Obama...Do Not Expect Further Initiatives

By Mohammad Salah

This comment was published in al-Hayat on 15/11/2010

What is the difference between the speech recently addressed by US President Barack Obama to the Muslim World during his visit to the Indonesian capital Jakarta, and the speech he had addressed to Muslims from Cairo a year and a half ago? In theory there is no great difference.

Indeed, asserting that “America is not at war with Islam”, as well as his call to “defeat [the violent extremists of] Al-Qaeda” or other radical Islamist organizations, and stressing the need to exert more effort to resolve “the issues that have caused tension” between the Muslim World and the United States, all of them are terms Obama used in both speeches. Yet in reality the difference seemed great for the public to whom the speech was addressed, as the US President had given his first speech on the background of great approval, interest and trust in him, and of high hopes in his ability to change the state of affairs in the Middle East, grant the Palestinians their rights, and stop the persecution of Arabs and Muslims around the world, as well as rein in Israel, which has in recent decades come to behave as if none would monitor its actions or hold it accountable. This time there was not the same extent of interest in Obama’s speech, just as the uproar surrounding the visit was not of the same level as that which accompanied his visit to Cairo. Lastly, trust in his ability to turn his words from mere words to practical reality has become quite weak.

In his speech in Cairo, he spoke of “mistrust” between the United States and the Muslim World, and he repeated this in Jakarta as well. Yet the difference is that some had understood Obama’s words in Egypt’s capital as reproach directed by him at both sides, meaning that the United States would put forward initiatives towards restoring such trust. Obama in Jakarta reiterated nearly the same expression, but those who heard him in the Muslim World realized that it was just an expression, by which he meant to justify his inability to achieve such trust, despite the fact that it has been less than two years since he took office. Obama in Indonesia’s capital did not speak in much detail about the Palestinian issue, merely pointing to “enormous obstacles” that stand in the way of peace and pledging to work on removing them! That is, knowing that President Obama himself had been the one to call for direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, after the rounds of indirect negotiations between the two. All of them led only to the conclusion that there would be no solution to the issue, whether negotiations are direct or indirect, as long as Israel does not stop settlement-building and does not implement UN Resolutions. So far, Obama has not been able to exert pressures in order to obtain matters such as these, and it does not seem that he can exert such pressures.

Yes, certainly Obama’s discourse and that of his administration in politics and in the media is much better for Arabs and Muslims than the language former President George Bush and his administration had used. Nevertheless, it is not with intentions and flowery talk that fateful issues are resolved, rights restored, and peace made to prevail in the world.

In terms of form, Obama in Cairo displayed more confidence, presence and brilliance, but in Jakarta this was not the case. It is true that he is the President of the most powerful country in the world, but his limited ability to cause real change in the world in a positive direction was clear, despite the flowery expressions and orderly speech. Obama will perhaps, before the end of his current term, address another speech or more to the Muslim World from the capital or capitals of other Muslim countries. Yet as the end of his term nears, there will be more justifications than initiatives, avoiding angering Israel will exceed the desire to resolve the Palestinian issue, and the issues of American society will replace any space set aside for concern with the issues of Arabs and Muslims. Thus, what remains of Obama’s first term will perhaps hold more talk and a scarcity, or complete absence, of initiatives.

Do You Believe In The Parcel Bomb Conspiracy?

By Mshari al-Zaydi
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 15/11/2010
 
I have a suggestion that could make somebody millions of dollars!
 
More than this, I am prepared to waive my intellectual property rights to the person that can benefit from this idea, not out of a sudden sense of altruism, but because I do not want my name associated with a project such as this, in a financial or moral sense, due to my complete rejection of this idea.
 
The idea, my dear readers, is for somebody to write a conspiracy thriller with a compelling storyline based upon the parcel bomb plot and the explosive parcels that were sent from Yemen to everywhere from Europe and the US via the Gulf, with this story being translated into a number of different language. This story would revolve around the belief that this incident was nothing but a malicious conspiracy hatched by mysterious forces of evil that devise and oversee their terrible plots from the shadows.
 
