LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
April 03/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.april03.18.htm

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

How Mohammed bin Salman unites usually divided Iranians
Saeid Jafari/Al Monitor/April 02/18
Article Summary
The Saudi crown prince’s harsh words against the Islamic Republic seem to have a unifying effect among Iranians.
REUTERS/Amir Levy
Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is seen during a meeting at the United Nations headquarters, New York, US, March 27, 2018.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s war of words against Iran seems to have had a unifying effect among usually divided Iranians. The 32-year-old prince adopted a particularly tough tone against Tehran during his March 19 interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," sparking Iranian anger both toward him and Saudi Arabia.
In the interview, Mohammed accused Iran of supporting terrorism, saying, “Many of the al-Qaeda operatives are protected in Iran. … This includes the son of Osama bin Laden, the new leader of al-Qaeda. He lives in Iran and works out of Iran. He is supported by Iran.” Mohammed also ridiculed the idea of Iran and Saudi Arabia being comparable in terms of military and economic strength and said, “Iran is not a rival to Saudi Arabia. Its army is not among the top five armies in the Muslim world. The Saudi economy is larger than the Iranian economy. Iran is far from being equal to Saudi Arabia.”
These statements quickly triggered reactions in Iran, where people took to social media to express their anger. Many criticized Mohammed on Twitter, with some arguing that despite its powerful army and three years of war, Saudi Arabia has yet to succeed in Yemen. While Persian social media is usually sorely divided over political issues, there seems to be a consensus when it comes to condemnation of Mohammed's words.
In addition to condemning the Saudi-led war in Yemen, other Iranians were quick to point out the contradictions in Mohammed's statements. For instance, Bahman Kalbasi, a New York correspondent for BBC Persian — which is outlawed in Iran — tweeted March 15, “The Saudi crown prince has given an interview to CBS’ '60 Minutes' on the verge of his visit to the United States. On the one hand, he says Iran’s army and economy is so weak that it cannot be a rival for Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, he says Iran’s [supreme] leader is the new Hitler and is seeking to expand his power.”
Meanwhile, calls have been made on Instagram to target all social media pages linked to Mohammed. Amid these calls, “Special Royal” — which claims to be a dedicated account for the images and life of the crown prince — has come under attack by Persian speakers who have written anti-Mohammed comments in both Persian and Arabic.
Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian ambassador to Jordan, told Al-Monitor, “Iranians do not take [Mohammed's] threats seriously for different reasons. First, Saudi Arabia is sitting on several critical fault lines, including the topic of succession and the growing [public] demands that have yet to be met. Therefore, it is going through a sensitive period. Second, to bypass its internal crises, it needs to create an external enemy. On the other hand, [Mohammed] is trying to gain [US President] Donald Trump’s political and military support.”
He added, “However, Trump’s comments after meeting with [Mohammed] indicate that the main priority for Trump’s America is to exhaust Saudi finances as much as possible and under different pretexts, such as the sale of military armaments. Therefore, it is natural that Iranian society, despite its political differences, adopts a unified stance against such an issue and such a foreign enemy. Iran must pursue strategic patience in this situation and allow for this country [Saudi Arabia] to become more engulfed in its own self-inflicted problems.”
The concept of the creation of a foreign enemy in order to advance a domestic agenda is well established in political science. In this vein, some analysts in Iran believe that one of the main reasons why Mohammed is fueling the fire with Iran is to pave his domestic Saudi road for advancing his internal reforms and agendas. However, it should be noted that he has simultaneously provided the Islamic Republic with this same gift. Iran has no desire to increase tensions with Saudi Arabia, and its senior officials have on numerous occasions called for the need to engage in dialogue and remove tensions with the kingdom. But these efforts have done little to allay the tension and hostility between the two regional powers.
Under such circumstances, the Iranian public tends to trust its own political system more than before, thereby creating a stronger sense of patriotism and thus greater unity on the issue at hand. This unity allows senior Iranian officials to stand up to Mohammed bin Salman’s threats and adventurism with more confidence.
For now, things in Washington seem to be moving in Mohammed’s favor, especially as his allies keep being added to Trump’s team. However, one important point should be borne in mind: Former US President Barack Obama succeeded in instilling divisions among Iranians by increasing doubt about the prospect for serious political reform within Iran. Now, thanks to Trump and Mohammed, attention is on US and Saudi threats, with many among even the die-hard opponents of the Islamic Republic now in agreement on the need to deal with foreign adversaries.
Found in: Intra-Gulf relations
**Saeid Jafari is an Iranian journalist and Middle East analyst. He has worked for such Iranian publications as Aseman, Khordad, Mosalas and Mehrnameh. He is the editor of the international and diplomatic section of the weekly Seda in addition to working for Khabar Online. Jafari has also published English-language articles in Iran Review. On Twitter: @jafariysaeid

Palestinians: A March to Destroy Israel
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/April 02/18
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12113/palestinians-gaza-march
Based on statements made by Hamas leaders, the "March of Return" campaign is not about improving the living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Nor is it about finding ways to solve the "humanitarian" and "economic" crises in the Gaza Strip.
