Carter meets Hamas leader Khaled Mashal
munaeem | 19 April, 2008 13:42
Former US president has met the Hamas leader Khaled Mashal despite opposition from the Bush administration and the Israel. The meeting took place under tight security in the Syrian capital Damascus where reporters were not allowed.
Mr. Carter is on a tour of the Middle East for finding solutions of Israel-Palestinian conflict. He has also met the Syrian President Bashar-ul-Asad. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union. I think that the opposition is unjustified. No solution can be found without taking on board all stakeholders in the conflict.
Hamas has public support and it cannot be ignored if a solution is to be found. I think that Hamas should be engaged in talks and Mr. Carter has made a right move by meeting its leader.
Hizbullah for destruction of Israel
munaeem | 23 February, 2008 04:10
According to news report the Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrullah has vowed for the destruction of Israel and has also said that it was destined to disappear.
I think that Israel is a hard reality which the leaders of the Arab World must realize. They must also realize that they lack the power to undo Israel. Israel has unmatched firepower and has the open backing of the United States. It is a wishful thinking that Israel is destined to disappear. I do not see any such thing even in the remote future.
It would be better to find out ways of peaceful co-existance. I do not mean to say that I support Israel in whatever it is doing. I want the Muslim world to be united. Unity is their only option for survival in the present world.
Lebanon Crisis continues
munaeem | 09 February, 2008 10:49
The Middle East Times has reported that the escalating rhetoric between the feuding politicians of Beirut proved too much for the Arab League chief who has been trying to broker a deal to arrive at a settlement.
It is unfortunate indeed that the political crisis in Lebanon has not been resolved so far and we don’t see any amicable solution in the near future. The election to the office of the president which fell vacant after the pro-Syrian president Emile Lahoud stepped down in November 2007. The presidential election has been postponed thirteen times as the politicians continue to fight over cabinet representation.
The entire Muslim world is plagued with internecine disputes which are a hindrance to peace and prosperity. I fail to understand that why is it so that we Muslims are not being able to solve such petty disputes. The Muslims in general and their leaders in particular must realize that they must show unity and rise above petty political disputes and think for the betterment of our people.
Rice and Gates in joint trip to Middle East
munaeem | 30 July, 2007 17:51
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates today start a key Middle East mission to seek Arab support for the Iraqi government and also discuss weapons sales to regional allies.
The secretaries of state and defense are making their trip at a time when America’s credibility in the Mideast has plummeted. The United States has failed to stabilize Iraq, destroy al-Qaida, pacify Lebanon, isolate Syria or bolster moderate Palestinians.
So far, U.S. support for Israel’s ill-fated war in Lebanon and its efforts to undermine radical groups such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon have borne little fruit. Along with its support for autocrats such as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, such actions have undercut U.S. claims that it is championing Muslim democracy.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at a news briefing in Washington on July 27 that a primary objective of the tour is to seek Arab support for Iraq.
They hope to persuade Iraq’s neighbors to help stabilize the country, to counter Iran’s growing ambitions and to try to get real movement on peace between Israel and the Palestinians. There is also an overarching aim: to reassure worried allies in the Middle East that despite its troubles in Iraq, the United States remains committed to the region.
In my opinion Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates face a tough assignment. Because Gulf states - particularly Saudi Arabia - have started to get nervous about Tehran's increasing influence in the Persian Gulf region.
