Hafiz Saeed has been arrested in Pakistan, along with four other suspects Saeed can be detained for up to 12 months under Pakistan's Anti-Terrorism Act The alleged mastermind of the 2008 terror attacks that left 164 people dead in Mumbai, India, has been placed under house arrest in Pakistan. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed – the leader of Pakistan’s Jamaat-Ud-Dawa (JUD) – was detained in Punjab, Pakistan’s largest province, according to a government statement released late Sunday. Saeed is under detention in the town of Lahore. Four other men – Abdullah Ubaid, Zafar Iqbal, Abdur Rehman Abid and Qazi Kashif Niaz – have also been placed under house arrest in other towns around Punjab. The arrests come in conjunction with the placing of two organizations – JUD and the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation – on a watch list under Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997. All the men were detained for being active members of the organizations and are being held under Section 11-EEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, which gives the government the power to arrest or detain suspects for up to 12 months. Speaking after the arrests, a spokesman for India’s Ministry of External Affairs greeted the news with caution. “Exercises such as yesterday’s orders against Hafiz Saeed and others have been carried out by Pakistan in the past also,” he said in a statement. “Only a credible crackdown on the mastermind of the Mumbai terrorist attack and terrorist organizations involved in cross border terrorism would be proof of Pakistan’s sincerity.” In a video statement released by the JUD, Saeed said the decision to arrest him had been made due to “foreign pressure.” “(Donald) Trump is the new president of the United States who wants to have good relations with (Indian Prime Minister Narendra) Modi,” said Saeed. JUD spokesman Hafiz Khalid Waleed also blamed the US for “putting pressure” on Pakistan to get Saeed arrested, threatening court action as well as street rallies. “We are going to take this matter to the courts and to the streets. We are planning further rallies across the country in protest of this action,” Waleed said, adding that Saeed’s house arrest is for 19 days. Neither Washington nor India have commented on the accusations, but security analyst and director of the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, Amir Rana, says it’s more likely the decision was an internal one. “This arrest was a long time coming,” he says, adding that Saeed has been put under house arrest on two previous occasions, once in 2001 and again in 2003. “This appears to be a genuine effort by Pakistan authorities to combat non-state actors within its borders,” Rana told CNN. India has long called for Saeed’s arrest, for what it says is his involvement in a number of terror attacks on Indian soil. In the past, India says it has provided irrefutable proof of Saeed’s involvement in the Mumbai attacks. Saeed is accused by both India and the US of being responsible for the deadly attacks that struck different locations across Mumbai nearly a decade ago, when a group of gunmen went on a three day rampage, using automatic weapons and grenades to strike hotels, cafes, a railway station and a cinema. The outlawed group, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba – which means “army of the pure” – was widely thought to be responsible for the attacks. According to the UN Security Council, Saeed’s JUD organization is synonymous with the terrorist group and supportive of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Saeed has repeatedly denied any involvement in the Mumbai killings or support for terrorist activities. “Those people who are carrying out violent attacks or are involved in militants activities … are giving the mujahadeen and jihad a bad name,” he said in an interview with CNN in 2012. “I condemn this attack and the innocent lives that have been lost.” He also highlighted Jamaat-Ud-Dawa’s charitable activities and extended an offer of aid to the US in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012 – an offer that was quickly rejected by Washington. The US State Department describes JUD’s mission as the establishment of Islamist rule in India and Pakistan and is offering as much as $10 million for any information that might lead to his arrest or conviction.


Even presidents aren’t immune to some holiday stress. With a bruising week nearly over, President Donald Trump sought to let off steam Friday. From the moment he stepped onto the frozen White House South Lawn with a frown just after 9 a.m., Trump maintained a steady flow of indignation, lashing out at the Russia investigation, urban violence, unchecked immigration, the news media and decisions made by his predecessor Barack Obama, all within a single two-hour span. “It’s a shame what happened with the FBI,” Trump told reporters gathered in scattered flurries to watch him depart aboard Marine One. “It is very sad.” Related article Trump administration envisions peace deal with Western Wall in Israel “They’re spending millions and millions of dollars,” he bemoaned of the special counsel’s Russia investigators, which have been steadily interviewing members of his staff over the past several months. “There is absolutely no collusion.” “What the hell is going on in Chicago?” he asked later in an apparently unscripted aside during remarks at a law enforcement graduation at the FBI National Academy on Friday in Quantico, Virginia. “What the hell is happening there?” “There’s the fake news back there,” he said toward the end of his remarks, pointing to a camera riser at the back of the room. “Look, everybody.” The unleashing capped a week that brought new anxiety for the almost-one-year President. His preferred candidate in Alabama’s special election lost in an upset defeat, lending new fuel to Trump’s fears that his political influence may be waning. To Trump’s pleasure, lawmakers appear on the cusp of passing historic tax cuts. But final passage isn’t certain, inserting a dose of tension into the evergreen-bedecked West Wing. Related article Trump initiated Putin call in the wake of economic praise Related article GOP tax plan: The bill is set. Rubio, Corker back to yes. What happens next? It’s added up to a trying moment for a President still searching for a path out of a controversy-laden year. Trump – who has been anxiously phoning Republican leaders on Capitol Hill for updates on the tax bill – has told his aides he wants a victory lap if the measure is approved. Fond of the White House Christmas decorations, he’s eyed the East Room as a possible venue for a signing ceremony. That looks more and more likely. Friday, holdout GOP Sens. Marco Rubio and Bob Corker said they would back the bill. As he waits, he’s been awash in finger-pointing following Tuesday’s stunning Republican loss in Alabama. People who have spoken to the President say he took Roy Moore’s loss surprisingly well. But in the days since, he’s been flooded with advice from friends and advisers to alternately revamp his political operation, disavow onetime chief strategist Steve Bannon or renew his attacks on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Through all that, some aides and advisers insist Trump’s mood remains upbeat. But his public face on Friday was a not a happy one. “When you look at those documents and how they’ve done that is very, very disgraceful,” he said of the FBI on the South Lawn. “You have a lot of angry people that are seeing it.” A White House official said the “documents” to which he was referring were the text messages exchanged by two top FBI officials lampooning then-candidate Trump in the summer of 2016. After details of the messages came to light this week, conservative media outlets – including Fox News, Trump’s regular soundtrack – have spent hours using them to discredit the FBI’s investigation into Russian election meddling. Trump repeated those talking points on Friday. “I have nothing to do with Russia, everybody knows it,” he said. “That was a Democrat hoax.” Related article Trump on a Flynn pardon: 'Let's see' Minutes later, he conspicuously kept the door open to pardoning his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation: “I don’t want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet,” Trump said. “We’ll see what happens. Let’s see.” Trump’s attorney in the White House, Ty Cobb, later said there was “no consideration being given to pardoning Michael Flynn at the White House.” But Trump’s comment, which did not rule out such a move, underscored the persistent possibility that the President could find a way to short-circuit the Russia investigation, which some of his outside advisers and friends have advocated. In a strange fate of scheduling, Trump was destined next for the FBI Academy in Quantico. The speech, which had been scheduled for weeks, was delivered to a graduating class of local police officers who have completed a training session at the agency’s facilities. Related article 3 awkward pictures that tell you everything about how Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions feel about each other During the hour-long ceremony, Trump was seated alongside his attorney general Jeff Sessions, whom he blames for aggravating the Russia matter by recusing himself from the investigation, and Chris Wray, the FBI’s director. Trump did not repeat his harsh criticism of the FBI during his remarks, but his agitation was readily apparent. He lambasted the nation’s immigration system, declaring that countries “give us their worst people” and mocking a visa lottery system by saying immigrants are picked from a “bin.” And pointing to a reporters in the back of the room, he repeated his criticism of the news media. It was a greatest hits reel of Trump’s red-meat conservatism, delivered inside a federal law enforcement facility rather than a campaign venue. His audience rewarded him with laughter and applause. Trump was still in a valedictory mood after making a quick jaunt in his helicopter to a Marine Corps squadron facility nearby. Regaling helicopter pilots there of his election win, Trump nevertheless insisted the deck had been stacked against him by establishment politicians. “Remember they used to say, ‘There is no way for Trump to get to 270.’  Remember?” he said. “Over and over again. That’s called voter suppression.” “And we didn’t get to 270; we got 306,” he declared, according to a transcript of his remarks, which the press was not permitted to view. “That’s even better, right? So we had an amazing time.”