The mass protests are aimed at forcing Israel to accept millions of Palestinian "refugees" as a first step towards turning Jews into a minority in their own country. The next step would be to kill or expel the Jews and replace Israel with an Islamic state. Did they expect the Israeli soldiers to greet them with flowers?
The Palestinian "March of Return" is being mistakenly referred to by some journalists and political analysts as a "peaceful and popular" drive by Palestinians demanding freedom and better living conditions.
Palestinians' living conditions in the Gaza Strip could be improved if the Egyptians only opened the Rafah border crossing and allowed Palestinians to leave and allowed Arabs and others to come and help the people there. Their lives could be improved if Hamas stopped building terror tunnels and smuggling weapons.
On March 30, an attempt by tens of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to infiltrate the border with Israel launched a six-week campaign of mass protests -- called the "March of Return" -- organized by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other radical Palestinian groups.
The groups encouraged Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to head to the areas adjacent to the border with Israel. The protesters were also encouraged to try to infiltrate the border, thus putting their lives at risk.
Hamas and its allies told the protesters that the "March of Return" marked the beginning of the "liberation of all of Palestine, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River." In other words, the Palestinians were told that infiltrating the border with Israel would be the first step toward destroying Israel.
Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Yehya Sinwar, who joined the March 30 mass protests along the border with Israel, did not hide the real goal behind the "March of Return" -- to destroy Israel and thwart US President Donald Trump's yet-to-be-announced plan for peace in the Middle East.
The two Hamas leaders told the protesters that the March 30 demonstrations marked the beginning of a "new phase in the Palestinians' national struggle on the road to liberating all of Palestine, from the river to the sea." Haniyeh and Sinwar also made it clear that the "March of Return" had another goal: to foil any attempt by the Arabs to make peace or normalize their relations with Israel. Based on statements made by Hamas leaders, the "March of Return" campaign is not about improving the living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Nor is it about finding ways to solve the "humanitarian" and "economic" crises in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and its allies did not send the protesters to the border with Israel to demand jobs and medicine. They did not encourage Palestinians to risk their lives at the border with Israel because of the lack of electricity supplies to the Gaza Strip.
Instead, the organizers sent the Palestinians to the border after assuring them that this was the only way to flood Israel with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian "refugees" as part of the "right of return." The "right of return" refers to the Palestinian demand that Israel allow Palestinian "refugees" and their descendants to move to Israel.
As Zaher Birawi, one of the organizers of the "March of Return" explained, "The right of return is sacred and a red line not to be crossed. The Palestinians will do their utmost to achieve this right."
His words, together with those of the two Hamas leaders, prove that the mass protests are aimed at forcing Israel to accept millions of Palestinian "refugees" as a first step towards turning Jews into a minority in their own country. The next step would be to kill or expel the Jews and replace Israel with an Islamic state. Crucial here is the fact that what we witnessed along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel on March 30 was not a protest by poverty-stricken and miserable Palestinians against a blockade of any kind.
If that were so, why didn't the organizers ask Palestinians to march toward the border with Egypt? The real blockade on the Gaza Strip is being imposed by Egypt, and not Israel.
In 2017, the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip was open altogether for less than 30 days; by contrast, the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip was open for more than 280 days during the same year.
Israel enforces a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip that is meant to prevent Iran, Hezbollah and other terror parties from smuggling weapons into the coastal enclave controlled by Hamas. At the same time, Israel has kept its border crossings with Gaza for the movement of goods and individuals.
Israel permits Palestinians to enter and leave the Gaza Strip through the Erez border crossing. Last month, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister entered the Gaza Strip through the Erez border crossing, only to have his convoy targeted by a roadside bomb once inside Hamas-controlled Gaza. Israel also allows foreigners to enter the Gaza Strip through the same border crossing. They include journalists, diplomats, and hundreds of foreigners working for various international aid agencies, including the United Nations.
All this while the Rafah border crossing with Egypt remains closed. Since the beginning of this year, the Egyptians opened the border crossing intermittently only for two or three days each time. Egypt also continues to bar foreigners from entering the Gaza Strip through the Rafah terminal. Even Arabs who want to help the people of the Gaza Strip are forced to enter through the Erez border crossing because the Egyptians do not give them permission to use the Rafah terminal.
In 2017, Egypt opened its Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip (pictured above) for less than 30 days altogether; by contrast, the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip was open for more than 280 days during the same year.
Take, for example, the Qatari envoy to the Gaza Strip, Ambassador Mohammed Al Emadi. Each time he leaves and enters the Gaza Strip, he uses the Erez border crossing with Israel. The Egyptians will not allow him or any other Arab seeking to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to enter through the Rafah terminal. Given this reality, the question is: Why aren't the Palestinian protests directed against Egypt? The answer is obvious.
The Palestinians know that messing with the Egyptian army will cost them a heavy price. If Israel used snipers to stop the March 30 protesters from crossing the border, the Egyptian response would undoubtedly have been much tougher. The Egyptians would have used artillery and warplanes against the Palestinian demonstrators. The Palestinians are well aware that the Egyptian army would raze the entire Gaza Strip if the Palestinians breached the border and undermined Egypt's national security.
