LCCC ENGLISH DAILY NEWS BULLETIN
March 23/2018
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.march23.18.htm

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

Is the United Kingdom an Islamist Colony?
Tom Quiggin/Gatestone Institute/March 22/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12049/britain-islamist-colony
If the gang members were "Asian," records were not kept. Such is the cowardice and criminal negligence of the police involved.
These Sharia courts mean that the legal system of a foreign political ideology, Islam, has created a parallel legal system in which Sharia is placed above English common law. It is thought that some 30 to 85 Sharia courts are operating in England and Wales alone.
"The Muslim Brotherhood's foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterises Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project." — Prime Minister David Cameron, 2014, regarding a report withheld from the public [Emphases added].
The United Kingdom, once an imperial power, now sounds more like a colonial vassal. The actions of British government officials suggest that the will of the government has collapsed in the face of terrorist and ideological assaults by the forces of political Islam. The ideology is being spread by, among others, the Muslims Brotherhood, according to a major report of the British government itself. A number of Muslim Brotherhood front groups have been identified as such by government reports such as those of the United Arab Emirates. These include the UK based Cordoba Foundation, the Muslim Association of Britain, and Islamic Relief UK. All three of these organization are listed as terrorist entities in the United Arab Emirates as well.
Those officials who have submitted to the Islamist cause include Prime Minister May, formerly the Home Secretary, who had responsibility for police, immigration, and intelligence activities. Having been Home Secretary from May 12, 2010 to July 13, 2016, she cannot argue she is unaware of the UK's internal problems. She was also Home Secretary when the damning Jay Report on the mass rape of girls in Rotherham was made public.
The problem has become so widespread, it can now be asked if the British government has moved into a colonial mindset. In other words, the UK now appears to have the status of a dhimmi: those who live in Islamist conquered lands but through submission are allowed to keep their original faith. The British government appears more willing to respond to the demands of the Islamist ideological offensive than it does to protecting its own subjects against mass rapes, honour killings, Female Genital Mutilation, terrorist attacks and the generalized oppression of women by Sharia councils (courts).
After the June 2017 Islamist terrorist attack, which killed seven persons, Prime Minster May appeared in public and stated that "enough was enough." She said that there was "far too much tolerance of extremism." On the surface, it appeared that the Prime Minister had actually had enough of the Islamist ideology, extremism and terrorism in the UK.
Alas, the words turned out to be just the usual empty platitudes from No 10. Shortly after the PM's statement, Hezbollah and Hamas flags were openly flown in London during the Al Quds Day March on June 18, 2017. Not only did the UK government fail to attempt to stop this Hezbollah inspired march; the UK police assisted them by providing security and protection.
It is not just the Prime Minister who is the problem. In Manchester last May, after the suicide bombing which killed 22 and injured hundreds at the door of a music concert, the mayor, Andy Burnham, had some advice: what was needed was for everyone to "work together" and "terrorists will never beat us." Mayor Burnham also said that the best plan was to "carry on with day to day life". How come he failed to say that the best plan was not to "carry on"; that perhaps the best plan was to cease submitting to the will of a foreign ideology and act to counter its schools, proxies, fundraisers, apologists and front groups?
The problem in the UK is not just the fear instilled in the body politic by terrorist attacks. The well-documented sexual assaults by South Asian and Muslim mass-rape gangs attacking children in the UK is another major crime wave crushing the confidence of the British in their own government.
In March of 2018 another coverup was exposed concerning a series of mass rapes, druggings, sex trafficking and murders in Telford. The report identifies that the problem began in the 1980s, was identified by social workers in the 1990s; and only in 1996, a resident went to police with information about a key abuser who was selling underage girls for sex Police, social workers, and the town council covered up the widespread abuse for decades as they were afraid of being called "racist." The eleven-year-old girls involved were identified as "prostitutes" as though children can even be said to make such a choice. If the gang members were "Asian," records were not kept. Such is the cowardice and criminal negligence of the police involved.
The counter-extremism think-tank Quilliam, run mainly by Muslims of South Asian origin, says that 85% of those convicted of mass rape are of South Asian origin. Seven in ten of those convicted are believed to be of Pakistani-Muslim heritage. Of note, Asians make up only 7% of the total UK population.
The first major case of rape gangs grooming children apparently took place in Rotherham, UK. The Jay Report noted that some 1,400 mainly white children, aged 11 to 14, had been drugged, raped, and forced into sexual slavery while being trafficked throughout the region between 1997 and 2013. A variety of civic officials, town councilors, police, and the local Member of Parliament had evidently been aware of the abuse for years but had remained silent. Those who spoke out were silenced.
In the English town of Rotherham (population ca. 258,000), at least 1,400 children were sexually abused by a gang of Muslim men of Pakistani descent.
Three of the previous inquiries from 2002, 2003 and 2009 had found similar issues, but those reports were "effectively suppressed." At the time, UK Home Secretary Theresa May described it as "institutionalized political correctness." The Member of Parliament for Rotherham, Denis McShane, said that as a "Guardian reading lefty," he thought that there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that.
