Libya Burning

By Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

Rebel fighters take cover as they are bombarded by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi near Ras Lanuf, while a natural gas facility burns in the distance. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images

As troops aligned with the Libyan interim government continue to advance on the few remaining strongholds of Gaddafi loyalists -- such as Bani Walid (where the tribal elders are refusing to surrender) -- much debate is still raging over Libya's future. Will the country emerge as a stable liberal democracy, will it be torn by ethnic and tribal divisions, or will it transform into an Islamist state?

Of course, there is always a degree of uncertainty in prediction here, but some signs appear to have emerged that strongly discount the first, desirable outcome. To begin with, despite the assurances of the National Transitional Council (NTC) that there will be a focus on reconciliation to avoid punishing all those associated with the Gaddafi regime and thus not repeat the "mistakes of Iraq," it is not at all clear that these soothing words are being put into practice.

Indeed, recently concerns have been raised over the treatment of blacks residing in Libya at the hands of forces loyal to the interim government, and even outlets like the New York Times are starting to pay attention. It is true that a few of these blacks have been employed as mercenaries by Gaddafi, but the overwhelming majority are simply innocent migrant workers imported during Libya's oil boom for construction and menial work. Yet blacks are being targeted by anti-Gaddafi insurgents as though they are all mercenaries guilty of the crimes of the Gaddafi regime.

In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, in one town called Tawergha, a brigade of anti-Gaddafi troops that describes itself as dedicated to "purging slaves" and "black skin" has engaged in ethnic cleansing of blacks in the town, and has vowed that in the "new Libya" all remaining blacks in Tawergha would be denied access to health care and schooling in nearby Misrata, from which all blacks have already been expelled.

Similarly, the BBC recently showed a video of hundreds of bodies found in the Abu Salim hospital in Tripoli, but failed to mention, either through genuine neglect or a deliberate intention to mislead, that most of the corpses were those of black people, who had obviously been killed by anti-Gaddafi forces when the city was taken.

The "blacks are mercenaries" myth has been useful to those wishing to downplay the idea that Gaddafi could be receiving support from any native Libyans, and portray the entire conflict as "Gaddafi vs. the people." However, if collective punishment is the way the rebel forces are going to treat those suspected -- rightly or wrongly -- of links to Gaddafi's regime, on what grounds should we presume that there will be no punitive measures implemented against native Libyan groups who have backed Gaddafi during the conflict, including many of the rural Arabized tribes of southwest Fezzan? As I predicted, the rebel forces have recently been giving the Berber Touareg in the far south this kind of harsh treatment.

Clearly, the horrific treatment of blacks is not only a result of racism but also part of an attempt to dismantle anything associated with Gaddafi's legacy (the importation of Africans was one aspect of Gaddafi's eccentric turn towards notions of pan-Africanism and a vision of a "United States of Africa" after 1998).

In any event, it is worth recalling that the Iraqi Shi'a politicians and public figures who pushed for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (e.g. Ahmad Chalabi​, who is the first cousin of my aunt's husband in Baghdad) repeatedly affirmed that their sole interest was in creating a genuinely free and democratic Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Yet once in power through the interim Iraqi Governing Council, whether for reasons of ideological conviction or political expediency, they effectively turned the de-Baa'thification process into "de-Sunnification" in the hope of creating a majoritarian Shi'a democracy. This only aggravated sectarian tensions and culminated in the civil war around Baghdad in 2006.

Even so, it is also evident that there are deep tensions within the anti-Gaddafi forces. In particular, there is good reason to expect a forthcoming conflict between the Amazigh Berbers and the Islamists. The Amazigh Berbers, denied civil rights for decades by Gaddafi and forbidden to speak Tamazight, played a key role in the fighting in the western Nafusa Mountains that eventually led to the successful push towards Tripoli. Quite rightly, they are keen to assert their rights to celebrate their Berber culture and language, and will undoubtedly take further inspiration from the success of Berber activists in Morocco, which has now given Tamazight the status of an official language alongside Arabic.

