LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
February 08/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.february08.18.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 07-08/18
10 Things to Read to Understand America
Noah Smith/Asharq Al Awsat/February 07/18
The US in the 21st century can be a bewildering place, even for its own residents. The political turmoil, the kaleidoscope of radical online social movements, the presence of vast wealth combined with often stunning inequality; these things not only baffle foreigners, they often mystify Americans as well. People living in the U.S. often see only a small slice of the country, defined by their town, their occupation and their social circle.
Since the turn of the century, a number of important new trends have either emerged or intensified that have changed the nation to its core. Not all of these trends have been written up satisfactorily in books and papers, but many have. Whether you live in the US or out of it, here is a reading list that will help deepen your understanding of modern America.
No. 1. “Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America” by William H. Frey
In 1980 the U.S. was 83 percent non-Hispanic white. Since 2012, fewer than half of the children born in the country have been such. No one has chronicled this rapid demographic transformation better -- or with a more neutral, clinical eye -- than demographer William H. Frey. This book doesn’t just lay out the numbers, but shows detailed maps of how the ethnic composition of each of the country’s regions has evolved. The key fact is that Hispanics and Asians, once confined to a few regions and cities in the country, are rapidly spreading to outlying regions. There’s little doubt that this has created political and social unrest in areas that once had white supermajorities. It also has great relevance for electoral politics.
No. 2. “The New Geography of Jobs,” by Enrico Moretti
This slim volume by one of the world’s top urban economists explains why some cities in the US have flourished while others languish. Knowledge industries, and clusters of smart, educated workers, have become increasingly important not just to a region’s prosperity, but to its physical and social health. Large cities, technology hubs and college towns are pulling away from the rest in both economic and social terms.
No. 3. “The China Shock,” by David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson
This landmark economics paper, which really deserves to be turned into a book, details how opening up trade with China in the 2000s was fundamentally different from anything the U.S. had experienced before. Whereas in past eras, manufacturing workers displaced by foreign imports mostly managed to find jobs elsewhere in the industry for similar pay, Chinese competition was so vast, sudden and comprehensive that most displaced workers ended up taking huge wage cuts or going on the welfare rolls. The sudden devastation of American manufacturing has undoubtedly had broad social implications.
No. 4. “We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy,” by Ta-Nehisi Coates
In this series of essays, Coates, arguably the country’s most important writer and intellectual, vividly narrates the racial politics of the 2010s. The presidency of Barack Obama seemed to herald a new era in race relations, but a series of highly publicized police killings and the election of Donald Trump dashed that hope. The racial divide, and the events that have exacerbated it, are crucial to any understanding of modern American politics and society.
No. 5. “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America,” by Barbara Ehrenreich
Beginning in the 1980s, American politics was increasingly dominated by leaders who believed in the fundamental efficacy of markets. But in many ways, people were not fully prepared to cope with the new free-market world. The transaction costs, uncertainties and unfairness of daily life in the new, do-it-yourself America overwhelmed many poor and working-class people, and even some in the middle class. Few document the exhaustion of modern capitalism better than Ehrenreich. Her book should be paired with the more recent “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City,” by Matthew Desmond.
No. 6. “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart,” by Bill Bishop
There are many divides in American society -- racial, economic, gender and religious. But perhaps no divide is as powerful or as pernicious as the partisan political polarization that has emerged in the last few decades. Bishop chronicles how the populace has been geographically separating itself into clusters of like-minded individuals, producing the feeling of two separate countries co-existing in the same space.
No. 7. “The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The US Standard of Living since the Civil War,” by Robert Gordon
Americans, traditionally, are a people accustomed to growth. The spread of the populace from East to West, the Industrial Revolution, the technology booms of the 20th century and the financial bull markets of 1980-2008 all presented the feeling of boundless, limitless frontiers to be explored and conquered. But just as the frontiers of the West closed a century ago, economic frontiers may be closing now. In this book, economist Robert Gordon presents the reality of slowing productivity growth, and makes the case that technological progress will be slow for the foreseeable future. For a contrary, more optimistic case, try “The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies,” by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee.
No. 8. “Mortality and Morbidity in the 21st Century,” by Anne Case and Angus Deaton
The US has become substantially less healthy than other developed nations. Though mortality rates among black Americans have plunged dramatically, they are still high. More ominously, mortality rates among white Americans -- particularly those without a college education -- have risen slightly, driven in part by the opiate epidemic, alcoholism and suicide. Economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton document this ominous trend, which seems to confirm the existence of a social malaise among working class white Americans.
