English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For April 01/2022
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/english.april01.22.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006

Bible Quotations For today
Jesus Orders An Unclean Demon to leave a man in the Synagogue & Demons also came out of many, shouting, ‘You are the Son of God!’
Luke 4,31-44.He went down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbath. They were astounded at his teaching, because he spoke with authority. In the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice, ‘Let us alone! What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’ But Jesus rebuked him, saying, ‘Be silent, and come out of him!’ When the demon had thrown him down before them, he came out of him without having done him any harm. They were all amazed and kept saying to one another, ‘What kind of utterance is this? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and out they come!’And a report about him began to reach every place in the region. After leaving the synagogue he entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked him about her. Then he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. Immediately she got up and began to serve them.As the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various kinds of diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on each of them and cured them. Demons also came out of many, shouting, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Messiah. At daybreak he departed and went into a deserted place. And the crowds were looking for him; and when they reached him, they wanted to prevent him from leaving them. But he said to them, ‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.’ So he continued proclaiming the message in the synagogues of Judea.

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on March 31- April 01/2022
President Aoun: “I do not want to create a presidential system; I want to be a president”
Aoun denies seeking presidential system, vows to expose 'every corrupt'
Aoun addresses security situation, preparations for parliamentary elections with Mawlawi
Aoun addresses security situation, preparations for parliamentary elections with Mawlawi
Mikati says cultivation of wheat national need, touts opting for productive economy
Berri meets IMF delegation, American Task Force for Lebanon delegation, receives Ramadan congratulatory cable
United for Lebanon' group: Judge Bou Samra duly notified of his removal request in a depositors' case over legitimate suspicion
Lebanon Judge Sets June Hearing for Central Bank Governor Graft Probe
Judge Aoun appeals after Mansour orders Raja Salameh's release
Geagea says Hizbullah did not 'build and protect,' it rather endangered Lebanese
Silent rift' between Berri, Jumblat over electoral alliances
General Security academy inaugurated to improve border and migration management in Lebanon
UK ambassador announces £1m gifting of Land Rover spares to Lebanese Army
US hostage envoy in Beirut to discuss missing Americans in Syria: Sources

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on March 31- April 01/2022
Israel raids West Bank refugee camp, 2 Palestinians killed
Iran Says US Violates UN Resolution Linked to Nuclear Deal
Putin Said Timing Premature for Ukraine Ceasefire, Says Draghi
Convoy heads to Ukraine's Mariupol to attempt evacuation
Ukrainian president says defense is at a 'turning point'
Russia Bars More Top EU Officials
Could the Russian invasion spark a Ukrainian insurgence?
Video of woman accusing Ukraine of war crimes in Mariupol was a fake made by Russia's FSB spy agency, report says
Prosecutor seeks end to Khashoggi murder trial in Turkey
Turkey Says Gas Pipeline With Israel Not Possible in Short Term
Armenia, Azerbaijan Leaders to Meet amid Recent Fighting
Sudanese Protest Military Coup
Sisi, Burhan Call for Legally Binding Agreement on GERD
Blinken, Tebboune Discuss Algeria-Morocco Dispute

Titles For The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on March 31- April 01/2022
Will Biden Fund ISIS in Israel to Aid the Palestinians?/Daniel Greenfield/Gatestone Institute/March 31, 2022
China Takes Over the Solomon Islands — And the Pacific/Gordon G. Chang/Gatestone Institute./March 31, 2022
Administration’s Iran Nuclear Deal Claims Do Not Stand Up to Reality/Andrea Stricker/Policy Brief/March 31/2022
No one believes Biden has a red line in Ukraine after Obama’s Syria debacle/Jonathan Schanzer and Enia Krivine/ New York Post/March 31/2022
Cold War II and the new “new world order”Unless we mobilize, expect no good outcome/Clifford D. May/The Washington Times/March 31/2022
How to Prevent China from Coming to Russia’s Rescue/Craig Singleton/Newsweek/March 31/2022
‘Islamophobia’ Is as Old as Islam/Raymond Ibrahim/March 31/2022
US Government Reaction to 9/11 Attacks, Strategic Planning or Islamophobia?/By: Pierre A. Maroun/A Study from the writer’s 2019 Archive

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on March 31- April 01/2022
President Aoun: “I do not want to create a presidential system; I want to be a president”
NNA
/31 March ,2022
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, asserted that he will not leave his position without exposing all the corrupt, considering that the responsibility of restoring the country rests with his successor.
The President also called to encourage the brave people to take over the reins of government after the end of his term. Regarding his accusation that he sought to implement the presidential system, President Aoun said “I do not want to create a presidential system. I want to be a president”, stressing that just as he imposed the forensic audit in the government, he is currently striving with regard to Capitol Control law. President Aoun called on citizens to vote for the right choice in the upcoming parliamentary elections. In addition, President Aoun stressed the necessity of reforming the judiciary and other institutions in the state, considering that there can be no reform as long as the institutions are maintained.
The President’s stances came while meeting the new Executive Council of the Maronite League headed by Ambassador, Dr. Khalil Karam, today at Baabda Palace. The delegation included Vice President, Joe Issa El-Khoury and members: Raffoul Boustany, Tanios Njeim, Juhaina Mounir, Karim Tarbey, Youssef Imad, Antoine Amatoury, Natalie Khoury, Rebecca Abi Nasr, Mounir Akiki, Bechara Qerkafi, Elie Mikhael, Lahoud Lahoud, and Tanios Moneim. At the beginning of the meeting, Ambassador Karam delivered a speech in which he said:
Speech of the President of the Maronite League, Ambassador Khalil Karam, to President Aoun, on the occasion of the visit of the members of the new council of the League to the Presidential Palace on 31/3/2022:
Your Excellency, President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun,
We visit you in the Presidential Palace, which symbolizes the unity of Lebanon, people, land, and institutions. The reference and refuge remains at the hour of the major choices and the fateful decisions that relate to the future of its existence, and a healthy homeland in which the characteristics of impregnable homelands are met, which are refrained from anyone who wants to bring them down, or delete them from the map of the distinguished presence that was the characteristic of the cedar homeland. Our homeland inspired human civilization with his alphabet, approximating distances, and bridges with letters on which the language of communication between the peoples of the ancient world was based.
Mr. President,
The Presidency of the Republic in Lebanon is a constitutional position. Rather, it is the first constitutional place. And the incumbent of its position is the President of all Lebanese. From here we see that the President of the Republic is the first reference, even though reforms in Taif took from the Presidency’s powers, we think it should have been preserved, in order for the authorities to be balanced and the rule to be straightened.
We are visiting you today, Mr. President, after the elections that took place in the Maronite League, which brought to the Executive Council a president and members who pledged to work together as a homogeneous team for the benefit of Lebanon and the Maronite community. Were it not for the endeavors of Bkerke, and the sect's senior men and elites, the State of Greater Lebanon would not have seen the light of day.
Mr. President,
We are aware of the extent of your suffering, the pain that engulfs you and your grief over the tragic conditions that have befallen our beloved country. We are following up on the steps you are taking to get out of the depth of the bottle that is tightly applied to the neck of Lebanon. As well as the initiatives you put forward. Unfortunately, however, the magnitude of the challenges and problems exceeds intentions and initiatives, to raise serious questions about tomorrow, and the surprises that it may bring.
Mr. President,
From its position, the Maronite League defends Lebanon, the whole of Lebanon, and considers that this country is an area of civilized interaction between religions, the ideal place for dialogue between Christianity and Islam, and a qualitative place for living together in an environment characterized by cultural pluralism, and distinguished by diversity. But at the same time, it rejects, and on charter grounds, any prejudice to the rights of Christians, especially Maronites, in the state and society. It is of character, interest, and authority to pursue and resist any prejudice to the rights of these people and all Lebanese by all legal means, out of its absolute rejection of changing the demography and identity of the land, through settlement, normalization, foreign ownership, management imbalance, and double standards on the issue of balanced development.
The Maronite League calls for the establishment of a state of institutions as action, not slogan, and for the supremacy of its logic in security and administration. It affirms its commitment to stand by all rescue initiatives that are not conditioned by commitments that do not serve to consolidate the pillars of national unity. It is a unit that is keen on it and seeks to deepen it by working to complete the National Accord Document whose application was marred by a lot of distortion, jurisprudence and practices that resulted in a triple divorce between its text and spirit. This is sufficient to establish a constructive dialogue to address the imbalance, and remedy the worst.
Mr. President,
We thank you for your patience and good reception, and we pledge to you that we will remain swords for Lebanon, not against it. And the vigilant conscience of a bond entrusted with the legacy of Maroun and the heritage of the Cedars homeland, which will not falter and fall before the ordinary times, no matter how hard.
Long live Lebanon”.
President Aoun:
For his part, President Aoun welcomed the delegation and wished the Association President and members of the Executive Council success in their new term. The President stressed the national role played by the Association in light of the difficult circumstances the country is going through as a result of the multiple accumulations, as well as the war on Syria and the displacement crisis through the demonstrations and the Corona pandemic, all the way to Beirut port explosion.
The President said “If Lebanon was to have sufficient financial capabilities, it would have been more appropriate to help its citizens to overcome these circumstances, but its debts amounted to 168 billion dollars, amid the interruption of reconstruction”.
President Aoun also reiterated that he strived to reach the approval of the Forensic Audit in the Council of Ministers to determine responsibility for what the country has reached, especially since “The one responsible for preserving cash and its value is the Central Bank, just as the one responsible for the funds of the Central Bank is the governor of the bank”.Recalling that the Council of Ministers approved the forensic audit on March 26, 2020, after a fierce war, the details of which are mentioned by everyone, the President pointed out that the investigation will begin next week to determine the sources of corruption.
The President also mentioned his previous positions since he was in France and then in the year 2000, in which he demanded to stop subsidizing the Lira, “Because it is not permissible to support it with debt, but with production and a balance between exports and imports, so we reached an import deficit estimated at 17 billion dollars, as well as a budget deficit estimated at 8 billion dollars. Unemployment increased to 25%, growth reached zero, and so on”.
Then, President Aoun revealed “The obstacles and pressures he faced in seeking to approve the forensic audit were also applied to him for not approving the Capitol Control by some who sowed terror everywhere, so depositors’ deposits flew and capitals were smuggled abroad”.
The President pointed out that the situation we live in today is due to accumulation of practices by some over the previous years, during which they sought to not implement the constitution.
“When I tried to implement the constitution, they accused me of applying the presidential system, while they are working to bankrupt Lebanon instead of reforming the situation in it and reviving its economy” the President added.
On the other hand, President Aoun asserted that he will not leave his position unless he has exposed every corrupt person, considering that the responsibility for restoring the country will fall on his successor.
In this context, President Aoun called to encourage the brave people to take over the reins of government after the end of his term, stating that an economic plan will be completed soon to be the beginning of economic recovery. The President hoped that the largest percentage of depositors’ deposits will be collected and the process of revival will begin again.
Then a dialogue took place between President Aoun and members of the delegation, where the President renewed his position on the issue of the displaced and on the need of help from the international community to return them to their country.
President Aoun emphasized that Lebanon receives only the small part of the aid, while it incurs annually between 3 and 4 billion dollars despite its difficult economic and financial conditions, “This is according to the International Monetary Fund”.
President Aoun revealed his repeated demand for UN officials to increase aid to Lebanon, especially since the aid allocated to a number of countries hosting the displaced exceeds that which Lebanon receives.
Regarding the debates we are witnessing, President Aoun criticized the current situation after some have started to defend insults as a free opinion, stressing the need to reform the judiciary as well as other institutions. “There is no reform as long as the institutions are caught. Rather, corruption will prevail and set the country back” President Aoun said. President Aoun added “Lebanon is on the verge of parliamentary elections, and the people must know who to vote for and vote for the right choice in order to be able to reach the largest possible number of people so that they can change the existing image for the benefit of the country. There are new names nominated for these elections, some of whom have the potential to change”.
In response to another question, President Aoun clarified that the consensual political system in Lebanon has three heads so that if one of the Presidents violates it, no decision is taken.
“In this way, a country cannot be governed, so I proposed expanded and financial decentralization, but the Parliamentary Committee that had to accomplish the study did nothing in the relevant context” the President indicated. Regarding Capitol Control’s law late approval, and if there is a plan to recover the smuggled funds abroad in violation of the principle of equality, President Aoun reiterated that just as he imposed the approval of the forensic audit in the Cabinet and approved the necessary amounts for this, he is currently striving with regard to Capitol Control, which has been refunded several times, in the Parliament.
President Aoun emphasized that if the two resolutions had been approved at their time, as he would have liked, they would have spared Lebanon a lot of suffering, noting that a number of countries that enjoy free economic systems have approved the Capitol Control, because there are necessities for its approval.
Former MP Rahme:
President Aoun met former MP Emile Rahme and deliberated with him public and political developments.
After the meeting, MP Rahme said: “I visited the President and I was briefed on the results of his visit to the Vatican and his meeting with His Holiness Pope Francis. The Holy See is concerned with the situation in our country and is keen that Lebanon overcome its ordeal and provides any possible assistance in this context”.
“President Michel Aoun assured me that the parliamentary elections will take place on time, and that negotiations with the International Monetary Fund are proceeding in a positive way. Also, the Capital Control Law must be approved after it responds to the concerns of citizens and concerned bodies and reassures depositors that their rights are preserved. The President renewed his determination to work to the end in order to achieve what serves the interests of the people in all fields, without being indifferent to the slander campaigns that target him” Rahme continued.
General President of the Capuchin Order in Lebanon:
President Aoun received the General President of the Capuchin Order in Lebanon, Father Abdullah Al-Nafili, accompanied by a number of fathers.
The delegation invited the President to participate in the ceremonial mass for the beatification of the honorable martyrs Father Leonard Owais Melki and Father Touma Saleh the Capuchin, which will be held on Saturday, June 4th at 6:30pm in the monastery of the cross in Jal El Dib.
The mass will be presided over by the President of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Cardinal Mar Chilo Semeraro.
For his side, President Aoun congratulated the Capuchin monastery on the beatification, praising the spiritual, religious and social activities carried out by the Capuchin fathers in Lebanon and the world.
Lebanese Ambassador to Ukraine:
The President received Lebanon’s Ambassador to Ukraine, Ali Daher.
Ambassador Daher briefed President Aoun on the situation in Ukraine and the measures taken by the embassy and secured the evacuation of the Lebanese who wanted to leave Ukraine and the conditions of the remaining members of the Lebanese community who preferred to stay in Ukraine for various considerations, some of which are family and others are related to their interests, institutions, and other reasons.
President Aoun stressed the need to continue communication with the Lebanese in Ukraine, to check up on them periodically and help them.
Jordanian King Cable:
President Aoun received a Ramadan congratulatory telegram from Jordan’s King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein.
Text:
“It gives me great pleasure to benefit from the occasion of the celebrations of the Arab and Islamic nations by the holy month of Ramadan to send to His Excellency my dear brother, in my name and on behalf of the people and government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, my warmest congratulations and best blessings, asking God Almighty to restore this fragrant occasion to you with good health and to your brotherly people with more progress and prosperity”.—Presidency Press Office

Aoun denies seeking presidential system, vows to expose 'every corrupt'
Naharnet/31 March ,2022
President Michel Aoun denied Thursday that he has sought a presidential system during his tenure, as he pledged to “expose every corrupt” before leaving office. “When I tried to implement the constitution, they accused me of implementing a presidential system, whereas they are working on bankrupting Lebanon instead of fixing its situation and reviving its economy,” Aoun said in a meeting with a delegation from the Maronite League. “I don’t want to implement a presidential system, I rather want to be a president,” he added.Stressing that he will “expose every corrupt” before leaving office, Aoun pointed out that “the responsibility for revitalizing the country will fall on the shoulders” of his successor.

Aoun addresses security situation, preparations for parliamentary elections with Mawlawi
NNA/Thursday, 31 March, 2022  
President of the Republic, General Michel Aoun, met Interior Minister, Judge Bassam Mawlawi, and discussed with him security affairs, ongoing ministerial preparations for the upcoming parliamentary elections, and latest developments.—Presidency Press Office

Mikati says cultivation of wheat national need, touts opting for productive economy
NNA/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
Prime Minister, Najib Mikati, on Thursday said via twitter: "Cultivating soft and hard wheat is a national need and necessity. Together towards a productive economy to face tough conditions and to push Lebanon forward." Mikati ended his tweet with the following hashtag: #Lebanese_Wheat_Cultivation'

Berri meets IMF delegation, American Task Force for Lebanon delegation, receives Ramadan congratulatory cable
NNA/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
House Speaker, Nabih Berri, on Thursday welcomed at the Second Presidency in Ein El-Tineh, a delegation from the American Task Force for Lebanon (ATFL), headed by its President Ambassador Edward M. Gabriel, in presence of U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea.
Speaker Berri also received in Ein El-Tineh, a delegation of the International Monetary Fund, chaired by Ernesto Ramirez. Talks reportedly touched on the progress of the negotiations between Lebanon and the IMF and the legislations accomplished by the Parliament.
Separately, Berri received Mr. Rahim Abu Ragheef Al-Moussawi, in the presence of Iraqi Ambassador to Lebanon, Haider Al-Barrak. On the other hand, Speaker Berri received a congratulatory cable on the occasion of the blessed month of Ramadan from the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Union of Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Mohammad Qureshi Nias.

