Obama Can Make Peace, But Must Not Force A Final Deal

If anyone in Jerusalem had hoped the Tea Party would save the settlers' party, they were seriously mistaken.

By Ari Shavit
This comment was published in Haaretz on 5/11/2010

There were no real surprises in the U.S. midterm elections. The Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives but not the Senate, came out strong in Kentucky but not California, grabbed a majority of seats, but did not enjoy a overwhelming victory.

Barack Obama is still there. He's weakened but undefeated, bruised but not beaten - moderately wounded.

If anyone in Jerusalem had hoped the Tea Party would save the settlers' party, they were seriously mistaken. The 2010 midterm election time out is over. Today is the day after the elections, after the holidays, after the foreplay.

The real game begins now and the name of the game is Palestine. The endgame: establishing a viable Palestinian state within a year.

Why? Because the incumbent American president identifies with the Palestinians and their suffering and wants to do right by them. Because the American president believes establishing a Palestinian state would placate the Arab Muslim world, which he wishes to appease. Because the American president knows that in the absence of good news in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, Palestine is his only chance of making positive headlines.

Only a Palestinian state would justify the Nobel Peace prize he received, only it can give Obama the international legacy he craves, only it can lift the spirit of Obama's self-defined liberal camp.

So in 2011 Palestine will be to the resolute president what health care reform was to him in 2009. For better or worse, through fire or water, wisely or foolishly - Barack Hussein Obama will see to the establishment of the state of Palestine.

In a certain sense, the president's resolve is to be commended. It's good to have a world leader trying to save the two-state solution at the last moment. It's good to have a world leader willing to invest huge resources to implement the two-state solution. It's good to have statesman who still has a sufficient sense of justness to understand that the present situation is intolerable. It's good to have a statesman naive enough to think he can fix the world.

But in another sense Obama's determination is dangerous. Speed is from the devil, as the Arab saying goes. Simplism is a recipe for disaster. The path to hell is paved with good intentions not anchored in reality.

Bill Clinton tried to impose democracy on the Middle East and failed. If Obama tries to impose an end to the conflict prematurely, he will upset the stability, encourage violence and leave chaos in his wake.

The dilemma is acute: political correctness or political reason; puristic policy trying to build a castle in the sky or sober policy trying to change reality on the ground.

In actuality, the most positive process taking place in the region is Salam Fayyad's. A new, building, thriving Palestinian society is being formed in the West Bank.

Unless the Fayyad process is given a substantial political dimension, it will collapse. But it will also collapse if it is given  an unachievable political horizon. The wise thing to do is to tailor the quiet Palestinian revolution a political suit that fits it. Not to try to close the refugee case in two months, not to try to solve the Jerusalem problem in two weeks, not to let ideology and theology put impassable hurdles before the Palestinians and Israelis.

The only way is an interim agreement, which would minimize the occupation without ending the conflict and without endangering Israel.

The coming weeks will be decisive. Obama, even after losses at home, has enough power to coerce Israel. He can confront it, isolate it and impose a false peace on it.

But Obama does not have enough power to turn the fake into real. He cannot topple Hamas, revoke the demand for return and turn a Palestine into a peace-loving state. So if he insists on forcing the issue, all hell will break loose.

In contrast, if he chooses the pragmatic path - he has a good chance of making a change. Only a partial, not final, peace, will grant the Nobel laureate the peace he is pursuing.

Lebanon: Preconditions For Talks Lead Nowhere

This editorial was published in Daily Star on 5/11/2010

The middle of this week has not been kind to the constitutional institutions of Lebanon. The Cabinet failed Wednesday to meet for a scheduled session. Despite the official reasons that were given for the cancellation, we the Lebanese know that it was over a political impasse.

A session of National Dialogue at Baabda Palace Thursday was the second in the one-two punch. This time, a boycott by a group of March 8 figures was the obvious reason for the failure to hold a fruitful session, even to talk.

The past few weeks have seen the Lebanese government encounter weekly speed bumps over its ability to convene; there are serious doubts that either the Cabinet or the National Dialogue sessions will resume soon. This is despite the many demands from members of the public that politicians solve their problems and enable the country to move forward.

There are, naturally, dozens and dozens of pressing issues that require action by Lebanon’s political authorities, but the Lebanese have become used to seeing their interests sidelined by the inability of a segment of the political class to get its act together, and work out a compromise, or a modus vivendi.

When dialogue disappears, irrespective of how harsh the tone, and inflammatory the rhetoric, everyone is in trouble. This is the point at which the words of politicians disappear, and are replaced by the actions of people in the streets.

