Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan   |  Photo Credit: AP

Tel Aviv: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan have been nominated for the next year’s Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in establishing diplomatic ties between their countries, said the Israeli premier’s office on Tuesday.

“Nobel Peace Prize laureate Lord David Trimble today submitted the candidacy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the Nobel Peace Prize, together with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed,” the Prime Minister’s office said in a statement, as quoted by Sputnik.

According to Sputnik, Trimble, the former first minister of Northern Ireland, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998 for his efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in northern Ireland. Since Trimble himself is the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, it gives him the privilege of nominating others.

The Nobel Prize Committee will review Natanyahu’s and Al Nahyan’s candidacies.

On September 15, United States President Donald Trump presided over a signing ceremony at the White House to establish the foundation of the peace agreements among Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the Abraham Accord signed by the two Gulf countries, Bahrain and the UAE, they have now joined Egypt and Jordan as the only Arab nations to have full relations with Israel.

After the signing of the Abraham Accord by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Bahrain’s foreign minister Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani and Crown Prince Nahyan, Trump called on other Arab and Muslim nations to follow the UAE’s lead.

Along with the two heads of state, it was announced in September that US President Trump has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize following his efforts to broker peace between Israel and the UAE.

The nomination was submitted by Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament, citing his “key role in… creating new dynamics in other protracted conflicts, such as the Kashmir border dispute between India and Pakistan”. (

BERLIN (Reuters) – The number of confirmed coronavirus cases in Germany increased by 11,169 to 1,053,869, data from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) for infectious diseases showed on Monday. The reported death toll rose by 125 to 16,248, the tally showed.

The startling aspect about the Dolchstosslegende is this: It did not grow weaker after 1918 but stronger. In the face of humiliation and unable or unwilling to cope with the truth, many Germans embarked on a disastrous self-delusion: The nation had been betrayed, but its honor and greatness could never be lost. And those without a sense of national duty and righteousness — the left and even the elected government of the new republic — could never be legitimate custodians of the country.

In this way, the myth was not just the sharp wedge that drove the Weimar Republic apart. It was also at the heart of Nazi propaganda, and instrumental in justifying violence against opponents. The key to Hitler’s success was that, by 1933, a considerable part of the German electorate had put the ideas embodied in the myth — honor, greatness, national pride — above democracy.

The Germans were so worn down by the lost war, unemployment and international humiliation that they fell prey to the promises of a “Führer” who cracked down hard on anyone perceived as “traitors,” leftists and Jews above all. The stab-in-the-back myth was central to it all. When Hitler became chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter wrote that “irrepressible pride goes through the millions” who fought so long to “undo the shame of 9 November 1918.”

Germany’s first democracy fell. Without a basic consensus built on a shared reality, society split into groups of ardent, uncompromising partisans. And in an atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia, the notion that dissenters were threats to the nation steadily took hold.

Alarmingly, that seems to be exactly what is happening in the United States today. According to the Pew Research Center, 89 percent of Trump supporters believe that a Joe Biden presidency would do “lasting harm to the U.S.,” while 90 percent of Biden supporters think the reverse. And while the question of which news media to trust has long split America, now even the largely unmoderated Twitter is regarded as partisan. Since the election, millions of Trump supporters have installed the alternative social media app Parler. Filter bubbles are turning into filter networks.

In such a landscape of social fragmentation, Mr. Trump’s baseless accusations about electoral fraud could do serious harm. A staggering 88 percent of Trump voters believe that the election result is illegitimate, according to a YouGov poll. A myth of betrayal and injustice is well underway.

It took another war and decades of reappraisal for the Dolchstosslegende to be exposed as a disastrous, fatal fallacy. If it has any worth today, it is in the lessons it can teach other nations. First among them: Beware the beginnings.

Jochen Bittner (@JochenBittner) is a co-head of the debate section for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

France is getting to grips once again with its domestic jihadist threat, after two lone-wolf attacks in Nice and Paris.

On October 29, three churchgoers in Nice were hacked to death by a Tunisian migrant at the city’s Notre Dame cathedral. This was preceded by the gruesome beheading of Samuel Paty, a history schoolteacher, at the hands of a Chechen-born expat near Paris on October 16.

The triggering factor that inspired such violence was France’s upholding of liberal patriotic values, defending Paty’s cartoon showing of Prophet Muhammad during his free speech classes.

Both tragedies show how Western counterterrorism continues to struggle in understanding lone-wolf extremism as an undetectable, unpredictable and persistent terrorist threat.

Two days before Paty’s assassination, Britain’s MI5 chief, Ken McCallum, admitted that “more terrorists have gone for basic attack methods requiring little preparation, meaning fewer clues to detect in advance.”

