The Middle East News Addict

And Now the Shoe is on the Other Foot

2010-01-01T21:18:00.003-05:00

"And now the shoe is on the other foot" goes the old saying, and Democrats now learn that the shoe is tight.

Throughout President Bush's administration - an administration that had to deal with a terror attack the likes of which the world has never seen - Democrats were constantly jibing at the Bush Administration. "Fear Instigators" they called whenever Bush spoke of Al Qaeda or the Axis of Evil.

And now the shoe is on the other foot.

When former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized the Obama administration this week for pretending the country was not at war after last week's 2 attempted terror attacks, White House spokesperson carelessly chose his words.

He criticized Cheney and his likes for attacking the administration and not the attackers; adding that eight years of Bush era public intimidation produced no results. Funny. Is that not what he is doing right now, fear instigating? How are Cheney's remarks different than those of Democrats throughout the Bush era who attacked Bush rather than the 9/11 terrorists?

And now the shoe is on the other foot and it's tight. The Obama Administration must deal with threats not dissimilar to those faced by the Bush Administration with one hand tied behind its back. A hand Democrats' themselves tied in the recent elections.

So getting out of Iraq will take 4 years instead of 10 months (as McCain stated in his campaign), more troops are heading into Afghanistan instead of out (anybody remembers Democrats' criticisms of Bush for getting into Afghanistan?), Guantanamo will be shut down but transfered to Illinois (no more secret prisons, no more gross Human Rights violations rings a bell?) and who knows what's next? Indeed the Obama administration is slowly untying its hands. But ut has to be careful, for the American public remembers that when it comes to terror, Republicans' hands were free all along...

Saudis to boost production: Too little too late?

2008-06-14T10:29:00.002-05:00

The Saudi royal house has anounced today it will be boosting production by 500 thousand barrels a day next month in order to fight rising oil prices. The official reason is the Saudi fear that rising oil prices will bring to a decline in demand and to discontent. Well demand is not likely to drop any time soon (we all need to get to work with our car and China is just developing a thirst); and while many assume that by discontent, the Saudis mean the discrantled mobs of Europe, the truth of the matter is that they fear the beast they might awaken further to the west, the U.S.

Americans are sick and tired of serving as a sort of world police. Gone are the days of the White Man's Burdon (not surprising, there is an African American candidate at the top). With rising oil prices Americans care less and less about democracy in the Middle East and other "nonsense" like genocide or hunger. The next American president will not be the one that says "I will bring peace in my time" or "a palestinian state". It will be the president that will say: "America, my baby, has an addiction to oil and it needs to quanch its thirst. Now we have the most powerful army in the world and by god I am going to get my precious America the oil it needs, whatever it takes". The whatever it takes part is the one the Saudis fear most. They know that if the American president is going to be hard pressed for oil, it will stop at nothing to get that oil including force and that frightens them.

Now I know what you may all be saying: well how is the U.S. going to do that without a multilateral UN consent? Let me remind you folks that George Bush waited for UN consent on Iraq, and when he did not get it, he went on it alone. Now maybe some Security Council members will object but it is unlikely. Europe is in pretty much the same boat as the US as the riots in Spain show, and along with the fear from Islam they are unlikely to say 'no' provided they get a piece of the pie.

Given this state of affairs it is understandable why Saudis want to boost production. Question is will they be able to get the others in OPEC to go along with it because analysts predict that Saudi Arabia is near top capacity and might not be able to bring the price down much as it once could.

SNAFU!!!... or is it?

2007-05-27T06:43:00.000-05:00

It has been quite a while since my last post. Again, it is not that there are no news, it is simply that there are very few news worth reporting that constitute a significant change. In Israel corruption is on the rise, in Syria elections are forthcoming (I will let you guess the name of the next president) and in Egypt Gamal Mubarak is getting married while reforms are on hold (thank you left wing Iraq war opposition for explaining to the Bush administration Mubark Sr. position on the futility of fighting for democracy in the Middle East). And Iran? IAEA's Muhammad Al-Baredai predicts a new Shia bomb within 3 to 8 years to threaten Israel; but more importantly some Sunni governments...

But not all is bleak, for in Lebanon things show some improvment, with the new Al-Qaeda branch called Fatah -al-Islam being targeted by the Lebanese army. This is good. Good because for the first time the Lebanese government is doing something against armed militias in its territory. It is a further symbol of Hezbollah losing grip after the July war. Fatah Al-Islam has been operating from within Palestinian camps supported by Hezbollah due to its support for Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel. But now with Hezbollah weakened, both it and the Palestinians are pulling away from it altogether. Because with legitimacy in the balance and intl. control things are harder for the Shia militia. Hopefully the world will support Lebanon's attempt to re-assert its sovereignty and not fail it in the name of some misguided principles or information.

The N. Korea Nuclear Deal: Kim Jong Il - 3, GOP - 0, HR - 0

2007-02-15T17:11:00.000-05:00

The truth of the matter is, that the reality of the recent deal struck between N. Korea and the West is not as terrible as the headline for this post describes; after all, the IAEA and the West do get some glimpse into the N Korean program. But the unfortunate part is that reality is not that far from it. This becomes especially clear if one considers N Korea's compliance history with regards to the Clinton agreement; and the Bush administration's Human Rights record filled with good intentions and abyssmal preformance. Could there have been a better agreement? One that would be better for everyone? This post argues that given the Iranian situation, the players at the talks, and N Korea's dreadful situation, then yes. However before one continues straight to the answer, it is important that we analyze the above "score" to see the problem.

It is not hard to see why the recent deal spells victory for Kim Jong Il. After all he got what he wanted - Nuclear power, Financial Help and a "get ou of jail" card - and is not that the definition of victory?

Kim Jong Il, and N Korea for that matter, are not Iran. For one thing they do not hold this messianic desire for the nukes for anything other than a bargaining chip; and for the other they do not have the vast natural resources. And so the energy pack is like mana from then for Jong Il just before the world is on a verge of losing patience with him because of Iran, and before the people lose patience with him due to food shortages. So we can see how the financial pack helps. But the people's plight brings us to his second victory, the "get out of jail" card.

Alongside his fear from his people, Kim Jong Il is truly afraid of mounting pressure from Human Rights activists affecting their governments during elections. Bush and other countries' refusal for diplomatic relations (he currently has relations with 27) deprives him of his much needed legitimacy in power in order to continue abusing his people for his dellusions of granditure. And so his ability to get relations with the US opens a whole new world for him of immunity from further criticism. After all, if the US agrees to have diplomatic relations with him, so would everybody else. However the third victory, Nuclear weapons, is the biggest of them all.

Kim Jong Il is not the man to rely on promises and pieces of paper as guarantee. He knows better than everyone what they are worth as he himself broke the accords with Clinton and kicked the IAEA out. He needed a final guarentee and that guarenttee is the prosponement of disarmament of weapons already produced to "later discussions". "Later discussion" is diplomatic lingo for "whenever I feel like it". 3-0 for Kim Jong Il so far.

All of N Korea's victories of course came at somebody's expanse. First and foremost of course, the starving people of N Korea. Amnesty International can yell as much as it wants but when those ambassies open up they will be in a whole new ball game, one in which they cannot win much to the dismay of said N Koreans. This of course is a huge loss for Human Rights. Another loss in Human Rights is not something the GOP can easily afford right now.

Following Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay, the GOP has been under Democratic fire for Human Rights. At the same breath,following Iran and Iraq they have been under fire for exessive use of force rather than diplomacy. And here too is a place where they cannot win: Attack N Korea and you are a bully; Let Kim Jong Il get away with abusing his people through diplomatic relations and it adds to your abbyssmal Human Rights record. So what could they have done actually? Not much more but a little bit.

Though Kim Jong Il put on a pretty smug show, deep inside he was not. The situation from within and especially the situation with Iran was casting a huge shadow. Just the other day the EU, competing with the US for dominance by presenting a diplomatic way due to lack of power, addmitted that perhaps treating Iran with diplomacy was not the right thing. When the EU says that while the US is iching is pretty frightening. Fear that could have been used to demand full disarmament now and Human Rights transperancy in return for energy and relations. But could Republicans do it without being portrayed as bullies? No, but it is not like they had a choice.

When a politician runs out of lies and spins and whatever other trick up his sleeve, he is left with the one doom's day weapon he fears more than all: showing some principals. Let us face it: the GOP can do very little other than that in order to save its deteriorating image and not doing it is a final nail in their coughin. Just consider the following Democratic rhetoric v. Republican conclusion just prior to elections:

Democrats"We have seen the GOP's HR record when they left the people of N Korea out in the cold after Iraq while failing to deal with a mad man's weapons"

v.

Republicans: "We have done what was needed with N Korea and have been portrayed as bullies. The price to avoid that, Human Rights, was just too great a price for our principals to let it slide..."

Convinced?

An so in conclusion we have seen that the GOP could have taken a better road than the one it took with regards to N Korea at a small price to an already deteriorating image. A road that would have been better for all but ruthless tyrant. It has chosen unwisely, and it will cost it come election time.

2007-01-24T13:03:00.000-05:00

At these moments President Katsav addresses the nation. He notifies that he will suspend himself and fight for his innocense. Katsav also says he will resign if found guilty. This is an appropriate step for now because as mentioned before, a man is innocent till proven otherwise.

In addition to this notification, President Katsav issues a harsh accusation of the Media, the Police and the the government's legal adviser (who will determine whether to prosecute) for conspiring against him in this. With the way fortune and government have tied a knot in recent years in Israel, this would not be surprising even if the President is guilty...

Meanwhile in Israel...

2007-01-24T12:54:00.000-05:00

Israel's hottest issue at the moment is the alleged rape by Israel's President Moshe Katsav of several women. Alleged because in Israel, the same as in many Western countries, a man is innocent till proven otherwise. In that sense Israel is more Western despite its Middle Eastern location as indicated by commentator Keith Graves, in that that it at least investigates the allegation without letting the title interrupt the investigation. However Israel is truly becoming like America in other ways as well: it too has an alleged womenizer for a president, just like former President Bill Clinton.

Tags:
Katsav, israel, politics

The Nerve of Some People!

2007-01-24T12:40:00.000-05:00

And once again we are back in Lebanon witnessing the damage being done to the country by some of its inhabitants. Said Hassan Nassrallah accuses PM Seniora of ruining the Lebanese Economy. This is the start of a coup.

Before Nasserallah's reckless adventure this past summer, which has claimed the lives of a 1000 Lebanese and 180 Israelis, Lebanon was on the road to prosperity. The eonomy showed a growth rate of 4.5%, which has dropped to -10% after it. This was the clear result of Nasserallah's preference for the bidding of his Iranian masters over the welfare of Lebanon's people. And now he dares to blame Seniora for the situation??? Really, Said Nassrallah should know better. He should know that an important element of the Arab culture is honor. And honor requires that one takes responsibility for his actions. A dishonoroble man would throw the blame at someone else at the first sign of trouble like your average politician. But in the end, perhaps this is all that Nassrallah is: An average reckless politician from the worst kind. The kind whose mistakes cost not just money, but lives as well.

Tags:
Nasrallah, hezbollah, lebanon, middle east, israel, iran

2006-12-13T16:20:00.000-05:00

On the same day of my last post, but totally unrelated, Fouad Ajami published this op-ed in the New York Times

Lebanon and the Baker Hamilton Report

2006-12-10T16:23:00.000-05:00

It has been quite some time since my last update. It seems to me that nothing has changed sufficiently enough to write about. Iran still holds to its right for nukes while the West waits, Iraqis sadly enough, are still slaughtering each other and so on and so on. However two recent events have occurred which require a special attention: Lebanon, and the Baker-Hamilton report on the Middle East. I will begin with the latter.

The Baker-Hamilton report, as commented by many Middle East experts, is dangerously naive from many angles; however it is particularly naive when it comes to Israel and the solution to the Middle East. There are many risks concerning following this line of thinking when it comes to the West.

Israel is the US (and the West's) manna from heaven and has been for years when it came to protecting it from radical elements in the Middle East. It has also been Arab rulers' favorite destraction for the people from their crewl regimes. Therefore whoever advocates any solution to the Middle East that will go too far in attempting to please Arab crowds (or think he does), better be damn certain that Israel is the cause. Because once Arab despots manage to weaken Israel enough to the point of pleasing their crowds, they run the risk of weakening it too much to allow radical Islamic elements to overtake it and use this new victory to overrun the despots themselves. It does not take a genious to understand what would Israel's collapse mean to the rule of Arab despots in the Middle and to the safety of the Western world. Once the buffer is gone there will be no turning back. So, again, one must be absolutly sure in Washington that they do not need the buffer zone before getting rid of it. It takes a special kind of naivette to think that Falahs (farmers) in Iraq and Egypt know anything about Israel to hate it. Israel's bif with the Palestinians have no bearing on civil strife in Iraq. At most it has a bearing on the international feud between Sunni and Shia countries in their control over the region. And it is here that Lebanon comes in.

Allowing Hezbollah as the radical Shia organization it is to take over Lebanon, would mean a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East that will send the entire region into a war of proportions unheard of. As mentioned here before, Israel is only a prestige prize between these two fighting camps. In fact, allowing Hezbollah to control will boost Shia popularity to such a degree that will allow Iran to pursue its nuclear program undisturbed. This prospect is one that not only the West and Israel fear, but also the entire Sunni Islamic world.

I guess the conclusions I want everybody to understand are as follows: First that I fear collapsing Israel to please angry Middle Eastern mobs (who probably do not bring Israel into consideration in their Islamic civil war) might turn out to be a mistake of collosal proportions to Israel the West and the Islamic world. A mistake none would be able to recooperate from. Second, that abandoning the progressive Lebanese democracy (who unlike many others in the Middle East actually works) in its hour of need simply to cut Western immediate losses and run, might turn out to be the tip of the balance that will bring this entire house of cards called the Middle East down.

Israel: Liberman's entrance is Arab MK's fault!

2006-10-25T06:32:00.000-05:00

Ahmad Tibi, Azmi Bashara and many other Arab members of the Israeli parliameent are in rage over the looming entrance of right wing hawk Avigdor Liberman to the government as the minister in charge of the Iranian threat. But they are the only ones to blame for it.

For months I have been repeating in this website the equation that runs Israeli politics: when Israelis feel secure they turn to conciliatory policy; when they are threatened, they turn hawkish. The Arab MK's such as Tibi and Bashara did not contribute to any safe feeling by supporting Hezbollah through this conflict and by condamning Israel every chance they got. In fact they went so far beyond their public that it has become legitimate to hold views such as those of Liberman. To prove this point one must only look at the Arab Israeli demonstration in front of the Egyptian embassy following this year's tragic road accident in the Sinai. They called upon Egypt to turn to Israel and see how citizens are to be treated. Bashara and Tibi were nowhere to be seen there.

So what should be the lesson from this to everybody? To Arab MK's it is simple: remember who pays your salary and who do you represent. You cannot call for the destruction of Israel and ask for benefits to "your" constituancy a the same time.

The Arab public must distance itself from such views, reaffirming its connection to Israel; and at the same time claim its rights in Israel. Israel is a tough country in which if you do not ask you do not get. It is equally true for both Jews and Arabs. In order to begin this process, the Arab public in Israel must also strive to equal obligations so it has basis to demand those equal rights. With military service being a problem. national service should not be an obstacle. Serving in regional hospitals is as important as military service and deals with everybody. It will also enhance contact with the Jewish population.

The Jewish public of Israel, on its part, must do everything in its power to help fascilitate this contact. Only when the Arab community in Israel, assisted by the Jewish community and devoid of negtive voices such as Tibi and others, does this, can they truly stop opinions such as those of Liberman

Peace & The Wave Pattern of Israeli Politics

2006-10-11T13:11:00.000-05:00

King Abdullah of Jordan warned today that the Israeli Right wing is gaining strength; and will soon turn Israel into a fortress of uncompromise. He therefore called upon the fighting Palestinian factions to stop their fighting and sit for negotiations with Israel before it is too late. It is important that Palestinians heed to that warning.

Israeli elections have always responded to the security situation. If Israelis felt safe, a more conciliatory government was chosen. However if felt threatened, then a hawkish government was in the cards. It is enough to look at the pattern of Israeli elections to understand that. After Rabin's overtures were turned down, Netanyahu came to the fore. After his heavy handedness and Israeli security sense increase, Barak was elected. And finally once Barak's overtures in Camp David 2000 were rejected with the openning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, Sharon came to the fore. This pattern was first observed by Prof. Asher Arian of the Jafee Institute for Strategic Studies; and to a large degree still prevails today.

Therefore it should be no surprise that King Abdullah is sounding this warning now. He sees the way Olmert and his attempts to continue Sharon's disengagment are engulphed in flames torched by the Palestinian kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and Hezbullah's irresponsible adenture this last summer. Liberman and Netanyahu are breathing down Olmert's neck and with his cabinet, and the President, plagued with allegations of corruption and sexual harrassment, it is only a matter of time till the Israeli right is back on the saddle again . This prospect brings us back to point one: the King's warning that negotiations and the road of compromise must be taken by Palestinians now; before they are met with an Israeli government who will truly not want to talk any more.

Israel as a side-order conflict in the Middle East

2006-09-24T22:56:00.000-05:00

Yesterday an event occurred in Israel that serves to perhaps show what is the real conflict in the Middle East. No, it is not the Arab-Israeli one thanks for asking.

Nur Al-Yaqin Badern, the Sunni-then-Shia-then-Sunni-Again Imam of the village Ba'ana in Israel caused an uproar in the Muslim community after anouncing that he adopts the Shia sect of Islam. Representatives of the Muslim community in Israel, who is Sunni just like the one in the PA, turned to Israeli ministry of religions in charge of handling religious-state matters in Israel for all religions (such as funding, etc.) calling upon the minister to dismiss the Imam. Mr. Baderan was summoned for a clarification discussion. Following the discussion he anounced he was misunderstood and still is a devote Sunni.

This event shows that the real conflict in the Middle East is not the Arab Israeli one. This conflict, which Secretary General Kofi Annan called the most symbolic conflict of them all (symbolic of what? perhaps Mr. Annan should ask Prof. Huntington...) is simply a battleground between the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam which rages on since the days of the prophet. It is a brutal popularity contest betweenthe sects in which points are socred based on how much damage is inflicted upon Jews. All enlighted Muslims, Jews and Christians should oppose this kind of battle and focus on the real problem in the Middle East. A problem whose lack of resolution poses the true impediment to peace and stability in the Middle East. And that problem is the internal conflict plaguing the Muslim Arab world from Sudan through Iraq and on to Lebanon...