United for Lebanon' group: Judge Bou Samra duly notified of his removal request in a depositors' case over legitimate suspicion
NNA/Thursday, 31 March, 2022  
Acting First Investigative Judge in Beirut Charbel Bou Samra has been duly notified of a request in which depositors from Bekaa demand his removal due to legitimate suspicions over his performance in the lawsuit they have lodged in 2021 against banks, the "United for Lebanon" activist group announced on Thursday.

Lebanon Judge Sets June Hearing for Central Bank Governor Graft Probe
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
A Lebanese judge on Thursday postponed an interrogation session for central bank governor Riad Salameh until June after his lawyer attended a hearing in a corruption probe in his place, the state news agency (NNA) reported. Salameh, governor for nearly three decades, was charged with illicit enrichment last week. He denied these charges when contacted by Reuters, saying he had ordered an audit which showed public funds were not a source of his wealth. He had previously denied all wrongdoing.

Judge Aoun appeals after Mansour orders Raja Salameh's release

Naharnet/31 March ,2022
Investigative Judge Nicolas Mansour on Thursday ordered the release of Raja Salameh on a bail of LBP 500 billion, but Mount Lebanon Prosecutor Judge Ghada Aoun appealed against the decision and demanded that he be kept in custody. Salameh for his part filed an appeal demanding that the bail amount be slashed. According to MTV, the final say belongs to the accusatory body, which can either accept and ratify Aoun’s appeal or reject it and approve Salameh’s release. It also has the jurisdiction to lower or increase the bail amount. Raja, a businessman who is the brother of Central Bank Governor Riad Salameh, has been under arrest since March 17 over financial corruption charges. The Salameh brothers' assets have been frozen in Lebanon under an order from Judge Aoun in a money laundering case. Aoun says that Riad Salameh had used his brother to buy real-estate in France worth nearly $12 million. There have also been reports that a brokerage firm, Forry Associates Ltd., owned by Raja Salameh, was hired by the central bank to handle government bond sales in which the firm received $330 million in commissions. The governor, who has denied all charges of corruption, calling them politicized, said last November that "not a single penny of public money" was used to pay Forry Associates Ltd. Riad Salameh, who has not been arrested, has steered Lebanese finances since 1993, through post-war recovery and bouts of unrest. He was once praised as the guardian of Lebanon's financial stability but has drawn increasing scrutiny since the financial meltdown started in 2019. He is also being investigated in several European nations, including Switzerland and France, for potential money laundering and embezzlement.

Geagea says Hizbullah did not 'build and protect,' it rather endangered Lebanese

Naharnet/31 March ,2022
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea slammed Hizbullah Thursday in remarks from Maarab. Geagea criticized Hizbullah's electoral campaign slogan "we'll keep protecting and building," saying that no one has asked them to protect and that they are rather "putting the Lebanese in danger every given moment.""The state and the army are the ones who should protect, it is not your job to protect," Geagea told Hizbullah. He added that Hizbullah had enjoyed a parliamentary majority in the four past years. "What have they built," he asked. "The Lebanese have lived the worst tragedy in history during the past four years." Geagea had previously said that "a vote for the FPM is a vote for Hizbullah.""This is true," he said today, telling the Shiite voters that also voting for Hizbullah means voting for the "Free Patriotic Movement," accusing the latter of corruption and incompetence.

Silent rift' between Berri, Jumblat over electoral alliances
Naharnet/31 March ,2022
A silent rift is growing between Speaker Nabih Berri and Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblat, ad-Diyar newspaper reported Thursday. The daily said that, according to sources, Berri is very upset with Jumblat's alliance with Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea.
The sources told ad-Diyar that Berri is also upset with Jumblat's stance on the Beirut's port investigation and with his bias towards Lead Investigator Judge Tarek al-Bitar. Hizbullah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah had said earlier this month that any LF's ally in the upcoming parliamentary elections is an ally to the "killers" of "the Tayouneh martyrs."Berri will not support any list that includes LF's candidates, the daily said. For his part, Berri has agreed to include anti-Jumblat Druze candidates to the Shiite Duo's list in the Beirut II, West Bekaa and Baabda electoral districts. In Hasbaya, Berri had decided on the name of Marwan Khair al-Din without consulting Jumblat. The latter agreed on the name after it was announced, sources said, while other sources told ad-Diyar that the decision had been made by consensus between Berri, Jumblat and Lebanese Democratic Party leader Talal Arslan. Meanwhile, other sources said these disagreements will not affect the Berri-Jumblat relationship, as Berri was keen on not giving the preferential voice to Arab Tawhid Party leader Wiam Wahhab in the Chouf district.

General Security academy inaugurated to improve border and migration management in Lebanon

Naharnet/31 March ,2022
The International Organization for Migration (IOM), the General Directorate of General Security (GDGS) and the Embassy of Japan in Lebanon held Thursday an inauguration ceremony in Damour, to celebrate the opening of the General Security Academy for Training and Education and Cybersecurity, which was built by IOM with funding from Japan. The newly established Academy aims to ensure that the Lebanese General Security and partners have “professional and well-trained personnel to implement effective border and migration management policies that respond to the rapidly changing needs,” an IOM statement said. This includes preventing irregular migration, addressing transnational organized crime such as human trafficking and migrant smuggling, and facilitating search and rescue for migrants at sea, while protecting the rights of migrants. The inauguration ceremony was attended by Major General Abbas Ibrahim, the General Director of GDGS, the Ambassador of Japan to Lebanon Takeshi Okubo, and the Head of Office of the International Organization for Migration in Lebanon, Mathieu Luciano.“The General Security Academy for Training and Education and Cyber Security was established to build capacity and cooperation at the national, regional, and international levels, as well as to engage all relevant military and civilian stakeholders in a coordinated effort to raise the level of service and enhance security,” Ibrahim stated. “This center is expected to play an important role in further improving Lebanon’s institutional capabilities as a whole, thereby contributing to peace and stability of the country. Investment in human capital and security is an underlying concept of the project,” Ambassador Okubo said. “Japan will continue to support the Lebanese government’s effort towards comprehensive reforms with a view to accelerating the recovery and reconstruction through various schemes and projects. Needless to say, Lebanon’s stability is imperative for the stability of the whole Middle East,” he added. Luciano for his part said that “today’s inauguration is an important milestone in IOM’s long-standing partnership with the General Directorate of General Security to promote safe and orderly migration in Lebanon.”‘‘This project also reflects IOM’s very good cooperation with the Government of Japan, which continues to support IOM in Lebanon and across the world to help mitigate global migration challenges, and protect people on the move, including migrants, displaced persons, refugees, returnees and communities who are affected by COVID-19, conflicts and crises worldwide,” he added. Moreover, IOM said in its statement that “human rights-based, equitable, dignified, lawful and evidence-based migration and border management are paramount to promote safe and well-managed migration.” “For this purpose, IOM’s joint operations with donors and border authorities institute appropriate migration governance and management by creating policy, legislation, administrative structures, operational systems and providing the human resources necessary to respond effectively to diverse migration challenges. It also sets the ground for the development of training material, data management, knowledge sharing, capacity building, networking and communication,” IOM added.

UK ambassador announces £1m gifting of Land Rover spares to Lebanese Army
Naharnet/31 March ,2022
As part of Britain’s “continuing support and partnership with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), through the UK’s Conflict and Stability Fund (CSSF),” British Ambassador to Lebanon Ian Collard has announced the gifting of Land Rover spares worth £1m to “support the LAF in its mission to defend the security and stability of Lebanon,” a British embassy statement said. In a handover ceremony organized at the Lebanese Army Logistical base in Kfarshima, Ambassador Collard oversaw the gifting of the Land Rover spare parts by the British Government. In attendance were Brig. Gen. Pilot Ziad Haykal representing LAF chief General Joseph Aoun, Logistics Brigade commander Brig. Gen. Ibrahim Abboud, British Defense Attaché Colonel Lee Saunders and Head of Security Program Sarah Kronfol. After the ceremony, Ambassador Collard said: ''I am proud to be able to gift spare Land Rover parts worth £1m to contribute to the LAF’s resilience and operational readiness. The role of the Lebanese Armed Forces is crucial to safeguarding Lebanon and its people, particularly in these increasingly challenging times. A team of military mechanics from the UK’s 16 Air Assault Brigade is currently deployed to support LAF mechanics and maintenance facilities across Lebanon. Our continuing partnership will further enhance LAF resilience and readiness.'' “Focusing on the Land Rover Defender vehicles that form the backbone of the LAF’s mobility, the UK team is working with the LAF to support routine maintenance and more complex mechanical repairs that will keep the LAF’s Land Rovers on the front line for the foreseeable future,” Collard added. He also noted that since 2010, the UK has committed over £85 million, through its Conflict, Security and Stability fund, allowing the LAF to “optimize its capabilities, develop and modernize to become a respected, professional armed forces able to defend Lebanon and provide security along its border with Syria.”

US hostage envoy in Beirut to discuss missing Americans in Syria: Sources

Joseph Haboush, Al Arabiya English/31 March ,2022
US hostage envoy Roger Carstens was in Lebanon on Thursday to discuss the fate of missing US citizens in Syria, according to sources familiar with the matter. Last month, the family of Majd Kamalmaz, a US citizen believed to be detained by the Syrian government, told Washington-based Al-Monitor that the Biden administration was in direct contact with the Assad regime over the issue. Carstens, the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs at the State Department, met with Lebanon’s foreign minister and other officials, sources told Al Arabiya English. Lebanon’s General Security chief Abbas Ibrahim was likely to have met Carstens, although no readouts of the US official’s meetings were published by the US or Lebanese governments. Diplomats and officials in Washington and Beirut remained tight-lipped over the trip. Al Arabiya English has reached out to the State Department and the National Security Council. Ibrahim has previously negotiated the release of multiple foreign nationals, including US citizens, from Iran, Syria and other countries. Kamalmaz, a 64-year-old clinical psychologist, has been missing since February 2017 after being detained by the Assad regime near Damascus. Austin Tice, also a US citizen, was kidnapped in Damascus in August 2012 while working as a freelance journalist to cover the Syrian war. Carstens visited Damascus on a rare trip for US officials during the summer of 2020. He and then-Trump administration official Kash Patel met with Syria’s intelligence chief Ali Mamlouk to discuss the release of US citizens.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on March 31- April 01/2022
Israel raids West Bank refugee camp, 2 Palestinians killed
Associated Press/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
The United States continues to violate a United Nations
Israeli security forces on Thursday raided a West Bank city after three fatal attacks rocked Israel in over a week, with two Palestinians shot dead and a third killed after launching a stabbing attack on a bus.
The violence comes after a Palestinian armed with an M-16 assault rifle killed five Israeli civilians in the streets of Bnei Brak, an Orthodox Jewish city near Tel Aviv, on Tuesday night. That shooting took to 11 the number of people slain in attacks carried out since March 22 by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians, including two killings linked to the Islamic State group. The latest bloodshed erupted in the West Bank city of Jenin on Thursday morning when Israeli soldiers mounting an operation to arrest suspects linked to the Bnei Brak attack returned fire after being shot at, the army said. "During the activity, Palestinian gunmen opened fire at the troops (who) responded with fire," the army said, adding one soldier was hospitalized. The Palestinian health ministry said "the Israeli occupation forces" killed two Palestinians, males aged 17 and 23, in Jenin, and that another 15 were wounded. The Israeli army later confirmed to AFP that security forces had "carried out an operation" in Jenin to apprehend suspects linked to the Bnei Brak attack.
Islamic Jihad warning -
Afterwards, a Palestinian stabbed an Israeli civilian on a bus south of the West Bank city of Bethlehem, the army said, before "a civilian on the bus shot the terrorist dead". Police said later that he used a screwdriver. Shaare Zedek hospital in Jerusalem said it treated a man aged about 30 for stab wounds to his torso. The Palestinian health ministry identified the alleged assailant as Nidal Jumaa Jafara, 30. The Gaza Strip-based secretary general of the Islamic Jihad, Ziad Al-Nakhala, announced the group's armed wing would step up activities "in light of the storming of Jenin camp by the Zionist enemy army." The violence has cast a pall ahead of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, which begins this weekend. A senior Palestinian intelligence official told AFP on Thursday that the Palestinian security services were "raising the security readiness" ahead of an expected increase in violence during the month of fasting. The official said they were preparing to deal with attacks by Israeli settlers, as well as attempted attacks by Palestinians from the West Bank inside Israel.
Efforts to defuse tensions
Last year, clashes in the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem escalated into 11 days of bloody conflict between Israel and the Hamas Islamic group that controls the Gaza Strip. Early Thursday, far-right Israeli lawmaker Itamar Ben Gvir taunted Hamas as he walked through the compound, which Jews revere as the site of two ancient temples. "All night Hamas threatened me and said that I was in the line of fire and told me not to come here, I say to the Hamas spokesman shut up," he said. The violence has undercut regional efforts to defuse the situation. On Wednesday Jordan's King Abdullah II hosted Israeli President Isaac Herzog in Amman and condemned "violence in all its forms."Herzog's visit came a day after Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz met the king in Amman. The king called on Israel to "lift all obstacles that could prevent (Muslims) from performing prayers" at Al-Aqsa. King Abdullah II paid a rare visit to Ramallah in the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Monday, where he met with Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas in a further effort to seek calm. Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994 and the Hashemite Kingdom serves as custodian of holy places in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in 1967 and later annexed in a move not recognized by most of the international community. Palestinians seek to end Israeli control and build a state in east Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, also captured in 1967. Peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians have been frozen for years. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is opposed to a Palestinian state, and instead has pursued a policy of economic easements for Palestinians. Bennett is also a former settler leader and construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank has continued unabated, despite his diverse coalition that ranges from nationalists to Israeli doves to an Arab Muslim party. Nearly half a million Israelis live settlements across the West Bank that are considered illegal under international law.


Iran Says US Violates UN Resolution Linked to Nuclear Deal
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
The United States continues to violate a United Nations resolution that enshrines a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, despite its claims of wanting to revive the pact, foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said on Thursday. On Wednesday, the United States applied sanctions on a procurement agent in Iran and his companies for their role in supporting Tehran's ballistic missile program. "This move is another sign of the US government's malice towards the Iranian people, as it continues the failed policy of maximum pressure against Iran," the spokesperson added. UN Security Council Resolution 2231 enshrines the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran and world powers have sought to revive through negotiations in Vienna, Reuters said. The talks were close to agreement in early March until Russia made last-minute demands of the United States. The White House said on Wednesday that the new sanctions would not derail nuclear talks but will remain in place regardless of whether an agreement is reached.

Putin Said Timing Premature for Ukraine Ceasefire, Says Draghi

Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin told Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi that conditions were not yet in place for a ceasefire in Ukraine, Draghi told a news conference on Thursday when asked about a telephone call with Putin the previous day. Draghi also said that Putin told him that current gas contracts remained in force and that European firms will continue to pay in euros and dollars, rather than in rubles. "What I understood, but I may be wrong, is that the conversion of the payment.... is an internal matter of the Russian Federation," Draghi said. Asked about increased defense spending following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Draghi said Italy will reach the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on defense in 2028, adding that this was not in dispute among members of his coalition. However, Draghi said that the government's upcoming economic forecasting document would not spell out a specific increase in defense spending.