As is well known, in political terms, the “Lebanese street” is in a pitiful state. In the view of local analysts and experts, or their counterparts in the region and the rest of the world, this street is a powder keg – it’s open to all possibilities, and the Lebanese have seen the tiny flare-ups here and there over the past months.

It’s as if everyone has forgotten the lessons of 1975, when one side tried to neutralize the other by using extra-constitutional means. But why go this far back, in a country where political amnesia is rampant?

It’s as if the lessons of 2008, when a similar crisis led to a bloody breakdown in authority, have been completely forgotten.

Since these same politicians end up stoking these crises, and then agree on a compromise in the end, politicians could save the country a considerable amount of anxiety and harm, and get serious about finding a solution now, before it’s too late.

Setting preconditions on dialogue won’t lead anywhere – if politicians and officials truly want to bolster the state institutions, they must realize that placing conditions on the mere act of sitting down together will lead nowhere.

No Compromise on Colonisation In Palestine

Leviev's decision to halt construction work in West Bank is a reason to celebrate.

This opinion was published in Gulf News on 5/11/2010

After years of mounting pressure, Israeli billionaire Lev Leviev is finally pulling the plug on the colony-building activities by his Africa-Israel construction conglomerate. While the decision is being portrayed to the Israeli media as one which was taken earlier this week purely on financial reasons, there is reason for all who oppose the colonisation of Palestine to celebrate a little.

Israel's Coalition of Women for Peace revealed the decision after it received a letter from Leviev's Africa-Israel corporation. According to the letter, "neither the company nor any of its subsidiaries and/or other companies controlled by the company are at present involved in or have any plans for future involvement in development, construction or building of real estate in [colonies] in the West Bank." The conglomerate was involved in the construction of illegal Jewish colonies located in Har Homa, Adam, Mattityahub East and Zuffrim, and in the West Bank villages of Jayyous and Bil'in.

As long as Palestinian lands are illegally occupied and its villages colonised by the Israelis, there can be no compromise. Palestinian land belongs to Palestinian people and any construction — from the biggest construction company to the smallest spade in the earth — must not be allowed. Leviev's decision, while welcome, came after years of pressure on the billionaire. Indeed, he is a wealthy man today based on his immoral construction activities in seized lands, having reaped the rewards of colonisation in a state that treats Palestinians as a subservient people in their own land.

It is through international pressure that Leviev made his decision. His cheques to Oxfam and Unicef were unwelcome as the profits of an illegal and immoral coloniser. His diamond business was rightly shunned by stars and celebrities who did not want to be tainted by his jewels. If there is a lesson, it is that international pressure and media campaigns can have results. Those who treated Leviev as a pariah for his construction in the Occupied Territories deserve credit. It is a pity that others in the Jewish state do not follow up on his deeds, ending the illegal construction of houses on lands seized from Palestinians.

If al-Qa'ida Really Want To Hit The West, They Can

By Patrick Cockburn

This comment was published in The Independent on 4/11/2010

The ability of al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula, now based in Yemen, to smuggle sophisticated bombs concealed in ink cartridges for printers on board planes is even more ominous than it sounds. This is because Western governments have so often exaggerated the threat from the most amateur and ineffective conspirators since 9/11 that they do not have any rhetoric left to describe the development of new and more serious threats.

The failure of al-Qa'ida to stage a second round of attacks on the scale of 9/11 is often attributed to the arduous work of Western security services, eliminating al-Qa'ida leaders and isolating or destroying their strongholds. But there is another more significant reason why there has hitherto been no repeat of the 9/11 attacks in the west. In Iraq and north west Pakistan, where al-Qa'ida has its most important regional franchises, the organisation and its local allies are far more interested in murdering non-Sunni Muslims, or Christians where they are available, than in killing American troops.

 

Last Sunday al-Qa'ida gunmen slaughtered at least 52 people during mass in a Christian church in the centre of Baghdad. The following day the same organisation exploded 12 bombs near cafes and restaurants in Shia districts of the capital, killing a further 60 people and injuring 280.

The Iraqi government and US generals keep crowing about their successes in eliminating al-Qa'ida in Iraq, leading to the fury of people of Baghdad who grimly wait for the next bloody onslaught. Imagine, for a moment, that the same al-Qa'ida fanatics in Iraq who butcher non-Sunni Muslims in such numbers were to turn their attention to attacking Western targets abroad in the air and on the ground. This would not be the work of a Nigerian student stuffing explosives into his underpants in an abortive attempt to blow up a plane over Chicago, as happened last Christmas, or an American-Pakistani more recently planting a car bomb which failed to explode in Times Square in New York. In contrast bombs constructed by al-Qa'ida in Iraq, or similar Jihadi organisations in Pakistan, almost invariably go off with horrendous results.