It wouldn’t hurt to turn back the clock, and re-examine the files of the CIA and similar western "agents of evil", over the past fifty years. From here, we could argue that the parcel bomb "conspiracy" aimed to kill several birds with one stone. Firstly, this would serve to divert public attention from the WikiLeaks scandal that saw classified military documents being leaked on the internet, revealing the practices of U.S. troops in Iraq.
 
Secondly, the parcel bombs plot could act as a pretext for western interference in Yemen's affairs. The presence of Al-Qaeda would serve as a rationale for invasion, in a manner similar to the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was allegedly in possession of.
 
Thirdly, the incident could open the market for new products, sold by security companies, including state-of-the-art airport and aircraft scanning technology. These products are very expensive, and thus there needs to be a strong incentive for states and aviation companies being persuaded to purchase them. Of course, the company producing such products would have to be an American one, owned by a secret alliance of secretly wealthy Jews in the United States.
 
What else?!
 
We must leave it to the imagination of the author, to add his own personal touch to this story.

He may wish to consider the experiences of a French author, who took a similar short cut to fame and fortune. I am of course talking about Thierry Meyssan and his book "9/11: The Big Lie" which catered to those who buy secret conspiracy theories. His argument was that 9/11 terrorist attacks were a secret plan hatched and carried out by the CIA.
 
The only downside here is that the author will have to accept the fact that his fame will not last for long. His story will lose its fans once the next conspiracy theory is born and other incidents occur.
He has to be a good sport, be practical, and be content with his slice of the cake.
 
Time is a decisive factor here. The book must be written quickly, whilst it is still possible to exploit the feelings of confusion due to the fact that we still do not know the complete picture. Now is the time to strike and profit from the prevailing state of distortion and uncertainty.
 
I have already witnessed elements of this idea elsewhere, namely by Kuwaiti extremist cleric Hamed al-Ali, on his internet blog. After elaborating on his view regarding the ‘devious’ US intelligence services, he said: "It is so naïve, and absolutely pathetic of us to be carried away by the parcel bomb news and forget the heartbreaking scenes of millions of victims who are struck by terror, starvation, disease and poverty every day."
 
We are still waiting for talented conspiracy theorists to come up with something, as for me, I suggested this idea to a well-informed authority, who smiled derisively my conspiracy theory.

Lebanon: A Victory For The Rule Of Law

This editorial was published in The Daily Star on 15/11/2010


Sunday’s arrest of militant Muslim preacher Omar Bakri provides a most welcome piece of news to a Lebanese citizenry long despondent of any signs of life from its state: the rule of law can be enforced in Lebanon.

Seen in its best light, the arrest of Bakri says that the law applies even to he who publicly proclaims, as Bakri has long and loudly done, that he does not recognize the laws of Lebanon.

The detention of a figure such as Bakri, who is well known and has a not insignificant constituency, also sends a message that the law can be enforced without special consideration toward the status of the individual who violates it.

Bakri was sentenced Thursday to life in prison for, among other charges, incitement to murder and possession of weapons and explosives.

The 50-year-old Syrian native had proclaimed he would not spend one day in prison – perhaps that kind of flippancy stemmed directly from his knowledge of the nearly nonexistent enforcement of the law in this country.

Expelled by the United Kingdom and earlier by Saudi Arabia, the climate of lawlessness must have been among the appeals of Lebanon to Bakri, who has praised the September 11 attackers.

His arrest, however – and the sentences handed down Thursday to some 40 more of his cohorts – gives hope that this culture of impunity can be upended.

It is hoped that this implementation of the law will not be an isolated incident. This Cabinet, in its 12 months of existence, has amassed a depressingly paltry bottom line, but it could markedly raise its standing if it would move to arrest all of those with outstanding warrants.

Sunday’s arrest should not wind up as a mere one-time theater. Lebanese law should know no exceptions to its reach.