Iraq: Tell-Tell Signs of a Ruthless Tirant

2006-09-16T00:07:00.000-05:00

The deteriorating security situation in Iraq can only leave one wondering as to how oppressive and ruthless Saddam Hussein's methods must have been in order to keep the country as "orderly" as he did. If the Americans, investing close to a billion dollars a day in Iraq and under the world's watchful eye, are left with close to 1500 civilian causalties in the month of August as a result of battling the insurgency, then one can only imagine Saddam's methods.

With the world focused on his alleged WMD program and first Gulf war, Saddam must have slaughtered people by the thousends in order to make sure fear permates through the ranks of the insurgency as the prosecution in his now laughable trial alleges. He did not care about human lives because this method worked much better for him and was much cheaper... in money, not human lives. With such a conclusion anyone still having doubts about the ousting of the dictator, should stop thinking of himself as a Human Rights advocate.

Jordan: Like Father like Son

2006-09-15T23:28:00.000-05:00

Jordanian King Abdullah released today a statement saying that Israel will not be able to exist without peace with the Palestinians. He also criticized Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip a year ago. These statements represnt his fears from facing the Palestinians on his own. More than anything these statements prove that the king is more similar to his father than previously thought.

The late King Hussein was in a hurry to sign the peace treaty with Israel soon after the Oslo accords. As Dennis Ross indicated in his book, the king feared a looming Israeli-Palestinian agreement after that which would set the borders between Israel and the PA; and leave him to face the Palestinians on his own. It did not happen. The Palestinians fambled the best opportunity they had in years in Camp David 2000 and the risk of a looming agreement was no where to be seen as the Al-Aqsa Intifada began to take shape. King Abdullah could rest... or so he thought.

King Abdullah did not seem at first to people as different from his father. Like his father he was in no rush to get into a conflict with Israel as trade and peace were much more lucrative. However the disengagement enacted by Sharon reignited old fears. Once again a Jordanian king was facing the possibility of having to face the Palestinians on his own. No peace treaty, no matter how lucrative is worth this from their point of view. And so King Abdullah began to release these warnings that to some seemed as if taking a different path from that of his father. But in fact it is the same path. It's just that now that the peace between Israel and Jordan is a fact, the tools standing at his disposal to combat the Palestinian issue are much more limited.

PA: Unity government last false hope for Hamas government

2006-09-14T00:59:00.000-05:00

Many hold high hopes for the forthcoming unity government and its effect on Palestinian politics; but the fact is that this is a hopeless attempt by the Hamas government to reach out while its government is plunging to its death.

Hamas government is in pretty much the same situation as was the Siniora government during the recent conflict - held captive by its more radical factions. Hanniya's government was on its way to start some sort of an indirect dialougue with Israel based on the document known as "the prisoners' document". When Khaled Mashal learned of that in Syria, his only next logical step was to kidnap Cpl. Shalit in order to make sure no reproach occurs. The Hamas government was and is helpless as they do not even know where the soldier is.

This situation is further complicated by the looming economic crisis in the PA. A survey conducted last week by the A-Nagah university of Schem concluded that had the elections been held today, for the first time since Hamas took power, Fatah would win by a margin of 6% (40 to 34). Therefore a unity government is the last resort for Haniya in his fight with Hamas in Syria and with Israel; but it will do him and his government no good. Not without a serious shift in its Israeli-Palestinian position.

The unity government is, as noted, the last attempt. It is Hanniya's hope that a unity government will keep Hamas in power and attract the masses to counteract Mashal and Hamas leadership in Syria; all while using Fatah's reputation as the more pragmatic wing to get out of the blockade without actually recognizing Israel. But again as noted above, this will not work.

First of all, Hamas will not remain in power. Already sources report that the emerging cabinet would still be led by PM Hanniya; but that Hamas would not hold three of the key positions: Finance, foreign relations and interior (which is in charge of the security forces). This will make Hamas under Hanniya the De-Jure leader; but certainly not the de-facto.

As for uniting the people, this move might be sufficient to do just that; but the question remains as to how powerful are the people in supressing the militant groups? Only time will tell.

Finally with regards to the isolation, this will not help. The Americans and the Israelis won't budge on the three terms - recognition, agreements and end to violence. The Europeans might be sweyed but this would be of little use. The EU might be the PA's largest contributor to the tune of 600 million euro a year; but PA economy is still 70% dependent on access to Israel. And so it is time for the Hamas government to adopt a more pragmatic line. Its only chance would be to join hands with Fatah and go against Hamas leadership in Syria on the Israeli issue. Its either that or suffer a defeat that will not be soon forgotten by the impoverished Palestinian public.

2006-09-09T22:19:00.000-05:00

An important article by Al Sharq Al Awsat's Amir Taheri about the connection (or lack of) between British Muslims and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Those in the Palestinian Authority who have called on Blair not to visit the PA should take notes.

Syria: Assad only picks on the weak

2006-09-09T21:09:00.000-05:00

President Bashar al-Assad knows he has no military power to take over Israel. As this site has noted before, Hezbollah's "victory" (if we can call the situation in which Lebanon's economy is now in a victory) could only be achieved in a limited guerilla war meant to annoy Israel and nothing more. But when it comes to Lebanon, there Assad playing it as a big-shot because he can. How else could you explain his objection to International observers on the LEBANESE side of the Syrian-Lebanese borders?

If President Assad truly supported his wards about Liberating Lebanon he would know this decision is totally up to the Lebanese government and it only. He also knows that Lebanon would do now anything it can to prevent another war like this including an international force that would serve to try and stop Hezbollah (as if it is possible without a stringer mandate) and Assad cannot have it. He needs them to get him Sheba farms and reinstate Syria in Lebanon following the cedar revolution.

And so the only way he could help Hezbollah is by preventing an international force on the border he uses to resupply Hezbollah. That is why Syria claimed that doing so would be tauntomaunt to a declaration of war by Lebanon on Syria. Strangely enough, an international force on the Syrian-Israeli border is no declaration of war, could it be because he could win easily over Lebanon? And this is what leads me to say that President Assad only picks on those who are weaker then him... just like a bully.

Meanwhile, in the Palestinian scene...

2006-09-09T20:44:00.000-05:00

Recent events in Lebanon and the Iranian nuclear program, have pushed the Palestinian-Israeli issue aside. Readers of this site know it, the world knows it, Israelis know it and most importantly Palestinians know it. This break in global attention is perhaps the best time to jumpstart a sort of a process based on a few principles, in which no side will try to gain PR points over the other; but would truly mean what it says.

The Israeli Palestinian process is currently in a sort of a magic circle. Chairman Abu Mazen has no political power (and for that matter neither does the Hamas government vis-a-vis its members abroad) and so Cpl. Gilad Shalit is kidnapped. Olmert has to do something about it and the only thing he can do other than blast Gaza to kingdom calm is to talk to Abu Mazen who has no political power and will not have one till Olmert gives him some through some gestures. But without the release of Cpl. Shalit, Olmert is politically incapable of giving such gestures, especially considering the tremendous amount of gestures he has already given in the Lebanese scene to no avail. So what can be done?

The lack of media attention might provide the two leaders a brief breather. None of them can afford to lose; and none of them can win at the moment. For Olmert, a prisoner exchange at the moment would seem like a defeat: all this military operation and nothing to show for it other than the initial solution. For Abu Mazen, well, he has no achievments to show for gaining the people's support; but he could use the declining support in Gaza for the holding of Cpl. Shalit.

And so the two, Olmert and Abu Mazen can negotiate an exchange. For Olmert, this might be a bit too late to save himself in the harsh Israeli political wilderness. But if he wants to do anything memorable before he goes that would help in the future, it would be to empower Abu Mazen through a peisoner exchange scheme that would make it clear who was it that negotiated this relief for Palestinians (Abu Mazen, not Hamas). At the same time, Abu Mazen will have to cooperate on a unity government between Fatah and Hamas (government) that would make sure to reign in on rougue groups including Hamas and Fatah ones. Not doing so will mean that this would be the last ever prisoner exchange. Israel at the same time must follow through on the promises it will make in the exchange and release prisoners. Again, this would require BOTH sides to hold true to their bargain or this will be the abasolute last chance.

While may Palestinians will be relieved to get rid of Cpl. Shalit, their relief must be supplemented by an aleviation of the economic problems in the Gaza strip that would strengthen Abu Mazen. This would lead many Israelis to think "what's in it for us?" and it is here that the Palestinians must provide the goods. If the Israelis get no quiet, then this would be catastrophic. True, Israel will give here a lot more than the Palestinians, but Israelis must remember an important point brought forward by Barak's chief negotiator, Gilad Sher: Israel has all the cards to play with. Palestinians have only one card and it is the one that Israel wants - peace and quiet. It is thus important to get that card as far as Israelis go, and it is important for Palestinians to understand that a negation on yet another promise regarding this card on their part, would mean the Israelis will lose patience and refuse to play any more.

There are definitly no winners in this sort of deal. Every side will feel it gave the most. But what's more important than that, is that there are no losers in it either provided both sides keep their end of the bargain. And that is definitly a plus.

President Ahmadinejad's Blog: Not what HE expected

2006-09-04T11:59:00.000-05:00

A congratulations is in order to Iran's President Ahmadinejad for joining the blogging community. Sources claim the president himself is writing the journal in the website. Whether this is true or not is hard to verify; but one thing is for sure, it does provide for some interesting read and humorous reactions.

An example of the humorous side, are the polls published at the site. While these lines are being written, the current poll asks visitors to indicate whether they think that Israel's attack in Lebanon (as oppose to reaction to Hezbollah) was a US/Israeli plot to trigger a world war. I am sure that much to the disappointment of President Ahmadinejad, 77% of respondents so far have answered 'No'.

Nevertheless, President Ahmadinejad should not be discouraged by this 'little' setback. His blog is quickly approaching Technorati's top 100 blogs and if he just steps off power, he may have a chance at a new career as a blogger, a jounalist or a comedian; all of which are fine jobs... seriously.

Kofi Annan, Syria, Radical Islam and Martha Stewart

2006-09-01T16:34:00.000-05:00

Kofi Annan anounced today that Syria has promised to enforce the embargo of weapons on Hezbollah. In a related piece of news, media mogul and inside-information-trader extrodinaire Martha Steart will head a task force to fight inside trading. How is it related? Well both are cases of letting the cat watch over the cream. Luckily, the second piece of news is a satirical one; the first however, is unfortunately true. Just another example of how the UN is becoming less and less relevant.

I am all that fearful that Bernard Lewis will probably be in the right along with Samuel Huntington on the clash of civilizations. And if the west continues the way it does, then the result will be quite unfortunate for it. Even worse, it will be unfortunate for the new East as well, as radical Muslims like Sheikh Nasrallah will dictate the way of life just as he dictated it to the Christian reporter who interviewed him a few days ago wearing a chadur. In fact I think a chadur factory is going to be thus a good investment. I should sign off and head over to the bank... This is a business plan that cannot fail: a chadur factory in the Middle East at a time when it lets radical Islam take over! You think President Ahmadinejad will agree to design a line for me?

UN Human Rights Council: A Recurring Joke.

2006-09-01T16:23:00.000-05:00

The UN Human Rights Council has appointed a special commission to investigate Israel's crimes in the recent conflict and not Hezbollah (and implicitly, as a sovereign Lebanon). With that the council has reverted to its old practice of simply being a cover to some of the most ruthless regimes in this world. Is it a wonder that even Europe, normally on the Arab side, objected to the decision? This will not strengthen Israeli trust in the UN and as a consequence will certainly not lead to any peace and quiet in the area. If there is going to be an investigation, it must be for all sides and not just Israel. But this will not happen. Because Israel is the only Jewish state in the world representing 13 million Jewish people, while the council is comprised of a majority of Muslim Human Rights violators "representing" (if you can actually call that representing, as they oress their constituaents) 1.2 billion Muslims. Balance of Power anyone?

Winds of Change

2006-08-27T15:53:00.000-05:00

Winds of change are blowing in both Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority; both for the better. In Lbeanon Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said on an interview that had he known that the kidnap would lead to such devastation, he would not have gone with it. Now that he knows that, let us hope that he will allow the Lebanese government to decide on attacks the next time. Early signs show he will as he is inclined to let the government negotiate the issue of the POWs. He also said Israel is not planning on a second round as people who had for second round, do not rebuild first as the Israelis do (does this mean that Hezbollah is also not heading for a second round as it is rebuilding?). This proclamation testifies to the dire situation in which Hezbollah is in following this war. It takes away Nasrallah's ability to say Israel planned it all along the next time; but then again, this is not at the top of his concerns at the moment... he needs to rebuild Hezbollah's image in the public. This would be a great opportunity for the west to support the Siniora government and have this ELECTED government take control.

Good winds are also blowing in the PA. Hamas spokesperson Dr. Razi Hamed pointed for the first time ever by a Hamas official, a finger at the Palestinian people for what is going on inside instead of Israel. Yes, he blames Israel for the deaths and financial situation; but the anarchy and crime are the results of the Palestinain people and in particular the armed militias who shoot rockets at Israel hampering the livelihood of many Palestinians, and the rocket attacks on the Rafah crossing that also lead to that. Most importantly he condamned the journalist kidnapping industry in Gaza whic has become prevelant.

What these two points mean is that a looming light is coming on in the fight with Israel in which resources will be turned towards rebuilding Lebanese and Palestinian society. No more hiding behind excuses blaming the other for what has happened. It is time to also look in the mirror. Because if this important step does not happen, results will be disastrous. In Lebann, if Hezbollah is not reigned on, then the country will follow it to war with Israel again and again till nothin left. In the PA, if this looking inwards does not occur, then eventually Israel will disengage, completely separating from the PA with no agreement, leaving the Palestinians with nothing. If that happens both sides will not be able to blame Israel and the world would not either as happened in Camp David 2000.

A Dangerous Habit

2006-08-24T17:04:00.000-05:00

As I read through Lebanese blogs such as BeirutSpring or the Lebanese Bloggers, I find a dangerous habit evolving through their comments section; one which requires special attention as it will lead Lebanon to Iraq's reality.

For years it has been practice in the Arab world to blame the "Big Satan" (U.S.) and the "Little Satan" (Israel), for all the troubles that befell the Arab world. Raja's recent post about Hezbollah's role in the recent conflict has brought on it a fury of these attitudes ("Desperate and Stupid: a rant" in Lebanese Bloggers); which I find culminating with Mustapha's post on US aid ("Wrong Move from Bush" in Beirutspring). It is exactly this kind of attitude that will leave the Arab world where it is.

What has blaming the West brought the Arab world so far? absolutly nothing. It may have had it feel good about itself and clean itself from its part of the blame; but on the whole the West and Israel have continued to evolve and the Arab world has... well, I don't need to tell you, just look at UNICEF and UNDP stats to know.

Edward Said, the famous Palestinian scholar, was a champion of this approach of blaming the west. For him, as his critics note, Arab culture was a result of Imperialism and Western Orientalists like Bernard Lewis. More than 1500 years of intelectual prose reduced to being a Western invention in the stroke of a pen! What can one say to that other than the pen is mightier than the sword indeed. ..

Though he opposed Islamic radicalism (which for him was a western creation as well), Said has in fact adopted this radical Islamic tactic of blaming the West. But what are th risks of that? Isn't everybody trying to shirk away from responsibility? Probably, but when they do that, it is for their benefit; not their disadvantage. Let us take Iraq for example.

To date, the US has thrown in the way of Iraq an amount of money to the tune of 300 billion dollars and counting. A rough calculation based on 65 million Iraqis would mean that this amounts to about 4200$ a person in Iraq, a hefty sum indeed. Yet all of the Arab world is busy blaming them for imperialism and so more than half that money ended up being spent on miltary budget. Military budget to fight Shia insurgents who want their payback time; Military budget to fight Sunni insurgents who want to go back to Saddam's "good old days"; and a military budget to fight everyday profiteers who decided to make kidnaping aid agency workers into Iraq's number one industry. In the end both the US and the West will be fed up and will decide to invest the money in barricading themselves; leaving Iraqis back in the dust. The prophet's wife, Fatima, who was an astute business woman (In Islam? 1500 years ago?? Yes, all ye who do not bother to learn about Islam) would not have seen this as a smart business move.

And so how does all this relate to Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world and to Mustapha's post? I am glad you asked. In his post Mustapha suggested to reject US aid of 230 million$ to Lebanon. He definitely showed them! and as a reward, Siniora's government will have no money to rebuild Lebanon and combat Hezbollah. Instead Lebanon will get to a situation in which Lebanon would fund the bigger projects like bridges etc. that nobody notices and everybody needs; and Hezbollah will put the icing on the cake in the form of compansations leaving Lebanon in the hands of radical Islam and its backwardness. What a reward. And so instead of focusing on blaming the West, rejecting its help and focusing on being left behind; perhaps it is time to reach out and get some freakin help before it is too late!

1701 Crashing before it even started

2006-08-18T16:42:00.000-05:00

As these lines are being written, UNSC 1701 resolution is slowly dying. No international force is looming; Lebanese army won't enforce things vis-a-vis Hezbollah and neither would the now smaller to non-existent UN force; and Hezbollah itself would only conceal its weapons south of the Litani river. Hezbollah-supporting Lebanese would see it as a victory for Hezbollah; however this shortsightedness ignores the long term reprocussions, ignored also by UN officials who will not enforce the agreement. Long term reprocussions measured in months perhaps a year tops.

It is obvious that Hezbollah will attack again once it allows Shia citizens in the South to recooperate their losses and catch their breath a bit. What is also clear is that when that happens, Israel will respond with full force as the UNSC 1701 resolution allows it and will not stop this time to wait for a ceasefire; but will rather be eager to end this once and for all. It will not wait for an international force noting this misearable example as a precedent.

In order to prevent this, the Lebanese government and the international community must wake up and quickly. They must enforce the resolution to its intent before the UN loses all credibility with Israel first; and following Israel's response to Hezbollah, with the Arab world. The international community must also shape up and provide the Lebanese government with enough funds to rebuild the country and assume the credit for that from Hezbollah. If none of these things is done, then we will be back in conflict within 6-10 months as Secretary of State Rice predicted in the early days of the war. This would make resolution 1701 as useless as the paper it is written on; and will be one more nail in the coughin of the UN.

The Real Damage Caused by Hezbollah

2006-08-18T16:27:00.000-05:00

Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah has wracked the entire prospects for a settlement in the Middle East if you look at the direction winds are now blowing in Israel. Most notably, he has wracked everything for Palestinians.

It took years to move the Israeli public opinion to where it was in Camp David 2000 (Arafat's costly missed opportunity). That shift was evident with the start of the Oslo process back in 1993, continued through Camp David 2000; and culminated with Sharon's disengagment plan. What years of violence could not achieve, diplomacy did. Winds were also blowing favorably in the direction of Prime Minister Olmert's version of the disengagment from the West Bank; yet then came Nasrallah and shuffled the cards.

