Saturday, April 24, 2010

Either one state for all, or open-ended conflict


By Khalid Amayreh


Palestinian loss of land since 1946 to 2000

Some reluctant voices in Washington D.C. have finally admitted that the persistence of the Palestinian plight, namely the continued Israeli efforts to liquidate the Palestinian cause by way of building more Jewish settlements and narrowing the Palestinian horizons, is undermining American strategic interests in the Muslim world.

A few weeks ago, Gen. David Petraeus, head of the United States Central Command in Afghanistan and Iraq, voiced anxiety at the lack of progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that Arabs were losing faith in American promises and that Israeli intransigence was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region. Petraeus also criticized the George Mitchell mission, suggesting that the American diplomat was “too old, two slow and too late.”

Petraeus was not the only voice to sound his worries about the impact of continued American embrace of Israeli territorial expansion in the West Bank. According to the Israeli daily Yideot Ahronot, visiting US Vice President Joe Biden, a long time stalwart of Israel, engaged in a private and angry exchange with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

According to the Israeli paper, Biden went on telling his Israeli hosts that “since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic ‘terrorism.’”

James Baker, US Secretary of State during the former George Bush administration, has made similar remarks, underscoring the dangers facing American interests if the US continues to give Israel a carte blanch to Judaize East Jerusalem, by building homes for Jews and demolishing Arab homes in the heart of the occupied city and by continuing to expand Jewish colonies in the West Bank.

It is too premature to see if these belated but somewhat encouraging voices will have a tangible impact on US policy toward Israel.

Nonetheless, given past experiences, it is more than safe to assume that any given US administration would rather budge to Israel rather than risk losing a public and embarrassing battle with her supporters in the United States. In fact, successive American administrations would rather behave and act like a submissive poodle vis-à-vis Israel than stand for America’s interests.

And Obama is no exception..

When President Obama gave his famous speech in Cairo on 2 June, 2009, many in the Middle East and beyond gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, ever since that speech, he has demonstrated a shocking inability to rein in Israeli criminality and hell-bent determination to kill every opportunity for peace.

In fact, during his first term in the White House, Israel carried out phenomenal expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, including intensifying construction in the heart of Arab neighborhoods such as the Silwan and Mukabber neighborhoods. In recent days, Israel inaugurated a huge synagogue outside the Aqsa Mosque esplanade. The land upon which the synagogue was built belonged to the al-Basheeti family of East Jerusalem.

Similarly, Israel announced plans to build thousands of for-Jews-only settler units in the occupied city, with the Obama administration contenting itself with the same idle statements about the damage the settlement expansion does to the “peace process.”

The announcement was made during Biden’s visit to occupied Palestine in March, which shows the extent to which Israel is willing to challenge and embarrass its guardian-ally, without whose support and fanatical backing, Israel would have vanished a long time ago.

There is no doubt that the latest “crisis” over the negative atmospherics accompanying Biden’s visit to the US would have no real impact on Israeli behavior, especially toward the Palestinians and the moribund peace process the US and its western partners are now trying desperately to revive.

Netanyahu has actually already said that his government will disregard all American objections and reservations about settlement expansion in East Jerusalem. Other Israeli officials have gone a step further by attacking President Obama’s “impetuousness,” with one Israeli official suggesting that “as far as we are concerned, Obama and Clinton can keep up barking for as long as they want, because we control Congress and have a lot of friends in America.” Even Netanyahu’s own brother-in-law accused Obama of being an “anti-Semite,” saying that Israel shouldn’t give the slightest regard because in a few years he would be forgotten.

Unfortunately, it seems that these arrogant utterances by fanatical Israeli officials have more credibility than ostensibly angry statements by U.S. officials such as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

Congress, it is well known, is an Israeli-occupied territory. Members of Congress, thoroughly enslaved by Zionist-Jewish money, have since time immemorial transformed themselves into political whores for Israel and Israeli causes so much that some of them would be too willing to side with Israel against vital American interests.

This enduring congressional embrace of Israel, regardless of what it does or doesn’t do, has always undercut and aborted any serious American effort to bring about a balanced peace settlement in the Middle East. Indeed, what would prompt the Israelis to alter, even moderate their discourse, when virtually every American official or senator or congressman visiting Israel struggles to find new words that would communicate his profound enslavement and infatuation with a state that differs very little in substance from Nazi Germany?

And the situation is unlikely to be rectified in the foreseeable future unless there is a serious awakening in Washington, which is not expected to happen due to the immense power of pro-Israeli forces and the immense weakness and cowardice of those advocating a more honest American approach toward the enduring Palestinian plight, if only to preserve America’s own interests.

Of course, both camps, the Israel-firsters and advocates of a balanced approach, are well-aware that Israel doesn’t want peace, especially one that would oblige Israel to give up the spoils of the 1967 war. Obviously, a state that has been building settlements on occupied territory for close to 43 years and transferring hundreds of thousands of its citizens to live on land that belongs to another people doesn’t have peace on its priority list.

