LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 07/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.february07.18.htm 

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

Latest LCCC Bulletin analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on February 06-07/18
France: Migrant Crisis Spirals Out of Control
Soeren Kern/Gatestone Institute/February 06/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11848/france-migrant-crisis
French Interior Minister Gérard Collomb described the level of violence in Calais as "unprecedented." He attributed the fighting to an escalating turf war between Afghan and Kurdish gangs seeking to gain control over human trafficking between Calais and Britain, which many migrants view as "El Dorado" because of its massive underground economy.
During his visit to Calais, Macron outlined his government's new immigration policy: food and shelter for those entitled to remain in France, and deportation of those in the country illegally.
"Emmanuel Macron did it. Never before has a president of the Republic fallen into unpopularity so fast and then become popular again." — Paris Match.
Hundreds of Africans and Asians armed with knives and iron rods fought running street battles in the northern port city of Calais on February 1, less than two weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron visited the area and pledged to crack down on illegal immigration.
The clashes plunged Calais — emblematic of Europe's failure to control mass migration — into a war zone and reinforced the perception that French authorities have lost control of the country's security situation.
The mass brawls, fought in at least three different parts of Calais, erupted after a 37-year-old Afghan migrant running a human trafficking operation fired gunshots at a group of Africans who did not have money to pay for his services. Five Africans suffered life-threatening injuries.
Within an hour, hundreds of Eritreans, Ethiopians and Sudanese took to the streets of Calais and attacked any Afghans they could find. More than a thousand police officers using batons and tear gas were deployed to restore order. Two dozen migrants were hospitalized.
French Interior Minister Gérard Collomb described the level of violence in Calais as "unprecedented." He attributed the fighting to an escalating turf war between Afghan and Kurdish gangs seeking to gain control over human trafficking between Calais and Britain, which many migrants view as "El Dorado" because of its massive underground economy. Each day around 40 ferries depart Calais for Britain.
Vincent de Coninck, director of the charity Secours Catholique du Pas-de-Calais, said that rival gangs were trying to secure control over access to the port of Calais in order to induce payments of €2,500 ($3,100) from migrants seeking to stow away on trucks crossing the English Channel.
De Coninck added that the situation in Calais had deteriorated since January 18, when Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May signed the so-called Sandhurst Treaty, in which May pledged to speed-up the processing of migrants hoping to travel to Britain from Calais.
According to de Coninck, Macron and May failed adequately to explain the contents of the new treaty. This failure, he said, had created false hopes among migrants from Africa and elsewhere that the treaty would improve their chances of reaching Britain. De Coninck further said that hundreds of new migrants had arrived in Calais during the two weeks since the treaty was signed. The surge of new arrivals, he said, had created an "imbalance" between Africans and Asians — thereby increasing inter-ethnic tensions.
François Guennoc, vice-president of the Calais charity L'Auberge des Migrants, echoed the view that the new treaty had created false expectations. "It gave people hope to reach England," he said.
"People arrived suddenly, about 200, mainly underage people and women who arrived in Calais because they thought that the Home Office said they could go directly to England. Then they thought the Home Office was lying. People were upset. It was crazy."
Europe's migration crisis has emerged as the first major test facing President Macron, who appears to be seeking out a middle-ground compromise position on the issue: he has promised to pursue "humanitarianism" by speeding up the processing of asylum requests while also pledging to pursue "firmness" by deporting those who do not qualify.
During the presidential campaign, Macron, who ran as a centrist, repudiated the anti-immigration positions of his opponent, Marine Le Pen. He campaigned on a platform of open borders and promised to establish France as "the new center for the humanist project." Since assuming office on May 14, 2017, however, Macron appears to have incorporated many of Le Pen's ideas.
In an essay published by Le Monde on January 2, 2017, Macron wrote that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow in more than a million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East had "saved the collective dignity" of the European people. He added that he would not tolerate the "rebuilding of walls in Europe" and criticized the "abject simplifications" made by those who say that "by opening the borders to migrants, the chancellor exposed Europe to severe dangers."
On July 27, 2017, however, after less than three months in office, Macron warned that 800,000 migrants in Libya were on their way to Europe. He announced a plan to establish immigration centers in Libya to vet asylum seekers there. He said his plan would stem the flow of migrants to Europe by discouraging economic migrants from embarking on the Mediterranean crossing to Europe. "The idea is to create hotspots to avoid people taking crazy risks when they're not all eligible for asylum," Macron said. "We'll go to them."
In that same speech, though, Macron appeared to encourage migrants to make their way to France. He pledged housing for all newcomers "everywhere in France" and "from the first minute." He added: "By the end of this year, I do not want to have any men and women living on the streets, in the woods. I want emergency accommodations everywhere."
On August 8, 2017, the French Interior Ministry reported that more than 17,000 migrants attempted to board UK-bound trucks and trains at the port and Eurotunnel in Calais during the first seven months of 2017. The figures showed that the closure of "The Jungle" in October 2016 had failed to deter migrants in Calais from reaching Britain.
Pictured: Migrants at "The Jungle" migrant camp in Calais, France on October 28, 2016, shortly before the camp was closed by French authorities. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
In September 2017, the French government asked the European Union for permission to maintain border controls within the passport-free Schengen zone for as long as four years due to the continuing threat of Islamic terrorism, according to a classified document leaked to The Guardian. On October 3, France extended border controls for another six-month period, to April 30, 2018.
On October 15, two weeks after a Tunisian migrant stabbed to death two women in Marseille, Macron pledged to deport any migrant who commits a crime. "We will take the most severe measures, we will do what we must do," Macron said. "We are not taking all the steps that should be taken. Well, that is going to change." Analysts said that nuances in French law would make the pledge impossible to implement.
On November 20, in a circular leaked to the press, Interior Minister Gerard Collomb ordered prefects, representatives of the state in each of the 96 departments in mainland France, to deport all failed asylum seekers. He also ordered them to submit a report, by the end of February 2018, that would provide
"details about the fight against irregular immigration in your department in 2017, and your plan for the implementation of these instructions in the coming months. (...) The fight against irregular immigration is the responsibility of each prefect of each department. It is necessary to act quickly."
The leak of the so-called Collomb Circular marked the beginning of an organized resistance movement among French political and media elites to Macron's migration policies. In an open letter published by Le Monde, for instance, a group of intellectuals and trade unionists, many of whom had supported Macron during the presidential campaign, criticized his migration policy: "Mr. Macron, your policy contradicts the humanism you advocate!"
On December 4, in an interview with RTL, Interior Minister Collomb said the government was working on a reform of migration policy. "There are 95,000 asylum applications a year, that is, a big city every year. If we welcomed everyone, we could not do it in good conditions. We have decided to welcome those who are refugees from theaters of war, who are political prisoners, but at the same time to try to pursue a policy that allows economic migration to be carried out in other ways."