Source : Munaeem's Blog
Why pick on Israel? Because its actions are wrong
munaeem | 06 June, 2007 17:26
| Written by Steven Rose |
|
Academic freedom, it appears, applies to Israelis but not to PalestiniansThe University and College Union annual congress last week voted by a two-thirds majority to organise a campus tour for Palestinian academic trade unionists to explain why they had called for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, and to encourage UCU members to consider the moral implications of links with Israeli universities. Not surprisingly, this overwhelming vote met with a roar of hostility from what we have learned to call the Israel lobby. Our government, long accustomed to sitting on its hands when any serious attempt to censure Israel is made, predictably joined the chorus. More surprisingly, the Independent's editorialist and its columnist Joan Smith followed along. The boycott, we are told, damages academic freedom, picks on Israel, and encourages anti-Semitism on British campuses. Entirely suppressed in this harrumphing has been any thought about why Palestinian university teachers and their union, as well as all the NGOs in the Occupied Territories, have called for a boycott. Academic freedom, it appears, applies to Israelis but not Palestinians, whose universities have been arbitrarily closed, Bir Zeit for a full four years. Students and teachers have been killed or imprisoned. Attendance at university is made hazardous or impossible by the everyday imposition of checkpoints. Research is blocked by Israeli refusal to allow books or equipment to be imported. Even within Israel itself, some universities sit on illegally expropriated land, Arab student unions are not recognised and there are increasing covert restrictions on Arab-Israelis (20 per cent of the population) entering university at all. No Israeli academic trade union or professional association has expressed solidarity with their Palestinian colleagues a few kilometres away across the wall, though the boycott call may finally encourage them to do so. When challenged, Israelis cite examples of collaboration with Palestinians: bridges, not borders. Fine, but because Palestinian academics from Gaza or the West bank are not permitted to enter pre-1967 Israel, how real can such collaborations be? If academic freedom means anything, it must be indivisible. And what are Palestinians to make of the uncensured insistence by senior Israeli academics that their family size constitutes a demographic threat to the Jewish state? But why should academics, culture workers, architects and doctors in the UK, who have all in recent months called for forms of boycott of Israel, take such action? Why pick on Israel, we are asked. After all, as Joan Smith points out, there are lots of ugly regimes around. How about boycotting the UK until troops are removed from Iraq? But boycott is merely a specific tactic, a non-violent weapon available to individual members of civil society. It is only one form of protest: many boycott supporters are at least as actively involved in the various campaigns against the UK's illegal war in Iraq as in any boycott of Israel. No one asks those campaigning against China's occupation of Tibet why not Israel or Darfur? If opponents of our boycott call want to make a case for boycotting Cuba (one boycott that Israel, following its American paymaster at the UN, habitually supports) they are free to do so. The issue is not "Why Israel?" but "Why not Israel?" Yet the secular western press, so willing to express discomfort with states that describe themselves as "Islamic Republics" is seemingly untroubled by the ethnic assumptions underlying the claims of a Jewish republic. Further, it is precisely because Israel prides itself on its academic prowess (just as South Africa did of its sporting prowess) that the idea of an academic boycott is so painful. Israel has uniquely strong academic links with Europe, and despite its Middle-East location and constant breaches of European legislation on human rights, receives considerable financial research support from the EU. That's why the Israeli cabinet felt it necessary to set up an anti-boycott committee under that well-known campaigner for a greater Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, and why teams of Israeli academics toured the UK before the UCU vote to try to block the boycott call. Lurking behind the thinking of even well-meaning opponents of the boycott is that it is in some way anti-Semitic. This ignores the fact that the boycott is of Israeli institutions, not individuals (so it would affect the tiny number of Palestinian academics in Israeli institutions, but not a Jewish Israeli working in the UK or US). Second, it ignores the fact that the British Jewish community is itself intensely divided over Israel, between those who will defend Israel at all costs, and the increasingly vocal critics who insist "not in our name". Even a cursory look at the signatories of the various boycott calls will show the large number of prominent Jewish figures among them. It really isn't good enough to attack the messenger as anti-Semitic or a self-hating Jew rather than deal with the message itself, that Israel's conduct is unacceptable. What could be a more democratic way of bringing debate on to university campuses than the instruction to the UCU to organise a campus tour for Palestinian academic trade unionists to engage in discussion before UCU members decide whether to support their call for a boycott? Those who cherish the idea of the university as the house of reason will surely welcome the opportunity for calm discussion of a controversial issue. The writer is secretary of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine Source: The Independent |
Nahr El-Bared fighters: U.S. protégé?
munaeem | 28 May, 2007 15:10
Lebanese authorities allegedly accuse Fatah al-Islam of having links to al-Qaeda and the Syrian government.
Fatah al-Islam is far from being an ordinary armed Palestinian faction. Indeed, it seems hardly to be Palestinian at all. Whereas a minority of its members may be Palestinian, the others - judging from those who have been killed, wounded or captured -- come from half a dozen Arab and Asian countries, some of them jihadi veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its parent body - or at least its inspiration - seems to be Al-Qaida.
The Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, one of Syria's most virulent critics, has alleged that Fatah al-Islam is a 'Syria's proxy,' while the exiled Abd al-Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian vice-president who now heads an opposition movement dedicated to the overthrow of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, has stated categorically that 'Syria is responsible.'
Proof, however, is lacking. Interrogation of captured members of Fatah al-Islam might yield some evidence of a Syrian connection but, for the moment at least, the evidence seems to point in quite another direction.
According to the U.S. investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, the U.S. and Saudi governments are covertly supporting Sunni groups like Fatah al-Islam as part of a policy against Iran and growing Shia influence in the Middle East.
In a recent interview with CNN International's “Your World Today”, Hersh also said groups like Fatah al-Islam are the result of Washington's underground policies.
