Rabat : A health ailment during his stay in Jordan postponed the visit of the first Moroccan political official to Israel

The head of the Moroccan House of Councilors (Parliament's second chamber), Al-Na'am Mayara, postponed his visit to Israel due to a health ailment.

This came in a statement issued by the Moroccan Council of Advisors, on Wednesday, hours before a two-day visit, which was scheduled for Mayara to Israel as part of a Middle Eastern tour that he began in Jordan, on Sunday.

The statement stated that the postponement came against the backdrop of "the health ailment that befell Mayara, in the Jordanian capital, Amman, at the end of his visit to it."

He explained that the health ailment “necessitated Mayara’s stay in the hospital and undergo in-depth examinations and treatment.”

The statement added that “he (Mayara) was unable to continue the parliamentary visit that was scheduled for September 6 and 7 to both the Palestinian National Council and the Israeli Knesset.”

The Parliament of the Mediterranean is an international organization established in 2005 by the national parliaments of the countries of the Euro-Mediterranean region, and includes 31 parliaments in its membership, including Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Palestine.

The Mediterranean Parliament is a platform for dialogue and communication and a channel for parliamentary diplomacy on issues related to the peace process in the Middle East, as it is the only forum in which Palestine and Israel participate through their national parliaments.

The Parliament of the Mediterranean is an international organization established in 2005 by the national parliaments of the countries of the Euro-Mediterranean region, and includes 31 parliaments in its membership, including Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Palestine.

Mayara is considered the first prominent Moroccan political official to visit Israel, since the two countries announced on December 10, 2020, the resumption of their diplomatic relations after they were suspended in 2000.

Washington : Iran's nuclear slowdown may boost America's hopes for a reduction in tensions

Vienna: Analysts believe that the limited steps taken by Iran to slow the increase in its stockpiles of enriched uranium to a level close to that needed to make weapons may help ease US-Iranian tensions , but they do not mean the possibility of achieving progress towards a broader nuclear agreement before the US elections scheduled for 2024.

Limited steps may help ease US-Iranian tensions, but they do not mean progress towards a nuclear agreement before the US presidential elections

According to reports from the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, seen by Reuters, Iran has reduced the production rate of enriched uranium to a purity of up to 60 percent, close to the 90 percent grade used in making weapons, and it has also reduced a small amount of its enriched stock by 60 percent.

But this stock continues to grow. Iran currently possesses approximately 60 percent enriched uranium, enough, if enriched to a higher degree, to make three nuclear bombs, according to a theoretical estimate by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It also has enough enriched uranium to lower levels to make more bombs.

Iran, meanwhile, has failed to address the IAEA's concerns about traces of uranium found at two undisclosed sites, or make progress on reinstalling surveillance cameras, despite longstanding pressure from the IAEA and Western powers to do so.

Analysts specializing in non-proliferation say that the Iranian nuclear slowdown may be enough for the United States and Iran to continue exploring what they describe as "understandings" that Washington has never recognized to reduce tensions on nuclear and other issues.

Iran's nuclear slowdown may be enough for the United States and Iran to continue exploring what they call "understandings" that Washington has never acknowledged to lower tensions over nuclear and other issues.

They added that this does not necessarily mean placing any actual restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program before the US elections scheduled for November 5, 2024, but it may help US President Joe Biden avoid a politically devastating crisis with Iran as he seeks re-election.

"Slowing the increase in the stockpile of enriched uranium by 60 percent is a clear indication that Tehran is open to moving forward with de-escalation 'understandings' with Washington," said Henry Romm of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Romm pointed out that the slowdown and expectations regarding the exchange of prisoners between the United States and Iran this month pave the way for “more diplomacy this fall on the nuclear program, albeit without the goal of reaching a new agreement before the US presidential elections.”

"For Washington, there may be a low limit on what Iran needs to do for 'de-escalation' purposes," he added, noting that "it is likely that Iran has crossed that limit."

Iran 'don't hit the brakes'

It appears that Biden's main goal is to keep tensions under control, and these tensions range from Tehran's nuclear program to militia-backed attacks on US interests in the Middle East.

On Iran's recent steps, analyst Eric Brewer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative said, "Iran has lifted its foot on fuel in some areas, but it is not pressing the brakes on the nuclear program." He described the steps as “mitigated de-escalation.”

He continued, "The value of the steps taken by Iran with regard to nuclear non-proliferation is relatively small, but the goal of the (US) de-escalation policy is not to solve the nuclear program immediately, but rather to build political protection and avoid the outbreak of a crisis."

"Until next year's elections, the administration appears to want calm and is willing to pay the price in broad support for the Iranian regime," said Elliott Abrams, former US President Donald Trump's special representative for Iran who now works at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Abrams was alluding to a rise in Iranian oil exports despite US sanctions and the transfer of six billion dollars of Iranian money from South Korea to Qatar as part of a prisoner exchange agreement.

