Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gatestone Institute" <list@gatestoneinstitute.org>
Date: May 6, 2013 3:17:10 AM GMT-06:00
To: bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Subject: Gatestone Update :: Khaled Abu Toameh: Kerry Betting On The Wrong Horses, and more
Reply-To: "Gatestone Institute" <list@gatestoneinstitute.org>
In this mailing:
- Khaled Abu Toameh: Kerry Betting On The Wrong Horses
- Shoshana Bryen: The Fourth Great War
- Ashraf Ramelah: Egypt's New Anti-Muslim-Brotherhood Militia
Kerry Betting On The Wrong Horses
Send
Comment
Share: 
Be the first of your friends to like this.
It has once again become clear that the Arab countries, including the wealthiest and most influential, have no influence on the Palestinians. The Arab League is an incompetent and ineffectual body that has long been ridiculed by most Arabs. It has never played an influential role in solving Arab crises such as the Lebanese Civil War, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or the ongoing bloodshed in Syria.
The Arab League foreign ministers who met with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Washington last week were convinced that they had a mandate from the Palestinians to talk about possible land swaps between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
Ahead of their departure to the US, the ministers had met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Doha, Qatar, and discussed with him the land swap idea.
At the meeting, the Arab League decided to dispatch a high-level delegation to Washington to brief the US Administration on the Arab position regarding the resumption of peace talks with Israel. Headed by Qatar's Hamad bin Jasim al-Thani, the delegation which met with Kerry also consisted of Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riyad Malki.
Yet the Palestinians seemed to be surprised, following the meeting with Kerry, to hear the Qatari representative talk about possible land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Palestinian Authority's initial response was to issue a statement in English -- not Arabic -- voicing support for the land trade proposal. The statement said that this was an old idea that had been discussed in the past between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
But following strong condemnations from many Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority leadership took a step backwards.
First, the Palestinian Authority said that it was only prepared to discuss "minor" adjustments to the border between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
Later, as the denunciations grew, the Palestinian Authority took yet another step backwards, saying it was opposed to making any "down payments" to Israel before the peace talks resumed.
In other words, the Palestinian Authority is not prepared to talk about any territorial concessions to Israel before the Israeli government accepts the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution.
Palestinian reactions to the land swap proposal seem to have angered Qatar and other Arab countries.
With the exception of a few Palestinian Authority officials, all Palestinian factions have come out strongly against the proposal. The anger has been directed especially against Qatar.
"Who gave the Qatari leaders the right to offer concessions to Israel on behalf of the Palestinians?" was the main charge leveled against the rulers in Doha.
Other Palestinians, including top members of Abbas's Fatah faction in the West Bank, have also lashed out at the Arab ministers for "offering free concessions" to Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.
Although the Palestinian Authority leadership had in the past hinted that it would be willing to accept the land swap idea, it is now obvious that it would never be able to win the Palestinians' support for such a proposal.
As leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian groups emphasized over the past few days, no Palestinian leader has a mandate to make any concessions to Israel.
Even worse, the Arab League proposal is being viewed by many Arabs and Palestinians as part of an "American-Zionist conspiracy" to force the Palestinians to accept Israeli "dictates."
Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership in the West Bank seem to have absorbed the message and are now back to demanding a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, which were never official borders.
For Kerry, who has taken it upon himself to try to resume the peace process, this is all bad news.
It is bad news that the Palestinian Authority still does not have the courage to tell the Palestinians that without some form of compromise there will never be real peace with Israel.
It is bad news because it has once again become clear that the Arab countries, including the wealthiest and most influential, have no influence on the Palestinians.
Judging from their reactions to the land swap idea, many Palestinians continue to despise the Arab regimes, accusing them of serving as pawns in the hands of the US and Israel.
The US Administration needs to understand that the Arab League is an incompetent and ineffectual body that has long been ridiculed by most Arabs. This is a body that has never played an instrumental role in solving Arab crises such as the Lebanese Civil War, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait or the ongoing bloodshed in Syria.
It now remains to be seen whether Kerry and President Barack Obama will ever notice that they are betting on the wrong horses. Neither the Arab League nor the Palestinian Authority leadership has a mandate to offer any concessions to Israel or recognize its right to exist.
Related Topics: Khaled Abu Toameh
The Fourth Great War
No Good Options, No Good Allies
Share: The clear implication is that regardless of what members of the Syrian opposition say to the U.S. to win our support, their long-term aims may be incompatible with ours.