Convoy heads to Ukraine's Mariupol to attempt evacuation
Associated Press/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
A convoy of buses headed to Mariupol on Thursday in another attempt to evacuate people from the besieged port city, while Russia pressed its attacks in several parts of Ukraine ahead of a planned new round of talks aimed at ending the fighting. After the Russian military agreed to a limited cease-fire in the area, the Red Cross said its teams were traveling to Mariupol with relief and medical supplies and hoped to help pull civilians out of the beleaguered city on Friday. Previous attempts at establishing a similar humanitarian corridor have fallen apart. Russian forces, meanwhile, shelled suburbs of the capital that Ukraine recently retook control of, a regional official said. New attacks in the area where Moscow had promised to de-escalate further undermined hopes of a resolution to end the war on the eve of a new round of talks. A day earlier, Ukrainian officials reported that Russian shelling on the outskirts of Kyiv and around another city where it had vowed to ease up.Russia's Defense Ministry also reported new strikes on Ukrainian fuel stores late Wednesday, and Ukrainian officials said there were artillery barrages in and around the northeastern city of Kharkiv over the past day.
Despite the fighting raging in those areas, the Russian military said it committed to a cease-fire along the route from Mariupol to the Ukraine-held city of Zaporizhzhia from Thursday morning.
Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk said 45 buses would be sent to collect civilians who have suffered some of the worst deprivations of the war. Food, water and medical supplies have all run low during a weekslong blockade and bombardment of the city. Civilians who have managed to leave have typically done so using private cars, but the number of drivable vehicles left in the city has also dwindled and fuel stocks are low. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which is helping run the evacuation, said its teams have already left for Mariupol.
"It's desperately important that this operation takes place," the Red Cross said in a statement. "The lives of tens of thousands of people in Mariupol depend on it."As the new evacuation attempt was announced, evidence emerged that a Red Cross warehouse in the city had been struck earlier this month amid intense Russian shelling of the area.
In satellite pictures from Planet Labs PBC, holes can be seen in the warehouse's roof, along with a painted red cross on a white background. The aid organization said no staff have been at the site since March 15.
Talks between Ukraine and Russia were set to resume Friday by video, according to the head of the Ukrainian delegation, David Arakhamia, six weeks into a bloody war that has seen thousands die and a staggering 4 million Ukrainians flee the country. But there seemed little faith that the two sides would resolve the conflict soon, particularly after the Russian military's about-face and its most recent attacks. Russia had promised during talks in Istanbul this week that it would de-escalate operations near Kyiv and Chernihiv to "increase mutual trust and create conditions for further negotiations." Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the West were skeptical. Soon after, Ukrainian officials reported that Russian shelling was hitting homes, stores, libraries and other civilian sites in or near those areas. Britain's Defense Ministry also confirmed "significant Russian shelling and missile strikes" around Chernihiv. On Thursday, the area's governor, Viacheslav Chaus, said Russian troops were on the move but may not be withdrawing. Meanwhile, the U.S. said that Russia had begun to reposition less than 20% of its troops that had been arrayed around Kyiv. Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Wednesday that troops from there and some other zones began moving mostly to the north, and some went into neighboring Belarus. Kirby said it appeared Russia planned to resupply them and send them back into Ukraine, but it is not clear where.
Still, fighting continued in Kyiv suburbs. Regional governor Oleksandr Palviuk said on social media that Russian forces shelled Irpin and Makariv, and that there were battles around Hostomel — all to the west or northwest of the capital. Pavliuk said there were Ukrainian counterattacks and some Russian withdrawals around the suburb of Brovary to the east.
Britain's Defense Ministry said Thursday that "Russian forces continue to hold positions to the east and west of Kyiv despite the withdrawal of a limited number of units. Heavy fighting will likely take place in the suburbs of the city in coming days." As Western officials search for clues about what Russia's next move might be, a top British intelligence official said Thursday that demoralized Russian soldiers in Ukraine were refusing to carry out orders and sabotaging their own equipment and had accidentally shot down their own aircraft. In a speech in the Australian capital of Canberra, Jeremy Fleming said Russian President Vladimir Putin had apparently "massively misjudged" the invasion. Although Putin's advisers appeared to be too afraid to tell the truth, the "extent of these misjudgments must be crystal clear to the regime," said Fleming, who heads the GCHQ electronic spy agency,. U.S. intelligence officials have given similar assessments that Putin is being misinformed by advisers too scared to give honest evaluations. With Russian troops bogged down in many places and thwarted in their attempts to quickly take the capital, Zelenskyy has said his country's defense was now at a turning point — as he continued to plead with his international partners to provide more equipment. "Freedom should be armed no worse than tyranny," he said in his nightly video address to the nation on Wednesday. He continued his appeal Thursday, asking Australian lawmakers in an online address for armored vehicles and called for Russian vessels to be banned from international ports. Prime Minister Scott Morrison had earlier told him Australia would provide additional military assistance including tactical decoys, unmanned aerial and unmanned ground systems, rations and medical supplies.
Zelenskyy then called on lawmakers in Netherlands to be prepared to stop importing Russian energy, to halt trade with Russia and to provide more weapons. Zelenskyy said the continuing negotiations with Russia were only "words without specifics." He said Ukraine was preparing for concentrated new strikes on the Donbas, the predominantly Russian-speaking industrial heartland where Moscow-backed separatists have been battling Ukrainian forces since 2014. Top Russian military officials say their main goal now is the "liberation" of the Donbas, though some analysts have suggested that the announcement of the focus on the region may merely be an effort to put a positive spin on reality since Moscow's ground forces have become stalled and taken heavy losses.

Ukrainian president says defense is at a 'turning point'
Associated Press/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
The Ukrainian president said his country's defense against the Russian invasion is at a "turning point" and again pressed the United States for more help, hours after the Kremlin's forces reneged on a pledge to scale back some of their operations. Russian bombardment of areas around Kyiv and the northern city of Chernihiv and intensified attacks elsewhere in the country further undermined hopes for progress toward ending the brutal war. Talks between Ukraine and Russia were set to resume Friday by video, according to the head of the Ukrainian delegation, David Arakhamia.A delegation of Ukrainian lawmakers visited Washington on Wednesday to push for more U.S. assistance, saying their nation needs more military equipment, more financial help and tougher sanctions against Russia. "We need to kick Russian soldiers off our land, and for that we need all, all possible weapons," Ukrainian parliament member Anastasia Radina said at a news conference at the Ukrainian Embassy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made the case directly to U.S. President Joe Biden. "If we really are fighting for freedom and in defense of democracy together, then we have a right to demand help in this difficult turning point. Tanks, aircraft, artillery systems. Freedom should be armed no worse than tyranny," Zelenskyy said in his nightly video address to the nation, which he delivered standing in the dark outside the dimly lit presidential offices in Kyiv. He thanked the U.S. for an additional $500 million in aid that was announced Wednesday.
There seemed little faith that Russia and Ukraine will resolve the conflict soon, particularly after the Russian military's about-face and its most recent attacks. Russia said Tuesday that it would de-escalate operations near Kyiv and Chernihiv to "increase mutual trust and create conditions for further negotiations." Zelenskyy and the West were skeptical. Soon after, Ukrainian officials reported that Russian shelling was hitting homes, stores, libraries and other civilian sites in or near those areas. Russian troops also stepped up their attacks on the Donbas region in the east and around the city of Izyum, which lies on a key route to the Donbas, after redeploying units from other areas, the Ukrainian side said.
Olexander Lomako, secretary of the Chernihiv city council, said the Russian announcement turned out to be "a complete lie.""At night they didn't decrease, but vice versa increased the intensity of military action," Lomako said. A top British intelligence official said Thursday that demoralized Russian soldiers in Ukraine were refusing to carry out orders and sabotaging their own equipment and had accidentally shot down their own aircraft. In a speech in the Australian capital Canberra, Jeremy Fleming, who heads the GCHQ electronic spy agency, said President Vladimir Putin had apparently "massively misjudged" the invasion, he said. Although Putin's advisers appeared to be too afraid to tell the truth, the "extent of these misjudgments must be crystal clear to the regime," he said. U.S. intelligence officials have given similar assessments that Putin is being misinformed by his advisers about the poor performance of his military in Ukraine because they are too afraid to tell him the truth. Five weeks into the invasion that has left thousands dead on both sides, the number of Ukrainians fleeing the country topped a staggering 4 million, half of them children, according to the United Nations.
"I do not know if we can still believe the Russians," Nikolay Nazarov, a refugee from Ukraine, said as he pushed his father's wheelchair at a border crossing into Poland. "I think more escalation will occur in eastern Ukraine. That is why we cannot go back to Kharkiv."Zelenskyy said the continuing negotiations with Russia were only "words without specifics." He said Ukraine was preparing for concentrated new strikes on the Donbas. Zelenskyy also said he had recalled Ukraine's ambassadors to Georgia and Morocco, suggesting they had not done enough to persuade those countries to support Ukraine and punish Russia for the invasion. "With all due respect, if there won't be weapons, won't be sanctions, won't be restrictions for Russian business, then please look for other work," he said. During talks Tuesday in Istanbul, the faint outlines of a possible peace agreement seemed to emerge when the Ukrainian delegation offered a framework under which the country would declare itself neutral — dropping its bid to join NATO, as Moscow has long demanded — in return for security guarantees from a group of other nations. Top Russian officials responded positively, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying Wednesday that Ukraine's willingness to accept neutrality and look outside NATO for security represents "significant progress," according to Russian news agencies. But those statements were followed by attacks. Oleksandr Pavliuk, head of the Kyiv region military administration, said Russian shells targeted residential areas and civilian infrastructure in the Bucha, Brovary and Vyshhorod regions around the capital. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said the military also targeted fuel depots in two towns in central Ukraine with air-launched long-range cruise missiles. Russian forces hit a Ukrainian special forces headquarters in the southern Mykolaiv region, he said, and two ammunition depots in the Donetsk region, in the Donbas. In southern Ukraine, a Russian missile destroyed a fuel depot in Dnipro, the country's fourth-largest city, regional officials said.
The U.S. said Russia had begun to reposition less than 20% of its troops that had been arrayed around Kyiv. Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said troops from there and some other zones began moving mostly to the north, and some went into neighboring Belarus. Kirby said it appeared Russia planned to resupply them and send them back into Ukraine, but it is not clear where. The Ukrainian military said some Russian airborne units were believed to have withdrawn into Belarus. In northern Ukraine, Russian forces took no offensive actions Wednesday, focusing on reconnaissance and logistics, the general staff said in a statement. But Russia is expected to increase attacks soon to protect its own troops as they are repositioned, it said. The Russians also are expected to try to blockade Chernihiv. Top Russian military officials say their main goal now is the "liberation" of the Donbas, the predominantly Russian-speaking industrial heartland where Moscow-backed separatists have been battling Ukrainian forces since 2014. Some analysts have suggested that the focus on the Donbas and the pledge to de-escalate may merely be an effort to put a positive spin on reality: Moscow's ground forces have been thwarted — and have taken heavy losses — in their bid to seize the capital and other cities.

Russia Bars More Top EU Officials
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
Russia said on Thursday it had greatly expanded the number of European Union officials, lawmakers, public figures and journalists barred from Russia for allegedly being responsible for sanctions and stoking anti-Russian feelings. "The restrictions apply to the top leadership of the European Union, including a number of European commissioners and heads of EU military structures, as well as the vast majority of members of the European Parliament who promote anti-Russian policies," Russia's foreign ministry said. The EU, the United States and numerous other Western countries have imposed sweeping economic and political sanctions on Russia, some Russian media and prominent or wealthy Russians in response to Moscow's invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. Moscow said its blacklist also included representatives of some EU member states as well as public figures and journalists who it said were "personally responsible for promoting illegal anti-Russian sanctions, inciting Russophobic sentiments and the infringement of the rights and freedoms of the Russian-speaking population.”

Could the Russian invasion spark a Ukrainian insurgence?
Yahoo/Niamh Cavanagh and Sam Matthews/March 31, 2022
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine grinds into its sixth week, experts and Western intelligence agencies are continuing to sketch out potential endgames for the conflict.
It’s possible that a ceasefire could emerge, and the Russian military, facing surprisingly fierce Ukrainian resistance, would simply back off its initial war aim of regime change in Kyiv and control over the country’s future. But recent history suggests the solution won’t be that simple.
Russia could also exploit its far larger military might and continue its advance into Ukraine, particularly in the east, where it now appears to be focused. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin may continue to face heavy losses, the sheer size of his army sets up the possibility of the Kremlin occupying swaths of Ukrainian territory and facing a protracted and bloody insurgence. “Insurgency is different from regular warfare in that it's usually troops that are not in a formalized military structure,” Emily Harding, the deputy director and senior fellow of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained to Yahoo News. An insurgence is most likely to happen, Harding believes, if Russian soldiers occupy a significant number of Ukrainian territories in the coming months or even years. But if the Ukrainian population maintains its defiance, supporting a militia effort and harassing Russian troops, Putin may not have enough forces to fully establish control there.“To me, that would be a really critical moment for the way this conflict goes, there's a numbers game to be played,” Harding said. “If you look at the required ratio [of troops] for occupying territory, it's a lot higher than you would think. And so the Russians, they just don't physically have enough Russian soldiers to try to hold much territory in Ukraine.”But in order to be successful, insurgent militias require both financial and military assistance — likely coming from both the local population and foreign governments opposed to the Russian invasion. (Similar, in fact, to how Moscow has supported an insurgence in Ukraine’s eastern region, furnishing the local armies with weapons and other support.) “In fact, that's critical to the success of most insurgencies that you have foreign assistance pouring in, both militarily and with people and money,” Harding said. For now, Russia is not facing a significant Ukrainian insurgence because its large military has failed to conquer significant Ukrainian territory since launching the invasion last month. Ukraine’s largest cities have thus far repelled Russian troops, whose most significant territorial gains have been in the country’s coastal south. “We saw the Russians not only meet heavy resistance from the Ukrainians, but we also saw the Russians have real trouble with their logistical tail,” Harding said. “They couldn't move as quickly as they wanted to through the roadways and through the railways of Ukraine. We joked a lot about how when we were studying the Russian cyber capabilities, we really should have been studying eastern Ukrainian mud.”But the war is far from over. “I think people underestimate the extent to which the Russian government is willing to just throw people at the problem,” she said. “They don't care so much about the health and well-being of their troops. I think people who are assuming that there is a big win to happen here in the near term are probably assuming too much.”

Video of woman accusing Ukraine of war crimes in Mariupol was a fake made by Russia's FSB spy agency, report says
Sinéad Baker/Business Insider/March 31, 2022
Russian media shared a video of what they said was a Ukrainian woman describing atrocities by Ukraine-allied troops.
But independent Russian news agency Mediazona reported that the video was made by Russia's FSB and sent to the press. One of the woman's friends suggested to Mediazona she may have been forcibly taken to Russia. A video appearing to show a woman in the besieged Ukrainian city of Mariupol accusing Ukraine-allied troops of war crimes is actually a fake and was created by Russia's security service, the independent Russian news outlet Mediazona reported. Mediazona reported that Russia's FSB spy agency — the KGB's successor — was behind the video, and that it sent it to Russian state-allied media outlets for distribution and telling them not to report its instructions. The video purports to show Lyubov Ustinova, which Russian media described as a refugee from Mariupol, accusing a volunteer militia called the Azov Battalion that is fighting for Ukraine of killing and brutalizing innocent civilians. Some Russian state media outlets shared it on March 24. Mediazona shared screenshots of what it said were emails from the FSB to the media outlets, giving them the instructions. It said that the FSB sent the video to news outlets under the condition that the outlets do not say where the video came from. The state-run RIA news agency shared the video on Telegram, with the caption that said Ustinova said "neo-Nazis" were "proud of brutally killing city residents." The Azov Battalion is part of Ukraine's National Guard, and has been accused of human-rights abuses, and has historically had neo-Nazi members and featured far-right symbols. Russia has used Azov to baselessly claim that Ukraine has been taken over by Nazis in its justification to invade. Mediazona reported that Ustinova did not reply to messages on social media, and that her relatives said she was evacuated from Mariupol on March 20. One of her friends suggested to Mediazona that Ustinova could have been told what to say by Russian forces. The friend also told Mediazona that Ustinova may have been taken to Russia by force. The city of Mariupol has accused Russia of forcibly deporting thousands of people. The friend noted that Ustinova seemed scared during the video, and was crying.

Prosecutor seeks end to Khashoggi murder trial in Turkey
Associated Press/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
The prosecutor in the case against 26 Saudi nationals charged in the slaying of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi made a surprise request Thursday that their trial in absentia be suspended and the case be transferred to Saudi Arabia. The panel of judges made no ruling on the prosecutor's request but decided that a letter be sent to Turkey's Justice Ministry seeking its opinion on the possible transfer of the file to the Saudi judicial authorities, the state-run Anadolu Agency reported. Trial was adjourned to a later date. The prosecutor's request comes as Turkey has been trying to normalize its relationship with Saudi Arabia, which reached an all-time low following Khashoggi's grisly killing. His slaying at the consulate also sparked international condemnation and cast a cloud of suspicion over Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Khashoggi, a Saudi national who was a United States resident, had walked into his country's consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, 2018, for an appointment to pick up documents that would allow him to marry his Turkish fiancee. He never walked out. Turkish authorities said he was killed by a team Saudi agents who had flown to Turkey to meet Khashoggi inside the consulate.
Those on trial in absentia include two former aides of the prince. The defendants all left Turkey, and Saudi Arabia rejected Turkish demands for their extradition. Some of the men were put on trial in Riyadh behind closed doors. Khashoggi's family members later announced they had forgiven his killers. Prior to his killing, Khashoggi had written critically of Saudi Arabia's crown prince in columns for the Washington Post.