Pence was responding to a question about the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo The position lines him up more closely with Hillary Clinton Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence called Tuesday night for the US to be willing to use the military to hit the Syrian regime and to establish safe zones to protect civilians. The answer seemingly put him at odds with running mate Donald Trump, who has largely advocated a pullback from foreign conflicts and requiring US allies to take on more of their own defense. It also lines him up more closely with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and his debate opponent, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, both of whom have advocated a Syrian no-fly zone. “The United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo,” Pence said in reference to the besieged Syrian city. “I truly do believe that what America ought to do right now is to immediately establish safe zones,” Pence said at the first and only vice presidential debate, at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia, “so that families and vulnerable families with children can move out of those areas (and) work with our Arab partners in real time to make that happen.” Related video A full minute of Kaine and Pence talking over each other It wasn’t the only time Pence departed from his running mate’s script on foreign policy issues or denied some of Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements. Pence repeatedly criticized Clinton and Kaine for the drawdown of US troops in Iraq, blaming Clinton for failing to negotiate an agreement with Iraq that would have provided legal protections for US troops there. While the Obama administration was not successful in making such an arrangement, Pence didn’t mention that the Obama White House inherited an agreement from President George W. Bush that required all US troops to leave Iraq by 2011 or that the Iraqi parliament had refused to grant US troops legal immunity if they stayed in the country. Moreover, in a 2006 interview with CNBC, Trump said he wanted to see Bush, then still president, “get us out of Iraq, which is a total mess, a total catastrophe, and it’s not going to get any better. It’s only going to get worse.” Pence also denied that he or Trump had ever praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a better leader than President Barack Obama, though both have spoken positively of him and the Indiana governor told CNN’s Dana Bash in September that he was a “stronger leader” than the current occupant of the Oval Office. In Asia, Trump advocated letting US allies deal with the threat of a nuclear North Korea on their own, even suggesting that longtime US partners like South Korea and Japan obtain nuclear weapons themselves. Kaine pounced on this at one point, saying that “Trump believes that the world will be safer if more nations have nuclear weapons.” Related video Pence to Kaine: You would know about campaign insults Pence, for his part, outlined a position that didn’t sound much like Trump’s. The Indiana governor said that “we need an effective US diplomacy to marshal the nations in the Asian rim to put pressure on North Korea,” which is what the Obama administration and its predecessors have favored. The White House, however, has opposed a no-fly zone in Syria. The safe zone would be an area inside the country that the US and allied planes would defend from Syrian or Russian attack. It raises thorny legal problems, because doing so without the host country’s permission means violating international law. And the possibilities for military escalation are very high if a US, Russian or Syrian plane were shot down. At this point, many military experts say a no-fly zone isn’t possible. Trump has said that he would be willing to support a safe zone, but only financially. When asked whether the US should be involved in establishing safe zones, Trump told CBS’ “Face the Nation” in October 2015 that he would “help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.” In that same interview, Trump said he would “love a safe zone for people.” “What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country, go back to where they came from,” Trump said. Clinton called for a no-fly zone in Syria in October 2015, soon after Russia entered the country and started a bombing campaign to help President Bashar al-Assad. Related video Tim Kaine attacks Trump's 'insult-driven' campaign “I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air,” Clinton said in an interview with Boston’s WHDH. The White House has said a Syrian safe zone is off the table because of the enormous military commitment it would take to effectively enforce it and the ongoing responsibility of protecting its borders. Several Pentagon officials have told Congress that the costs would outweigh the benefits because it would increase the risk of a direct confrontation between US forces and Russia or Syria in the skies. President Barack Obama laid out some of the complexities of a no-fly zone in remarks he made in Germany in April. “It’s not a matter of me not wishing I could help and protect a whole bunch of people,” Obama said. “It’s a very practical issue about how do you do it?  And who is going to put on a bunch of ground troops inside of Syria?  And how do you let people in? And who do you let in and who do you let out? And how is it monitored?” Obama said that after multiple talks about a possible safe zone with the Defense Department, “It is very difficult to see how it would operate, short of us essentially being willing to (use) militarily take over a big chunk of that country.” Kaine has said that while he initially supported the administration’s argument against safe zones, by December 2015, he had changed his mind. That month he told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that “the absence of the humanitarian zone will go down as one of the big mistakes that we’ve made.”

US military intervention in Syria (safe zones/no-fly zones)


The Washington Post reported last week that special counsel Robert Mueller has told President Donald Trump’s legal team that his office will likely seek an interview with the President. Trump indicated he might be willing to be interviewed by Mueller’s team, but more recently, he said, “We’ll see what happens.” A high-stakes interview between Trump and the counsel appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and the question of whether there were links to the Trump campaign would be a momentous political and legal occasion. CNN Opinion asked James Gagliano, a retired FBI agent with two decades on the job, and Paul Callan, a former prosecutor, for their takes on whether Trump should meet with Mueller, and if so, under what circumstances. Many legal analysts, including Paul Callan, argue that no skilled attorney worth his salt would ever advise the President to agree to a sit-down interview with special counsel Robert Mueller. The most common – and safest – criminal defense strategy places a premium on limiting exposure for a client. A shut mouth catches no flies, as the old saying goes. But I would argue for a more unconventional legal approach for a wholly unconventional President for these four reasons: First, there is reason to believe that Mueller is not building a strong case against the President on the issue of collusion. The indictments filed against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, and Rick Gates, Manafort’s business associate, were related to conspiracy and money laundering that allegedly took place before their work on the campaign. Meanwhile, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents – ancillary process crimes, which means that there was criminal conduct (lying) related to the investigation of a crime, but not complicity in the crime under investigation. In other words, not one of the aforementioned Trump campaign associates have been charged in an underlying scheme related to illegal cooperation with the Kremlin to sway the election. That’s critical, because it could well mean that Trump only needs to fear potential obstruction of justice charges related to his interactions with his former FBI director, James Comey, or false statement charges if he explicitly lies to investigators. For those inclined to believe the President, who has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence, the sage legal advice would be to help bring the special prosecutor’s investigation to a conclusion. Interviews of targets are generally the final act in a judicial melodrama. By agreeing to meet with investigators and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Trump would help to close this chapter conclusively. And, hopefully, America would move on. Related article Why Mueller banished a top agent to the FBI's 'Siberia' Second, if Trump and his attorneys know more specifics about the case Mueller may be attempting to build against him, they will be better positioned to counter potential allegations. Information is everything in the cat-and-mouse game that is our legal system. In essence, Trump would be following the wise words of Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist, who argued that “if you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” Legal advice from White House lawyers is predicated on speculative analysis, or discerning just what specifically Mueller’s team is focusing its investigation on. Are investigators still fixated on rooting out evidence of a collusive relationship with Russia, or have they abandoned that endeavor and moved on? And if they have moved on, have they expanded the investigative scope, and are they now digging into Trump’s prior business dealings and tax compliance? There’s only one way to find out – agree to an interview to glean as much as possible from the prosecution team’s line of questioning. Related video Trump said "no collusion" eight times yesterday Third, Trump is supremely skilled at “truthful hyperbole,” which he wrote about extensively in “The Art of the Deal.” And he may be able to use that skill to avoid telling the whole truth, without compromising himself legally. For background, Trump defines “truthful hyperbole” as “an innocent form of exaggeration.” And he explains it from a business perspective where imprecise language may be the key to branding, sales increases and profit margins. This surely could serve as an effective means to not fully telling the whole truth, while evading the provable intention of lying when under oath or when speaking with FBI agents. To be convicted of perjury, an “intent” to deceive must be proven. Proving “intent” is also a requirement for obstruction of justice charges. When queried about his questionable instructions to Comey – in which Comey alleges Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” – the President can use “truthful hyperbole” to slip that punch. Comey has described in detail his interactions with the President and quoted him in the infamous memorandum he leaked to The New York Times. And Trump, in response, could simply explain to Mueller’s investigators how he intended for his words to be taken and dismiss Comey’s attempts at intuition. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Finally, by agreeing to a sit-down with Mueller, Trump may ultimately win in the court of public opinion. In other words, he could prove he has nothing to hide, and his supporters would revel in his apparent transparency. And, in fact, if Mueller cannot prove collusion, it will bolster Trump’s argument he is the victim of a political witch hunt and efforts by the media and his political opponents to undermine his administration. This may even garner him additional favor. So, if Trump wants to bring this saga to an end – and maybe even boost his poll numbers – he should agree to speak to Mueller. James Gagliano is a CNN law enforcement analyst and a retired FBI supervisory special agent. He also is an adjunct assistant professor at St. John’s University in Queens, New York. The views expressed in this commentary are his own. Former FBI Special Agent James Gagliano suggests that such presidential testimony might be a good idea. I strongly disagree. Any of Trump’s personal attorneys recommending he submit to questioning by Mueller’s highly skilled team of prosecutors and investigators would be suggesting an action fraught with legal risk. The President’s uncontrolled rhetoric might well position him for impeachment, followed by potential criminal charges. When Mueller is around, silence should be Trump’s golden rule. The ‘sneak preview’ argument Gagliano believes that the occasionally charming President may be able to talk his way out of criminal or impeachable charges because the evidence of “collusion” may be weak. And, in the process, Gagliano argues, Trump could also get a sneak preview of Mueller’s case. In that same vein, the President will have the opportunity to offer an explanation for his numerous suspicious actions. For example, maybe when the President allegedly dictated Donald Trump Jr.’s press release about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians, he really didn’t know that his son  set it up to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from a Russian agent. Of course, to offer that defense, the President would have to throw his own son under the bus. Donald Jr.,  according to his own congressional testimony, discussed the emails setting up the Trump Tower meeting with the President. Though declining to answer detailed questions about the discussion, it appears that either the younger Trump or the President himself deceptively characterized the purpose of the meeting as a discussion of Russian adoption policies. Related article Trump is right about the FBI So, here’s the reality: In the President’s situation, it is only the prosecutors who will get the free look at Trump’s defense case, as he is led to the political gallows. And, in such a meeting, he might be compelled to incriminate his own family to protect himself. Also, as Mueller’s investigation expands beyond Russian meddling, Trump’s “red line” regarding no questioning or investigation of the pre-election Trump Organization, his family business, might be crossed. In other words, Mueller could ask Trump questions that extend far beyond collusion and might prove his involvement or complicity in pre-campaign financial crimes. And if you need any further proof, consider that the No. 2 person selected to run the investigation in the special counsel’s office is a money laundering-fraud expert, Andrew Weissmann. The myth of truthful hyperbole The President actually did use the term “truthful hyperbole” in “The Art of the Deal,” the famous ghostwritten best-seller about his early career. In his own words: “The final key to the way I promote is bravado. … I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration – and a very effective form of promotion.” Being questioned by some of the nation’s top prosecutors and FBI agents is not like selling real estate to a fanaticizing rube waiting to be played. These folks have a word for what the President describes as “truthful hyperbole.” It’s called “perjury” if it happens under oath, or “false statements” if the lying to the FBI takes place in a more informal setting. Both are felonies and impeachable offenses to boot. Related article Trump finally gets the honor he deserves And, remember, the President’s reputation for truth telling is not exactly stellar. Dressing up a lie by calling it “truthful hyperbole” is not a defense; it’s a confession that Trump intentionally used exaggerated facts he knew to be untrue to “play to people’s fantasies” – and, in the process, make money for himself. Though if there is any doubt that the lying is an unusual activity by the President, one need only look at his campaign record and his first months in office. The New York Times recently published a detailed account of what they claim to be more 100 certifiable examples of lies during Trump’s first 10 months in office. All could potentially be used to undermine his credibility. And during the campaign, Politifact published a survey indicating that 70% of Trump’s campaign statements contained verifiable falsehoods. Politico wrote that the results of that survey suggest the “sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent” in presidential campaign history. Since questioning about prior lies would be fair game, the process of preparing the President for a Mueller session would be extraordinarily difficult – and not worth the risk to Trump or his family. The court of public opinion Even if the President can be subpoenaed in the Mueller investigation, a final escape route remains – he could and should plead the Fifth. The conventional political advice is that politicians can’t assert the Fifth because it makes them look like crooks. This advice does not apply to Trump whose baseline supporters, making up as much as 30% to 35% of the electorate, think the federal agents investigating the President are “crooks” out to frame him for daring to attack the entrenched liberal bureaucracy. In other words, if Trump asserts the Fifth, he will not lose the support. In fact, his support may increase.  Under these circumstances, Trump’s attorneys would be wise to advise him not to testify. Whether the unpredictable President will follow such legal advice is anybody’s guess. And who knows? Maybe he’ll be questioned by a friendly FBI agent who believes in “truthful hyperbole” and the value of buildings named “Trump.” Paul Callan is a CNN legal analyst, a former New York homicide prosecutor and current counsel at the New York law firm of Edelman & Edelman PC, focusing on wrongful conviction and civil rights cases. Follow him on Twitter @paulcallan. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.