Right Wing critiques of the various disengagment plans always played on Israel's biggest fear: security. They noted that every disengagment would be interpreted as a victory by the other side leading to more attacks. And they were right. So much right that whenever Hamas or Hezbollah presented it as such, Israel immediately retranched to the Right. So it was when Benjamin Netanyahu replaced Peres and Rabin; and so it was when Sharon replaced Barak. Instaed of capitalizing on the enormuos opportunity, Palestinains shot themselves in the foot with the help of Mr. Nasrallah. The pull out from Gaza brought the Qasam rockets; the pullout from Lebanon brought this recent catastrophy. Instead of proving Israel's hard right wrong, Hamas and Hezbollah have proven them right every time to the dismay of the people truly paying the price for this "bravado", ordinary Palestinians and Lebanese eager to make a living.

This is different from the situation regarding Israel's response. Many say that Israel's response brought much hatred on it; but no one can truy claim that the July 12 attck or the Qassam rockets were made out of extra love. For them there was no risk. Losing farvor with people who won't compromise is no threat. On the other hand losing farvor with people who will the way Hezbollah and Hamas did, is a huge loss that will send this region back quite a bit.

UNSC resolution 1701: Signs of hope but still a long way to go.

2006-08-12T11:22:00.000-05:00

UN Security council resolution 1701 regarding the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is an important step forward. Despite that it has one fatal drawback and that is that it allows Hezbollah a small temporary victory that will alow it to try and survive politically. Nevertheless, the resolution is a golden opportunity for the Lebanese government to exert control over all of its territory.

The resolution only puts the unconditional release of the Israeli soldiers as a preamble. This would not fly in Israel even if the government does approve it. As the Israeli public has always proven, at the top of their mind stands deterence and if that seems to be gone (as Nasrallah wll try and claim) they will elect a more hardline government that will "finish the job". So it was when Benjamin Netanyahu replaced Peres and Rabin; and so it was when Ariel Sharon replaced Ehud Barak.

Now you may say "alright, but a deal is a deal and Israel will not be able to attack after signing the ceasefire agreement". True, but if you look closely at the phrasing of the resolution you will see this depends greatly on Hezbollah's refraining from any more cross border attacks (which it won't) since the resolution gives Israel still the right to retaliate.

The resolution calls for a halt to Israeli OFFENSIVE operations; yet this whole war for Israel has been DEFENCIEVE. This leaves Israel quite the lee-way which it should have if Lebanon does not exert its sovereignty over all of Lebanon as the resolution calls for.

Despite these loopholes, the resolution also allows the Lebanese government to do just that. It calls for an intl. force to assist the government; and it calls for an arms embargo that will allow weapons into Lebanon only with the government's approval. Now not even Russia will be able to bypass that. With Hezbollah politically weaken due to the huge devastation it provoked upon Lebanon; the government of Fouad Seniora has a good chance to hold things together. If he takes it, Prime Minister Fouad Seniora might go down in Lebanon's history books as the Rudi Juliani of Lebanon.

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Israel, UN, Hezbollah.

Better late than Never

2006-08-07T16:30:00.000-05:00

The Lebanese government has taken a couragous step today towards the end of this bloody conflict in the Middle East. Cabinet has voted in favor of mobilizing 15000 former Lebanese troops and deploying them together with a UN force along the country's southern border with Israel, assuming responsibility. Needless to say this is what Israel has demanded all along and that it is unfortunate that it took the lives of close to 900 Lebanese and 100 Israelis to get that. This deployment will lead to the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

But not all obstacles are out of the way yet. Lebanon needs to return the two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah. Insisting on a prisoner swap for them at this moment is illogical. Israel was already burned once 4 years ago when it released 450 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners in return for 3 bodies and a civilian. Lebanon's prisoners in Israel like Samir Juntar who murdered a police officer, together with a father and his 2 daughters are unlikely to be released as the Israeli public would not have it considering the losses Israel suffered. Olmert will seem like he has surrendered to Hezbollah. But this should not be at the top of Lebanese officials at the moment. What is important is for the Lebanese government to do whatever it takes to end this conflict that has exerted a much larger toll on Lebanon than it has or will on Israel. Those on the ground need to be pragmatic rather than try and secure political achievements on the back of suffering Lebanon. It seems that even Hezbollah has understood this message in light of dwindling support as its 2 ministers have also voted for this option.

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Israel, Peace, Hezbollah.

A Must

2006-08-05T19:23:00.000-05:00

I read this entry and I believe that it is a must for everyone; and particularly those who think that supporting the Hezbollah is the same as supporting Lebanon... it is not.

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Hezbollah

What's on the table for Hezbollah?

2006-08-01T17:10:00.000-05:00

Hezbollah has been claiming lately that it has the full support of the people. In that case it can very well solve the mess in Lebanon to its satisfaction: It can lay down its weapons, join the Lebanese army and through parliament and cabinet declare war on Israel! Alegedly this would be the best solution for it, for it would pull the rug right underneath Israel's claims regarding Hezbollah's illegitimacy; giving Nasrallah a diplomatic adavntage. Yet this scenario is not realistic and Hezbollah knows it.

Hezbollah's timing for the attack was more than just a coordination of effort with Hamas, much more. Since Israel withdrew from Lebanon and in light of Israel's restraint in the past six years in face of Hezbollah provocations, people in Lebanon started wondering as to why exactly do they need Hezbollah. The Israelis are out and Sheba farms are Syrian property despite all of Hezboolah's and Syria's claims since Syria is not willing to sign otherwise (talking and signing are two different things as any one who has been involved in contract disputes knows). Hezbollah knows all this.

It knows that if it lays down its arms and joins the Lebanese parliament and army, no war with Israel would be on the horizon for all the other factions led by the currently de jure Prime Minister of Lebanon, Fouad Seniora, would object. When that happens, Hezbollah's usefullness to Syria and Iran as a proxy weapon would drop to zero in an instant; and as a result, Nasserallah and his colleagues will not be able to continue financing their number one source of power: the vast social welfare services they provide Lebanon's impoverished Shi'a community, comprising 40% of Lebanon's population.

In light of this, and in light of the organizations declarations indicating declining support at home, it is easy to see why Hezbollah and Nasrallah are willing to sacrifice Lebanon in the fight with Israel. For without that fight, without Iranian-Syrian funding for it and for the organization's social welfare programs, Hezbollah will be reduced to a mere political party; and an insignificant one at that.

Now I know what you might be thinking: if that is the case, then is not Israel's response counterproductive to its objetives? Would it not have been logical then to seat and wait for Hezbollah's demise? The answer is surprisingly no. Because these questions raise other interesting questions: what differentiates the time before and after the Israeli attack? Why is it that the Lebanese government did not jump on this declining popularity of Hebzollah and eliminate it before all hell broke loose? The answer to these questions sets the background for the Israeli actions and answers the question openning this paragraph.

For the past six years, the government of Prime Minister Fouad Seniora may have wished Hezbollah to be gone; but feared that acting on it would bring forward a civil war. This meant that although the motive was there, the desire was not as long as Hezbollah was not causing any trouble. But the price for this avoidence of civil war should not have been paid by Israel. And so Israel acted, knowing that no salvation would come from the de jure government of Fouad Seniora.

If the Seniora government would have acted, it would have ignited a civil war as Prime Minister Seniora would have been accused of persecuting Shia Lebanese. But now with the growing international pressure, he can do so with less fear. He can paint the elimination of Hezbollah as a resopnse to international pressure and Lebanon's devastation to counter accusations of sectarian bias. This is what separates the before and after of the Israeli attack and as I noted, Hezbollah knows it. This leads back to the openning point of this post that a ceasefire that would end with Hezbollah's disarming and joining the army and parliament of Lebanon, means the end of the war with Israel and the end of Hezbollah. And that is something Nasrallah will not have, even if he has to bring down Lebanon in flames to fight it... and obviously he does.

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah,

Qana: Hezbollah's Human Shield

2006-07-30T13:18:00.000-05:00

The tragedy that occurred today in Qana in Lebanon is yet another clear example for the words of UN humanitarian aid coordinator Yan Egland about Hezbollah's use of civilians as cover. This can only be stopped through the dismantling of Hezbollah. For those who require further proof, it was provided hours later by the IDF through video footage taken by an Israeli drone of the area showing a rocket being launched by Hezbollah from a nearby building. Adding this video evidence to the fact residents of Qana said Hezbollah is not using the village makes me re-emphaszie my point that something has gone terribly wrong with Lebanese nationalism when Lebanese civilians are willing to sacrifice Lebanon and their lives for Hezbollah instead of sacrificing Hezbollah for Lebanon and their lives.

In addition new evidence is surfacing in the case of the unfortunate death of four UN observers by Israeli bombings. Sources say an email sent from the Canadian officer that was unfortunately killed in the attack, indicated Hezbollah was using the area adjascent to the UN post against Israel. Same sources say that officer noted that the bombing came dangerously close to the post and that he saw the bombings as "a tactical need". This comes amidst Israeli claims exactly to that effect.

Finally in Isreal some questions arise as to the attack in Qana that have left the IDF somewhat buffled. According to IDF officials, the attack in the vicinity of the building in question occurred somewhere around 7 hours prior to the report that indicated the attack, IDF sources are trying to see what has occurred in the time that lapsed in between. Noting the claims that Hezbollah is using the people as a human shield and that the organization has been known to orchastrate some heartbreaking scenes for foreign media (See Anderson Cooper;s blog from Sunday July 23rd entitled "Our Very Strange Day with Hezbollah" for details), I fear the worst.

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Qana, CNN.

Hezbollah losing base

2006-07-25T18:10:00.000-05:00

In an unusual statement for a Hezbollah official, the second in command of Hezbollah's political wing, went on to say that Hezbollah did not expect this fierce reaction from Israel. It is unusual for Hezbollah to admit to mistakes that should have been forseen over the television; however the timing is understandable. The tides are turning against Hezbollah. Support at home is wanning and Hezbollah is preparing the ground in the domestic arena to try and shed responsibility from itself for this crisis at the homefront. This blame wash is suppose to calm people in Lebanon that Hezbollah was not wrong in its expectation that Israel will response in a docile manner; even though it is now very clear it is not the case.

In another front, the world PR front, Hezbollah is also suffering a major blow after the bomb laid on it by the UN Humanitarian coordinator Yan Egland. More and more foreign news agencies are reporting that their reports from Lebanon about the extent to which the targets hit by Israel were purely civilian, were heavily influenced by Hezbollah media "advisors"... apperantly Hezbollah's media blitz is turning against it big time.

Tags:
Lebanon, Hezbollah, CNN.

Wake up there in Lebanon!

2006-07-25T17:45:00.000-05:00

The world's attention is focused on events between Israel and Lebanon and this blog is not about to be any different. Today's topic is that something has gone terribely wrong in Lebanon and it is high times that the Lebanese people wake up and do something about it. The declarations by UN humanitarian coordinator Yan Egland about Hezbollah are most telling of this along with declarations by Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah.

Yesterday in Larnaca Egland condemned Hezbollah for using cowardly tactics and for taking pride that mostly civilians are hurt because of their tactics. In a speech to the nation, Nasserallah said Hezbollah is alive and well and holding on. Wonderful Hassan, but what about Lebanon? Does it hold on? Do you even care?

And this terribley wrong approach of Hezbollah first and Lebanon later extends to the people as well. In an interview to CNN, a Lebanese from Binat Jabel noted that they will sacrifice everything for Hezbollah. Does he notice he is sacrificing Lebanon? Shouldn't defence of the homeland be "we will sacrifice everything for Lebanon"?

Those who think that they support Lebanon and have went out in thousends around the world to support Lebanon and Hezbollah should take note of this trend; a trend that will end with Hezbollah dragging Lebanon into a war it does not want nor can it win in the name of Iran and Syria. Those who took to the street need to understand that supporting Lebanon and supporting Hezbollah is not one and the same. The Lebanese people, just like those demonstrators, must choose who it is that represents Lebanon: is it the government of elected Prime Minister Fouad Seniora that has no interest in war and wants to rebuild Lebanon from its horrible past? or is it Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah bent on sacrificing Lebanon in his fight with Israel through wreckless adventures?

A firm stance on this issue will determine Lebanon's future, for better or worse.

p.s
I must apologize but for the duration of this conflict most of the posts in this blog will focus on developments in this conflict. It is in no way supporting the misconception that nothing else happens in the Middle East.

Middle East, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Peace, Iran, Syria.

Analysis: Recent Rocket Attack by Hezbollah takes Crisis to a Whole new Level

2006-07-19T21:10:00.000-05:00

This entire quagmire in the Middle East has been one wrong calculation after another for Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah. He failed to predict that a new government in Israel already in a volatile situation in Gaza would respond as it did; he failed to predict that he will recieve no blind support from the Arab League for his adventure; and he failed to predict that not all of Lebanon would stand behind him in this needless 'adventure'. Now, this recent rocket attack in Israel hitting as deep as it did in Jezareel Valley in Israel, has pushed the conflict into a whole new level; representing another miscalculation by the usually calculated Hezbollah leader.

Before this recent attack, speculations within the Israeli intelligence community regarding Hezbollah's capabilities have been exactly that, speculations. As long as they remained as such, there was still a chance that the crisis could be scaled down to a prisoner swap; allowing each side to go back and lick its wounds, those with more and those with less.

However now that Israel's concerns have been realized, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, as important as they are to Israel, take a second seat in the priorities of this conflict. There is no chance in hell that Israel will setlle for a simple prisoner swap now that it knows of Hezbollah's capabilities. The only way out of this conflict now is the full disarmament of Hezbollah for Israel will not leave this conflict before it knows perfectly well that it has handled the threat overshadowing her, which is Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah.

Tags:
Middle East, Peace, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah.

Mid East Crisis: The Solution is Lebanese Sovereignty

2006-07-16T14:07:00.000-05:00

As the rightous voltures gang up on Israel in the West, they would do well to heed to voices from the East who know perfectly well what started this futile escalation. Anybody with a dispassionate and logical view at things, would know that the only solution to this conflict is the return of the Israeli soldiers, the ceccation of hostilities; and the final and complete disarmament of Hezbollah in order to evoke for the first time a true Lebanese sovereignty in Lebanon.

France and Russia have gone condemning the Israeli overreaction. As I have stated times before, the motivations for this are clear: Russia is seeking Muslim support for its operations in Chechnya while France wishes to avoid a re-run of the 2005 riots in Paris. If their interest is truly peace in the Eastern front, they must call for an end to Hezbollah's hostage taking of Lebanon. Though the fears of France and Russia of a Muslim reaction to the support of this logic are understood; they are nevertheless misplaced. It is enough to look at reacions from the Arab world to this conflict as oppose to previous ones in order to understand that taking the right stand is not the risky venture it once was.

As I have previously mentioned, opinion coloumns in the Arab world clearly do not see the logic that stood behind the attack by Hezbollah other than having "Lebanon charge its credit card for Syria and Iran's ambitions" as one reporter put it. And indeed in the Arab League summit that took place this Saturday, corresponding voices were heard. While the tone was unsurprisingly critical of Israel, it was not the unilateral support Nasserallah had hoped for. Syria along with two others found itself in opposition to a large group of Arab heavyweights such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq and others. Clearly seeing things for what they are is not as risky as it once was. But what are those clear things that everyone must see? It is Lebanon's sovereignty, that is both the cause of this problem and the solution to it.

Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, pointed to it in Friday's Security Council session. "You know" he said to his Lebanese colleague, "that what we are doing is right and that at the end of all of this, a free Lebanon would be the main benefector". He could not put it in any better words. Just like the Hamas government who was starting to wane from its rhetoric anti-Israel line before being dragged by Hamas in Syria; so is Lebanon now being dragged by Hezbollah into a conflict no Lebanese wants to take part in. And so if any solution to this must come, it would be in the form of Lebanon regaining its sovereignty from Hezbollah by disarming the Shi'ia militia and establishing true Lebanse sovereignty throughout Lebanon in accordance with UN resolution 1559. This can only be done if the International community presses to do so and does not act like France and Russia who are seeking a way to gain points from all ofthis in the Muslim world.

All this must be done quickly before the human toll on both sides and particularly on the Lebanese side rises. Israel cannot be the victim's of the Lebanese government's lack of ability to establish its sovereignty.

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Arab League, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, France, Russia.

Lebanon: Hezbollah invents time machine!

2006-07-12T09:46:00.000-05:00

Breaking news arrive from Lebanon as Hezbollah "scientists" have managed to invent a time machine capable of covering all of Lebanon. The first test begun on Wednesday when Hezbollah forces kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid. Israeli troops are moving into Lebanon, sending Lebanon and Israel back to a time when Israel was forced to enter Lebanon to stop attacks. Unfortunately for both sides but especially to the Lebanese people who were put in the middle by Hezbollah, it appears that the test is going to be a success.

The discovery is nominated for both "the stupidest" and "most dangerous" "Provocation of the Year" Award

Tags:
Middle East, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Terror

Iran is stretching the rope to its limits

2006-07-11T11:38:00.000-05:00

Iranian ambassador to Switzerland anounced today that his country will give its response to the incentives program by late August. The motivation for that is clear: by late August the upcoming G8 summit in Russia will have passed, giving Iran ample time to stall things and pursue its nuclear ambitions. Given President Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel and the West and the threat of Islmaic outburst, these ambitions cannot be peaceful.

When the G8 summit passes, the chance for the permanent members of the Security Council to talk and pass the matter to the Security Council officially will also pass. Russia and China are likely to reject any talks of Iran's nuclear program before the Iranian response will arrive. This response however, is unlikely to arrive any time soon. The first definitive response to the incentives program will probably be something along the lines of "We accept the offer but demand the right to hold on to our bomb which we have just finished developing". By then it should be obvious to everyone that there will not be much anyone can do about it.

However President Ahamadinejad, as we have noted before, is again miscalculating the West's patience as well as his neighbours'. The situation has become much more tense now that North Korea has tested its weapons; and as the war in Iraq has proven, the US is quite capable of proceeding without Security Council approval. However in difference to Iraq, this time, when the US springs into action, its 'coalition of the willing' will be far wider due to Western fears; quashing any concerns that the US army mightbe overstreched. When that happens, not even Russia and China will be able to stop them; nor will they want to.

Tags:
Middle East, Iran, G8, Security Council, US, Nuclear.

Gaza: The saga continues

2006-07-09T18:29:00.000-05:00

They say a picture is worth a thousend words... this one by CoxAndForkum.com seems to be worth a million.