No. 9. “Income and Wealth Inequality: Evidence and Policy Implications,” by Emmanuel Saez
Inequality has risen in most countries around the world, but in the US it has reached levels usually only seen in developing nations. While books such as economist Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” have presented grand, sweeping theories of inequality, I prefer to start with the blunt facts of the matter. Saez, Piketty’s frequent co-author, lays out the numbers in this paper.
No. 10. “Concrete Economics: The Hamilton Approach to Economic Growth and Policy,” by Stephen S. Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong
With the US beset by economic problems ranging from inequality to slow growth to the decline of whole regions, why hasn’t the government done more to help? In this short, readable volume, historian Stephen Cohen and economist Brad DeLong opine that in the last few decades, American policy makers have shunned the idea of deliberate and industrial policy and chosen instead to step back and let the market go where it will. This, they argue, has led to a financialized economy where capital sloshes around (yielding big fees for financiers) but rarely makes the big, bold bets necessary to get the economy moving again.
These books and papers don’t touch on all the changes coursing through the US A number of very important trends are omitted -- changing gender roles, gay rights and the stunning and rapid decline of Christianity, to name just three. A full understanding of the trends affecting American society would require one to read more books and papers than I can personally recommend. But the basic trends outlined in the list above -- rising diversity and racial division, inequality and the discontents of a free-market world, political polarization, and the threats of foreign competition and slowing growth -- are essential to making sense of the turmoil and chaos roiling the superpower.

Saudi Arabia Denies Report of Historic Approval of Flights to Israel Using Its Airspace
Anshel Pfeffer and Rina Rozenberg Kandel/Haaretz/February 07/18
If confirmed, Saudi Arabia's move would be the first public recognition of its warming ties with Israel and would be huge blow to El Al
Saudi Arabia has granted Air India approval to operate direct flights from Delhi to Tel Aviv, sources in the Israeli flight industry told Haaretz. If confirmed, this would be the first time the Saudis are allowing commerical flights to Israel to use their airspace. According to Reuters, a spokesman for Saudi Arabia's General Authority of Civil Aviation denied the report, saying the agency had not granted Air India permission to operate direct flights from Delhi to Tel Aviv.  If true, Riyadh's approval would mean that the duration of flights from India to Israel will be shortened by two-and-a-half hours, compared to the route currently in use. The new route would allow the airline to reduce fuel costs and sell cheaper tickers to passengers. Only one carrier currently operates direct flights from Israel to India, El Al, which flies an 8-hour route from Tel Aviv to Mumbai. The route crosses the Red Sea south of Yemen, then turns east to India. Since New Delhi is a new destination from which there are no flights to Israel, the aviation company will be getting a 750,000 euro grant from the Tourism Ministry for operating the new line, according to a calculation of 250,000 euros per weekly flight. This grant could be, among other things, the impetus for Air India to launch the line. This is not the first time Air India asked Israeli authorities for such approval. Last year, the airline asked the Israel Airports Authority's to allow it to fly to and from Israel. This was not implemented, however, due to the airline's insistence to operate the shorter route. Discussions on the matter evolved during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to India last month, where intensive talks were held between the two countries in order to approve the flight route over Saudi Arabia.
Air India's Delhi-Tel Aviv route could be the first concrete and public piece of evidence to the warming of ties between Israel and the Saudi leadership. Though we have known for years of quiet coordination on security issues, there has not yet been any tangible evidence above the surface.
For seventy years now, Saudi airspace has been closed not only to Israeli aircraft, but to those of other nations with a flight-path to Israel. In recent decades there have only been two flights, that we know of, which have flown directly from Saudi Arabia to Israel: the U.S. Air Force One bearing Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively. It is not rare to see on the air-travel tracking websites private business jets flying from Saudi airports and other destinations in the Arabian Gulf toward Israel. However all these flights make a short stop-over first in Amman airport.
A direct Air India flight through Saudi airspace will not only be a sign of the warming relations between Jerusalem and Riyadh, but also of the growing interests and influence of India's Prime Minister Nardendra Modi in the region. He visited Israel last month and is expected in Jordan and Ramallah next week.