Besides, the "March of Return" is intended as part of the Palestinian national struggle against the "Zionist entity" -- Israel -- and has nothing to do with the closure of any border.
It is part of the Palestinian jihad (holy war) to eliminate Israel, which they see as a "colonialist project" imposed on the Arabs by Western powers after World War II. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in a rare moment of honesty, admitted earlier this year that this is precisely how Palestinians and Arabs perceive Israel.
The organizers of the "March of Return" have made it clear that besides flooding Israel with millions of Palestinian "refugees," the campaign has two other objectives: to foil Trump's "deal of the century" and stop any form of Arab normalization with Israel. The Palestinians have proclaimed a wholesale rejection of Trump's plan because they know it will not advance their goal of turning Jews into a minority in their own country. Trump's plan, they believe, does not recognize the Palestinian "right of return," which means that "refugees" and their descendants will not be allowed to move into Israel, turning it into an Arab-majority state. The organizers of the "March of Return" have clearly stated that this is a driving force behind the mass protests -- to send a message to the Trump administration that Palestinians will not accept any deal that does not facilitate their dream of replacing Israel with an Arab Islamic state.
The "March of Return" is also aimed at sending a warning to the Palestinian Authority and the Arab countries not to make any concessions to Israel or collaborate with the Trump administration.
Again, this is not what political analysts are saying. Instead, these are the exact words and phrases used by the organizers of the event. Their ultimate goal: to prevent Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority from returning to the negotiating table with Israel and to threaten Arab countries not to sign peace agreements with Israel.
Now, the organizers are telling us that the "March of Return" will continue and reach its peak in mid-May, on the 70th anniversary of the establishment of Israel.
The "March of Return" is yet another phase in the Palestinian attempt to wipe out the presence of Israel in the Middle East, not about any blockade. The "March of Return" is an anti-peace campaign designed to thwart any attempt to achieve peace between Israel and the Arab countries.
The leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other groups that organized the mass protests are now complaining about the high death toll and accusing Israel of opening fire at "unarmed and peaceful" protesters. These are the same leaders who urged their people to head to the border with Israel and to try to force their way into Israel. These are the same leaders who encouraged their people to damage the security fence along the border with Israel. Did they expect the Israeli soldiers to greet them with flowers?
As for Mahmoud Abbas, he has supplied yet more proof of his towering hypocrisy. Hours after the violent confrontations along the border between the Gaza Strip and Israel, Abbas appeared on Palestine TV to hold Israel "fully responsible" for the violence and death and injury of the protesters.
This is the same Abbas who recently told us that Hamas was a terror group that was behind the March 13 botched assassination attempt on his prime minister. This is the same Abbas who last year imposed sanctions on the Gaza Strip by suspending payments for electricity supplied to the Gaza Strip by Israel and suspending payments to thousands of civil servants there. Instead of condemning Hamas for sending the Palestinians to clash with the Israeli army and endanger their lives, Abbas chose to denounce Israel for protecting its border.
The Palestinian "March of Return" is being mistakenly referred to by some journalists and political analysts as a "peaceful and popular" drive by Palestinians demanding freedom and better living conditions.
Palestinians' living conditions in the Gaza Strip could be improved if the Egyptians only opened the Rafah border crossing and allowed Palestinians to leave and allowed Arabs and others to come and help the people there. Their lives could be improved if Hamas stopped building terror tunnels and smuggling weapons. But, as has become evident by now, the "March of Return" is nothing but a declaration of war on Israel and the Trump administration.
**Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.
© 2018 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.

Men Who Do Not Know the World
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al Awsat/April 02/18
The world is changing at a remarkable pace and time is merciless. It eliminates old ideas, books and methods and replaces them with new ones, before also leaving them behind. Revolutions and changes no longer take place on the street and by the people. They are born in laboratories that never sleep. The successive technological and scientific revolutions change the lives of peoples and countries and they do not need permission to cross borders.
Nothing can stand in the way of the approaching waves. You either join them or get pushed aside and are abandoned by the world. Your incorporation in the world demands that you change and abandon what you thought were unwavering convictions. You now come to realize that the “generals” of technology are more effective than the generals of armies. The effect of a major organization is more powerful than the might of a country or military.
It is not enough to say that you are headed towards the future. This is not an invitation to a wedding or a reception. It is an invitation to a difficult test that you will not pass unless you are part of a world that lives in the shadow of institutions and men who know this world.
The Middle East stays with the reporters that have left it, no matter how far they go. Perhaps because it is a lake of blood and tears and a swamp of fears and tensions. Lost peoples, porous borders, dark cities and waves of refugees. Schools are weak and unemployment is rampant. We have paid the heavy price for failing to build institutions. We have paid the heavy price for long remaining in the shadow of men who do not know the world.
Today, it is no longer enough to seize control of barracks, radios, parties or capitals. What will you do tomorrow? The antidotes of the old world have expired. You either belong to this age or die in your isolation.