In addition, while I have discussed the matter of the futility of the militant kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit in my previous post, it seems that some in the Arab media have also developed a critical view of the matter. Read this coloumn by the General Manager of the Al Arabiya network and former editor-in-chief of the influential Asharaq Alawsat newspaper, Abdul Rahman Al rashed. It provides a fair minded view of the discussions going inside the Arab world with regards to the Palestinian stance. It too stresses that if the Palestinians do not wake up and become pragmatic soon, they will find themselves alone in their quest for independence

Tags:
Middle East, Peace, Israel, Palestinians, Gaza

Gaza: Who Killed the Diplomatic Channel?

2006-07-01T18:00:00.000-05:00

Many people are now asking what has caused Israel to move away so quickly from the diplomatic channel into the military channel, supposedly without giving the diplomatic channel a chance? The answer is that Israel has already been through this scenario once before, and it did not bode well for the country.

When Palestinian militants (and in this case it is fair to call them militants as their target has been a military one; as oppose to Qassam rocket terrorists who aim purely at Israeli civilians) demanded the release of prisoners in exchange for information on the condition of the kidnapped soldier, alarms were ringing in Israeli policy making circles. "We have been through this scenario once beofre" they must have said to themselves. They were not wrong.

When the Palestinians made the aforementioned demand, they no doubtedly imitated the method used four years ago by Hezbollah strongman Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah in the matter of the three Israeli soldiers his organization kidnapped. Nasserallah toyed with Israel for two years sending mixed messages to the Israeli government through German mediators about the soldiers' condition. In the end, after two years of negotiations, Israel released 450 live prisoners in return for three soldiers' bodies and an Israeli civilian kidnapped under mysterious circumstances in Europe by Hezbollah. Undoubtedly, Nasserallah gave lessons to the Palestinians on this subject. Unfortunately he did not teach the Palestinians the most important lesson of all: that this trick only works once.

It was only when Israel recieved the bodies that it knew the soldiers were dead. The feeling among the Israeli public was that Nasseallah has toyed with them for two years and played them for fools; a notion Nasserallah himself was quick to emphasize. Unsurprisingly, the government was widely criticized for not doing anything to save the soldiers and for leaving it all to diplomatic negotiators. Prime Minister Sharon pushed away these criticisms noting that he has had thirty years of military experience under his belt and that these kind of things sometimes happen. Unfortunately for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and for the Palestinians, Olmert does not have this kind of experience to rely on.

Prime Minister Olmert would not be able to hide behind years of military experience; nor can he afford the criticisms from the public when his coalition is not one of the strongest Israel has ever known. The aforementioned incident with Nasserallah; and the execution of Israeli citizen Eliyahu Asheri only an hour after he was kidnapped have pushed him to the only viable option he sees as remaining: the military pressure. Incidently this military pressure is also meant to deal with Palestinian terrorists' (as oppose to militants) constant firing on Israeli civilians; another touchie issue for the prime minister.

And so in response to the question opening this post, "Who killed the Diplomatic Channel?" one can only answer that it was Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nasserallah who has taught Israel to give very little chance to diplomacy before moving on to less pleasent methods of request. With this kind of lesson, one can only hope that the militants who have kidnapped Cpl. Shalit have their citizens in mind and will release him before things escalate even further.

Tags:
Middle East, Israel, Palestinians, Hezbollah, Terrorism,Shalit, Gaza.

Oh, The Irony: Iran has no Money to Import Oil

2006-06-23T15:33:00.000-05:00

Iran's Oil minister anounced today that starting September 23rd, the country would cease the import of oil to the country due to lack of budget. This latest news from Teheran re-emphesizes the futility of Iran's nuclear energy progrem. Iran,as one of the world's largest exporters of crude oil, does very little refining on its own, which is where the money is. As a result the country exports the crude at the market price per barrel, and imports the more expensive refined product at a higher price (closer to our pump prices). If the reigning mad man in Teheran needed a sign that Iran should end its nuclear progrem (other than being kicked out of the World Cup) this is it! The rediculous amounts of money spent on snicking behind everybody's back with a nuclear progrem that would eventually test the West's patiance, would be far better spent on building refineries. It would be better for the world and it would be better for the Iranian economy. Needless to say this is not the first time the writer of these lines advocates this line of action.

Tags:
Iran, Oil, Politics, Nuclear, World Cup

Iraq: Shia Government=Iranian Government?

2006-06-12T19:36:00.000-05:00

Fellow readers

My apologies for not writing for almost two weeks. Aside from the fact it has been two hectic weeks, I have also experienced troubles accessing my blogger account.

Many things have happened in the Middle East in the past two weeks and many things still do. From A-Zarqawi's death to Palestinian in-fighting many things must be addressed. Today's point of thought concerns the establishment of a predominantly Shia government in Iraq and its implications on relations with Iran.

Many analysts, some of them Saddam-loyal Sunnis, parade the 'Shia-Scare' (as in red scare) explanation which argues that A Shia dominated government necessarily means an Iranian dominated government. While this might very well be, I would like to offer a couple of points for you to chew on before diving head first into this argument.

The first point that is important to remember, is that although A-Zarqawi is now dead and Bin-Laden is still on the run, the Sunni insurgency threat is far from over. The now predominantly Shia government will need two things for the time being to fight this threat. The first of these two is Sunni political parties' support. This is crucial to aleviate the concerns of the Sunni population. Those concerns will not be alleviated through enhanced contacts with Teheran.

The second thing the predominantly Shia government will need to reign in on the insurgency for the time being is American power. At some point or another Iraqi forces will have to assume control of the situation but that time has not arrived yet. If the Americans leave now it will spell disaster for the Iraqi government.

I know what you might all be thinking right now. "So what if it collapses? It is not in the interest of an Iranian dominated government to maintain the government in Iraq". This might be true but is not exact. Many Sunni Muslims still have access to military personnal and equipment. Add that to the insurgency and those two things are not things Iran is likely to be welcoming of. And so increased ties with Teheran might jepordize the US umbrella the government in Iraq now enjoys of.

But these are not the only points in which the equation appearing at the title of this post is questioned. The one final argument against the inevitabiliity of an Iraqi Shia government becoming an Iranian puppet lies in the balance of power inside the Muslim world. Shias may be the majority in Iran, they may be the majority in Iraq; but they are the overwhelming minority in the Muslim world in general and the surrounding countries specifically. That alone might dispel the Iranian and Iraqi governments from making any overwhelming overtures of reproachment. For if the surrounding Sunni dominated countries sniff even the slightest scent of such a possibility, not even the American forces will be able to stop them on their tracks. Accepting the vote of the Shia majority in control of Iraq is one thing; accepting a Shia pact in control of the region is another, particularly in light of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

And so I return to the main point of this post, that a Shia dominated government in Iraq does not necessarily mean an Iranian puppet. Of course anything is possible in the Middle East as we find out on a daily basis; but that does not mean that politics in the area are completely devoid of logic.

Tags:
Middle East, Politics, Iraq, Iran, Islam, US

Iran: Saying 'No' is Not an Offer

2006-05-31T21:47:00.000-05:00

The US seems to have changed tactics. Today it anounced that Teheran has the right for peaceful nuclear energy. This was done despite the fact that Teheran has done nothing to show any intention of moderation. That fact suggests that Teheran is out of time, because it means that the US, Russia and China have indeed reached an agreement that would allow the US to get off the high horse while still maintaining its credibility, i.e. sanctions, if the talks fail.

Teheran's response? an unequivocal 'No'. After the usual 'it's a trick' courtesy, Iran's President Ahmadinegad did not indicate he is going to tone down his anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric, reassuring the west about the peaceful intentions. Instead he said that Iran will not give up enrichment since it is against its interests (which does not help alleviate concerns about nuclear weapons). But the Iranian president does not understand that just saying 'No' is not enough!

He is not willing to give up enrichment? fine, but he has to offer something that would alleviate the concerns or the West led by the US, will charge in and alleviate those ocncerns as it did in Iraq! What could such a thing be? It is hard to say, but for sure a trade off, a positive correlation if you will, must exist between Iran enriching Uranium and the IAEA supervising it: as the former goes up, the latter goes up even more.

Tags:
Middle East, Iran, US, IAEA, Nuclear, Russia, China, Politics.

Oh, the irony

2006-05-31T09:19:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I had the usual conversation about democracy in the Middle East. As usual the peace activists spoke about peace and liberties and brought the usual argument: "We should not impose our way of democracy on the Middle East", and then it hit me: those peace activists were using the same words tyrants in the Middle East have been using for years!!!, although with slight modifications: the tyrants replaced the words "we" with "you" and "our" with "yours". So while peace activists were saying "we should not...etc.", tyrants in the Middle East 'justified' them saying "you should not impose your way of democracy on the Middle East" while continuing to suprass the liberties of people. And so it happens that the irony is that those peace activists fighting for peace and freedom for all, were actually echoing the words and arguments of those who suprass the very same liberties they call for in the Middle East. Just another food for thought as the debate on the validity or futility of democracy in the Middle East rages on.

Tags:
Peace, Middle East, Democracy, Anti-war.

What's in a Word: "a Continuous State"

2006-05-29T22:17:00.000-05:00

The Iranian issue has captured the headlines recently because its the most high profile case at the moment. This is probably good news for some people like Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad who recently decided to talk to interrogators on the issue of the Hariri matter. It is also bad news to people like the terrorists who blew the Sinai for the 3rd time in a year, hurting no one but the common people, for their reprehinsible news caught exactly 2 seconds on the news before it faded into dim memory. And so interest of getting back to routine, I will continue with my semi-regular corner of "What's in a Word" offering different perspectives on issues currently dividing the Middle East, particularly the Arab\Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Today's term is: "a continuous state".

In his recent report to the EU, the EU's foreign relations coordinator Javier Solana noted that he sees no possibility for progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that would lead to a viable solution due to Hamas' recent election and Israel's determination to continue considering the possibility of an additional unilateral move. His idea of a viable solution is the State of Israel living peacefully next to a continuous indpendent Palestinian state. He did not elaborate on that last sentence; particularly what does he mean by "continuous".

It so happens that the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank are not islands. They are not separated by a sea that would cause the debate to simply focus on territorial waters. What separates the occupoed territories is the State of Israel. This makes the term "a continuous state" quite a frightening one for both sides. For Israelis a continuous Palestinian state means a split Israel and vise versa for the Palestinians.

Israelis might rightfully claim that the two areas were never united except during the Ottoman empire; and that from its break till 67' those areas belonged to two different countries, namely Jordan and Egypt. While this is true, it does not change the situation we are now facing. That situation is that the two areas will become the Palestinian state; and that a solution that would satisfy both must now be found. And just like a solution for the Tample Mount can surely be found, this too can be solved.

Now there might be a lot of good ideas out there; I'll just one example in the hope of provoking discussion. The idea I was thinking of is to simply build an underground tunnel for a train line that would connect the two areas; and that this train would be the PA's responsibility. Now you might all be thinking this is a horrible degrading idea or whatever but stop a minute and think about it: Israel's continuity is kept and the Palestinian as well. What's more, when thinking about this solution, try to ignore its conflict context. It is much like the Euro-tunnel, only instead of the train passing under water; it would pass underground. Now that is only one solution. If you have any more, this would be a great place to sound them up and have others scrutinize it as I hope you will mine.

Tags:
Israel, Palestinians, Peace, EU, Middle East.

The Liberal-Democratic State and Islam: Can the two coincide?

2006-05-14T18:02:00.000-05:00

A recent article I have stumbelled into in A-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper has made me think a little bit about why does liberal democracy lag behind in the Middle East and can it co-exist with Islam. My conclusion was that the two, Liberal-Democracy and Islam, can co-exist; however only after a fundamental change occurs in the Middle East with regard to the role of Islam in the state. Here is why.

The article in A-Sharq Al-Awsat began with a very astute observation that throughout the years Islamist thought had no problem adjusting to models of the state. This was no surprise since many states in the old times were based on either authoritarian or religious based regime. Both these models, models that brought forward structures like that of the caliphate, suited the absolutist role Islamist thinkers at the time thought Muslim religion should have. However since then things have changed; particularly after the emergence of the nation-state.

The nation-state was a model that shuffled all the cards. Religion and\or authoritarianism were replaced by a social contract between the state and the people; a contract that replaced religion in the centre of the state. It was meant to answer the divisions (though not always to great success) inside those states with regards to religion, ethnicity and other points of diversity that threatened to tear the old notion of the state apart. Legitimacy did no longer emerge from authority or the scriptures, it emerged from the people. Religion was somewhat pushed aside. Islamist thought's not-so-brief stint with the state was about to be over. But is that necessarily the case?

Islamist thought in the old ages has proven itself quite adaptive. It has managed to adapt to the old ideas of the state, proving it can adapt to changing circumstances. Today's liberal-democracy is the modern challenge for Islam and the Middle East. That challenge requires, as I noted, a fundamental change in the role of religion in the state.

In modern liberal-democracy, religion has taken a second seat. This is not to say that it has vanished, nor does it need to vanish; it simply means that it has shifted from the state-realm to the personal realm, meaning that religious observance has become a matter of personal choice. Religion still holds a meaningful role in the state as it affects all of our perceptions of right and wrong; but it has taken a second seat to people-based legitimacy that rooted out the intolerant elements of religion for the most part through tolerance and diversity. And so that switch, from religious authority to people-based legitimacy is what has to occur in the Middle East; but can it? At the risk of being tagged as a foolish optimistic, I say 'yes'.

The world today and the people in it are not the same people of the middle ages. Technology has become more sailient and people can see how other people live. The idea of a better life though personal choice has become more and more prevelant in people's minds, even in the Middle East and underdeveloped countries as mass migrations indicate. The authoritarianism of old Islamist thought has become the enemy of the regimes that still hold it. Ahamdinejad's case is likely to be the prime example. And so in light of all of this, I stick to my belief that the change in the role of religion in Middle Eastern societies that will facilitate the co-existance of liberal democracy and Islam, is possible.

Tags:
Islam, Middle East, Democracy, Politics, Liberal Democracy

Olmert gave it all for free and Arab Israeli parties have managed to miss the boat once again

2006-05-06T17:36:00.000-05:00

Yes, its official, once again Arab Israeli members of Knesset had a chance to help their public (either the Palestinian or the Arab Israeli, which ever one they think they represent); and once again they blew it.

Incoming Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had a very weak left wing coalition party to back him up should he go through with concessions to Palestinians in the West Bank. His only chance of getting a left leaning majority relied on the Arab parties, and they blew it.

They blew it because they had a chance to secure a place in the coalition and get things for the Arab Israeli public, while helping move toward a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead they chose to reinforce the negative image they already have in Israel as those who want the country destroyed (unlike their constituants) by meeting with Hamas; and now they are surprised why they are not trusted in the Knesset's most sensitive committee, security and foreign affairs.

Meanwhile Ehud Olmert had no choice but to go to the Ultra-orthodox parties and give it all to them for free. He gave them whatever budget he could in return for support of the coalition with no promise to support him if concessions to Plaestinians would have to be made - in short, everything for free.

That money should have gone to help the Arab minority of Israel, that money could have gone to them; but the Arab members of Knesset were too busy hating Israel once more to actually go and take it.

Everybody loses here, well everybody except two groups, the Ultra orthodox and the Arab members of parliament. The former got everything it wanted while the latter at least will get Knesset paychecks while leaving their publics out to dry. At least the Ultra-orthodox members of parliament have earned their salaries as far as it concerns their public.

And the state of Israel? it loses. It loses because once again the Arab minority is going to get less budgets (thanks to their elected representitives), causing unrest and it loses because the Ultra-orthodox have gotten a little bit more hold on how the country would be run.

What's more the Arab Israeli members of Parliament would also not get anything for their Palestinian "consituants": Even with the Ultra-Orthodox in the coalition, they are known as very unstable partners, a thing that will force Olmert to go to the Ultra right wing party Yisrael Beytenu under Avigdor Lieberman for support. This could not spell good news for Palestinians.

And so in conclusion, I return to the title of this article - that the Arab Israeli members of Knesset blew it. They could have supported a two state solution and show it while proclaiming that they are Israelis; instead they chose not to, at the unfortunate expense of their public who has already proclaimed it is Israeli while wanting to live side by side with a Palestinian state.

Troubles from without

2006-05-05T21:18:00.000-05:00

Once again Hamas' Palestinian government is tripped by its foreign branches, this time courtesy of Hamas reprsentative in Lebanon.

Only a few weeks after it seems Hamas' Syrian branch was in charge of the insertion of weapons into Jordan with the aim of targeting important instilations and dampening relations with Jordan; Hamas' Lebanon representative is dampening relations inside the Palestinian Authority in a way that would destroy Hamas' ability to achieve any sort of compromise with Fatah armed militants.

The Hamas representative in Lebanon noted in Hezbollah's Al-Manar television that his organization has skillfuly managed to circumvent American boycott of Hamas' government and transfered money into the PA government. The anount of money was probably not much since even Arab banks have been encouraging Hamas to close its accounts in their branches for fear of an American retaliation on their business; but the amount of money does not matter. It is the simple fact, whether true or not, that money is rumored to have gotten into the hands of Hamas.

If that is the case, Fatah members of the Palestinian Authority's 160 thousand strong civil service and security apparatus are going to expect to see their salaries soon, whether the money is there or not. If they do not see it, they are likely to blame Hamas of withholding their salary; an accusation that will not only hurt Hamas' attempt to portray itself as the government of all Palestinians, but will also cause a new wave of violence on the part of Fatah militant groups who already have been seizing various Palestinian offices demanding money and better jobs and an end to what they see as Hamas' discrimination against their people.

In light of this it is not surprising that Hamas' foreign minister Mahmoud A-Zahr, after his meeting with Egyptian foreign minister, was quick to anounce that any money that would be arriving in the government's hands would arrive in an open and legal manner. This is done in order to dispel the rumors as well as to make sure that Hamas is seen as if it is running an accountable government, something the organization campaigned on.

This recent event and the Jordan affair are not the only times Hamas' branches abroad have landed the Palestinian Authority's government into trouble; causing internal stir inside the occupied territories. A few weeks ago it was Hamas' exiled political leader in Syria Haled Mash'al who implied Fatah members were traitors to the Palestinian cause after President Abbas condemned the latest suicide bombing in Tel Aviv to counter the bad impression created by Hamas. That remark has sparked civil unrest in the territories between Hamas and Fatah supporting groups, pushing Hamas government away from the order it has promised to restore.

If this state of affairs continues and Hamas branches abroad continue to put sticks in the wheels of the Hamas government, it would not be surprising if Hamas' prime minister Ismayiel Hannia follows through on his threat after the "Fatah traitors" remark, and resigns.