Pete Hoekstra repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the nature of Muslim communities in Europe Hoekstra was confronted last month by a Dutch reporter with comments he made in 2015 about Islamic "no-go zones The new US ambassador to the Netherlands, who was confronted last month by a Dutch reporter with comments he made in 2015 about Islamic “no-go zones,” repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the nature of Muslim communities in Europe and pushed a hardline view of Islam, a KFile review of his public appearances and writings shows. Pete Hoekstra, a former 18-year Republican congressman from Michigan who served for several years as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, was nominated by President Donald Trump last July to serve as ambassador to the Netherlands and confirmed by the Senate in November. After leaving Congress in 2011, Hoekstra in 2014 joined the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a non-profit group that describes itself as the “world’s most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups.” A KFile review of Hoekstra’s time with the group reveals he claimed on multiple occasions that there are “no-go zones” in European cities and speculated as much as 15% of Muslims are extremists, a number that totals 270 million. He also promoted conspiracy theories asserting longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin had connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and said he considered the possibility that then-President Barack Obama was allowing radical Islam to proliferate on purpose. Hoekstra was also a frequent guest on a radio program hosted by Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist based in Washington who warns of the “creeping” influence of Sharia law worldwide. Hoekstra drew criticism last month for denying in an interview with the Dutch news program Nieuwsuur that he made comments in 2015 asserting that there are Muslim-controlled neighborhoods in Europe that are so dangerous that non-Muslims cannot enter. There is no evidence to support claims of so-called “no-go zones” in Europe. In 2015, Fox News had to issue an apology and a correction for comments made by a pundit on its air claiming the existence of such zones across Europe. That pundit was Steve Emerson, who runs the Investigative Project on Terrorism where Hoekstra served as a fellow. Hoekstra apologized for initially denying he made the remarks in the interview with Nieuwsuur, writing in a tweet that he looked “forward to the opportunity to learn, to listen and to move on in the spirit of peace and friendship with the people and the leaders of the Netherlands.” Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the State Department pointed to Hoekstra’s earlier statement on Twitter. A representative from the White House did not respond to a request for comment. No-go zones: Hoekstra has made false claims about “no-go zones” several times. In a 2016 radio interview, he told Gaffney, “You know there are no-go zones in Europe, areas that you know law enforcement and civil society by the government cannot be enforced, and you know they have become safe havens and sanctuary areas for the radical jihadist movement.” “They are places that, you’re right, these groups can find safe havens. But at the same time, they have allowed the mosques to preach radical jihadism, so the mosques are training centers.” Hoekstra made similar claims in an Internet radio show, on DC local radio and in a NewsMax op-ed he co-authored. In a 2016 speech to activists in Colorado, Hoekstra said there are parts of Europe where Sharia law is allowed. “Look at what’s going on in Europe in large parts of, you know, in many parts of Europe there are, there are, there are little enclaves or areas where they allow for Sharia law,” Hoekstra said. On Islam: In a 2017 radio interview, Hoekstra speculated that as much as 15% of Muslims could be radical jihadists, a number that would total 270 million. It’s unclear where he came up with this figure. “We should recognize that it is a radical jihadist, Islamic force that we face,” Hoekstra said. “Whether it’s 10% of the Islamic community or the Muslim community or whether it’s 15% or whatever the percentage is, it’s a significant number. We need to recognize that this is a threat from people who use religion to motivate their followers, to recruit their followers, and those types of things.” Hoekstra has also derided past US presidents for calling Islam a “religion of peace.” In one video with activist Ginni Thomas in 2016, he said it is “clearly not true” that Islam is a religion of peace. “I mean you hear former President Bush and President Obama now for what 15 years telling us, ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’” Hoekstra said. “The average person on the streets says, ‘whoa there.’ See they’re beheading Christians, there’s you know, there are suicide bombers, they’re taking gays and lesbians and throwing them off the top of buildings, and they’re selling women into sex slavery. That doesn’t kind of look like a religion of peace to me. Now that’s not all Muslims, but that’s that’s what a lot of people are saying. So then they ask the question to say well why would our President be telling us this. It’s clearly not the truth.” Referred to Middle East refugees as “invaders:” Hoekstra twice-referred to refugees from the Middle East as “invaders” on a far-right radio show. “We took a stable part of the world and we turned it into an ungoverned region that is now exporting fighters and weapons and refugees or invaders into Syria, into Iraq, and into southern Europe,” Hoekstra said during a discussion about US involvement in Libya.’ “The Muslim population has been shown ineffective in terms of integrating them into our culture and to really becoming German. And the third thing is ISIS and other groups, and we know this very clearly, they know they have infiltrated the refugees or invaders, whatever you want to call them. They are part of the folks coming,” he added later in the broadcast. Spread false claims about Huma Abedin: At a 2016 conference hosted by Brigitte Gabriel, an anti-Muslim activist whom he has praised and said he was working with, Hoekstra said that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, had “egregious” ties to the Muslim Brotherhood but added there were better examples that connected the US government to the group. Claims that Abedin has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood have been labeled as false and unfounded by fact-checkers from the Washington Post, PolitiFact, and Snopes. “We need to recognize that a lot more has come out about Huma and a lot of this stuff has been known by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and I’ve talked with Steve (Emerson) about this extensively. We don’t believe, as egregious as what Huma Abedin and her connections and her family are, again it’s why we’re doing what we’ve done, the research, we think there are much better examples of making the connection between the US government and this administration and their connections with the Muslim Brotherhood,” Hoekstra said. Hoekstra also shared an article on Twitter that made the unfounded claims, calling it “worth a read.” Said he had considered President Obama might be aiding rise of radical Islam on purpose: In an appearance on a far-right radio show Tru News in 2015, a host asked Hoekstra if he had considered the possibility that Obama was intentionally trying to create safe havens for jihadists. “I’ve considered that possibility,” Hoekstra answered. “That is a frightening thought that we would have leaders in our government who would actually want to create a safe haven for radical jihadists, but that is in effect, what they have done and it’s the result of Hillary Clinton’s policies that have created an arsenal of weapons and the training ground for jihadists.” The host later added that he was “firmly convinced” that it was Obama’s “desired strategy.” “His policies have created an environment where radical jihadism has flourished, is worse on the Arabian peninsula,” Hoekstra said. “It is flourishing in Syria and Iraq, Turkey, and it is flourishing in northern Africa. I was just in Europe a couple of months ago, still have a lot of contacts in Europe. You know the people of Europe are frightened about what to Europe with this mass infusion of people from the Middle East and this president is doing nothing to stabilize or control the events that are going on. Either he’s facilitating, as you would argue, or he’s standing on the sidelines as this is happening.”