Turkey Says Gas Pipeline With Israel Not Possible in Short Term
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
A possible gas pipeline project between Turkey and Israel is not possible in the short-term and building an alternative system to cut Russian dependence will not happen quickly, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Thursday, Reuters reported.
Turkey and Israel have in recent weeks been working to mend their long-strained ties, and energy has emerged as a potential area of cooperation. The regional rivals expelled ambassadors in 2018 and have often traded barbs over the Palestinian conflict, Turkish support of the Hamas, which runs Gaza, and other issues. Speaking to broadcaster A Haber, Cavusoglu said he would travel to Israel and Palestine with Energy Minister Fatih Donmez in mid-May and would discuss the appointment of ambassadors with his Israeli counterpart during the visit.

Armenia, Azerbaijan Leaders to Meet amid Recent Fighting
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said Thursday he will meet with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Brussels on April 6 and for talks to end the decades-long conflict over the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh. There have been recent clashes that have raised concerns about the stability of a cease-fire that ended the 2020 war over the separatist region, The Associated Press said. “I hope to discuss at this meeting with the president of Azerbaijan and agree on all issues related to the start of negotiations on a peace agreement,” Pashinyan told a government meeting Thursday. He said Armenia “is ready for the immediate start of peace negotiations.”Fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces reignited in Nagorno-Karabakh this month, and three soldiers in the breakaway region were killed last week. More than 5,500 soldiers were killed in the six-week war in 2020 that ended with Azerbaijan regaining areas surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that had been under Armenian control since the end of a separatist war in 1994. Most of Nagorno-Karabakh itself remains under the control of ethnic Armenian forces, although it is within Azerbaijan. The cease-fire was mediated by Russia, which then sent some 2,000 troops it called peacekeepers to the region.

Sudanese Protest Military Coup
Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
Thousands of Sudanese protesters took to the streets Thursday denouncing last year's military coup and worsening living conditions, an AFP correspondent said. "The military should go back to the barracks", protesters in the capital Khartoum chanted. "Down with the government of hunger", they added. Mass demonstrations have rocked Sudan since army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan led a military coup on October 25 that drew wide international condemnation. The military power grab upended the country's transition to civilian rule following the 2019 ouster of president Omar al-Bashir. Sudan's already ailing economy has taken severe blows since the coup, as Western donor countries cut crucial aid pending the restoration of transition to civilian rule. In recent weeks, the Sudanese pound has plummeted against the dollar as prices of food, fuel and basic commodities soared. Meanwhile, the authorities have pressed ahead with a violent crackdown on anti-coup protests that has left at least 92 people killed and hundreds wounded, according to medics. On Monday, United Nations special representative Volker Perthes warned that Sudan was heading towards "an economic and security collapse" unless the civilian-led transition is restored.
He said the UN, along with the African Union and the regional IGAD bloc, have agreed to join efforts to facilitate Sudanese-led political talks. The so-called Friends of Sudan, a grouping which includes Western powers, also warned on Wednesday of "the immense economic pressures" facing the Sudanese people. The group also said the restoration a civilian led transition "would pave the way to restore economic assistance and international debt relief." This week, Burhan dismissed senior members and boards of some 30 public universities in Sudan in the latest sign that he is tightening his grip on power. The move has prompted many professors to submit collective resignations, while others launched open ended strikes."This decision is a blatant infringement on the independence of universities," a union for Sudanese university and higher institution professors said in a statement. Sudan has yet to appoint a prime minister since the January resignation of premier Abdalla Hamdok, who was ousted in the coup before he was later reinstated.

Sisi, Burhan Call for Legally Binding Agreement on GERD
Cairo - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi discussed Wednesday with Head of Sudan’s Sovereign Transitional Council Abdel Fattah al-Burhan the latest regional developments and bilateral ties. They agreed to carry on intensive consultations and joint coordination on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) issues, considering it a matter of national security. The officials also reaffirmed their unwavering stance in seeking a legally binding agreement on the rules of filling and operating the mega dam Ethiopia is building on the Nile River in a way that achieves the three countries’ common interests. Cairo underlined the importance of joint action, provided that current developments do not affect efforts to help Sudan achieve political and economic stability and maintain security. Both countries issued a joint statement underlining the importance of boosting economic ties and increasing trade exchange in a way that amounts to the existing momentum in political relations and historical ties that unite the two brotherly peoples. Egypt vowed to send aid packages and logistical and humanitarian support to Sudan, provide technical support to Sudanese cadres and activate all bilateral cooperation programs based on Cairo’s unlimited support for Khartoum. Sudan said it is proud of the firm ties between the two countries on all levels. It commended the “mutual efforts to promote joint bilateral cooperation and Egypt’s sincere and relentless support to preserve Sudan’s safety and stability.

Blinken, Tebboune Discuss Algeria-Morocco Dispute
Algiers - Asharq Al-Awsat/Thursday, 31 March, 2022
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken praised the “solid” Algerian-US relations during his meeting with Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune on Wednesday in Algiers. Tebboune received Blinken at the presidential headquarters, accompanied by a diplomatic delegation. Blinken conveyed the US administration's desire to end the tension between Morocco and Algeria over the Sahara, pointing to fears it could impact the energy supplies from the region to Europe in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Algeria is one of Europe's leading suppliers of energy. After severing its relations with Morocco last August, Algeria did not renew the contract for the Maghreb-Europe pipeline that links Algeria to Spain and runs across Morocco. In brief remarks to reporters at the US Embassy in Algiers, Blinken noted that trade exchange between Algeria and the US was estimated at $1.2 billion at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and reached about $2.2 billion by the end of 2021. The US Secretary said the goal is to reach $6 billion in investments and trades, announcing that the US will be the guest of honor for the "Algeria International Fair" next June. According to unnamed sources, the talks agreed on the need to find a peaceful solution to the crisis in Libya, confront terrorism in the Sahel, and continue to support local governments in the effort to monitor the borders. Blinken, accompanied by journalists from 12 US media organizations, praised the cooperation with Algeria in the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda extremists operating in the Sahel region. The talks also addressed the war in Ukraine, and Blinken stressed that Russia must stop its attack on Ukraine. Blinken said Western governments would take more sanctions to discourage Moscow from continuing its occupation of Ukraine. Algeria, Russia's ally, remained neutral in this crisis, adopting the same socialist approach since its independence in 1962. For his part, Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra said he was delighted with the fruitful session he had with Blinken. "We focused on the promising opportunities to strengthen our bilateral partnership while advancing our commitment to promote peace and stability at the regional and international levels in line with our shared values and interests," tweeted the foreign minister. The US Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, had visited Algeria on March 10, where she met President Tebboune and Lamamra.

The Latest LCCC English analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on March 31- April 01/2022
Will Biden Fund ISIS in Israel to Aid the Palestinians?
Daniel Greenfield/Gatestone Institute/March 31, 2022
The last Palestinian Authority presidential election was in 2005. Abbas won. The last parliamentary election was in 2006. Hamas won.
If elections were somehow held today, the Hamas presidential candidate would win 54% of the vote while Abbas would only get 38%. So you can see why there will be no elections.
Blinken is fine with Abbas postponing the elections forever, because otherwise the terror clans will do what they did the last time that Bush naively allowed elections and vote for Hamas.
And that would be inconvenient because Hamas won't pretend that they aren't terrorists.
If the P.A. follows its usual "Pay to Slay" policy in this case, it won't just be financially supporting the usual stable of PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad families, but also an ISIS terrorist's family.
And that will mean American taxpayers will end up subsidizing ISIS terrorism in Israel, as the Biden administration explores ways to bypass the Taylor Force Act's ban on terror funding.
At a joint press conference on Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Blinken gave a speech mostly blaming Israel for future violence during Passover and Ramadan. That speech was followed by another ISIS attack in which two heavily armed terrorists opened fire on a bus. The Islamic terrorists were taken down by cops who had been eating nearby, but not before they killed two officers.
Blinken meanwhile used the visit to pitch Israelis on a Biden plan to remove the IRGC, Iran's terror hub, from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, claiming it would be "symbolic."
He failed to condemn the terrorist attack as an ISIS attack, calling it "senseless" violence.
At his joint press conference with Abbas, Blinken also failed to condemn terrorism or to note that ISIS, with the tacit support of his PLO hosts in Ramallah and of Hamas in Gaza, was planting its flag in Israel. Instead, Blinken once again condemned Jewish Israeli "settler violence."
Neither Arab Muslims nor Israelis want Abbas or the P.A. Only diplomats like Blinken and Nuland insist on keeping the senile tyrant of Ramallah in office until he dies.
If elections for the Palestinian Authority were somehow held today, the Hamas presidential candidate would win 54% of the vote while Mahmoud Abbas would only get 38%. So you can see why there will be no elections. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is fine with Abbas postponing the elections forever, because otherwise the terror clans will do what they did the last time that Bush naively allowed elections and vote for Hamas. Pictured: Blinken (left) meets with Abbas on May 25, 2021 in Ramallah. (Photo by Alex Brandon/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
"In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate," said Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, "we would like to welcome Secretary Clinton."
"Blinken," someone corrected him.
"Sorry, Blinken," said the 86-year-old Islamic terrorist leader.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had to travel thousands of miles to find a leader even more unpopular and out of it than the one he had left behind at the White House.
That was last year. This year, Abbas got Blinken's name right, but not much else.
In 17 years (and just one election), Abbas has seen a lot of secretaries of state come and go to get their pictures taken with him before sending him a few hundred million dollars.
Last year, Abbas told Blinken that he had "postponed the elections" because of Israel and that the moment he gets his paws on Jerusalem, "we will hold them immediately and without any delay, because ultimately what we're interested in is to establish democracy throughout Palestine." This year they can't be held either, because Abbas still doesn't have Jerusalem.
The last Palestinian Authority presidential election was in 2005. Abbas won. The last parliamentary election was in 2006. Hamas won. The presidential and parliamentary elections have been postponed since then but are expected to resume any time now. If not, blame Israel.
Since elections won't be happening anytime soon, a recent poll reveals that 73% of the "Palestinians" occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip want Abbas to resign.
If elections were somehow held today, the Hamas presidential candidate would win 54% of the vote while Abbas would only get 38%. So you can see why there will be no elections.
Sixty-one percent want to tear up all agreements with Israel (since they haven't kept them, that would be a technicality), 70% don't want to negotiate with Israel and 64% don't even want to negotiate with Biden. Fifty-eight percent oppose the "two-state solution" that is the touchstone of the entire peace process.
Seventy-three percent believe that the Koran predicts that Israel will be destroyed, but only 32% believe it will happen in 2022.
Under these circumstances, the last thing the Biden administration wants is democracy for the quarreling foreign jihadist tribes who invaded Israel over the last few centuries and were rebranded with the name of the European colonists known as the Philistines.
Blinken is fine with Abbas postponing the elections forever, because otherwise the terror clans will do what they did the last time that Bush naively allowed elections and vote for Hamas.
And that would be inconvenient because Hamas won't pretend that they aren't terrorists.
Four Israelis were murdered last week by a Muslim terrorist attack at a mall in Beersheva.
Despite the terrorist's Islamic State membership, a Hamas spokesman praised "the executor of the heroic operation" and promised more "heroic operations: stabbings, ramming and shooting" like the car-ramming and stabbing spree that killed a rabbi who ran a soup kitchen and two mothers of three. So much for the claim that Hamas will inhibit the rise of the "extremists" of ISIS.
P.A. media also hailed the terrorist, Muhammad Abu al-Kiyan, who was shot and killed by an Israeli bus driver who chased him down on foot, as a "martyr." If the P.A. follows its usual "Pay to Slay" policy in this case, it won't just be financially supporting the usual stable of PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad families, but also an ISIS terrorist's family.
And that will mean American taxpayers will end up subsidizing ISIS terrorism in Israel, as the Biden administration explores ways to bypass the Taylor Force Act's ban on terror funding.
At a joint press conference on Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Blinken gave a speech mostly blaming Israel for future violence during Passover and Ramadan. That speech was followed by another ISIS attack in which two heavily armed terrorists opened fire on a bus. The Islamic terrorists were taken down by cops who had been eating nearby, but not before they killed two officers.
Hamas celebrated the "valor and courage" of the ISIS terrorists, as did Islamic Jihad.
Hezbollah, backed by Iran, praised the ISIS attack as an "important and most effective practical response to the infamous and treacherous normalization meetings that some Arab regimes are carrying out with the enemy entity," referring to the anti-Iran summit in Israel with the foreign ministers of Bahrain, UAE, Morocco and Egypt.
Iran's pro-Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps outlet, too, praised it as a "martyrdom operation." When it comes to Israel, Iran and ISIS are on the same side. Much as Al-Qaeda and Iran were on the same side when it came to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
Blinken meanwhile used the visit to pitch Israelis on a Biden plan to remove the IRGC, Iran's terror hub, from the list of foreign terrorist organizations, claiming it would be "symbolic."
He failed to condemn the terrorist attack as an ISIS attack, calling it "senseless" violence.
At his joint press conference with Abbas, Blinken also failed to condemn terrorism or to note that ISIS, with the tacit support of his PLO hosts in Ramallah and of Hamas in Gaza, was planting its flag in Israel. Instead, Blinken once again condemned Jewish Israeli "settler violence."
Like Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's previous visit, the formula of Biden administration officials condemning Israeli "settler violence" while promising to "strengthen" the terrorists of the P.A. is as familiar as it is evil. The P.A. is an unwanted institution whose leader 73% of the people he rules over want to see out of office.
And 49% want to dissolve the Palestinian Authority.
Considering the decades of failure, misery and terrorism wrought by the failed Clinton initiative to create a Palestinian state, it's long past time for everyone to turn the page on this disaster.
Neither Arab Muslims nor Israelis want Abbas or the P.A. Only diplomats like Blinken and Nuland insist on keeping the senile tyrant of Ramallah in office until he dies.
In a final statistic, the poll asked who was "most deserving of representing and leading the Palestinian people." Thirty-one percent picked Hamas, 29% chose Abbas' P.A., and 33% chose none of the above. Eighty-four percent believe the P.A. is corrupt and 70% believe Hamas is dirty.
The "Palestinian people" have spoken. Will Biden listen to them?
The root source of the corruption is the hundreds of millions of dollars Blinken came bearing last year for the regime of a corrupt, senile autocrat who didn't even know whom he was talking to. There's more money coming this year to prop up the terrorist regime.
All in the name of a peace which doesn't exist and that the majority of "Palestinians" don't want.
The United States has gone from using its foreign aid to the P.A. to prop up PLO, Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorism against Israel to subsidizing ISIS terrorism.
Will ISIS be a final red line for the corrupt farce of a two-state solution and a peace process?
*Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
*This article was first published by Frontpage Magazine and is reprinted here by permission of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
© 2022 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