Hence, it is time the US exercise a modicum of honesty by admitting that the so-called peace process, which has been going on for over 18 years, is a huge failure, a gigantic fiasco, an open-ended illusion.

This fact, which no amount of public relations hucksterism will succeed in obliterating or even blurring, should also be clear to the Palestinians and Arab leaderships who, too, continue to naively and stupidly babble about the two-state solution as if there was still a real chance for the creation of a truly viable and territorially continuous Palestinian state.

Now the choice is as stark and clear as ever: It is either one state for all, or open-ended bloodshed.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

OBAMA BANS ISLAM, JIHAD FROM US SECURITY STRATEGY

President Barack Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the US national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document will be the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on US foreign policy, like his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.

The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.

That shift away from terrorism has been building for a year, since Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, and promised a "new beginning" in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The White House believes the previous administration based that relationship entirely on fighting terror and winning the war of ideas.

"You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, 'We're building you a hospital so you don't become terrorists.' That doesn't make much sense," said National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy.

Ramamurthy runs the administration's Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach "in pursuit of a host of national security objectives." Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terror but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

Before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia, the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming. Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 US embassies worldwide. And business leaders from more than 40 countries head to Washington this month for an "entrepreneurship summit" for Muslim businesses.

"Do you want to think about the US as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?" Ramamurthy said.

To deliver that message, Obama's speechwriters have taken inspiration from an unlikely source: former President Ronald Reagan. Visiting communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke to Fudan University in Shanghai about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

"They didn't look up to the US because we hated communism," said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter.

Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the United States would team up to fight polio with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia. The United States and the OIC had worked together before, but never with that focus.

"President Obama saw it as an opportunity to say, 'We work on things far beyond the war on terrorism,'" said World Health Organization spokeswoman Sona Bari.

Polio is endemic in three Muslim countries — Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan — but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign. Last year, the OIC and religious scholars at the International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that parents should have their children vaccinated.

"We're probably entering into a whole new level of engagement between the OIC and the polio program because of the stimulus coming from the US government," said Michael Galway, who works on polio eradication for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Centers for Disease Control also began working more closely with local Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria, a network that had been overlooked for years, said John Fitzsimmons, the deputy director of the CDC's immunization division.

Though health officials are reluctant to assign credit to any one action, new polio cases in Nigeria fell from 83 during the first quarter of last year to just one so far this year, Fitzsimmons said.

Public opinion polls also showed consistent improvement in US sentiment within the Muslim world last year, although the viewpoints are still overwhelmingly negative, however.

Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan, and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.

But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized him for describing the war against terror as a "crusade" and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" — words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America's enemy as "Islamic extremists" and "radical jihadists."

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidant who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.

"I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion," Hughes said. "Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."

Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush's former deputy national security adviser, said Obama's efforts build on groundwork from Bush's second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.

"In some ways, it didn't matter what the president did or said. People weren't going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to," Zarate said. "The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start."

Obama's foreign policy posture is not without political risk. Even as Obama steps up airstrikes on terrorists abroad, he has proven vulnerable to Republican criticism on security issues at home, such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the announced-then-withdrawn plan to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama's engagement effort. It "doesn't appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit" in the Middle East peace process or in negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions, he said.

Obama runs the political risk of seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone deaf on national security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech.

"This is the long-range direction we need to go in," Ramamurthy said.

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=28968

OBAMA SEEKS NEW TONE IN OUTREACH TO WORLD MUSLIMS

Less talk about "Islamic radicalism" and a lot more about doing business. In the year since President Barack Obama pledged a new beginning in the relationship with the world's Muslims, the White House has begun to change the US focus.

Terrorism still dominates US security priorities, but the White House believes it does not have to dominate the conversation. Since Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, last year, the White House has tried to talk more about health care, science and education.

It is a strategy based on the belief that the prior administration viewed the world through the lens of terror. When it talked to Muslim nations, it was all about winning the war of ideas.

"You take a country where the overwhelming majority are not going to become terrorists, and you go in and say, 'We're building you a hospital so you don't become terrorists.' That doesn't make much sense," National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy said.

Ramamurthy runs the administration's Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach "in pursuit of a host of national security objectives." Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terrorism but has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

Obama advisers also are rewriting the document that spells out the country's national security strategy and plan to leave out references to "Islamic radicalism," counterterror officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the document still is being written and is weeks away from release. Currently, the document declares: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century."

Now, before diplomats go abroad, they hear from the Ramamurthy or his deputy, Jenny Urizar. When officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration returned from Indonesia, the NSC got a rundown about research opportunities on global warming. Ramamurthy maintains a database of interviews conducted by 50 US embassies worldwide. Business leaders from more than 40 countries head to Washington this month for an "entrepreneurship summit" for Muslim businesses.