Meanwhile, the Islamist presence among the anti-Gaddafi forces is now something that cannot be ignored. As Barry Rubin points out, Abdul al-Hakim al-Hasadi has just been named commander of the Tripoli Military Council. This man was formerly head of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization affiliated with al-Qa'ida, and although he claims to have disavowed his record of extremism, many rebel fighters around Misrata are highly suspicious of him. It does not follow from this that Libya will necessarily become an Islamist state, but as the experiences in Algeria, Sudan and Iraq show, Islamists in the Middle East and North Africa despise any assertion of a non-Arab identity and aim to suppress it by instilling terror through indiscriminate attacks.

I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong and that the post-Gaddafi government will promote liberal democracy (nor do I believe that it was wrong to stop Gaddafi's forces from taking Benghazi back in March). Nevertheless, idealistic wishes cannot obscure hard evidence on the ground. At best, NATO can now only make it clear to the NTC that any Islamist aggression originating from Libya will be met with severe retaliation.

-This commentary was published in The Middle East Forum on 08/09/2011
-Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an intern at the Middle East Forum

Palestine: 'The Only Way Ahead'

By Musa Keilani

 The Palestinian leadership is now doing what it should have done decades ago: give up hope that it could expect real help from othersto secure a just peace agreement with Israel.

Israel calls the shots in the US political establishment to the point that Washington will browbeat any country that expresses support for the Palestinians’ quest to establish an independent state of their own. And the Palestinians always depended on the US to help bring about a breakthrough in the process that always hit hurdles because of Israel’s obstinate insistence that any peace agreement should be according to its terms. That leaves no room for the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

So it is time for the situation to be shaken up, and the Palestinian leaders have realised it. That is why they remain determined to take their cause for statehood to the United Nations despite all kinds of direct and indirect pressure from Israel and allied countries.

The US is threatening to cut off much-needed financial assistance. Israel is threatening to scrap all past agreements, including those governing economy and trade. The threat went so far as to announce the possibility of a unilateral annexation of parts of the West Bank, starting with the Jewish settlements there. Israel has also warned that there could be no negotiation on the status of Arab East Jerusalem, which remains under its occupation.

The Palestinian leadership under President Mahmoud Abbas should simply ignore these threats and warnings because the outcome of hypothetical negotiations with Israel would produce the same outcome, since the Palestinians do not have the option of applying political pressure on anyone.

Washington is now engaged in an effort to convince Abbas to give up the bid for UN recognition of Palestinian statehood and UN membership. It is clear that the Palestinian quest will be countered and killed by a veto in the UN Security Council. So the best option is to go for non-membership status that would allow the Palestinians entry to all UN-affiliated agencies and organisations and take their case at these fora, including filing a case against Israel on charges of violating their rights and committing crimes against humanity.

There is another option.

The “Uniting for Peace” UN Resolution 377 of November 1950 states that the General Assembly could override the veto-wielding members of the Security Council if they exercise their veto power in a case where there appears to be a threat to world peace.

It states: “.... if the Security Council, or the permanent members, fail to exercise their primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in an emergency special session within 24 hours of the request.... Such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the members of the United Nations.”

So, the consequences of the Palestinians presenting their case to the General Assembly, where they definitely have majority support, are embarrassing to the US and Israel, which will be further isolated.

An overwhelming General Assembly endorsement of the Palestinian quest will force the Israeli hand. If Washington does not act upon it, it will be further exposed as an Israeli ally posing as an honest mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A US veto at the Security Council will also be in stark contradiction of its stated support for the Palestine Partition Plan of 1947, which called for Jewish and Palestinian states to be created in Palestine.

There is no ground whatsoever to argue today that the Palestinians do not have the right to seek statehood. The most outstanding change in the situation of 1948, when Israel was created, and today is that Israel has military control of all the land that was assigned to the Palestinians by the UN and is refusing to return it and allow the creation of an independent Palestinian state there.

The Palestinian leadership under Abbas is in the right direction. Abbas today enjoys far more support among his people because of his firm position defying all pressure. Other groups, including Hamas, could not really challenge his credibility because he is publicly seeking a state for Palestine, whether secular or Islamic.