Tags:
Middle East, Palestinians, Hamas, Terrorism, Lebanon, Syria, Hezbollah, Israel

Happy 58th Birthday Israel

2006-05-02T10:13:00.000-05:00

Israel

Is there no end to the Cynicism?

2006-05-01T16:43:00.000-05:00

There is an old say that goes: "don't throw stones at other people's houses, when your house is made of glass". An explanation for the meaning of this phrase was provided today courtesy of Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Jawad Zarif.

Ambassador Zarif filed a protest to the Secretary General today, calling for the UN to restrain the US threats for use of a military action against Iran. Just to be clear, the US has made no such threats; however the president, while prefering a diplomatic solution to the situation, refused to rule out the option.

Apperantly in all the comotion, the Iranian ambassador has conveniently forgot about his country's president's threat to wipe off the State of Israel completely from the face of the earth. Which brings me back to the title of this post: Is there no end to the cynicism?

Tags:
Middle East, Iran, UN, US, WMD, Secretary General.

The Chronicles of a Potential Tragedy: Ahmadinajad, the Iranian People, Nukes and the West in a Dance from Hell

2006-04-29T11:51:00.000-05:00

With the sanctions on Iran approaching one step closer as Russia calls for Iran to comply - a move that reflects Russia's fear of Iran's nuclear power and its inability to face American damaging of relations as threatened by US president Bush – it is time to examine what is the star player of this show, Iran and its leader Ahmadinejad, is thinking.

A few months ago Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that five years ago, during former Spanish Prime Minister Asnar's visit to Iran, Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Haminai told the prime minister that Iran's first order of business was to torch Israel. Unfortunately for him, some of the things currently being torched in Iran are pictures of Iran's new hard-line president Mahmoud Ahamdinajad and a few of the Ayatollahs. That piece of news more than anything else explains Iran's nuclear stand and attests to the short future the administration will be facing if it does not change its ways regarding nuclear weapons and the west.

In the recent sword brandishing between Iran and the west concerning nuclear power, many ask how Ahamdinajad expects to convince the world that his intentions are peaceful while at the same time calling for the destruction of Israel. Some International Relations experts I have spoken to have even gone as far as calling him insane and a diplomatic ignorant, yet that is not the case. What Ahmadinajad is doing is trying to fight protests against him and the administration like the one described above by diverting attention to a different issue.

A scholar that recently visited Iran and talked on CNN, gave quite a different view of the Iranian people than that most who do not know what is going on in the Islamic republic would expect. He noted that people do not go all day long chanting anti-Israel and Anti-American slogans etc. Instead, he commented, people are continuing with their everyday life, concerned about bringing food to the table just like the rest of us. Many of them are so desperate that they do not care one bit for their administration's snubbing of the west at their welfare's expense. And that is what prompts the aforementioned demonstrations. But the question remains: if the people are so disgruntled with the Ayatollahs' rule and the disconnection from the west and prosperity, how is it that Ahmadinajad, the hard-line former revolutionary guards' member, won? And how does it explain Ahmadinajad's head collision approach on the nuclear problem? Indeed important questions.

When Ahmadinajad won the elections, he was no stranger to the poverty plaguing the Iranian people; nor did he forget his revolutionary background. Combining these two ideologies allowed him to come up with the winning campaign, killing two birds in one shot: he would fight the poverty through social reforms and blame the deterioration on former President Hatami's westward reproach, considered blasphemous by many such as the new president. Indeed for a short while President Ahmadinajad managed to sweep the people off their feet; but sooner than he expected, the people started to demand results from the old-new approach of radical Islam. In come Israel and nuclear weapons to the rescue.

Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories have always been like manna from heaven to authoritarian Arab regimes. They allowed the dictators to divert attention from their corrupt regimes and blame Israel for the people's poverty; Ahmadinajad did not plan to miss out on this free ride. Unable to pursue the reforms he promised during the election, he turned the people's attention to Israel's supposed nuclear weapons and to Iran's lack of as cause for the people's plight, connecting the two through the lack of nuclear energy in Iran. Indeed very "sensible" in a country rich with crude oil but almost no oil refineries to produce the more profitable finished product. But in comes the west with a compromise that threatened to put a stop to Ahamadinajd's free ride: why not have Russia enrich Uranium for Iran and give it the nuclear energy its economy so "needs"? Something had to be done before the people realized this was not the way, and calling for Israel's destruction was it. By doing that President Ahmadinajad once again scored two points in one shot: he managed to get the west to look like humiliating Iran and be seen as a hero in the Muslim world. While this worked wonderfully in the Arab world, it brings us back to the anti administration demonstrations; because unfortunately for Ahmadinajad his target audience, the people, are not fooled.

So what is going to happen now in this sad story, involving nuclear weapons, the west, the Ayatollahs administration, the Iranian people, Israel and countless other actors? Well as usual only time will tell. But as time progresses more and more signs are surfacing showing that the people waiting the most for the Iranian regime to change direction, are the suffering people of Iran. We can only hope that this tidal wave will increase and reach maturity before Iran's and the west's conflict over nuclear weapons reaches the point of no return, bringing a very sad ending to this potential tragedy.

Tags:
Midlde East, Iran, Ayatollahs, WMD, Russia, US, Arab World, Muslim World, Israel, Palestinians.

Iran and the Nukes: Recapping before the Security Council meets

2006-04-28T01:31:00.000-05:00

As the deadline for Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment project approaches, the Iranian leader releases another "bombshell" into the atmosphere: Iran has anounced that once it achieves nuclear know how, it will be willing to share it with the world starting with Sudan. These are mighty awful news for the people in Darfur, for once the government in Khartum achieves nuclear capability, no international body would be able to inetrvene for fear of a Sudanese nuclear threat.

This same analysis is the one that drove the war in Iraq as it should drive Security Council resolutions regarding Iran. That is because Nuclear weapons and the question of their existance are probably the world's most dangerous trivia game; one in which you cannot make a single mistake. The justification is simple: If you get in and find that there are no weapons, it is a far better situation to not having gone in and later finding out, much to your horror, that a mad-man has gotten his hands on some nukes. What's more, if this actually happens, as in the example brought above, no sanctions would be possible to impose for fear of aggrevating an already stressed out and entranched country. And so after reviewing this logic and understanding the need for sanctions in Iran's case before it is too late, we can turn and asses the chances of these sanctions actually being realized. And let me tell you ladies and gentlemen, those chances look mighty grim.

In the past couple of weeks I have reviewed the different positions of some of the different actors in this drama. During that time we have seen that the Europeans are scared having their own issues with Islam; we have also seen that Russia is torn between its need to garnish support from the Muslim world for its actions in Chechnya and its fear of being extorted by an Islamic nation holding nuclear powers on the matter. Russia also has to consider oil. Lastly we have also seen that China will definiately not risk its oil needs against Iranian nuclear power. And so with these observations, it would be a shock to this author if sanctions are actually imposed.

However with this recap, the picture is not complete. We still have to see what is the force driving the two key players of this drama - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian people. And that is the subject of my next post.

Tags:
Middle East, Iran, WMD, Russia, EU, Darfur, Sudan, Security Council.

Israel's Objection to Hamas' visit in Sweden recieves surprising support

2006-04-27T19:54:00.000-05:00

Only a day after Sweden anounced its withdrawal from a joint air forces drill involving Israel and several European countries, Israel's Director General of the Foreign Affairs office is furious over Sweden's decision to allow members of Hamas' political wing into the country for a private visit. "You cannot separate between the terror organization and the political wing that supports it" said the director general Ron Prush-Or after a meeting with the Swedish Ambassador to Israel. What he is perhaps unaware of is that indirectly his words recieve tacit support from the London based Arab newspaper, A-Sharq-Al Awsat.

In an op-ed published in the Arabic paper's english website under the title "Who's targeting Hamas" , Al-Arabia's general manager and the former editor in chief of the newspaper Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed writes that Hamas must choose its way of either violence or the assumption of civil duties as required by government. In his article he writes that:

"If Hamas, does not want to comply with governmental duties and the civilian concept of the state, and wants to sanctify armed struggle, then it becomes its duty to tell this frankly to its voters, announce its withdrawal (from government), and return to armed confrontation. However, if it believes that it is also a political establishment that shares with the PA, whose house it has entered, the same principle, and that it is ready for responsible civilian governance and for assuming its responsibilities, then this is its opportunity."

What Mr. Al-Rashed is basically saying is that if Hamas wants to enter the political game according to the rules set forth by the PA and the principles of democracy; then it must do so or abandon the governmental project and remain in the violent struggle. Anything else, aside from being hypocritical, will simply endanger the achievements accomplished so far by the Palestinians, as the international isolation currently demonstrates. Now although Mr. Al-Rashed's words were written in response to the recent debacle in Jordan; there is no reason why they should not be applied to the Israeli situation. In both cases Hamas cannot deny Israel's right to exist on the one hand; and enter into a government of a Palestinian Authority created on the basis of co-existance with Israel on the other. It must decide.

Sweden's decision to allow "a private visit" of Hamas officials in the country simply allows Hamas to avoid that much needed decision, just like Russia's actions which we have previously discussed. This will definitely not contribute to the peace process one bit. Allowing Hamas to break away from its isolation and avoid the decision it must take, will simply allow Hamas to "dance on both weddings", leading to a very ugly divorce.

Tags:
Middle East, Hamas, Israel, Palestinians, Sweden, Peace, Terror, Russia, Europe.

The Difference between East and West - The Gadhafi Version

2006-04-26T17:26:00.000-05:00

In a conference held last month in Columbia University, Libya's strong man Colonel Gadhafi has lashed out equally at both America and the Arab world. His conclusions help explain what has to change in the Middle East.

In between criticizing the US for its survailence on its citizens (a small infringment compared to Libya's past record), Gadhafi noted the difference in opposition style between East and West. He noted that while in the West opposition is done through elections and the courts, in the Middle East it is still largly by the way of the sword and this, he noted, had to stop.

It is no surprise that this statement comes form Gadhafi from all people. Following the US invasion of Iraq, his was the first Middle Eastern country to totally open its doors for UN WMD inspection teams, noting he has nothing to hide. However Gadhafi still has to keep his stand in the Arab world which is why the lashing in the US and why he recently stopped an international peace delegation including an Israeli at the gates of Libya. But his words speak volumes about the need in the Middle East for the rule of law. That rule of law can only be achieved through two things: a working justice system and enforcement to match. The former is useless without the latter; and the latter cannot be built without international presence such as the one in Iraq to jump start it following years of sectarian opression throughout the Middle East.

Tags:
Middle East, Libya, Gadhafi, Arab, US, WMD, UN.

China and Saudi Arabia: The Human Rights' Cost of Chinese Oil

2006-04-24T20:33:00.000-05:00

Chinese President Hu Jintao continues his efforts aimed at securing oil for his thirsty country no matter what the costs are. Through his visit to Saudi Arabia he scored multiple points for Chinese oil, Chinese abuse of Human Rights, Islamist regimes abuse of Human Rights and an altogether shitty world.

While in Saudi Arabia, Hu signed a deal for oil with the Saudi kingdom. So far no problem. The right to buy oil belongs to everyone; and now that China has the purchasing power through its artificially low exchange rate (attracting more purchases and contributing to China's surplus) it can also acquire the oil. However it is Hu's accompanying declaration that has turned things ugly.

In a speech to the Shura, the Saudi advisory council, Hu stressed that differences should not be used as a pretext to interfere in other nations internal affairs "nor should we blame civilizations, nationality or religion for the world's existing disputes". The motivation for this proclamation is clear and by no means nice. Through this declaration Hu adressed Islamist regimes main concerns about intervening in their internal affairs due to abyssmal Human Rights records; a concern he himself shares as demonstrated in his recent visit to the US.

During that visit, Hu faced a plethora of demonstration groups including Taiwanese nationals, Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetan supporters and persecuted Chinese nationals all pointing at China's own poor Human Rights record. And so he too, like the Islamist regimes, is frightful of an intervention. And this is where Hu's declaration becomes important: he is literally sending a sign to the Islamist regimes that as long as they have oil, their Human Rights violations would not matter because they have the great violator China behind them - of ourse just as long as they supply the oil to China. Not surprisingly, this should also serve as an indication for China's stance in the upcoming (April 28) Security Council deliberations on the Iranian nuclear threat; as China once more puts its oil needs above everything else, the way America did for so many years before the war in Iraq.

And so in conclusion anybody who supports Human Rights and cares about World Peace (and I'm not just referring to beauty queens), should find this kind of diplomacy reprihensible; and insist that China should not be allowed to prosper at the expense of world security or the liberties of people in the Middle East and China proper.

tags:
Middle East, China, Saudi Arabia, Human Rights, US, Taiwan, Tibet, Iran, Nuclear Power, Security Council, Oil.

Signals

2006-04-24T00:53:00.001-05:00

From his office in the EU, Havier Solane, the EU's foreign policy co-ordinator, notes his biggest concern regarding Israel. In a recent report he submitted to the EU he tells Israeli Ha'aretz newspaper, he noted that the tendency for a desire to break away with the Palestinians unilaterally is increasing. However contrary to what Mr. Solane thinks, this is not a new tendency but rather one that existed since October 2000 when the Al-Aqsa Intifada began.

During Camp-David 2000, Israelis had high hopes. They went as far as they could and recieved nothing in return. Though all sides were to blame, this was mainly the fault of Yasser Arafat. The outbreak of clashes brought many Israelis to accept Ariel Sharon's hard line stance (which has since gone pragmatic). As clashes intensified, Israeli desire for a separation became manifested through the security wall. It took some time till the panic receeded; and now it is rekindeled again by the election of Hamas into power. For the Israelis this is the equivilant of the Al-Aqsa intifada all over again.

And perhaps this is the biggest loss of the whole process. If Israelis in 1999 held the utopian idea of two states for two nations living in peace and co-prosperity side by side; today they hold the idea of two states for two nations and the hell with what happens on the other side of the wall. This could spell disaster for the whole process; and at the current time it is only the palestinians that can get everyone out of this mess. Just as Israelis have not voted for the hradline right (National Union) to form the government, signaling lack of desire to compromise; so do the Palestinians must signal that the categorical rejection of Israel as manifested by Hamas is not their way.

tags:
Israel, Middle East, Palestinians, EU, Hamas, Middle East Peace Process.

Incorporating raidcal Islam into the army is never a good idea

2006-04-21T11:40:00.000-05:00

Last week, Hezbollah and Lebanese officials rejected UN call to disarm the organization and have it join the Lebanese army for a unified Lebanon. What shocked me about this wasn't that Hezbollah rejected the call; but that somebody in the UN actually thought that incorporting radical Islam into the official army of Lebanon is a good idea!

I understand the UN's desire to suggest such a move; they want to avoid bloodshed as much as possible. However putting Hezbollah in the army is not the way. To be certain, in almost all the times when a radical ideology was incorporated into the army, it ended up with a coup that started with the radical groups taking over, trying to impose their will. In Lebanon's case this will end up with a massacre; let alone a war with Israel. With 14 different factions having their different needs, giving Hezbollah the strength to impose its ideology on the others will lead to detonation of the long disputes in the country that date back to 1975. If the UN really wants to prevent all this, it must insist on disarming Hezbollah completely; giving any future unified Lebanese government the chance to truly be the sole representative of the people, for the people.

tags:
Israel, Middle East, Lebanon, Hezbollah, UN

Jordan and Hamas: A "Black September" for the 21st Century?

2006-04-20T22:30:00.000-05:00

Last year I wondered through a lobby-stand conflict between a pro-Israeli and a pro-Palestinian group. You'll be supprised how much you can learn from those about the way each side thinks. However what captured my eye was a Palestinian pamphlet on an event that came to be known as "Black Spetemebr". While the pamphlet seems to have gotten its facts somewhat wrong, recent news from the Hashemite kingdom remind Jordanians what it was all about. And if that's true, it could spell disaster for the area; but most notably to Palestinians.

To refresh the minds of those who have forgotten, in September 1970, later known as "Black September" the late Jordanian king Hussein ordered all Palestinian terror groups out of the country following the discovery of a plot organized by the late Yasser Arafat to assasinate the king. Apperantley Arafat believed that since Palestinians at the time comprised 60% of Jordanians, he could easily overcome the king and take power; obviously this was not the case. And so when the plot was discovered all Palestinian organizations were deported to Lebanon in a move that detonated an already voletile situation in the country known as "Switzerland of the Middle East". All this did not prevent the pro-Palestinian group from presenting King Hussein's motivation for this simply as "being influenced by the Zionist entity [a reference to Israel by those who categorically reject its right to exist]" - not a word on the plot. So why is it that I recall of this event today? Because, as I said, of recent news from the Hashemite kingdom.

Al-Jazeera's website reported earlier that Jordan has cancelled a visit by Palestinians Foreign Minister Mahmoud A-Zahr, saying that it is "because members of his Hamas party have been smuggling missiles and other weapons into the kingdom". These are indeed worrisom news which I hope are not true. It is not good for the area as a whole and to Palestinians. If this "21st Century Black September" actually happens, Jordanians and Palestinians will be locked in a new civil war the region simply doesn't need. What's more, Palestinians will lose whatever support they have from the Arab kingdoms as rullers start fearing for their thrown not because of the US, but because of Hamas. This will be very similar to Arafat's mistake during the first gulf war when he supported Saddam over Kuwait; something that cost the Palestinians dearly in terms of aid. Losing their one and only financial supporters for the moment is not something the Palestinians can afford right now, when the financial situation in the PA is worsening on a daily basis.

And so the Palestinians are left with only one logical course of action. They must come to their senses quickly before Hamas takes them into a road from which there is no return; a road that ends with a conflict with Israel for sure, but also with the Arab world and the western world. For if and when Hamas does go along with a new plot, it will take the Palestinians over the edge, making it hard for the them to rebuild the already fragile trust with the Arab kingdoms as Palestinian independence and financial interests and Arab kingdoms' western trade interests grow further and further apart. The only way out of this is to have Hamas make a 180 degree turn that will end violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. It will allow Palestinians to mend fences with the west and recieve much needed aid; it will also allow them to continue towards peace with Israel; and finally it will allow them to reconcile Arab western interests with their own. Peace is the only way out of this deadlock; Hamas as it seems at the moment, is the only way back into it.

israel

middle east

You Didn't Come here to Sit and Think, You Came here to Play and Sing!

2006-04-17T19:59:00.000-05:00

I don't make it my habit to watch CNN's Showbiz Tonight. For some reason what Eminem said today or what will Britany Spears wear tomorrow is not my kind of news. However todays question for the audience was one that sparked my interest. The question to the audience was "what do you think of artists having their political songs against the war in Iraq?". One of the debaters who objects to that said that they're only in it for the profit, taking advantage of Bush's low approval rates. I tend to agree.