On December 12, Interior Minister Collomb ordered regional authorities to establish "mobile teams" to force undocumented migrants out of emergency shelters. The measure produced a strong backlash from charities, which said the shelters are sacrosanct.
On January 9, 2018, the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons reported that in 2017, more than 100,000 people had requested asylum in France, a "historic" number and an increase of 17% compared to 2016.
On January 14, Interior Minister Collomb announced a plan to establish 400 detention centers to deport economic migrants in the country illegally. "Refugees are welcome, economic migrants are not," he said.
On January 16, during his visit to Calais, Macron outlined his government's new immigration policy: food and shelter for those entitled to remain in France, and deportation of those in the country illegally.
On January 18, Macron traveled to Britain, where signed the Sandhurst Treaty, which reduces the processing time for migrants hoping to travel to Britain from Calais from six months to one month for adults, and 25 days for children. The new treaty, far from solving the migrant crisis, appears to be exacerbating it.
In an analysis published by Paris Match, pollsters Chloé Morin and Marie Gariazzo said that conflicting voter reactions to the "Macron method" of compromise on migration policy "reflects the contradictions of his electorate":
"Quantitative studies indicate, a priori, that a clear majority of French voters support a more restrictive migration policy.... The heart of the government's policy...guarantees the inviolability of the right to asylum while challenging the country's ability to welcome all the world's misery....
"It is not certain that the Macronian gamble — finding a balance between firmness and humanity — is a long-term winner. Emmanuel Macron appears at this stage to be supported by his base. But we find among them an expectation of firmness ('we must not be overwhelmed,' 'laxity would have negative consequences for our country') as well as one of humanity ('we must help those fleeing wars and persecutions,' 'It is morally indisputable to welcome foreigners in emergency, distress') ....
"This discourse is thus systematically caught between those on the one hand who — often on the right, but sometimes even in the heart of the Macronian base — judge his policy as too 'lax,' and on the other hand, those who are indignant over its firmness ....
"It is very likely that a large part of those at the center of the political spectrum, particularly in the center-left, will accept the government's narrative and subscribe little-by-little to the logic of 'selective immigration.' Thus, the official discourse could contribute in the long term to a shift of the 'moderate' population on the subject of migration from one of humanity towards one of firmness."
Macron's popularity ratings have experienced an "unprecedented" rebound since he pursued a harder line on immigration, according to the French pollsters Ifop. His job approval rating jumped by 10 percentage points since October to 52%. Previously, Macron's popularity rating registered the biggest decline for a new president since 1995.
"Emmanuel Macron did it," Paris Match reported. "Never before has a president of the Republic fallen into unpopularity so fast and then become popular again."
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook
Appendix: A Brief History of the Migrant Crisis in Calais
Migrants from across the developing world view Britain as "El Dorado" because of its massive underground economy, which totaled approximately £223 billion (€250 billion; $311 billion) in 2016, or 11.5% of GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund.
In addition, the Identity Documents Act 2010, which entered into effect January 2011, abolished national identity cards. The change, driven by civil liberties concerns over unnecessary data collection and intrusion by the state, allows illegal migrants in Britain to remain inconspicuous.
Moreover, unlike France, migrants from war-torn countries who reach Britain can easily apply for refugee status, which provides them with permission to reside in the United Kingdom for an initial period of five years — with the right to work and access welfare benefits. Lawful residence in the UK for a continuous period of five years qualifies an individual to apply for British citizenship.
This combination of factors has turned Britain into a magnet for migrants. More than 865,000 non-EU migrants were granted permission to live in Britain in 2016 — a rate of one every 36 seconds, according to Eurostat.
Migrants have been gathering in Calais, France's closest point to Britain, in large numbers ever since the Channel Tunnel linking France and Britain opened in May 1994, and the Schengen Agreement, which abolished border controls between France and most of its EU neighbors (but not the UK), entered into force in March 1995.
In 1999, the French government asked the Red Cross to build a migrant "reception center" in Sangatte, situated around ten kilometers west of Calais, to accommodate a growing number of migrants on the streets of Calais and surrounding areas. The Sangatte camp, which was housed in a giant warehouse near the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, had a capacity for 600 people.
Far from resolving the migrant problem in Calais, the Sangatte facility served as a magnet, quickly drawing thousands more people to the area. Within months, some 2,000 migrants were living in the camp in increasingly cramped conditions. Many of those staying at Sangatte tried to jump onto slow-moving trains at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel, or hide inside trucks crossing to Britain on ferries.
At the time, French authorities reported a massive increase in the number of arrests in or around the Channel Tunnel. In 1999, 8,000 people were arrested in Calais for immigration offenses. By 2001, that number had jumped ten-fold to 80,000 arrests. Eurotunnel, the company that manages and operates the Channel Tunnel, said that in 2001 alone, 54,000 people had "attacked" the terminal in Calais and 5,000 had gotten through. Many of those were living in Sangatte.
The Sangatte camp was closed in late 2002, after a series of riots between Afghan and Kurdish migrants. In all, some 67,000 migrants stayed at the facility during its three years in operation.
In February 2003, France and Britain signed the Treaty of Le Touquet, which allows for so-called juxtaposed controls, meaning that travelers between the two countries now clear immigration in the country of departure rather than upon arrival. In effect, the treaty pushed parts of the British border to France. By doing so, it exacerbated the migration bottleneck in Calais.
As part of the agreement to close Sangatte, Britain took in 1,200 migrants. Those who remained in France were sheltered in at least a dozen different squats both inside Calais and on its outskirts. These camps — Africa House, Fort Galloo, Leader Price/Sudanese Jungle or Tioxide Jungle — have been repeatedly raided or bulldozed by French police, only for other squats to crop up elsewhere.
Many of the migrants housed at Sangatte moved a few kilometers east to a disused industrial zone called "The Dunes." Situated just steps from the Port of Calais, the area would eventually become known as "The Jungle."
On September 22, 2009, French police bulldozed "The Jungle" and rounded up hundreds of migrants hoping to stow away on trucks headed for Britain. A day later, Calais Mayor Natacha Bouchart said she had "spotted between fifteen and twenty new squats" nearby. She also reported that Afghan migrants were establishing makeshift camps at the Hoverport, an unused collection of buildings which closed in 2005 after the last hovercraft sailed from Dover to Calais.
September 12, 2014. Police in Calais warned that migrants were becoming increasingly violent in their quest to reach Britain. Gilles Debove, the Calais area delegate for the French police union, said tear gas was being used to stop "mass onslaughts" on vehicles about to cross the Channel:
"The other day, two to three hundred migrants tried to get into a lorry park and we fired tear gas to scatter them because there are too few of us to control situations like this any other way. We're also facing an increase in crimes by migrants who mug people, steal mobile phones and carry out sexual assaults."
November 11, 2015. More than 250 French riot police were deployed to "The Jungle" after weeks of unrest. Local government official Fabienne Buccio said the rise in violence was due to the frustration of migrants at being prevented from reaching Britain.