China Takes Over the Solomon Islands — And the Pacific
Gordon G. Chang/Gatestone Institute./March 31, 2022
China, after years of persistent commercial, diplomatic, and military efforts, is taking over the Pacific.
Beijing is moving from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii.
The five-year deal, subject to automatic renewals, will allow Beijing to use the islands to base its military and to do pretty much what the Chinese military wants. If implemented to its full extent, the Framework Agreement will give China the ability to sever shipping lanes and air links connecting the U.S. with its treaty ally Australia and partner New Zealand.
For decades, Washington allowed Canberra and Wellington to manage the Solomons and its region.... Beijing, through payoffs now detailed in public, essentially owns Sogavare's government.
There is now talk that China will ink a security agreement with Papua New Guinea, just north of Australia.
Moreover, China wants to upgrade an airstrip in Kiribati. Beijing says the improvements are for civilian purposes only, yet the military uses are apparent and no one believes the Chinese assurances.
The facility is just 1,900 miles south of Hawaii. In Pacific terms, Kiribati is America's next-door neighbor.
Communist China is moving across the Pacific from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii. China's new five-year deal with the Solomon Islands, subject to automatic renewals, will allow Beijing to use the islands to base its military and to do pretty much what the Chinese military wants. Pictured: Chinese Premier Li Keqiang shows the way to Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, in Beijing on October 9, 2019.
On March 25, the Solomon Islands announced it was "expanding" security arrangements, "diversifying the country's security partnership including with China."The announcement was defensive. The day before, opponents of a security pact with China leaked what was labeled a "draft" agreement. Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare's government did not confirm the authenticity of the leaked document, but observers believe he intends that version to be final. Australia, which expressed "great concern," confirmed the draft as authentic.
The pact, titled "Framework Agreement Between the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Solomon Islands on Security Cooperation," highlights a disturbing trend: China, after years of persistent commercial, diplomatic, and military efforts, is taking over the Pacific. Beijing is moving from island group to island group, and soon the People's Liberation Army will be in striking distance of Hawaii.
Cleo Paskal of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tells Gatestone the Framework Agreement was a "unilateral decision by Sogavare." "There has been no public consultation," she pointed out.
The five-year deal, subject to automatic renewals, will allow Beijing to use the islands to base its military and to do pretty much what Chinese generals and admirals want. "China," the pact states in Article I, "may, according to its own needs and with the consent of Solomon Islands, make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands, and the relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands."
If implemented to its full extent, the Framework Agreement will give China the ability to sever shipping lanes and air links connecting the U.S. with its treaty ally Australia and partner New Zealand.
For decades, Washington allowed Canberra and Wellington to manage the Solomons and its region, and both Western powers, through the corrosive combination of neglect and condescension, allowed China to make significant inroads. Beijing, through payoffs now detailed in public, essentially owns Sogavare's government.
Sogavare, not surprisingly, is doing Beijing's bidding. He switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 2019, and has, at home, opened the door wide to Chinese investment.
The prime minister has also mismanaged the country, for instance marginalizing the country's most populous island, Malaita, and threatening its premier, Daniel Suidani. Putting his life at risk, Suidani has resolutely opposed the Chinese takeover of the Solomons.
In November, Sogavare's misrule resulted in deadly riots in the capital of Honiara, on the island of Guadalcanal, where 1,600 Americans died in 1942 and 1943 freeing the island from Japanese control.
Australia in November sent police and troops to restore order and thereby saved Sogavare's government, which then seemed to be on the verge of failure. Canberra's misguided intervention made it easy for Sogavare then to invite Chinese police in February. Beijing's presence solidified his hold on power.
The Framework Agreement also provides, in Article 1, that the "Solomon Islands, may, according to its own needs, request China to send police, armed police, military personnel, and other law enforcement and armed forces to Solomon Islands to assist in maintaining social order, protecting people's lives and property, providing humanitarian assistance, carrying out disaster response, or providing assistance on other tasks agreed upon by the Parties."
Honiara on the 25th said it would keep its 2018 security agreement with Canberra in place, but it is evident that Sogavare is looking only to China for police and military assistance.
Sogavare, backed by Beijing's military and the Framework Agreement, can effectively end democracy in the Solomons. Paskal, who closely follows the Pacific, reports that the prime minister is trying to postpone elections. "If Sogavare can trigger a domestic security crisis, he will use that as an excuse to keep himself in power," she notes. "China will help the prime minister provoke a civil war. That war will provide Sogavare an excuse to call in the Chinese military, according to the new agreement."
As Paskal told Gatestone, Beijing has already exacerbated tensions so that it could come to the "country's rescue."
The inter-island tensions that fuel the ongoing crisis are not new. In 2000, similar disputes were ended by the Townsville Peace Agreement, which Sogavare, also then prime minister, did not implement. Paskal suggests the deal could be the basis of another settlement.
The Solomons are not an isolated instance of Chinese penetration of Pacific governments. There is now talk that China will ink a security agreement with Papua New Guinea, just north of Australia.
Moreover, China wants to upgrade an airstrip in Kiribati. Beijing says the improvements are for civilian purposes only, yet the military uses are apparent and no one believes the Chinese assurances.
The facility is just 1,900 miles south of Hawaii. In Pacific terms, Kiribati is America's next-door neighbor.
*Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, and a member of its Advisory Board.
*© 2022 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Administration’s Iran Nuclear Deal Claims Do Not Stand Up to Reality
Andrea Stricker/Policy Brief/March 31/2022
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said during a press briefing last week that President Joe Biden seeks to put Iran’s atomic program “back in the box after President Trump let it out of the box when he left the deal in 2018.” However, the reported provisions of the deal that Biden’s team is negotiating in Vienna would hardly box in Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.
First of all, the U.S. withdrawal from the previous nuclear deal in 2018 did not let Iran’s nuclear program out of the box. Under the original deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA), Iran never had to submit to intrusive inspections of sensitive military sites and sought to conceal a nuclear archive that Israel’s Mossad later exfiltrated.
Next, Sullivan is wrong to attribute the rapid advance of Iran’s nuclear program to the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA. Until Biden’s election in November 2020, Tehran undertook only incremental violations in response to the U.S. withdrawal. Iran’s major advances, such as enriching uranium to 60 percent purity and manufacturing uranium metal, occurred after Biden was elected in November 2020 on a platform of reviving the JCPOA and lifting sanctions on Iran.
In defense of the new deal being negotiated in Vienna, administration officials have pointed out that it would restore a 300 kilogram cap on the amount of enriched uranium Iran can stockpile, as well as limit the enrichment of uranium to no more than 3.67 percent purity. While true, this misses the more important point that under the prospective deal, Tehran’s so-called breakout time — the amount of time required to produce one atomic bomb’s worth of fissile material — would never exceed seven months and would then drop almost to zero over the duration of the updated JCPOA.
While the Obama administration said the original JCPOA increased Iran’s breakout time to 12 months, an independent assessment put the number closer to seven. The reported provisions of the revised JCPOA would place even fewer restraints on Iran’s breakout time than the original deal. Israel reportedly estimates that Tehran’s breakout time under a new deal would initially reach just four to six months. This limits the response time available to the United States and its allies in the event Tehran attempts to cross the nuclear threshold.
The new deal’s insufficient breakout time reflects the reported decision by U.S. negotiators to permit the clerical regime to keep in storage more than 2,000 advanced centrifuges that can quickly enrich uranium to weapons-grade purity. This loophole is significant: If the regime diverted just 650 of its fastest centrifuges to a clandestine enrichment plant, it could break out to nuclear weapons on short order.
Moreover, Iran’s inventory of advanced centrifuges will only continue to grow. As part of a side accord to the original JCPOA that is expected to remain as part of the new deal, Iran is allowed to manufacture up to 400 additional advanced centrifuges per year starting in 2024, more than doubling its existing capacity by 2029. At that point, all limits on production of advanced centrifuges would terminate. Thus, Iran’s breakout time would be down to a matter of weeks by January 2031, when the deal ends.
Despite all the above provisions that clear the way for Iran to expand its nuclear program, administration officials have claimed that the JCPOA would render Tehran “permanently and verifiably prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” In fact, even if the Islamic Republic complied with every provision of the deal being negotiated in Vienna, it would emerge in less than a decade with an industrial-sized nuclear enrichment program and minimal breakout time.
In exchange for these temporary and deficient restrictions on its nuclear program, Iran will receive extensive sanctions relief under a revised JCPOA, including immediate access to tens of billions of dollars of foreign assets now beyond its reach. The administration owes the American people — and Washington’s regional partners — factual answers about how this accord meets their interests.
*Andrea Stricker is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where she also contributes to FDD’s Iran Program and Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP). For more analysis from Andrea, the Iran Program, and CMPP, please subscribe HERE. Follow Andrea on Twitter @StrickerNonpro. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_Iran and @FDD_CMPP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

No one believes Biden has a red line in Ukraine after Obama’s Syria debacle
Jonathan Schanzer and Enia Krivine/ New York Post/March 31/2022
President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, cautioned his Russian counterpart last week that “any possible Russian decision to use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine” would have “consequences.”
This White House lacks any credibility to issue such a threat — as our Middle East allies well know.
The last time a US president attempted to dissuade a despot from deploying chemical weapons in a bloody conflict was 2013, when Sullivan’s former boss, President Barack Obama, warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that attacking the Syrian people with chemical weapons amounted to a “red line” that if crossed would result in “enormous consequences.”
Assad didn’t heed Obama’s warning. He ultimately carried out dozens of chemical attacks against his own people. Obama (and his vice president, Joe Biden) hoped to gain overwhelming international support to intervene. But Europe was divided, so Obama looked to Congress, then decided against pushing for congressional authorization. In the end, the president stood down, destroying whatever credibility America had in the Middle East.
One can only imagine how this display of indecision appeared to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who sought to lessen American influence in the region.
Once it became clear Obama would not intervene, Putin made his move. He sent aircraft to Syria, targeting the Sunni rebels who threatened Assad’s rule. From there, Putin deployed ground personnel, who fought alongside Syrian forces as well as fighters from the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians lost their lives as a result. Many more were displaced.
The 2013 red-line episode not only enabled Assad to remain in power to perpetrate crimes against humanity. It also allowed Putin to cycle as many as 63,000 military personnel in and out of Syria over the years. They gained valuable battlefield experience, which they are now leveraging in Ukraine.
But the negative consequences didn’t end there. Once Putin moved into Syria, he deployed his formidable S-400 anti-aircraft systems to patrol the Syrian skies. This tied the hands of Israel, which has increasingly needed to conduct airstrikes in Syria, thanks to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s massive weapons-smuggling operation.
Iran has exploited the fog of war in Syria, using the battlefield to quietly move precision-guided munitions to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Never before has a nonstate actor acquired PGMs. There could be significant consequences if Hezbollah acquires enough of them. They would enable the terrorist group to strike strategic targets throughout Israel with deadly accuracy, and they could even evade Israel’s Iron Dome system. With enough PGMs, Hezbollah can one day wage a destructive war in Israel.
Expectedly, the Israelis have grown alarmed. Over the last several years, they have carried out thousands of attacks against Iranian and Hezbollah targets in Syria. For the Israelis, this is a matter of urgent national security. But to do so, they must deconflict with the Russian military. Indeed, as a result of the 2013 red-line episode, Israel needs Russia if it wishes to operate across its northeastern border.
In a bizarre twist, many of the same officials who failed to enforce Obama’s red line now serve the Biden administration. With zero self-awareness, they are excoriating Israel for not sufficiently aiding Ukraine. Somehow lost on them is that Israel cannot openly challenge Russia if it wishes to access Syrian airspace.
In another strange twist, the White House wants the oil-producing Arab states to make up for lost production resulting from sanctions on Russia. These states once yearned for the Obama administration to oust Assad. Instead, they watched in horror as Putin came to Assad’s rescue. Then they watched in disbelief as Washington inked a nuclear deal with Iran, yielding Tehran some $150 billion in sanctions relief. Significant chunks of that money helped buttress Assad’s regime.
As Biden lobbies our Arab allies for increased oil production, US and Iranian negotiators in Vienna are on the verge of yet another nuclear deal — with the Russians as the primary mediator, no less. The result will once again be the release of billions of dollars to bankroll Tehran and its proxies. Assad will once again be a beneficiary.
Biden himself recently warned of “consequences” if Moscow uses chemical weapons in Ukraine. For our allies in the Middle East, these threats ring as hollow today as they did in 2013.
Actions have consequences. So does inaction. Ten years later, our Middle East allies can attest to this. Ten years from now, our European allies may do the same.
*Jonathan Schanzer is senior vice president for research at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Enia Krivine is senior director of FDD’s Israel Program and National Security Network. Follow them on Twitter: @JSchanzer and @EKrivine. FDD is a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

Cold War II and the new “new world order”Unless we mobilize, expect no good outcome
Clifford D. May/The Washington Times/March 31/2022
These are confusing times and President Biden is not helping bring clarity. Last week, for example, he told the Business Roundtable that “there’s going to be a new world order.” What could he possibly have meant?
The old “new world order” was established by the U.S. following World War II. With the hopefully named United Nations at its core, the goal was to prevent or at least limit armed conflicts, promote human rights, and establish a body of international laws and norms.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 1991 Persian Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush announced the advent of a new “new world order,” one that would feature “new ways of working with other nations . . . peaceful settlement of disputes, solidarity against aggression, reduced and controlled arsenals and just treatment of all peoples.”
It was a lovely idea but, like the older new world order, it failed to coalesce. Or, as the scholar Joseph S. Nye, Jr. wrote in 1992, “reality intruded.”
Today, dictators with dreams of conquest – including a Russian neo-imperialist, a Chinese Communist, and a jihadist – are attempting to establish yet another new “new world order,” one they would dominate.
“We have entered a new era,” Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader Maj.-Gen. Hossein Salami said last week inadvertently echoing Mr. Biden. “The sun has set on the evil powers.”
Matt Pottinger has been bringing clarity to these issues. A White House deputy national security advisor from 2019 to 2021, he now chairs FDD’s China Program. In recent interviews, including with the Wall Street Journal, the Vandenberg Coalition, and AEI’s “What the Hell Is Going On?” podcast, he’s framed the current international situation this way: “A Cold War has been declared against us.”
That term is “contentious,” he acknowledges, and there are “differences between Cold War I and Cold War II.” But as “Niall Ferguson, the historian, has pointed out, there were big differences between World War I and World War II as well, but the similarities really overshadow the differences.”
This is not merely an academic observation. It is – or should be – a call to action. Wars, hot or cold, are not won willy-nilly. If our opponents are mobilizing and fighting, and we are not, a good outcome is unlikely.
Mr. Pottinger sees Russia’s war on Ukraine as analogous to the Korean War, the first armed conflict of the first Cold War: “Stalin had given a green light for Kim Il-sung to invade South Korea. He noticed that the West had clearly drawn South Korea outside of our defensive perimeter” – just as NATO kept Ukraine outside its defensive perimeter.
Though Russian forces in Ukraine have performed poorly and Ukrainian defenders have performed spectacularly, Russia’s defeat – on the battlefields or in diplomatic palavers – is by no means assured.
Historians of the future are likely to cite Feb. 4 as a significant milestone in Cold War II. It was on that date, just 20 days prior to the Russian invasion, that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin released a 5,000-word statement declaring that, henceforth, their relationship would have “no limits.”
Mr. Xi has been providing Mr. Putin immoral support and, according to Mr. Pottinger, is “at least on the verge of providing material, military, and financial support.”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for his part, is reportedly loaning Mr. Putin fighters from Hezbollah, Tehran’s military/political proxy which, over recent years, has turned Lebanon into a failing state and, in tandem with Russia, helped prop up the Assad dictatorship in Syria at the cost of more than half a million lives.
Last week, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen used drones and missiles to attack oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. Afterwards, Iranian authorities celebrated. Despite this and many other provocations, Mr. Biden appears determined to cut a deal with the clerical regime, one that will enrich it and put it on a path to developing a nuclear weapons arsenal. His claim that the deal will stop – as opposed to, at most, slightly delay – the regime’s progress is unserious.
Iranian diplomats have refused to sit at the same table with Americans, so Mr. Biden – mindbogglingly – entrusted a Russian diplomat to act as intermediary. The new deal will reportedly allow Moscow to sell Tehran both weapons and nuclear facilities (for peaceful purposes only!) despite U.S. sanctions imposed in response to Mr. Putin’s war on Ukraine.
Mr. Biden told the Business Roundtable that his goal is to “unite” and “lead” the “free world” within the “new world order.” That would represent a great achievement, to the detriment of the Cold Warriors from the fear societies. But to get from here to there would require a long list of policies that Mr. Biden does not have in place. I’ll briefly mention just three.
First, he’d do whatever is necessary to restore the U.S. military and its allies to at least Cold War I levels of spending, capabilities, and readiness.
Second, he’d spend less money at the U.N. where key entities such as its Human Right Council have been subverted by human rights abusers. Nor should the International Monetary Fund be committing American money to regimes that regard America as their enemy.
Third, he should make America a great energy power again. Climate change is a challenge, not an emergency that overrides all other threats.
Speaking to reporters in Brussels last week, President Biden said: “I don’t think you’ll find any European leader who thinks I’m not up to the job.” Perhaps, but there are despots in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East who hold a different view. Let me be clear: I hope he proves them wrong.
Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times. Follow him on Twitter @CliffordDMay. FDD is a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