"Where were all those voices in the past three years? The war hasn't become messy in the past year alone" asked the debater on CNN. A good question. One might also ask where were all the artists during the 1980s and 1990s when Saddam was slaughtering Shia and Kurd Iarqis more frequently than we kill chickens? I will tell you were they were. In the 1980s they were too busy filling up the gas on their 1980s equivilant of an Escalade (just as they do on today's Cadillac Escalade); and in the 1990s President Clinton enjoyed too high an approval rate for ignoring the Rwanda situation for them to make any profit of. Now it has become fashionable.

So what's the conclusion to take from all of this boys and girs? It's simple: forget about university... go produce an album!!! Who cares if someone spends years studying International Relations, International Law, Human Rights, Development or Political Science to get the whole picture? Even the UN takes aging artists as goodwill ambassadors rather than youngsters who foolishley spent a few years in university. But I'll tell you who will care in the end: I will; but more importantly, the people on the ground will.

The PA: Suicide Bombing - The Irony

2006-04-17T19:50:00.000-05:00

Just a few weeks ago, Mahmoud Abu-Tyr - number two in Hamas' government - spoke on why a separation between boys and girls is required in schools (part of Hamas' attempts to Islamize the PA). He said that having boys and girls together like in western education systems is wrong. Just look at Sweden, he said, it has the highest teenage suicide rate in the western world! It is ironic that after Hamas' support for today's suicide bombing in Israel, its officials "know" what causes youth suicide rates... what do you mean what? Girls, of course!

israel

Israel: Suicide Bomber Kills 9... and Peace

2006-04-17T12:14:00.000-05:00

Israeli poet Yehuda Amihai once said: "Extremists are the most unselfish poeple in the world. If you ask them why they do what they do, they will say it is all about you: about freeing you, redeeming you, not about them at all". I wonder if this thought is what passed through the head of Salim Muhammad Khamad, the 21 year old terrorist who blew himself up Moday afternoon (Israel time), killing 9 people and injuring 40. If anything, all he has done is hurt his own people and particularly those he wants to hurt the least, his family.

Already Khamad's family is preparing for the demolition of their house. In addition voices are heard through Israel asking why wasn't Israel sealed completely for the Passover holiday, making many Palestinians ready to raise their hands in despair as Israel will surely close its gates to Palestinians seeking work in Israel. If anything, all Khamad did in addition to ruining the lives of 9 innocent people, was hurt his people's chances to have a break, to seat with Israel and talk. He plays right into the hands of Israel's far right extremists.

And Khamad is not alone, he is getting help from Hamas. In a not unpredictable statement for a terrorist organization, Hamas-led government issued a statement legitimizing the attack - a move that is surely not going to help it rescue itself from the isolation it has got itself into; while Mahmoud Abbas tries to calm things down and keep a clear channel with Israel by condemning the attack. One must wonder if by doing so Hamas is also ignoring the suffering of its own people for their 'greater' cause. And so I am only left with repeating the title that opens this post: "Suicide Bomber Kills 9... and Peace"

israel

2006-04-16T11:51:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reports that "In Iraq today, there is a new corps of combatants who show no mercy. Their targets are venal politicians, heavy-handed American soldiers and the dreaded suicide bombers." Indeed this is not a new kind of "army" in Iraq, but an industry; one that under the old regime of Saddam Hussein could not exist. With the freedom of speech in today's Iraq much less curtailed, they feel free to present their works and criticism in Iraq's growing number of newspapers. Just goes to show where Iraq after Saddam is heading and that at least in the eyes of this author, this is a good direction.

Egypt: Same Old Mubarak

2006-04-16T10:01:00.000-05:00

A few years ago, Egypt's President Mubarak, recalled his ambassador to Israel. The reason was a satire scatch by Israeli comedian and talk show host Eli Ytzpan. In that scatch, one could see Mubarak (played by Yatzpan) seating for an interview throwing 'off-the-cuff' remarks like 'destroy Israel' or something like that, and then when the reporter tries to see if he got things right, Mubarak gets upset saying the reporter puts words in his mouth even though he just said those words a minute ago. Mubarak's declarations in the recent weeks have shown how close to reality this satire came.

A few weeks ago, President Mubarak said that the problem with Shia Muslims throughout the Arab world is that they are more loyal to Iran than to their own countries. This declaration sent waves of panic throughout the Muslim Shia communities of the Arab world; because while Shia are a majority in Iraq and Iran, they are the minority in the Arab league as a whole. Therefore they feared reprisels; and those were not late to arrive. Just last week a group of people was captured in Lebanon before trying to assasinate Sheikh Hassan Nassralla of Hizbollah, the Shia organization, in a 'revenge' to what is being done to Sunnis in Iraq. Such an event, if successful would have ignited the whole area.

Mubarak himself understood this. Shortly after that declaration he released an apology. Ironically this is just like the second part of our opening scatch where Mubarak realizes what he has done and is quick to correct it. The lessons to take from this are simple.

First is that satyrical shows are many times on the mark. If you get to read or listen to satires from the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli) you will gain an important insight into feelings on the street.

Second is that no matter whether you are right or not, you should always consider what your statement might cause, especially if you are the leader of one of the prominent members of the Arab world. I understand what made Mubarak say this. he feels threatened by Iran's calls against Egypt as a 'sell-out' through the peace with Israel; but nevertheless he should think on whether this is the right or apropriate thing to say at this time. It only encourages insurgents in Iraq to step up their operations and eventually it might spill over to Egypt.

Finally this sends a message to the new Iraqi government on the need to further distance themselves from the image of being Iranian puppets in the eyes of the Sunni community both in Iraq and outside. Something they could do through the US-Iran talks if they ever came to fruition.

Iran and the Nukes: A Dangerous Game

2006-04-13T22:15:00.000-05:00

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahamdinajad anounced today that his country will not negotiate since it is now a nuclear power. By proclaiming this, the Iranian president is unaware of the fact that he has stretched the line a bit too far. With his recent statement, he may have lost the support of the last people that might save him from the military option.

In the beginning, Iran's attempts at nuclear weapons were seen as a ploy to divert the peope's attention from the country's backwardness. However as the situation becomes dire and Iran is heading further into isolation, the president must inflame the people of Iran further to prepare them for the economic disasters to come. With regards to the military option, Ahmadinajad is counting on Russia, China and the EU to cover his quest for glory; but he fails to see the reality.

The first time Iran has destroyed its own credibility was when it anounced the need to destroy Israel while insisting its nuclear program is a peaceful one. The Europeans turned a blind eye. The second time was when Iran anounced it has enriched the Uranium... strike two and the Europeans still turned a blind eye. However last week's declaration that Iran has tested a new 1300km range multi-target radar-evading missile (quite a mouthful isn't it?) has crossed the line. This range already reaches most of Europe's central and eastern capitals; but most importantly, it reaches Iran's biggest savior Moscow and that is something the Russians cannot accept. Russia is involved in a bloody conflict with Muslim Chechen rebels. Having an Islamic republic within range to extort it is something President Putin will not look kindly uopn. Talking to Hamas is one thing; being subject to nuclear extortion is another.

The EU itself will also not be there for the rescue once things go heywire. Their issue with Islam is known; and their intrinsic fear that Iran might be letting loose its potential enriched uranium for dirty bombs by terrorists is keeping several European leaders from getting a good night sleep.

Finally there's China. To be honest China might be Iran's only card once things get out of hand. However with its attempts to become a significant world leader and its increasing trade interests in the west, it is unlikely it will stick its neck out for Iran. Afetr all, there are other places to get oil; but not a lot of alternative customers for Chinese exports.

And so if President Ahamadinajad is not going to to get off the high horse quickly; he might soon find himself alone in the corner with no one behind him: no Europe, no Russia, no China; and finally when Iran's economic situation becomes even more desperate... no Iranian people.

France: Labor Law Gone! Now What?

2006-04-11T17:29:00.000-05:00

The Labor Law riots in France have brought forward a crucial problem in today's modern world. The competitiveness of today's job market requires us to think of laws such as the French law that allows employers to sack an employee in the first two years of employment with no reason; Although this is a French problem, it is soon to be a model for the rest of the western world. One that will require a solution before it spreads and hampers western ability to aid the underdeveloped world.

When I was a teenager (which was not so long ago), my parents use to tell me that the world I live in is much harder than theirs as it is more competitve. During my parents' time if a person had a highschool degree, he was in an ok shape. If he had an undergraduate degree, he was on his way to stardom. Today if you have an undergraduate degree, you are on your way to stardom... in the dead-end job market. Increasingly one must have at least a master's degree if not a Phd. This fact goes a long way in explaining France's situation in which 22% of the youth work force and 40% of the immigrant work force are unemployed: employers want the best for their money and if they cannot fire no one, they hesitate to hire.

The French government, aware of the aforementioned problem, came with the labor law that would encourage employers to take the risk and hire young people. It has no choice - with the rising youth unemployment it would have to support these youth with welfare funds, funds it cannot take from the EU. Already France is under a lot of criticism for the amount of funds it attracts in subsidies from the EU for its huge agricultural sector. On the other hand, employers are likely to take advantage of this law in order to cut down on pension payments through a huge employee trunover once every two years. A viable solution would have to balance these two problems of youth unemployment and employers' exploitation.

I do not have the answer, but I am sure you are now asking yourself: that's bad news, ok - but what does it have to do with international relations or the Middle East? The connection is that the problem faced by France will soon be a problem for the rest of the Western world. That problem will only increase as more and more refugees from the underdeveloped world will migrate to the west, increasing the competition. As competition increases, the wealthy nations ability to help the underdeveloped world will decrease due to welfare payments; and that is something we must all think about as either good, as this may be the start of a balance between the developed and underdeveloped world, or bad as the western world will not be able to asist the underdeveloped world. My money's on bad.

Turkey, the EU, and the Importance of Bridges

2006-04-10T20:17:00.000-05:00

On Thursday, Britain, Spain and Finland blocked an Austrian-French proposal to raise the bar for the Human Rights' criteria for Turkey's accession. This recent attempt by France and Austria to block Turkey's entrance into the EU represents an enormous mistake by the two that might end up costing the EU its only viable bridge to the Muslim world; sending Turkey into an Islamist future nobody wants.

Since the establishemnt of the EU, its members have tried to see themselves in a progressive light; surpassing religion. For them, delaying Turkey's accession to the EU is a technical matter of Turkey failing to fulfil its requirements; however they fail to see how things are percieved from the other side. In Turkey it is percieved as another victory for Islamist voices in their quest to show that Europe discriminates against Muslims. This recent raising of the bar, although important further along the way, joins another humiliation the EU has recently inflicted upon Turkey - namely Cyprus.

The Turkish and Greek populations of Cyprus are at odds. Before the inclusion the EU held a referendum in the island concerning the unification of the two parts into one sovereign state. The Greek said 'No' while the Turkish said 'Yes'. The reward for the Greek Cypriots for alienating the Turks was inclusion into the EU of the Greek part only. Following this, Turkey, who has long sought a connection to the Turkish part, was forced to extend EU benefits to the Greek part before it even joins. And now they are rejected once again. On the Turkish side of Cyprus as well as in Turkey the message is clear: if you are Muslim, you are not welcome in Europe; Christian Greek-Orthodox? Welcome. What an awful mistake. Turkey has gone a considerable way to improve towards raising its Human Rights' standards for the sake of accession. It has gone further than any other country and now it is being rewarded with new demands instead of signs of hope.

If the EU had no intentions of letting Turkey join, that is fine. However it should have given it the indication a long time ago and not create false hopes; thus at least treating Turkey with respect. By seeding false hopes, it has alienated the population of the country that had the most potential to become a Muslim-West bridge. Instead that aforementioned Islamist future is going to overcome the moderate Muslim voices of Turkey in determinig the country's discourse as it plays on the peoples' frastration. And so when things get ugly, the EU will only be able to blame itself for alienating Turkey, the only bridge that could have connected both worlds. And that's a shame because just as Turkey is trying to bridge between Israel and the Muslim world, it could try to do the same for the EU.

Israeli Elcetions Once More: The Importance of a Seat

2006-04-06T08:54:00.000-05:00

Yes, once again, it is Israeli elections. On Thursday, after all appeals and recounts were addressed, the final results came in. No big surprises except one: after a recount of three arab polling stations, Labor lost one seat in favor of the Arab R'am-Ta'al party. On the surface of it, this is not a big change, just one seat out of 120; but as our previous analysis shows, this seat actually matters, a lot as it sends the political system into a whole new ball game; a game in which the Arab parties can become key players if they choose to, thus helping their public.

The loss of one seat on the part of labor means that the chances of Olmert opting for a left-centre coalition have drastically fallen, for without that seat, Olmert's potential left centre coalition has dropped to 60 stable seats; just short of the needed 61 majority. This means that he will not be able to form a left-centre coalition unless the Arabs or the Ultra orthodox join in. If it will be the Ultra orthodox, chances are that Olmert will have to form a right wing coalition for a more stable coalition. The only ones that can stop that are the Arab parties. They must rise to the challange and overcome their distrust of Zionist parties, so that Olmert can have a wider manuvering range in foreign policy while they help integrate Arab Israelis better. The question is: can they?

Nazer Majeli, an Arab Israeli comentator for Israeli 'Ha'aretz' newspaper thinks they can. In an opinion article published April 4th, he writes that the Arab parties must get in touch with their Arab Israeli public. According to Majeli, most of the Arab Israeli population has accepted the idea of a Jewish state and advocates the idea of a two state solution while wishing to remain Israeli. His proof for this comes from the fierce opposition in the Arab Israeli public to the idea of a land swap in which Arab Israeli villages would be transfered to the PA's control not by unearthing; but by a simple redrawing of the borderline to the West, instaed of to the East, of cities like Um El Phahem.

While Majeli's idea might work it must overcome two hurdles. The first was mentioned by Mr. Majeli with regards to the Arab parties' need to get in tune with their voters; however the second is a bit more difficult to overcome. Majeli notes in his article that Olmert must overcome the psychological block of being portrayed as being dependent on the Arab vote for a coalition. However he does not ask himself where did this fear come from? The answer to this question is the higher hurdle the Arab parties must pass and that is the image they created for themselves, and irresponsibly for their whole public, of Israel haters.

Throughout this campaign and previous years, Arab Israeli members of parliament like Uzmi Bashara went to countries like Syria and called for the destruction of Israel, taking full advantage of Israeli democracy, knowing that they have parliamentary immunity. In addition leaders of the Muslim movement in Israel have also made similar calls, calling for the establishment of an Islamic state instead. These calls did not earn those voices the trust of their Jewish or Arab-Christian counterparts and have even worsen the situation of the Arab-Jewish relations when some fringe Arab Israeli citizens reacted to these calls and went on to make terrorist attacks on Israel, just as the Jewish terrorist did in Shfar'am later on. This kind of image, if it continues, will help no one. Not Arab-Israelis, not Jewish israelis and certainly not the Palestinains.

If the Arab parties want to show real responsibility to their public (whatever it may be) they must change their tone into a more moderate one; a tone that supports establishing a Palestinian state while emphasizing the legitimacy of Israel's existence as a Jewish state. They must do so quickly before it is too late. Already voices are heard even in Labor about the possibility that the party will have no choice but to seat in coalition with hard right parties like Israel Beytenu to maintain Labor's relevancy. When that happens things will become a lot more difficult and it will be too late for the Arab parties to help either the palestinians, or more importantly their public, Arab Israelis.

What's in a Word: Occupation

2006-04-04T10:15:00.000-05:00

Today someone brought to my attention to the fact that many Israelis do not use the word occupation to describe the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza. It is true, even among Israelis that do not agree with Israel's presence there. Perhaps it has something to do with the meaning of the word.

Most people when they speak of occupation in the context of Israel and the Palestinians, speak of the West Bank and Gaza as well as Eastern Jerusalem. However when Israelis think of the word, they think of Hamas' reference to the whole of mandatory Palestine as 'occupied lands' - not just those aforementioned areas. Therefore as long as this dispute concerning the meaning of the words 'occupied lands' exists, many Israelis would not use the word occupation for it means they would be advocating the destruction of Israel. From their point of view it is similar to reading a contract before making sure it does not grant them the short end of the stick.

The point to take from all of this is that the symbolic meaning of words matters in the Middle East; and that before the two sides can seat for an agreement, they must agree on the terminology. Until this difference in meanings is cleared by Hamas, there can be no progress.

Just as Israel's moderate right has forgone the idea of 'a Jewish state over the whole of biblical Israel', it is time for Hamas to abandon the idea of 'a Muslim caliphate over the whole of mandatory Palestine'.

A Step in the Right Direction

2006-04-04T10:10:00.000-05:00

The Al- Jazeera website reported that today marked the beginning of a historic era in Kuwait, when Kuwaiti women went to cast their vote in the elections for the first time in Kuwaiti history. It is a step in the right direction towards where the Middle East should be in terms of basic Human Rights.

Through the Eyes of a Blind Man: James Loney and Iraq

2006-04-02T12:15:00.000-05:00

Less than two weeks after Mr. Abdul Rahman provided the case for why the west should be in Afghanistan; Mr. James Loney,a Canadian activist with the anti-war Christian Peacemaker Teams who was recently freed by Coalition forces from Captivity, provides the case as to why be in Iraq. It is however, unortunate that he is the only one that does not see it.

Upon his return to Canada, Mr. Loney released a statement about his personal life that would not cause riots in Canada; but would certainly in Iraq. Mr. Loney anounced the fact he was gay and added that he did not want to do so in Iraq for fear for his safety. Mr. Loney certainly knew what he was talking about. Had it been known that he was gay while in captivity, he would probably have been executed in a manner similar to that of his fellow American CPT member, Tom Fox.

Fortunatly for Mr. Loney, he had a government that could press its allies to spring him loose. Canada put pressure on the US and Britain and Mr. Loney was released by the soldiers he so hates. But what about gay people in the Middle East? Do they have a government that would do the same for them? Probably not. It is most likely that in their case they will have to be rescued from their own government. But did Mr. Loney, as a person who should understand this more than anyone, think about that? No, he did not; he is too busy hating America.

I know what you are all thinking at this moment. Western governments are not in a position to be speaking of LGBTQ rights; but here you will get both an agreement and a rebuttle from me. I agree that Western treatment of the gay community leaves much to be desired, particularly in the area of same sex marriage; but it is a far cry from being executed. The LGBTQ community in the west can raise its head and shout about what they feel should be corrected without fear of their own government. In the Middle East they cannot for they will probably be beheaded. As recently noted by Lybian strong man Muhamar Gadhafi in a remarkebly candid statement made in a video conference in Columbia University a week ago, in the Middle East they have a different more violent way of expressing opposition (one that he himself did not hesitate to practice but a month ago).