Beyond the diplomatic implications, such direct flights will be a blow to Israel's flagship carrier El Al, which is not expected to receive at this point similar overflight privileges. Air India will now be able to operate a flight which will be at least three hours shorter and most likely significantly cheaper, than El Al's Mumbai service which has to make a long detour around the Arabian peninsula. Following the reports, Michael Strausberger, El Al's recently appointed vice president for commercial and industry affairs, said he expects that the same approval would be given to Israeli airlines. "We at El Al, and I assume that other Israeli airlines share our view, hope and believe that Saudi Arabia will also allow Israeli airlines, who fly from or to Israel – and not only foreign airlines – to fly over its territory," Strausberger said.
The big winner - and losers
If the new route is indeed approved, the big winner would be, without a doubt Benjamin Netanyahu. Not only would he be able to claim a major achievement thanks to his public diplomacy with India and secret relations with the Saudi leadership, he and his supporters could say that his vision of improved ties with the Arab world, without Israel having to make concessions to the Palestinians, was becoming a reality. It is still unclear of course whether there is any form of quid pro quo that Israel would give the Saudis for such approval, but it is unlikely to have been on the Palestinian issue. The Saudis, like the Egyptians and other Arab regimes, are nowadays barely paying lip-service to the Palestinian cause. And the biggest losers of such a move, are of course, the Palestinians. Once again it could be proven that the great Arab nation doesn't really care for them. A Saudi agreement for flights through its airspace, if confirmed, follows a rather weak chorus of condemnation for Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and despite the total absence of a diplomatic process. Even at the height of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians refused to make such a gesture. Aaron David Miller, a former senior American diplomat tweeted that "we tried for 20 years to get them (the Saudis) to do stuff like this. And got nada." Now, in the wake of improved secret relations, largely due to the joint enemy, Iran, Israel seems to be getting this gesture, seemingly without paying anything in return.
**Reuters contributed to this report.

Explained The Real Reason Behind the UAE-Qatar Crisis and How It Benefits Iran at the Expense of the U.S.
Haaretz and Reuters/February 07/18
The increase in tension comes seven months after the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt imposed travel and trade sanctions on Qatar over accusations of supporting terrorism. A rise in tension between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in a row over military flights threatens U.S. strategic interests in the Gulf and could benefit regional rival Iran to the dismay of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Abu Dhabi says Qatari air force jets intercepted two UAE civilian aircraft on commercial flights to Bahrain last month, and Doha says UAE military aircraft violated its airspace on Dec. 21 and Jan. 3. Each denies the other's accusations and the two energy-producing states have sought to ease the dispute. The risk of a confrontation between them has increased but a war between them is unlikely, regional experts say. The increase in tension, seven months after the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt imposed travel and trade sanctions on Qatar over accusations -- denied by Doha -- that it supports terrorism and regional rival Iran, has alarmed Washington.
"When you have Qatari (military) planes being scrambled near a civilian airliner, it runs the risk of an incident that, even unplanned, could result in the loss of lives and escalate this into an situation Gulf countries have never had among each other," said a Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Gabriel Collins, an expert on financial sanctions at Rice University in Texas, said "military posturing" against a background of underlying tension because of the diplomatic and trade sanctions "left space for a miscalculation." "A very small spark can, in a worst-case scenario, light a huge fire," he said.
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has said the fracturing of ties among its Gulf Arab allies hinders Washington's fight against Islamic State and "countering the spread of Iran's malign influence".
Iran has criticised the restrictions on Qatar and called for the rift to be resolved through dialogue. Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has lamented what he called a "dialogue deficit" in the region. The Gulf is a strategically important area for the United States. The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain and the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar is a centre of its air operations against Islamic State. The United States considers both Qatar and the UAE to be critical regional partners," a U.S. Air Forces Central Command spokesman in Qatar said in response to a Reuters request for comment on the incidents. He called for "meaningful solutions to reduce tensions."The base would be crucial if the United States were to go to war with Iran, which Washington says sponsors terrorism and is a threat to stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East. Tehran denies the accusations.
Regional rivalry
Predominantly Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia also sees Iran as a threat to regional stability and regards the Islamist Republic, which is majority Shi'ite, as its main rival in the region. But more than any of the countries boycotting Qatar, the UAE bristles at alleged Qatari support for Islamists throughout the region and maintains a hard line against the Muslim Brotherhood, branches of which are supported by Doha in some countries. There are trade risks for the West as well as security concerns. "The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies with Iran is raging. These are key trade and security partners to the West for decades and if they are divided and very nearly coming to military blows, in this zero-sum atmosphere, Iran stands to gain and the U.S. to lose," another Western diplomat said.