Abbas should not allow himself to be lured away from the UN quest by efforts to convince him to engage in peace talks with Israel or drop the bid for statehood. The time is ripe to scramble the elements at play by creating new facts, such as presenting the bid for statehood at the UN and exercising whatever legal options are available to support this bid. That is the only way ahead.

This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 11/09/2011

Offer Them Bread And Freedom

After 10 years of the ‘war on terror', the international community has failed to root out the evil

By Abdul Hamid Ahmad

September 11 will be remembered in history as an act of the devil. It was one of the most horrific attacks against humanity in recent history. It was the tip of the iceberg called Islamic terrorism.

But even after 10 years of the attacks, which shook the world, the same questions are being asked about the reasons, the consequences and the way forward. And it seems even after 10 years of the so-called war on terror, the international community has failed to root out terrorism. In fact, some of the solutions implemented have fuelled more terrorism, which has taken and is still taking the lives of thousands of people in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is proven that fighting terrorism cannot succeed with guns, tanks and warplanes. This is where the security solutions or solutions that use brutal force have failed. You can kill one terrorist, two, three, four or any number, but you cannot root out terrorism. The idea behind terrorism lives on.

And by choosing only guns to fight, the ideology of terrorism and fanatics finds a conducive environment to grow and even prosper. This is the practice of America, western nations, some Arab states and other countries such as Pakistan — they are only treating the symptoms but not the disease.

So where is the disease? It is not a new notion to say that the disease lies somewhere else. This has been noted by many politicians, think-tanks and intellectuals who support humanity and not the acts of the devil in the guise of security solutions of countries to tackle devilish acts of terrorism.

Killings spawn killings. The cycle of blood will never end. It can slow down; it can lie dormant, but it will always be there. The embers will forever burn. Unfortunately after 10 years of 9/11, the right solutions to root out terrorism have not been implemented. The international community led by the US and other western nations has been thrown off the path of finding the real problems and is heading in the wrong direction. And after 10 years, terrorists still survive, challenge and threaten humanity everywhere — from the US and Europe to Arab and Asian nations.

When we still see people dying of poverty, of a lack of a drop of water, or a glass of milk or a tablet to cure them like what we have been seeing in Somalia; when we still see people humiliated, victimised, not given equal opportunities to live in dignity and prosper; when we still see people living in fear and suspicion and teaching their children to hate others as the only way to survive, we will witness the number of terrorists growing and we will witness people getting support for terrorists from this big human reserve.

It is a shame after 10 years that we witness what is happening in Somalia. It is a shame after 10 years that we still see hundreds killed on the streets of Baghdad. It is a shame that we still see billions stolen in Baghdad. And it is a shame that after 10 years children in Afghanistan do not have schools to learn. The examples are endless.

Spending wisely

If all this money spent on bullets, guns, planes, tanks and bombs is instead used to educate people and give them tools to work and become productive, is spent on people of poorer countries and those in crisis-stricken areas to stand on their own feet, is used to build roads and hospitals, then only we might see no hatred which usually spawns extremism. It is not just the US and other western countries only to blame, it is the international community and among them Arab and Muslim countries that follow the West in their security solutions to tackle the aftermath of September 11.

Bush by saying "you're either with us, or against us" in fighting terror was terrorising the world himself. You need a voice of wisdom and reason after a catastrophe. You do not need insanity. Countries that tried to find an alternative to tackle terrorism and oppose Bush's terrifying theory were instead terrified by the US, which did not give them a chance to find solutions other than those found with guns and bullets.

I hope that now after 10 years we realise that we were wrong in our solutions and that we do find the right direction, I will not say to counter terrorism, but to root it out.

After 10 years, we need to be honest and truthful to all those lives lost in the attacks of September 11 and the lives of those lost in the retaliation to those attacks elsewhere in the world, which have far exceeded 3,000. Tens of thousands have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and the list goes on. Is that the way to tackle terrorism — by killing more people?

I hope after 10 years we do not let ourselves be led by leaders with selfish and dark agendas, who do not hold the lives and prosperity of human beings as a priority.

One lesson to be learnt so far from September 11 is that you do not deal with terrorists with guns, but by offering them bread and freedom.