The question does arise, however – what took so long? Bakri was deported from Britain for his incitement, and he was detained when he arrived here – and released shortly after. Bakri, to be sure, did not hide underground – he was a presence in Tripoli, and he did not moderate his incendiary speech since disembarking here in 2005.

As the residents of this country have all too painfully learned in the preceding decades, the rule of law and an effective judiciary are necessary preconditions for any successful government or robust state institutions. The arrest of Omar Bakri signifies that in theory at least, no one is above the law.

What remains to be done by politicians in the country is to transform this seldom implemented theory into regular practice. While better late than never, Bakri’s apprehension should become only the first in a series of arrests of those who present a security threat, regardless of their religious sect, party affiliation or political connections.

The Palestinians Are In The Driving Seat, Their Time Is Now

By Zvi Bar'el
This comment was published in Haaretz on 14/11/2010

"Turkey? Yes," "Russia? Yes," "United Kingdom? Yes," "United States? Abstain," "Israel? No." This is how a vote at the United Nations on the recognition of an independent Palestine may sound. And really, why should the Palestinians not demand international recognition of their state? In such a move it could shake the peace process and extricate it from the strangle hold in which Palestine and Israel are caught.

	Pro-Palestinian protestors outside the Jewish Federations General Assembly in New Orleans. Nov. 8, 2010.
	Photo by: Natasha Mozgovaya

It is not too revolutionary. International recognition of the fact that the West Bank and the eastern portions of Jerusalem are occupied territory already exists, and many states received international recognition before their borders were finalized. As for border crossings, Palestine has a land link with Jordan and could export products through the port of Beirut if Israel decides to prevent access to the sea.

For defense the Palestinians, assuming they will not want to challenge Israel and establish a real army, could invite in UN observers who would fulfill a function similar to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon. In order to counter Israel's security involvement in the territories, they could lean on UN Resolution 2131 of 1965, which forbids countries from intervening in the domestic affairs of another country. International recognition of a Palestinian state would not require the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and foreign embassies would be established legitimately in its capital because, after all, what will they be afraid of? An Israeli boycott? For the time being it is Israel that is faced with a boycott.


International recognition of a Palestinian state should not undermine the negotiations. Except that under the new circumstances the negotiations will be between two states of equal status. If Israel announces that it will cease negotiating as punishment, well, that is already what has been happening for a while. Israel will annex the settlements, as further sanctions? In any case they function as an inalienable part of Israel and even without official annexation they are part of the whole, at least according to the prime minister.


Last month, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad pronounced that in August 2011, "We will celebrate 66 years of occupation and the United Nations will celebrate the establishment of the Palestinian state." For its part, Israel is threatening that if the Palestinians will take such a unilateral step, it will consider this a fundamental violation of the Oslo Accords and can consider itself free of all its obligations. Interesting. In an interview on Israel Radio in 2002 Netanyahu said that "the Oslo Accords are null and void - after all, what is left?"


It appears that there is not a single Israeli leader today who believes there is any breath left in the Oslo Accords. And who decided that first it is necessary to resolve the core issues, and only later to set up a state? The same Oslo agreement that Netanyahu already proclaimed void. So what is the meaning of this Israeli threat? Israelis explain that there is no concern about the step that Fayyad is planning to take since the U.S., Russia, Norway, Egypt and the European Union support the Oslo Accords and will not allow the Palestinians to violate them unilaterally. But it may be that these countries may actually be in agreement with Fayyad, that Israel is the one which has shaken off the Oslo Accords, and the one avoiding their implementation and the implementation of their offshoots, such as the various road maps.


It seems that Obama is fed up of the construction trickery, the Israeli conditions for continuing the negotiations, and overall, of the mockery that Israeli is making of the U.S. administration. If there is a leader who pushed Jerusalem to the center of the table it is Obama, the same Obama who shares the Palestinians' view on the need for settlement construction to cease. Can Israel now be so confident that the U.S. will oppose, or at least abstain during a UN vote? Not to mention "treacherous" Norway, or Russia, which was pushed out of the peace process? This will be time to get even with Israel.