An Arab official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the UAE, because of its competing regional vision with Qatar, wanted to pile pressure on Doha to signal a reconciliation is not close and the boycott will not soon end. "Saudi Arabia and the other quartet countries have little to fear for their economies from this crisis, though Qatar does," the official said. "Also, because the UAE is so interested in enforcing its demands on Qatar and curtailing its activities in the region, that makes the two countries eager to prove in this phase that they won't be giving up soon and can escalate if necessary."
U.S. President Donald Trump appears to have softened his view of Doha. He initially blessed the boycott, accusing Doha of funding terrorism "at a very high level." But he offered in September to mediate and this month telephoned Qatar's ruler, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, to thank him for his counter-terrorism efforts. The change follows a charm offensive by Doha, which in recent months has hosted several right-wing commentators close to the president and matched the UAE's lobbying efforts in Washington. The change appears to reflect a political calculation among the Gulf states' Western partners that Qatar would not risk allowing the rift with the UAE to deteriorate further, one of the Western diplomats said.

Death of Democracy? - Part I
Denis MacEoin/Gatestone Institute/February 07/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11807/democracy-death
"The result of 25 years of multiculturalism has not been multicultural communities. It has been mono-cultural communities... Islamic communities are segregated." – Ed Husain, former Muslim extremist.
This approach, giving social-services, is based on the belief -- oft-refuted -- that Muslim extremists (both Muslims-by-birth and converts) have suffered from deprivation. It also greatly rests on the naïve assumption that rewarding them with benefits -- for which genuinely deprived citizens generally need to wait in line -- will turn them into grateful patriots, prepared to stand for the national anthem and hold hands with Christians and Jews.
The British government has shown itself incapable of enforcing its own laws when it comes to its Muslim citizens or new immigrants. Rather than stand up to our enemies, both external and internal, are we so afraid of being called "Islamophobes" that we will sacrifice even our own cultural, political, and religious strengths and aspirations?
For many complex reasons, Europe is in an advanced state of decline. In recent years, several important studies of this condition have appeared, advancing a variety of reasons for it: Douglas Murray's The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, James Kirchik's The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, as well as Christopher Caldwell's ground-breaking 2010 study, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. Soeren Kern at Gatestone Institute has also been detailing the steady impact of immigration from Muslim regions on countries such as Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
It is clear that something serious is happening on the continent in which I live.
The threat is not restricted to Europe, but has a global dimension. Michael J. Abramowitz, President of Freedom House, writes in his introduction to the organization's 2018 report:
A quarter-century ago, at the end of the Cold War, it appeared that totalitarianism had at last been vanquished and liberal democracy had won the great ideological battle of the 20th century.
Today, it is democracy that finds itself battered and weakened. For the 12th consecutive year, according to Freedom in the World, countries that suffered democratic setbacks outnumbered those that registered gains. States that a decade ago seemed like promising success stories—Turkey and Hungary, for example—are sliding into authoritarian rule.
For Douglas Murray, immigration and the problems it is throwing up are the key topic. He is uncompromising in his negative response to the social change that has been brought about by the excessive and barely controlled immigration of people who, for the most part, do not share the most basic values of the countries in which they now live.
Certainly, Europe's current state of decline owes much to the widely recognized fact that Muslims are the first newcomers to Europe who, over several generations, are resistant to integrating into the societies of which they now form a part. This rejection of Europe's humanitarian, Judeo-Christian values applies, not just to the successive waves of refugees and economic migrants who have washed up on the shores of Greece, Italy and Spain since the start of the Syrian civil war, but to generations of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK, North Africans in France, and Turkish "guest workers" in Germany.
A former Muslim extremist, Ed Husain, writes in his book, The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, what I Saw Inside and why I Left:
The result of 25 years of multiculturalism has not been multicultural communities. It has been mono-cultural communities.... Islamic communities are segregated. Many Muslims want to live apart from mainstream British society; official government policy has helped them do so. I grew up without any white friends. My school was almost entirely Muslim. I had almost no direct experience of 'British life' or 'British institutions'. So it was easy for the extremists to say to me: 'You see? You're not part of British society. You never will be. You can only be part of an Islamic society.' The first part of what they said was true. I wasn't part of British society: nothing in my life overlapped with it.