Accusing the White House of “no longer acting rationally,” Hersh said: “We're in the business of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia… We're in the business of creating ... sectarian violence."
Some analysts believe that a group like Fatah al-Islam was initially tolerated, and perhaps even funded, by Lebanese Sunnis who may have seen in it the embryo of the militia they needed. They certainly longed to be able to demonstrate that they could stand up to the Shi 'is and to Syria.
Who is finaning Sunni militant groups in Lebanon ?
munaeem | 26 May, 2007 18:01
Seymour Hersh said in an interview that Saudis are financing Sunni militant groups. He said :
The key player is the Saudis. What I was writing about was sort of a private agreement that was made between the White House, we're talking about Richard -- Dick -- Cheney and Elliott Abrams, one of the key aides in the White House, with Bandar. And the idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah -- the Shia group in the southern Lebanon -- would be seen as an asset, as simple as that.
Well, the United States was deeply involved. This was a covert operation that Bandar ran with us. Don't forget, if you remember, you know, we got into the war in Afghanistan with supporting Osama bin Laden, the mujahadin back in the late 1980s with Bandar and with people like Elliott Abrams around, the idea being that the Saudis promised us they could control -- they could control the jihadists so we spent a lot of money and time, the United States in the late 1980s using and supporting the jihadists to help us beat the Russians in Afghanistan and they turned on us. And we have the same pattern, not as if there's any lessons learned. It's the same pattern, using the Saudis again to support jihadists, Saudis assuring us they can control these various group, the groups like the one that is in contact right now in Tripoli with the government.
Countercurrents.org has more...
What Is Happening In Lebanon?
munaeem | 24 May, 2007 12:01
via countercurrents.org:
By Laurie King-Irani
Electronic Lebanon
A survey of US television and radio news over the last 24 hours has told me the following:
- Bombings and gunfights in Lebanon. Again.
- Breathless analyses on US news programs about Al-Qaida's spread to the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.
- Analysts using the "cookie cutter" approach to this new development by citing the events of 1975-1976 and the tensions between Lebanese and Palestinian refugees.
- CNN's putative Lebanon analyst, Brent Sadler, characterized Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon as "breeding grounds for terrorism," but now, according to Mr. Sadler, it's Islamic-flavored terrorism.
This is all very ominous, anxiety-provoking and compelling "infotainment" -- and completely in line with the distorted views of US foreign policy makers.
Such simplistic and knee-jerk reactions to Lebanon's current travails are too easy, and not up to the standards of good and responsible journalism.
I've spent much of the past 48 hours trying to get a better grasp on what is really going on in Tripoli. It's not easy to do, and it occured to me this morning that this may, in fact, be the story: the difficulty of interpreting these events stems from the lack of a comprehensive understanding of the ways that dramatic changes throughout the region, and indeed, the world, are echoing through Lebanon's war-damaged sociopolitical landscape.
Yesterday, Robert Fisk, the veteran war correspondent and author of the best book on Lebanon's decades of agony, Pity the Nation, observed in The Independent that:
"Not since the war -- yes, the Lebanese civil war that we are all still trying to forget -- have I heard this many bullets cracking across the streets of a Lebanese city. ... The bloody events in Lebanon yesterday passed so swiftly -- and so dangerously for those of us on the streets -- that I am still unsure what happened."
Well, if Robert Fisk is confused, how can Brent Sadler be so sure he knows what is going on in Lebanon? It's easy to point fingers at Syria, to invoke the shadowy and amorphous threat of Al-Qaida, to blame the Palestinians, or (in fine Lebanese fashion) to see a complex and nefarious plot underlying the bloodletting in Tripoli.
Any eruption of large-scale violence in Lebanon is cause for concern, since so many related regional crises are "hot-wired" through Lebanon, and the war that raged there during the last decades of the 20th century was in fact three wars: A local, regional, and international confrontation that intersected and metastasized in horrific ways. For those of us who have lived in, and love, Lebanon, the fear of the 1975-1991 war's return always lurks in the back of the mind.
The events of the last week, however, cannot be explained in relation to that earlier war, nor entirely in relation to the murky mysteries surrounding the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, or even last summer's brutal Israeli assault on Lebanon. Nor are the disturbing developments in Tripoli rooted in Palestinian-Lebanese tensions. Of course, US commentators have been quick to peg the Syrians and Palestinians as the culprits. But that is too simplistic.