The mass rape problem is endemic but is not limited to Rotherham and Telford. It has also affected, among others places, Bristol, Derby, Rochdale, Peterborough, Newcastle, Oxfordshire, Bradford, Keighley, Banbury, Halifax, Leeds, Birmingham, Norwich, Burney, High Wycombe, Dewsbury and Middlesbrough.
The common link in all these cases is that the grooming gangs are of south Asian origin and that the responsible authorities chose silence over the risk of "offending" them by appearing racist or "Islamophobic." If mass rape of a country's children over a period of decades is not enough to force a government to act, the question is, what is?
Silencing Dissent
Meanwhile, as reports of the latest mass rape scandals in Telford were spreading, Brittany Pettibone and Martin Sellner were attempting to enter the United Kingdom. They had planned to present themselves at the Speaker's Corner in London's Hyde Park and to interview Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League. Martin Sellner is a well known Austrian activist and student who is also the leader of the "new right" Identitarian Movement. Brittany Pettibone is a self-described "American nationalist". Both were refused entry by UK officials on suspicion of "inciting hatred and tension between local communities".
The eminent scholar of Islam Robert Spencer was also banned from entering England in 2013, at the same time as "the UK Home Office admitted the Pakistani Muslim cleric Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri, whose preaching of hatred and jihad violence is so hardline that he is banned from preaching in Pakistan.
Dr. Martin Parsons, head of research at the Barnabas Fund, which helps Christians escape persecution, pointed out that Britain grants visas to Islamic leaders who demand the execution of Christians accused of blasphemy against the Islamic faith, and it routinely grants asylum to senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood despite the fact that they repeatedly incite violence against the Egyptian Coptic Christians.
This month, Canadian citizen Lauren Southern was also detained. Ms. Southern is a political activist and Internet personality with known right wing views. She had run for the Libertarian Party in the 2015 Canadian federal election and worked for Rebel Media. Her entry to the UK was refused as she poses a threat to the "fundamental interests of society" and was further identified as a threat to the "public policy of the United Kingdom." She was denied entry under anti-terrorism legislation (Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000) even though no association to terrorism was made.
The UK government seems incapable of tackling the mass rape gangs in the UK and yet they willfully allowed Youssef Zaghba to enter the UK, despite his being on a security watchlist and authorities warned that he was a terrorist. Mr. Zaghba then proceeded to help carry out the terrorist attack in June of 2017 on a London Bridge.
The same UK government, however, stops journalists and activists from entering as they are supposedly a threat to the "fundamental interests of society."
Women and Power
Ironically, even women in positions of power such as Prime Minister May submit to jihadi threats and aid in silencing the ensuing criticism. Another example, Joyce Thacker, was the £130,000-a-year (USD $180,000) Strategic Director of the City of Rotherham's children's services department for five years, while the ongoing rapes and sex trafficking of eleven to fourteen-year-old girls was proceeding apace. Not only did the child services department do nothing to help the 1400 girls being raped and forced into prostitution, she and others went out of their way to silence anyone who tried to speak out against it. The reason for the enforced silence over a period of years was identified in the UK government report as "institutionalized political correctness." Of note, Joyce Thacker, after being exposed, received a £40,000 pay-off from the local Labour-run authority when she left her position.
Female Labour Member of Parliament Naz Shah also apparently supports the position of the rapists over that of girls who were raped. In a rather startling tweet, she stated that the abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need "shut their mouths for the good of diversity." For her, the ideology of diversity is more important than the mass rape and trafficking of girls.
The female head of the London Metropolitan Police Force, Cressida Dick, has also tried to downplay the mass rape of girls by stating that rape gangs have "been part of our society for centuries." The problem with her statement is that no evidence exists to support her position.
In addition to women in government who hold such toxic positions on the rape of girls, it seems that Lily Allan, a British singer, actor and TV presenter, also does. When she was questioned on the idea of whether thousands of young British girls (11 to 14) would have avoided being raped if their rapists had not been allowed to immigrate into the UK, she replied, "Actually, there's a strong possibility they would have been raped and abused by somebody else at some point. That's kind of the issue."
Free Speech Crushed
The Lord Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, claims that the London Met Police are heavily engaged in the attacking hate crimes. This appears to have been confirmed by the London Met who stated on their own website that "Currently, we have over 900 specialist hate crime investigators working across London's dedicated hate crime Community Safety Units (CSUs)." These officers are apparently working on "hate crimes" such as Facebook postings and other social media platforms, while London suffers from terrorist attacks, acid attacks, moped gang swarmings and an increasing number of young people dying in the emerging plague of knife crimes. The question must be asked about priorities here and whether the Mayor and the London Met are more interested in tackling real crimes or in suppressing the blow-back they create.
The UK's Two Legal Systems
It has become a common practice that marriages in some mosques in the UK are not registered with the civil authorities. When Muslim women living in the UK are faced with issues of child support, divorce and wife beating, they often find that their marriage was not legally recorded.
When they try to work with Sharia tribunals, these women then find out they have few rights and are often told that the fault is their own and they need to return to their abusive husbands. As reported in The Telegraph:
"When Aisha approached a Sharia council in the UK about divorcing her husband, she faced a barrage of questions. 'Have you been supportive to him?' she was asked. 'Are you meeting his needs? Cooking and cleaning?' She was told to go back and be 'a better wife'. Her husband had repeatedly assaulted her."