And so before I head back to my usual business, I would like to leave you with the same point I want to empasize again and again about the West in the Middle East. When thinking about your objection to it, and considering Mr. Loney's and Mr. Rahman's examples, think why it is that you think about it the way you do. Is it because you are clinging to your principles or because you hate American Hegemony so much? After all when it comes to war, there is such a thing as necessary evil.

Continuing Israeli Elections' Fortune Telling: After the Results and Before the Coalitions

2006-03-31T10:44:00.000-05:00

As the dust settles on Israeli elections, and with the availability of the final results, it is time to recount the winners and losers of these elections. It is also time to continue with the next phase in this fortune telling story of Israeli elections, the potential coalitions and their effect on the peace process. As my previous post regarding Israeli elections predicted, these elections brought many surprises but very little change. The big parties will still be held hostage by the smaller parties. To see why, it is enough to look at the possible coalitions Mr. Olmert, head of the winning Kadima party, can assemble.

At the moment, Ehud Olmert is facing the possibility of either a left-center or a right center coalition; each with its own advantages and disadvantages. While a left-center coalition enjoys a much more favorable global image as the peace maker, something I will discuss later on, it also "enjoys" much less stability compared with a right-centre coalition.

As the diagram above shows, the left centre coalition is comprised out of a larger share of potentially risky partners, painted in red and represented by the Arab and ultra-orthodox religious parties. The Arab parties face a certain dilemma with regards to a coalition with Kadima. On the one hand, they are trying to maintain their appeal in the Arab world by ascribing to the Palestinian cause; as such they cannot seat in a coalition led by a party founded by Sharon, who the Palestinians regard as a war criminal. On the other hand, Arab members of parliament in recent years have gone under considerable fire from their Arab Israeli voters for giving too much attention to the Palestinian cause rather than their own voters, Arab Israelis. A good example of that was seen by the flow of Arab municipality leaders to Kadima prior to the elections. Arab parties' position in this coalition will only be dictated by the amount of pressure their public will put on them. What is more, once Olmert goes to a unilateral solution as a last resort, something Palestinians strongly object, the Arab parties are likely to withdraw from the coalition.

Ironically, Jewish Ultra-Orthodox parties (Shas and Yahadut Hatorah) face a similar situation from the right wing of the political map. On the one hand they whole heartedly believe in the idea of "the whole of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael Hashlema) and are in constant competition with the national union party who is conservative religious and hard line right. However the Ultra orthodox parties also have to take care of their Ultra orthodox public, considered one of the poorest segments of Israeli society; and as everybody knows, it is hard to take care of your public from the opposition. Still if they join and things get serious as Olmert continues with the withdrawals; it is likely the Ultra orthodox parties will back down. Even if Olmert puts supporting the withdrawals as a precondition for the coalition; supporting the coalition at first and backing off when things get tough is not something unheard of in Israeli politics.

The rest of the parties comprising the left-center coalition, Labor Meretz and the Pensioners, are likely to be stable partners either because they are strong enough as in Labor's case, too small as in Meretz's case, or simply new as in the Pensioners party case. Labor with 20 seats is a backbone for this coalition and Olmert will not risk antagonizing it. As for Meretz their situation was made abundantly clear in their post election gathering. When Yossi Beilin, the head of the party and from the conceivers of the Geneva accords, said that what the party needs to do now is set the conditions for its participation in the coalition; his fellow party members hissed him, telling him to face the reality. With only five seats in parliament, down from six, they are in no position to make any demands.

The situation for the pensioners' party, the biggest surprise of these elections, is different. As a list that has tried to enter the Knesset in previous elections to no avail; and as a party that run on social security and Medicare reforms, they cannot afford to fail. As a result they will stick with whatever foreign policy Olmert sets in order to fulfill their promises; for if they not, these elections may be the first and last parliament they will ever be in. In a sense this is the biggest change in these elections as the potential "king-makers" do not ascribe to this or that foreign policy regarding the peace efforts. And so despite the fact that a left-center coalition has 88 seats, only 61 of them are certain. This is a far cry from the situation in which the right-center coalition is in with 86 seats, 77 of which are certain.

The first change we can see in the right center coalition is that all of a sudden the ultra-orthodox parties have become stable partners as oppose to risky ones in the left centre. This is not as much a matter of different policy as it is of terminology. While at the left center coalition, if Olmert makes concessions, the Ultra orthodox parties will not be able to say to their public that they stood for their principles; in a right-center coalition they will be able to do so by noting that Yisrael Beytenu, led by Netanyahu's director of operations during his term Avigdor Liberman, and the Likud are in the coalition with them; thus creating the image that Shas and Yahadut Hatorah are not the only right wing parties to favor withdrawal.

Likud and Yisrael Beytenu are likely to be stable partners for the same reason Labor is in a left-center coalition, though to a lesser degree. The two of them are smaller than labor but together they are a backbone of this coalition as is Labor in the left center coalition. In order to maintain their validity they will also stay in the coalition so they can deliver things to their voters and point to achievements in the next elections. Those of you who think that by doing so they are betraying their right wing tradition through withdrawals - don't, those times are over.

The division between left and right in Israel has gone through many changes including some ups and downs ever since Begin gave back the Sinai; making the delineation between left and right in Israel much murkier. In the world's view it was always the left that was the peace maker in Israel; this while the right developed its "strong stand for Israel" approach. Yet a close inspection of both sides' records reveals a not so clear a picture. While the Left has given the Palestinians the Oslo accords and the PA that amounted to nothing, while enlarging settlements during Barak's time; the right has so far sacrificed more land for peace. Begin gave back the Sinai with its huge strategic importance for Israel as depth and oil source, Netanyahu gave Hebron and Sharon gave Gaza. And so as this analysis of the right center coalition comes into conclusion, the only party that is truly hard line right is the National Union with 9 seats; representing the only risk for the right center coalition in case of a withdrawal. There is no chance they will remain for their nine seats came from the evicted settlers and they know it. And so looking back at the right-center coalition, essentially it is more stable with 77 stable seats. With the coalition picture complete, we can now turn and complete the second puzzle of the Israeli Palestinian peace process after our previous analysis of Hamas' victory. Is a right-center coalition the one to be in Israel? And if so, will this kill the peace process?

Concerning the coalition to be formed by Olmert, it is likely that he will first attempt a left-center coalition despite its fragileness. That is because of its favorable world image and because it is initially closer to his planned moves; however it all depends on whether the Ultra orthodox and more importantly the Arab parties will stay all the way though. If this does not happen, then the left-center coalition is likely to fall within a year and a half, followed by a right-center coalition who might or might not be led by Kadima. But is this really bad for peace?

It is a known catch phrase in American foreign policy history that "only Nixon could go to China"; meaning that only he was tough enough on communism to be able to talk to China without being considered a communist lover. On the same token only Sharon and the right could make the withdrawals for Israel and perhaps only Hamas can make compromises for the Palestinians without looking as traitors in the eyes of their peoples. If Hamas really wants to avoid bloodshed, it must understand this and moderate itself before the left-center coalition collapses. It will take Olmert a longer time to bring a right center coalition to the negotiations table, though he will do it eventually. At the same time Israeli right-center parties must realize that if Hamas does moderate itself, it would be a good idea to talk to it in order to avoid further bloodshed as well.

Finally, before I conclude, a qualification. The coalition scenarios presented above are only two possibilities out of a much larger range. It could always be that the bigger parties on either left or right might show responsibility and join together in a mystery coalition that will go further than any other, though I wouldn't hold my breath. Israeli politics are full of surprises; just how much we will see in 60 days when Olmert presents his government.

The Middle East, "Western" Democracy and the Role of the West

2006-03-26T12:51:00.000-05:00

Developments in the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq, have made many question the western efforts to intervene in the Middle East and promote democracy. Objectors to intervention in the matter provide various arguments; some of which are tainted with bigotry. Some argue that the west has no right to impose what they see as "its democracy" where there is no cultural infrastructure for that; while others argue that any such change should only come from within. So considering these two arguments, coming from completely different points of view of the Muslim-Arab world, should the west intervene for democratic reforms? The answer is - according to this author – a definite yes, but only to provide a safe framework for change from within.

The argument, that the Arab world does not have cultural infrastructure for reforms; and that it is not right for the west to impose "its version" of democracy, is dangerous. To counter it, I will first address the issue of "western style" democracy and then will elaborate on the matter of cultural infrastructure. Finally I will address the question of whether the west should intervene or let the revolution from within take its course.

One of the biggest dangers for democracy is the fallacy that there should be some gray in democracy as manifested through different versions of democracy like western democracy. Women's rights, sectarian genocide and other basic rights of democracy including freedom of speech, should not be left to the grey area. There is no way we can say that the revoking of women's rights can be a part of any kind of democracy, western or other. Doing so does not only diminish from the principle of democracy; but also from the dignity and honor of women in the Arab-Islamist world. Can anyone truly believe that a woman could really agree to being stoned for being raped the way Muktar May was? With this fallacy of "western" style democracy addressed, we need to ask ourselves the next question: with the supposed lack of cultural infrastructure for democracy; should the west stay out?

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is no infrastructure; so what? If there is no infrastructure for prevention of genocide, should the west stay out? If there is no infrastructure for women's rights, should the west again stay out? If there is no infrastructure for dissent and religious freedom should the west stay away from that too? I believe that the answer should be obvious to everyone and it is no. Those who advocate otherwise in supposedly the name of human rights and sovereignty should reconsider; particularly because it seems they do so out of hatred to America than anything else. They want to bring to the Middle East all the principles of democracy without calling it democracy because President Bush used the word. How unfortunate for the oppressed people of the Middle East; people like Abdul Rahman from Afghanistan whose sole crime was to convert from Islam to Christianity 15 years ago. Because in the run up to this, without noticing, those people calling for an end to intervention play right into the hands of Islamist\dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, who also hate America for putting an end to their oppressing of people like Mr. Rahman. Progressive international law is all about Human Rights such as religious freedom rather than sovereignty and those who talk about occupation and invasion should remember that. They must ask themselves what is the direction they think humanity and international law should take: is it a world where sovereignty prevails over individual freedom? Or a world where individual human rights are at the heart of things? Whatever the answer they choose may be, the elementary question remains: even if there is a case for the so-called "western style" democracy to be developed in the Middle East, and the infrastructure exists, should this not be the role of the people to do so on their own? Well, yes and no.

If we take the idea that the reforms in the Arab-Muslim world should only come from an internal desire; and couple that with the so far lack of success in the matter, only one conclusion can be derived. That the Arab people of the Middle East do not want reform. I find it highly improbable. If this was the case why do thousands flee the Middle East to the West every year? Why do women who do not object to the way they are being treated back there complain? These questions lead to the conclusion that the people of the Middle East have had it and do want reforms. It also corresponds to my basic belief in humanity (call it naïve if you want) that deep down all human beings want the same basic things – food on the table, better future for their kids than the one they had, and peace and quiet – and that it is those things that should serve as the common grounds to cover the different perceptions on how they are to be achieved. So with the understanding that people in the Middle East want the reforms – why did they not succeed in bringing them on their own so far? The answer to that lies in the basic reason for why the west should intervene.

It is the custom of oppressive regimes to use force against their people. Though this should be quite obvious to many; it is not obvious to many people who seem to be asking the question: why not let the people of the Middle East do it on their own? Whenever I am being asked this, I go through a ritual of an answer that only married people could understand. I ask the person whether he/she is married and whether he/she has a father in law. When the answer is yes I ask whether he/she would characterize their relations as good. Regardless of the answer I add that Saddam also had two sons in laws who he did not get along with and that have fled to Jordan; and that once he convinced them to return, they were both hanged at the town square in Baghdad. Finally I ask that considering this kind of atmosphere, would that person rise against oppression. The same use of violence for intimidation is also true for the Palestinian Authority's and other regimes' Islamist groups who at times hang people for suspicion of collaboration with Israel even if this is not the case, simply to quiet dissidents and prevent criticism and change of their ways. Intimidation through scapegoats has always been the way of oppressive regimes and has always worked until an outside force ended it.

Given all that was discussed so far, the answer to our opening questions about western role in the Middle East should be clear. It is to facilitate change that will usher in the hardcore principles of democracy. The desire is already there and eventually it will overcome the oppressive regimes even without western help. However it will be done throughout the Middle East the old fashion way at a human cost that will make the Iraqi war costs so far pale in comparison. And this will be unfortunate, because as human beings our objective is to improve.

US-Iran Talks: A Chance for Iran and Iraq to Shine

2006-03-25T23:11:00.000-05:00

The attempted mediations by Iraqi Shi'ias for talks between Iran and the US over the issue of Iraq would not produce normalization of relations between the two countries; however they have presented an amazing opportunity for both the governments of Iraq and Iran to demonstrate their ability to be a stabilizing force in the Middle East if they put their minds to it. They are also an opportunity for the Bush administration to shake off some of its hard-line characterization, and help promote the stability in Iraq, which the administration so desperately needs to save its credibility. However it should be done with caution and without bringing the nuclear issue into the talks.

For the Iranian government the talks are important; as is stability in Iraq. A lack of stability in Iraq, particularly with regards to the Kurdish population who has a significant representation in Iran, would not bode well for Iran. On the other hand, with the various calls from American conservative circles pointing to a connection between the Shi'ia majority in Iraq and the Iranian government, stability in Iraq might help the Iranians score a lot of points in the world public opinion, as they present themselves as a stabilizing factor in the region. Those points are urgently needed by a government whose policy so far has pushed the country further and further into isolation. The talks might also provide the Iranians, if they so wished, a way to climb down the nuclear ladder they have climbed and work towards mending fences with the west, something the Iranian economy, and consequentially administration, desperately needs.

To the Iraqi government the realization of these talks might also prove to be beneficiary. It can credit the government with bringing two fierce opponents to seat down at one table and talk; not a small achievement for a government who is constantly criticized for being an American puppet or an Iranian puppet alternatively. Meaningful results from these talks, such as a formal Iranian commitment to refrain from meddling in the Iraqi government affairs backed by an international guarantee, might help the predominantly Shi'ia government reassure the fears of some of the more moderate circles inside the Iraqi Sunni community about Iran, helping the government in restoring the order to Iraq by detracting support from the insurgents.

Finally, the talks between Iran and the US are also an opportunity for the Bush administration to show that it is not the hard-line gun-ho administration everybody thinks it is. It will also allow the Bush Administration to have a chance at improving stability and eventually get a step closer to the point where it can start pulling out troops; something the people at home would surely appreciate.

With the Iranian American talks on Iraq being so beneficial to all parties, it would be a shame to pass on this opportunity to build stability in the region. Of course one should not expect miracles out of this meeting; but also one should not be too pessimistic. If the talks simply help to promote stability in Iraq without any more achievements, it is enough for a start. However before concluding one final warning must be added to both sides and that is regarding Iran's nuclear plan. If the Iranians are not about to let go of it, they should not bring it up in the conversation. Similarly the Americans should not bring the topic up if the Iranians do not bring it up first to show they are wiling to compromise. Failing to adhere to these warnings and bringing the topic up in an attempt to score meaningless PR points by both sides, might divert the talks away from their true potential and objective, ending the talks in a sour note and sending the situation into an even worse status than before. There is a time and a place to discuss the nuclear issue and it is up to the Iranian government to decide when and where before it is too late. Right now it is the stability of Iraq that is the important thing here.

Back to the National Security Drawing Board

2006-03-25T11:48:00.000-05:00

The recent torpedoing of the Dubai Ports World deal to manage six American ports sent a clear message as to next congressional election's hot topic. The economy is once again going to take second seat to National Security. And according to voices from both sides of the political map, that's how the American public wants it.

Throughout its term, the Bush administration has been constantly accused of Islamophobia and Arab bashing even though, as I noted in my post "the Benefits of a Texas Cowboy", it has probably done more for Arab-Muslim progress than most other presidents. Different political figures, mostly democrats, found it convenient to portray the administration's actions as such, contributing immensely to the decline of the administration's and America's popularity in the world (if you note a degree of criticism in this last sentence – don't. it is the cynical role of the opposition to bring down the GOP no matter what the costs are). Yet it is surprising to hear the same voices objecting selling control of six US ports to an Arab company stating - you guessed it - security concerns. What gives?

The simple answer is that National Security is back in the hot seat. Let's face the facts - despite all the criticism of the Bush administration by many Americans about demonizing Islam etc., it is a far cry from trusting your Arab neighbor. And both parties know it. As one democrat leader noted when speaking of the deal "finally the American public got its say" and that say is national security. Therefore it should not come as a surprise that the next elections are going to focus on national security. Democrats are going to ask who tried to sell US ports and republicans are going to ask who prevented another 9/11. For many Americans that hoped that the economy is going to play a key role in the next elections I only have one thing left to say – tough luck, better luck next time.

The Boy Who Cried Colonialism

2006-03-24T23:55:00.000-05:00

Today the UN Security Council has called for forces to be sent to Darfur to resolve the human tragedy that occurs there. It will be lucky if anyone answers for many peace activists have made such a venture not very PR friendly to the only countries that can send anything.

Ever since the invasion of Iraq to end the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein by the United States and its allies, peace organizations have dubbed it "imperialist" and "colonialist", ignoring the situation on the ground just as they did during Saddam's 40 year rule. They ignored the fact that a Sunni minority ruthlessly controlled the Shi'ia majority just as they ignore the fact now that if US forces leave prematurily it will be the end of the Sunnis. With such a view is it a wonder that America will not intervene?

Already those voices are on the rise again. Recently I heard a woman in a lecture noting that a friend of her in Darfur told her that there is no genocide taking place there and that the western powers are taking care of their interests again. Similar innuendos have been made once before regarding another place, Rwanda, and we all know what happened there. Not suprisingly these innuendos have been dropped by those who had the most to gain from the world ignoring the situation. And so by continuing these calls against the so-called imperialism or colonialism, we risk having the world powers stop doing what is right and start doing what is PR friendly. We might end up warning about genocide only to recieve an answer that "we are truly sorry and sympathize with the victims but we cannot intervene once more and become the target practice of Human Rights organizations once again". It would be like the boy who cried wolf; or more to the point, the peace activist who cried genocide.

Israeli Elections: It's the Small Parties Game All Over Again

2006-03-24T23:50:00.000-05:00

On March 28, Israelis are going to elect a new parliament. 31 lists competing for 120 seats in what is suppose to be the ultimate game of democracy. The question is not who is going to win – Kadima, Sharon's new centrist party, is going to receive the largest number of seats and comprise the coalition and the government – but rather what kind of coalition is Kadima going to build. With 3 large parties, many analysts predict the stakes are going to be different and this time the biggest party is going to rely on another big party; however the question is which one. And as this writer predicts, this question will once again be decided by the small parties.