What's now happening in Lebanon requires a much more subtle and fine-grained interpretation, one that takes on board the reverberations of political developments from Baghdad to Washington, while attending to emerging social and economic conditions in the Middle East. The situation is much more complicated, fluid, unbounded, and therefore ominous than CNN's "experts" seem to grasp. There are new aspects to the current violence, perhaps most noteworthy is the emergence of a militia in Lebanon that has no clearly delineated connection to any particular family or traditional ethno-confessional leadership in the Lebanese context. There is some new political logic or system at work here, but it is irresponsible to present simple or pat explanations.
Over the next few days, Electronic Lebanon will be providing more insights into, and analyses of, the latest outbreak of conflict in Lebanon. For now, however, I'd like to outline some issues and realities that any comprehensive and valid explanation of this week's events must include:
1. A huge demographic swell of youth is now coming into their majority, and they have no real leadership or clear focus for political action, nor do they see much hope or options in the current political and economic system.
2. Shifting global configurations are key to any explanation of what is happening in Lebanon. Although the US remains the world's leading military power, that is no longer relevant or important to the regional politial system. US influence is on the wane, its status and reputation completely sullied during the last six years of the Bush Administration's disastrous and delusional "War on Global Terror." In fact, the US has now become more of a pariah or liability for the region's elite, particularly in Lebanon, where the government is characterized as "Pro-American, pro-democracy," while the Opposition (led by Hizbullah) is deemed a dangerous terrorist force. Iraq, as well as the horrors in Occupied Palestine, are now "exhibits A and B" in how and why not to trust the US. The US has given not only itself, but the very concept of democracy, a bad name in the region.
3. Although al-Qaida makes the news a lot, I don't think it (whatever "it" is) commands the attention, respect and support in Lebanon or Palestine as does Hizbullah, the only group in the region to successfully challenge and defeat the Israeli Army.
4. Shifting regional oppositions are also key to understanding this week's events in Lebanon. The Palestinian movement as an institution, i.e., the movement-turned-establishment of the 1960s-mid-1990s, is no more, although people are still very moved and mobilized by the Palestinian tragedy. Hamas is no longer a unified organization. Leftist groups are weak. Rapidly growing gaps between rich and poor mean that there's not much chance of middle class, broad-based movements for change or reform. But then, those sorts of social movements are usually rooted in national identity and nation-state projects, and the nation state is no longer a big draw, or at least not as big a draw as religion, family, ethnicity -- or movements for justice, usually theologically defined (but not always; Egyptian secular and leftist activism is now back on the streets of Cairo).
5. The largely manufactured tensions between Shi'is and Sunnis in Iraq (or, to be more precise, the "Lebanonization" of Iraq encouraged by the United States) will ultimately reverberate elsewhere, probably to the detriment of US allies like Jordan, Saudia Arabia and Egypt. And for non-allies, or quasi-allies, like Lebanon and Syria, this poses real dangers.
6. The ability of groups like Al-Qaida (and again, I don't think that this group exists in the way that the US government or media present it as existing) to do seriously dramatic actions does not hinge upon grass-roots support. They are not a broad-based movement, but could do (or people claiming to be them could do) major attacks that could influence various players' moves in the region and beyond.
7. It's no longer an "either/or" situation, and maybe it never was. It is not as if people have a choice: pro-US or anti-US. The situation now seems fluid enough that some new groupings and ideologies could emerge, that don't look to either the West or various permutations of political Islam to design a new project.
A major political firestorm may overtake the Middle East this summer. It's hard to predict just how it might start, and harder to predict what it will devour. The time for preventing disasters, such as the one now emerging in Lebanon, is long past, though. The irresponsibility of the United States had a lot to do with this. Although it is hard to define the new forms of leadership and political projects emerging in the Middle East, one thing is certain: they won't be directed from, or funded by, Washington, DC. Nor will they be comprehensible to mainstream US news reporters and analysts who remain blinded by past events or official explanations that tie everything to "terrorism."
Laurie King-Irani is a cofounder of Electronic Lebanon. She teaches social anthropology in Washington, DC. Her blog is Zinjabeelah.
Lebanese worried they will be next US experiment
munaeem | 23 May, 2007 15:44
The United Arab Emirates' Al Khaleej said it feared that Lebanon is being pushed into the "tunnel of chaos" that Washington wants for the Arab region to implement the Iraq model in line with the "Greater Middle East" plan.
The pro-government daily added in its editorial such big events are no coincidence, and the Lebanese are deeply concerned that their country and people will be turned into another experimental arena to pass plans, policies, and strategies that conflict with their interests, stability, and civil peace.