FAA call sign for the American Airlines flight carrying Pope Francis in the United States is "Shepherd One." American Airlines is affixing the papal seal to the plane; has a long history of flying popes within the country. The President flies on Air Force One. The Pope flies on “Shepherd One.” That’s the Federal Aviation-approved call sign for the Boeing 777 in which he’ll be traveling around the United States, according to an official from American Airlines, which will be operating the plane. The papal seal will also be affixed to the side of the aircraft, the only major modification that’s planned. However, the flight number will be blocked per a Secret Service request, so the public won’t be able to track its progress. Once Francis wraps up his Washington visit and returns to Andrews Air Force Base on Thursday to head to New York, he’ll ditch the Alitalia jetliner he’s been on and pick up the American Airlines plane. Air traffic control officials will use the name “Shepherd One” when speaking to the American Airlines captain flying the plane. Related video Poll: Most Americans view Pope Francis favorably It’s become customary for the Pope to fly on and return home from official visits on the flag carrier of the country he has toured. The Pope’s aircraft, chartered by the U.S. Conference of Bishops, will fly Francis from Andrews to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and then to Philadelphia International Airport before carrying the pope back to Rome at the end of his first U.S. visit. American Airlines and TWA – which have merged – have a long history of carrying the Pope during visits to the United States. This trip will be the seventh time TWA and American Airlines have flown the Pope around the United States. The plane that carried Pope John Paul II on one of those flights in 1993 – a Boeing 767-300ER operated by American Airlines – is still in operation. It’s scheduled to fly from Miami to Frankfurt, Germany, on Tuesday night.


The ACLU is arguing against the deportation of Iraqis It has expanded an initial complaint covering Michigan and Northern Ohio nationwide The American Civil Liberties Union has expanded a petition to prevent the deportation of Iraqis in Michigan and Northern Ohio into a nationwide class action covering more than 1,400 Iraqis facing removal orders. The ACLU and detainees argue that if the Iraqis were forced to return to Iraq, they would face “persecution, torture, or death.” A hearing is set for Monday morning at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A federal judge on June 22 granted a 14-day stay of removal for more than 100 Iraqi detainees under the jurisdiction of Detroit’s Immigration Customs Enforcement office (ICE), after the ACLU filed its initial complaint on June 15. The stay prevents any of the Iraqis detained by Detroit ICE agents from being deported for two more weeks. It also gives detainees an opportunity to go before an immigration judge and make their case for why they believe they should be allowed to stay in the United States. In his decision granting the temporary stay, US District Judge Mark Goldsmith argued that the potential “harm far outweighs” the government’s interest in immediately enforcing the removal orders, according to court documents. As well as expanding its class action nationwide, the ACLU filed a motion Saturday asking Goldsmith to extend his stay-of-removal order nationwide. It said it had asked the judge for a ruling by Monday because ICE had indicated that it might start deportations as early as Tuesday. ICE last week said it was reviewing the judge’s stay of removal order in the Michigan case and intended to comply with its terms. In its amended complaint, the ACLU said plaintiffs had in many cases been living in the United States for decades. “According to government officials, there are more than 1,400 Iraqi nationals with final orders of removal. “Although most were ordered removed to Iraq years ago (some for overstaying visas, others based on criminal convictions for which they long ago completed any sentences), the government released them, often under orders of supervision,” the ACLU said in its amended complaint. Related article Iraqi Christians in Michigan fear deportation The ACLU said the plaintiffs had been complying with the conditions of their release when “with no warning” ICE began arresting and detaining them because Iraq had agreed to take them back. Iraq recently said it would accept deportees in exchange for being removed from the countries listed in President Donald Trump’s travel ban. That agreement triggered a shift in the focus of ICE raids, according to ICE’s press secretary Gillian Christensen. The office had arrested 199 Iraqi nationals since May, 114 of them from Detroit, Christensen said in a statement earlier this month. ICE says most have criminal records. Over the next two weeks, Judge Goldsmith will try to determine whether or not a federal district court has jurisdiction over the matter in the first place. The US attorney’s office argued that a federal district court did not have jurisdiction over whether or not these Iraqis can be deported. They believe it should be handled by an immigration court, according to Gina Balaya, public information officer for the US attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Michigan. Goldsmith granted the 14-day stay “pending the Court’s determination regarding whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction,” according to court documents. Many of the Iraqis who were detained are Chaldeans, members of an Iraqi Christian group that has historically faced problems in Iraq. The Detroit metropolitan area is home to the largest US group of Chaldeans. Some of them started immigrating to the United States in the 1920s for opportunities and freedom, the Chaldean Community Foundation said. Many faced persecution during the Saddam Hussein era, during the Iraq war and after ISIS seized territory in Iraq. “The court took a life-saving action by blocking our clients from being immediately sent back to Iraq,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case, said in a statement last week. “They should have a chance to show that their lives are in jeopardy if forced to return.”


Donald Trump has beat up more on Jeb Bush than any other GOP candidate "How the hell can you vote for this guy?" Trump said at his 2016 campaign launch Donald Trump has made rhetorical abuse a hallmark of his fledgling presidential campaign, targeting Fortune 500 companies, his critics in the media, candidates in both parties and even his trolls on Twitter. But there’s no one the brash businessman seems to enjoy heckling more than Jeb Bush. In his campaign announcement speech last month, the billionaire questioned Bush’s intelligence, before asking the crowd: “How the hell can you vote for this guy?” Trump has beat up on Bush more than any of the other candidates in the GOP field: In a sit-down with CNN’s Anderson Cooper last week, his derided Bush’s policies as “weak” and a “total disaster.” And earlier this month, Trump took a more personal jab, retweeting the message: “#JebBush has to like the Mexican Illegals because of his wife.” (Trump later said he didn’t authorize the tweet but that he certainly doesn’t regret it). Bush supporters say they are unconcerned about the attacks, at least so far. Some even argue that the contrast between Bush, a seasoned politician with a reserved demeanor, and Trump, a bull-in-a-china-shop ex-reality TV star, is helping to make Bush more presidential. “I think it actually helps Jeb in the long run that a crazy son of a bitch is after him all the time,” said Mac Stipanovich, a Florida lobbyist and longtime Bush supporter. “You can tell more about a man by his enemies than his friends, and if you want to have an enemy in presidential politics, let it be Donald Trump.” RELATED: Trump will skip boycotted Miss USA pageant But Trump allies say that the worst may still be ahead for Bush. Trump’s close associates — all of whom spoke anonymously with CNN to share his private thinking — said his preoccupation with Bush has been years in the making. His grievances, they said, go beyond policy disagreements with Bush over issues like the Iraq War, immigration and Common Core. Described by friends as intensely competitive, Trump has a deep aversion to the idea of a dynasty candidate who might feel entitled to the party’s nomination. Privately and publicly, Trump is known to refer to Bush as “a stiff,” believing that the country badly needs a candidate who can energize the base and that Bush simply “is not a cheerleader,” one person in Trump’s inner circle said. “For some reason they didn’t hit it off. Their styles are totally different,” one Trump friend said. Trump’s animosity towards Bush in 2015 may come as a surprise to those who remember that years ago, the two men seemed to enjoy a friendlier relationship. In the late 1990s, the real estate mogul fundraised for Bush’s gubernatorial campaign in Florida.  And in his 2000 book, Trump referred to Bush as a “good man,” describing him as “bright, tough, and principled,” Buzzfeed reported. Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski downplayed questions about how Trump’s past support for Bush squares with his recent criticism. “Trump gives money to everybody, right? All politicians — and I’ll give you his exact quote — ‘kiss his ass,’” Lewandowski told CNN. “So it’s not a big surprise that Mr. Trump has donated to politicians for the last 30 years because politicians are easy.” In the crowded GOP field, Trump has emerged by far the most aggressive candidate when it comes to attacking other Republicans. He has called former New York Gov. George Pataki a “terrible governor” who “couldn’t be elected dog catcher if he ran again”; blasted former Texas Gov. Rick Perry for failing to control the border; and labeled Rubio “extremely weak” on immigration. But Bush seems to be in a category by himself. On the campaign trail, Trump is using the former governor to highlight his own policy priorities. He’s gone after the way Bush handled questions about the Iraq War — which Trump describes as one of the biggest blunders of George W. Bush’s presidency. “It took him five days to answer the question on Iraq. He couldn’t answer the question,” the real estate developer boomed at his campaign launch. “I said, ‘Is he intelligent?’” There is perhaps no other issue that Trump has spoken more passionately about as a candidate than immigration. He’s vowed to build an “impenetrable” wall along the country’s southern border and sparked national outrage by saying that “criminals” and “rapists” were entering the U.S. from Mexico. Bush is “weak” on immigration and his views are likely influenced by the fact that his wife is from Mexico, Trump told Cooper. Bush, who has repeatedly denounced Trump’s immigration comments, has shrugged off Trump’s viability as a candidate. “I don’t know if he’s having success. We’ll see in the long haul,” Bush told Fox News last week, adding that the party should not focus on “someone who I doubt will be president and is not a constructive force for our party.” A Bush spokesperson told CNN that the ex-governor is “focused on his message and connecting with people around the country.” Iowa State Sen. Charles Schneider, a Bush backer, offered this theory for why Trump is singling out the ex-governor: “Generally speaking, you don’t see someone get attacked by their fellow Republicans unless they are someone who’s sitting at the top of the field and who someone else is trying to tear down.”