Why hasn't al-Qa'ida tried harder against the US and western Europe? One reason is that it was originally a tiny organisation even when it could operate more freely in Afghanistan and north west Pakistan before 2001.

Its militants were so few in number that when it made a publicity video it had to hire local tribesman by the day to pretend to be members in training. It swiftly achieved its chief post-9/11 aim. Osama bin Laden had said that his strategy was to "provoke and bait" the US into "bleeding wars" throughout the Muslim world. Thanks to George Bush and Tony Blair he succeeded far beyond his dreams. Given the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan it is extraordinary to hear US pundits suggest dispatching hunter-killer groups under the control of the CIA or the US military to Yemen.

The original al-Qai'da led by Osama bin Laden paid a certain price for its rapid expansion post 9/11. It did not control its franchisees. In Iraq, al-Qa'ida began to put down roots in 2003 but it was much more interested in killing Shia than Americans. This remained true after the US was able to persuade the more secular Sunni insurgents, who were the one who had been blowing up Americans, to change sides in 2006/7. The Iraqi variant of al-Qa'ida have relentlessly continued their war against the Shia to this day.

The same is true in Pakistan. The US and British Governments repeatedly point to the Pakistan-Afghan border areas as the source of Jihadi plots against them. It is here that potential "terrorists" supposedly got their training, though fortunately few of the trainees seemed to know how to make a bomb after living for weeks in areas where this is common knowledge.

Hitherto the most powerful franchisees of al-Qa'ida have been more interested in fighting their local enemies than blowing up planes but this could always change. If it did then these groups have suicide bombers in their hundreds and experienced cadres ready to direct and equip them with sophisticated devices. Yemen might just be the first signs of this.

Listening to expertscan be a mug's game

The most enraging moment for any correspondent writing about Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen is to turn on the television and see some "talking head" pontificating about the conflicts. The self-declared expert is always glib, self-assured and irredeemably ignorant about what is going on. They are usually supportive of whatever line the government, American or British, is trying to sell. There is no health check on their credentials. Bookers who engage them for appearances on TV and radio never seem to run a simple check on their knowledge by asking when they were last in the country they claim to know so much about.

It is worse in the US than in Britain, where the best of American reporters are supposed to amplify their descriptions and justify their analysis by quoting some purportedly independent expert. When missiles were falling on Baghdad in 1999 I remember watching a highly experienced correspondent crawl through falling shrapnel to use a satellite phone. He told me: "My paper insists I call a think tank in Washington to find out what is happening."

“The Gates Of Hell”

By Ghassan Charbel

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 4/11/2010

What we are facing is not a problem, a crisis, or a complicated or thorny issue. We do not stand before a deadline that can be postponed, ignored, or left to a doctor called time. We are not faced with a momentary conflict that can be overcome with admonition – which is the cleanser of hearts; or with hugs and a gathering around a greasy banquet; or with a general statement from an Arab summit; or a sentence by the secretary general of the Arab League laden with insinuations. We are not faced with a cloud that is rapidly blown away by the winds of solidarity, and the emergence of amiability among the members of the same family after a knife fight; or forcing newspapers to change their headlines; or pumping optimism and smiles on TV. If only we were faced with such a crisis.

A few years ago, I used to be startled and horrified when an organization’s statement threatened to open “the gates of hell”. I used to have the same feeling whenever I heard a fervent politician calling his opponent to yield to his will to avoid opening the “gates of hell”. I used to consider this type of threats to be a scare tactic and an exaggeration. Indeed, opening the “gates of hell” requires unusual abilities and tragic circumstances. Moreover, holding this type of keys does not serve a cause or enhance an image.

I do not wish to say at all that I have applied to join the camp of those who promise people with the “gates of hell”. However, I feel that the region is susceptible to slip towards climates of this kind. I write this because my profession makes me follow the news in this pleasant part of the world known as the Middle East. It also makes me sometimes sleep in troubled capitals and not be satisfied with the official answers to my questions. My profession makes me sound out the ordinary citizens in the countries I visit. Unfortunately, happy countries do not attract journalists and are not on their to-visit lists.

I have a feeling that we are in the worst Arab situation our generation has known. It is more serious than what it was when the Iraqi-Iranian war started in 1980; more serious than what it was in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and occupied an Arab capital for the first time; more serious than what it was the day Saddam Hussein’s regime invaded Kuwait and the Desert Storm blew. It is also more serious than what it was when the US military machinery uprooted Saddam’s regime in 2003 with a mixture of conceit, recklessness, and ignorance. We are in a more serious situation than the one we went through during the “New York and Washington invasions” in 2001.