Like terrorism, lone-wolf extremism is hard to define. Generalisations have neither been recognised by policymakers nor academics in terms of obscure interactions, ideological beliefs and choice of tactics and targets adopted by militants. Political violence staged by individuals can be traced back to the early 1800s, when anarchist activists committed random attacks in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and the US.

Australian sociologist Ramon Spaaij recognises that “lone-wolf terrorists operate individually, do not belong to an organised group and whose methods are directed by individuals without outside command”.

Single-minded determination, strategic direction and independence to plot violence have made solo acts of terrorism high-profile, devastating and unforgettable for victims and audiences. Patrizio Peci, a former Red Brigades militant, once described how these characteristics require individual terrorists to become “tense but not nervous, calm but not relaxed, decisive but not foolhardy”.   

Virtual self-radicalisation, irrespective of ideological influences, have inspired lone attackers to follow radical social media platforms, publicise their militant content and call for extreme solutions through violence.

Guns need hands but they also need ideas

Norway’s 2011 attacks are an example. Anders Breivik’s murder of 77 civilians, from the Oslo bomb to the Utøya shootings, reflected his online presence to promote his far-right ideology.

Convinced that Islam and migration were threatening Norway’s white power identity, Breivik’s belief to use terrorism was shaped by Nordic xenophobic blogs that praised violence as a moral (if not spiritual) defence against ‘betraying’ governments undertaking multiculturalism.

Breivik’s bloodstained beliefs, posted online under his manifesto ‘2083: A European declaration of independence’, would serve to inspire online activists to carry out greater lethal attacks, including Brandon Tarrant’s 2019 anti-Muslim massacres in Christchurch, New Zealand.

For Western liberal democracy, Islamist terrorism remains a disturbing phenomenon when rethinking lone-wolf extremism. On November 2, Vienna saw Austrian-born IS supporter Kujtim Fejzulai mow down four bystanders in a gun-and-knifing spree. Fejzulai had been prevented from joining ISIS in Syria by Austria’s security services and was later released from prison.

Later revelations from Austria’s interior ministry indicated that Fejzulai’s wish for revenge was incensed by his attendance at two local mosques preaching political Islam. Revenge plays an emotional role that persuades lone-wolf extremists to adopt political violence.

Lone attackers imagine the use of terrorism as altruistic, seeking to defend powerless communities by violently cleansing the evils of liberal democracy. Irish terrorism expert Louise Richardson argues: “I grapple with how a young idealist can believe that, in murdering innocent people, he is battling injustice and fighting for a fairer world.”

Europe’s recent jihadist attacks show how terrorism’s ideological threat continues to stimulate future lone-wolf militants, adopting a radical mindset that reshapes contextual problems, reidentify in-group victims and out-group targets and justify violence in ethical terms to achieve goals in whose cause they fight for.

Sotiris Kondylis, an ex-terrorist from Greece’s defunct Marxist gang 17 November, once concluded: “Guns need hands but they also need ideas. If the ideas are not there, the guns won’t work.”

Samuel Bezzina, independent researcher in terrorism and political violence

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — A top Iranian security official on Monday accused Israel of using “electronic devices” to remotely kill a scientist who founded the Islamic Republic’s military nuclear program in the 2000s.

Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the country’s Supreme National Security Council, made the comment at the funeral for Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, where Iran’s defense minister separately vowed to continue the man’s work “with more speed and more power.”

Israel, long suspected of killing Iranian nuclear scientists over the last decade, has repeatedly declined to comment on the attack.

Fakhrizadeh headed Iran’s so-called AMAD program, which Israel and the West have alleged was a military operation looking at the feasibility of building a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that “structured program” ended in 2003. U.S. intelligence agencies concurred with that assessment in a 2007 report.

Israel insists Iran still maintains the ambition of developing nuclear weapons, pointing to Tehran’s ballistic missile program and research into other technologies. Iran long has maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Shamkhani’s remarks drastically change the story of Fakhrizadeh’s killing, which took place on Friday. Authorities initially said a truck exploded and then gunmen opened fire on the scientist, killing him and a bodyguard. State TV even interviewed a man the night of the attack who described seeing gunmen open fire.

State TV’s English-language broadcaster Press TV reported earlier Monday that a weapon recovered from the scene of the attack bore “the logo and specifications of the Israeli military industry.” State TV’s Arabic-language channel, Al-Alam, claimed the weapons used were “controlled by satellite,” a claim also made Sunday by the semiofficial Fars news agency.

None of the outlets immediately offered evidence supporting their claims, which also give authorities a way to explain why no one was reportedly arrested at the scene.

“Unfortunately, the operation was a very complicated operation and was carried out by using electronic devices,” Shamkhani told state TV. “No individual was present at the site.”

Satellite control of weapons is nothing new. Armed, long-range drones, for instance, rely on satellite connections to be controlled by their remote pilots. Remote-controlled gun turrets also exist, but typically see their operator connected by a hard line to cut down on the delay in commands being relayed. Israel uses such hard-wired systems along the border with the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

While technically feasible, it wasn’t immediately clear if such a system had been used before, said Jeremy Binnie, the Mideast editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly.

“Could you set up a weapon with a camera which then has a feed that uses an open satellite communications line back to the controller?” Binnie said. “I can’t see why that’s not possible.”

It also raised the question whether the truck that exploded during the attack detonated afterward to try and destroy a satellite-controlled machine gun that was hidden inside the vehicle. Iranian officials did not immediately acknowledge that. It also would require someone on the ground to set up the weapon.

Shamkhani also blamed the Iranian exile group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq as well for “having a role in this,” without elaborating. The MEK, as the exile group is known, has been suspected of assisting Israeli operations in Iran in the past. The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Monday’s service for Fakhrizadeh took place at an outdoor portion of Iran’s Defense Ministry in Tehran, with officials including Revolutionary Guard chief Gen. Hossein Salami, the Guard’s Quds Force leader Gen. Esmail Ghaani, civilian nuclear program chief Ali Akbar Sahei and Intelligence Minister Mamoud Alavi. They sat apart from each other and wore masks due to the coronavirus pandemic as reciters melodically read portions of the Quran and religious texts.

Defense Minister Gen. Amir Hatami gave a speech after kissing Fakhrizadeh’s casket and putting his forehead against it. He said Fakhrizadeh’s killing would make Iranians “more united, more determined.”

“For the continuation of your path, we will continue with more speed and more power,” Hatami said in comments aired live by state television.

Hatami also criticized countries that hadn’t condemned Fakhrizadeh’s killing and warned: “This will catch up with you someday.”

Overnight, the United Arab Emirates, which just reached a normalization deal with Israel, issued a statement condemning “the heinous assassination.” The UAE, home to Abu Dhabi and Dubai, warned the killing “could further fuel conflict in the region.”

Last year, the UAE found itself in the middle of an escalating series of incidents between Iran and the U.S. Though long suspicious of Iran’s nuclear program, the Emirates has said it wants to de-escalate the crisis. The UAE just started passenger air service to Israel and Israelis are expected to vacation in the country over Hanukkah in the coming days.

Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Alon Ushpiz has sent a cable to all Israeli diplomatic delegations around the globe urging diplomats to maintain “the highest level of readiness and awareness of any irregular activity” around missions and Jewish community centers.

Hebrew-language media in Israel reported that following the Fakhrizadeh’s killing, the Foreign Ministry ordered security beefed up at certain Israeli diplomatic missions overseas. The ministry declined to comment on diplomatic security matters.

___

Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Ilan Ben Zion in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

The European Union must strengthen its defense cooperation and step up on security matters, German Greens co-leader Annalena Baerbock said.

In an interview with Süddeutsche Zeitung published on Monday, she also emphasized the importance of transatlantic ties — saying that with Joe Biden’s recent election victory “a new chapter can be opened.”

“We should use this chance and reframe transatlantic relations, with Europeans on an equal footing with Americans. I would ask [Biden]: We should strengthen international relations across the Atlantic together — are you with us?” Baerbock said.

Yet she added that while it would be a “wrong signal” for Europe to distance itself from the United States, “we have to strengthen European sovereignty.”

The Greens are currently in opposition but with polls putting them at around 20 percent, in second place behind Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, they are set to play a major role in coalition negotiations following Germany’s 2021 election. The party has not yet decided whether Baerbock or her co-leader Robert Habeck — or someone else entirely — will run as the Green chancellor candidate.

The Greens have pacifist roots and have often been muted on defense matters. But the party’s new program, adopted at a congress last week, included references to NATO as an “indispensable” part of European security and expansion of EU defense cooperation.

“Europe has been revolving around itself for years, the Trump administration turned its back on the world. Authoritarian states fill the gap that emerged. That leads to Russia or Turkey becoming active in our neighborhood — and the EU, as in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, is left out,” Baerbock said, referring to the recent conflict in the South Caucasus, which ended with a Moscow-negotiated cease-fire.

That, she warned, wasn’t just “disastrous” for the people in the region but also for the “peace role that the EU once gave itself.”

Baerbock said Germany had to address French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposals on European defense. “That also means talking about [military] missions abroad,” she said.

She also showed herself open to increasing Germany’s defense budget, a longstanding American demand, in order to strengthen the country’s notoriously under-equipped military.

“Germany has increased its defense budget by €10 billion since 2016 … but the soldiers’ equipment and security have not noticeably improved,” she said. “Yes, in some areas more must be invested in order for rifles to shoot and night vision devices to work. But we also know how much money of the defense budget is wasted.”

However, she criticized NATO’s target for members to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense as “not really helpful.”

“We have to talk about strategic realignment first, then about spending,” she said.