Tomorrow, November 15, the Palestinians will mark 22 years since Yasser Arafat pronounced Palestinian independence. At the time he had no support for the declaration. Ronald Reagan was in Washington, the first president to coin the term "political rights of the Palestinians," who surprised Israel in 1982 with a peace initiative of his own. He did not talk about a Palestinian state, but today the circumstances are entirely different. It is not Israel which is dictating the international consensus but the Palestinians. This is their opportunity to establish the Palestinian state. And Israel? It will have to adapt.

Wary Of Taleban, Afghan Mujahedeen Set For Fight

By Kathy Gannon

This analysis was published in Kuwait Times on 15/11/2010

President Hamid Karzai's moves to make peace with the Taleban are scaring Afghanistan's ethnic minorities into taking their weapons out of mothballs and preparing for a fight. Mindful that Karzai's overtures come with NATO's blessing, and that US and NATO forces will eventually leave, they worry that power will shift back into the hands of the forces they helped to overthrow in 2001. Such a peace deal won't be easy in a country with a complex ethnic makeup and a tradition of vendetta killings. With ethnic and tribal differences having sharpened during the violence of the last 30 years, there's little indication that Karzai's overtures are gaining much traction.

Still, some mujahedeen - commanders of the Northern Alliance of minority groups that fought the Taleban - are taking no chances. They speak openly of the weaponry they have kept despite a UN disarmament drive. In the Panjshir Valley, heartland of the Northern Alliance, Mohammed Zaman says that when the UN came looking for weapons, "the mujahedeen gave one and hid the other 19." "We have plenty of weapons, rocket launchers and small arms and we can get any kind of weapons we need from the gun mafias that exist in our neighboring countries," he said.

All the former mujahedeen from commander to soldier, they have made preparations if they (the Taleban) come into the government." Zaman was speaking to The Associated Press at the grave of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the charismatic Tajik leader who commanded the Northern Alliance and died in an al-Qaida suicide bombing two days before the Sept 11 attacks that provoked the US invasion. Somah Ibrahim, a UN spokesman, said 94,262 small arms and 12,248 heavy weapons were collected by the time the disarmament program ended in 2005. But fewer than half of them were destroyed; some went to the army and police, which many of the militiamen joined. The Hazara, a mainly Shiite ethnic group, are also worried.

We have lots of weapons but they are not modern weapons. They are simple weapons," said Abbas Noian, a Hazara legislator. "It is very bad, America announcing they will leave Afghanistan. It has given more power to the militants, more energy. Already we minorities are afraid. We want peace but we are afraid of a strong Taleban," he said. In late 2009, President Barack Obama spoke of starting a gradual pullout in July 2011 if conditions allowed, but then clarified that he was not envisaging a mass exodus at that time. Lately, attention has lately shifted to 2014, when Karzai expects his forces to be ready to take the lead in securing Afghanistan.

Fahim Dashti, a Tajik, was present when the bombers blew up Massoud. He survived with scarred hands and arms and now edits the English-language Kabul Weekly. Dashti says the minorities began rearming about 18 months ago. "The reason is because we don't know who President Karzai is talking to and what he is saying, but we feel the agenda of the government is to Pashtun-ize the government, the re-Talebanization of the system," he said. Most Taleban are Pashtun, the country's majority ethnic group. "We are afraid," Dashti said. "We have the experience already of the Taleban. We know who they are and what they have done to other ethnic groups." Karzai's spokesman did not respond to requests for comment on the reports of rearmament.

The Taleban came to power in 1996 after years of civil war, imposed a harsh brand of Islam and played host to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda fighters. After the US-led coalition invaded, the Northern Alliance militias gained control in a UN-crafted agreement. Karzai, a Pashtun with no militia of his own, became president. But the Pashtuns felt sidelined in the new order, and analysts say their resentment has helped to reinvigorate the Taleban. Now the minorities worry that Karzai, besieged by allegations of corruption, may be returning to his Pashtun base for his political survival.