December 17, 2015. Around 1,000 migrants stormed the Channel Tunnel in a bid to reach Britain. Police, who used tear gas to disperse them, said the number seeking to cross the Channel in a single day was "unprecedented." Many of the migrants who were turned away moved back to "The Jungle" to try again.
January 19, 2016. French authorities leveled one-third of "The Jungle" to create a 100-meter "buffer zone" between the camp and an adjacent highway that leads to the ferry port.
February 7, 2016. The migrant crisis spread to other parts of France due to an increased police presence in Calais. Migrant camps sprouted up in the nearby ports of Dunkirk, Le Havre, Dieppe and Belgium's Zeebrugge, as migrants sought new ways to cross the English Channel to Britain.
February 29, 2016. After a court in Lille approved a plan by the French government to evict 1,000 migrants from "The Jungle," demolition teams began dismantling the southern part of the camp. The government tried to relocate the migrants to official accommodations inside converted shipping containers in the northern part of the camp. But most refused the offer, fearing they would be forced to claim asylum in France. "Going to Britain is what people here want," Afghan migrant Hayat Sirat said. "Destroying part of the jungle is not the solution."
March 7, 2016. Migrants evicted from "The Jungle" moved to a new camp in Grande-Synthe near the northern port of Dunkirk, just up the coast from Calais. Critics said that the new camp risks becoming a "new Sangatte," referring to the Red Cross center in Calais that was closed in 2002.
May 31, 2016. Migrants evicted from Calais moved to Paris and established a massive squatter camp at the Jardins d'Eole, a public park near the Gare du Nord station, from where high-speed Eurostar trains travel to and arrive from London. The area, which became so dangerous that the government classified it as a no-go zone (Zone de sécurité prioritaires, ZSP), has become a magnet for human traffickers who charge migrants thousands of euros for fake travel documents, supposedly for passage to London.
August 11, 2016. In an interview with Le Figaro, a French counter-terrorism officer warned that Islamic State jihadis were hiding in "The Jungle" camp. "What is happening in 'The Jungle' is truly mind boggling," he said. "Our officers are rarely able to penetrate the heart of the camp. It is impossible to know if a jihadi from Belgium, for example, is hiding in the camp. This camp is a blind spot for national security."
September 5, 2016. Hundreds of French truck drivers, businessmen and farmers blocked off the main route in and out of Calais, in an attempt to pressure the French government to close "The Jungle." The blockage brought to a standstill the route used by trucks from all over Europe to reach Calais and Britain.
September 12, 2016. A document leaked to Le Figaro revealed the government's plan, dated September 1, to relocate 12,000 migrants from Calais to other parts of France. The migrants would be relocated to around 60 so-called Reception and Orientation Centers (centres d'accueil et d'orientation, CAO), each with a capacity for between 100 and 300 migrants.
September 13, 2016. The President of the Alpes-Maritimes region, Eric Ciotti, criticized the government's "irresponsible" plan to relocate migrants in Calais to other parts of France. He said the plan would "proliferate a multitude of small Calais, genuine areas of lawlessness that exacerbate lasting tensions throughout the country." He added:
"This plan reflects the resignation of the government in the face of massive illegal immigration. It weakens national cohesion under a false pretext of humanity which hides a dangerous ideology that denies any distinction between foreigners who seek asylum, who France should decently receive, and those who are economic migrants, whom we can no longer tolerate, and who should be returned to their countries of origin.
"The only solution is to deport, without delay, all illegal immigrants who do not intend to remain on our territory, and to place asylum seekers in centers dedicated to the study of their cases."
September 14, 2016. The President of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, Laurent Wauquiez, expressed anger at the government's "diktat" to relocate 1,800 migrants from Calais to his region. He said: "This is madness and it is not a matter of solidarity. The problem of Calais is not solved by multiplying Calais throughout France. We expect the government to solve the problem of Calais, not move it to other parts of the country."
September 16, 2016. Steeve Briois, the Mayor of Hénin-Beaumont and Vice President of the National Front, criticized the government's plan to relocate migrants from "The Jungle" to the rest of the country. He said:
"This crazy policy would consequently multiply mini-Calais on the entire national territory, without consulting the people and local elected officials. This forced policy of the Socialist government is simply unacceptable; it seriously threatens public order and the safety of our citizens."
September 20, 2016. Construction work began on a wall to prevent migrants at the camp from stowing away on cars, trucks, ferries and trains bound for Britain. Dubbed "The Great Wall of Calais," the concrete barrier — one kilometer (half a mile) long and four meters (13 feet) high on both sides of the two-lane highway approaching the harbor — will pass within a few hundred meters of "The Jungle."
September 21, 2016. A whistleblower reported that volunteer aid workers at "The Jungle" were forging sexual relationships with migrants, including children. "I have heard of volunteers having sex with multiple partners in one day, only to carry on in the same vein the following day," he wrote. "And I know also, that I'm only hearing a small part of a wider scale of abuse." He added that the majority of cases in question involved female volunteers and male migrants. "Female volunteers having sex enforces the view (which many have) that volunteers are here for sex," he wrote.
October 25, 2016. French authorities began dismantling "The Jungle." The government said that 4,014 migrants had been relocated or re-sheltered from the camp.
March 3, 2017. Calais Mayor Natacha Bouchart banned local aid groups from distributing free food near the former "Jungle" camp. "I took this decision to make sure that no permanent base or squat is created around Calais," she said.
April 28, 2017. Emmanuel Macron pledged that, if elected president, he would seek to renegotiate the Le Touquet treaty, which allows British border police to operate in Calais.
June 19, 2017. A Polish truck driver was killed when his truck crashed into another truck that had been stopped on the A16 motorway about 15 kilometers from Calais by migrants seeking to stow away to Britain. Nine Eritrean migrants found in one of the trucks were arrested and were expected to be charged with involuntary homicide, disrupting traffic and endangering people's lives.
July 7, 2017. French police forcibly removed 2,500 African migrants from Porte de la Chapelle in northern Paris, which has become a gathering point for migrants since the closure of "The Jungle" in Calais.
July 26, 2017. Human Rights Watch accused French police of systematically abusing asylum seekers and migrants, disrupting humanitarian assistance, and harassing aid workers, "behavior that appears to be at least partly driven by a desire to keep down migrant numbers."
August 8, 2017. The French Interior Ministry reported that more than 17,000 migrants attempted to board UK-bound trucks and trains at the port and Eurotunnel in Calais during the first seven months of 2017. The figures showed that the closure of "The Jungle" in October 2016 had failed to deter migrants in Calais.
August 18, 2017. French police forcibly removed 2,000 African migrants living on sidewalks at Porte de la Chapelle in northern Paris. Interior Minister Gerard Collomb said the police action proved that the system for handling migrants is "dysfunctional."