These courts mean that the legal system of a foreign political ideology, Islam, has created a parallel legal system in which Sharia is placed above English common law. It is thought that some 30 to 85 Sharia courts are operating in England and Wales alone.
Female Genital Mutilation
Girls in the United Kingdom are being taught to put spoons down the front of their underwear if they fear they are being shipped to Africa or South Asia to suffer Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) at the hands of their parents. The spoons will trigger metal detectors at the airport and allow the girls to explain to security (in private) why they fear going abroad.
Thousands of cases of FGM have been reported with little being done. Some 5,500 cases of FGM were reported in 2016 alone, including 1,268 newly recorded cases from October to December of 2016 compared with 1,240 in the previous quarter. No cases have been successfully prosecuted and only one has gone to trial, despite the practice being banned more than 30 years ago. Why does the UK government fear attacking such an issue, given that young British girls are being sexually mutilated? Votes?
An Assault on the Basic Principle of the State
Emanuel Kant believed that the "safety of the republic is the highest law" (Salus Rei Publicae Suprema Lex Esto). John Locke argued that what is most important is the security of the people. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that the object of government is the good of the people and that a social contract is required to defend and protect the common good.
The foundation of international law says that each country, or nation state, has sovereignty over its own territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. The basics of the Westphalian state are that two factors are incumbent on a sovereign state: defense of the national territory and defense of the population. This, of course, means enforcing and defending the borders while maintaining in the country an effective security, police and justice system.
Conclusions
When government leaders from the town council to the Westminster Parliament prefer the mass rapes of their own girls to the possibility of "offending" rapists, it can be safely stated that a corrosively submissive attitude has taken over the government. When girls are being advised to put spoons in their underwear to avoid FGM, social standards in the UK have clearly collapsed. When police refuse to record the names of suspected rapists because they are "Asian the outcome of criminal investigations is being enforced not by law but by political correctness. When terrorism rips open the bodies of children and civic officials say that the inhabitants of the town should just "carry on," it is a sign that politicians can no longer govern.
The long-term plan of the Islamists, led by the organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood –the full report on which was suppressed and withheld from the public is coming to fruition.
The UK government is aware of these issues as its own investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood revealed as much. Theresa May was the Home Secretary when this report was released.
Prime Minister David Cameron's statement in 2014 on this issue was:
"Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and activities therefore run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood's foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterises Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project." (Emphases added)
The Muslim Brotherhood does not attempt to hide this objective. Yusuf Qaradawi, identified as the leading inspirational cleric of the Muslim Brotherhood, makes this clear when he states:
"This means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice... Conquest through Da'wa, that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da'wa."
When Theresa May, the Prime Minister and former Home Secretary of the UK, will not take substantive action against any of this ideological and physical assault, it is reasonable to say that the decades long incursion on the British government by Islamist ideologists is likely gaining ground. Little to no action is being taken against the proxies, charities, fundraisers and front groups, even though they are generally well known and have even been identified by other governments which are well placed to make the assessments.
With Westminster brought to its knees, the drive to reduce the United Kingdom to a colonial satrapy seems well underway.
**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.

How Facebook and Social Media Promote Terrorism
Uzi Shaya/Gatestone Institute/March 22/2018
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12041/facebook-social-media-terrorism
The failure by the social media networks to enforce the prevention of terror-related content on their sites is, in fact, a direct violation of the Antiterrorism Act and the Material Supply Statutes; the general public is also in its right to have the protections of the Community Decency Act of 1996 cover content on social media.
The conclusion is that the social media companies are adopting an adversarial case-by-case approach to enforcing a ban on terror incitement on their platforms.
The nature of Islamic terrorism throughout the world has changed in recent years. Alongside the established and organized groups -- such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and even ISIS -- a new and different type terror has been created, one that is nourished ideologically, spiritually, and intellectually by these groups, yet shows no connection -- organizationally or operationally -- to them.
This terror is defined by what we refer to as "lone wolves." These are individuals whose nationalistic motives, religious incitement or psychological needs propel them to commit acts of terror without being a member of an organized group or cell. The one unifying aspect for all these lone wolves is social media.
Social media networks enable any individual to have his voice and his opinions heard so that his proclamations can resonate with audiences that are far-reaching. Unfortunately, the existing freedoms on social media have been manipulated by terrorist groups to create a threat that poses a clear and present danger to citizens around the world.
Terrorist groups around the world have recognized the potential of social media and these networks have become an essential component -- in fact, an unhindered course of action -- in allowing the global terrorist networks greatly to expand the operations of terror groups and their supporters worldwide, and affect billions of people around the world. These operations and activities include disseminating "open messages," the recruitment of new members and supporters, but most importantly to advertise and promote the essence of their terror movement and the glorified aftermath of attacks that they have perpetrated. In the process, the terrorist groups can reach a potential army of a million possible soldiers without any direct connection to them.
This is how lone wolves are born.