How to Prevent China from Coming to Russia’s Rescue
Craig Singleton/Newsweek/March 31/2022
With war raging in Europe, the already fraught U.S.-China relationship has reached a critical juncture. So far, the White House has refrained from issuing any ultimatums to Beijing even as it tacitly backs Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s invasion of Ukraine. According to numerous credible reports, China is even considering providing Russia with military assistance to sustain its battlefield operations.
While Beijing has denied those reports, it has made clear its opposition to the Western sanctions that aim to cut off Russia’s financial lifelines. China has a long track record of deriding unilateral sanctions, often ignoring them altogether. That strategy is now being put to the test as Beijing seeks to advance its revisionist ambitions without jeopardizing China’s access to the Western capital and technology it needs to power its development.
Nevertheless, if the goal of Western sanctions is to pull Putin back from the brink, the Russian president must know for certain China will not be coming to his rescue, even if Chinese leader Xi Jinping is inclined to do so.
The only way for Washington and Brussels to accomplish that objective is to impose harsh, compulsory penalties on any Chinese entities that skirt sanctions, in effect tying Beijing’s hands.
Last month, China claimed Russia was not its “ally.” But make no mistake—the two countries are as economically interdependent as ever. In 2021, trade between China and Russia reached new heights, jumping 35.9 percent to a record $146.9 billion. Since 2019, the China-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has loaned more than $500 million for various Russian projects. Last January, Moscow requested $12 billion from the AIIB to finance five new ventures.
The bond between the two countries grew stronger following a recent summit between Xi and Putin. Just weeks before the invasion of Ukraine, the two leaders finalized several new energy-related initiatives, including plans to construct a Russian pipeline to satisfy China’s surging energy demands. Soon thereafter, Beijing lifted restrictions on Russian wheat imports, a move aimed at addressing rampant food insecurity across China.
These and other developments aside, China’s economic partnership with Russia is not “without limits,” as Xi and Putin purport.
Russia’s invasion comes at a sensitive moment for Beijing. Xi is already grappling with a severe domestic economic slowdown and record-high COVID-19 caseloads in more than a dozen Chinese provinces. His domestic position has deteriorated so rapidly that Beijing recently warned that amid China’s “economic downturn, some deep-seated problems may surface.”
That’s why, when push comes to shove, Beijing will protect its own interests—its financial links to the West—at the expense of its partnership with Moscow.
Exploiting this divergence will require Western policymakers to ramp up their scrutiny of China’s financial support of Russia. They must make clear that any Chinese entities that do not comply with sanctions will find themselves subject to sanctions or export controls—no questions asked. That should include China’s central bank, which currently holds 13 percent of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves—funds that Russia desperately needs.
Similar to previous maximum-pressure campaigns, Washington should also automatically terminate the correspondent banking relationships between American financial institutions and Chinese entities which flout sanctions. The deterrent effect of severing these relationships, which enable cross-border payments, would be immediate, as Chinese entities would be hesitant to facilitate transactions that could result in their expulsion from the dollarized economy.
Enhanced regulatory pressure must also be brought to bear on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments in Europe and Central Asia, nearly half of which pass through Russia. While many BRI programs are yuan-denominated, others are transacted in dollars or euros, and are therefore vulnerable to Western sanctions. The same logic applies to scrutinizing AIIB’s ventures in Russia, a large percentage of which are financed in dollars or euros by China’s state-owned banks and government ministries.
Lastly, U.S. and European regulators should dissect transactional data associated with China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), which Beijing established in 2015 as a yuan-denominated alternative to SWIFT. Unfortunately for Russia, CIPS’ scale remains limited, with the platform only processing about 13,000 transactions a day compared with SWIFT’s 40 million. What’s more, nearly 80 percent of CIPS’ transactions are connected to SWIFT’s global network, making them subject to U.S. and European sanctions enforcement.
Nevertheless, to avoid a scenario in which China and Russia consider bolstering CIPS as a sanctions workaround, Congress should mandate that any actors caught using CIPS to circumvent Russia’s SWIFT ban be made immediately subject to secondary sanctions.
As Washington and Brussels have long known, partnerships come with price tags. With Russia’s military bearing down on civilian population centers, it is high time that China learn that lesson for itself.
*Craig Singleton is a senior China fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues. Follow him on Twitter @CraigMSingleton. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy.

ريموند إبراهيم/الإسلاموفوبيا هي قديمة وبِقدْم الإسلام نفسه
‘Islamophobia’ Is as Old as Islam
Raymond Ibrahim/March 31/2022
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/107482/raymond-ibrahim-islamophobia-is-as-old-as-islam-%d8%b1%d9%8a%d9%85%d9%88%d9%86%d8%af-%d8%a5%d8%a8%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%87%d9%8a%d9%85-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a5%d8%b3%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85%d9%88/

The United Nations recently named March 15—also rather ominously known as the Ides of March—as “the International Day to Combat Islamophobia.” In doing so, they have accepted and seek to mandate the idea that whatever fear (literally, phobia) non-Muslims have of Islam is unfounded and irrational, and therefore must be “combatted.”
In reality, aversion to Islam is not new or something that “just happened”; nor is it a byproduct of temporal circumstances (say, resentment towards Muslims due to the terror strikes of 9/11, etc.). Instead, it is something that all rational non-Muslims have felt from the very inception of Islam in the seventh century.
Western peoples, for instance, including many of their luminaries, have always portrayed Islam as a hostile and violent force—often in terms that would make today’s “Islamophobe” blush. And that wasn’t because Europeans were “recasting the other” to “validate their imperial aspirations” (to use the tired terminology of Edward Said that has long dominated academia’s treatment of Western-Muslim interactions). Rather, it was because Islam has always treated the “infidel,” the non-Muslim, the same way ISIS treats the infidel: atrociously.
According to Muslim history, in 628 AD, Muhammad summoned the Roman (or “Byzantine”) emperor, Heraclius—the symbolic head of “the West,” then known as “Christendom”—to submit to Islam; when the emperor refused, a virulent jihad was unleashed against the Western world. Less than 100 years later, Islam had conquered more than two-thirds of Christendom, and was raiding deep into France. While these far-reaching conquests are often allotted a sanitized sentence, if that, in today’s textbooks, the chroniclers of the time make clear that these were cataclysmic events that had a traumatic impact on, and played no small part in forming, Europe proper, that is, the unconquered portion and final bastion of Christendom.
But it wasn’t just what they personally experienced at the hands of Muslims that developed this ancient “phobia” to Islam. As far back as the eighth century, Islam’s scriptures and histories—the Koran, hadith, sira and maghazi literature—became available to those Christian communities living adjacent to, or even under the authority of, the caliphates. Based solely on these primary sources of Islam, Christians concluded that Muhammad was a (possibly demon possessed) false prophet who had very obviously concocted a creed to justify the worst depravities of man—for dominion, plunder, cruelty and carnality (see Sword and Scimitar for copious documentation, especially Chapter 2).
This view prevailed for well over a millennium throughout Europe; and it was augmented by the fact that Muslims were still, well over a millennium after Muhammad, invading Christian territories, plundering them, and abducting their women and children. The United States’ first brush with Islam—its very first war as a nation, soon after its independence—came by way of Muslim raids on American ships for booty and slaves in the name of Allah.
A miniscule sampling of what Europeans thought of Islam throughout the centuries follows:
Theophanes, important Eastern Roman (“Byzantine”) chronicler (d.818):
He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy—or being slain by the enemy—entered into paradise [see Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual—orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the women were of another sort [houris], and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense.
Thomas Aquinas, one of Christendom’s most influential philosophers and scholastics (d.1274):
He [Muhamad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us …. and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine…. Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants [i.e., his “proof” that God was with him is that he was able to conquer and plunder others]…. Muhammad forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.
Marco Polo, world famous traveler (d.1324):
According to their [Muslims’] doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the [Mongol] powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens.
When the Mongol khan later discovered the depraved criminality of Achmath (or Ahmed), one of his Muslim governors, Polo writes that the khan’s
attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined.
Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and philosopher, best known for Democracy in America (d.1859):
I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.
Theodore (“Teddy”) Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States and an accomplished student of history (d. 1919):
Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.”
Winston Churchill, a leader of the Allied war effort against Hitler during WWII (d. 1965):
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism [Islam] lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Lest it seem that these and other historic charges against Islam are mere byproducts of Christian/Western xenophobia and intolerance for the “other,” it should be noted that many of Islam’s Western critics regularly praised other non-Western civilizations, as well as what is today called “moderate Muslims.” Thus Marco Polo hailed the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons.” And despite his criticisms of the “sect of the Saracens,” that is, Islam, he referred to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice,” and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody.”
Churchill well summed up the matter as follows: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
The UN can say whatever it wants; it can claim that, unlike every other major religion, and for some odd reason, Islam is forever and perpetually “misunderstood.” But fear and dislike of Islam has been the mainstream position among non-Muslims for nearly 1,400 years—ever since Muhammad started raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving non-Muslims (“infidels”) in the name of his god. And it is because his followers, Muslims, continue raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving “infidels” that fear and dislike of Islam—what is called “Islamophobia”—exists to this day.
Rather than openly address and seek to ameliorate this issue, the UN, like all the other powers that thrive on rewriting history, if not reality itself, seeks only to suppress and silence truth—including by demonizing the victim, the so-called “Islamophobe.”

دراسة من أرشيف بيار مارون عنوانها: ردات فعل الحكومة الأمريكية على هجمات 11 سبتمبر…تخطيط استراتيجي أم إسلاموفوبيا؟
US Government Reaction to 9/11 Attacks, Strategic Planning or Islamophobia?
By: Pierre A. Maroun/A Study from the writer’s 2019 Archive
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/107503/pierre-a-maroun-us-government-reaction-to-9-11-attacks-strategic-planning-or-islamophobia/