The upset bug has struck Rafael Nadal – again – at Wimbledon. When the two-time champion lost to Dustin Brown 7-5 3-6 6-4 6-4 in the second round on Center Court Wednesday, it marked the fourth time in a row he had fallen to a player ranked 100th or lower at the All England Club. In this case, Brown – a dreadlocked German with Jamaican ancestry who once traveled around Europe in a camper van to keep his career going – was a 102nd-ranked qualifier. But he did have history of beating Nadal, last year at a Wimbledon warmup event in Halle. Brown, 6-foot-5, is far from orthodox. He serves and volleys relentlessly, slaps forehands and attempts more than a few drop shots. It mostly all worked, to Nadal’s dismay. “If I would stay back and rally with him left, right, that would not be a very good match for me,” Brown, who sports a tattoo of his dad on his left side, told reporters. “Obviously I try to play my game.” Nadal said he entered Wimbledon in a positive frame of mind, or at least better than what he had felt for much of this season, even after he lost in the quarterfinals at the French Open – a tournament he has won a record nine times – and dropped in the rankings. He triumphed at an event in Germany to begin his grass-court campaign, but was seeded a lowly 10th in southwest London. A stat that would have graced any era... @DreddyTennis #Wimbledon pic.twitter.com/Ux6zutDt9Z Once he relinquished a break advantage in the first set against Brown, the doubts he experienced earlier in 2015 appeared to resurface and parts of his game crumbled. Looking unsure of himself, his serve all but vanished and his once feared forehand went astray. His statistics of 42 winners and 15 unforced errors hardly seemed appropriate. “It’s not the end,” vowed Nadal, the 14-time grand slam winner. “It’s a sad moment for me … but life continues. My career, too. “I have to keep going and working more than ever to try to change that dynamic.” Lukas Rosol, then the world No. 100, eliminated Nadal in the second round in 2012; Steve Darcis, then ranked 135th, sent the Spaniard packing in the first round in 2013; and Nick Kyrgios, at the time the world No. 144, knocked him out in the fourth round last year. This season it was Brown’s turn. “All the kids that play tennis dream about being able to play on that Center Court,” said Brown. “Playing against him there is special. “Also, being able to put that performance together, it was definitely very difficult and I’m very happy that I held it together for the whole match.” Brown – a grass-court specialist if ever there was one – knocked off his second Wimbledon champion in London. After the 30-year-old produced an angled ace on his third match point, he emulated his feat of 2013 when he downed Lleyton Hewitt – like Nadal a former world No. 1, too. Brown hit 13 aces altogether Thursday and won nearly 80% of his first-serve points. Nadal’s loss came as the likes of Roger Federer, Andy Murray and defending women’s champion Petra Kvitova all cruised into the third round on a hot but manageable day at SW19. Wimbledon had record temperatures of about 36 degrees Celsius (97 Fahrenheit) on Wednesday. Brown’s reward is a third-round meeting with Serbian Viktor Troicki, whom Nadal defeated in the Stuttgart final last month. Things didn’t start well for Brown, though. He trailed by an early break. Reversing the deficit made for an obvious turning point in the first set. “After losing the first set, you are under pressure the rest of the match,” said Nadal. A more subtle shift allowed Brown to recover in the third and ultimately take control. With Nadal holding the momentum, the Mallorcan failed to take advantage of a creaking Brown in the latter’s opening service game. He paid the price in the fifth game, broken a point after hitting two double faults in a row. Now facing an uphill battle – and no longer the player who rallied to win two five-setters en route to the crown in 2010 – Nadal fell behind 3-1 in the fourth. He was given a lifeline when saving two match points at 3-5, but after Brown donated a double fault to begin the ensuing game, Nadal didn’t capture another point. Federer, meanwhile, wasn’t really tested against Sam Querrey and not many would have forecast a tight contest to begin with. Federer had only lost prior to the third round at a major once since the middle of 2003 and his 36th-ranked American opponent held a 0-8 record versus top-10 opposition at the grand slams. But if the 6-4 6-2 6-2 result was fairly predictable, Federer’s artistry on one particular stroke Thursday was far from routine – even for him. The Swiss struck what had to be the shot of the tournament with his ‘tweener – or shot between the legs – at 4-2 in the second set. Facing the net, it turned out to be a perfect lob that drew an error. Twitter went into overdrive and Querrey, a laid back Californian, joined in on the praise. “He’s got that aura around him,” Querrey said of the record 17-time men’s grand slam champion. “He hit that shot between his legs. He hit some amazing passing shots, hit some half volleys. “He hits shots that other guys don’t hit. You want to go over and give him a high five sometimes, but you can’t do that.” The ever chilled Federer, who next plays big-serving Aussie Sam Groth, wouldn’t have minded. Murray, who could have encountered Nadal in the quarterfinals, didn’t linger against Dutchman Robin Haase, one of those players Nadal defeated in five sets at Wimbledon in 2010. The 2013 champion cruised 6-1 6-1 6-4. Trying to stop the in-form Scot in the third round is Andreas Seppi. For so long the lone British man who makes the third or even second round at a grand slam, Murray has company this year after wildcard James Ward beat Jiri Vesely. The last time two British men featured in the third round at Wimbledon was in 2002, when, in no surprise, Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski were the duo. Kvitova needed just 35 minutes to overcome Kiki Bertens in the first round. It was 58 minutes against Kurumi Nara – 6-2 6-0 – on Thursday. As for Nadal, despite his loss, he didn’t lose his sense of humor. When asked if he would stay in his premises near the venue and remain in London for a few more days, he quipped: “I don’t have more work in London, so … if you want to use the house, it’s going to be free tomorrow.” Read more on this story at Bleacher Report Who will win Wimbledon? Have your say on CNN Sport’s Facebook page


Kavanagh: Trump is inconceivable as America's 45th president Kavanagh: Trump's Second Amendment comment an intolerable incitement to murder Editor’s Note: Trevor Kavanagh is the Associate Editor and a weekly columnist for The Sun. He was the UK newspaper’s political editor for 23 years and has been writing about British and international politics for more than 40 years. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. The American presidential election has become the longest slow motion political car crash in history, a Washington horror movie with a dangerous ending, whoever wins the White House. That prospect became unexpectedly stark on Monday when Donald Trump appeared to invoke the Constitution’s Second Amendment as grounds for assassination. It was the moment the campaign turned chillingly ugly, although Trump and his campaign have vehemently denied that that was what he meant. Related video Jeff Sessions: Donald Trump didn't threaten Clinton Across the Atlantic, we watch with suspended disbelief as the mighty US coughs up two of the most unlikely candidates for the leadership of the free world. Few are impressed by Hillary Clinton’s jaded mock sincerity – either here or, it seems, in America. She is haunted by a cupboard full of skeletons, real and exaggerated. But in Britain and across Europe, people of all political persuasions hope to God she wins on Tuesday, November 8. Related: The Trump debate: What did he mean? The alternative – braggart billionaire Donald Trump – is simply inconceivable as America’s 45th President. In Britain and Europe, we have our fair share of oddball power-mad politicos, some of them allegedly corrupt and a few you would like to see behind bars. But none could hold a candle to “The Donald.” None are so weirdly wild and devoid of self-awareness or emotional restraint. In our cautious, politically correct environment, none could have survived such misogynistic, racist or otherwise unacceptable outbursts ranging from infantile tantrums to sinister, calculated abuse. From 2,000 miles away, Donald Trump has seemed over the years like a cartoon American tycoon – brash, bullying, braying and not to be taken seriously. Trump Towers stands as a concrete monument to his vulgar bad taste. Exotic Ivana was the perfect adornment – until she herself was Trumped by actress Marla, who in turn was Trumped by model Melania. There are aspects of Trump’s past which are not at all funny. Did that free-flowing concrete come with Mafia strings attached? His route onto the Republican ticket makes a mockery of America’s log-cabin-to-White-House dream. Between them, the Republican and Democratic parties have delivered the finest leaders the world has ever seen. How is it possible that a loudmouth with no safety catch on his shocking opinions can beat all comers for the nomination? How can he be one of only two prospects for leadership of the world’s greatest superpower? Are millions of American voters deaf and blind to the risk of putting this reckless man in charge of the nuclear button? His extraordinarily misogynistic outbursts against female journalists like Megyn Kelly are totally out of order. So is his blundering attack on the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in action. But his apparent suggestion that Hillary Clinton might be shot dead for imposing gun control is by any standards an intolerable incitement to murder. This cannot be brushed aside as any sort of “joke”. America is making tragic global headlines right now for more than just this jaw-dropping political soap opera. It is engulfed by shooting horrors including school massacres and shopping mall atrocities. To the outsider, everyone seems to be armed to the teeth and ready to fire. And police seem to be at war with their own black citizens, many inexplicably shot dead on camera. Europe is having to face up to its own future of mass murders and suicide bombers. But our threat comes from an invasive, brainwashed “culture,” not from our own kith and kin. Related article Trump's gun remarks are his latest dangerous falsehoods America has lost four presidents to the assassin’s bullet and – with President Reagan – almost a fifth. The Second Amendment allows the bearing of arms, but it is astonishing to the non-American world that this is interpreted as a right to build private arsenals of military-style killing machines. It is a racing certainty that some trigger-happy fanatic will miss the “joke” in Trump’s throwaway remark. They will see it as an invitation to take up arms against another US president. Hillary Clinton may soon become America’s first female White House incumbent. Even her worst enemies – including Trump – surely cannot wish to see her go down as the first female president to be assassinated. Trevor Kavanagh is the Associate Editor and a weekly columnist for The Sun. He was the UK newspaper’s political editor for 23 years and has been writing about British and international politics for more than 40 years. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.