My dear reader, it is your right to accuse me of exaggerating a little or even a lot. But let us interpret some events. Didn’t you pause at the festival of booby-trapped cars in Baghdad two days ago? Didn’t you wonder about its security implications, timing, and dangers linked to awakening sectarian violence amidst the existing political stalemate? What about the carnage at the church and the decision to punish the Iraqis because of their religious adherence and under the pretext of responding to the Copts in Egypt? Didn’t you also pause at the luxury of Iraqi politicians, who have spent eight months searching for a government as though they were living amidst Swedish institutions rather than in the middle of the Iraqi volcano?

My dear reader, didn’t you pause at the news of Yemeni packages and the images of al-Awlaki on TV screens around the world, and the isolation that might affect Yemen, and the catastrophe that might strike the region, if Al Qaeda manages to entrench itself in the harsh terrain caves and the caves of difficult demographic and social structure? What if the US chose for example to confront the danger coming from Yemen on the Yemeni territory itself? Doesn’t this herald the opening of the “gates of hell”?

The talk about the “gates of hell” is also open in Lebanon. There are those who announce that the issuance of the indictment won’t open the gates of justice but rather the “gates of hell”. It is obvious that the various Lebanese institutions are under unbearable strong pressure. There are those who say that these same gates will open if the opponents of the issuance of the indictment resort to force and the Lebanese army stands by. They also say that the army could lose its unity and status, and this would facilitate Al Qaeda’s appearance on the Lebanese scene, carrying with it a plan to open the “gates of hell”.

We can talk about other arenas where collapses and dangers lurk. The tragedy is that we are dealing with an extremely serious situation with ordinary means. We might say that we are treating cancer with aspirin, and the results are known.

The Harrassment Map

By Diana Mukkaled
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 4/11/2010
 
Statistics say that Egypt has one of the highest rates of women subjected to sexual harassment in the world.
 
We do not know if this figure is accurate, but the growing phenomenon of sexual harassment in Egypt is a fact of life, and if it is proven that Egypt is in fact amongst the worst in the world in this regard, then it certainly would not be a shock.
 
How can we forget what happened a few years ago, when on the second day of Eid al-Fitr, and in broad daylight, a collective frenzy of harassment took place, in the most crowded streets of the Egyptian capital?!
 
Today, some human rights groups are preparing to launch a website, allowing Egyptians to report incidents of harassment quickly, by sending mobile phone text messages, or by using the “Twitter” social network. The website, called ‘Harass Map’, will include a digital map of Cairo displaying harassment hotspots, i.e. those areas with high levels of reported harassment cases, and which could pose a danger to women. This information will be exchanged between activists, the media, and the Egyptian Interior Ministry. Those launching the site say that the idea behind the launch is to inform women who are targeted by harassment that they are not alone, and they can get help immediately.
 
There is no doubt that the new media, and first and foremost blogs, have brought the issue of sexual harassment against women to public attention. This medium has become the predominant force dealing with the phenomenon, while the traditional media outlets described it as the actions of individuals, with nothing to do with Egyptian society on the whole. The rise of the Egyptian blogging community means that evidence, and vivid images of what is happening on some streets in Cairo, can be published on the Internet. These incidents range from physical and verbal transgressions, inappropriate staring or touching, and the tearing of clothes. The blogging community has managed to expose this phenomenon to society and the state, initiating discussions on the issue, and ways to reduce it. There are two most likely approaches to confront this scourge: the first would be a superficial treatment, blaming the phenomenon on social influences such as the spread of unemployment and marginalization, increased repression, and the decline of morality.
 
The second approach would be a religious one, where often the victim, or the woman [in most cases], is blamed as responsible for the actions of their harasser. However, it is important to note that most women who are subjected to harassment also wear the veil.
 
If these high rates of harassment are in direct proportion to the high rates of unemployment and low incomes, then it cannot be ignored that they are also in direct proportion to the rise in religious conservatism, and particularly in Egypt. If harassment is prevalent in an environment suffering from unemployment, then it is also prevalent in the same environment which is dominated by social and political religion. Here we should ask the question: Why, with a higher proportion of women wearing the hijab and niqab, and this can be observed on Egypt’s streets, is there also a rising ‘frenzy’ of harassment, whereby the streets have transformed into an arena where men lurk in wait for women, as we see and hear about every day?
 
A genuine analysis of this problem needs the courage shown by the new media, which took upon itself the task of combating the phenomenon of harassment. Merely restricting public space or limiting freedom of expression will not be helpful at all, with regards to understanding the phenomenon, or limiting it.