-This commentary was published in the Gulf News on 11/09/2011
-Abdul Hamid Ahmad is the editor-in-chief of The Gulf News

A View From Riyadh Charts A New Decade Beyond Terrorism

By Robert Jordan

On the morning of September 11, 2001 I arrived at the board meeting of a charitable foundation in Dallas, Texas. This would be my farewell meeting, as President George W Bush had announced his intention to make me the next US ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Before the meeting began, a fellow board member rushed in to tell us that an airplane had just hit the World Trade Center. As details of the hijackings emerged, the connections to Saudi Arabia became apparent. I realised that my assignment had just become far more difficult.

Within a month my nomination was confirmed, and after a hastily arranged swearing-in ceremony with the then-secretary of state, Colin Powell, I was on my way to Riyadh.

By the time I arrived, the US military response to the September 11 attacks was in full force. Within days I was next to General Tommy Franks asking King Abdullah (then the crown prince) to support coalition efforts in Afghanistan.

Outrage at the attacks was expressed from many quarters, even from the bin Laden family. I received a letter of abject apology from the head of the family in Jeddah. Countless Saudis signed a condolence book.

And yet we also began to see disturbing outbursts in the US media accusing all Muslims of hatred and terrorist sympathies. This was bitterly resented in Saudi Arabia; Saudi attendance at US universities declined significantly and business and holiday travel were curtailed. Saudis could no longer get visas without intrusive scrutiny.

Congressional delegations took every opportunity to question the values and trustworthiness of many in the Arab world. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict reached new levels of violence, anger and desperation. Cooperation in rooting out Al Qaeda cells and sympathisers was uneven and slow, often complicated by a lack of coordination and cultural understanding on both sides. We truly seemed to be moving towards a clash of civilisations.

Much has changed since that dark time in 2001. US and regional security forces have learnt to take the initiative in going after extremists. After an intensive campaign, improved intelligence and aggressive police work, Saudi Arabia has made great strides against Al Qaeda in the kingdom.

Saudi and US intelligence analysts sit shoulder to shoulder in a joint centre. Increasingly, ordinary Saudi citizens have reported suspicious activity. Many extremists have been captured or killed. And many courageous Saudi police officers have paid with their lives.

The killing of Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda leaders signals another change since 2001. When the Arab Spring swept in, the protesters, rebels and emerging leaders came not from Al Qaeda, but from the middle and working classes. The perpetrators of September 11 were irrelevant.

In the Arabian Gulf states we are seeing massive infrastructure projects. Students from the UAE, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region have returned in large numbers to US campuses; US universities are opening branches in the Gulf.

If September 11 changed the way we view conflict, it has not shown us a clear path to resolving world tensions. We have learnt the hard way that there is not a military solution to every crisis. We also have learnt that no country, not even a superpower, can go it alone on the world stage.

As we enter the "post-post-September 11" decade, what will be our values and goals for the future? First, we can build upon the resilience that has been tested on every continent in recent years. From overcoming the shock waves of the September 11 attacks to recovering from tsunamis to overthrowing a Libyan dictator, the human spirit has shown a capacity to weather enormous obstacles.

We saw this resilience when Saudi families noticed suspicious behaviour among their neighbours and took responsibility for contacting the authorities. We saw it again when citizens of Benghazi endured attacks from government troops and refused to give up.

In a new world, security will rely less upon a "with us or against us" mentality and more upon an understanding of the limits and costs of military power. Clear-eyed realisation that threats truly exist should prevent apathy. The expensive lessons of the past decade will inform efforts to tell real threats from illusory ones.

The resilience of societies will again be tested, but we can all pray that we learnt something from the wrenching experience that we memorialise this day in September.

-This commentary was published in The National on 11/09/2011
-Robert W Jordan is a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and the partner in charge of the Middle East practice of the law firm Baker Botts

Turkey To Complicate Life For Israel

By Crispian Balmer

 
     Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan

Turkey's threat to send warships to protect aid convoys to Gaza is unlikely to trigger conflict with Israel, but the dramatic deterioration in relations between the onetime allies could jeopardise Israeli energy ambitions. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan raised the stakes with Israel on Thursday, saying he would dispatch the navy to escort any future flotillas to Gaza and prevent a repeat of an Israeli raid last year that killed nine Turks. Ankara has already downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel and halted defence trade following the Jewish state's confirmation last week that it would not apologise for the deadly 2010 assault on a boat challenging its Gaza blockade.