"Do you want to think about the US as the nation that fights terrorism or the nation you want to do business with?" Ramamurthy said.

Many international Muslim leaders have cheered the new tone, not just for its symbolism but because it makes it politically easier for them to cooperate with the United States.

"It's also a clear indication of President Obama's substantial understanding of the intricacies of Muslim politics," Jordanian lawmaker Hamada Faraaneh said.

On Wednesday, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh praised indications that the Obama administration would keep religious rhetoric out of the US security strategy.

"It is a good message of assurance, and differs from the former American administration's position on this matter which showed no real understanding of Islamic countries," al-Dabbagh said. "This decision by Obama will help to reform the image Muslims have of America."

Public opinion polls have shown consistent improvement in sentiment toward the United States among Muslims, although the viewpoints remain overwhelmingly negative.

To deliver his message, Obama's speechwriters have at times taken inspiration from former President Ronald Reagan. Speaking in communist China in 1984, Reagan spoke about education, space exploration and scientific research. He discussed freedom and liberty. He never mentioned communism or democracy.

"They didn't look up to the US because we hated communism," said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy speechwriter.

Like Reagan in China, Obama in Cairo made only passing references to terrorism. Instead he focused on cooperation. He announced the United States would team up to fight polio with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a multinational body based in Saudi Arabia. The United States and OIC had worked together before, but never with that focus.

"President Obama saw it as an opportunity to say, 'We work on things far beyond the war on terrorism,'" World Health Organization spokeswoman Sona Bari said.

Polio is endemic in three Muslim countries — Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan — but some Muslim leaders have been suspicious of vaccination efforts, which they believed to be part of a CIA sterilization campaign. Last year, the OIC and religious scholars at the International Islamic Fiqh Academy issued a fatwa, or religious decree, that parents should have their children vaccinated.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also began working more closely with local Islamic leaders in northern Nigeria, a network that had been overlooked for years, said John Fitzsimmons, deputy director of the CDC's immunization division.

Although health officials are reluctant to assign credit to any one action, new polio cases in Nigeria fell from 83 during the first quarter of last year to just one so far this year, Fitzsimmons said.

Obama did not invent Muslim outreach. President George W. Bush gave the White House its first Quran, hosted its first Iftar dinner to celebrate Ramadan and loudly stated support for Muslim democracies like Turkey.

But the Bush administration struggled with its rhetoric. Muslims criticized Bush for describing the war on terrorism as a "crusade" and labeling the invasion of Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" — words that were seen as religious. He regularly identified America's enemy as "Islamic extremists" and "radical jihadists."

Karen Hughes, a Bush confidante who served as his top diplomat to the Muslim world in his second term, urged the White House to stop.

"I did recommend that, in my judgment, it's unfortunate because of the way it's heard. We ought to avoid the language of religion," Hughes said. "Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."

Hughes and Juan Zarate, Bush's former deputy national security adviser, said Obama's efforts build on groundwork from Bush's second term, when some of the rhetoric softened. But by then, Zarate said, it was overshadowed by the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and a prolonged Iraq war.

"In some ways, it did not matter what the president did or said. People weren't going to be listening to him in the way we wanted them to," Zarate said. "The difference is, President Obama had a fresh start."

Obama's foreign policy posture is not without risk. Even as he steps up airstrikes abroad, he has proven vulnerable to criticism at home, such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing and the announced-then-withdrawn plan to prosecute self-described 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York.

Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and former Bush adviser, is skeptical of Obama's engagement effort. It "doesn't appear to have created much in the way of strategic benefit," he said. Obama risks seeming to adopt politically correct rhetoric abroad while appearing tone-deaf on security issues at home, Feaver said.

The White House dismisses such criticism. In June, Obama will travel to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and is expected to revisit many of the themes of his Cairo speech.

"This is the long-range direction we need to go in," Ramamurthy said. –Jamal Halaby in Amman, Jordan, and David Rising in Baghdad contributed to this report.

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=29024

RIGHTS GROUP LAUNCHES STUDY ON SECTARIAN VIOLENCE IN EGYPT

“It is very clear that the ministry of interior’s investigations can be described as inadequate, violent, short-sighted and in many cases illegal,” said the head of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) Hossam Bahgat at the launch of an a study about sectarian violence in Egypt Sunday.

“There have been around 53 incidents of sectarian violence or tension,” stated the report which emphasize further that this violence has become one of the most serious problems facing Egyptian society today.

The study highlights incidents of sectarian violence “investigated and documented by the EIPR between January 2008 and January 2010.” The majority of these incidents took place in Upper Egypt, specifically in Minya, Beni Sueif, Assiut, Sohag, Qena, Luxor and Fayyoum.