Although the Biden administration says that the money is moving from one account subject to restrictions to another and can only be withdrawn from it for humanitarian purposes, it seems clear that Iran will be able to access it in Qatar to a greater extent than was the case in South Korea.

The US State Department avoids delving into whether it has reached any “understandings” with Iran, for reasons including that any recognition of concluding an agreement with Tehran regarding the Iranian nuclear program may, by law, lead to a review by the US Congress.

A US State Department spokesman said on Tuesday that he had nothing to add other than statements issued in mid-August in which the ministry denied the existence of any nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran without ruling out the possibility of reaching unwritten understandings.

After taking office in January 2021, Biden tried to revive the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, under which Iran committed to restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations.

Former Republican President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018, arguing that it was too generous with Tehran, and reimposed broad US economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Efforts to revive the agreement appeared to have failed almost a year ago, when diplomats said Iran had rejected what EU mediators described as their final offer.

Diplomats consider that reaching an agreement is far-fetched due to the progress achieved by Iran, especially in operating advanced centrifuges that have a much greater production capacity, but analysts believe that there may be room for more serious nuclear talks after the US elections.

Asked why Iran was slowing down its nuclear program, a Western diplomat said, "I think that's part of the discussions they're having with the United States and part of the broader agreement, the no-deal agreement."

He continued, “It is better than nothing, but I cannot consider it as a huge progress.”

Nazareth - Rare statements by a former Mossad chief pave the way for the trial of Israeli leaders before “international crimes”

The statements of former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo shocked the Israeli political system, amid fears that they would pave the way for the prosecution of Ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich against the backdrop of their actions and words, in the recent period, especially the call to burn Huwara, and to establish the superiority of the Jews over the Palestinians by the right to movement.

The Ynet website quoted an Israeli political source as saying that Pardo’s use of the term apartheid caused great damage, not only to Israel’s image, but also in terms of increasing the possibility of its politicians being prosecuted in international judicial forums. It is noteworthy that the International Criminal Court in The Hague is preparing, these days, to issue a ruling in response to a question submitted by the Palestinian Authority, about whether the occupation is temporary, as Israel claims, or whether it is continuing. The International Criminal Court is also supposed to launch an investigation into Israel committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In a lengthy interview with the American News Agency, Pardo said that in a geographical area where two people live and manage their lives according to two different judicial systems, this means that we live in a system of apartheid.

Pardo revealed that, during his tenure as head of the Mossad (2006-2011), he had previously warned the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, several times, about the continued vacuum, and called on him to make a decision on the question of what are Israel’s borders, otherwise he would enter the Jewish state under the threat of its destruction. Pardo, who has refrained from issuing such statements and positions until now, especially when he was in a decision-making position, adds in this regard: “Israel must decide what it wants, as a state without borders is a state without borders and controls.” Pardo touched on Ben Gvir’s racist statements about the right to movement, and said, “Israeli citizens can move around in their boats throughout the length and breadth of the country, including the West Bank, while Palestinians are denied this, and are forced to ask for permission in order to enter Israel and move within it.” He continued: “This is not an opinion, but a fact.”

Pardo admitted that, even when he was at the head of the Mossad, he believed that the Palestinian issue was one of the very pressing issues, and was even more pressing for Israel than the Iranian nuclear plan.

This is not an extreme position. This is a fact

Pardo stressed that his positions regarding the reality of the situation in the West Bank, which, upon publication, sparked a storm of angry Israeli reactions, “are not extremist but fact.” He refused to answer the question of whether he held these positions during his position as head of the Mossad. However, he stated that he believed, at that time as well, that the Palestinian issue was one of the very pressing issues, and was even more pressing on Israel than the Iranian nuclear plan. Pardo also considered that the internal debates in Israel have deeper roots than what appears on the surface, including what is related to the conflict between those who want it to be a religious state and those who want to separate religion from the state in it, in addition to a hidden debate between those who want to demarcate its borders and are looking for a settlement of the Palestinian issue, and those who want to demarcate its borders and are looking for a settlement of the Palestinian issue. He ignores it without a strategic plan, on top of moral erosion as a result.”

Hint of Nazism

It is noteworthy that Pardo, who was appointed by Netanyahu to head the Mossad, has become, since the termination of his position, one of the staunch opponents of him and his government and the coup plan against the regime it leads.

Last July, Pardo told Hebrew Public Radio that Netanyahu had lost his compass, after introducing extremist and unseen elements into his government, and that some ministers were identical with racist ministers in the world.

Pardo went further, in a dangerous hint, by saying that he did not want to address examples from the 1930s, referring to Nazism. He said that the racist ministers in Netanyahu’s ruling coalition resemble the Western terrorist organization “Ku Klux Klan,” which believes in white supremacy, and adopts racist racial theories and hatred of minorities.