Despite the intensifying rhetoric, it seems hard to believe that the region's two biggest military powers, both important allies of the United States, would face off over the Palestinian enclave Gaza, which is ruled by the Islamist group Hamas. "It won't turn into a military confrontation, because the Turks aren't stupid. It's absurd to think a NATO country would get into a military confrontation with Israel," said Gad Shimron, a retired Mossad officer and defence expert.

By the same token, it seems unlikely that Erdogan will let the matter drop, with many analysts seeing his repeated criticism of Israel as a calculated bid to boost his standing in the Arab world and assume a dominant role in the Middle East. Tellingly, he made his comments to Al Jazeera, the pan-Arabic television station, upping the ante just days before he is due to visit a trio of Arab countries, including Egypt, which has itself fallen out with Israel in recent weeks. "Erdogan thinks the easy target is Israel, but he doesn't know if it will pay off. He is taking a gamble," said Yossi Shain, a professor at both Tel Aviv University and Georgetown University in Washington. "He wants to be the champion of the Arab and Islamic world, but it is not clear whether he can.

Turkey has a much larger navy than Israel but would have to think twice about any military brinkmanship given the imposing strength of the Israeli air force. "Keep in mind that were Israel to initiate an interception, say against a Turkish bid to sail on Gaza, it would have the advantage of choosing the time, place and deployment strength," a former Israeli admiral told Reuters, declining to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject. Indicating there is no imminent danger of a clash, the charity that organised last year's convoy to the Gaza Strip said on Friday it had no plans for now for another flotilla.

Regardless of that, Turkey has also said it will make its presence felt in the eastern Mediterranean at a time when Israel is looking to exploit recently discovered gas fields off its coasts and hook up with Cyprus to build energy facilities. Turkey does not recognise Cyprus's Greek Cypriot government, while Lebanon has accused Israel of breaking international law by exploring for gas without an agreement between the two countries - which are formally at war - on their maritime border. Israel denies this.

A heavy Turkish naval presence near the disputed fields could undoubtedly cause Israel headaches, just as it thought that it had finally overcome its longstanding energy shortages. "This is a feasible and significantly troubling prospect. I imagine it would compromise foreign investment in those fields," the former admiral said. Israel has sought to play down the diplomatic crisis, with officials pointing out that the two countries had already overcome previous rows, such as in 1980 when Turkey curbed ties to protest at Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem. But back then, Turkey was a much poorer nation than it is today, and there were very few cultural, sporting or business links between the two countries.

The implications of a falling-out today are much more significant, with trade between Turkey and Israel worth $3.5 billion last year, helping keep thousands of people in work. "Turkey is a very strong country today and this is very serious situation," said Alon Liel, the head of the Israeli diplomatic mission in Turkey from 1981 to 1983 and a former director general of the Foreign Ministry.

Although Turkey is an undoubted regional power, it has suffered a difficult few months due to the Arab uprisings. It has had to retool its foreign policy in Syria and Libya, losing old allies in the process, and has distanced itself with Iran. Erdogan is clearly trying to regain the initiative and will have to be careful not to push things too far. "He has painted Turkey into a very tight corner," said Gareth Jenkins, an Istanbul-based security analyst. "Turkey is squandering the moral capital it had gained after the (2010 flotilla) incident, in which international public opinion sided with Turkey. But the international community will be very hostile.

Washington has stayed largely quiet over the past week, urging reconciliation between the two parties without publicly taking sides. However, much more Turkish sabre-rattling is sure to fire up passions, with the US Congress fiercely pro-Israel. "(Erdogan) is about to get a tough response from Washington. They are watching him and letting him play, but the moment is coming," said Shain, who is working in the United States. Erdogan may well be calculating that Washington cannot afford to imperil relations with Turkey at such crucial moment for the Middle East, but as with his fight with Israel, that is a risky bet to take. - Reuters

This analysis was published in The Kuwait Times on 11/09/2011

Will Mubarak Walk?