According to Ed Husain (right), a former Muslim extremist, "The result of 25 years of multiculturalism has not been multicultural communities. It has been mono-cultural communities... Islamic communities are segregated." (Image source: CNN video screenshot)
In July 2015, arguing for an anti-extremism bill in parliament, Britain's prime minister at the time, David Cameron, admitted:
"For all our successes as a multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don't really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds."
Countless polls and investigations reveal that refusal to integrate is no figment of the supposedly "Islamophobic" political "right". A 2006 poll carried out by ICM Research on behalf of the Sunday Telegraph, for example, presented worrying findings: 40% of British Muslims polled said they backed introducing shari'a law in parts of Britain, and only 41% opposed it, leaving another 20% unclear. Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP involved with the official task force set up after the July 2005 attacks, said the findings were "alarming". Since then, similar findings have shown that the younger generation of Muslims is more conservative, even radical, than their parents or grandparents:
Commenting on a major 2016 ICM poll of Muslim opinion, Trevor Phillips, who had been Britain's foremost advocate of multiculturalism, said that, with respect to the Muslim community, he had made a 180° turn:
"for a long time, I too thought that Europe's Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain's diverse identity landscape. I should have known better."
Another major 2016 review on social equality carried out on behalf of the British government by Dame Louise Casey, found Muslims the least well integrated community. In summarizing her work for the National Secular Society, Benjamin Jones wrote:
"Despite decades of failures, it is worth noting that problems integrating Muslim minorities are hardly rare around the world, and this is not a problem unique to the United Kingdom. That brings us to the final unsayable thing – well known to most British people but unmentionable to officials and politicians: Islam is a special case."
Polls carried out in other countries across Europe showed similar or worse results.
Those are only one half of a more complicated and disturbing picture. While Muslims find it hard to abandon the prejudices, doctrines, and outright hatreds (for Jews, for example) that they have imported from their home countries -- or developed as young men and women while living in European states where they were born and raised -- vast numbers of non-Muslims, including politicians, church leaders, civil servants, policemen and women, and many well-meaning people bend over backwards to accommodate them and the demands they make on their host societies.
It would take a book to summarize all the episodes in which Western officialdom, notably in Europe, has abandoned its own historical values in order to protect Islam and radical Muslims from criticism and rebuke. We are not speaking of the proper interventions of the police, courts, and social agencies to safeguard ordinary Muslims from physical attacks, vituperative insults, assaults on mosques, or basic denials of the rights they are entitled to enjoy as citizens of Western countries – much as we expect them to protect Jews, ethnic minorities, or vulnerable women from similar expressions of physical and verbal bigotry. Providing such support for the victims of prejudice should be applauded as an essential expression of post-Enlightenment liberal democratic values. Legislating and acting against outright discrimination is, perhaps, best exemplified in the way post-World War II German governments have criminalized anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Ironically, what anti-Semitism there is today in Germany comes increasingly from Muslims.
According to Manfred Gerstenfeld: Jens Spahn, a board member of Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democrat Union (CDU), and a possible successor to Merkel, remarked that the immigration from Muslim countries is the reason for the recent demonstrations [about immigrants] in Germany.
Stephan Harbarth, deputy chairman of the CDU/ CSU faction in the Bundestag — the German parliament — said, "We have to strongly confront the antisemitism of migrants with an Arab background and those from African countries."
The CDU interior minister of the federal state of Hessen, Peter Beuth, remarked, "We have to avoid an immigration of antisemitism." He said this after a study on behalf of the state's security service concluded that antisemitism among Muslims "both quantitatively and qualitatively has at least as high relevance as the traditional antisemitism of the extreme right."
Despite this moral response, European countries, including Germany, have shown genuine weakness when face-to-face with radical Islamic ideology, hate preachers, and basic Muslim values regarding women, non-Muslims, LGBT people, and obedience to Western laws.
Before looking at some of the reasons, motivations, and outcomes of this deeply pervasive weakness, here are a handful of examples of pusillanimity from the UK alone.
Last October, it was reported that Queen's Counsel Max Hill, who acts as the British government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, argued that British fighters for Islamic State, who had returned or planned to return to the UK, should not be prosecuted but reintegrated into society on the grounds that they had acted "naively". This lenience extended to hate preachers who had given sermons and lectures exhorting Muslims to take direct action that has in the past led to actual terrorist attacks.