September 17, 2017. French police forcibly removed hundreds of migrants from a forest on the northern coast near Calais over fears it could become a magnet for others hoping to head to Britain. Some 350 men, women and children, most of them Iraqi Kurds, had been living for weeks in squalid conditions on the edge of Grande-Synthe.
October 25, 2017. A year after "The Jungle" camp in Calais was razed, the charity Help Refugees reported that between 800 and 2,000 migrants were still gathered there.
November 8, 2017. French police arrested three Iraqis accused of smuggling up to 40 migrants a day to Calais and into Britain in refrigerated trucks.
December 10, 2017. Paris residents furious that hundreds of migrants are sleeping on the streets of their neighborhood threatened to launch a hunger strike unless French authorities remove the squalid makeshift camps. Pierre Vuarin, a spokesman for a neighborhood association, said: "The pavement is sometimes soaked in urine and the streets aren't cleaned every day. Some people have sold their flats at knockdown prices and others have suffered mental breakdowns."
December 22, 2017. Abdullah Dilsouz, a 15-year-old Afghan migrant, was crushed to death after he was run over by a truck near the port of Calais.
January 9, 2018. More than 100,000 people requested asylum in France in 2017, a "historic" number and an increase of 17% on the year before, according to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA). The principal country of origin for asylum seekers in France in 2017 was Albania, followed by Afghanistan, with 5,987 requests. Of that number, 83% were granted refugee status.
January 16, 2018. On an official visit to Calais, President Emmanuel Macron said he would not tolerate building another "Jungle" camp in Calais: "In no way will we allow illegal routes to be developed here. In no way will we let a 'Jungle' spring up, or an illegal occupation of the territory."
January 18, 2018. President Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May signed the so-called Sandhurst Treaty, which "complements" the Le Touquet treaty. The treaty requires Britain to reduce the processing time for migrants hoping to travel to Britain from Calais from six months to one month for adults, and 25 days for children. It also requires Britain to pay £44.5 million (€50 million; $62 million) for extra security measures in France to prevent another "Jungle" camp from forming in Calais and other ports. The extra cash will go towards fencing, CCTV and other detection technology.
February 1, 2018. Hundreds of African and Asian migrants armed with knives and iron rods fought running street battles in Calais. Two dozen migrants were injured in what the French government dubbed "unprecedented" scenes of violence among those seeking to reach Britain.
February 3, 2018. The Guardian reported a 25% increase in the number of migrants in Calais. It attributed the surge on the Sandhurst Treaty, which raised "false hopes" that it would be easier to reach Britain.
© 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.

Palestinians: The Atrocities No One Talks About
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/February 06/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11847/palestinians-atrocities
Why the need to keep reminding the world of the plight of the Palestinians in Syria? It is because the international community and pro-Palestinian groups around the world do not seem to care about the atrocities that are being committed against Palestinians in Syria or any Arab country because they were not committed by Israel.
The 82-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, meanwhile, has made clear where his priorities stand. Instead of searching for ways to help his people in Syria and the Gaza Strip, where hospitals are facing a deathly shortage of fuel and medicine, Abbas has just spent $50 million to purchase a "presidential plane."
Abbas, however, could not care less. In his view, the needs of his people are the responsibility of the world. He wants everyone but himself to continue funneling financial aid to the Palestinians. For him, delivering a speech before the EU Parliament or the UN General Assembly easily takes precedence over the Palestinians who are dying due to lack of medicine and food.
A Palestinian refugee camp has been under siege for more than 1,660 days. Hundreds of the camp residents have been killed, while tens of thousands have been forced to flee from their homes.
Those who have remained in the camp -- mostly the elderly, women and children -- live in unspeakable sanitary conditions and drink polluted water.
More than 200 Palestinians from the camp, which has been under siege since 2103, have died as a result of lack of food or medicine. The conditions in the refugee camp, by any standard, are horrific.
Why have most of us not heard about the hair-raising "living" conditions that characterize this camp? Because it is not located in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.
The name of the camp is Yarmouk, and it is located about five miles from the Syrian capital of Damascus.
More than 100,000 Palestinians used to live in the 2.11 square-kilometer Yarmouk camp before the civil war erupted in Syria in 2011.
By the end of 2014, the number of the camp residents had plummeted to 13,000.
Since 2012, the camp has been the scene of intense fighting among various parties: the Syrian opposition forces, the Syrian Army and its allies in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), a Palestinian terror group headed by Ahmed Jibril, and Islamic State (ISIS).
The Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Syria has been under siege by the Syrian army for more than 1,660 days. Pictured: Residents of Yarmouk line up to receive food supplies, on January 31, 2014. (Image source: UNRWA)
In 2015, ISIS managed to take control of large parts of Yarmouk camp despite the siege imposed by the Syrian Army and the Palestinian terror group PFLP-GC.
The lives of the Palestinian residents of the camp have been turned into hell.
It is not as if before conditions inside the camp were good. There were times when the Syrian Army and the PFLP-GC used heavy artillery to bomb houses and schools, thereby killing scores of residents, including women and children.
The Syrian Army and its proxy Palestinian terror group surround the camp from all directions, preventing the entry of food and medicine. Within the confines of the camp, ISIS commits almost daily atrocities against the residents.
Last week, for example, ISIS terrorists dragged two Palestinian men to a public square and executed them in front of stunned residents. The two men were identified as Ramez Abdullah and Bashar Said. Abdullah was shot in the head, while Said had his throat slit in customary ISIS-style.
An ISIS "court" had found the two guilty of spying for the PFLP-GC and Aknaf Beit Al-Makdis ("Supporters of Jerusalem"), a Palestinian rebel group that has been fighting against ISIS inside Yarmouk camp.
Such public executions are far from uncommon on the streets of Yarmouk.
In February 2107, ISIS executed camp resident Mohammed Attiyeh. A month later, another four Palestinians were executed by the terror group. In July the same year, ISIS executed Palestinian teenager Mohammed Elayan after convicting him of helping wounded fighters belonging to an anti-ISIS group.
A few days ago, ISIS terrorists in the camp arrested a woman after she refused to submit to a body search at a checkpoint. Camp residents say they now fear for the life of the woman, who was not identified by name. Her fate is not likely to be better than the scores of camp residents whose whereabouts remain unknown after being taken into custody by ISIS.
As if this were not enough, sources inside the camp are reporting that ISIS terrorists have also been confiscating food from stores and homes.
In addition, ISIS continues to prevent patients from leaving the camp for medical treatment, according to the Action Group for Palestinians of Syria.
"The humanitarian crisis in Yarmouk camp has reached new heights," the group said. "The lack of food and medicine has resulted in the outbreak of several diseases among the camp residents."
The plight of Yarmouk camp is a microcosm of the tragedy that has befallen the Palestinians in Syria since the beginning of the civil war in that country.
Figures released by the Action Group for Palestinians of Syria show that 3645 Palestinians have been killed since 2011. The victims include 463 women. Another 1656 Palestinians are being held in various prisons belonging to the Syrian government. They include 105 women.