In Egypt’s trial of the century, prosecution witnesses sound like they’re testifying for the former dictator’s defense. Ursula Lindsey on a case full of holes.

By Ursula Lindsey

 
   Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak lies on his bed while being taken to the courtroom for another session of his trial in Cairo, Egypt, on Sept. 7., AP Photo

Even though a judge has ordered a halt to live broadcasts of Hosni Mubarak’s trial, people all over Egypt remain glued to their radios and televisions. They can’t wait for any shred of news that emerges from the courtroom during intermissions. Together with his two sons and former interior minister Habib al-Adly, the ousted Egyptian president has pleaded innocent to charges of corruption and of ordering police to open fire on protesters during the uprising that overthrew his 30-year reign early this year. Putting Mubarak on trial was a central demand of the revolution. Now many Egyptians are wondering whether the defendants might actually go free. “We never imagined the prosecution would be this sloppy and unserious,” says Gamal Eid, a human-rights lawyer involved in the case. “They aren’t looking for justice.”

The public prosecutor’s office opened its case by calling to the stand a succession of senior police and intelligence officers—and each witness’s testimony seemed to strengthen the case for the defense. One by one, they steadfastly maintained that there had been no orders to shoot—regardless of the fact that hundreds of Egyptians were killed and thousands more seriously injured. On the contrary, the prosecution witnesses insisted, police were instructed not to carry their personal weapons. One officer testified that he had been told to deal with demonstrators “as your brothers.”

The testimony infuriated victims’ families and their lawyers—and their anger only grew when Mubarak supporters circumvented the proceedings’ supposedly tight security and managed to unfurl banners inside the courtroom proclaiming the toppled dictator’s innocence. The sessions have repeatedly been interrupted by outbursts and scuffles, while grim jokes circulated on Twitter claiming that evidence would soon be presented to show that the hundreds of dead protesters had actually killed themselves. Legal observers and human-rights groups are questioning the competence and trustworthiness of the public prosecutor’s office; they cite its record of collusion with Egypt’s intelligence services and its longtime reluctance to prosecute politically sensitive cases. The office didn’t even begin investigating the protesters’ deaths until more than a month after Mubarak had stepped down as president.

The prosecution’s case is full of holes. Officers who are accused of shooting demonstrators were never suspended from their positions, providing ample opportunities to intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence. Recordings of phone calls and footage from security cameras have somehow been “lost” by the Interior Ministry and the Army. In fact, one of the first day’s witnesses is already serving a two-year prison sentence for destroying evidence in the case. Another witness was briefly detained today for alleged perjury after he contradicted information he had previously given prosecutors.

While the trial goes on inside the building formerly known the Mubarak Police Academy, phalanxes of riot police stand outside, on the alert for confrontations between the deposed dictator’s supporters and friends and relatives of the slain protesters. Groups calling themselves “Mubarak’s Sons” and “We’re Sorry, Mr. President” have picketed the trial since the start and have engaged in running battles with the aggrieved families of dead demonstrators.

The trial is expected to take months. Mubarak’s chief lawyer, Fareed el-Deeb, has become famous over the years as a defender of controversial figures, including several Mubarak critics who were targeted by the regime; he’s asking to call thousands of witnesses for Mubarak’s defense. Among them are the dictator’s former spy chief, Omar Suleyman, and his former defense minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Tantawi, who now heads of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Both will appear next week, in court sessions that will be entirely closed to the press and the public.

In the end, Eid predicts, he and other lawyers for the victims’ families are the ones who will have to make the case against Mubarak. The evidence is there, Eid says. “It’s difficult, but not impossible. We haven’t lost hope.” After that, the verdict will be up to just one man: under Egypt’s legal system there is no jury, and instead the judge acts with broad powers, questioning witnesses and ultimately deciding how much weight to give each one’s testimony. No one can be sure the 83-year-old Mubarak will live that long. Since the trial began he’s spent every session on a gurney. His lawyers say he’s too sick to be in jail. At present, mounting frustration over the trial seems likely to result in a big turnout at anti-Mubarak protests this coming Friday. The former president was brought to trial only after months of public pressure. Now many Egyptians continue to wonder whether the country’s interim authorities really intend to hold him accountable, or if they’re only staging on a riveting bit of theater.