He specified two types of violence: the first are acts of collective retribution that target the adherents of a particular religion in one area; while the second is triggered by Christians performing their religious rituals, which does not stem from Muslim society but also from state officials.

According to the report, by imposing “reconciliation” procedures instead of initiating criminal cases, the public prosecutors violate the law which states that perpetrators of a crime must be brought to justice using evidence of their crime in court.

The Ministry of Interior “imposes silence” on all sectarian violence which is against the will of the parties involved in the clashes.

Bahgat explains that these informal reconciliation meetings are sponsored by the ministry whether or not they are legitimate.

“Forced displacement, which is illegal under the Egyptian law, has been used repeatedly over the last two years,” says Bahgat. Residents, such as the five Bahai families who were forced away from their homes in Shouraniya, Sohag, are an example.

At times, the ministry undergoes arbitrary arrests, imposes curfews or engages in collective punishment. “They take in equal numbers of Muslims and Christians. These arrests can put pressure on families and as a result reconciliation takes places,” he says.

The report explains that security tries to prevent incidents from reaching the Prosecutor General’s office for investigation by bargaining with and pressuring parties to seek reconciliation. It cites as an example the 21 sectarian crimes registered in Minya, where no one was taken to court.

The EIPR’s report says that despite the denial of state authorities, the President himself has started to recognize the danger of sectarian tension, which is an initial step towards a solution.

A few days after Naga Hammadi shootings in January 2010 — where six Copts and one Muslim guard were shot as they left midnight mass on the eve of Coptic Christmas — President Mubarak gave a speech in which he noted, “Reasonable people, preachers, intellectuals and media workers all bear a great responsibility to contain strife, ignorance and blind bigotry and confront the repulsive sectarian tendencies that threaten the unity of our society and the cohesion of our people.”

EIPR also explains that any attempt to reach a solution must begin with an examination of sectarianism in Egypt to understand the historical and substantive roots of sectarian tension and its violent manifestations.

Sectarian violence is highly concentrated in areas where poverty is rife. The report links this to the findings of the 2008 Human Development Report. In Upper Egypt, singled out as housing some of the poorest areas in the country, has also been host to most sectarian incidents.

http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=29024

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Results: Iraq's 2010 parliamentary election

Results: Iraq's 2010 parliamentary election

These are the latest province-by-province results from Iraq's 2010 parliamentary election, as reported by the Independent High Electoral Commission. Two important notes:

First, these are preliminary results. The number in the % column represents the percentage of ballots which have been counted in that province.

Second, some Iraqi provinces had dozens of political parties and coalitions on the ballot; the numbers below represent only the major parties. The excluded parties (Ahrar, for example, or the Communist Party) generally received, at most, several hundred votes per province, so they're unlikely to significantly skew the outcome.

Province

%

State of Law

Iraqi National Alliance

Iraqiyya

Iraqi Unity

Kurdistan Alliance

Gorran

Kurdish Islamic Union

Islamic Kurdish Society

Tawafuq

Anbar

94%

6,156

4,805

274,018

40,996

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

50,844

Babil

96%

219,009

170,206

98,905

15,846

1,167

n/a

n/a

n/a

8,520

Baghdad

95%

827,966

509,137

770,938

29,568

19,732

1,817

946

n/a

48,763

Basra

97%

412,635

226,836

71,552

9,253

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

16,511

Dahuk

96%

n/a

179

n/a

n/a

315,543

22,590

57,609

3,075

n/a

Dhi Qar

97%

225,971

236,303

41,732

19,710

334

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Diyala

95%

59,642

80,401

228,440

6,427

43,757

7,976

2,107

n/a

23,463

Erbil

95%

n/a

404

n/a

n/a

434,909

97,179

48,224

59,147

n/a

Karbala

97%

171,844

78,543

34,980

10,852

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Kirkuk

90%

11,862

12,517

182,896

n/a

179,982

30,528

21,772

6,363

15,037

Maysan

98%

99,647

131,614

15,913

5,202

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Muthanna

98%

95,234

69,932

17,712

21,356

1,432

n/a

n/a

n/a

666

Najaf

98%

171,923

147,077

29,652

7,432

524

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Ninewa

94%

15,755

32,973

546,086

48,951

207,993

9,134

4,673

1,237

57,941

Qadisiyah

97%

126,578

128,449

52,627

12,362

805

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Salaheddin

95%

31,026

21,260

216,559

48,695

21,776

2,415

n/a

n/a

54,988

Sulaymaniyah

93%

n/a

188

n/a

n/a

324,806

272,232

95,411

73,968

n/a

Wassit

99%

144,794

125,588

49,378

18,576

907

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Totals

2,620,042

1,976,412

2,631,388

295,226

1,553,667

443,871

230,742

143,790

276,733


















Link: http://www.themajlis.org/projects/iraq-results