The expectation is that insecurity will increase, that the hold of the government will slip even further, and that sooner or later it is all going to disintegrate," said Martine van Bijlert director and co-founder of the Afghan Analysts Network, an independent think tank. "Many fear that it will be like the early 1990s, when there was civil war in Afghanistan and everyone fought everyone," she said.

Abdullah Abdullah, a close associate of the assassinated Massoud and loser to Karzai in the fraud-ridden 2009 presidential election, blamed the US. He said its talk of withdrawal emboldened the Taleban. "People are rearming in some parts of the country," he said. "Who is going to protect them against the Taleban? NATO? Karzai?" - AP

Morocco: The Repercussions Of The Al-Oyoun Incident

By Mohammad el-Ashab
This comment was published in al-Hayat on 14/11/2010

In what resembles a dry run of what might happen in the Tindouf camps, Morocco has tried to evict Saharan refugees into camps on the outskirts of the city of Al-Oyoun. But incidents then erupted in this calm city, turning some of its parts into devastation.

Perhaps it is the first time in which a large number of victims have fallen to the regular security forces, while there were no casualties among the ranks of the rebels, who forced the camp refugees to submit to their laws that are outside all norms.

The Moroccan authorities were facing two choices, both bitter. They could continue dialogue with representatives of the people, who put forward social demands that are difficult to meet all at once (This is while bearing in mind that this dialogue reached its limit when it was no longer possible for the people to leave the camps, as they faced the threat of the outlaws.) On the other hand, Morocco could intervene and impose the authority of the state, a move that would most likely have repercussions.

Two different types of dialogue are taking place simultaneously. The Moroccan authorities are studying the social demands of refugees in Al-Oyoun before the authorities will be forced to intervene and dismantle the camps that are beyond their control. And in parallel, a dialogue will convene in Manhattan among the sides to the Sahara conflict, as part of unofficial talks sponsored by the United Nations.

The link between the two is that the while the first involves the relationship between Morocco and its residents on a purely social level, something that cannot be separated from socio-economic problems that might be faced by any state, especially with Morocco exercising sovereignty over Sahara provinces, the negotiations among the concerned sides in Manhattan have also tackled their joint commitments and those of the UN. It is interesting that as much as the stances of these parties were distant from each other, they actually converged during the last round of negotiations when Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and the Polisario Front agreed to discuss a return to confidence-building measures.

The agreement was itself an indicator of unexpected developments. While fears prevailed that a third round of talks will not take place, as a result of the repercussions of the security situation in Al-Oyoun, some of the parties concerned might have noticed the danger of surrendering to a developing situation that leads to even more problems. Most importantly, there is no logic that allows killing security personnel, burning and destroying facilities, and spreading chaos and terror, whatever the justification may be.

Before totaling up the human and material losses that resulted from Monday’s bloody events, it has become obvious that another record of political and economic damage to the region as a whole has been opened as well, as a result of the continuing struggle that only makes itself felt through resorting to violence. The Polisario Front appears unable to convince even its supporters that what took place was necessary, or that those involved in the riots could be its supporters.

As for some of the details that were not made public, during his last visit to Morocco, Christopher Ross was briefed on the background to the incident before the Moroccan authorities tried to dismantle the refugee camps, just like the MINURSO mission in the region was able to observe the true course of events. If what happened in Al-Oyoun was meant to place obstacles before the resumption of negotiations, the information available shows that such a negotiation track enjoys more support than at any time in the past.

There were no benefits or achievements resulting from the incidents, however. They have only demonstrated that it is difficult to hold any domestic dialogue that meets the people’s legitimate aspirations if it is outside the control of the state. To the same degree, withdrawing from the talks or attempting to empty them of any real substance will render the partners unable to live up to their commitments vis-à-vis cementing peace, security and stability in the region. It is also very unlikely that the UN will remain patient and allow such conditions to lead matters toward a dead end.

Naturally, security and stability come before all of the wagers that involve human rights. It is unreasonable to justify killing and the destruction of property in the name of defending human rights. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the Sahara conflict is that iit s influenced by the manipulation of certain positions. However, the principal element lies in the continued existence of the Tindouf camps in southwestern Algeria, and not the attempt to create similar conditions in Al-Oyoun.