A look at Trump's policies to see what kind of U.S. president he'd really be From Mexico "Wall," to ISIS, and Israel, there is perhaps no more polarizing figure in politics It’s hardly a certainty, but it’s now a real and startling possibility – what should the world expect if Donald Trump is elected U.S. president? READ: Is the race for the Republican nomination already over? America’s most unpredictable candidate could turn into America’s most unpredictable commander-in-chief. “We’re not going to be the dummies anymore,” he told supporters in late February. “We’re going to be the smart ones.” Trump has been many things – a billionaire real-estate developer, a brash reality-TV star and a best-selling author. But he’s never held elected office or delved deeply into foreign policy. “I don’t think he’s drawing on a deep reservoir of knowledge on these issues,” said former American diplomat Christopher Hill. “He comes across as someone with a lot of instincts and not a lot of reserve about acting on those instincts.” READ: America’s crazy voting system explained Trump vows to champion U.S. economic strength and military power – “to make America great again,” as he says. He’s giving voice to many voters’ frustrations and fears about America’s place in the world. What he would do about them is sometimes less clear. The centerpiece of Trump’s presidential campaign is the plan to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico as a barrier against illegal migration, criminals and narcotics trafficking. Trump insists Mexico will pay for it. A spokesman for Mexico’s president says his government will not. Whatever the ultimate source of the financing, it would almost certainly involve billions of dollars passing through the coffers of the U.S. government, which only Congress has the authority to approve. And there has been no rush by Washington lawmakers to embrace the plan. Trump vows to “bomb the hell” out of ISIS in Iraq – especially the oil wells it’s captured there – to deprive it of income. In Syria, Trump says he would leave the job of fighting ISIS to the government and – alone among major presidential candidates – he has welcomed Russia’s military support for the regime. Under Trump, the U.S. would also refuse to accept Syrian refugees (and, at least temporarily, all Muslims from anywhere in the world). Instead, he proposes a safe zone for civilians inside Syria that Washington would help fund but other nations would build and defend. Trump would resume the widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding, adding that “it’s not really tough enough.” He’s told voters that “torture works” – and he would also maintain the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and add more prisoners. Trump maintains that the U.S. is being exploited by its trading partners – reserving the worst of his wrath for China. He told the New York Times he plans to impose a crushing 45% tariff on Chinese imports. Trump later denied saying this, but the Times had taped the interview and released the recording. READ: Is Trump hurting the U.S. economy? In 2011, Trump urged U.S. intervention to help Libyans topple Moammar Gadhafi. Last month, he denied it. But once again, there is a recording of his original remarks. Now a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Trump couldn’t explain supportive comments that he’d made about it beforehand. “That was a long time ago,” he told NBC News, “and who knows what was in my head?” Trump subsequently told CNN he changed his mind before the war began. Trump is frustrated with the cost of the U.S. military presence in Europe and the pressure to lead NATO. “Where’s Germany? Where are the countries of Europe leading? I don’t mind helping them. I don’t mind being right behind them,” he said. He also wants South Korea to support more of the cost of its American military protection. “We get nothing for this. I’m not saying that we’re going to let anything happen to them. But they have to help us,” he said.  In fact, the US receives more than $800 million annually from South Korea for its troop presence, according to Politifact.com Trump has both pledged to be “neutral” in trying to make peace between Israelis and Palestinians and also pledged his full support for the Jewish state. If there is any consistent theme that emerges, it’s grievance: America’s borders are too open to foreigners, its economy too easy for them to exploit, and its military alliances too one-sided in their favor, according to Trump. If there is any other theme, it’s that Trump speaks his own mind on major international issues – and sometimes disagrees with his own mind too. The tough-talking tycoon is probably the most polarizing figure in American public life today – it’s no surprise that experts don’t agree on what he would bring to the White House. “Under a Trump presidency, foreign policy will be firm and proactive and similar to that of the Reagan’s years – a classic peace-through-economic-and-military strength, rather than the vacillating and dangerous weakness of the current White House,” said economist Peter Navarro of the University of California. READ: On race, Trump knows exactly what he’s doing But Jamie Metzl, a former official of the U.S. State Department and one-time Democratic candidate for Congress, said: “the world is a complex ecosystem and the level of thuggery that Don Trump has shown in this race would be extremely unsettling.” Even if he makes it to the White House, Trump would hardly have a free hand. Congress and the courts can stymie the policies of any president. Activists, industry, and myriad interest groups exert their influence. Public opinion generates its own pressures on how America navigates the planet. Beyond his boardroom and reality TV broadcasts, Trump is largely untested. After the startling spectacle Trump has offered America and the world these last few months, how can anyone know what to expect?


The former British intelligence agent who compiled a dossier of allegations President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia has spoken for the first time since his report reverberated around the world. Christopher Steele, a former officer with MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service, returned to work in London Tuesday, almost two months after CNN first reported on the dossier. His file contained claims that Russian operatives had compromising personal and financial information about Trump. Trump always denied the claims, dismissing them as “phony” in January. Related article US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier “I’m really pleased to be back here working again,” Steele told the UK Press Association outside the office of his firm, London-based Orbis Intelligence. “I’m now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here.” Steele was named as the man behind the report days after CNN first reported that Trump had been briefed on its contents as President-elect in January. “I’d like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages and support over the last few weeks,” Steele said. “Just to add, I won’t be making any further statements or comments at this time.”


No one has claimed responsibility so far ISIS has a presence in the Sinai Attackers carried out car bombings Friday on a military checkpoint in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, leaving soldiers dead and wounded, the military said in a statement. At least 26 people were killed or injured in the incident; authorities couldn’t immediately provide a breakdown of casualties. Related article ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have killed 2,043 Security forces foiled terrorist assaults on other checkpoints south of Rafah, killing 40 of the assailants and destroying six of their vehicles, the military said. “Currently there is an ongoing clearing and chasing of members of the terrorist group,” according to the military. No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks, the latest in a string of assaults in the Sinai, a longtime tourist destination where Egyptian forces have been cracking down on Islamist militants. Militancy in the Sinai, in northeastern Egypt, increased dramatically after the army in 2013 toppled President Mohammed Morsy, and ISIS’ Sinai affiliate has inflicted hundreds of casualties on Egyptian security forces since linking itself to ISIS in 2014. ISIS has targeted Egypt’s Christian minority in the region, part of a spike in persecution of and discrimination against Egypt’s Coptic Christians since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in 2011. In 2015, a Russian plane was brought down over the Sinai, killing all 224 aboard. The plane departed the Sinai resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh and was headed to St. Petersburg, Russia. Authorities said they believed a terror bombing was the cause. ISIS’ Sinai affiliate claimed responsibility. CNN’s Hamdi Alkhshali, Deborah Bloom and Ali Younes and contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Kara Alaimo is an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University. She previously served in the Obama administration as spokeswoman for international affairs in the Treasury Department. Follow her on Twitter @karaalaimo  The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Kara Alaimo: Trump's canny use of social media helped elect him. But this year's campaign also showed danger of tool She says Twitter has truncated our discourse, let candidates get around fact-checkers, created ideological echo chamber Donald Trump’s candidacy was not taken seriously by the mainstream media and even the establishment of his own party, but his strategic use of social media propelled him to the presidency. And while it may appear healthy for our political system that social media gives opportunities to people like him — who are, for example, less politically connected – to speak to the American people, the way social platforms were actually used in this election cycle is deeply dangerous for our democracy. To see how we’ve come to this point, it’s useful to look at the past few presidential campaigns. Indeed, although Donald Trump may appear to be the antithesis of Barack Obama, the last two men elected President of the United States are strikingly similar on two scores: both were anti-establishment candidates who won the presidency largely by outsmarting their opponents on social media. Trump, who according to Reuters tweeted more than any other candidate in the presidential race, amassed 4 million more followers on Twitter than Hillary Clinton and 5 million more on Facebook. With Trump’s supporters enthusiastically liking and sharing his content, he created what Mike Berland, CEO of the market research firm Edelman Berland, called “a continuous Trump rally that happens on Twitter at all hours.” Related video Donald and Melania Trump discuss social media The social media company SocialFlow calculated during the campaign that Trump was getting more than three times more free exposure on social media than Clinton. The company found that, by January, he had become “the most talked-about person on the planet.” Last year, in an interview with New York Times reporter Michael Barbaro (between breaks to check Twitter), Trump said that before social media, his only option was to sue his rivals. But with the modern ability to argue on social platforms, he felt he had “more power than they do.” Related article Is social media turning you into a zealot? In his first interview as President-elect, the famously wealth-obsessed businessman reported that he believed social media is more powerful than money. “The fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., I think it helped me win all of these races where they’re spending much more money than I spent,” Trump said. (His campaign spent about half as much as Clinton’s). Trump also appreciated the ability to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to citizens via social media, describing his large Twitter following (in a tweet) as “like having your own newspaper.” Like Trump, Obama started as an outsider candidate whose unlikely rise was fueled by the savvy use of social media, suggesting the beginnings of a pattern. In 2008, Barack Obama had 112,474 Twitter followers, while John McCain had a mere 4,603. On the then-more popular platform Facebook, Obama had 2,379,102 supporters, compared to McCain’s 620,359. (Past studies have also found that opposition politicians in Congress tend to use social media more than their counterparts, “as an instrument for voicing dissent directly to the public.”) Related video Trump falsely says Google is 'burying' FBI news If social media serves to broaden the pool of potential politicians by allowing candidates to get their ideas to the American people – and to run less expensive campaigns – how has it damaged the country? Three major ways: First, and most obviously, social media (literally) cut our national discourse short. Kerric Harvey, author of the Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics, said Twitter “makes it so that what ought to be a conversation is just a set of Post-it notes that are scattered.” This helps explain why a candidate who had never before discussed policy was able to win the election. In fact, in his interview with Barbaro of the Times, Trump said he only wished that Twitter’s 140 character limit was longer “on 10% of the occasions.” The words most frequently used by Trump in his tweets were “great,” “winner” or “winners,” and “loser” or “losers.” The social media tracking company Brandwatch found that Trump and Clinton’s 10 most tweeted days (with the exception of conversations around the presidential debates) included just two conversations about policy. Second, social media is fueling the so-called “post-truth” era in American politics because it allows candidates to bypass traditional fact checkers – reporters and debate moderators – to communicate directly with the American people. According to PolitiFact, just 14% of Donald Trump’s statements have been true.  Fake accounts then amplified Trump’s (sometimes inaccurate) tweets. The website Twitter Audit found that 39% of Trump’s Twitter followers – compared with just 5% of Clinton’s – were computer generated bots. Another problem is that fake news stories have proliferated on social media. According to Buzzfeed, people in the town of Veles, Macedonia, developed a cottage industry over the past year, creating at least 140 fake news sites that spread pro-Trump stories across social media platforms. Zeynep Tufekci, associate professor of information and library science at the University of North Carolina, noted that a single false story purporting that Pope Francis had endorsed Trump was likely viewed by tens of millions of people on Facebook. Democrats need to start over Langston Hughes might save usTrump’s shocking victory: What it meansWomen leaders on Clinton lossThe 2016 election: A cartoon viewIs Obama coalition finished?Michael D’Antonio: Trump broke all the rulesEd Lucas: Victory for Russia’s Putin Trump started a feminist revolutionJane Merrick: Brexit-style win bad for UKAna Navarro: I’m voting for Hillary ClintonJulian Zelizer: What Trump did rightLeslie Vinjamuri: Trump leads free world?Peter Bergen: President-elect Trump’s inbox Third, social media is deepening the divide among more conservative and liberal Americans. Eli Pariser has noted that social media users now live in a “filter bubble” in which social platforms tailor the content we see to our interests, leaving us unexposed to other points of view (the divide is so stark that this year the Wall Street Journal created an interactive to show Americans what the Facebook feeds of the other side actually look like.) New York Post columnist Johnny Oleksinski argued recently that this explained why Clinton supporters were so shocked by the results of the election, because “neither America believes the other really exists. Because it’s nowhere to be found on its Facebook news feed.” Too often people fail to engage in productive conversations with friends on Facebook who have differing views, likely because discourse on social media has become so vitriolic. A Pew study released last month found that 84% of social media users somewhat or very much agree that “people say things when discussing politics on social media that they would never say in person.” It doesn’t have to be this way. Citizens could demand that politicians use social media more substantively and truthfully – and tweet back to call them out when they don’t. Social media executives could better police false content (Facebook and Google both announced actions to combat false news this week). And we can all try to engage constructively with people of a wide range of beliefs to debate the issues of the day. There is reason to think this can work. One study found that if social media users see that a lot of people recommend a particular story, they will click on it even if the news source is partisan and not in line with their beliefs. This suggests that there is still room for dialogue between people with red and blue feeds.