During Israel's two big parties era (Likud and Labor), the whole matter of the coalition was left to the smaller parties. The head of the party that won out of the two had to please as many small parties as he could for the other big party was just too different ideologically; however today things are different. The two big parties compete with a third party comprised out of the combined ideology of the two extremes. What is more neither of the classic two, as a big party, has sufficient seats to extort the bound-to-win Kadima. Labor with a predicted 20 along with Kadima's 35 predicted seats comes to 55 seats, just short of the 61 needed majority; and Likud with predicted 16 seats comes up to 51 seats – once again short of the needed 61 seat majority. So once again the game will be decided by the small parties and the number of seats they are going to get.

If Kadima is ever to comprise a majority, it will have to include one of the two big parties in addition to the small parties with similar ideology in order to comprise the coalition. The logic is simple: if the majority of the rest of the seats going to smaller parties would be to right wing parties, then Kadima is going to seat in coalition with Likud. If the majority of the small parties' seats are going to go to left wing parties, Kadima is going to seat with Labor.

This simple logic will mean that nothing has changed to a large degree in Israeli politics. Though the number of big parties has increased; it has not increased sufficiently to render the small parties powerless and they will take advantage of that. Once again the small parties are going to take advantage of the situation and demand far reaching benefits for their publics at the expense of others much like Meretz or Shas did. However there is still a chance that something will be different. That difference will only occur if a number of the small unaffiliated lists like the pensioner's party, or green leaf party, will win a sufficient number of seats. Olmert should count his blessings if that ever happens for it means he would not be constrained to choose his big partner according to seats, but rather according to the foreign policy he believes in for the small unaffiliated parties would be too busy with their own agenda to seriously threat a big parties' coalition on foreign policy issues.

Putin and Hamas - A Mastermind's Game

2006-03-24T20:54:00.000-05:00

(Created March 10)

Barbara Walters once interviewed President Putin and asked him the hardest question ever, for which no candid reply could have been given: Did you ever kill anyone or ordered someone killed? The KGB veteran did not lose his nerves and answered: no, never, I was in the political wing of the KGB. That answer, more than anything, can explain Putin's actions regarding Hamas. As usual Putin was doing what he thought would work for Russia.

When Russia broke with the international line of snubbing Hamas, many assumed it was done so Russia can have a bigger role as a mediator in the process. If that was really the intention, and this writer doubts it, it was the wrong way. To be a mediator you must be able to talk to both sides like the Americans: support Israel and give 400 million dollars a year to the Palestinians. Yet Russia has done none of that. Since the beginning of the Intifada it has done all it can to snub the Israelis; whether it was the sale of surface to air missiles to Syria that ended up in Hezbollah's hands, selling nuclear components to Iran's "peaceful" nuclear project or this recent talk to a terrorist organization. These acts have not evaded the eyes of the Israeli government, particularly the talk with Hamas, who pointed out correctly to Putin's double standard with regards to terrorism; a standard that might risk Russia's capability to deal with its own militants in Chechnya in the international arena.

When President Putin came out in Spain and informed the world that Russia does not see Hamas as a terrorist organization and thinks that "calling groups 'terrorists' and burning political bridges is easy", Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz was immediately on the plane to Moscow, to clarify to Putin that "Hamas is Israel's Chechnya". The connection was clear: if Moscow insists that Hamas must be talked to, it must first set an example with the Chechen rebels. President Putin immediately searched for a way to climb down the high tree and found it through the lowering of the levels of the talks and insisting on the Quartet's demands. Hamas' leaders' meeting with Russian foreign minister Levrov, instead of the resident, lasted for only an hour and half with the Russians being the only ones surprised that Hamas was adamant on its demands. Apparently they thought Russia's friendship with the Arab world would help them but it did not. But the question remains: did President Putin not predict this? Did he not predict that Israel would draw the line back to Chechnya? Based on the remark from the opening paragraph, we can surely say he knew what he was doing.

Russia's Muslim community comprises about 14% of Russia's population and is about 20 million strong. It is the largest religious minority in Russia and is generally unhappy with its own situation or that of the rebels in Chechnya who are generally Muslim. Fearing that they might serve as a fifth column inside Russia, and to gain more public support for his vendetta in Chechnya by enlisting his toughest critics, Putin needed Russian Muslim leaders' open support so he can showcase it in Russia and around the Muslim world. Indeed it took less than a day when Russian Muslim leaders published their support for Putin's meeting with Hamas and with no mentioning of Chechnya – for Muslim leaders feared the President might back off his outreach to their Muslim brothers in Hamas. Chechen rebels were alarmed and even published a note condemning Hamas for meeting with the president but it was too late for them - Putin's political checkmate was already in place. When that happened, the former KGB political officer was able to climb down the now not so high tree, and go home happy knowing that he dealt the Chechen's another PR blow, allowing him to continue his ruthless operations there, this time with Muslim implicit support by silence. Indeed, a game worthy of a political mastermind.

The Benefits of Having a Texas Cowboy

2006-03-24T20:36:00.000-05:00

(Created March 5)

Last week an historical event took place in Lebanon: for the first time since the start of the civil war, all of the 14 fighting factions in Lebanon seat together at the same table to discuss the future of Lebanon. Looking around the table one could see figures like Druze leader Walid Junblat, Sa'ad Hariri – son of the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and yes, even Hezbollah's Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah. Three days into the conference, the event has taken another historic step when all 14 delegates agreed to oust pro-Syrian president Amil Lahoud from office; even Sheikh Nasrallah showed no objection. How do all these events tie to President Bush? It is along story and I am glad you asked, and even happier to answer.

In the 'good old days' of Lebanon under the late Syrian president Hafez Al-Assad, such an event would never have taken place. The late president would have secretly pulled the strings to make sure Syria's 'invitation' to stay in Lebanon remained, thus keeping the vision of greater Syria alive. But those days are gone, and Assad's son Bashar is in power and he is no where near his father's strength. That fact is what started events rolling in the region; events that have culminated with the murder of Rafik Hariri and this recent conference.

It is unclear who killed Rafik Al-Hariri but one thing can be said for certain: Syria had a hand in it for no one in Lebanon even dared to breath without Damascus saying it was ok. The question remains who was it, and two theories come to mind, both of them related to Bush's attempts to convince Bashar Assad to join the 2003 war in Iraq as his father did in 1991. As noted, Bashar was not his father when it came to strength. And so when that happened Bashar declined in accordance with the wishes of the Syrian street. His father might have said 'yes' and have the army take care of dissidents; but Bashar's weakness was apparent to the Syrian generals who helped his dad come to power and they would not have followed Bashar. And so the first theory is that Bashar had a hand in Hariri's killing to show he still carries a punch.

The second theory is probably the more plausible one and relates to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. As the Lebanese people saw that as oppose to previous presidents, President Bush has backed himself into full fledged commitment to democracy, they sought to take advantage of it. Demonstrations began calling for Syria to leave; demonstrations that have made Syria look weak, something had to be done. And so it is possible that the generals decided to kill Hariri without Bashar knowing of it in order to show Syria still holds the reigns. If Lebanese reaction would have been quite the way the generals hoped it would be, the next step would have probably been to oust Bashar Al-Assad in the same way his father came to power – through a military coup. But things did not go as planned due to the riots the murder has created and so the question arises: what caused Syrian generals, who have their hands in almost anything that moves in Lebanon, miscalculate the reaction so dearly? The answer lies in Washington; in the connection between the war in Iraq and the Lebanese people.

When the Lebanese people saw that President Bush was serious about Iraq, they decided to take advantage of it for themselves. The calculation was simple: If they call for Syria to leave and Damascus responds with threats, all they will have to do is yell 'democracy in danger!' and the Texas Cowboy would knock on the door as he surely did through UN resolution 1559. This line of thinking is evident through the actions of Walid Junblat, the Lebanese Druze leader who in 2001 drank tea with Bashar, in 2003 said that every US soldier killed in Iraq is a blessing and in 2005 called for Syria to leave saying that he now saw the necessity of the war in Iraq. This also influenced the actions of Hezbollah strong man Hassan Nasrallah, who is dependent on Syria for arms but now had no choice but to oust the puppet president of Lebanon to the dismay of his patrons back in Syria in order to remain popular with the people in Lebanon. Indeed none of this would have happened if there was not a stronger man seating in the White House.

This line of reasoning is not particular to the Lebanese-Syrian case. It continues in Libya who has openly disarmed itself and ceased giving refuge to terrorists; and if that is not enough, it also continues in countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where women are now allowed to vote and run for elections and even drive! The line also continues in long time ally Egypt where democratic reforms are continuously under way. All these are countries that according to many should have nothing to fear due to their ties to the US and hence no reason to change their ways. But they do have something to fear, just like Syria: a Texas cowboy with a strong commitment to democracy; and that ladies and gentlemen, is the benefit of having a Texas cowboy.

Beware of Hate Mongrels or: Not Everything is Religious

2006-03-24T20:19:00.000-05:00

(Created March 5)

The attack on the Church of Annunciation has made it painfully clear that although attacks in the Middle East have a lot to do with religions, not all of them are religiously motivated. That simple fact requires us to beware of those who try to take these unrelated attacks and characterize them as religious even when it is not the case for their own political needs.

On Friday a Jewish father entered with his family to the church and threw firecrackers onto worshipers. Irresponsible political leaders of the Arab community have tried to portray it as a religious attack carried out by Jewish right wing extremists. This only served their interests as they prepared for the March 28 elections in Israel. This prompted me to write this post on religious based attacks. It is important to note the difference between a religious hate based attack and a simple attack in order to better understand events in the Middle East and distinguish the relevant and the irrelevant. I will do so by comparing the attack on the church with the murder of Ilan Halimi, a Jewish cell phone salesman in Paris. In the end, it is my hope that you too will understand the difference. I begin with analyzing the church attack in contrast with the Arab claim that his was a Jewish right wing religiously motivated attack.

A key to that call is that the attackers were Jewish so were they? Not really. The fact is that only the Father, Mr. Habibi, was but his wife and daughter are Christians, so with that defused we can continue.

Was it a religiously motivated attack based on hate? Certainly not. Mr. Habibi and his wife have been having problems with Israeli welfare services that saw them as unfit to have custody of their kids. In a sickening attempt to draw attention to their plight they took their now 20 year old daughter and did whatever could get world attention to their welfare case. Clearly this was not a religion based attack. As Mr. Habibi claimed, he has nothing against Christians and Muslims, He's married to a Christian!

This leaves us with the final question, are Mr. Habibi and his wife right wing extremists attempting a provocation? Again the answer is an unequivocal no. There are Christian evangelists, there are Jewish right wing extremists, but Violet and Haim Habibi are not two of them. This is not the first time the couple has been on Israeli news and the first time helps answer this question. In 2002 during their fight with Israeli child services, Haim and Violet Habibi tried to contact their kids in foster homes despite court order and even threatened the child services representative. As police got involved, the two fled to Arafat's Muqata compound seeking refuge and were welcomed with open arms. From there they were interviewed by Israel's channel 10 saying Arafat is not a terrorist and understands what it is to be humane (a seriously contended proclamation by many right wingers). So clearly this is not what it seems though irresponsible political leaders would like to portray it as such. So if Violet and Haim Habibi's attack is not religious, then what is a religious attack? This is where the French case comes in to set an example.

When Ilan Halimi was kidnapped in January, his captors contacted the family demanding 450,000 Euros. When the family responded that they do not have such money, the response was 'go to synagogue and get it'. Clearly the kidnap and murder here were related to Halimi's being Jewish and to the anti-Semitic stereotype that all Jews have money (I know a couple of Jewish friends who look sadly at their beaten old Taurus when they hear that). Even if Joseph Foufouna, the leader of the gang tried to claim that this was not anti-Semitic and actually was all about money, he would still have to explain why he thought Ilan's family would have money and why he told the family to go to synagogue and get the money. The issue here is the motive.

I will admit it is hard to make the distinction but I believe these two cases make a clear distinction. Halimi's case involved a motive based on stereotypes of a certain religion; Habibi's case on the other hand was based on their attempt to fight authorities in a horrific way. The identity of the attackers has nothing to do with that despite what some irresponsible leaders in the Arab community in Israel try to say. And so I hope that this little demonstration clarifies a thin line that is sometimes very hard to make sense of; a thin line that is too often used by demagogues to distract us from the main issue.

Hamas in Power - A Hick-up in Peace

2006-03-24T19:46:00.000-05:00

(Created January 28)

Hamas' January election victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections has left many analysts baffled and still asking questions: Is it a revolution in the region? Is it the end of Fatah, considered the more moderate voice of Palestinians? And most importantly, is it the end of the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians? The answer to all three questions is a probable 'No'. In order to see why, we must analyze the reasons for which Hamas has won the elections and their implication on its future course of action.

Hamas has won the recent Palestinian elections based on three platforms: non-recognition of Israel and its destruction, the fight in corruption and an end to the lawlessness. Many would be surprised to know that the first of these platforms, the destruction of Israel, was not a major contributor to this victory; and with Palestinian focus on the other two platforms, Hamas has a lot to be fearful of.

Destroying Israel was not a major theme in Hamas' campaign. Many Palestinians are tired of the conflict and many of them depend on trade with Israel or work in it. They know that a prolonged conflict would only cost them more in the long run. That is the reason Hamas has somewhat toned down its Israel rhetoric, but did not abandon it. It did not abandon it because like Arafat, it too depends on its past for its political ascendance to such a degree it cannot simply walk away. So with this in mind we must ask ourselves, what was it in the campaign that brought Hamas to power if not the destruction of Israel? The answer to that lays in the other two campaign promises that cause great concern in Hamas.

It is no great secret that the Palestinian authority under Fatah was corrupt. Billions of dollars allocated to a population about the size of Toronto over a period of 5 years should have built way more infrastructure than the two sides destroyed in their conflict. So Hamas campaigned on fighting corruption; but campaigning is easier than delivering and Hamas knows it. The Palestinian people will not settle for a simple declaration or proof that corruption is over. For them the only proof that corruption has ended would be an improvement in their low living standards which Hamas has skillfully blamed on Fatah's corruption; and as noted earlier, that improvement cannot occur without access to the Israeli economy. Furthermore, as armed wings are going to demand their share of the power's money, the situation will deteriorate even further into Hamas' third promise and biggest concern, lawlessness.

Hamas' campaign against lawlessness is a peculiar thing, particularly since it is its main creator as a part of a build up towards this moment since Arafat's death. Fatah- filled security forces have been unable to control loose gunmen, mostly backed up by Hamas. Now with Hamas in power, it is going to be its men that will fill the security forces, while Fatah's people are going to cause trouble using the same tactics as Hamas; and Hamas knows it. Once Fatah's armed groups start their turn as the lawlessness' creators, Hamas will not be able to fulfill its third and most crucial promise – an end to lawlessness.

For all these reasons, what has occurred in the Palestinian authority is not a revolution; it is simply a signal to Fatah to mend its ways by the time Hamas fails and Hamas knows it[1]. That is why as soon as Hamas won the clear majority, they offered Fatah something no western party that wins such a majority offers its rival: a power share. Hamas' representatives need Fatah for international recognition so the money does not stop and so they can deliver on their promises of better life and appear less corrupt; they need Fatah to talk to Israel so access remains open to Israeli markets; but most importantly, they need Fatah so it does not teach Hamas a lesson in its own tactics of overthrowing a government through lawlessness. Thus, knowing what all this means in terms of revolution or the end of Fatah, we can turn and ask the most crucial of questions – the peace process.

In terms of the peace process, this is not the end. Unfortunately, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that this is a major hick-up. It is ironic that Palestinian politics imitate so well what happens in Israeli politics. In Israeli politics, the left, often referred to as the peace camp, has failed to deliver (Barak), bringing the then hard-line right (Sharon). The hard-line right failed to deliver and so, as former Israeli Education minister Amnon Rubinstein has noted, started turning to the left's policies (withdrawal). That brought in a crisis in the right that led to a break up in ideology (Kadima). And now we have a chance for peace. Superimposing this model on the Palestinians, they are in the first stages. The moderate left has failed to deliver (Fatah) so the hard-line right is rising to power (Hamas). Continuing this model further, Hamas and the Palestinian public will realize this does not work (especially facing continuing international pressure which is crucial for the realization of this model). Following that, there will be a break up in ideology and the only difference might be in what happens next: either Fatah will regain power, or we will see a centrist force comprised of moderate pragmatic people on both sides, similar to Kadima's case. Whatever the result of that might be, it will be then that this hick-up in peace will be over. This writer is only left with hoping that this hick-up on the Palestinian side would not destroy Israel's newly found pragmatism as similar moves have affected past Israeli elections[2]; and that this hick-up would not take 5 years and 5000 casualties on both sides, as it did in Israel's case.

[1] Fatah has already caught on to this point. In a 2004 survey 90% of Palestinians believed the PA was corrupt; in a recent 2005 survey, 60% have supported this notion, a decline of 30 percentage points in one year. Despite that, Abu-Mazen's actions since the death of Arafat have been too little too late
[2] For a correlation between Israeli public conciliatory approach and sense of security see: Asher Arian, Israeli Public Opinion on National Security 2003 (Jafee Centre for Strategic Studies: 2003). For a complete picture see also previous surveys.

Welcome! or: why I opened this Blog

2006-03-24T17:38:00.000-05:00

Hello and welcome to my blog, The Middle East News Addict (quite a mouthful isn't it). This blog, as the name suggests, is the result of my addiction to Middle East news and analysis. I have decided to open it for two reasons. The first is that the amount of analysis piling up in my computer has started to create sever space problems on my hard drive. The second and more important reason, is that this blog is the manifestation of my desire to float my ideas out there and receive comments from other Middle East enthusiasts such as yourself (yes, yes, you who are now reading these lines).

To allow you to learn a little bit about my style and line of thinking, I have added some of my older posts to the blog from before I opened this blog (on stuff that are some what gone but still of interest) including the original date in which they were written. If you get the time I would appreciate your comments on those too.

Finally, although this blog is primarily about the Middle East and related issues, from time to time I will venture into other topics of interest in international relations as they spark my fiery desire to write a comment. This is due to the fact that around the world other issues emerge that bare more than one similarity to the troubles of the Middle East as in my post on water issues and world organizations and also because the Middle East is not the only thing happening in international relations.

Enjoy the reading and even more the commenting,

Yours
The Middle East News Addict

p.s.
This is my first blog so I would also appreciate your comments with regards to style as well.