In New York, you find success, money, greed and art. I remember former late Yemeni President Abdullah Saleh. In 2009, I asked him about the security incidents in his capital. He smiled, replying that those killed in Sanaa are less than those killed in New York. I thought it was a strange comparison. I asked him how he managed to remain in power since 1978. He replied sarcastically: “The Washington Post predicted that I would not last more than six months. And here we are now.”
As I rose to bid him farewell, he said: “Do you remember the names of the presidents of the White House since the time the Washington Post predicted the duration of my tenure?”
I mulled over his statements. Can the individual crimes in New York be compared to crimes committed in Sanaa? What about the major financial corporations? What about art, innovation, success, universities and opportunities? Are we an island that is isolated from the spirit of the world and its accomplishments? Can the United States be considered weak because a president is forced to leave office after serving two terms because the institution is more powerful than the man? Can he be considered weak because he cannot tame Congress, predict headlines before newspapers are printed and prevent a judge from imposing the law?
Not knowing the world is a calamity. Saddam Hussein did not know the world. He believed that a ruler is instated through the spirit of the nation, not the ballot boxes. He often wondered how a man, who won only 51 percent of a vote, could be able to make historic decisions. He believed that historic decisions can only be made by a man who wages elections alone and reaps 99 percent of the vote, ignoring the fact that these record figures were concocted at the Interior Ministry and intelligence offices.
Failing to know the world has led many countries to disasters. Believing that the West is weak and quickly accepting of the status quo, Saddam committed the sin of invading Kuwait. Based on his military thought that was inherited from World War II, he believed that he will confront the American army in the streets of Baghdad. He had forgotten that the world had progressed and that the massive technological gap will not allow the Iraqi army to come face-to-face with the Americans.
Moammar al-Gaddafi did not know the world and its real balances of power. He was overjoyed when Silvio Berlusconi kissed his hand and took joy in Italy’s weakness and humiliation. His ignorance of the world reached the extent of disrespecting Tony Blair. He was also tempted to meddle in the French presidential elections, believing that the new president will become a pawn in his hands. He never once believed that those nations have institutions that were awakening and correcting previous errors. No one in the world knew.
The most dangerous thing a ruler can do is waste successive generations and prevent his country from moving forward. Wasting the time of the people is no less dangerous than shedding blood. It is a form of mass murder. It is enough to examine the capitals of countries that were long ruled by men who knew nothing of the world and the real balances of power and the meaning of scientific and technological advancement.
The time of the isolated island is over. The river of progression is flowing and revolutions are being produced in laboratories. We will not be able to head towards the future without institutions, without men who carry the torch of progress. Men who know the world and have the courage to become part of it. Men who draw the path of dreams with numbers.

European sanctions against Iran are too little, too late
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/April 02/18
France, Britain and Germany are discussing ways to impose sanctions on the Iranian regime. These sanctions will most likely be aimed at members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Such a move, if implemented, would be intriguing as it would be the first punitive act carried out by the EU against the Iranian regime and its military since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was agreed and since four rounds of UN economic sanctions were lifted. However, it is critical to point out that EU sanctions against the Islamic Republic are long overdue for several reasons. Since the nuclear agreement was reached between the P5+1 countries and Iran in 2015, Tehran’s foreign policy has taken a more offensive and belligerent path. The Iranian regime has expanded its financial, military, intelligence and advisory support to militia and terrorist groups at a much faster pace. Iran has also escalated the provision of illegal weapons and ballistic missiles to militias including the Houthis in Yemen, in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. The Houthis then began firing these Iranian missiles into Saudi Arabia. One such attack happened on March 25 and resulted in the death of one person and injuries to two more. The UN condemned the Houthis. Formerly, the UN conclusively found the Iranian regime was behind the transfer of illegal weapons to the Houthis.
If the EU really wants to alter the regime’s destabilizing behavior and promote peace and security, it should take tougher measures, including the suspension of trade with Tehran, reimposing the sanctions that were lifted under the nuclear deal, and renegotiating the terms of that agreement.
Any astute observer of Middle East politics can observe that the region has become more unstable since the JCPOA. This is due to the fact it has become easier for the Iranian leaders to expand their influence through hard power thanks to increased revenues from oil sales and other trade with European nations, and their enhanced legitimacy. As a result, these developments indicate that punitive action against the Iranian regime is necessary to establish peace and security. On the one hand, the EU’s discussed sanctions are critical because they would send a robust message to the Iranian regime that the bloc will not tolerate Iran’s aggressive foreign policy, violations of international laws and UN resolutions, military adventurism in the region, and the supply of weapons to terrorist groups. On the other hand, the EU’s discussed sanctions against Iran — reportedly 15 Iranian individuals and companies — are not adequate. They are too little and too limited to moderate Iran’s foreign policy and change the regime’s behavior.
In addition, it would be counterproductive if France, Britain and Germany should only take such measures due to the two following reasons: First, it is tactically discussing sanctions just before US President Donald Trump’s May 12 deadline to “fix the terrible flaws” of the 2015 nuclear agreement in order to persuade the Trump administration to keep the deal intact. Additionally, Tehran’s aggression and violations of international laws have escalated to an unprecedented level. Hence, the EU is only imposing cosmetic sanctions in order to prevent its legitimacy and global image from being negatively impacted if it continued to turn a blind eye to Iran’s aggression and violations on the international stage. It is crucial to point out that, if France, Britain and Germany are acting due to either of these two reasons, they are directly or indirectly serving the Iranian regime’s interests.