Under the guise of protecting free speech, the social media conglomerates have not risen to the challenge of stemming the use of their networks and platforms by terrorist entities and have, instead, turned a blind eye to the growing and menacing phenomenon. Equally harmfully, under illusion of virtue-signaling and "political correctness" to show they are not "racist," they have been censoring material that warns the public about these current dangers.
As a direct result of several high-profile terrorist attacks and the outcry from victims, along with an increased global profile of ISIS and subsequent legal action brought against these companies, social media networks have only marginally addressed the issue of limiting terrorist recruitment and incitement on their platforms.
Sadly, it must be noted that these efforts are neither timely nor aggressive enough to stop the use of these platforms to promote terror, and stem solely as preemptive efforts to stop public outcry and legal action.
The social media networks have the ability and the means dramatically to limit the manipulation of their services by terrorist groups, but they do not exercise this control. Instead, they rely on users to report any unsavory activity. The social media networks continue to permit terrorist groups to use their services openly and brazenly to promote their groups and their hate-filled doctrines. The propaganda arms of many terrorist organizations continue to use the social media networks, primarily Facebook, to spread their messages to ever expanding audiences. Organizations and individuals who are designated as terrorists on U.S. and international watch-lists are able flagrantly to open social media accounts even though virtually all the social media companies are headquartered in the United States.
The conclusion is that the social media companies are adopting an adversarial case-by-case approach to enforcing a ban on terror incitement on their platforms.
Beyond the rhetoric and the pleas for action, the social media applications have not -- and it appears will not -- self-enforce common-sense restrictions prohibiting terrorist groups from disseminating their radical messages and criminal exploits online, and they continue to shirk their own responsibility for these posts.
The failure by the social media networks to enforce the prevention of terror-related content on their sites is, in fact, a direct violation of the Antiterrorism Act and the Material Supply Statutes; the general public is also in its right to have the protections of the Community Decency Act of 1996 cover content on social media.
It goes without saying that the laws along with their subsequent enforcement must adopt to this fairly new mass communications and mass media reality to force these platforms to assume complete responsibility or else be regulated by the government as if they were a utility, so that this unmitigated threat to the safety of millions of people around the world can be stopped.
Uzi Shaya is a former senior officer in the Israeli Intelligence community; former head of financial warfare operations in the Israeli intelligence community and an expert in social media warfare.
© 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.

The US liquidates its two main Mid East air bases at Incirlik and Al-Udeid
DEBKAfile/March 22/2018
Plans to speed up the transfer of the big US CENTCOM base in Qatar to Saudi Arabia were approved by President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Muhamed bin Salman when they met at the White House on Tuesday, March 20. This is an earthshaking event for the Middle East, which far transcends US-Saudi relations, say DEBKAfile’s military sources.
They also disclose that, despite repeated denials, the Trump administration is in the process of another momentous move, packing up its air force and quitting Incirlik in southern Turkey, the biggest air base in the region.
The two moves are interconnected. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has become an avid supporter of the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is locked in a feud with the Saudi rulers. Turkey recently established a large military base in the oil emirate. The Saudi Crown Prince and his ally, the UAE ruler Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, are close friends and President Trump’s leading allies in the Gulf region. The two Gulf rulers view the Turkish president and Qatari emir as arch-foes.
The relocation of the two US bases stems additionally from the sharp reduction in fighting against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. There is therefore less need for US air force operations in those parts. The US facilities and aircraft based in Incirlik are already being shifted to bases in East Europe, our military sources report. The Pentagon is also looking at Andravida in southern Greece as a replacement for Incirlik.
US installations are being shipped out of Al-Udaid in Qatar to the Prince Sultan Air base in central Saudi Arabia near Al Kharj, which lies 77km south of Riyadh. Fifteen years ago, this base was the main US air force hub for the oil-rich Gulf region, home at times to more than 60,000 US service personnel. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and captured Baghdad, the Saudi rulers insisted on the evacuation of US troops. Now they are returning.
The relocation of the two big US air bases in the Middle East is bound to shake up the region’s strategic dynamic. American soldiers are now in place to defend the Saudi kingdom. This will no doubt convey a clear message to Iran that the Trump administration has the back of the royal regime in Riyadh.

On Syrian reactor, how about some modesty, gentlemen?
Alex Fishman/Ynetnews/March 23/18
Op-ed: Suddenly, years after the strike on Syria's nuclear reactor, everyone claims to have been there. They all offered advice, planned, sat in the ‘pit,’ knew and said something to someone at the top. Luckily, the ego trip festival was momentarily interrupted by former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, who reminded us that the Deir ez-Zor affair was an intelligence fiasco.
Our fears have been realized. It seems the story of the Israeli strike in Deir ez-Zor is going to leave behind a pile of mud: Smearing, gossip and mutual accusations.
Within a single day, the strike turned into the modern version of the legendary Altalena ship. Suddenly, years later, everyone claims to have been there. They all offered advice, they all planned, they all sat in the “pit,” they all knew and said something to someone at the top. There wasn’t a single moment on Wednesday when I didn’t hear the word “I”: I said, I decided, I was at the prime minister’s home, I was sent, I was the only one who knew that everyone was wrong. It was me, me and me.