It stressed the "disaster of Iraq should be a lesson to all" and avoid slipping into that same pattern of fighting.
"There is no other way for the Lebanese except to agree on a salvation project for their homeland, away from external bets," it said. "And they must protect themselves and their civil peace from attempts against their stability and security, and mainly against any Zionist plan waiting for its chance to take revenge."
Anti-Israeli 'criminals' killing only Arabs
munaeem | 22 May, 2007 13:18
Lebanon's independent Daily Star described Fatah Al Islam, suspected to be working from the Nahr Al Bared refugee camp, as a "seemingly marginal group of Islamist militants" and the clashes as demonstrating how "precarious the security situation is in this country."
The English-language daily argued that while the group claims its primary objective is to train Palestinians to fight "Jews in Palestine," the only people who have been killed at their hands have been Lebanese and Palestinians.
It maintained that Lebanon is the Arab country to have paid the highest price in lives and livelihoods lost to the Arab-Israeli conflict and that Sunday's events should "serve as a reminder to Lebanese leaders of all political stripes that there is an urgent need to implement measures that were agreed upon with the heads of the Palestinian factions, all of whom have denounced Fatah Al Islam."
The paper suggested creating a framework "so that a small band of criminals can never succeed in destabilizing this country and jeopardizing relations between Palestinian refugees and Lebanese civilians."
Hezbollah hails Winograd report
munaeem | 01 May, 2007 16:53
Hezbollah has hailed the Winograd commission report which accused the Israeli leadership of serious failures during the conflict, calling it proof that the guerilla group had been "victorious" in the summer fighting.
"The Winograd report stressed that Hezbollah was victorious and that Israel is beatable," a senior spokesman told the organization's Al-Manar television channel.
The war commission’s chairman Eliyahu Winograd said Olmert’s declared aims in going to war - to free two Israeli soldiers seized by Hezbollah "were overly ambitious and impossible to achieve".
View Original Article
Israel possesses Nuclear Bombs
munaeem | 12 December, 2006 04:17
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, stumbled into controversy last night after apparently admitting that his country possesses a nuclear arsenal. Although widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny the existence of a nuclear weapons programme.
Asked by a television interviewer if Israel's alleged nuclear activities weakened his argument against Iran's atomic plans, Mr Olmert said: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level - when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons - as America, France, Israel, Russia?".
Israel has a strict policy of never admitting to or denying it has such weapons, despite a widespread belief that it has hundreds of them at the ready.
Who is in Majority in Lebanon?
munaeem | 11 December, 2006 20:34
Via The Washington Post.
"The majority is here," says a Shiite Muslim Man,Ayyash.
Saad Hariri claimed the same thing when he addressesd the crowd gathered for the funeral of slain anti-Damascus minister Pierre Gemayel :
"You are here for a new revolution to show the entire world that the sons of Rafiq Hariri and the brothers of Pierre Gemayel are the majority in Lebanon."
"They said that you are a virtual majority, but we are the reality and they are virtual."
Religious population statistics Facts
The 18 recognized sects.
- Last census held in 1932.
Sunnis, Shi'as and Maronites (the three largest sects) claim that their particular religious affiliation holds a majority in the country - adding up to over 150% of the total population.
Only a fresh census can decide what is the actual truth. UN should conduct a fresh census under its supervision.
More Bad News from Iraq: Anbar is Lost
munaeem | 30 November, 2006 20:24
Via WaPo: Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker:
The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military’s mission in Anbar province. The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. “The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality” remain the same, the official said.
(More)
Hezbollah Helping Mahdi Army?
munaeem | 30 November, 2006 20:22
Via the NYT: Hezbollah Said to Help Shiite Army in Iraq:
A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.
(More)
Give Hizbollah their due share in Power
munaeem | 28 November, 2006 13:15
Justice while she winks at crimes,
Stumbles on innocence sometimes,
Butler, Hudibras
The vile Lebanese leaders, with murky pasts, made fiery speeches after the funeral procession of Pierre Gemayel. They lashed out at Hizbullah and Damascus. They blamed Syria for the assassination of Pierre Gemayel. What is the cause of their panic? Why have these archenemies united against the Hizbollah? The reason behind their panic is that Shiites are demanding their due share in the government. The traditional ruling elites are not willing to share the power with Shiites.
(More)
The Ugliness of the Hezbollah-Israeli Conflict
munaeem | 15 September, 2006 02:14
An Interesting Statement (Admission or PR Offensive?)
munaeem | 29 August, 2006 02:16
Via the BBC: Nasrallah sorry for scale of war
Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.”Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it,” he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.
(More)