Signs Of Effective Counter-Terrorism

By Joseph A Kechichian
This comment was published in Gulf News on 4/11/2010

Beyond the familiar and hugely irrelevant media frenzy of the past few days, one has to be somewhat pleased that the latest amateurish terrorism efforts — to ship bomb packages to Chicago synagogues (early version) or to blow up cargo planes (later version) — failed.

Equally revelatory was the confirmation that what actually prevented two simultaneous bombing attempts were the result of tips from Saudi Arabia. Was this an example of successful cooperation between Saudi intelligence services and their Western counterparts?

Although 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, the kingdom is proving to be an essential partner in preventing fresh terrorist activities, with many confused adherents part of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that gained an undeniable foothold in volatile Yemen.
Still, one has to think outside the box, and ask why terrorists would ship printer cartridges from Yemen to the US? Is this not like Washington exporting oil to Kuwait? Equally problematic is the alleged mastermind'(s) intentions to place explosives on board planes through fully identifiable tracking systems, with names, addresses, and telephone numbers that will ensure instantaneous recognition.

These are not haphazard points even if we now know that there was a breach in airline security protocols, as press reports confirm that one or perhaps two devices were flown on Qatar Airways aircraft from Sana'a to Doha, and onwards to Dubai.

PETN explosive materials were apparently found that could not be detected by standard airport security screening equipment. PETN is so sophisticated that no X-ray screening or even trained sniffer dogs could identify them. In fact, they were only "discovered" after an intelligence tip off, which is instructive in its own right.

According to unverified sources — the speed with which this information became public leads one to be somewhat sceptical—the prime suspect for constructing the devices was the Saudi-born bomb-maker, Ebrahim Hassan Al Asiri, a leading AQAP militant. Hassan's brother, Abdullah Hassan Al Asiri, was the 23-year-old who stuffed his underwear with PETN as he committed suicide on August 27, 2009, when he attempted to assassinate Prince Mohammad Bin Nayef, the Saudi Deputy Minister of the Interior.

Abdullah Hassan Al Asiri's stratagem, which was very similar to the efforts of Omar Farouq Abdul Muttalib, the failed Christmas 2009 Nigerian but Yemen-trained ‘underpant bomber', targeted a high-ranking Al Saud family member, which was the reason why Riyadh embarked on a systematic effort to beef up its intelligence network. Indeed, within a single year, Saudi intelligence activities in Yemen became so well tuned that they probably now surpass those of its muscle bound Yemeni counterpart.

This is a welcome development and US President Barack Obama called King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz a few days ago to thank him for the significant success. Gone are the days when Saudi officers were, or could be accused of being, unresponsive. Hardly anyone with responsibility in Saudi Arabia can now look the other way. Even traditional tribal customs, where loyalty to one's kith and kin stood ahead of any allegiance to the state or its institutions, gave way.
Commendable

Nevertheless, while this awareness is truly commendable, it is critical to seriously think of the conditions under which Yemenis live, to better understand current and future trends.
Yemen is too poor to function well on the Arabian Peninsula. Few should be surprised that some of its sons and daughters find jihadism attractive. With limited oil income, expected to run out before the end of the next decade, and even less water, the estimated 23 million Yemenis will double in the next 25 years. Unemployment, already around 35 per cent, will rise too. Jobs are scarce and millions toil elsewhere.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh is a military leader whose understanding of economic needs are rudimentary at best though 30 years in power should have helped. Corruption runs high and prospects for improvement are extremely limited. Tourism, the one potential area where progress could be registered, is literally hostage to tribal kidnappings, which drive foreign investments away. A majority of Yemenis are disgusted even if a few are inclined to support extremism. Most are eager to improve their lives and need genuine help.

This is where Saudi Arabia comes in. For while it is extremely important to have top-notch intelligence services watching a festering environment next door, it is far more important, especially in the long run, to plan for the day after. Is it not in Riyadh's interests to supplement its intelligence and security assistance with development aid? Would investments in the socio-economic welfare of a close but vital neighbour not guarantee real security?

The struggle against terrorism cannot be solely won by military means, no matter how ingenious. Although one must confront extremism, the more one emphasises clashes, the more sceptical moderate voices become.

Success comes when intelligence services coordinate their efforts and share critical data, as was the case in this instance, but only if such hard work is followed by real investments that prevent the ills that generate hatred in the first place. Too many have died in the past and more may perish in the future. One method to win over sceptics is to give a hand to the weak to alleviate their vulnerabilities and seal their commitments to hope.