-This article was published in The Daily Beast on 07/09/2011
- Ursula Lindsey is a Cairo-based reporter and writer

Is Erdogan Being Reckless?

By Tariq Alhomayed

Following the Turkish escalations towards Israel, which has occurred against the backdrop of Tel Aviv’s refusal to apologize to Ankara for the attack on the Turkish “Freedom Flotilla” that was heading to Gaza, the question that must be asked today is: Is the Turkish prime minister being reckless? Is Erdogan another Nasser?

It is difficult to answer “yes” or “no” to this question; however information indicates that Turkey’s actions may be calculated, and based on the changes that have taken place in the region, particularly the political earthquake witnessed by the Middle East this year. Those closely monitoring events will find a number of indications in this regard, most importantly is the timing, namely that the Turkish escalation towards Israel comes at a time when Ankara has decided to move away from its neutral [regional] position, allowing NATO to deploy the radar component of a US-sponsored missile shield project in its territory. This NATO anti-ballistic missile defense system aims to protect Europe from attacks from Iran, and so Turkey’s decision in this regard also explains the recent Iranian escalation against Ankara. As one Arab foreign minister informed me, “the most important thing in politics is timing”, and so Ankara has abandoned its unrealistic theory of “resetting problems” and announced its lack of neutrality towards Tehran. This is very important, and is something that will have a number of repercussions. This can be seen in the recent attacks carried out by Kurdish groups against Turkish targets; this may represent an escalation against Ankara as punishment for its position towards the al-Assad regime that is itself facing a popular uprising.

It is important here to recall that whilst Turkey refused then US President George W. Bush’s request to allow American troops to enter Iraq through its territory during the Iraq war, Ankara today is allowing President Obama to deploy an early-warning radar [as part of the US-led NATO’s missile defense system] on its soil with the objective of deterring Iran. This is a serious Turkish message to Israel, and particularly the Israeli army, to the effect that Ankara will not go too far with regards to freezing its relations with Tel Aviv. This is because the deployment of this military component on Turkish soil represents Ankara providing a great service to Israel, which is escalating its objections against Iran’s nuclear project.

This is not all regarding Turkey's position towards Israel, for Ankara is also benefitting, arithmetically speaking, from the winds of change in the region, as opposed to Tehran. Therefore Turkey’s strained relations with Tel Aviv are not important right now, for Turkey is an active member of NATO who most recently addressed the madness of Gaddafi, whilst [Turkish Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoglu was one of the first foreign officials to visit Benghazi following the liberation of Tripoli. In addition to this, Turkey is not affected by the changes in Egypt, rather it benefits from the strengthening of the position of the Muslim Brotherhood there. In addition to this, Ankara is no longer occupied with Syrian – Israeli mediation, for al-Assad’s position [in Syria] does not make this possible today, particularly as his regime is on the verge of collapse. This [the collapse of the al-Assad regime] would also not harm the Turks, whilst even if al-Assad does manages to remain in power; he would be weak and isolated and will need Turkey, not vice versa.

Turkey is also today playing no role in Palestinian – Israeli mediation, particularly as [Palestinian President] Mahmoud Abbas is preparing for a major battle at the United Nations later this month in an attempt to secure the international recognition of a Palestinian state, whilst Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Hamas has extended its truce with Israel, despite all the attempts to explode the situation in the Gaza Strip in defense of al-Assad. This is not to mention Israel, who is itself today experiencing a kind of international isolation. Of course, Turkey believes – and this is something that is clear for all to see – that there is a vacuum in the region today; this is a role that Ankara is eager to fill by playing a leadership role in the region, at the expense of the Arabs and Iran.

Therefore, regardless of the surprise at the Turkish escalation towards Israel, we must closely look at all the information regarding Turkey, for Erdogan is not being reckless, rather he is acting as if he is another Nasser!

-This commentary was published in Asharq al-Awsat on 10/09/2011
-Tariq Alhomayed is the editor-in-chief of Asharq al-Awsat