In Yarmouk camp, 204 Palestinians have died as result of lack of food and medicine. Yarmouk camp has been without running water for more than 1237 days. Another Palestinian camp, Dera'ah, has been without water supply for more than 1398 days.
Altogether, since the beginning of the civil war, more than 85,000 Palestinians have fled Syria to Europe. An additional 30,000 have found refuge in Lebanon, while 17,000 have chosen to settle in Jordan, 6,000 in Egypt and 8,000 in Turkey.
Another report revealed that 11 Palestinians were killed in Syria in January 2018. Ten were shot dead during fighting between warring parties, while one died as a result of torture in a Syrian government prison.
Why the need to keep reminding the world of the plight of the Palestinians in Syria? It is because the international community and pro-Palestinian groups around the world do not seem to care about the atrocities that are being committed against Palestinians in Syria or any Arab country because they were not committed by Israel.
Still, it is hard to understand the apathy of the Palestinian Authority leadership in Ramallah, whose representatives have more urgent matters on their minds.
While his people are being killed, starved, displaced and denied medical treatment in Syria, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appears to be more concerned about US President Donald Trump's recent announcement recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Picking a fight with the US administration has become a daily national sport for Abbas and his top officials in Ramallah. Hardly a day passes without another Palestinian Authority statement strongly denouncing Trump and his administration's policies toward the Palestinians. But when it comes to the suffering of Palestinians in Syria, Ramallah is mute.
Palestinian leaders who hold regular meetings in Ramallah simply ignore the atrocities their people face in the Arab countries, especially Syria. Instead, the leaders devote most of their time to issuing condemnations of Israeli settlements and the Trump administration, as if Palestinians are not being killed by the thousands in an Arab country.
The 82-year-old Abbas, meanwhile, has made clear where his priorities stand. Instead of searching for ways to help his people in Syria and the Gaza Strip, where hospitals are facing a deathly shortage of fuel and medicine, Abbas has just spent $50 million to purchase a "presidential plane."
The money Abbas spent on the new plane could have saved the lives of thousands of Palestinians in Syria and the Gaza Strip.
Abbas, however, could not care less. In his view, the needs of his people are the responsibility of the world.
He wants everyone but himself to continue funneling financial aid to the Palestinians. For him, delivering a speech before the EU Parliament or the UN General Assembly easily takes precedence over the Palestinians who are dying due to lack of medicine and food. With such leaders, the Palestinians do not need enemies.
**Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.
© 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.

هيئة الإذاعة الكندية السي بي سي: هل هي بخدمة كندا أم بخدمة الإسلاميين
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): Serving Canada or Serving Islamists?
Tom Quiggin/Gatestone Institute/February 06/2018
http://eliasbejjaninews.com/archives/62383
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11849/canada-cbc-islamists
In practice, the CBC only respects sensibilities when it comes to Islamists such as ISIS or to those who attacked Charlie Hebdo. When it comes to attacking Christians and Jews, the CBC exercises no such restraint.
The CBC also quotes organizations such as the National Council for Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR CAN, which the CBC has referred to as a civil rights group. But they failed to note that CAIR CAN was formed to support its parent organization, CAIR USA, which is a listed terrorist group in the United Arab Emirates. It also does not mention that CAIR USA was formed in part by supporters of Hamas and that it has had multiple run-ins with terrorism financing.
Similarly, when supporting a variety of Islamist issues, the CBC quotes as a source the Canadian Council of Imams. The CBC does not reveal, however, that the Vice President of the Council of Imams, Hakim Quick, believes that the position of Islam on homosexuality is death. It also does not state that the "Emir" of the council is also the head of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). The ICNA believes that Islam is not compatible with democracy, women are inferior and wife beating is permissible.
As a criminal and federal court expert on terrorism, specifically jihadist-based terrorism, my opinion is that the CBC has willfully assisted Islamists in the creation of the social, cultural and political spaces necessary for extremism to grow. By deliberately sheltering even ISIS supporters acting out in Canada from public scrutiny, the state broadcaster is failing the Canadian public.... This failure appears willful, intentional, and consistent over time.
Canada's state broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation (CBC) consistently supports the Islamist cause, including direct cooperation with terrorist front groups. This support extends to editing domestic Canadian stories to ensure that even ISIS is not criticized in the domestic context. Given that the CBC is owned by the Government of Canada and funded by taxpayers with a billion dollar a year subsidy, the question arises as to whom they serve.
The CBC deliberately removes references to ISIS and other Islamist groups when it would reflect poorly on the terrorist group's presence and influence in Canada. On February 19, 2016, for instance, the CBC ran a story concerning events at Maisonneuve College in Montreal. The bland title was "Collège de Maisonneuve teachers' union wants action over alleged library threats."
In this CBC story, the teacher's union demanded that the college management intervene after threats made to staff in the college's library. Line Légaré, the college's spokesperson, stated teachers had intervened and asked students to lower their voices because they were "quite loud, more than we would like for a library." Police had reported violence in the parking lot on one evening.
By contrast, La Presse, a Montreal based French language newspaper reported the same situation in a story titled "Tensions et intimidation au collège de Maisonneuve" ("Tensions and Intimidation at Maisonneuve College"). The reporting by La Presse stated that the students causing the problems had tried to leave Canada to become ISIS fighters. Additionally, five more Maisonneuve students had succeeded in leaving to be fighters in Syria and Iraq in January 2015, while four other Maisonneuve students had also tried to leave Canada in May of 2015. These included one student who was involved in a violent confrontation that resulted in the police being called. The ISIS-supporting students had taken down the license plate numbers of the staff and had blocked non-Muslim students from using a common space.
The La Presse story also revealed that the ISIS students had tried to take over an entire floor of the library and only allow students who supported ISIS to use the space.
The CBC version excluded any mention of the students who had tried to leave the country to fight for ISIS, and no mention was made that ISIS sympathizers who had tried to leave for ISIS were the key players. The CBC story only focuses on students with "loud voices."
Cooperating with Islamist Fronts
The CBC cooperates with Al Jazeera, which has a long history of being a mouthpiece for the Government of Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood, especially Al Jazeera in Arabic, which has little if anything to do with the English-language version.
The Muslim Brotherhood is listed as a terrorist group in number of Middle Eastern countries, while the United Kingdom says that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism. The Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is:
"Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
The Muslim Brotherhood itself has just called for a global uprising against the United States. Typically, the Arab language declaration called for a violent uprising while the English language version called for protests.
Al Jazeera also has a history of glorifying extremist Islamist figures such as Osama bin Landen. As the New York Times Magazine noted in November of 2001, "A huge, glamorous poster of bin Laden's silhouette hangs in the background of the main studio set at Al Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, the capital city of Qatar."