With only such limited sanctions, Tehran will more likely escalate its belligerence and disregard for international norms. From the perspective of the Iranian leaders, the EU remains on the side of Tehran because it favors the nuclear deal. They believe these limited sanctions are only being discussed to maintain economic ties with Iran. If the purpose is to alter the Iranian regime’s destabilizing behavior and to promote peace and security, the EU ought to take tougher measures, including the suspension of trade with Tehran, reimposing the sanctions that were lifted under the nuclear deal, and renegotiating the terms of the nuclear agreement. More fundamentally, the EU should act with a united front. This means that other members, such as Italy, Greece, Ireland and Sweden, which are considered Iran’s closest European allies, need to forcefully join Britain, Germany and France.
• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. He serves on the boards of the Harvard International Review, the Harvard International Relations Council and the US-Middle East Chamber for Commerce and Business. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe is far from over
Chris Doyle/Al Arabiya/April 02/18
'Had Dante witnessed the suffering of the people in Eastern Ghouta, he might have rewritten his “Inferno.” Pancaked, besieged, and reduced to rubble — his immortal line is perhaps apt: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
Victory. Winning. Defeat. In Syria, all these terms have corrupted meanings in the apocalyptic wilderness brought about over the last seven years. The latest chapter in Ghouta’s suffering may have started in mid-February, but pick any moment since 2011 and it was one of collective suffering, not least with the use of sarin gas in 2013. The awful tragedy is that the outcome of this denouement was as predictable as a Siberian winter. The flailing, inert international community had issued a UN Security Council Resolution that was doomed before birth. If anything, all the hollow international pressure served to falsely inflate expectations in Eastern Ghouta that somehow they would be rescued, with even rumors of US intervention emboldening some of the armed groups. They amassed in the cities and towns of Eastern Ghouta, once the breadbasket of Damascus, but simply could not withstand the Russian-Iranian-Syrian coalition amassed against them. Once the enclave was split into varying parts, the writing on the wall was bloodily clear. After all, many other opposition-controlled areas in Syria had suffered the same fate: The dreaded green buses shipping them out to Idlib or Jarabulus in the north.
The full story of the negotiations is one that cannot yet be told. Russia played a major if not impartial brokering role, often frustrated by all sides and if anything holding the regime back from a final military campaign to take Douma. Many took huge risks to avoid the inevitable, trying to wrestle the hundreds of thousands of civilians to some form of safety. It will be a story of doctors who not only marshaled the last remaining medical facilities, even as the bombs were aimed at them, but also attempted to find a negotiated exit as part of a civic committee. Different armed groups took differing positions. Faylaq Al-Rahman, largely ensconced in the southwestern part of Eastern Ghouta, were initially the more hardline, refusing to read the runes and being in cahoots with Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham. From the outside, this obstinacy at times looked suicidal, a pointless display of defiance. The fighters of course feared reprisals, arrests, disappearances. Civilians feared the same, as well as young men of fighting age being immediately recruited into the army for national service. Faylaq did then make an agreement at the last moment following heavy losses and extreme pressure from civilians.
Jaysh Al-Islam in Douma entered talks early on but then, owing to a specific jurist, Shaikh Kahkeh, stalled on the final deal. This armed group has lost its external patrons but was still well-funded owing to the lucrative war economy in the enclave. The 100,000 to 140,000 civilians left there are waiting their fate, many of them increasingly furious with Jaysh Al-Islam. The hopeful news at the time of writing was that an informal ceasefire appeared to exist and fighters were being evacuated, indicating serious progress in negotiations.
There is a danger the public perception is that the crisis in Eastern Ghouta is over, yet thousands of those who have got out of the enclave have found themselves in encampments with next to no services.
Certain areas were given special treatment. Hamourieh was rendered uninhabitable. Teams of regime looters systematically took everything from the whole town, right down to stripping copper wires. Yet a deal for Kafr Batna seems to have saved it from the worst of the ravages. Remarkably, its hospital is still operating. Areas where civilians have been able to remain post-deal have suffered less from these parasitical looters. But the humanitarian catastrophe will not finish. Much of the reporting has covered inside Eastern Ghouta. The danger is, as these deals are enacted, that the public perception is that the crisis in this area is over. Yet those who have got out, either in a deal or having successfully fled across lines, have found themselves in encampments with next to no services. One observer counted just eight toilets for 18,000 people. Reportedly, people are being interrogated and tortured.
Almost 41,000 rebels and civilians have also been evacuated to Idlib under deals between the government and rebel factions Ahrar Al-Sham and Faylaq Al-Rahman. This is just a transfer from one warzone to another. At some undetermined date in the future, all the opposition fighters and supporters who have been transferred to the northwest may well face the same foes once again.