The announcement by Secretary of Defense Hagel that the United States will "rethink all options" including arming Syrian rebel groups, was carefully hedged. "It doesn't mean… you will" (choose any particular path). The statement however moves the U.S. closer to picking sides in a war with no good options and no good allies, and which American public opinion has thus far eschewed. It is important to understand in the broadest sense how we got here.
In two of the three global conflicts of the 20th Century, the United States took sides; in the third, it WAS a side. In World War I, we were less against Germany than with our long-time cultural and political allies, Britain and France. The cordial reception given to Americans in Germany between the wars, and the American affinity for parts of German society made some Americans reluctant to criticize the rise of Hitler. (See Hitlerland, by Andrew Nagorski.) In the Cold War, the United States faced off against Russia. The Cuban Missile Crisis was not about Cuba; the Central American wars of the 1980s were not about Central America. It was a war to the death between communism and democracy.
The end of the Cold War had two generally overlooked consequences. First, non-communist Russia retained its historic imperial nature, characterized by deep concern for and violent repression of threats to its "near abroad." Second, countries and groups in the Middle East were no longer bound to choose between Soviets and Americans as patrons. This was particularly important because neither democracy nor communism is compatible with Islamist thinking. (Obligatory disclaimer: This in no way implies that Muslim people cannot live in democracies or be democrats; or live in communist countries or be communists, for that matter.)
The fourth Great War is less "Islam against the West" (although that surely is there) than it is Sunni expansionists vs. Shiite expansionists. Neither is an appealing partner for the United States in the region, and neither has a natural claim on our politics or our interests. For reasons having to do with Iran itself, the U.S. will not choose to support Iranian-backed Shiites. However, Sunni expansionists are simply no better; Saudi and Qatari-supported Islamists run from the unacceptable Muslim Brotherhood to the even more unacceptable Wahabis, al Qaeda or Jabhat al Nusra – it is like a choice between cancer and a heart attack. (Second obligatory disclaimer: That is NOT to say the U.S. has no interests in the Middle East/North Africa/Southwest Asia, or that there is no humanitarian impulse due. It is to say both Sunni and Shiite expansionists have views and values inimical to Western liberal democracies, and neither is better than secular despots.)
In broad terms, the current fighting in the region is Sunni-Shiite: Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, and rumblings in Kuwait all have a Sunni-Shiite component. Turkey thinks of the Ottoman Empire, particularly after the freeing of the "Stans" from Russian control. Iran revisits the Persian Empire. The Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jabhat al Nusra, and others all find patrons in the region rather than in the U.S. or Russia. Oil money, particularly Saudi, Iranian and Qatari, greases various paths.
As both Sunnis and Shiites try to expand both deeper into their own societies and move farther afield, they run headlong into other regional, tribal, ethnic, religious, and familial interests. Christians, particularly in Iraq, Egypt, and Nigeria, have been hard hit as intolerance increases; it is estimated that half of Iraq's Christians have left the country. As a corollary, the minority communities of Syria backed the secular Assad regime for fear of an Islamist takeover. The U.S. has been attacked and vilified, and Europe is being subverted through "no go" zones for police, the installation of elements of Sharia law, and rising Muslim anti-Semitism. Venezuela and Argentina are Iran's hoped-for proxies, and Hezbollah operates freely in several South American countries.
Long involved in the repression of Sunni Caucasian nationalists, although the Chechen war only took on religious overtones in its second incarnation (2002-2007), Russia has chosen the Shiite side of the larger war. Even the idea of a nuclear Iran does not disturb Russia as much as the idea of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of Sunni terrorists. Russia preferred secular despots in the Middle East as well -- Saddam, Assad father and son, Nasser -- who would repress the Muslim Brotherhood and other internationalist Sunnis. The despots obliged. Nasser outlawed the Brotherhood, Assad killed tens of thousands in Hama, and Saddam ran a savagely secular state to ensure that his minority Sunnis could remain in power. Russia's commitment to Bashar Assad should not be underestimated.
And with shades of the Cold War, as Russia supports the Syrian regime, the U.S. has moved closer and closer to military involvement. Our first choice was to outsource the funding, arms and training of rebels to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia who chose, naturally enough, expansionist Sunni groups hoping to push Iranian-supported Shiites out of power. American arms are intended to end up with the Free Syrian Army, but according to David Ignatius "Islamist fighters…have formed the backbone of the Free Syrian Army for nearly two years. The Syrian opposition is almost entirely Sunni Muslim, and the Islamists (especially al-Nusra's recruits) have been among the best fighters."