Journalists from Al Jazeera finally quit the organization en masse in 2013 when it leadership imposed rules requiring favoritism for the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Jazeera had been seen for years as little more than a front for the Government of Qatar. But it is Qatar that shelters the Iranian-backed leadership of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The CBC began working with Al Jazeera on a documentary in 2014, immediately after the Al Jazeera journalists had quit in protest in 2013. The Al Jazeera journalists in question had quit as they did not want to work for an organization that had told them to support, among others, the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood and its government in Egypt. With the Muslim Brotherhood's long-time affiliation to terror and violence, this is an understandable position.
The CBC, on the other hand, cooperated with Al Jazeera on projects such as a documentary on the life of Omar Khadr, who murdered US Army Sergeant Speers, spent ten years in Guantanamo Bay Prison, and then won $10.5 million settlement in a lawsuit against the Canadian government, as well as an official "apology." The murdered soldier's widow received nothing.
The CBC documentary, Omar Khadr: Out of the Shadows, was initially broadcast in May, 2015. Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera America were all listed as cooperating partners.
The documentary was well received by some sections of the media. Others, however, felt that the entire CBC effort was a whitewash and that the journalists involved lacked objectivity and balance. Among the complaints were that Omar Khadr was referred to as a translator, overlooking his conviction for murder. Omar Khadr's father and family were referred to as humanitarians, again overlooking his role as a financier of Al Qaeda. Ahmed Sayed Khadr was noted by Al Qaeda as a "martyr" and he was complimented for throwing his son Omar in the furnace of battle. Omar Khadr was never asked about how he felt about making explosives for the jihadist cause.
Further complicating the issue was that Canada at the time was using its air force to bomb ISIS, a group which Qatar was often seen to be supporting. Canadian special forces were also on the ground in undetermined locations at the same time, believed to be supporting local opponents of ISIS. For CBC to be cooperating with Qatar and its mouthpiece Al Jazeera while the Canadian military had forces on the battlefield is questionable, although probably not illegal. Whether CBC should have disclosed these issues is still a question.
Of general interest, Al Jazeera America (closed April 2016) was created when it took over Current TV, major shareholders of which included Al Gore, Joel Hyatt, and Ronald Burkle. Before it was Current TV, the channel had been called News World International, whose majority holder was the CBC.
Editorial Policies and "Immersion Piss Christ"
The CBC claims that it respects religious sensibilities, a "moral signal" repeated after the jihadist murders of 12 writers and cartoonists at the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo in January 2015.
In 2015, David Studer, CBC's director of Journalistic Standards and Practices sent an email to CBC's news staff. The email stated that "We are being consistent with our historic journalistic practices around this story, not because of fear, but out of respect for the beliefs and sensibilities of the mass of Muslim believers about images of the Prophet. Similarly, we wouldn't publish cartoons likely to dismay or outrage mainstream followers of other religions."
Tony Burman was formerly the editor in chief of CBC news. When discussing the idea of publishing the Mohamed cartoons, he was quoted as saying:
"Tony Burman of the CBC explained that 'most media in Canada dealt with the story in the same way.' The CBC felt that it could 'easily describe the drawings in simple and clear English without actually showing them. That was indeed, without embarrassment, as an act of respect not only for Islam but for all religions.' Burman also felt there was no reason to offend part of its audience for 'absolutely no public value."'
It is difficult to tell if Burman's concerns around publishing the Mohammed cartoons were driven by an altruistic view or his own views. Tony Burman had also worked for the Al Jazeera, in both Doha as managing director for their English Network and in the Washington DC office as chief strategic advisor for Al Jazeera in the Americas. The announcement noted that "Burman used to head up the CBC."
In practice, however, the CBC only respects such sensibilities when it comes to Islamists such as ISIS or those who attacked Charlie Hebdo. When it comes to attacking Christians and Jews, the CBC exercises no such restraint. For instance, the CBC ran, and still displays, the "Immersion Piss Christ" story. This consists of an "award winning photo" in which a plastic crucifix is submerged in a small glass tank of the artist's urine. The story contains the image, which directly contradicts Burman's statement that they could "easily describe the drawings in simple and clear English without actually showing them."
The CBC also ran multiple articles on (then) newly elected Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer in which they showcased his Christian faith. In a scathing article, a CBC reporter describes how "Religion most often involves a deep commitment to telling other people how to live their lives." The general thrust of the article is that Scheer cannot be trusted because of his faith. Running a story on party leader Andrew Scheer is completely acceptable, it seems, and questions about his faith are fair points of discussion.
CBC's institutionalized bias is highlighted, not by how it treats Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, but rather its silence on how it treats others.
Canada's Saudi born Liberal junior cabinet minister Omar Algebra is an open supporter of Sharia Law and has a long series of dubious connections to Islamist front groups. He has stated that he did not think that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terrorist groups. CBC has never run an article on the value systems of an Islamist Canadian politician who believes in Sharia Law. Al Jazeera, however, did run a glowing piece on Omar Alghabra and his friendship with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.
Member of Parliament Iqra Khalid, born in Pakistan, has written documents that openly support Salafism, Sharia Law and speak out against any form of modernization in Islam. Yet the CBC remains silent on whether her faith and writings should be put under examination. This despite the fact she proposed the anti-Islamophobia Parliamentary Motion M-103, seen by many as an anti-free speech effort.
The Minster for the Status of Women, is Maryam Monsef, was born in Iran or Afghanistan, depending on which story one believes. She has openly stated that she is "fascinated" by Sharia. The CBC remains silent; it has never run a critical article on whether a Minister for the Status of Women who believes in Islamic law, Sharia, is suitable for public office in Canada.
The CBC also quotes organizations such as the National Council for Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR CAN. The CBC has referred to the NCCM/CAIR CAN as a civil rights group, but fails to note that it was formed to support its parent organization, CAIR USA, which is a listed terrorist group in the United Arab Emirates. It also does not mention that CAIR USA was formed in part by supporters of HAMAS and that it has had multiple run-ins with terrorism financing.
Similarly, when supporting a variety of Islamist issues, the CBC quotes as a source the Canadian Council of Imams. The CBC does not reveal, however, that the Vice President of the Council of Imams, Hakim Quick, believes that the position of Islam on homosexuality is death. It also does not state that the "Emir" of the council is also the head of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). The ICNA believes that Islam is not compatible with democracy, women are inferior and wife beating is permissible.
In short, the very groups the CBC relies on for commentary are Islamist in nature. These groups often advocate gross violations of human rights. The CBC is either aware of this and ignores it, or the people there are incompetent and do not check what their sources advocate.
Implications
The CBC appears to have a willful policy of protecting Islamists, including ISIS in Canada, from public exposure. Students who had tried to leave Canada to fight for ISIS were using violence and threats of violence to express their will to force their control over parts of a public educational institute. Yet the national broadcaster deliberately sent parts of the story down the memory hole by excluding any reference to ISIS sympathizers of any culpability for their actions.