Idlib is already under attack in areas, but the regime, totally determined to retain full sovereign control of all Syria, may first need to sort out northern Homs and Hama provinces, and even the south around Dara’a. Serious talks are happening over the fate of the Qalamun Mountains.
The regime will be feeling supremely confident. The end of fighting in Eastern Ghouta will eradicate the last opposition threat in the Damascus region. Yet this might be the moment of greatest danger. Under the cover of war and mortar shelling from Ghouta, the regime could ward off the massive post-mortem on this conflict that it will face with its loyalist base. Many of these loyalists will want to be satisfied with war booty, perhaps land in Ghouta stolen from those who have been forced out.
Tensions will erupt over what to do about those desiring to return to their homes in Syria. Other loyalists will demand serious change, painfully aware that the regime has been a poor protector of their interests over the last several years, mortgaging their country to Russian and Iranian interests in order to pay for this tsunami of carnage and destruction.
**Chris Doyle is director of the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). He has worked with the council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. Twitter: @Doylech

How terrorism is threatening Islam in Europe
Randa Takieddine/Al Arabiya/April 02/18
France has commemorated a hero from its security forces, Arnaud Beltrame, who died at the hands of a 25-year-old Moroccan criminal while trying to save hostages lives at the recent supermarket siege.
Radouane Lakdim first hijacked a car, after injuring the driver and killing a passenger, then entered a supermarket in the town of Trebes near Carcassonne and killed 4 people and injured 15 others. According to eyewitnesses, he committed this crime while screaming God is Greatest and pledging his allegiance to ISIS.
This terrorist was wanted by French security forces, but was never taken into custody because they thought he was not capable of carrying out a terrorist attack.
These criminals who come to European countries that open their doors and borders to immigrants, eventually force these states to shut their doors on peaceful migrants. The situation in French suburbs and other European countries is worsened by problems like social discord and unemployment
Killing in the name of Islam
Terrorists who perpetrate crimes in the name of Islam and who use Quranic verses to murder innocent people in the cities of Europe — in Paris, Nice, Marseille, Carcassonne – are often of Moroccan origin. They frequently reside in the outskirts of major European capitals and pose the biggest threat on moderate Muslims in Europe who contribute to building a developed, secular European society.
These criminals who come to European countries that open their doors and borders to immigrants, eventually force these states to shut their doors on peaceful migrants. The situation in French suburbs and other European countries is worsened by problems like social discord and unemployment.
In such localities, the environment for criminal activities and extremism flourishes. The security situation in the suburbs has become the prime focus for French governments since the country started witnessing major terrorist attacks. This problem did not just start with the coming of ISIS, but has existed since the mid-nineties when the Paris metro terrorist attacks happened and the Syrian war didn’t exist.
The problem worsened as ISIS recruited unemployed youth who claim that they are Muslims and who live in democratic countries that respect human rights thus allowing them to benefit from freedoms that they cannot enjoy in their homelands. These terrorists do not know the meaning of religion or Islam or human rights and they are the greatest enemies of Islam.
Denouncing terror attacks
French Muslims must strongly denounce these crimes and should ensure the security of their localities, particularly if they live in the suburbs. They must collaborate with local security officials in pursuing young men and women who intend to kill innocent people in the name of Islam.
After the killings in Carcassonne, one expected the Islamic world to raise its voice of condemnation loudly against such a hideous crime and blind action. The death of Beltrame, the hero that France and President Macron commemorated, should have drawn the Council of Arab Ambassadors and the entire Muslim world at this critical moment to convey their condolences to the French on behalf of the Muslim people.
Lieutenant Colonel Beltrame, the late hero, died because he wanted to save the cashier of the supermarket where she was held hostage by the criminal Lakdim. He negotiated to put himself in her place only to later be killed by the terrorist with a knife. Beltrame spent three and a half hours in the store with his killer, according to the prosecutor’s statement. According to his mother, this heroic soldier used to say that his country was more important than anything else, and he ended up dying to protect the people of his country.
The doctrine of terrorists among the Moroccan migrants in Europe exploits Islam, but is completely bereft of Islam’s teachings thus turning Islam into a monster in the eyes of sophisticated Western societies which now look at the religion with caution and vigilance. Muslims and Muslim countries should make immense efforts to show moderation and denounce extremism in all its forms.

The Fate of extremists: Too stubborn to recruit
Mansour Alnogaidan/Al Arabiya/April 02/18
In 1996, A. Z. was arrested for attempted murder for attacking A.A. with a butcher’s knife after the dawn prayer. The incident took place in the city of Ha’el, north of Riyadh. The victim was a preacher who had acquired training in Sharia studies. The killer had judged him to be a “snitch” for the state and a more broadly dishonorable cleric. In September 1994, dozens of men gathered in front of the the largest government building in the province of Al-Qaseem. The crowd consisted of locals and other Saudis from across the Kingdom. They came to express solidarity with Sheikh Salman Al Awda — an activist of the Saudi “Sahwa” (Awakening) movement who had found, following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, a fertile ground in the Kingdom to disperse his ideas — after his arrest. Al Awda’s sermons enticed young people to join the Muslim Brotherhood and serve the movement’s political agenda. His followers amounted to a dark shadow that lingered over the Kingdom for years. The Qaseem protestors managed to breach the gate of the government facility. An hour later, the ranking prince and his deputy still refused to receive representatives of the protesting crowd. After two zealous speeches, riot police surrounded the demonstration and arrested several dozen.