Before that, Prime Minister David Cameron and then Home Secretary Theresa May had "proposed measures including banning orders, extremism disruption orders and closure orders, which would allow premises used by extremists to be shut, and make it easier to restrict the activities of individuals and organisations."
In 2015, May had proposed a counter-extremism strategy which said laws would be introduced to "ban extremist organisations that promote hatred and draw people into extremism" and "restrict the harmful activities of the most dangerous extremist individuals". Mrs May also vowed to use the law to "restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism". Yet Max Hill QC, the man in charge of British terrorist legislation wants none of that. And May's counter-terrorism measures, proposed again since she became Prime Minister, remain unlegislated.
The same month (October 2017) that Hill undertook the rehabilitation of jihadists and hate preachers, it was reported that the British Home Office (formerly run by Theresa May, now by Amber Rudd MP) was "looking at a new strategy to reintegrate extremists that could even see them propelled to the top of council house waiting lists if needed".
Extremists who had nowhere suitable to live could be put in social housing by the local council and could have their rent paid if necessary, according to reports. They could also be given priority on waiting lists and helped into education and training or found a job with public bodies or charities.
This proposal would include returnees from the Islamic State in Syria, and overall would include some 20,000 individuals known to the security services. Around 850 British subjects have gone to Syria to fight or support fighters, and 350 of them have come back home, with only a tiny handful so far prosecuted.
This approach, giving social services, is based on the belief -- oft-refuted -- that Muslim extremists (both Muslims-by-birth and converts) have suffered from deprivation. It also greatly rests on the naïve assumption that rewarding them with benefits -- for which genuinely deprived citizens generally need to wait in line -- will turn them into grateful patriots, prepared to stand for the national anthem and hold hands with Christians and Jews.
We now therefore use double standards: one for Muslims and one for the rest of our population. On January 16, 2018, in England, Daniel Grundy, was jailed for six months on a charge of bigamy. However, Muslim men in polygamous marriages are rewarded by the state: Husbands living in a "harem" with multiple wives have been cleared to claim state benefits for all their different partners.
A Muslim man with four spouses - which is permitted under Islamic law - could receive £10,000 a year in income support alone.
He could also be entitled to more generous housing and council tax benefit, to reflect the fact his household needs a bigger property.
Ministers have decided that, even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, polygamous marriages can be recognised formally by the state - provided they took place overseas, in countries where they are legal.
Actually, British Muslim men do not even have to go abroad to find wives. At least one Muslim dating site run from the UK offers contact with Muslim women who are eager to enter into polygamous marriages. It has not been closed down. The British government has shown itself incapable of enforcing its own laws when it comes to its Muslim citizens or new immigrants.
In a similar vein are official attitudes to a common Muslim practice of female genital mutilation, which has been illegal in the UK since 1985. Politico reported last year:
"Medical staff working in England's National Health Service recorded close to 5,500 cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) in 2016, but no one has been successfully prosecuted since the practice was banned over 30 years ago."Meanwhile, the practice is rising. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are too frightened of seeming racist or "Islamophobic" to apply the law. Max Hill's notion that departing fighters have been naïve is itself a staggering misconception on the part of a man educated at Newcastle's prestigious Royal Grammar School and Oxford University. No one heading for Syria will have been blithely unaware of the multitude of videos broadcast by the mainstream media and all the social media, showing the beheading of hostages, the executions of homosexuals, the lashing of women, the heads spiked on fences, the use of children to shoot victims or cut their throats, and all the other excesses committed by the terrorist group.
Rather than stand up to our enemies, both external and internal, are we now so afraid of being called "Islamophobes" that we will sacrifice even our own cultural, political, and religious strengths and aspirations? The next part of this article will examine just how major this betrayal has been and how much greater it will become.
**Dr. Denis MacEoin taught Arabic and Islamic Studies and has written books and numerous articles about Islam, including a large volume entitled Obstacles to Integration, not yet published. He is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at New York's Gatestone Institute.
© 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.

Rod Rosenstein Should Not Be Fired, but Should He Be Recused?
Alan M. Dershowitz/Gatestone Institute/February 07/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11846/rod-rosenstein-fired-recused
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should not be fired. He is a distinguished public servant with a bipartisan reputation for fairness. But there is a real question whether he should be recused from participating in any investigation by the special counsel of alleged obstruction of justice by the president.