A ceasefire brokered by Russia and US enters its seventh day in Syria Coalition strikes on Syrian troops caused a diplomatic row over the weekend Syria’s nascent ceasefire hung in the balance Monday after an airstrike on a United Nations aid convoy led the US to question Russia’s commitment to calming violence in the war-torn country and its ability to influence its ally in Damascus. “What happened today has dealt a serious blow to efforts to bring peace to Syria,” said a senior US administration official, who added that the strike “raises very serious questions about whether the Russians can deliver their end of the arrangement” to rein in the Syrian regime. Outrage after aid convoy, warehouse attacked in Syria Asked if the US was still open to extending ceasefire efforts, a second administration official said Russia now bears the burden of demonstrating its commitment to peace efforts, “otherwise, there will be nothing to extend and nothing to salvage.” It was the latest blow to efforts to pause Syria’s hostilities, coming after regime bombing of rebel-held areas and a spat between US and Russia as they traded barbs about who bore responsibility. The Syrian Armed Forces General Command issued a statement Monday declaring that “the US-Russian ceasefire deal started since September 12th is over.” Soon after, its jets struck in and around Aleppo killing and wounding people in the area, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Earlier Monday, before the UN convoy was struck, US officials said that any decisions about the ceasefire would be made between Washington and Moscow, which brokered the deal last week. “The Syrians didn’t make the deal,” Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday, “the Russians made the agreement.” At least 32 people were killed in airstrikes in and around Aleppo Monday – including 12 involved in aid delivery, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. The US wants to see Russia restrain its close ally President Bashar al-Assad, who has battered opposition forces largely supported by the US. At the same time, both the US and Russia are in the skies striking terror targets. The two countries had agreed that completion of a successful seven-day ceasefire would mark the starting point of greater military coordination against ISIS and other militant groups. Related video Russia accuses U.S. of defending ISIS Kerry, speaking in New York at the United Nations General Assembly earlier in the day, said that US and Russian officials were meeting in Geneva to discuss the ceasefire and the deliveries of humanitarian aid to besieged areas, which were a key requirement of the deal from the US perspective. “The important thing is the Russians need to control Assad, who is evidently indiscriminately bombing, including on humanitarian convoys,” Kerry said. At the time, he said, the “basic ceasefire is holding, but fragile.” The ceasefire is the most recent attempt to bring enough calm to the ravaged country to allow political negotiations to begin. In the five-and-a-half years since Assad’s regime cracked down on a March 2011 anti-government demonstration, an estimated 430,000 people have been killed. Millions have been displaced inside Syria or fled the country. At a UN meeting on migrants, Kerry said the nations gathered had reaffirmed the right that impartial aid workers should be granted unfettered access to deliver emergency assistance to civilians. He added then that the US had heard about “an incident” that he said “flies directly contrary to that right.” Related article Syria ceasefire deal: What happens next? A UN spokesman in New York confirmed that at least one of its aid convoys, sent in coordination with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, was hit on the way to the Syrian city of Orum while carrying enough food and aid for 78,000 people. No details were immediately available on the strike, but the second US administration official said it was clearly an air attack and that US-led coalition jets weren’t responsible. “That only leaves two possibilities” for nations operating in the air in Syria, the official said, adding that either way, “Russia is responsible for its side of this equation.” The first administration official said that the strike was “fundamentally consistent with a pattern that’s taken place for months and a number of years” in which Syrian regime has struck civilian areas and moderate opposition groups. The UN’s special representative for Syria expressed outrage about the airstrike, which hit the UN aid convoy west of Aleppo. “Our outrage at this attack is enormous,” said Staffan de Mistura. “The convoy was the outcome of long process of permission and preparations to assist isolated civilians.” The first administration official said the US is trying to gather as much information as possible to find out what happened, adding that Kerry will consult with key partners, as well as his Russian counterparts, Monday night and Tuesday morning. The official added that Kerry is in close coordination with the White House. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov brokered the ceasefire that went into effect Sept. 12. The goal was to have seven consecutive days of reduced violence, during which the Syrian regime could only attack jihadist groups such as ISIS and an al Qaeda affiliate known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, the group formerly known as al-Nusra Front. Humanitarian aid was supposed to flow to Aleppo and five other areas in Syria during that time. Once the US and Russia had agreed that seven relatively calm days had passed, Washington and Moscow were supposed to establish a Joint Implementation Center to coordinate further strikes against militants. That would have required the US to share information with Moscow, a prospect that made some Pentagon officials uncomfortable. Related video Kerry: 'Russia needs to stop Assad from bombing people' Asked about the Syrian declaration that the ceasefire was over, Kerry said, “We have not had seven days of calm and of delivery of humanitarian goods.” He added that “it’s time to end the grandstanding and time to do the real work.” Even before Monday’s declaration by Syria that the ceasefire was over, and before the attack on the aid convoy, flare-ups of violence were marring its progress. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported civilian deaths from airstrikes in Idlib on Friday and in Aleppo on Sunday, though it didn’t identify the perpetrators. A US airstrike on Syrian forces on Saturday also caused trouble. The Pentagon said the strike was accidental and US officials expressed regret, but Russia and Syria raised the possibility that the US was acting in support of ISIS. “Whenever the Syrian state achieves tangible progress either on the ground or in national reconciliations, the states that are hostile to Syria increase their support for terrorist organizations,” Assad said Monday, according to Syria’s state media outlet SANA. “The most recent example of this is the flagrant US aggression on a Syrian Arab Army position in Deir Ezzor for the benefit of ISIS.” The US administration officials wouldn’t address the question of whether the strike on the UN aid convoy might have been in revenge for the deaths of the 62 Syrian soldiers killed Saturday. And Russia questioned the timing of the strike, two days before information sharing and cooperation between Moscow and Washington would have theoretically started. The US strike was “an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness,” Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said Saturday. US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power hit back Saturday, describing the Russian move as “a stunt replete with moralism and grandstanding” that was “uniquely cynical and hypocritical.” Russian planes have supported the regime’s air force in hitting hospitals and refugee camps, she said, before going on to accuse the regime of “bombing in defiance of the cessation of hostilities.” CNN’s Hamdi Alkhshali, Susannah Cullinane, Schams Elwazer, Samantha Beech, Joel Williams, Frederik Pleitgen, Matthew Chance, Daniel Nikbakht, Merieme Arif, Mohammed Tawfeeq, James Masters, Sebastian Shukla, Tim Hume, Steve Almasy, Barbara Starr and Richard Roth contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review, and a former CNN producer and correspondent. Follow her @FridaGhitis. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. Frida Ghitis: Despite his poor performance at the polls, Shimon Peres became a beloved national figure But many fear that what Peres stood for may die with him, Ghitis writes There’s something different about the way the world is mourning the death of former Israeli President Shimon Peres. What we’re hearing is not simply the usual goodbyes to a man with a longstanding high profile on the global stage. No, this time there seems to be something else going on. Grief is being expressed not just for Peres, but for what he represented. Simply put, there seems to be a sadness, tinged with fear, that what Shimon Peres stood for may die with him. If you want to understand what Peres embodied, it helps to know what an uncommon, seemingly contradictory person he was: a practical dreamer, a realistic visionary, a hawk-turned-dove, a man who believed in strength as a means to peace, and someone who worked until the very end of his life to achieve his goal of bringing peace to the Middle East. This is not a view embraced by everyone. There are many Arabs, in particular, who view his legacy as grievously dark and negative. They look at his early support for Israeli settlements (although he was later critical of them) and his pivotal role in building Israel’s military. Perhaps more than anything, they recall some of the most controversial actions of the Israeli Defense Forces under his government. But the larger reality – and the reason why so many world leaders, including President Barack Obama, are attending his funeral on Friday – is that Shimon Peres came to personify the most scarce of all qualities in the Middle East: optimism about the prospects for reconciliation and a relentless determination to make it happen. Peres often spoke of his most cherished goal like a man convinced he can see the future. “The Palestinians are our closest neighbors,” he reportedly declared, “I am sure they can become our closest friends.” Related video Herzog: Shimon Peres was a giant who dreamed of peace One man who knew him well, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, tweeted “Shimon Peres’ death is a heavy loss for all humanity and for peace in the region.” Haaretz reported that Abbas called him a partner in making “the peace of the brave.” The peace of the brave was shorthand for the Oslo Accords signed on the White House lawn in 1993, which earned a Nobel Peace Prize for Peres, along with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The reconciliation that was supposed to follow never quite materialized. But Peres never gave up trying to make it happen. World leaders are traveling to Israel for his funeral on Friday. Their presence in Jerusalem is partly about paying their respects, but perhaps also meant to convey their wish that the vision outlive the visionary. Certainly, it is a way of telling the world, of telling Israelis and Palestinians, to not give up on peace. President Obama wrote, “There are few people who we share this world with who change the course of human history … they expand our moral imagination and force us to expect more of ourselves. My friend Shimon was one of those people.” Obama’s statement revealed the hope of the trip. “A light has gone out,” it said, “but the hope he gave us will burn forever.” Related video A look back at the life of Shimon Peres On Wednesday night, Obama paid another uncommon tribute to Peres. He issued a proclamation ordering that the U.S. flag fly at half-staff throughout the country to honor a man who had become something of a mentor to the American president. We cannot know with certainty, but if Shimon Peres had been a more successful politician, if terrorist groups had not sabotaged his career, a key part of the Middle East might look quite different today. Peace between Israelis and Palestinians alone would not fix the Middle East. Syria, Iraq, Yemen – so many of the region’s trouble spots – might still be aflame anyway. But that one feverish dispute, the one between Israelis and Palestinians, might just have come to an end. Peres’ dreams were not only about diplomacy and state-building. He had a child-like fascination with technology and innovation, and saw it as intricately connected to a better future for Israel and its neighbors. His exotic notion of a “Red-Dead Canal” – linking the Red Sea and the Dead Sea to create a zone of technology, trade and prosperity for Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians – seemed like a science-fiction fantasy. (Although it may just happen as part of an even grander idea, the Valley of Peace). Peres arrived in the British-ruled territory of Palestine in 1934, when he was an 11-year-old boy named Shimon Persky, fleeing antisemitism in what was then Poland, and worked to build the dream of rebuilding the modern Jewish state. As the state came under attack from its neighbors, he worked to turn Israel into a military powerhouse, complete with a nuclear program, arguing that peace would only come when Israel’s enemies understood they could not destroy it. Related video Amanpour remembers Shimon Peres Peres was never elected prime minister, although in 1996 he came close, when he was running after a Jewish terrorist opposed to the Oslo peace assassinated Rabin. The polls showed Peres far ahead of his challenger, Benjamin Netanyahu. But then the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas launched a series of bombings, blowing up city buses, restaurants, and shopping malls. The terrorists tilted the election to the security candidate, Netanyahu. Yet despite his poor performance at the polls, he became a beloved national figure, serving as Israel’s ceremonial president until 2014. When his term ended, he made a hilarious video as a former president looking for a new job. Today, with Israel’s right now in control of the government, Peres the optimist might have been able to detect a silver lining in something that came after his death. Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett, a rightist, directed that all school children spend part of a school day learning about Peres. Peres would likely take comfort in sharing his hopeful vision with young people. Indeed, just last year he said: “My greatest mistake is that my dreams were too small.” Yet with no end in sight to the current deadlock, it is no surprise that so many feel that the loss of Peres will leave the Middle East lost, too.


Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel a “terrorist” and “child-murderer state” in an address Sunday as he criticized President Donald Trump over his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. “Jerusalem is the apple of our eye. We will not abandon it to the child-murderer state. We will not abandon it to an occupier state,” Erdogan said in an address in the Turkish city of Sivas. “We will continue our struggle within law and democracy. In Istanbul we will unite Islamic countries, leaders and heads of states. Our road map will show that it will not be easy for them to realize their plans,” Erdogan said. He also said Trump’s Jerusalem announcement was “null and void.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to Erdogan on Sunday, saying: “I’m not used to receiving lectures about morality from a leader who bombs Kurdish villagers in his native turkey, who jails journalists, who helps Iran go around international sanctions, and who helps terrorists, including in Gaza, kill innocent people. That is not the man who is going to lecture us.” Speaking from Paris, where he met with French President Emmanuel Macron, Netanyahu said that Jerusalem has “always been our capital, and Jerusalem has never been the capital of any other people. I think the sooner the Palestinians come to grips with this reality, the sooner we’ll move towards peace.” Israel launched airstrikes early Saturday against what it said were Hamas targets in Gaza, after several rockets were fired out of Gaza towards Israel. Two Palestinians were killed in those airstrikes, the Palestinian Health Ministry said. More than 300 people were injured Friday across the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, 50 of whom needed hospital treatment, during protests against Trump’s decision, according to the Palestinian Authority’s Health Ministry. In Beirut, Lebanese security forces clashed with protesters near the US Embassy on Sunday. Violence erupted during a demonstration against Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem. Hundreds of protesters and dozens of riot police gathered in front of the entrance leading to the heavily fortified building. Some youth in the crowd threw stones toward the gate leading to the embassy. Despite calls to keep the demonstration peaceful, clashes broke out as crowds threw plastic water bottles, stones and sticks at the police. Lebanese security forces on the scene responded with tear gas and water cannons, as demonstrators lit a large garbage can and car tires on fire. One American flag was burned. At least five protesters affected by tear gas were carried away from the scene. Protesters told CNN they condemned Trump’s steps on Jerusalem’s status, and said they were angry at the “impotence” of Arab leaders in the wake of the controversial decision. “Sheep who are the Arab leaders betrayed Jerusalem years ago,” Mustafa, a Syrian demonstrator, told CNN. The demonstration outside the embassy comes as Lebanese group Hezbollah plans to hold a demonstration Monday in the Beirut suburbs to condemn Trump’s decision. Trump’s move Wednesday to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and commit to moving the US Embassy to the holy city has prompted international condemnation and sparked protests worldwide, from Indonesia and Malaysia, to Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and Egypt. Pope Francis on Sunday issued an appeal for “wisdom and prudence” in the wake of clashes over Trump’s Jerusalem decision. The Pope also called upon leaders to “commit themselves to avert a new spiral of violence” adding that they should encourage “peace, justice and security” for people in the region, which he described as a “battered land.” Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Malki called Trump’s decision “illegal and illegitimate and null and void legally and politically,” saying there would be no formal communication with US officials. Before the protests broke out in Lebanon, the  Arab League condemned Trump’s decision as well,  describing it as a “dangerous” development. The foreign ministers of the 22-member states of the Arab League met for an emergency meeting at their headquarters in Cairo on Saturday. The US policy change on Jerusalem puts it “on the side of occupation” and “exempts it from a mediation role in the peace process,” the Arab League said in a statement. It warned that attempts to change the legal status of Jerusalem or to “change the Arab identity of the city” are “provocations to the feelings of Muslims and Christians across the Muslim and Arab world” and violates international law. CNN’s Ben Wedeman and Ghazi Balkiz reported from northern Beirut. CNN’s Gul Tuysuz and Isil Sariyuce reported from Istanbul. CNN’s Tamara Qiblawi wrote from Abu Dhabi.

Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital