regretted Velayati who was Iran’s foreign minister from 1981 to 1997.

The Iranian politician also warned that the United States is engaged in atrocious provocations to create discord among the noble people of Afghanistan.

“However, the elite and educated individuals in Afghanistan are aware of their evil intentions and will thwart these conspiracies,” he pointed out.

Velayati attributed the bloody wars between various ethnic groups in Afghanistan over the past 40 years to foreign provocations and called for vigilance to strengthen brotherhood between all parties that have lived in friendship and peace for thousands of years.

On 8th and 9^th July, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs presided over a round of intra-Afghan negotiations. Representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban took part in the talks.

The meeting was also attended by high-level figures supporting the Afghan republic.

At the end of two-day Afghan internal talks six statements were released. All parties participating in the meeting recognized the threat of a protracted war in Afghanistan and its damage to the country. In their statement, they also agreed that war is not the solution to the Afghan problem and called for collective efforts to achieve a peaceful and political solution.

Delegations from the Afghan government and the Taliban said in a joint statement on Sunday that they will meet again and plan to expedite peace negotiations after two days of inconclusive talks in Doha.

The negotiators from the rival sides, who have been in Doha since Saturday, said, “The two sides are committed to continue negotiations at a high level until a settlement is reached.”

Afghan evacuees to be housed at Virginia base

The Biden administration plans to send the first group of Afghans - who are being evacuated amid threats to their lives for helping US troops during the war - to a military base in Virginia, a congressional aide notified about the plans confirmed Monday.

Spokespeople for the State and Defense Departments later also announced the plans to send the first group of Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants to Fort Lee, Virginia.

"These are brave Afghans and their families, as we have said, whose service to the United States has been certified by the embassy in Kabul, and who have completed thorough SIV security vetting processes," State Department spokesperson Ned Price said at a news briefing. "They will be provided temporary housing and services as they complete the final steps in the special immigrant process."

According to the plan up to 2,500 Afghans who are in the "very final stages" of applying for SIVs are expected to be sent to Fort Lee while they wait for "final medical screenings and final administrative requirements," Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said at separate briefing. That includes 700 SIV applicants, while the rest are their family members.

Because they are near the end of the process, the Afghans are likely to only stay at the base for "several days or so," Kirby added.

Some of the 2,500 may also be sent to other military bases inside the United States in addition to Fort Lee as the Pentagon continues to look at options to house SIV applicants, Kirby said.

The first news reported by Reuters, came after the Biden administration last week formally announced “Operation Allies Refuge,” which officials said would start evacuations at the end of July.

Sending the Afghans to Fort Lee represents a shift from the administration’s initial statements on looking to send them to third countries or US facilities outside the continental United States.

But the Pentagon last week did say it also started looking at facilities within the continental United States in order to give the State Department, which is leading the operation, as many options as possible.

The Pentagon is continuing to look into overseas facilities to house Afghans who are less further along in the visa process than the group coming to Virginia and so need "additional security vetting," Kirby said Monday.

Plans are underway to relocate about 4,000 applicants and their family members outside the United States, Price said.

This group has passed the “chief of mission screening” process, Price said, but has yet to complete the more vigorous security clearance vetting process to come to the United States, which can take several months. 

For those coming to Fort Lee, the Pentagon will provide food and water, "appropriate medical care" if needed and "as much comfort as we can provide," such as providing access to religious facilities, Kirby said. The department will not need to build new housing for them on the base, he added.

Asked why Fort Lee was chosen as the initial site to house the Afghans, Kirby said the base "just made a lot of sense for a lot of different reasons."

Kirby declined to say when the first group would arrive at Fort Lee, citing security concerns.

The Biden administration has faced extensive pressure from lawmakers and advocates to evacuate Afghans who served as interpreters or otherwise helped the US military during the war as the United States nears its final exit from Afghanistan after nearly 20 years. The pullout from America’s longest war is about 95 percent done, with President Biden setting an official deadline of 31st August 2021 to complete the withdrawal.