The CBC also grants a free pass to those politicians who have been openly identified as Islamists, yet attacks Christians who have stated they will not bring their personal faith into the public realm.
CBC accepts cooperation and assistance from front groups for known terrorism entities, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Is it just a coincidence that they then whitewash stories about known Islamists such as Al Qaeda terrorist and financier Ahmed Said Khadr and his son Omar?
Al Jazeera journalists appear to have had enough intellectual honesty and moral strength to quit Al Jazeera, rather than be foot soldiers for a terrorist front group. What does this say for the CBC, who continued cooperating with Al Jazeera?
Canada has a significant Islamist problem, including embracing members of Islamist front groups that use, Canadian political parties as points of entry for expanding their influence. This problem includes five Islamist inspired terrorist attacks or attempted attacks in the last four years. Additionally, the Soufan Group, which provides strategic security intelligence services to governments and multinational organizations, suggests that 180 ISIS fighters were from Canada, but only 129 came from the USA. Given that the USA has a population roughly ten times of that of Canada, the numbers suggest that the problem of radicalization is far greater in Canada than in the US.
As a criminal and federal court expert on terrorism, specifically jihadist-based terrorism, my opinion is that the CBC has willfully assisted Islamists in the creation of the social, cultural and political spaces necessary for extremism to grow. By deliberately sheltering even ISIS supporters acting out in Canada from public scrutiny, the state broadcaster is failing the Canadian public. By granting Islamist politicians in Canada immunity from scrutiny for their beliefs, the state broadcaster is compounding its errors.
This failure appears willful, intentional, and consistent over time. As such, in the event of another Islamist inspired terrorist attack in Canada, or in the event of a terrorist attack in the USA carried out by a Canadian, the CBC may be exposed to a libel suit in the Federal Court of Canada for its institutional support of the Islamist cause. This support has helped to create the political, social and cultural spaces in Canada where Islamist extremism grows.
Tom Quiggin is a former military intelligence officer, a former intelligence contractor for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a court appointed expert on jihadist terrorism in both the Federal and criminal courts of Canada. Much of the material for this article comes from the recently published book, "SUBMISSION: The Danger of Political Islam to Canada – With a Warning to America", written with co-authors Tahir Gora, Saied Shoaaib, Jonathon Cotler, and Rick Gill with a foreword by Raheel Raza.
© 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.

Love, the Qatari Way
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al Awsat/February 06/18
We no longer hear much about the dispute with Qatar, except from Doha's side where officials deliver statements and conduct interviews. Its foes are now concerned with their own issues, such as Iran and Yemen and their regional and international relations, which angered Doha that wants to turn its dispute with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain into an issue that occupies the international public opinion.
However, sovereignty grants each country the right to choose its own friends and states to which it opens its markets. Choosing to ban Saudi Arabia’s al-Marai dairy company from selling its products in Doha, or stopping share trading of Qatari companies in the UAE stock market, and closing Bahraini airspace in the face of Qatar Airways are matters that concern those states.
For over 50 years, US boycotted Cuba, less than 100 miles away from Florida. Given the different circumstances, because unlike poor Cuba, Doha has easily enough income to feed the entire population of India, So, what is the problem if the quartet treated Qatar the same way US did with Cuba?
In order to attract media attention, Qatar has been repeating the story that there was an intention to invade it, topple its Emir and install an alternative ruler. Qatari delegations made these accusations that appealed to each country they visited and thanked the leaderships for their "support."
Iranian officials went as far to claim, in an official statement, that their country prevented an imminent invasion of Qatar. The Qataris went on to repeat the same narrative in Turkey, and thus Turkish officials declared they were the ones who prevented the invasion.
In Washington, Qatar's Defense Minister said that, had it not been for the US, Saudi and Emirati troops would have invaded his country. US officials, in turn, said they had heard about military preparations against Qatar. Surely we can't forget that the first statement in this regard came from the Emir of Kuwait, who claimed early in September: “We succeeded in stopping the military intervention.”
Obviously, Qatari officials have been repeating the same narrative, with some modifications that suit all the governments they visit, in order to involve them in the crisis and grant each one the alleged role of heroism.
There were never any attempt to invade Qatar or any intention to do so; not out of respect for the leadership of Doha, but because these governments are fully aware of the dangers of invasion and regime change by force. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait comes to mind.
Largest US military base in the region is in Qatar, so who would be so adventurous as to take such a risk? Qatar always exaggerates every issue.
It is possible that Qatar deliberately spread such rumors to disturb the already scared officials terrified of possible outcomes to their hostile actions against neighboring countries, and their 20-year efforts to support any external or internal threats against them. Both Saudi Arabia and UAE won't consider an invasion to discipline Doha. It is enough for them to boycott it, ignore, and continue without it. However, like attention-seeking children, officials in Doha cannot tolerate being ignored or boycotted, although they will have to get used to it.
In the end, while Qatar is wasting its money trying to convince the super powers to intervene and reach a reconciliation, we tell the Doha regime: it's time you realize there is no compulsion in love.

Ten Observations on the Margins of the Arab Crises
Ahmed Abul Gheit/Asharq Al Awsat/February 06/18
The Arab citizen is right to feel wary of the new year and what it holds in store for our countries. He is right due to the mounting dangers of crises, rising tensions in rivalries and establishment of popular currents that are reforming politics in many influential countries.
Amid all this, we find the Arab world in the position of defending its existence and vulnerable to threats to its interests and very identity. This was recently demonstrated in the crisis created by the American administration after it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This sparked real concerns among the Arab people over the fate of one of the most fundamental issues that define the Arab identity.
The Arab crises have become so severe and so numerous that the people have grown accustomed to them and they are now seen as a norm in the region. This is a very dangerous situation where the belief is that those in power are steering the crises, not resolving them, and that the people should grow used to this reality instead of tackling the roots of the problems. Managing the crisis is not a sufficient strategy to extinguish the raging fires. If we do not take immediate action to douse them, then they will spread to their surroundings and to new farther regions.
It is not my intention in this article to list the dangerous crises in the Arab world and detail their developments. I am here to present the concerned Arab reader with ten observations on the margins of these crises. I noted them through witnessing various joint Arab meetings over the past year. I will list them below, hoping that it would prompt the readers to engage in an open dialogue:
One: Though they may seem unconnected geographically, the Arab crises are similar in their nature, have the same players and are united by common factors. The majority of these crises are a direct result of “strategic vacuum” that emerged in the aftermath of the 2011 developments. These events led to a number of dangerous conflicts that weakened and toppled governments, political entities and security systems that used to control a massive number of people and large areas of lands.
The conclusion was the emergence of a dangerous vacuum on the security and political scenes in the heart of the Arab world and its margins. This vacuum is at the core of current regional conflicts because politics cannot tolerate vacuum and security cannot exist without a ruling authority.
The race to fill this strategic void gave the opportunity for regional, neighboring and international powers to clash over establishing a foothold in the area. This gave free rein for ambitions to redraw the region and reap “rewards.”