INTRODUCTION
The relationship between the United States and some Muslim countries, mainly Afghanistan, was troubled after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York, and the Pentagon. However, despite the terror and anguish these attacks caused to the American people, the US managed to maintain good relationships, and to build alliances, with many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and others. In fact, these numerous Muslim countries became the backbone of the US-led war on international terrorism. Furthermore, the US established military cooperation and training programs with some Muslim countries, like the Kingdom of Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq, after deposing the late Saddam Hussein, and other countries, which joined the international military coalition to fight Islamist groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, AL-Nusra, or Al-Shabab, and others. Meanwhile, at home, the US military and security agencies have received the help of many American Muslims who joined the military and the various law enforcement agencies in order to help defend the homeland against terrorists.
On the other hand, however, sporadic anti-Muslims attacks spread across the US after the 9/11 attacks. Accordingly, while we believe that these attacks were committed by few angry Americans in retaliations to the terrorist attacks, others believe that Americans were driven by Islamophobia. For example, in his book, “American Islamophobia: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear,” renowned scholar, Khaled Beydoun, charges that the post 9/11 attacks against American Muslims were committed by American Islamophobes. Furthermore, he claims that Islamophobia is entrenched in American society, and that the US counterterrorism laws and policies, which were passed after the 9/11 attacks are Islamophobic. We tend to disagree, especially since we believe that the majority of the American people are tolerant and accepting of others, while the Islamophobes are the exceptions. Therefore, in order to contest Beydoun’s charges, this research paper intends to examine his claims and theory, and it will attempt to provide counterarguments to Beydoun’s various charges of Islamophobia against Americans, and their institutions.
Beydoun starts his book with a sad story about three young Muslim American students who were killed by their Islamophobe neighbor, who claimed to have killed them over a parking lot dispute. However, according to Beydoun, evidence reveals that it was a hate crime. He believes that had it not been for islamophobia, these three students would still be alive. Furthermore, Beydoun relies throughout his book on appalling attacks by Americans against Muslim Americans, and non-Muslim Americans, to paint the whole US population as Islamophobic. For example, he mentions the case of Balbir Singh Sodhi, an Indian American Sikh, who was killed because a criminal thought that he was a Muslim.
Thus, while these attacks are horrible, inexcusable, and must be dealt with as hate crimes, they are, however, the exceptions in American culture. However, Beydoun depicts them as the norm since he believes that Americans are Islamophobes. Basically, Beydoun’s generalization about the Americans is similar to what he accuses the Americans of doing to Muslims, which is depicting them all as terrorists-both are wrong. Therefore, while there is no excuse, or justification to randomly attack Muslims, or non-Muslims, it is however, misleading and wrong to simplify the problem of Islamophobia, and to generalize about the American population.
Click here to read the study in PDF format
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2021/Islamophobia-US911-Policy%201.pdf
ISLAMOPHOBIA
Beydoun defines Islamophobia “as the presumption that Islam is violent, inassimilable, and prone to terrorism. That presumption,” he affirms, “is evidently driven by state law and policy.” Furthermore, Beydoun believes that “it is state law and policy that is directing and disseminating these negative tropes” through media to the public, and that the “fundamental trope is tying Muslim identity to the possibility for terrorism.” Accordingly, Beydoun divides Islamophobia into three dimensions: structural Islamophobia, private Islamophobia, and dialectical Islamophobia.
STRUCTURAL ISLAMOPHOBIA
According to Beydoun, structural Islamophobia is “basically how state policy like the Patriot Act, NSEERS, Countering Violent Extremism, the travel bans, even the ‘”See Something, Say Something’” campaign, are all central to advancing the war on terror, are built upon the foundational presumption that ties Muslim identity to the possibility of homegrown radicalization.” Furthermore, Beydoun affirms that “Islamophobia is embedded within the institutional memory of government agencies, including the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive branch-most notably the Department of Homeland security and anti-terror law enforcement during the protracted war on terror.” He adds, “Such policies assign the presumption of guilt to Muslims at large, and in turn diminish the civil liberties of Muslim Americans.” Furthermore, Beydoun goes further to charge that Islamophobia is the modern method of Orientalism, and that the “architects of the US adopted wholesale the Orientalist worldview and its attendant representations and misrepresentations.”
Remarkably, Beydoun bluntly states that his definition of Islamophobia “frames the state as a potent collaborator that influences and (periodically) drives the acts of individual hatemongers, or Islamophobes, making it complicit in the range of hate crimes and hate incidents targeting Muslim individuals and institutions.” While Beydoun’s allegations are very serious, he provides no evidence of clear Islamophobic comments or statements of US officials involved in passing the state’s laws and policies. Instead, he only relies on his suspicious interpretations of the state’s intentions of passing these laws. In fact, Beydoun quotes a speech, which President George W. Bush, delivered two weeks after the 9/11 attack, in which the President ‘“addressed Muslims and American Muslims directly, claiming, ‘” We respect your faith. It’s practiced by millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends…our enemy is a radical network of terrorists.”’ However, Beydoun ignores President Bush’s positive reach out to Muslims completely. Instead, he claims that the President’s “war on terrorism overshadowed his peaceful appeal to Muslims.”
Beydoun possibly ignores the speech since its content does not support his charge of structural Islamophobia, or that of US politicians being bigots. However, others seem to give credit to the President’s good gesture. According to Mahmoud Mamdani, author of “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: A Political Perspective on Culture and Terrorism,” a week after the attacks of 9/11, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, “were at pains to confirm aloud that theirs was a war not against Islam, nor even just Islamic terror, but against terrorism. Accordingly, it is fair to assume that President Bush’s speech may have eased tensions among Americans, which in turn may have saved lives. Therefore, to disregard by Beydoun it is wrong.
Moreover, investigating the state’s laws and policies reveals that for hundreds of years, the state has been taking the necessary measures to combat terrorism, which is the “systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” Furthermore, the state has been firmly working to eliminate threats facing the nation without singling out one group or another and regardless of who the terrorists may be.
According to the FBI website, the state’s federal law enforcement agency’s mission and definition of terrorism is divided into domestic and international terrorism. It defines “international terrorism as the acts “perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations.” Moreover, as for the example of international terrorism, the FBI uses the shooting in San Bernardino, CA, December 2, 2015, which killed 14 people and wounded 22, and which was committed by a Muslim married couple who were inspired by Muslim extremist ideologies and foreign terrorist organizations to attack non-Muslim Americans. Notwithstanding, the FBI does not mention the couple’s Muslim religious affiliation in its definition of international terrorism, which is an indication that the FBI is not targeting Muslim terrorists only, but all terrorists.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as the acts “perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” The FBI uses the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who “held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.” Additionally, the FBI considers that the current threat to the US is still the traditional threat posed by AL-Qaeda. However, it states that “threat of domestic terrorism also remains persistent overall, with actors crossing the line from First Amendment protected rights to committing crimes to further their political agenda.” Evidently, the FBI does not refer to any specific religion when defining terrorism, or in the examples it provides to explain the difference between domestic and international terrorism.
Moreover, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ) website regarding the USA PATRIOT Act, the US Congress has simply altered some existing laws in order to be used for counterterrorism investigations. Thus, the website of the Department of Justice states that, “while the results have been important, in passing the Patriot Act, Congress provided for only modest, incremental changes in the law.” It allege that “Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network.” Furthermore, the DOJ post continues, “Since its passage following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PATRIOT Act has played a key part – and often the leading role – in a number of successful operations to protect innocent Americans from the deadly plans of terrorists dedicated to destroying America and our way of life.”
Notwithstanding, the FBI has been gathering domestic intelligence since the 1930s, and during World War II, the FBI’s duties was extended to “investigation of possible espionage, sabotage, or subversion.” Therefore, the US government did not need to pass new laws to combat terrorism since the above mentioned ones, and existing laws, which were used to combat criminal activities, and which were used for criminal investigations, were solid tools to also combat counterterrorist activities. Accordingly, to better understand the failure of the state security agencies, and to analyze whether new laws to investigate counterterrorism crimes was needed after the attacks of 9/11, there was a need for a thorough investigation.
Therefore, in 2004 investigative report, the “Legal Barriers to Information Sharing: The Erection of a Wall Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Investigations,” Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was directed by Senior Counsel for Special Projects, Barbara A. Grewe, revealed that:
At the time leading to the 9/11 attacks, the FBI had the means to conduct criminal and intelligence investigations and surveillance. However, it has different venues to conduct each responsibility separately. For criminal investigation, the FBI used the traditional criminal method to obtain warrants, whereas for foreign intelligence investigations and surveillance, the FBI applied for a warrant through the FISA court.
Furthermore, the report discovered that the FBI has created a “wall” between its criminal investigation division and its intelligence and surveillance division. Hence, the Commission concluded that it was not legal barriers, which have prevented the sharing of information among agencies, and within the FBI. Rather, it was a failure on the part of the “agents” who did not understand the laws available to them at the time leading to the 9/11 attacks.
Accordingly, it is clear that the Commission, which also investigated the failure of the numerous US Law enforcement and Intelligence Agencies to communicate and share information aptly and vigorously in order to detect, investigate, prosecute, and prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, concluded that there was no need for new laws, and it suggested that Federal Agents should be trained to be familiarized with current laws and tools in order to conduct better investigations. Thus, to suggest that existing laws were based on Islamophobia is sheer allegations by Beydoun. Nevertheless, according to Dr. Jacob Labendz, it must be noted that while the laws may not be Islamophobic, their application and reassessment might be, especially the surveillance of Mosques and the “See something, Say something” policy and many other policies.
Dr. Labendz concerns have merit, especially since not all agents are properly trained, and some may be Islamophobes or racist. However, it must be also noted that the responsibility of applying state laws in racist manners shall fall on the shoulders of the individual agents who misuse the procedures, not on the laws passed by the state. Furthermore, not to justify abuse of process, and not to excuse racism, but sometimes desperate times require the state to take drastic measures in order to protect citizens. However, this protection is a delicate balance between securing the community and preserving civil liberties, and the former shall not be at the expense of the latter, or at the expense of terrifying any portion of society. However, it seems that Beydoun is using Islamophobia as a weapon to silence critics and to oppose state laws and policies, which are meant to preserve peace and stability in the country.
PRIVATE ISLAMOPHOBIA
In addition, Beydoun defines “private Islamophobia” as the form, which widely covers and monopolizes broader definitions of Islamophobia, “looks primarily at what private individuals are doing with regard to attacking, targeting, and holding specific negative ideas of Muslims.” He adds, “We see this through the uptick in hate crimes, attacks on conspicuous or visible Muslims.” Accordingly, Beydoun charges that islamophobia is an American problem, which is entrenched in US society.
However, Beydoun does not attempt to explore the possibility that some American individuals may be angry with terrorist attacks, and that their anger is not based on Orientalism, Islamophobia, and or racism, but rather on fear of being killed by these random attacks. This is by no means excusing or justifying any attacks on innocent Muslims or non-Muslims. However, Beydoun does not seem to believe that only few rotten apples do not make the entire box rotten. Therefore, it seems that one more time Beydoun is using Islamophobia as a weapon to compromise the American society.
Accordingly, in order to refute Beydoun’s allegations, one must understand the American people’s suspicion and anger of some, if not all, Muslims. Therefore, this research will look back into the 20th century, where many incidents, which were conducted by some Muslims caused harm to the American people, and to the US interests at home and abroad. Thus, in his book, Islamophobia and Racism in America, Erik Love, believes that Islamophobia is structural, systematic, and institutional. However, unlike Beydoun, Love believes that “Islamophobia is best understood as a racist project, one that distributes resources in service of maintaining the race-based subordination of marginalized groups.” However, though it is about foreign Muslims not American ones, Love explains the reasons behind the suspicions, which exists between non-Muslims and Muslims in general. For example, Love assets that the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 (Six Day War) where Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria helped depict in American the idea of a ‘dangerous Middle East,’ and that Arabs are fanatics. It also set the idea of the “clash of civilizations” between the West and its allies, including Israel, against the dangerous and violent Middle East. Accordingly, he points out that it was alright in “polite company in America to make blatantly ignorant and bigoted statements about Arabs and Muslims, and because of such rhetoric, the term “Middle Eastern,” “Arab,” and “Muslim” refers to the same ascribed racial identity today.
Furthermore, Love also mentions the “Oil sheiks” decision, which caused the oil crisis of the 1973, which crippled an already weak economy, and the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the hostage crisis of the US embassy. In addition, he refers to the several anti-American terrorist attack i.e. the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, and the Libyan bombing of the PAN 103 flight over Lockerby, Scotland, the hijacking of an American cruise ship by the Palestinians, and many other attacks made the term “terrorist” synonymous with Arabs in the 1970s and 1980s.
In addition, prior to 2001, there was a barrage of radical Muslims attacks against US civilians, servicemen, and interests around the world. For example, as Love mentions briefly, in 1983, a Muslim suicide bomber attacked the US embassy and the Marine’s headquarters in Beirut, in 1983, which killed 241 marines. Simultaneously, another suicide bomber attacked the French contingency’s base killing 58 paratroopers. These troops were part of the Multinational Force serving a peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, and they were not western invaders trying to occupy Muslim land. Thus, these examples provide many legit reasons behind the Americans ill-sentiment and stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims prior to the attacks of 9/11.
Hence, not to excuse or to accept the crimes committed by few American bigots against non-participant Muslims, but intentionally or not, Love’s argument show that Americans have many reasons to be suspicious of Arabs, which as he affirms also means Muslims and Middle Easterners. Accordingly, the state has the right and the duty to pass effective laws and policies, which would combat and deter the apparent enemy, Islamists in this case, from striking against the US interests and its citizens. Beydoun refers to this repulsive reality as Islamophobic laws and policies adopted by Islamophobic American state. Notwithstanding, while the US politics and policies may have created an uneasy condition for Muslims, or non-Muslims minorities, terrorism cannot be used by radicals to coerce the state to change its policies. In a democratic republic, the majority rules through elections, while the civil liberties of all people must be preserved.
However, this is by no means suggesting that Muslims in general, including American Muslims, do not have reasons to fear or to dislike the US, or to not be suspicious of its actions, laws, and policies. In his article, “Islamophobia and the Roots of the Muslims Anger,” Bernard Lewis sheds light on the long history between the west, or Christendom, and Islam. Furthermore, he attempts to explain the reasons behind some Muslims’ anger and hate for the West, and the US. Accordingly, Lewis explores all the possible “offences and sins,” which the US may have committed against Muslims throughout history, which could have caused this anger. He discusses racism, antisemitism, sexism, the treatment of women, Nazism and Communism propaganda, the support for Israel, and Imperialism. While Lewis focusses more attention on Imperialism, he still couldn’t rational that it is an offense, which is grave enough to generate such great anger. Ultimately, he concludes that Muslims are angry because they are weak and humiliated, while the west is powerful and thriving.
While Lewis places all Muslims in one basket, or category, it is important to note that Muslims come from different countries with different cultures, and that they have different worldviews. Therefore, they react differently to world events and they even have different interpretations of Islam and the versus of the Quran. However, Lewis’ theory regarding Muslims’ anger still stands, but varies in degree or level of anger, and in their methods of reactions, whereas the moderates may oppose the US peacefully, while the radicals may resort to violence. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that Lewis’ claims are opposed by many scholars to the extent that some even accused him of being an Islamophobe himself.
However, regardless of Lewis’ sentiments vis-a-vis Islam and Muslims, his critics’ accusations are inappropriate for they shut down dialogue regarding Islam, terrorism, and Islamophobia. In his book, ”’Islamophobia’ Reconsidered,” Fred Halliday argues that the “use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ challenges the possibility of dialogue based on universal principles,” which suggests that the “solution lies in greater dialogue, bridge-building, respect for the other community.” However, he adds, referring to criticism of Islam as Islamophobia “inevitably runs the risk of denying the right, or possibility, of criticism of the practices of those with whom one is having the dialogue.” Therefore, Halliday affirms, those who “challenge conservative readings from within, can more easily be classed as Islamophobes,” adding that “’Islamophobia,’ like its predecessor ‘imperialism,’ can easily be used to silence critics of national states and elites.” Evidently, Halliday is warnings applies to Beydoun, who is evidently trying to silence critics of Islam and radical Muslims, which in turn is hindering dialogue and peaceful resolution.
Furthermore, another issue, which is a widespread phenomenon in the Muslim world, and which is a cause for some Muslims’ anger with the US and its allies is the “Conspiracy Theory.” Thus, there is a general belief in the Middle East that the Zionists/Mossad and the US/CIA are responsible for everything harmful, which happens to Muslims. For example, there is a strong belief amongst Muslims that the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, not AL Qaeda, perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. The reason? They wanted to implicate Muslims in order to provide a premise for the west to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries.
Likewise, many Afghanis and Muslims believe that the US and the Taliban are working together and that they are collaborating on many issues, since the US has been “using Afghanistan “just as a barracks against Iran, against Pakistan, against China, against Russians.” Moreover, while the US presence in Afghanistan may have some merit to it, other Middle Eastern journalists, or conspiratorialists, believe that “it was none other than Mossad agents who were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Mossad’s motive? To blacken the name of Arabs and Muslims in the United States and to enable Israel to have its way in Palestine.”
Accordingly, those radical Muslims who believe in conspiracy theories are constantly suspicious of US actions, and they are consistently adamant to fight all American policies, especially its foreign policy vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, whereas the US provides utter support for Israel. Consequently, most Muslims, especially the radicals, view such US policy as unjust and harmful to the Palestinian people. Therefore, they turn their anger against the US, which they consider the guarantor of Israel. Accordingly, for example, in his “Letter to America,” Usama Bin Laden referred to the US backing of Israel as one of the main reasons he was fighting the US.”
GENERALIZATION AND SIMPLIFICATION
Beydoun also believes that islamophobia is not limited to one political party or another, and that it stretches across the political spectrum from the alt-right groups to far left ones. Beydoun’s claim is inaccurate and quite wrong. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center (PRC), results shows that Republicans and those leaning toward the GOP “view Muslims far less positively than they view members of most other major religious groups. Furthermore, the study reveals that the U.S. public is split over whether there is a ‘”natural conflict’” between Islam and democracy, and it shows (Figure 2) which segments in American society are more likely to be Islamophobes. Thus, according to the PRC study, it is clear that the Jewish community, followed by the Hispanic community are far less likely to be Islamophobes than the Catholic and the Evangelical communities. Accordingly, this is another claim by Beydoun where he paints the whole population with one negative brush. Therefore, to state that Islamophobia stretches across party lines equally is inaccurate, unfair, and misleading.
Furthermore, Beydoun also claims that Islamophobia is entrenched in American society, which is also misleading. Firstly, it is important to note that the American people are known for their kindness, generosities, and for their acceptance of other nationalities regardless of race, religion, or culture, given that they are peaceful. Secondly, the US is one the most diverse nation state in the world. Its population is different culturally, racially, religiously, and economically. According to the census bureau, the minorities population in the US rose to 37.9% in 2014, and that the states of California, Texas, New Mexico, Hawaii, and the District of Washington, D.C. are now majority-minority, while they make 48.5% of Nevada. As for the 2018 census, the chart (Figure 9) shows that the minority communities are growing steadily. Therefore, for Beydoun to generalize about the whole US population is unfair, inaccurate, and misleading.
Furthermore, while few Americans may be Islamophobes, many studies and polls reveal that most Americans are tolerant people who are accepting of others. For example, an Arab News article and pool reveal that even Muslims believe that the American people are kind and accepting, and that they are not Islamophobes, and that for every bigoted politician and American Islamophobe, there are millions of silent Americans who are tolerant of all others, including Muslims and Islam. Furthermore, the article “While the media and the Islamophobes spewed poison against Muslims, a kinder, gentler side of North America emerged,” said a Californian resident, Sabra, to Arab News reporter. He also affirmed that on one ”occasion, over 250 Christians and Jews formed a circle around their mosque vowing to protect it from any attacks.”