It is happenstance that made the protocol meeting between Algeria’s new ambassador to Rabat and Moroccan officials coincide with the outbreak of the incidents, and then the return to calm. However, the implications mean that there has been no total rupture in the relations, despite the sharpness of tensions and the exchange of accusations. Perhaps the most important achievement by UN envoy Ross has been to push the sides to the conflict to commit to dialogue over humanitarian conditions for the Saharans. This is a sign that it is possible to make progress on humanitarian issues, when political achievements are not possible.

The Exodus Of Moderates From Iraq

By Abdul Rahman al-Rashid
This comment was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 14/11/2010
 
The fact that the Iraqis have ultimately agreed to resolve their government formation crisis is a historical achievement that merits praise. After months of apprehension, we can finally heave a sigh of relief. Had they not come to an agreement, Iraq might have descended into an abyss.
 
Despite disputing over leadership posts and cabinet quotas, Iraqi politicians have proven, through the March elections and incidents which followed, to be pragmatic, realistic and moderate, albeit to varying degrees.
 
However, the most moderate political bloc of all, the al-Iraqiya List, has lost its chance to form the new government. It is the bloc that most accurately represents the composition of the Iraqi people, in terms of its denominations (Sunnis and Shiites), and its ethnicities (Arabs and others). Furthermore, it was the bloc which won the most seats in the March parliamentary elections (91 seats).
 
We were hoping that the Iraqiya bloc would have the opportunity to rule the country, in order to reinforce the concept of a cosmopolitan Iraq, rather than a divided and partitioned one, particularly at a time when the state itself is being remoulded. Yet unfortunately, the bloc that lost the elections has managed to win the leadership posts. The Iraqis, the Americans, and regional forces with interests in Iraq's stability and future, are all to blame for this.
 
The Americans are to blame because they are still responsible for supporting this new Iraqi state, and they can still spare it from ‘walking in the dark’. Disappointingly, they seemed only to be concerned with settling the leadership crisis, by working out a formula without caring much about the country's future.
 
We heave a sigh of relief, but with a sense of unease, because the price of ending the leadership crisis is that Iraq now has a distorted government, with numerous posts, promises and powers. On the one hand, the government displays harmony, yet on the other, it harbours discord and dissension amongst its participants.
 
For example, the Council of Policies has been revived, to partly satisfy Dr. Ayad Allawi, who was deprived of becoming Prime Minister. Yet this new council is effectively redundant, and is in direct competition with the cabinet. Theoretically speaking, it may also rival leadership posts. This means that problems will increase, and furthermore, Allawi will not receive any actual authority. How can such a council, which cannot pass a motion unless 80 percent of its members vote for it, issue any meaningful decisions? Securing 80 percent of the overall vote is almost impossible, especially in a government which contains a multitude of parties. We have seen how Iraqi politicians failed to secure 51 percent of the electoral vote, over a period of eight months, to resolve the Prime Ministerial issue, so how will they now manage to secure an 80 percent majority?
 
Moreover, the enormous powers of the Iraqi Prime Minister have not been curbed, despite promises being made to that end. The Prime Minister practically governs everything in the country including security, defence, oil, finance and politics. Thus, Iraq is facing a one-man government again, despite the fact that it was originally supposed to be a broad coalition government, in a move away from single-party rule. How will Iraq be run internally? And how will it handle its relations with neighbouring countries?
 
When the Iraqi army and security forces were disbanded [after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein], subsequently leading to the collapse of the entire security system, former US President George W. Bush was blamed. Today, the Obama administration will be blamed for giving in, and supporting the existing status quo. The Obama administration has also abandoned its moral obligations, notably because the U.S. should have backed the moderate Iraqiya bloc, which won the most seats in the election, and had significant parties willing to support it. The biggest fear of all lies in the serious repercussions that might arise, owing to this current U.S. position. If Iraq has successfully weathered eight tough months, then it still has around forty more to endure.