Five facts are indisputable. First, Rosenstein is currently supervising Robert Mueller, who he appointed to be special counsel to investigate the Russia matter and all ancillary issues. Second, these ancillary issues include any possible obstruction of justice growing out of the Russia investigation. Third, President Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey may be an important building block in any possible obstruction case against the president. Fourth, Rosenstein played a central role in that firing, having written the memorandum justifying the president's action. Fifth, Rosenstein would be an important — perhaps the most important — witness in any investigation of the reasons behind the firing.
Pictured: Attorney General Jeff Sessions (left) administers the oath of office to Rod Rosenstein (center) to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, on April 26, 2017. (Image source: US Department of Justice)
The question is whether a lawyer should both supervise an investigation and be an important witness in that very investigation. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself because he might have been a witness or subject of the Russia investigation. Rosenstein might be a more central witness in any obstruction of justice investigation by the prosecutor who he is supervising.
One possible reason for why Rosenstein should not recuse himself would be if Mueller were not investigating alleged obstruction of justice by the president based on his firing of Comey. Perhaps Mueller realizes that charging a president with obstruction of justice for performing a constitutionally authorized act such as firing the director of the FBI would raise grave constitutional issues. Perhaps, therefore, that is not part of his current investigation. If it is not, then Rosenstein has no clear conflict of interest. But the available evidence suggests that Mueller is looking into the Comey firing.
Although Rosenstein's remaining on the case does not violate the so-called "advocate-witness" rule that prohibits a lawyer being both an advocate and a witness at the same trial, it raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. The advocate-witness prohibition is designed to prevent confusion over roles by the jury at trial. It does not deal with the broader issues of conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict.
In the Rosenstein matter, the supervising prosecutor has a potential stake in whether the line prosecutor will call him as a witness, or will cross-examine him if he were to be called as a defense witness. Even more worrisome is the possibility – unlikely as it seems — that the supervising attorney may become a subject or target of the investigation. He could be named as a co-conspirator if Mueller believed that he knowingly provided a cover to hide the president's real intentions in firing Comey.
The more likely problem grows out of the possibility that President Trump's lawyer would try to shift the responsibility for the firing of Comey from the president to the author of the memo justifying the firing, namely Rosenstein. "Advice of counsel" is a recognized defense, especially where state of mind — alleged corrupt intent — is at issue.
If President Trump's lawyer were to make this argument to the special counsel and his supervisor, could Rosenstein fairly consider and assess it? Would he have a conflict if he had to evaluate his own role in the firing? In an ordinary criminal case, recusal is not required based on speculation possibilities. But this is no ordinary case. When it is the president, or those around him, who are being investigated, everyone involved in the investigation and charging decisions must be "Caesar's Wife," beyond any suspicion or even appearance of conflicting interests.
Does Rosenstein's continuing involvement in the Russia probe and possible obstruction of justice pass that daunting test? That is the relevant question, and more attention should be paid to that ethical issue than to the political question of whether or not he should be fired.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of "Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences endangers Democracy."
© 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.

Victory is impossible in the wars of the Middle East
Raghida Dergham/February 7, 2018
Despite escalating rhetoric and threats, all players already understand that there can be no winner in any war taking place or that could take place in the Middle East. Neither the United States, Russia, Turkey, Israel, nor Iran and her proxies can prevail in their wars. It follows that the coming confrontation in the region will not take the form of direct military involvement, for example between the US and Iran. Rather, the US will probably work to destabilize and target Iran and her proxies financially, with the option of preempting Iran militarily outside its borders kept open if needed. Indeed, the Trump administration has made is absolutely clear that it intends to scrutinize Iran’s actions at home and in the region, and that it has no qualms about tearing apart the nuclear deal if Tehran were to provide it with any pretext to do so. Yet these are the limits of any Iranian-American confrontation.
Recently, the deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Gen. Hossein Salami said that Iran had carried out an assessment of the strengths and the weaknesses of the enemy, declaring, “We are fully aware of US air and sea capabilities surrounding Iran…and consider war to be a realistic scenario for which we are preparing.” Escalating his rhetoric against Washington, Salami boasted of the accuracy of Iran’s ballistic missiles and their ability to hit US naval targets should they initiate military action. “I am saying that today we can launch a missile, which can hit a moving vessel with hundred percent accuracy – and it is not a cruise missile, it is a ballistic missile,” Salami claimed, saying Iran has an offensive strategy and can conduct intensive strikes against enemy bases and confront their forces at sea.