The clear implication is that regardless of what they say to the U.S. to win our support, their long-term aims may be incompatible with ours. The possibility remains for direct U.S. military involvement, although hard on the heels of Hagel's statement about arming rebels, U.S. Special Operations Commander Admiral William McRaven strongly warned against considering the use of U.S. troops.
If American policy in Syria seems feckless, it is because it is feckless.
The President initially tried to "win" Assad to the West by sending envoys and lifting parts of the embargo. But Assad was not "won," and when he turned his army on his people, the President, apparently trying to satisfy American sensibilities with rhetoric, demanded that he step down. But Assad did not step down and rebel bands struck back, which did not displease the President, who was perhaps hoping that the rebels could do what his words alone could not do -- get rid of Assad quickly and without American involvement. The discovery that some rebels have serious jihadist tendencies offended American sensibilities, so the U.S. declined to "arm the rebels." That refusal apparently satisfied American public opinion, which leans heavily against any involvement in Syria; but the grossness of the slaughter, particularly the use of chemicals, did offend American sensibilities. The President's sliding "red line" on the use of chemical weapons offended some parties and satisfied others. Claiming to find "moderate, secular rebels" will satisfy some, but the admitted interconnectedness of the rebels -- and the fact that the Islamists are far and away the best fighters -- will continue to worry others.
The administration's policy on Syria has been a series of visceral reactions to graphic events and horrific casualties, offset by a gigantic distaste for confrontation. Without a definition of America's strategic interests, such as a defeat for both Iran and the Sunni jihadists, the chance remains that America might be dragged into another front in the Fourth Great War. A war in which neither side is our friend.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center
Related Topics: Shoshana Bryen
Egypt's New Anti-Muslim-Brotherhood Militia
Share: Egypt's Black Bloc grew out of their struggle for liberation from an authoritarian system, only after non-violent civil efforts had failed. Ironically, the U.S. Black Bloc and Egypt's Black Bloc are on opposite sides of the political struggle – one, in the U.S., a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood and doubtless trying to gain prestige through their nominal association with international fighters; the other, in Egypt, an enemy to the Brotherhood, and fighting for democracy and legitimate government.
Clad in black, faceless in black ski masks, the nameless Black Bloc soldiers lock arms to create a human shield in defense of pro-freedom protesters -- the Black Bloc's number-one priority -- in the streets and squares of Egypt. Expert in martial arts and ostensibly military-trained, Black Bloc warriors only recently surfaced in Egypt to safeguard fellow freedom-fighters from their arch-enemies, the foes of democracy: President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas militia.
Originating out of a plan to protect women protesters from sexual assault, this huge band of men and women numbering in the thousands (the exact number is not known) form a dedicated and determined corps of combatants divided into local groups of 30-50 individuals in Egypt's communities. Self-described as "anti-Muslim-Brotherhood," and generated out of disgust toward years of police and military brutality, the Black Bloc is, for modern Egypt, a completely new phenomenon.
As participants in this well-organized system for safety and preservation, the secret members of the "elite" Black Bloc guard first appeared in the streets of Cairo this January, when revolutionaries commemorated their two-year anniversary with protests in Tahrir Square. Now everywhere the Egyptian opposition stages protests, the rank-and-file Black Bloc, whose leaders remain unknown to them, dutifully move in to police the area on behalf of fellow protesters.
Deemed "terrorists" and "outlaws" by the Morsi regime, the shadowy Zorro-like heroes refer to their network as the "United Ghosts Revolution" and represent a just cause in the ongoing rebellion against Egypt's Islamist government. The Black Bloc mission is to ensure that no more assaults, kidnappings, and torture occur from Morsi's security forces [the Muslim Brotherhood militia] and so-called law enforcement, and that a "camel gazwa," [invading crowds on galloping camels] as in the early days of the revolt, never takes place again. Many Black Bloc members carry firearms, most likely acquired through the illegal networks smuggling weapons from Libya and Gaza.
If the best defense is a good offense, the forceful Black Bloc has aggressively expanded its scope beyond the scene of gathered protesters and their protection. With a physical presence in more than eight cities across Egypt, the anonymous soldiers have claimed responsibility for ransacking at least eight separate Muslim Brotherhood Freedom and Justice Party offices.
At first, the shrouded Black Bloc raised the fears; the public saw them as terrorists. This wrong impression, however, was soon dispelled as their image as guardians took shape. Appearing first in the social media, the Black Bloc now has the moral support of more than 57,000 Facebook members for the purpose of countering Islamic supremacy and brutality.