Qaseem’s seminal Salafi Scholar Ibn Athemein, reportedly unhappy with the situation, did not intervene to calm the demonstration. Sheikh Salman Al Awda’s sermons enticed young people to join the Muslim Brotherhood and serve the movement’s political agenda.
The incident captured attention in Saudi Arabia at the time. But behind the headlines lays details known only to a few eye witnesses. Al Awda had been betting that Ibn Athemein would not neither endorse supporters of the Sahwa nor denounce “political Islam” as illegitimate. In a private meeting with his followers, Al Awda said, “Shave my beard, I ask of you, if Ibn Athemein does anything for you. He will disappoint you.”
Ibn Athemein was indeed aware of the events surrounding the arrest of Al Awda. The day of the arrest, a mob encircled Ibn Athemein in public and pressured him to stand with Al Awda. He replied, “You have crossed the line. You surrounded the main government building and breached its gate. You damaged the state’s prestige.” One of the crowd shouted, “You are dishonorable cleric.” Another said, “You are a coward.” Another member of the crowd was A.Z. — the young man who two years later would be arrested for attempted murder. He told Athemein, “Let us be your guests. Open your door and allow us into your home.” The cleric replied, “Not under these circumstances,” and barely managed to enter his home and lock the door. Around the same time, in Al Diriya, west of Riyadh, the Imam of the Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab mosque was shot from a moving car as he left his mosque. He had been opposed to the Sahwa movement. Others who shared his views were meanwhile under psychological assault from the “Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,” which at the time was leaking private information about clerics who disagreed with the tenets of the Sahwa.

Is there a single terrorist who was not an extremist?
Mamdouh AlMuhaini/Al Arabiya/April 02/18
If there is a logical and simple explanation to any major phenomenon then it’s probably the right explanation. This applies to the phenomenon of terrorism which is caused by extremism. This is the simplest and most logical explanation to it. The issue is quite simple: Without extremism there will be no terrorists. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman clearly pointed this out during an interview with the Wall Street Journal when he said: “We have to get rid of extremism. Without extremism no one can become a terrorist.”
Although this explanation is simple and clear, there have been dozens of interpretations to the phenomenon of terrorism and that eventually sidetracked understanding it. What’s more dangerous is that this has squandered efforts to decisively eliminate terrorism.
A terrorist, however, acts upon an extremist and ideological belief which legislates ill behavior and makes him think that by blowing himself up he will go to heaven. This is deceitful whitewashing because comparing them to criminals means treating them equally and imprisoning them
Why extremism harbors terrorism
Before addressing these dangerous interpretations, it’s important to explain why extremism is the incubator of terrorism. It’s easy to realize that all terrorists are takfirists. When they carry out suicide bombings, they do not feel remorse because they believe they’re killing infidels whom they’ve devalued as humans. Is there any terrorist who believes in the ideas of tolerance, equality and co-existence? Of course not. No terrorist just wakes up and decides to be a terrorist who rams children in the street. They are ordinary people who have absorbed extremist ideas which eventually made them professional terrorists. All terrorists are necessarily extremists. Without resolving the phenomenon of extremism from its roots, terrorism will not disappear on its own.
This is the logical explanation. However there have been dozens of interpretations which ignore this major and clear reason which terrorists themselves confess in their recordings and conversations that are full of takfir and that speak of murdering Muslims who are different than them and non-Muslims. If terrorists themselves state they are extremists then why do we go ahead and create other excuses for them? This may seem like a naïve comment but there are in fact logical reasons for creating such apologetic interpretations.
One of the most famous explanations of terrorism is that poverty is the main motive. This is invalid because al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was a millionaire and his deputy emir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, came from a famous and well-off family. The list goes on. A rich man becomes a terrorist because his ideas are poisoned. There are millions of poor Muslims around the world, like the case is in India, but they did not turn into murderers who are blowing themselves up in markets.
An unemployed man looks for a job and not for an explosive belt. He may feel frustrated, depressed, hopeless and helpless but he does not decide to kill innocent people in the streets while chanting in God’s name. If this was a valid explanation, we’d see needy unemployed people joining ISIS and Al-Nusra. Humanity has always known poverty which will exist until Doomsday but it’s never been a reason for murder and terrorism.
Marginalization and ‘infidels’
Another explanation attributes terrorism to marginalization. This is also invalid because terrorists in Riyadh and Cairo are not marginalized yet they kill people in their own society. Do you remember the twins who stabbed their mother to death in Riyadh? Were they marginalized in their country, city, family or home? Did their own mother marginalize them to kill her like that? They killed her because they were extremists and terrorists. They decided she was an infidel so they concluded that shedding her blood is permissible. According to them, she had no human value.