In truth however, this defiant tone reflects in its folds a structural weakness and anxiety in Iran. The IRGC know well they cannot triumph in any battle with the US no matter how vehemently they claim otherwise. And a real anxiety is the ability of the US to destabilize the regime in Tehran of which the IRGC is a core component. This is perhaps why Gen. Salami was keen to over-inflate Iran’s military capabilities, when he spoke about the IRGC’s many “missile cities”, and made provocative claims such as by saying that the Syrian and Iraq armies constitute a “strategic depth” for Iran’s rules of engagement with the enemy.
No doubt, Washington will have taken note of these exaggerations and felt relief at the ‘increased heart rate’ in the ranks of the IRGC, pressuring which is part and parcel of US strategy.
Yet remarks by Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed that Israel is “the central factor in the Middle East blocking the spread of radical Islam being led by Iran and Islamic State”, remains empty rhetoric meant for media consumption. For even as he spoke about this Israel’s ‘pivotal role’, he was backing down from threats of war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria in the northern front and with Hamas in Gaza in the southern front. For one thing, the Israeli premier knows well he cannot prevail in these wars and has nothing to gain in a direct confrontation. Which is why he has been maneuvering and cutting deals instead, especially with the US and Russia.
Russia had prematurely rushed to declare victory in Syria, prompting the US to give it a quick reality check. Moscow is currently engaged in a low-grade confrontation with Washington on the Syrian battlefield, amid fears the US is attempting to ‘Afghanize’ the pushback against Russia there, similar to what happened when the US supplied shoulder-mounted anti-air missiles to the mujahidin fighting the Soviet invasion, triggering the eventual collapse of the USSR following its heavy losses and withdrawal from Afghanistan. Moscow is therefore suspicious of Washington’s intentions, and sees signs the US wants to increase the cost of its intervention in Syria to prevent a Russian victory or even bring out a defeat for Russia in Syria.
Turkey too will not taste victory in its wars in Syria – even as it has expanded its operations beyond Afrin to Manbij and east of the Euphrates, warning US soldiers and hinting at the possibility of confrontation with American forces in Syria. For their part, the Kurdish factions had too hastily claimed victory, yet ended up on the back foot in Iraq and Syria, their national aspirations suffering major setbacks.
Likewise, the IRGC, Iraq’s Popular Mobilization, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad had dismissed skeptics of their victory as a joke, but the joke then became on them. In short, no one has won in Syria – or in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Libya.
In Syria, nothing indicates the war is about to end, or that Assad would remain in power indefinitely, particularly after Washington made it clear to Moscow it is determined to prevent a victory by Assad and his allies, the IRGC and Hezbollah. Washington may use military force against Syrian sites linked to prohibited chemical weapons, and has launched strict sanctions against Hezbollah covering its operations in Lebanon, Europe, and South America. The US is also preparing additional measures targeting the IRGC and supporting Iranian opposition groups. In short, Washington is determined to contain Iranian influence outside the borders of the Islamic Republic, including militarily in the Arab region.
Iran’s reactions to all this are extraordinarily nonchalant. For example, echoing the IRGC comments about Syria and Iraq’s strategic depth for Iran, Ali Velayati, top adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said Iran’s influence in the region was “inevitable” and vowed it would continue.
Velayati suggested the protests in his country were the work of ‘agents’, and concluded the “jihad” abroad of Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani alongside the guidance of the supreme leader were crucial for the protection of the regime in Tehran.
This is although Iranian President Hassan Rohani warned the pillars of the regime of a similar fate to the deposed Shah if they continued to ignore the demands of the citizens. However, Khomeini’s adviser and the IRGC deputy commander have already decided that the slogans shouted by the protesters to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon would invalidate the victory they are claiming, even as they know this victory is impossible.

Ten observations on the margins of the Arab crises
Ahmed Abul Gheit/Al Arabiya/February 07/18
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.
Frank dialogue between Arab countries on the crises and threats is the only way to form a united and firm stance that would lead the Arabs to a position of power against their adversaries
Strategic void
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.
‘United strategy’
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.
Common threat
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.
Political ideas
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.