Luckily, the ego trip festival that took place here on Wednesday was momentarily interrupted by former Mossad Director Tamir Pardo, who reminded us that the emperor has no clothes. Because the Deir ez-Zor affair was, first of all, an intelligence fiasco.
The al-Kibar reactor. If it wasn’t for the Mossad’s intelligence division, which managed to bring the golden piece of information at the very last moment, we would be dealing with a Syrian nuclear reactor today
The al-Kibar reactor. If it wasn’t for the Mossad’s intelligence division, which managed to bring the golden piece of information at the very last moment, we would be dealing with a Syrian nuclear reactor today
The people who were in charge of the intelligence information, of providing the warning, the people who were supposed to prevent a situation in which Israel would face an existential threat—those people failed. And those were more or less the senior General Staff members who had been responsible for the colossal “success” in the Second Lebanon War, under the same prime minister.
Wednesday’s show was an opportunity for all those who weren’t particularly flattered by the Lebanon war’s legal and professional commissions of inquiry to rehabilitate themselves while receiving a share of the credit cake.
The State of Israel invested a fortune in intelligence, agents, satellites. Every Syrian division was surveyed microscopically. But they knew nothing about a nuclear project that was being built in Syria for six years, with external aid.
Today, everyone says that they knew, they suspected, they started checking in 2004. Nonsense. They accidentally stumbled upon North Koreans. If it wasn’t for the Mossad’s intelligence division, which executed a series of operations which were mostly unsuccessful, and managed to bring the golden piece of information at the very last moment, we would be dealing with a Syrian nuclear reactor today.
So exercise some modesty, gentlemen—the politicians, the retired generals, the deputies and the rest of the people who were in on the secret and are now devouring the credit.
Censorship played an instrumental role in this story. When an appeal was made to the High Court of Justice about two years ago to release interviews that former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and late Mossad Director Meir Dagan had given to Channel 10, the Military Censor faced a dilemma. The High Court agreed to keep the gag order in place, but recommended looking into the possibility of clearing some parts of the affair for publication.
The military censorship took its time, and when the officials in charge of confidentiality in the security systems asserted that there was no longer a threat in the affair’s publication, it was decided in November 2017 to clear it for publication. The implementation of this decision was postponed too under different excuses, primarily operational events in the north which the publication might have exacerbated. Olmert’s book waited for an implementation of the decision too.
Contrary to claims made by Knesset members, secrets related to the operation which the defense establishment wishes to keep confidential have not been revealed so far, but the whole affair did inflict damage on the Israeli society.
Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, currently on a trip to Africa, said Wednesday that he regrets letting the censorship release the story. He’s right. He had been thinking in terms of deterrence against the Iranians and in terms of morale ahead of the State of Israel’s 70th Independence Day celebrations. He just failed to consider the fact that Israel, as late legendary Air Force Commander Benny Peled once defined it, isn’t a state yet but a small remote Eastern European town. It’s only in a shtetl that an event with such important national, operational and deterrence implications can turn into an opportunity to settle small scores and express so much hatred.

Exporting Iran’s Revolution’: A pleasant euphemism for regional chaos
Mohammed al-Sulami/Al Arabiya/March 22/18
In an article published on lobelog.com, “Does Iran’s Constitution Promote the Export of the Iranian Revolution?” February 27, 2018, Eldar Mamedov stated that “exporting the revolution” of Iran is essentially baseless allegations with no clear origin, denying the presence of any constitutional articles concerning this issue in the Iranian constitution. In the same article, however, Mamedov contradicts this statement, writing that the closest the Iranian constitution comes to the idea of exporting the revolution is in the constitutional preamble in the paragraph, which states: “The constitution provides a basis for the continuation of this revolution both inside and outside the country to build one single nation in the world.” Despite these mutually contradictory statements, Mamedov justifies this paragraph in the constitutional preamble by asserting that it is simply theoretical and should be categorized more as a declaratory principle than as a straightforward statement. This suggests that Mamedov lacks basic knowledge about the general values and principles underpinning the Iranian constitution.
In another section of his article, Mamedov states that Iran’s constitution includes no “judicial order about exporting the Iranian political system,” which he says raises an important question about the relationship between constitutional provisions and judicial orders or rules of law. In fact, constitutional provisions are prescriptive and concern general principles while the rules of law change these provisions into bills, procedures, and policies.
Selective retrospection
From reading Mamedov’s article, it seems that he is attempting to retrospectively and selectively ‘reimagine’ the constitution to make it appear more palatable to external perceptions in defense of the Iranian regime. In another instance, he quotes a clause from Article 154 of the Iranian constitution, “Iran completely abstains from any kind of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations” – whilst omitting to mention the preceding text elsewhere in the same article, which focuses on Iran’s “supporting the just struggles of the oppressed against tyrants anywhere in the globe.”
Mamedov also dismisses that part of the Iranian constitution preamble, which mentions the “continuation of the revolution both inside and outside the country” and avoids reference to those sections in Articles 152 and 154 that clearly promote the principle of exporting the Iranian revolution. In order to ensure objectivity and impartiality on the observer’s part, if we are to give credence to Mamedov’s assertion that this “export of the revolution” is only theoretically implied and that the goal of the 1979 revolution was simply to provide moral support for the oppressed, we must disregard numerous Arab, European and American analysts’ understanding of the Iranian regime’s nature and the constitution’s provisions, as well as the understanding of Iranian dissidents, who have covered this subject in exhaustive detail, formulating diametrically different interpretations to those of Mamedov.