Some respond to that by stating that marginalization in European societies pushes Muslims towards extremism and eventually towards terrorism. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of Muslims who integrated in European communities and held prominent posts because they believed in tolerance and co-existence. These people became European citizens, inside outside. Marginalized people and people who feel that they do not enjoy all their rights usually pursue either of two paths.
The first one is a civil fight to restore their rights, like African Americans did in the US when they peacefully fought all the unjust laws against them. They did not decide to establish suicide bombers’ groups to kill in the name of religion and doctrine. The second path is surrendering to frustration, anger and isolation. In this case, protests erupt but terrorism is not produced. In western societies in general, there are groups that are marginalized for several reasons but they have not pursued terrorism or become terrorists. Attributing terrorism to marginalization is wrong and dangerous. The terror attacks which struck Paris, Brussels and London were carried out by terrorists who graduated with distinction from the school of extremism.
A third interpretation is that terrorists are mentally ill people and this is why they commit these horrific massacres. This is a wrong and harmful explanation because it accuses millions of people who suffer from mental issues of terrorism. Facts show this is false. Those who have psychological problems go to hospitals for treatment and do not blow themselves up. There are thousands of mentally ill people in hospitals. If this explanation is true, we’d see all these people at the “jihad” fronts. Attributing terrorism to mental and psychological issues is a mean trick to make it unnecessary to discuss extremist ideas and perceptions.
A fourth explanation stipulates that terrorists are mercenaries and criminals. This explanation bears clear condemnation however it’s dangerous because it transforms terrorism into a criminal offense similar to theft, embezzlement and rape. In this case there is no ideological background to condemn and fight. A thief or a bribe-taker does not ideologically or religiously justify his crime and he does not embezzle money in the name of God. Is there a thief who commits a crime to serve God? No. A thief is aware that he’s doing something shameful and there’s no need to convince him otherwise.
A terrorist, however, acts upon an extremist and ideological belief which legislates ill behavior and makes him think that by blowing himself up he will go to heaven. This is deceitful whitewashing because comparing them to criminals means treating them equally and imprisoning them. Meanwhile, ideas flourish outside prison. This is what happened in the past two decades. It’s as if we are sinking in a sea of terrorists as every time a terror group is caught, another group whose members are younger than the latter’s emerges. This is all because extremist ideas continue to prosper.
Terrorists are not criminals or poor or marginalized or mentally-ill people. These are excuses which are promoted out of good intentions by some and ill intentions by fanatics, like the Muslim Brotherhood and Sahwa, to reshuffle the deck and make accusations in all directions except in the major one which is extremist ideology.

Houthi terrorism and Qatari piracy
Mohammed Al-Hammadi/Al Arabiya/April 02/18
It is difficult to change the attitude and ideas of regimes and groups overnight. For example the aggressive Qatari attitude towards the countries in the region is quite old and will take a long time to change. For many years, the Qatari regime has been in the habit of working against countries of the region and their interests, and it has also gotten used to harming and abusing its neighboring states. Previously, this behavior was done in secret, but now it is done openly in public, as was demonstrated by its media when it supported the Houthi terrorist attack that used ballistic missiles against Saudi Arabia and allowed leaders of the terrorist Houthi forces to appear on Al Jazeera channel. Meanwhile, two Qatari jet fighters approached two UAE civilian aircrafts threatening the lives of innocent passengers. This is not the first time this happens as there have been similar instances in the past and the UAE had taken legal action against them!
Act of desperation
It is also difficult to change the terrorist behavior of various groups and militias, particularly the Houthis. Firing the seven ballistic missiles, which the Saudi forces intercepted, sends a clear message that the Houthis are in a desperate situation and have been defeated. They are fully aware that they are committing a huge crime. Iran which is providing them with these missiles knows that such an attack would invoke due punishment. Yet they insist on continuing with their terrorist behavior, as their sense of despair is forcing them to take all their chances! Firing these missiles is all what the militias can do after they have lost most of their positions on the ground, and after the coalition forces succeeded in regaining many areas that were under the Iranian-backed Houthi militias’ control. When Yemen’s reconstruction phase begins, it will be important to remember all the heroes of the Yemeni and Arab coalition forces. What the terrorists and pirates should know is that the Arab Coalition forces are determined to achieve victory, and will not stop until they have regained legitimacy for Yemen. They should never forget that Saudi Arabia is considered by the whole Gulf and Yemen as a cornerstone for regional security and stability which any attack against will not be tolerated. Any attack against Saudi Arabia is deemed a direct attack on the countries of the region. Iran’s targeting of Saudi Arabia is tantamount to targeting the whole region.
Remember the martyrs
After three years, Yemenis have come closer towards the end a bloody chapter in the history of their country. When Yemen’s reconstruction phase begins, it will be important to remember all the heroes of the Yemeni and Arab coalition forces. We would always remember the UAE’s brave soldiers and our martyrs who sacrificed their souls to restore the rights to owners and to restore the security and stability of Yemen and the region. After three years of victories, the international community must participate in resolving the situation in Yemen. This is not a regional war and not just a civil war, but a war to protect the world’s security and stability which Tehran wants to tamper with by controlling an important part of the Arab Peninsula and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.