Two: The 2011 cataclysm took place at a time when the Arab system was not at its best. In fact, – and there is no better way to describe it – it was divided on itself and between various rival fronts. The conflicts that erupted after 2011 widened the divide and developed into proxy and armed conflicts involving many parties from within and beyond the region. The conflicts have become so complex that it is difficult to ascertain the interests of each player. This situation could have destroyed the Arab world had the Arab policies continued in their state of fragmentation.
Three: The Arabs have not stood idly by and observed the chaos. Instead several Arab people and leaderships realized the need to regain the initiative and form an Arab front to confront the most dangerous challenges facing the national state. An agreement gradually began to emerge between the main Arab countries on how to label the danger and identify its threat. This, in my opinion, was the real starting point for resolving this crisis.
The Arab countries realized that the danger was not directed against the interests of this country or that, but it was directed against the very concept of the modern national state. The threat, therefore is comprehensive and dangerous in its scope. Confronting it requires a united plan of action and coordination between Arab countries.
It has become clear in the Arab world to witness those who are loyal to the national state and those who oppose and do not recognize it. These sides instead are loyal to the rivals of the state and hide behind “religious politics” or “politicizing religion”. They also do not hesitate to mix political practices with violence. This image became clearer after 2014 amid the unprecedented emergence of terrorist groups that was embodied in ISIS’ success in controlling vast territories in the region. This situation, despite its catastrophe, helped unify the vision between the vast majority of Arab countries over their common fate.
Four: Despite this consensus among the main Arab countries in determining common threats, and despite the success in confronting some of these dangers, starting with ISIS, I can say that a “united strategy” in dealing with them is still absent. A clear agenda that unites all Arab countries is still unavailable. For example, we do not have what we can call an “Arab policy on the Syrian crisis.” Yes, there are resolutions issued by the Arab League that define the unanimous Arab position on this crisis, but a “strategic plan of action” is still missing. There are, unfortunately, Iranian, Turkish and Russian strategies on Syria, but not an Arab one. This can also be applied to Libya in that there are collective efforts exerted by countries to tackle the chaos there, but no collective Arab action to unify them.
Five: This unfortunate situation has therefore resulted in the lack of any serious collective and comprehensive discussions of strategic Arab issues. There are dangers that are being confronted by each state or by a number of states. These threats are dealt with individually and often as a reaction and not through an initiative. For example, an Arab capital may come under some threat and then the Arab League would be called to convene to issue a resolution on the matter. Such action, even though it is important, does not act as a comprehensive strategy to confront threats.
Six: The national Arab security is still being dealt with as a file from among many others. There is the file of combating terrorism, another on the ongoing Israeli occupation, a third on the Iranian threat, a fourth on Turkey’s ambitions, others on refugees…. This current approach of dividing files and issues impedes the possibility of collecting a united Arab force to effectively deal with any of these dangerous and pressing files. Instead, each Arab country or group of Arab countries are left to deal with what they perceive as a direct threat to it or their security, existence and interests.
National Arab security, from what I understand, is a single comprehensive file that includes several issues that should be dealt in connection to each other and not in increments. A mechanism should be reached that allows for frank discussions between Arab countries to set an agenda of priorities of Arab national security. Seven: Regional adversaries are exploiting this situation in their interest and they are taking advantage of the flaws in the Arab body. Tackling this interference and these threats as a single file is the only way I see to effectively confront this meddling.
Moreover, the threat to Riyadh from Iranian-made rockets provided to the Houthis is in fact a threat against all Arab capitals, from as far away as Muscat to Rabat. Arab forces should be mobilized to confront this threat so that a clear message is delivered to adversaries that they are not facing a country or two, but a massive human, economic and military bloc. For example, when a state such as Egypt, whose population makes up a third of the Arab people, has its water security threatened, then this issue should be addressed due to the major social and economic repercussions it may have. This threat is viewed as regional one and it should be dealt with as such.
Discussing all issues in this comprehensive and interlinked way is the only way that will allow each Arab side to frankly voice its concerns and, more importantly, specify what it expects from others. The best way to conduct this frank discussion is through the Arab League, which today is the only available way to achieve consensus and later united Arab action over any issue or cause. It is still the most capable organization to host such a discussion and work on developing and translating it into a work plan and strategy.
Eight: The effective way to deal with the regional threats and spiteful agendas against the Arab world, lies in filling the loopholes that the opponents have escaped through. Cementing national countries and resolving conflicts and internal clashes represent the best strategy to confront regional meddling that has found a place for itself in this mess.
Nine: The Arab scene is not completely ruined by destruction. There are some signs here and there that there is a will among several leaderships and peoples to end this “crisis of civilization”. For example, I will highlight the great efforts undertaken by the Gulf, Egypt and Maghreb to radically “change the social-economic situation”. These efforts reflect a major desire to defy challenges and problems and join the current age. They are also focused on a fundamental truth that half of the Arab population is less than 24 years old, meaning we are living our future today. We should not deal with the present as an extension of the past, but it should be a short bridge to a future that is rapidly taking shape before our eyes.
While I do acknowledge the development efforts, I can honestly say that they will remain vulnerable to failure if we cannot provide the stable regional environment that will enable them to continue on growing. This is what I call “fortifying growth” and it cannot be possible without a collective security strategy that provides security to everyone. This will consequently defeat terrorism, eliminate extremism and reform the predominant culture of societies.
Ten: Coordinating Arab stances and reorganizing the Arab internal scene are no longer ideological visions or theoretical political ideas, but they are facts that impose themselves on the ground and challenges on the agenda of Arab work. It is my deep conviction that Arab countries are all in one boat: They either all reach the harbor of safety or, God forbid, they will lose their way together.
Arabism today is not a sentimental slogan, but a political and strategic necessity. It is the only idea that can unite all defenders of the national state in confronting terrorist groups, saboteurs, secessionists and advocates of sectarianism. Arabism in its new modern look is open and accepting of diversity without the need to eliminate the other. It is the way to pull back together what has been fragmented and restore what has been lost. The rule of law, ensuring equal opportunities and respecting different identities within a modern state – a state for all of its citizens – are fortifications that protect the state itself from the dangers of fragmentation and chaos.
Finally, I say that frank dialogue between Arab countries on the crises and threats, whether internal, regional or international, is the only way to form a united and firm stance that would lead the Arabs to a position of power against their adversaries – and how many they are. This will enable them to confront threats that do not jeopardize the state itself, but the entire Arab entity and its common identity, starting with the recent danger against the Palestinian cause and the city of Jerusalem. These blatant attempts to eliminate the cause should be a warning bell to all sides and it demands that we mobilize all of our energies in collective work.
Amid all of these dangerous challenges, I have never lost the hope that the Arab world will be able to treat its wounds, pull itself back together and catch up with this age. The darkest days are always followed by the rising dawn.