Angry Israeli reactions to Pardo's statements followed, as the Israeli lawyer Nick Kaufman (who worked as a defense attorney at the International Criminal Court) said that the statements of Israeli ministers, such as those that can be interpreted as support for official policies that support inhumane actions within the framework of a system of oppression, persecution and racial superiority, would To expedite judicial procedures against Israeli officials in international crimes. Kaufman said that the International Criminal Court has always struggled to find evidence criminalizing Israeli policies, but that “problematic statements by some of its ministers, such as those made by Ben Gvir, provide the case on its table against Israel with the required basis on a silver platter.” He warned that an international criminal ruling confirming that Israel is managing a long-term occupation, not a temporary one, would implicate it in the judicial aspect.

He explained that if the talk was about a long-term occupation, it could be treated as an actual annexation , with all the implications that accrue from the perspective of international jurisprudence. He adds: “In such a case, the way is paved to impose sanctions on Israel, and perhaps isolate it.”

Political and judicial ammunition in the hands of the Palestinians

Ynet quoted an anonymous Israeli judicial source as saying that when a prominent Israeli figure uses the term “apartheid” in the context of talking about Israeli control over the occupied Palestinian territories in 1967, this “falls ripe fruit into the hands of those who are trying to prove this accusation in court.” He also quoted a “senior political source” attacking Pardo, saying that the talk is about exaggerated statements that give support to the enemies of Israel. The aforementioned official continued: “The use of the term ‘apartheid’ by those at the top of the Israeli security establishment causes us unnecessary harm, and we will pay a price in international courts. This is a very redundant saying, and it is a shame that it was said.”

Pardo considered that the internal debates in Israel have deeper roots than what appears on the surface: the conflict between those who want it to be a religious state, and those who want to separate religion from the state, in addition to a hidden debate between those who want to delineate its borders and seek a settlement of the Palestinian issue.

Likud: “False and shameful statements”

While the Prime Minister of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, remains silent on Pardo's important statements, his party criticized them, and considered them "false and shameful." The Likud claimed, in a statement, that there is no country in the world that fights “terrorism” at a high moral level as Israel does, claiming that the occupation army seeks to protect Israeli civilians while avoiding harming innocent people. Within the denial of “apartheid,” the “Likud” also said that Israeli hospitals treat sick and injured Jews and Palestinians alike, and that Arabs and Jews work side by side. Likud continued in its statement: “Instead of defending Israel and its army, Pardo is involved in stigmatizing and defaming it.”

A comprehensive and important international report

It is noteworthy that the UN special envoy to monitor the rights of the Palestinian people in the territories occupied in 1967, Michael Lynk, also said that Israel practices an apartheid regime. In his report to the United Nations last week, Lynk said, on the eve of the International Criminal Court’s debate on the question of the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation, that Israel is violating international law, while annexing occupied land, violating the rights of citizens, and running an apartheid regime.

In his 107-page report, which was prepared in cooperation with the National University of Ireland, Link asserts that the occupation is not legitimate, and therefore it must be stopped, and a complete withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967 must be done unconditionally, with the abolition of racist laws.

 It is noteworthy that Link is a professor of law and is about to end his international position, after seven years of holding it. His aforementioned report is considered one of the most comprehensive international reports on the occupation, stopping colonialism, and the right to self-determination.

Erase Hawara

In addition to Bardo and his confessions, a number of ministers present other confessions, in the form of blatant racist statements that would constitute propaganda, judicial and political ammunition in the hands of opponents of the occupation. Among them is the Minister of Finance and the additional Minister in the Ministry of Security, Batzalel Smotrich , who called, last summer, for the erasure of the Palestinian village of Hawara, and soon retracted it, and tried to correct his criminal statement. Nevertheless, Smotrich works as an additional minister in the Ministry of Security, and he monopolizes the powers of what is known as the “self-administration”, and practically seeks to effectively annex the occupied West Bank, and to thwart the two-state settlement.

Thus, the racist statements of the settler convicted of terrorism, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, said, about two weeks ago, that the right of him, his wife, and his children to move within the West Bank precedes the right of the Palestinians to it. Observers see these blatant racist statements as strengthening the position that Israel is running an apartheid regime. .

It is noteworthy that, last month, the former deputy head of the Mossad, Amiram Levin, strongly criticized the Netanyahu government, against the backdrop of the plan to weaken the judiciary, indicating that what the West Bank is witnessing, after 57 years of occupation, is apartheid, and that “the Israeli army has begun Involvement in war crimes, and in deep operations reminiscent of the operations that took place in Nazi Germany. Levin continued, in statements to the Israeli Channel 12: “If you walk around the city of Hebron, you will see streets that Arabs cannot walk on. It is painful and unpleasant, but it is the reality. It is better for us as Israelis to deal with this reality, despite its difficulty, and not ignore it as if it does not concern us.”