Their core concern is to facilitate the pursuit of Western-style democracy. Its members claim no affiliation with existing political parties, as the group states that it "aims only to stand against the Muslim Brotherhood and any group exploiting religion to achieve political goals." As pro-democracy secularists using slogans such as, "Our mess prevents chaos" and, "We are confusion that prevents confusion," their challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood has prompted a new crackdown by President Morsi and his Prime Minister, Hasham Kandil. The state now targets opposition protesters who wear black, tracking those who do and conducting investigations. By mid-February, Morsi began arresting members of Black Bloc and its sympathizers.
Running under the banner of "Allah, Country, Revolution," the "outlaws" have been accused by Islamists of having Israeli backing and connections to Western funding. Further, rumors charge them with burning the rear building of the scientific complex in Cairo, and of involvement in attacks upon city infrastructure, including damaging government buildings, paralyzing traffic, and obstructing subway transportation. The Black Bloc flatly denies participation in these crimes and blames the Muslim Brotherhood for tarnishing their image and credibility.
The group does fully admit, however, to targeting Brotherhood locations in the following Cairo incidents: burning the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in the Sixth October area, storming the media offices of "Brothers Online," torching the Freedom and Justice Party newspaper headquarters and targeting more than one Moomen [Believer] Brotherhood-owned restaurant.
In keeping with their mission statement, Egypt's Black Bloc members claim they have nothing against state institutions per se, "but against control by a particular system, the supremacy of a certain group." They further contend that "the best thing is to hit the existing system and its economy by sabotaging the system's institutions and not ones belonging to the public." Despite this, a U.S. "Black Bloc" attempts to connect its mission against America and governmental power structures to the cause of Egypt's Black Bloc.
Egypt's Black Bloc grew out of the chaos of President Morsi's actions, which necessitated a course correction – such as the use of security, weaponry and attacks -- for freedom-fighters in their struggle for liberation from an authoritarian system. Although tactics similar to the U.S. Black Bloc anarchists are used, Egypt's fighters do not seek anarchism. Furthermore, the Shariah religious state is contrary to the western democratic state, and the roles of their respective revolts find their meaning and identity by way of the system they fight, not the tactics and strategies they use.
U.S. Black Bloc vandalism is class-warfare, a staple of the progressive political agenda of some in America who opportunistically seem to have intertwined themselves with Muslim Brotherhood goals. While actions by the U.S. Black Bloc ultimately favor the short-term goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's Black Bloc interrupts the Muslim Brotherhood's power structure with material and moral losses. Ironically, the U.S. Black Bloc and Egypt's Black Bloc are on opposite sides of the political struggle – the one in the U.S. a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood; the other, in Egypt, an enemy to the Brotherhood.
Nonetheless, the U.S. Black Bloc has appealed to Egypt's Black Bloc in a Feb 9th open letter to initiate intercontinental dialogue. The naive U.S. Black Bloc views tactics and strategies on YouTube and mistakes them for "consensus" – then seeks the thrill of joining hands with Egyptians, and using these tactics as a more "generalized revolt." They are hardly, as the letter suggests, fighting the same "stable power structure." Egypt's revolt reached the point of violence only after non-violent civil efforts failed and were no longer an option for achieving democracy.
The U.S. Black Bloc members, in advancing their "project of revolt," are doubtless trying to gain prestige through their nominal association with international fighters, and probably see their dream being "enacted spontaneously" in a full-fledged, high-stakes revolt on the brink of civil war in Egypt. The Egyptian freedom-fighters, on the contrary, aim unequivocally for democracy and legitimate government. "We want to take the struggle out of the hands of political parties entirely," states the U.S. Black Bloc; but Egypt's Black Bloc struggles with the hope of the rise of new political leadership and a real democratic party.
The U.S. Black Bloc, according to its letter to Egypt, wishes to have the Muslim Brotherhood in governments around the world, to "clarify" the global power structure and then assert Black Bloc tactics uniformly worldwide to defeat the state. Egypt's revolutionaries, fighting for freedom within the heart of political Islam, would not take any chance with such a sinister plan.
Ashraf Ramelah is on the Advisory Board of SION (Stop Islamization of Nations) and president of Voice of the Copts, a human rights organization. In 2010, VOTC sued the Mubarak regime, which refused to change the religious ID card of a Muslim convert to Christianity.
Related Topics: Egypt
You are subscribed to this list as bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com.
To unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_unsubscribe.php
To edit your subscription options, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Print
No comments:
Post a Comment