Moreover, John, a man from Ohio, told Arab News, “I have met many Muslims and find them to be nice and friendly. I would say to them, like the terrorists are in minority, so are the Islamophobes. Just be patient.” He adds that “this is an election year; anti-Muslim sentiments are being fanned by the politicians. It will pass. Unfortunately,” he concludes, “We have a history of racism.” It must be noted that recognizing the problem is half the solution. Therefore, if Americans recognize that they have a history of racism, then it is more likely that the new generations will work on eliminating such problem.
As well, a comment by a reader using the username of Genie, affirms that “most Americans are not Islamophobes.” She states that “there cannot be any truer statement than the foregoing. In fact,” she adds, “I would say that there are millions upon millions of hard working decent, caring and helpful Americans who have always been and are being ‘”defamed’” by the very minute minority of ugly and evil people living in America.” She concludes her statement by stating that, “Truth shall prevail eventually.” Thus, there is no reason to distrust the testimonies of these people. Unfortunately, some politicians use fear and uncertainties to attract the votes of the uninformed voters, while others use the bigoted speeches of such irresponsible politicians to charge Americans with Islamophobia.
Furthermore, according to a question asked by the PRC study regarding Americans’ attitudes towards Muslims, the results reveal that Americans believe that “there is little or no support for extremism among U.S. Muslims.” Moreover, the report adds that “there has been a decrease in the segment who believes that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its followers.” In addition, the PRC study reveals (Figure 3) that there has been a remarkable increase in positive views and sentiments toward Muslims by Americans due to their better understanding of Muslims and Islam. For example, in December 2016, 49% of Americans believed Islam is not any more violent than any other religion and that it does not promote Islam violence among its followers, while 41% believed that it is more likely to encourage violence-a decline by 9% since September 2014.
In addition, the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) analysis reveals (Figure 5) that “knowing a Muslim personally is among several protective factors against Islamophobia.” Therefore, when a Muslim is a close friend, Islamophobia is further reduced. Moreover, the ISPU study finds (Figure 6) that three in four Jews know a Muslim, and about 50% of the general public know a Muslim.
Furthermore, since the above-cited data reveals that typical Americans are not Islamophobes, statics indicate that most anti-Muslim attacks which occur in the US are in reaction to Muslim terrorist attacks in the US or Europe. For example, studies conducted by the New America (Not to be confused with the New America Foundation), which is an independent non-profit organization that publishes anti-Muslim activities in the United States and Europe, reveal that every time there is a rise of Anti-Muslim attacks in the West, it occurs around the same period of an Islamist terrorist attack on Europeans or on Americans. Therefore, the data (Figure A1) suggests that the rise of attacks on Muslim Americans are related to angry reaction by Americans to Islamist attacks on them at home or on Europeans abroad-a solid proof that Americans are not Islamophobes, but briefly angry people defending themselves against terrorism.
Accordingly, these studies and statistics are solid testimony that Americans are generally tolerant people, and that they are typically accepting of other people when not reacting to threats forced on them by terrorists. Furthermore, such overwhelming evidences refute Beydoun’s allegations and his unwarranted charges against the American people, and their institutions. However, Beydoun fails to recognize such reality, and he also fails to give a voice to a large segment of tolerant Americans who are not Islamophobes. In fact, while Beydoun reject Americans’ generalization about Islam and Muslims, he generalizes about Americans and their institutions.
DIALECTICAL ISLAMOPHOBIA
Furthermore, regarding “dialectical Islamophobia,” Beydoun asserts that this dimension of Islamophobia is what “ties the structural and private Islamophobias together.” He asserts that it is the “idea that law and policy that forms structural Islamophobia are communicating really powerful messages to the people” through the media. He adds, “If war on terror policies are effectively communicated — that Muslims are suspicious and close tabs need to be kept on them — that is effectively qualifying to the citizenry that these are bad, scary people.” He adds that dialectical Islamophobia is “endorsing these negative stereotypes that are widely held in society, which are disseminated from mass media and film. The dialectic is whereby state policy is endorsing and authorizing stereotypes of Muslims. During moments of crisis,” he asserts, “The rhetoric that comes from people like Trump emboldens private Islamophobia.” According to Beydoun’s logic, it is fair to state that during moments of crisis, baseless accusations coming from people like Beydoun emboldens radical Muslims and enrages Americans.
Furthermore, while Beydoun’s accusations regarding Fox News, and the racist rhetoric of President Trump are partially true, especially the President’s speech, his charges against the American mainstream media are baseless and sheer generalization. First, he fails to point out that Fox News is an “orphaned” conservative media outlet, and secondly, he fails to note that the reporting of the American mainstream media such as ABC, NBC, and CBS, are moderate, and far from being Islamophobic, which is evident in many ways. For example, their coverage of the stories regarding the building of a mosque on Ground Zero. Thus, after President Obama pushed the matter into the headlines from the White House, the “results show that the networks have tilted in favor of mosque supporters and against public opinion, with more than half (55%) of all soundbites or reporter comments coming down on the pro-mosque side of the debate, vs. 45 percent for opponents.”
Another indication that the US media is not in the business of bashing Islam and Muslims is the fact that they moved away from covering stories related to terrorism abroad. The Guardian reports that while terrorists’ attacks received considerable attention after the 9/11 attacks, a decade later the media began to under-report Muslim terrorist activities. The White House reports that in 2014, during the Obama administration, 32, 658 people died in terrorist acts. For example, “About 10,000 in Iraq, more than 7,000 in Nigeria, more than 6,000 in Pakistan and Afghanistan combined, and nearly 2,000 in Syria.” The report continues, “In 2015, the total was 29,376, with three-quarters of those deaths in the same five countries.” Furthermore, according to the Institute of Economics and Peace, its third Global Terrorism Index publication reveals (Figure 7) that there was an 80% increase in terrorist activities in 2014, compared to 2013. Moreover, by comparison, the chart (Figure 8) reveals that the terrorist group, Boko Haram, has committed more atrocities and killings than the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL.)
The Guardian charges that the western media was definitely “guilty of under-reporting one aspect of the threat posed by Islamic militancy to other Muslims.” This under-reporting includes Fox News. Therefore, it is evident that the US media is not concerned with bashing Islam and Muslims, but in reporting the specific news items, which are of concern to the security of the American people. This is by no means suggesting that Americans are disinterested in terrorism when the killing is happening to other people in other countries. However, it is human nature to be disconnected from predicaments when distant from them.
Furthermore, contrary to Beydoun’s accusations, the mainstream media have been constantly challenging the state’s policies, especially President Trump’s policies and his anti-Muslim rhetoric since his election in 2016. Furthermore, some civil rights groups, with the help of the media, have challenged Trump’s policies and executive orders in courts and won. For example, when President Donald Trump issued his travel ban, which targeted people from six Muslim-majority countries, two separate courts ruled in favor of those who sued to stop the ban, and considered that the ban “violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of religion.” Thus, Beydoun’s claim that the judicial system in the US is Islamophobic is also an unfair and an unfounded claim. Moreover, while partially true, Beydoun’s dialectical Islamophobia is also an implausible accusation against the US media and the American people.
US-MUSLIMS RELATIONSHIP
When reading Beydoun’s charges and claims, the reader senses that the US and the Muslim world have been nothing but vicious enemies. However, research reveals that the relationship between Americans and Muslims, and between the US and many Muslim countries, have been based on mutual respect and cooperation. For example, Americans, and American companies, such as ARAMCO, have shaped the whole Middle East, and the world for that matter after the US company managed the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Thus, ARAMCO’s cooperation with Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, has improved the lives of millions of Saudis, Americans, and the world’s population.
Furthermore, in 1956, when Egyptian President, Jamal Abdul Naser seized control of the Suez Canal from the British managing company of the canal, Britain and France, in secret coordination with Israel went on the offense and the later invaded the Sinai Peninsula, while British and French paratroopers landed in the Suez Canal. Immediately thereafter, the US, through the Security Council of the United Nations, moved to defend the Muslim nation, and to end the aggression. Accordingly, the allied troops withdrew from Suez two months after their landing, while the US pressured Israel to withdraw from Egypt’s occupied land in 1957.
Moreover, in 1990, after the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, invaded the small country of Kuwait, the US President, George H. W. Bush, moved US troops to defend Saudi Arabia, and sought the help of the UN’s Security Council, which condemned the Iraqi invasion. Afterwards, President H. W. Bush’s Administration created an international coalition, whereas thirty-five nations, many of which were Muslim countries, and launched Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait. The operation was success and Hussein retreated.
These are few examples which shed light on the good relationship between the US and many Muslim countries, which Beydoun overlook. However, while the US-Muslims relationship may have been occasionally disturbed due to terrorist attacks, or due to controversial US policies, but it was never to the extent of becoming enemies. Hence, the Islamists’ attacks of September 11, may have pushed few angry Americans to wrongly attack their fellow Muslim Americans, but to call the American people Islamophobes is inaccurate, misleading, and sheer generalization by Beydoun.
SCHOLARS CRITICS OF ISLAM
Besides, this research exposes that there is also a problem with radical scholars whose writings are constantly critical of the west. Thus, while Islamists are constantly committing violence in the name of Jihad against westerners, biased scholars are regularly bashing westerners through intellectual work. Therefore, we believe that such behavior creates confusion about Islam and terrorism among non-Muslims who cannot distinguish between Jihadists and Islamist. Such lack of understanding makes them suspicious of all Muslims. Accordingly, when they voice criticism about Islam or terrorism, they offend all Muslims.
Nevertheless, criticism of Islam and Islamists is not limited to uninformed westerners. Many scholars have raised concerns about the subject matter. For example, in his book, “Islam as an Object of Fear and Affection,” Andrew Shryock describes Islamophobia as a term usually used in Europe and the US to describe hate or fear of Islam. He defines it as a term that is supposed to describe a new form of discrimination. Furthermore, like Beydoun, he believes that Islamophobia is not limited to conservatives, but also to liberals. However, Shryock wonders that since Americans and Europeans do not know much about Islam, “can we be sure that Islamophobia is about Islam?” He asserts that Islamophobia could be like the anti-communist sentiment adopted during the Cold War, or that it is perhaps an old sentiment pertinent to Europe and the Ottomans.
Furthermore, Shryock asserts that people in North America believes that the Muslims identity is not only a religious one but has a racial and ethnic dimension to it. Accordingly, he affirms that this has brought Islamophobia and racism into the same equation. Therefore, according to Shryock, Americans’ attitudes towards Muslims is more about racial sentiment and cultural differences than about Islam as a religion. Therefore, maybe we should think of it as a clash of civilization, not Islamophobia. This, however, does not make it right to randomly attack Muslims. However, Shryock’s argument makes is clear that there is still a lack of understating regarding Islamophobia and what may be causing non-Muslims to fear Islam.
In addition, Halliday believes that the Westerners anti-Muslims attacks in general are “against not Islam as a faith, but against Muslims as a people and that Islamophobia is being used to silence critics.” This, Halliday believes, is due to the fact that “Islam as a religion does not threaten to attract a large group of Western European society to convert to its faith as Communism did in the 20th century. Therefore, he believes that “the enemy is not a faith or a culture, but a people.” Accordingly, Halliday suggests that the more correct term to “describe the West’s reaction is not ‘Islamophobia’ but ‘anti-Muslimism.’” By “anti-Muslimism,” Halliday is referring to radical Islamists activities, not Islam as a religion. Thus, Halliday’s theory applies to Americans with hostile sentiments vis-à-vis Islam and Muslim terrorists. Their brief anger and reactions are against the terrorists’ actions, not against Islam. Again, this is by no means to suggest that bigotry is justified when briefly applied, but rather to point out that Islamophobia is a serious charge, which cannot be used casually by scholars like Beydoun.
Additionally, Mamdani also believes that “there is a problem within Islam, which is creating Islamophobia or anger by non-Muslims.” Mamdani also “believes that Islam must be quarantined, and the devil exorcised from it by a Muslim civil war.” Moreover, Mamdani argues that “if there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, there must also be good Westerners bad Westerners.” Unfortunately, Beydoun’s approach to Islamophobia does not leave room for the good Americans to exist. Furthermore, unlike Mamdani, Beydoun never questions Islam or Islamists’ actions, and he throws the whole blame on Americans and the state’s laws and policies. This is unfair and irresponsible.
Furthermore, while Beydoun simplifies and generalizes about the US population, others are more articulate when forming their opinions about Americans. For example, Qassim Rashid, the head of Muslims for Peace, an NGO based in Washington, D.C. declares that there is “extremism and then there is Islam.” Therefore, he rejects the label “moderate Muslim.” Furthermore, Rashid believes that the US government is great due to the fact that it is “the most Islamic government in the world because it is based off of justice; it is based off of equality, which is what Islam teaches: that you must treat all citizens with equality regardless of race, color or creed.” However, while he acknowledges that there are other schools of Islam, which are less tolerant, he affirms that there is a need for the US government to work together with Muslims instead of fighting fire with fire.
CONCLUSION
Mosab Hassan Youssef, a former terrorist whose father, Sheikh Hassan Youssef, co-founded the terrorist group HAMAS, writes in his book, Son of Hamas, that the war with Islam is a war of ideas, which cannot be won by wars. However, if scholars and officials are scared to discuss Jihad in Islam due to their fear of being labeled Islamophobes, then how effective can these discussions be? By casually accusing the entire American population of being Islamophobes, and to charge that the US government bases its laws on Islamophobia, which is sheer generalization, Beydoun is further complicating the issue instead of facilitating the solution through dialogue. However, for such dialogue to be fruitful, scholars must be free to share their ideas openly and without restrictions. This is important since, while scholars like Beydoun accuses their opponents of being Islamophobes, radical Muslim clerics and terrorist groups have made it a policy to kill anyone who dares to criticize Islam or Prophet Mohammad. As a result, scholars and officials are scared to speak their minds about Islam, or to scrutinize versus of the Quran, for fear of being labeled Islamophobes, or for fear of having a bounty over their heads similar to Salman Rushdie. Rushdie has been living in hiding since the Ayatollah Khomeini, has issued a Fatwa to kill him after publishing his book, Satanic Versus.
Moreover, journalists and artists have similar concerns. They, too, fear to face similar fate as Charlie Hebdo, and Van Gogh, who were assassinated for daring to criticize Prophet Mohammad, or like Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded for reporting Islamists crimes around the world. Accordingly, similar to Beydoun’s random accusations of Islamophobia, radical Muslims’ policy of terrorizing intellectuals has also shut down dialogue, and the possibility to have fruitful discussions between the various religious communities and Islam.
Besides, the double standard of critics regarding the Americans’ reaction to terrorism is unfair. For example, we believe that, since it is objectionable to cast doubts over Jihad in Islam, even though (rightly or wrongly) many terrorist attacks have been committed in its name, it should also be objectionable to casually accuse the American people of Islamophobia. Moreover, since it is not acceptable to stereotype Muslims, it should not acceptable to do the same to Americans, or non-Muslims. Furthermore, it is not acceptable for Islamists to blame, and to assault the American people around the world in retaliation to the policies or actions of the US government. This double standard must end if the world is serious about finding lasting resolutions to terrorism and to Islamophobia.
Moreover, while there are rules in Islam regarding Jihad, it is important to note that some religious clerics misuse Jihad for their own political benefits. Accordingly, few radical Muslims have been misled to commit violence in the name of Jihad. However, since non-Muslims have no way of distinguishing between true Jihad and terrorism committed in its name, they tend to blame all terrorist attacks on Islamic doctrine. Consequently, non-Muslims will continue to be suspicious of all Muslims, which Beydoun refers to as Islamophobia, unless true dialogue and enlightening discussions takes place in the US schools, institutions, and public squares. Until then, biased scholars, and Muslims clerics, bear some of the responsibility for the tense relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in America, and around the world.
On the other hand, US officials bear some of the responsibility as well. Therefore, since effective security policies appear to American Muslims as Islamophobic and xenophobic, City Halls shall arrange for public meetings with US officials in order to discuss, and to inform the public, about security measures, which are meant to protect the whole community, without infringing on the civil liberties of the minorities. Besides, such meetings will provide venues for scholars, like Beydoun, to voice their concerns and criticism regarding suspicious state policies directly to US officials, which will also respond openly.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES:
“Enabling Opportunity.” Enabling opportunity – Saudi Aramco. Accessed December 9, 2019. https://www.saudiaramco.com/en/.
“Saudi Aramco World: Prelude to Discovery.” AramcoWorld. Accessed December 9, 2019. https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/199901/prelude.to.discovery.htm.
“Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing Fast Facts.” CNN. Cable News Network, March 21, 2019. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/world/meast/beirut-marine-barracks-bombing-fast-facts/index.html.
Defining International Terrorism in Light of Liberation Movements – GlobaLex. Accessed November 18, 2019. https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/International_terrorism_liberation_movements.html.
“Full Text: Bin Laden’s ‘Letter to America’.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, November 24, 2002. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver.
Gezari, Vanessa M. “The Secret Alliance.” The New Republic, August 19, 2011. https://newrepublic.com/article/92775/taliban-conspiracy-theory.
Khan, Sameen Tahir. “Most of the Americans Are Not Islamophobes.” Arab News. Arabnews, December 21, 2015. https://www.arabnews.com/world/news/853771.
Muslim Diaspora Initiative , https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/anti-muslim-activity/.
Myre, Greg. “From Threats Against Salman Rushdie To Attacks On ‘Charlie Hebdo’.” NPR. NPR, January 8, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/01/08/375662895/from-threats-against-salman-rushdie-to-attacks-on-charlie-hebdo.
Rushdie, Samlman., https://www.salmanrushdie.com/the-satanic-verses/.
“The Muslim and Refugee Ban.” Arab American Institute. Accessed October 7, 2019. https://www.aaiusa.org/the_muslim_and_refugee_ban.
“Terrorism.” FBI. FBI, May 3, 2016. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism.
“The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty.” What is the USA Patriot Web. Department of Justice. Accessed October 4, 2019. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm.
US Census Bureau. “A More Diverse Nation.” The United States Census Bureau, October 1, 2018. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/diverse-nation.html.
U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Accessed December 9, 2019. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/97179.htm.
Yousef, Mosab Hassan., and Ron Brackin. Son of Hamas A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices. Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2014.
SECONDARY SOURCES
“9/11 Commission Records.” National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed October 4, 2019. https://www.archives.gov/research/9-11.
“American Muslim Poll 2019: Predicting and Preventing Islamophobia: ISPU.” Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, September 12, 2019. https://www.ispu.org/american-muslim-poll-2019-predicting-and-preventing-islamophobia/.
Beydoun, Khaled A. AMERICAN ISLAMOPHOBIA: Understanding the Roots and Rise of Fear. Oakland: University of California Press, 2019.
Esposito, John L., and Ibrahim Kalın. Islamophobia: the Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Grewe, Barbara A. “Legal Barriers to Information Sharing: The Erection of a …” Federation of American Scientists. Accessed October 4, 2019. https://fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf.
“How the U.S. General Public Views Muslims and Islam.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, July 26, 2017. https://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/how-the-u-s-general-public-views-muslims-and-islam/.
https://www.academia.edu/14537328/_Introduction_Islam_as_an_Object_of_Fear_and_Affection_in_Islamophobia_Islamophilia_Beyond_the_Politics_of_Enemy_and_Friend._Andrew_Shryock_ed._Pp._1-25._Bloomington_Indiana_University_Press.
Kundnani, Arun. The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror. London: Verso, 2015.
Lewis, Bernard. “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, May 20, 2018. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1990/09/the-roots-of-muslim-rage/304643/.
Lipstadt, Deborah E. Antisemitism: Here and Now. New York: Schocken Books, 2019.
Love, Erik. Islamophobia and Racism in America. New York: New York University Press, 2017.
“News, Sport and Opinion from the Guardian’s US Edition.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Accessed November 12, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/us.
“Quartz.” Quartz. Accessed November 12, 2019. https://qz.com/.
Rosand, Eric. “When Fighting Domestic Terrorism, You Get What You Pay For.” Foreign Policy, November 1, 2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/01/when-fighting-domestic-terrorism-you-get-what-you-pay-for-antisemitism-far-right-countering-violent-extremism-jihadists/.
Qureshi, Emran, and Michael Anthony Sells. The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.
Shryock, Andrew. “‘Introduction: Islam as an Object of Fear and Affection,” in Islamophobia/Islamophilia: Beyond the Politics of Enemy and Friend. Andrew Shryock, Ed. Pp. 1-25. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.” Academia.edu. Accessed November 21, 2019.
“The US Has ‘the Most Islamic Government in the World,’ Says One American Muslim.” Public Radio International. Accessed October 22, 2019. https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-17/us-has-most-islamic-government-world-says-one-american-muslim.
Theintercept. “How Islamophobia Was Ingrained in America’s Legal System Long Before the War on Terror.” The Intercept, May 6, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/06/american-islamophobia-khaled-beydoun-interview/.