Disseminating the Iranian regime’s ideologies
In order to assess Mamedov’s interpretation, we must analyze the statements by senior Iranian regime officials and prominent figures involved in the revolution, as well as examining the methods by which Iran claims to have exported its revolutionary principles, and the results of this export. It’s necessary to ask whether this dissemination of the regime’s Islamic revolutionary ideology has been solely intended to provide humanitarian and moral support or if there is a less wholesome, more expansionist objective behind this core constitutional principle. If Mamedov acknowledges these verified statements, will he recognize the conclusions which inevitably result from them?
To begin, the preamble of the Iranian constitution state, “People strive to build an ideal model society reliant on Islamic principles. Hence, the message of question that arises here in the constitution is to create ideological grounds for development and find suitable circumstances to teach people the highest Islamic international values.” This clearly indicates that the regime is aspiring to create a “model” society and state embodying the supposed Islamic ideal to inspire emulation. Indeed, Velayat-e Faqih (Leadership of the Jurist) doctrine, which is the foundation of the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran is quite literally the direct translation of this theoretical principle; the state is founded upon and centered on the Islamic Jurist’s leadership. According to the constitution, this model establishes an ideological regime and form of theocratic rule under which the powers of the Supreme Leader extend universally, bringing all the world’s Twelver Shiites under his rule. These universal powers which transcend all borders pave the way for implementing the principle of exporting the revolution on the ground regionally and globally.
The regular speeches by Iranian regime leadership figures make it very clear that the country’s clerical leadership has not only authorized military forces to spread Iran’s theocratic doctrine, but is promoting this at every level as a core component of its foreign policy.
Based on this fundamental defining element in the regime’s composition, as expressed in its own constitution, it is clear that Iran’s efforts to build and enhance relations with Shiite groups in the region are predicated on an objective of creating a global system of governance, with the Supreme Leader nominally responsible for liberating all oppressed peoples and defeating tyranny, as stated in the constitutional provisions. Indeed, the doctrine of Velayet-e Faqih does not recognize geographic borders, once again helping to endorse its principle of exporting the revolution, both spiritually and practically.
In order to fully understand the principle of exporting the Iranian revolution, it is important to examine the speeches and statements of the Iranian regime’s leaders, including the former and current Supreme Leaders who have imposed absolute constitutional power since the victory of the 1979 revolution. Until his death in 1989, Khomeini repeatedly promoted and endorsed the principle in numerous speeches. In a speech on February 11, 1980, Khomeini said, “We work on exporting our revolution to the world.” In another speech on February 21, 1980, he said, “We have to export our revolution to the world and abandon the idea of forsaking our export of this revolution.” On March 21, 1980, Khomeini said, “We have to do our best to export our revolution to the other parts of the world and relinquish the idea of keeping it within our borders.” On January 9, 1984, Khomeini again underlined the same point when he said, “Being Islamic, our revolution becomes more universal. To us, external activities are not for tactical purposes only, but part of our general policy and our main responsibilities.”
Mahmoud Taleghani, a pioneering iconic figure of the Iranian revolution, said, “Since Islam called for supporting the oppressed on earth, it means that this is an obligation for Iran because it is the home of the oppressed people not only in the Muslim world, but also in every corner of the world.”
This tendency in Iran has not been confined to the Khomeinist fundamentalists but has also been espoused by leading reformists within the regime, such as the Speaker of the Shura Council (Parliament) at that time of Hashemi Rafsanjani, who said on September 23, 1983, “One of our missions is exporting the revolution…it was normal that we exported our revolution to Iraq more than to any other country in the world because it’s the source of our inspiration.” Surely this and countless other statements by the regime’s leaders suggest that the legitimacy of the Iranian revolution, for Khomeini, his companions and the Reformists, was embodied by disseminating the revolution across all borders worldwide?
Meanwhile on the second anniversary of the Iranian revolution in 1981, Khomeini announced the establishment of an extraterritorial ‘international liberation army’ (the ‘army of 20 million fighters’) specifically for international missions, naming it the ‘Quds Force’ in honour of Jerusalem, home of the third holiest site in Islam, Aqsa Mosque. In his speech announcing the new force, Khomeini said, “Religion and righteousness must rule. We must not allow these governments to continue in all countries. We have to topple these unjust and treacherous governments.” That bald statement of the regime’s intention to topple foreign governments as a core component of “exporting the revolution” surely indicates that this is no hypothetical objective as stated in Mamedov’s article but is very much a real-world policy. The Quds Force is openly an extraterritorial force established explicitly to export the revolution by force, as clearly outlined in the preamble to the Iranian constitution.
'Purely theoretical'
The aforementioned statements and the regular speeches by Iranian regime leadership figures make it very clear that the country’s clerical leadership has not only authorized military forces to spread Iran’s theocratic doctrine, but is promoting this at every level as a core component of its foreign policy. Iran’s political and military leadership has not only acknowledged the regime’s intervention in regional nations, but openly boasts of its regional influence and control in Arab and non-Arab nations. This overwhelming evidence must make it exceptionally difficult for Mamedov to maintain, as he suggests, that Iran’s export of its revolution is purely theoretical. Meanwhile, the regime’s claim to be exporting the revolution as a means of extending moral support to oppressed peoples is strained to the point of wild implausibility by the alleged involvement of Iranian troops and militias in multiple crimes against humanity across the region, including large-scale ethno-sectarian cleansing. Iran’s claims to respect the sanctity of national borders are contradicted by its own forces’ disregard for these borders.
For example, the Commander of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jafari said in September 2012 that Iran had dispatched senior military advisors to Syria to support President Assad. Another senior officer in the IRGC, Hussein Hamedani said in May 2014 that Iran was fighting in Syria to defend the interests of Khomeini’s revolution, asserting that Tehran was ready to dispatch 130,000 Basij elements to fight in the Arab nation; Hamedani himself was killed in fighting in Syria a year later. The Commander of the aforementioned Quds Force, General Qassem Suleimani, said, in 2015 that the indicators of exporting the Iranian revolution were spread all across the region, from Bahrain to Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and extending to North Africa.
In January 2016, meanwhile, the General Commander of the IRGC, Major General Ali Jafari acknowledged the presence of around 200,000 fighters linked to the IRGC in five countries- Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Even before the beginning of the Arab Spring, Iran’s former Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Velayati, now a close advisor to the Iranian Supreme Leader on international affairs, said in 2010, “Our southern coast, the Gulf, Hormuz Strait, and Ajman are our most important strategic borders. To us, these are vital territories we cannot ignore.” The commander of Iranian ground forces, Ahmad Reza Bordistan, spoke at some length at the start of 2016 about the presence of Iranian army elements in Iraq, who he explained were working in coordination with the Iraqi government.
Mamedov also apparently failed to notice Iran’s mobilization of tens of thousands of military and non-military personnel in Syria, Iraq, and other nations, even this was acknowledged and even the subject of some bragging by various Iranian senior officials, with Commander Suleimani Qassem Suleimani appearing regularly on TV posing with Iranian troops and proxy militias on battlefields in these countries. How might Mamedov explain the announcement on August 18 2016 by the IRGC Commander in Syria, Brigadier Mohammad Ali Falaki, of the formation of a cross-border Shiite military force under the name, the ‘Shiite Free Army” in Syria under the leadership of Qassem Suleimani?
Mamedov might also be hard-pressed to come up with a convincing explanation of the distinctly non-theoretical deaths of hundreds of Iranian troops in fighting in Syria and Iraq in recent years, including senior military officers such as Generals Hussein Hamedani, Hamid Taqavi, and Sadiq Yari. Speaking about Taqavi’s death in Iraq, the chairperson of Iran’s Higher Council for National Security, said, “Had the blood of the people like Taqavi not been shed in Samara, we would have shed blood here in Iran.”
While Mamedov also claims to be unable to find even a single document proving the Iranian regime’s role in the establishment of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the open acknowledgment and even celebration of Iran’s central role in Hezbollah of the group’s leaders and their regular photo-ops alongside Ayatollah Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials offer irrefutable evidence of the symbiotic relationship between Iran’s regime and the Lebanese group.
The UN’s report issued at the beginning of 2018 detailing Iran’s violation of the 2015 Security Council Resolution 2216 which banned the sale of weapons to the Houthis, the late former Yemeni President Saleh, his son, and to all Iranian proxy militants in Yemen provides yet more extremely clear evidence of Iran’s region-wide ‘export of the revolution’ by military force.
In order to maintain his suggestion that Iran’s export of the revolution is hypothetical, Mamedov also has to disregard the 2017 letter from Ayatollah Khamenei, to the Iraqi Prime Minister, instructing him to declare the Iranian-funded Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) or Hashd Shaabi as officially part of the Iraqi army, which has now been confirmed.
According to all the well-documented statements, quotes and reports cited above, which are only a small sample of the available information cataloguing Iran’s massive military and political intervention across the region, it is clear that only by disregarding facts and evidence can one claim that the Iranian regime’s export of its revolution is theoretical. Whilst one might argue with the Iranian regime’s definition of revolution and point out that what Iran’s regime is actually exporting chaos and oppression, Mamedov can only maintain the fiction that the Iranian regime’s regional involvement is theoretical by ignoring the reality and discounting the regime’s own statements.

How culture and arts enhance Saudi diplomacy
Hassan Al Mustafa/Al Arabiya/March 22/18
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent visits to Egypt and Britain were of political, economic and security significance as they addressed matters that are often discussed between governments through the usual official channels, i.e. ministries of foreign affairs, economy, defense and others.
What was interesting were the cultural activities that accompanied these visits particularly the activities sponsored by the MiSK Foundation through its several cultural initiatives, visits, forums and discussions. This is in addition to forging partnerships and agreements with museums, research institutions and various scientific and technical companies. Arts and cultural activities strengthen countries’ foreign policies and pave the way for new areas of cooperation which other fields, like politics and economy, cannot do. This is because arts and culture reinforce common values between people
Diplomacy of art
These initiatives led by MiSK are nothing new as the foundation has done them in the past, like the event it organized at the World Economic Forum in Davos to acquaint the audience with the culture and traditions of the Arabian Peninsula.
The Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information also organized musical evenings, fine arts exhibitions and cultural forums. All of these events show the intellectual and aesthetic aspects of the Saudi society, which was hijacked by extremism and which fundamentalism sought to silence for years.
The MiSK Foundation initiatives may be more bold and eclectic than other government initiatives since they cut through the bureaucracy and have a clearer vision than other institutions. MiSK also includes the dynamism of young cadres that allows it to grow faster than other institutions.
Enhancing citizen potential
All these initiatives are important for strengthening the values of the new Saudi Arabia, which seek the development of Saudi citizens and to enhance their potential, making them capable of effectively contributing to the change taking place in the country. These initiatives are thus an effective tool in forging foreign relations, not just in strengthening the kingdom internally. Arts and cultural activities strengthen countries’ foreign policies and pave the way for new areas of cooperation which other fields, like politics and economy, cannot do. This is because arts and culture reinforce common values between people and create powerful, sustainable partnerships that go beyond borders, sects or races. Modern diplomacy should have a strong vision for culture, art and civil society institutions and for their role in resolving conflicts, easing tensions, making alliances and strengthening relations inside the state. Certainly this is not only a marketing campaign or a public relations exercise. It envisions a long term partnership, a sharing of experiences and an opportunity where the youth can build the world the way they see it. The youth have the wisdom of previous generations and an eagerness to take risks without fear of losses. This is the innovative spirit and the most important element of diplomacy.

Menace of corruption and election showdown in Malaysia
Dr. Azeem Ibrahim/Al Arabiya/March 22/18
Malaysia was once one of only two fully developed Muslim countries in the world, alongside Turkey. But in recent decades, economic progress has stalled, and the country’s politics has descended into farce.
Government corruption is a good measure of how developed a country and a society are. Developed countries have relatively low tolerance for corruption. What is more, open, transparent and uncorrupted politics is a good indicator of future economic development. Whereas a politics that descends into corruption is a portend of a slowing economy, as well as of future social disruption.
Malaysia may become emblematic of either one of these dynamics. For the Malaysian government has, in recent years, distinguished itself as the perpetrator of the most brazen incident of corruption in modern history that we are aware of: the 1MDB Affair.
In this scandal, still incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razak set up 1MDB as a sovereign investment vehicle all the way back in 2009, and seeded it with taxpayer money. Since then, some $4.5 billion have gone missing from the sovereign wealth fund.
And some $681 million have materialized in the Prime Minister’s private account in the same period – income that has not been accounted for, and which the Prime Minister, when pushed to explain it, suggested it was a no-strings-attached donation. To say nothing of the various other sums that appeared in the private accounts of some other members and friends of the Prime Minister’s family.
If the people of Malaysia choose to punish the blatant corruption of their current leaders and resist these leaders’ attempts to buy them off, they can put their country back on the path of progress
Political landscape
You would expect that such a scandal would upend the political landscape in Malaysia – an ostensibly democratic country. And you would be almost correct.
Certainly the people of Malaysia have been up in arms and on the streets for the past two years since these revelations became public, including a rally in 2016 that drew thousands of yellow-clad protestors into Kuala Lumpur’s usually docile streets.
But despite all this, the Prime Minister is expecting to be re-elected in the upcoming general election in Malaysia. And not for being extraordinarily popular.
In the previous general election in 2013, Najib’s Barisan Nasional party won 60 percent of the 222 seats in parliament. This despite the fact that it won only 47 percent of the vote to the opposition’s 51 percent.
This was courtesy of a severely gerrymandered electoral map. Gerrymandering which the incumbent government has had the opportunity to further reinforce in their latest term in office.
The missing billions
But of course, even such gerrymandering cannot guarantee Najib’s political survival. He lost the popular vote to the opposition even before the astonishing revelations of the missing billions, at a time when his personal popularity was over 60 percent. Pollsters now suggest his approval ratings are below 40 percent and potentially as low as 20 percent. A further swing in popular opinion against him is to be expected. So the ruling party is leaving as little as possible to chance: it is currently in an ongoing campaign to buy the loyalty of the civil servants in the public administration with a special bonus promised to them soon after the date of the election. These will be many of the people who will be overseeing the election process and the counting of votes, of course. Other similar cash incentives are being offered to the general population and to segments of the economy. The Malaysian people are thus at a crossroads. This election will be by no means fair. The ruling party’s popularity has been in sharp decline for 10 years. The unlikely alliance between jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed to dislodge the current government throws a major spanner into the gears of conventional wisdom that incumbent rule in authoritarian systems is invincible. If the people of Malaysia choose to punish the blatant corruption of their current leaders and resist these leaders’ attempts to buy them off, they can put their country back on the path of progress and economic development. If instead they choose complacency, things will only get worse.
And who knows if they will be given the same opportunity to re-assess their choice in five years’ time. If I were Mr Najib or any one of his associates, I would certainly not be looking forward to losing parliamentary immunity from prosecution.